Bailey's Women

Part 5- Jesus and Women






I like Bailey's women. I think they are very real. I think he is being very respectful towards these women. Much more respectful than the culture historically was. But let's leave his matronizing alone and focus on manly things.




Bailey continues his patronizing of the Jews on page 210 by claiming that "Salvation... is of the Jews". Well, at least he got the first couple letters right.

Bailey reinforces his endorsement of this paradigm by citing a major proponent of this paradigm (Dunn) a couple paragraphs later. Here Dunn's 1991 view is cited.
Bailey cites the four things which he and Dunn believe separated the Jewish synagogue from the Christian church. Oddly enough, the Gospel is not included.

Yes, Bailey and Dunn believe that the dispute that Paul had with Peter in Galatians (2) involved those boundary markers cited. That this was just a minor dispute discouraging Peter from promoting those four boundary markers.
Well, if Paul and Peter can have such disputes- Bailey and I certainly can as well. Except, I don't think this omission of the Gospel is a minor dispute. It is clear to me that it was the Gospel that was at the heart of the dispute (2:14). Yes, the gospel that is clearly defined in the subsequent chapter. This is the boundary that sets one At The Brink!

Further on, Bailey presents seven metaphors of atonement (228,229). The first (law court) best represents my understanding of substitutionary atonement. Yet the analogy fails in many places. A human judge could only take the place of one prisoner for one crime. A human judge could only serve one life sentence. A human judge did not commit the offense and thus could not satisfy the offended party. And who would serve the time for the offenses of this human judge?
Thank God the offended party was He who knew no sin, who was willing to be sin on our behalf.
Wished he would have included this (2 Cor. 5:21) among his proof texts. More clear than "the metaphors".

Further on, Bailey dedicates a chapter to the woman caught in adultery. The manuscript witnesses for this account are so late and unreliable that Dr. Wallace has said that the next edition of the NET Bible will not include this account (except in a footnote). Responsible preachers are becoming more reluctant to preach on this account any more. Yet Bailey seems to welcome extraneous accounts.

Finally, Bailey in keeping with his Aramaic paradigm insists that Jesus "most certainly" used the Aramaic word hoba. If this is so important to him why doesn't he cite proof rather than conjecture? And why does this really matter to him? Seems to me he is just trying to patronize more people.

Nice guy, nice girls, nice part of this book.