tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post13345204185636152..comments2023-10-30T06:18:18.671-07:00Comments on Dogmatic Enigmatics: Mystery and Marriage RevisionismAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-10486173531652696032013-01-16T19:35:02.077-08:002013-01-16T19:35:02.077-08:00Nathan, I think it only fair to point out that the...Nathan, I think it only fair to point out that the issue I was addressing was a specifically Protestant evangelical interpretation of that particular text. I can understand why you would have issues both with that teaching and my response to it, but I really was not addressing an Orthodox understanding of the text. Your response from an Orthodox point of view is therefore, in a certain sense, talking past me. Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-57326231475922274482013-01-16T19:00:50.524-08:002013-01-16T19:00:50.524-08:00Kristen, because I understand the mystery/illustra...Kristen, because I understand the mystery/illustration to go in *both* directions (as the last few paragraphs makes clear), it's immaterial which direction you're denying. But, if you wish, you can reverse the terms of 1st sentence of the 5th paragraph i.e. switch "marriage" with "Christ and the Church", and my argument remains materially identical. <br /><br />As for first-century culture, yes, it can be helpful to clarifying technical questions about a text. But your operating hermeneutical assumptions -- presumably, sola scriptura and the supremacy of historical-critical exegesis in determining meaning -- I reject, per the teaching of Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15, for instance). In other words, whatever info we can glean from taking into account the culture the words were written in, that info can never supersede or nullify a clear doctrine of the Church, such as its understanding of marriage. That said, once we do take into account culture and literary genre -- at least the aspects of it that you cite -- none of it changes anything about the traditional interpretation anyway. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-25445530626722429022013-01-16T18:21:36.251-08:002013-01-16T18:21:36.251-08:00It's very nice that you thought what I had to ...It's very nice that you thought what I had to say was important enough to try to refute, but I do wonder how carefully you actually read what I wrote. I never said Paul wasn't using Christ and the Church as an illustration for marriage. I said that the idea of marriage as an illustration of Christ and the Church was backwards. So you have turned what <i>I</i> wrote backwards in order to object to what I didn't say. And you say I'm the one making straw men. Rather odd, that.<br /><br />I also never said the reason this was not an "unbiblical conformance to modern culture" was because my husband and I are best friends. I said that anyone who reads a passage without taking into account first-century culture, is unconsciously dragging his own culture into the reading. Which is just what you're doing when you read "the man is the 'head' of the woman" in terms of a modern English understanding of "head" rather than a first-century Greek one.<br /><br />Not to mention that you have completely left out the scriptural backing I <i>did</i> give to why marriage should be a best friendship. <br /><br />I don't mind if you think I'm completely wrong. I don't mind if you want to write a blog post refuting what I have to say-- in fact, I'm honored that you'd take the time. But I do think you ought to try to refute what I actually said and not a misquoted and misunderstood version of it. <br />Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.com