Charis

PS. Here’s another scripture where Paul uses his (marriage and) childbirth metaphor:

Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. Romans 7

Who was the first person whose “sinful passions were aroused by the law to bear fruit to death”?

Why then would Paul resort to a more complex allegory in 1 Timothy 2 without ever stating that it is allegory and what the allegory means?- Cheryl

How about?
Paul was writing this letter to Timothy and they had a shared context. Timothy could have already been familiar with the allegory.

Paul compares the church to Eve in 1 Cor 11:3. Paul compares the relationship of Christ and the church to a marriage in Eph 5. Paul equates childbirth with the process of “Christ formed in you” in Gal 4:19. Paul uses Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar allegorically to describe salvation. Taking all these clues together, ancient church fathers understood Eve as a “type” of the church.

The NT’s depiction of the Church as the bride of Christ, together with Paul’s parallel between “the first man Adam” and Christ “the last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45), led to an explicit association in the writings of the Church Fathers between Eve, mother of the living, and “mother” church, mater ecclesia. Zeno of Verona declared that just as Eve was created from the side of Adam, so the Church was created from the side of Christ, from which flowed blood and water, figuring the martyrdom and baptism wherein the Church actually took its beginning. In this way, says Zeno, “Adam is restored through Christ, and Eve through the church”. The same idea is expressed by St. Augustine “Eve from the side of the sleeping one, the Church from the side of the suffering one.” This parallel became commonplace in the Middle Ages and was endorsed, e.g. by Thomas Aquinas and by St. Bonaventure. (source)

To the understanding of Augustine, et al, add that of Katharine Bushnell: “827. The ‘childbearing’ of Revelation 12 is that same ‘childbearing’ of 1 Timothy 2:15”

Also if we see this as an allegory about the church, then the church is not saved.- Cheryl

I disagree. The passage says she shall be saved through the childbirth.

Gal 4:22-26 speaks of Abraham and the bondwoman in past tense and then switches to present tense and explains that he is is using an allegory: “For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

Church fathers viewed Eve as a “type” of the church- “Eve from the side of the sleeping one, the church from the side of the suffering one” -Augustine. Paul uses childbirth as a metaphor for the formation of Christ within (Gal 4:19).

Could Paul be saying?:
Eve (church/you and I whether male or female) having been deceived, into transgression came, and she (you and I whether male or female) will be saved through the child-bearing (the formation of Christ within) if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety. (Read “they” as the union with the second Adam, so if Eve/church/you and I remain united with CHRIST “in faith, and love…”, she/Eve/church/you and I will be SAVED)

Cheryl,
Bravo (Ryan?) for noticing this:

“[For] as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives [ought to be] to their husbands in everything” (v24). ..Interestingly, the NASB adds “ought to be” (italics) which actually makes it sound like Paul is commanding the wives to submit

Many Bible translations have added words which distort the teaching (link).

Ryan also says “Look how Paul is describing mutual submission to one another and then continuing to elaborate on how that should look” which is close to acknowledging that Ephesians 5:24 clarifies Ephesians 5:21 (which I think is overlooked by most egalitarians when they consider “mutual submission”). Ryan takes Eph 5:24 and proposes the meaning “in everything the wives should be willingly submissive out of love”.

IN EVERYTHING, IN EVERYTHING, IN EVERYTHING!

I won’t bother proposing scenarios about what “EVERYTHING” could include… My point is that it’s impossible if the wife’s submission is understood as cooperation, yielding, support, etc. And the fact is, despite the appeal of MUTUAL submission (sometimes she yields and sometimes he does), there is no corresponding “IN EVERYTHING” said of husbands.

Wives are subject to their husbands IN EVERYTHING! As Retha mentioned, I think the passive indicative grammar of the hupotasso verb in Eph 5:24 clarifies what Paul/God means by this.

I take Paul’s statement in Eph 5:24 as a repetition of “the facts of life” first reported in Genesis 3:16:

“wives are subject to their own husbands in everything” Eph 5:24 (Paul describing marriage to the Ephesians)

“your [the wife’s] desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you” Gen 3:16 (God describing to the first woman what marriage will be like for her)

Both are descriptive, not prescriptive. You are subject to your husband like you are subject to gravity. There is no volition involved. It’s a state of being.

