This was such a (nerdy) joy to read. I love reading Scripture in this literary way with the NT illuminated by the OT. It gets me so excited about the Bible after growing up with very flat readings and prescriptive applications.
Yes! You’re speaking my language. Drawing on the few passages where John says the disciples understood a past event differently after Jesus was raised, Richard Hays says “resurrection is the enemy of textual literalism.” This is in direct contrast to the flat, literalistic, prescriptive applications of Scripture from the religious authorities in John. If interested, I have a number of additional articles on John that demonstrates this way of reading. Just one more e.g.: https://onceaweek.substack.com/p/you-cant-change-what-happened.
“Return [epistrephō]” — that word also occurs in the LXX translation of Gen 3:16.
I love all the linguistic and structural hyperlinks in scripture and this one really fascinates me. 🧐🤔🤗🫠 My take on it is that Eve turned toward Adam wanting him to comfort and forgive her for being sucked in by the serpent’s lies. And since the Fall (speaking in generalities) women’s default has been to turn toward man hoping for comfort and safety in mutual co-regulation but men (speaking in generalities) have spurned women’s need and ruled over them harshly. The roots of Patriarchy go right back to the Fall.
I’m sure I’ve mentioned this several times before to you, Aaron. Hope you don’t mind me bringing it up again 🙏. I know you’re busy writing a book. I’m saying it in case some of your readers might not have heard it before. 💛
I love how John is saturated with the Song. Thanks for showing the implications for this connection to Peter's love.
Thanks for reading Aimee, and for inspiring me to look for these connections.
This was such a (nerdy) joy to read. I love reading Scripture in this literary way with the NT illuminated by the OT. It gets me so excited about the Bible after growing up with very flat readings and prescriptive applications.
Yes! You’re speaking my language. Drawing on the few passages where John says the disciples understood a past event differently after Jesus was raised, Richard Hays says “resurrection is the enemy of textual literalism.” This is in direct contrast to the flat, literalistic, prescriptive applications of Scripture from the religious authorities in John. If interested, I have a number of additional articles on John that demonstrates this way of reading. Just one more e.g.: https://onceaweek.substack.com/p/you-cant-change-what-happened.
Ungramaticality is a superb word!
Thanks for this post, Aaron. Great insights.
Hah, I also love that word! Thank you.
“Return [epistrephō]” — that word also occurs in the LXX translation of Gen 3:16.
I love all the linguistic and structural hyperlinks in scripture and this one really fascinates me. 🧐🤔🤗🫠 My take on it is that Eve turned toward Adam wanting him to comfort and forgive her for being sucked in by the serpent’s lies. And since the Fall (speaking in generalities) women’s default has been to turn toward man hoping for comfort and safety in mutual co-regulation but men (speaking in generalities) have spurned women’s need and ruled over them harshly. The roots of Patriarchy go right back to the Fall.
I’m sure I’ve mentioned this several times before to you, Aaron. Hope you don’t mind me bringing it up again 🙏. I know you’re busy writing a book. I’m saying it in case some of your readers might not have heard it before. 💛