So good! Thank you for stepping through and organizing all the details of context and culture, time and space, that matter to our understanding the Word.
Yes, Sandy, thank you for this!! You have articulated so clearly already the problems I had with Ephesians and my church’s exegesis of this passage 2-3 years ago. My questions about it fell on deaf ears. The answer I got when questioning the normative/situational nature of it was “it refers to Genesis, thus it is normative.” This idea that any time scripture refers to Genesis means the passage is normative doesn’t make sense to me. But then, in my experience, any questioning of passages that are sacred to hierarchical beliefs are not typically welcome in the traditions that you cited in Part 1 of this topic. So I was summarily shut down, not engaged with on my questions. Thus I’m greatly looking forward to more of your discussion on this topic in the forthcoming lecture!! Can’t WAIT!!!
You are most welcome. Yes, the engagement of Eve and creation is a hard one. But not when one equally engages the proto-Gnosticism that is emerging in Ephesus. That’s in the lecture (which is in editing now) … maybe I should do a part III here on Substack as well?
WOAH 🤯 I thought I understood the Artemis argument but this just massively expanded my understanding of it. I'm more and more convinced. Thank you for this work! How do you engage with people who are skeptical about this view because it sounds novel to them or because they think it's "over-reading" the Scripture? I think these objections are common. Are there theologians throughout Church history who have interpreted 1 Tim 2 this way that I could point them to?
The bibliography at the end of the essay should help whoever you’re interacting with. These are all scholarly pieces, so their bibliography will send you further. As for hermeneutics, well there are volumes and volumes written about that, but “normative” vs. “situational” and “descriptive” vs. “Prescriptive” are standard categories. ANYTHING by Gordon Fee in this will be fabulous.
Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William Webb also has some helpful discussion of normative vs. situational and also the theory of redemptive movement across scripture. It's pretty dry reading in parts, but still helpful.
Don’t mistake your google search with my apostolic authority.
That is hilarious and also so spot on!! 👏🏼
Sandy,
Thank you so much for this. You articulate so well what many of us know, but don’t have the words to express adequately.
Bless you!
I can’t wait for the final and full message on SeedBed!
Tommy Artmann
Thank you, Tommy. Andrew Dragos is faithfully editing away. Hopefully soon!
So good! Thank you for stepping through and organizing all the details of context and culture, time and space, that matter to our understanding the Word.
Way to leave us hanging! Ha. Will you post the lecture video here on Substack, or blast the link via your socials? Can't wait!
Thanks for asking! Seedbed will post via their platform and I think I like that idea of "blasting" my socials!
Yes, Sandy, thank you for this!! You have articulated so clearly already the problems I had with Ephesians and my church’s exegesis of this passage 2-3 years ago. My questions about it fell on deaf ears. The answer I got when questioning the normative/situational nature of it was “it refers to Genesis, thus it is normative.” This idea that any time scripture refers to Genesis means the passage is normative doesn’t make sense to me. But then, in my experience, any questioning of passages that are sacred to hierarchical beliefs are not typically welcome in the traditions that you cited in Part 1 of this topic. So I was summarily shut down, not engaged with on my questions. Thus I’m greatly looking forward to more of your discussion on this topic in the forthcoming lecture!! Can’t WAIT!!!
You are most welcome. Yes, the engagement of Eve and creation is a hard one. But not when one equally engages the proto-Gnosticism that is emerging in Ephesus. That’s in the lecture (which is in editing now) … maybe I should do a part III here on Substack as well?
Yes!!! Part 3 would be amazing! Would love to hear how you bring in Proto-Gnosticism piece. Thanks for all you write, it’s wonderful.
WOAH 🤯 I thought I understood the Artemis argument but this just massively expanded my understanding of it. I'm more and more convinced. Thank you for this work! How do you engage with people who are skeptical about this view because it sounds novel to them or because they think it's "over-reading" the Scripture? I think these objections are common. Are there theologians throughout Church history who have interpreted 1 Tim 2 this way that I could point them to?
The bibliography at the end of the essay should help whoever you’re interacting with. These are all scholarly pieces, so their bibliography will send you further. As for hermeneutics, well there are volumes and volumes written about that, but “normative” vs. “situational” and “descriptive” vs. “Prescriptive” are standard categories. ANYTHING by Gordon Fee in this will be fabulous.
Wonderful! Thanks, Dr. Richter! :)
Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William Webb also has some helpful discussion of normative vs. situational and also the theory of redemptive movement across scripture. It's pretty dry reading in parts, but still helpful.
This sounds great, I'm going to get ahold of it. Thank you!
Thank you!