The power a husband has over his wife emotionally is what Paul refers to when he explains that “wives are subject to their husbands in everything”. Paul proceeds to instruct husbands repeatedly on agape loving (using active and even imperative forms of agape). Every husband HAS “gravitational power”. Paul is teaching him to handle this in a way which lifts up rather than tears down.

Craig,

I have some further thoughts about the connection of a sexual authenein with Eve. What if there is truth to the ancient understanding of Church Fathers that the “desire” of Genesis 3:16 has a sexual component ? Personally, this does not bother me a bit! If the beautiful Lucifer seduced Eve and she turned around and seduced Adam, it explains why Adam didn’t put up any resistance! While God commissioned them to “be fruitful and multiply” in the Genesis 1:26-28 dominion commission, there is nothing about the timing or frequency of the act involved, nor is there any mention of sex between them nor pregnancy until post-Fall.

The following are a couple clips (from pages 24-25) of Priscilla Papers ? Vol. 2 3, No. 2 ? Spring 2009 “The Transformation of Deception: Understanding the Portrait of Eve in the Apocalypse of Abraham, Chapter 23” by Megan K. DeFranza

The difficulty, according to Anderson, begins when one moves from the Hebrew to the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). The Greek word for “deceive” also allows the possible translation “to seduce.”35 Moving from Greek to Latin provided no improvement, for it is from the Latin Bible’s (the Vulgate’s) rendition, seducta, that the English finds its own root. Anderson writes:
The Greek and Latin Bibles allow us to construe the verse as an act of sexual seduction. This fateful accident of overlapping semantic fields allowed for the creation of a far more pernicious picture of the deed Eve had wrought. Not only did she consume the forbidden fruit but she was seduced by the Evil Serpent and engendered the demonic figure of Cain.36
Anderson goes on to document the pervasiveness of this version of Eve in the writings of early church fathers, and the religious art and literature of Western Christianity. Still, more was needed than a simple translation problem to allow for the idea of Eve’s seduction to be so easily received by Jews and Christians. Though the Greek word allows one to consider seduction, it is not used by any translation of the Old Testament to indicate sexual seduction.37 It is not until one encounters religious writings of the Hellenistic Era that the word is used within a sexual context.38

What the article points out is the history of seeing Eve as not merely “deceived” but as “seduced” by Satan. The author claims:

It is important to recognize that the Christian Scriptures reject the sexualization of Eve’s sin. Not only this, but biblical authors refuse to place more blame on Eve than on Adam. Second Corinthians 11:2–3 could be used to show that Paul may have been aware of the legend of Eve’s sexual sin, but Paul does not use it to disparage women. Instead, Eve’s sin is used as an exhortation for the whole church, women and men, to remain faithful to their spiritual husband, Jesus Christ.58 Paul also rejects the Jewish tradition that exalts Adam. For Paul, Adam is not the ideal human. This position is claimed by Christ alone (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:45–49).59 Despite Paul’s rejection of the legend of Eve’s sexual sin, and his evenhandedness in blaming both Adam and Eve for original sin,60 the tendency to blame Eve more than Adam continued to be propagated in Christian and Jewish circles.61

But if one looks at that text in 2 Cor 11:2-3 it looks more like Paul is acknowledging a sexual component of her deception.

One consequence of the Fall which God prophecied over Eve is “your desire shall be for your husband”. This is in the immediate context of two mentions of pregnancy

Unto the woman HE [God]said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Gen 3:16

Compare animals’ mating cycle to humans. For many animals, “mating” is seasonal and rare. God told her “I will increase your conception””you desire shall be for your husband”. Doesn’t that imply that she had a higher fertility level? Did her hormones change so that she now had monthly fertility? desire for mating even when she is not fertile? PMS? menopause? (DO animals have PMS?) …and the “he shall rule over you”. Does that sound like the male got a testosterone boost at the Fall?

I agree with you, Kristen, that Paul is using Eve as a metaphor for “everywoman”. The consequences of the decision of Eve will be reversed. I also think THE CHILDBEARING is a metaphor used for the formation of Christ within- Paul uses the same metaphor in Gal 4:19.

