Macathur Favors Gender-Neutrality

[Rippon]

As some of you know, there is a MacAthur NIv study Bible. I don't have it. But in the past he has come down strongly against both the older TNIV and the curent NIV. It's ironic because he uses inclusive terminology in his commentaries (as does Wayne Grudem).

There was a paper than came out in 2002 by David W. Miller. I don't think it is accessible these days. You'll have to check because my internet access is blocked to a number of Christian sites. But I do have a part of a paper he wrote defending the TNIV. It's called The Improved Gender Accuracy of the TNIV Over The NIV.

Miller did the research, I'm just reporting it.

"Here is a list of his [MacArthur's] gender-neutral phrases from his commentary on Romans 8:14-15 where he interprets 'son(s)' as 'child' or as 'children' or as 'boy or girl' (The Macarthur New Testament Commentary Romans 1-8 ,pp.429-37).

'believers are eternally related to Him as His children' (p 429)
'can be certain he is God's child' (p 430)
'God's children are secure in Him' (p. 431)
'a child of God will not always feel secure' (p. 431)
'even for the obedient child of God' (p. 431)
'our heavenly Father wants His children to be certain' (p. 431)
'Even the child of God cannot discern' (p. 431)
'God's Spirit sovereignly leads His children in many ways' (p. 431)
'God leads His children by illumination' (p. 431)
'even God's own children' (p. 433)
'the Spirit leads God's children' (p. 433)
'The humble child of God knows' (p. 433)
'our Heavenly Father's great desire for His children (p. 434)
'our adoption as God's children' (p. 434)
'Because God's children share in flesh and blood' (p. 434)
'permanently adopted as children of God' (p. 435)
'adoption...the action by which a husband and wife decide to take a boy or girl' (p.435)
'the adopted child attains all the rights' (p.435)
'God...seeks out unworthy men and women...and makes them His children' (p. 436)
'an adopted child, especially an adopted son' (p. 436)
'According to Roman law, a father's rule over his children was absolute' (p. 436)
'believers...are indeed God's adopted children' (p. 437)
'just as every child does to his eartly father.' (p. 437)
'In Him...we become a true child (p. 437)
'being God's adopted children was clearly understood' (p.437)
'chose every believer to be His beloved and eternal child' (p. 437)

"From the many quotes above, it is clear that MacArthur believes that gender-netral terms like 'children of God' are the correct interpretation of 'sons of God.' It seems odd that someone with such a strong and repetitive gender-neutral interpretation of 'sons' as 'children' would be against a translation that merely clarifies such an interpretation."

 

[Rippon]

I 'speeled' ! Oh boy!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

OK....so what?

 

[SolaSaint]

You beat me to it, so what?

 

[Van]

Accuracy in translation is vital. If a word usually refers to a son, or sons, but is often also used to refer in general to the offspring of a Father, then children or offspring would be the most accurate translation in those cases.

Case in point, Romans 8:14. The NIV correctly translates "huioi" as children rather than sons because anyone indwelt, male or female, is in view. Note also, two verses later (Romans 8:16), a different word (teknon) which means children is used in the very same sense.

Many times "teknon" or "genos" are used in the construction children or offspring of God.

So for MacArthur to refer to children of God at Romans 8:14 does not even suggest he is advocating inaccurate translation, only accurate but non-traditional translation.

 

[Rippon]

OK....so what?

Well, there are a few guys here who don't read very carefully. Just take a gander at DWM's last paragraph in my initial post.

 

[Rippon]

As some of you know, there is a MacAthur NIV study Bible. I don't have it. But in the past he has come down strongly against both the older TNIV and the curent NIV. It's ironic because he uses inclusive terminology in his commentaries (as does Wayne Grudem).

There was a paper than came out in 2002 by David W. Miller. I don't think it is accessible these days. You'll have to check because my internet access is blocked to a number of Christian sites. But I do have a part of a paper he wrote defending the TNIV. It's called The Improved Gender Accuracy of the TNIV Over The NIV.

Miller did the research, I'm just reporting it.

Continuing David Miller's article:

"The Greek word pater(es) is another one of those words with more than one meaning,one of which is primary and the other that is less common. The primary meaning of pater(es) is father(s), but a secondary meaning is parent(s), especially in the plural. Rather than quote the lexical authorities, I will quote the fundamentalist commentator, John Macarthur, on pateres from his commentary on Ephesians 6:4 (NIV --'Fathers,do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in theb training and instruction of the Lord.'). The TNIV retains the literary primary translation of 'fathers,' in Ephesians 6:4, but MacArthur argues for the more liberal gender-inclusive definition of 'parents' (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary:Ephesians, p.316)'

'Though pateres (fathers) usually referred to male parents, it was sometimes used of parents in general. Paul has been speaking about
both parents in the preceding three verses, and it seems likely that he still has both in mind in this term in verse 4. The same word is used in Hebrews 11:23 to refer to Moses' parents.'

