Counsel given to battered women in the church has too often relied on 1 Pet 3:1–6 to encourage women to stay with an abusive husband for the husband's sake. This article argues that, while this teaching may be the message of 1 Pet 3:1–6, its use by the church is an abuse of biblical authority. Historical, literary, and canonical contexts suggest that the surface message of the text — submission to even an abusive husband—is not its complete message.

The essays collected in this manuscript respond to "How We Teach Introductory Bible Courses: A Comparative and Historical Sampling" by Collin Cornell and Joel M. LeMon, published in this issue of the journal. Response: Introducing the Bible When Students Do Not Know the Bible Caryn A. Reeder

The law of the captive woman in Deut. 21.10-14 is alternately identified as a law that protects or even favors the captive, or as a law that enshrines wartime rape. This article argues for the latter assessment on the basis of three lines of evidence: the vocabulary and syntax of the law; intertextual connections with Genesis 34; and comparative analysis with contemporary situations of wartime rape. The final line of evidence also allows for the interpretation of the law from the perspective of the captive woman herself.

No abstract

No abstract