“and she {Eve/everywoman} shall be saved {from the consequences of her decision} through the child-bearing {formation of Christ ala Gal 4:19}, if THEY remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” YLT

I wonder if the “THEY” above could be a married couple? In that case, the passage can be taken as a PROMISE for the marriage of ANY CHRISTIAN WOMAN- that she will be saved/restored/made whole in a reversal of the fall’s consequences (“he shall rule over you”) back to her status as a co-heir with Christ, back to her queenly, ruling position of the Garden-BESIDE Adam- rather than being the mistress/subordinate/underling to Adam’s “master-hood”. But this restoration to a “garden of eden” marriage would need the husband on board: Notice “if THEY continue in faithfulness…” (1 Tim 2:15)

Craig,
Prof Catherine Kroeger has written about the possible sexual meaning of authentein.

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/kroeger_ancient_heresies.htm

But what can the term authentein imply in 1 Timothy 2:12? In his Commentary on I Timothy 5.6, St. John? Chrysostom uses autheritia to denote “sexual license.” If the word in this context refers to sexual behavior, it puts a quite different interpretation on the entire passage. For instance, if we were to translate the passage, “I forbid a woman to teach or discuss higher algebra with a man,” we would understand the prohibition to be directed against instruction in mathematics. Suppose it read, “I forbid a woman to teach or talk Japanese with a man.” Then we infer that the injunction applies to the teaching of language. “I forbid a woman to teach or dangle a man from a high wire” would presuppose that the instructor was an aerialist. “I forbid a woman to teach or engage in fertility practices with a man” would imply that the woman should not involve a man in the heretical kind of Christianity which taught licentious behavior as one of its doctrines. Such a female heretic did indeed “teach to fornicate” in the Thyatiran church mentioned in Revelation 2:20 (cf. 2:14f.; Num. 25:3; 31:15f.). Too often we underestimate the seriousness of this problem for the New Testament church. A passage in 2 Peter expresses concern not only for those drawn into this error but also for the illegitimate children which it produced:

The hupotasso verb describing how a wife “is subject” to her husband is Hupotasso in the Passive Voice: A Wife’s Submission is descriptive rather than prescriptive )
Further contemplating the passive voice of the wife’s subjection as stated in Ephesians 5:24:
“Therefore as the church is subject to Christ,
so also the wives [to] husbands in everything” Eph 5:24

I have investigated other occurrences of hupotasso in the passive voice.
Question: The hupotasso verb below is also in the passive voice (different tense but passive voice).
“For the creature
was subjected to frustration
not willingly
but by the will of the one
who hath subjected the same in hope”
Romans 8:20
When did this occur?
What was the human female creature subjected to?
Hint: see Genesis 3:16

TL,

Its distressing to me that you contradict facts.

“are subject” in Eph 5:21 is a verb
see http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm

so will the reader please disregard TL’s invalidating, dismissive comment and take my points at face value.

Thank you.

For those who missed it on the very long initial thread, here is the link where can look up the verb parsing for yourself and verify that the hupotasso verbs in Eph 5:21 and 5:24 are in the PASSIVE VOICE.

http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm

and here is the link where you can read about the implication of PASSIVE VOICE (from Wallace and Mounce)

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/grklnk.html?SUBMIT=Greek+Grammar+Menu

Dave (19) Mark and TL

Not going to quote all of you in the interest of time.

TL keeps saying hupotasso is voluntarily arranging under someone else. Mark has given us the definition from BAGD- “subordinate”. Dave strenuously objects to the idea of “subordinate”, can’t mean that, must mean “submissive”….

The Greek roots are hupo- under and tasso- arrange or order. Same for the Latin roots of the english word “subordinate” sub=under and ordinate=arrange.

Personally I dislike both “SUBORDINATE” and “SUBMIT”. I prefer “being subject” in Eph 5:21 and “are subject” in Eph 5:24. IMO, it better conveys the PASSIVE force of the verbs used.

Now, if we look at Eph 5:24 where God an Paul make a statement which IS NOT ADDRESSED TO WIVES but to the entire audience:

“but even as the assembly is subject to Christ, so also [are] the wives to their own husbands in everything. ” Eph 5:24 YLT

Dave said:

Note the difference between the two. One has to do with placing things in a natural order – something we might or might not have control over. The other has to do with where we choose to place ourselves – it is about the choice of being the last, not the first.

So, Dave and TL
you think the wife is being told in Ephesians 5:24 that she is supposed to
ALWAYS VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE TO BE LAST
ALWAYS VOLUNTARILY COME UNDER
????????????????????????????????

TBH, I lived that for 22 years of marriage and its horrid bondage
a very bad way of understanding what Paul/God is saying there A message that makes the wife pretty much disappear into the woodwork because “whatever he says, goes”. I mean Eph 5:24 says EVERYTHING and if she is responsible to voluntarily “be submissive” to him in EVERYTHING there might as well not be a her. God shouldn’t have made her at all. Clone Adam or stop with a dog or monkey.