Is John Macarthur to be castigated as some liberal theologian for promoting a gender-inclusive definition of pateres in Ephesians 6:4? Of course not! Is MacArthur in error in thinking that pateres means parents instead of fathers in Ephesians 6:4? I think so, and so do the TNIV translators. Paul just used the more specific Greek word for parents (goneus) in verse one, 'Children, obey your parents...' and switched to pateres in verse four. It seems Paul wanted to focus upon the father's role as the leader-parent in the raising of the children. But there is room for disagreement here without accusing those who differ of having a liberal feminist agenda than one has the right to accuse Macarthur of having such an agenda in his commentary on Ephesians.

As he interprets 'sons of God' as 'children of God in Romans 8, MacArthur repeatedly does the same in Hebrews 12...(The Macarthur New Testament Commentary: Hebrews, p.337.

It is the disciplined child who respects his parents. The surest way for a parent to lose, or never gain hsi child's respect is never to correct or punish him, no matter how terrible the child's behavior. Even when they are growing up, children instinctively know that a parent who disciplines fairly is a parent who loves and cares. They also realize that a parent who always lets them have their own way is a parent who does not care. 'we had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them,' because of what that discipline proved and produced.

If one of the most highly respected and highly conservative commentators uses the word 'parent(s)' repeatedly and exclusively in his single paragraph interpretation of 'earthly fathers,' then why should there be such concern if the TNIV translated it that way? The hue and cry against the TNIV in this area is especially strange since it is universally agreed that pateres can mean parents!"

 

[annsni]

The key is this: What does the Bible say and how do we accurately translate it - and then what does it mean? I think that is the issue here. While the Bible says "sons", we understand it, and often retranslate it in our own words to "sons and daughters" or "children" but if we were to change the wording of the Word of God to reflect what WE want, then there is a bigger issue. I believe that is what is going on here: Biblical accuracy vs. understanding.

 

[Yeshua1]

The key is this: What does the Bible say and how do we accurately translate it - and then what does it mean? I think that is the issue here. While the Bible says "sons", we understand it, and often retranslate it in our own words to "sons and daughters" or "children" but if we were to change the wording of the Word of God to reflect what WE want, then there is a bigger issue. I believe that is what is going on here: Biblical accuracy vs. understanding.

And even in the issue of ftahers or refers to both parents, isn't that still in some regards watering down the notion that God instituted the father as being the head of the family, to be as it where the priest before God for the family?

 

[Yeshua1]

Think that his call against the gender rendering decisions done in the revisions of the 1984 Niv though were not as this article wrote upon, but more in the issue of "Does God still have a principle of male leadership/headship, in both the church and family, or has that been eliminated under the New Covenant?"

The passages/verses that directly speak to that would be the ones to evaluate as per his perspective, and from how the Niv 2011 chose to translate them!

 

[Rippon]

And even in the issue of ftahers or refers to both parents, isn't that still in some regards watering down the notion that God instituted the father as being the head of the family, to be as it where the priest before God for the family?

In short --a big fat NO. Do you believe MacArthur is a feminist in disguise? ;-)

 

[Yeshua1]

In short --a big fat NO. Do you believe MacArthur is a feminist in disguise? ;-)

No, but also think that he does see that God had regulated the highest 'role" to the father in the family, and to to males in authority, corrrect?

 

[Rippon]

No, but also think that he does see that God had regulated the highest 'role" to the father in the family, and to to males in authority, corrrect?

Yes, but what's your point?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, but what's your point?

That His issues with the Niv over gender issues is broader then just that passage!

 

[Rippon]

That His issues with the Niv over gender issues is broader then just that passage!

You said His. Are you speaking of God? The pronoun for MacArthur would be his.

What passage are you referencing? Several were mentioned.

And please make an effort to reword your post. You are extremely unclear.

 

[Yeshua1]

You said His. Are you speaking of God? The pronoun for MacArthur would be his.

What passage are you referencing? Several were mentioned.

And please make an effort to reword your post. You are extremely unclear.

that Dr MacArthur issues with how the Niv decided to retranslate gender renderings is more in those passage involving authority of father as head of household, and as men as authorities in the church...

 

[Rippon]

that Dr MacArthur issues with how the Niv decided to retranslate gender renderings is more in those passage involving authority of father as head of household, and as men as authorities in the church...

I will no longer try to translate your posts. Make an effort to be understandable.

 

[Yeshua1]

I will no longer try to translate your posts. Make an effort to be understandable.

He would issue with the Niv 2011 edition revising some of the passages regarding just how men/women are to be seen as leaders in home and the church...