Nope.

The verb is PASSIVE.

And I prefer the translation “SUBJECT” because it is a more accurate description of what the verse means. Paul is describing to the congregation that withing marriage a wife IS SUBJECT to her husband in a completely involuntary way IN EVERYTHING. Her husband’s decisions and behavior will have a massive impact and affect on her. Like a garden IS SUBJECT to the gardener. If the gardener withholds nourishing and cherishing, the garden will die. Or, as the passage indicates, like parts of a body ARE SUBJECT to one another. They are intimately connected and work together.

I just learned about homeostasis in the human body- how the body regulates. For example, if you are cold, you shiver and that helps warm you. I think the way of understanding Eph 5 which makes the wife responsible to voluntarily submit to her husband IN EVERYTHING ruins homeostasis of the marriage. No longer is she allowed to shiver when his decisions are making her cold, she must abort her natural response to the deprivation in order to let him be first. I submit that that understanding is actually the polar opposite of what Paul/God is describing. Paul/God is saying Wives ARE SUBJECT to their husbands in EVERYTHING. Its a DESCRIPTION not a PREscription. So husbands- if you take her out in the freezing cold with no coat, she’s gonna shiver! That’s homeostasis of the “one flesh” of marriage! And husbands, BTW, you are to LOVE, NOURISH, CHERISH {Greek thalpo=keep warm}

Jane,

Sounds to me like you see the body dynamic, how the pain of some is affects the whole (because of our mutual subjection, interconnectness, and interdependence ala Eph 5:21 BTW). I think you would identify with this fellow blogger’s observations: http://newcovenantbeliever.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/the-body-of-christ/

Mark (614) I’m not going to submit to the 12 year old youth kid in the same way I would to my pastor. It is illogical to demand a complete mutuality submission between all relationships within the body of Christ- you wouldn’t know who the adults are from the children, the elders from the younger etc etc. I will serve a 12 yr old, but not submit in the way the verb is used.

The verb in Eph 5:21 is in the passive voice. Check it out for yourself at http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm

Its a description of the mutual subjection/dependence of Body life and there is another witness in 1 Cor 12:12ff.

For illustration, suppose your son was the 12 yo and he was cutting, taking drugs, etc, then the fact that you are “one body” with him would bring on a great deal of pain and distress because in BEING SUBJECT to him, when he is struggling it affects you.

nn pointed out in a previous discussion the exact form of the PASSIVE VOICE hupotasso verb used of the subjection of wives to husbands is used of the subjection of devils to apostles.

I would hardly call the subjection of devils to apostles “voluntary”!

In the interest of time I will post the link to my blog on this which links back to nn’s comments on a previous thread on Cheryl’s blog and then I am done here. I start summer school tomorrow- Anatomy and Physiology and that will be occupying my mind for the next two months. Here is the link: http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/irresistible-submission-of-devils-to-apostles-and-wives-to-husbands/

TL,

With all due respect, you will need to do some more homework on the meaning of a passive greek verb. Its something for which there is not an english equivalent so it takes some effort to wrap one’s mind around. Wallace and Mounce have well respected Greek Grammar. Here is their definition from : http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/grklnk.html?SUBMIT=Greek+Grammar+Menu

C. Passive Voice

In general it can be said that in the passive voice the subject is acted upon or receives the action expressed by the verb. No volition – nor even necessarily awareness of the action – is implied on the part of the subject. That is, the subject may or may not be aware, its volition may or may not be involved. But these things are not stressed when the passive is used.

Dave (555) and Cheryl (556)

Did you read Carolyn Custis James post? I think she expressed it better than I and she is one of your own (an egal)

The Dictionary According to Jesus

I guess we will have to agree to disagree that Jesus’ definition and practice of authority involves all those things that you claim from Webster’s.

TL (563)
The hupotasso verb in Eph 5:21 is the only one of the whole series of participles describing “be filled with the spirit” which is in the PASSIVE voice! I don’t think that is accidental.

I don’t think “being subject to one another” means taking turns being submissive. I think it a description of BODY LIFE where the parts are connected and SUBJECT TO one another without volition involved. IOW, I affect you and you affect me and if one part of the body is hurting the other parts are affected.

TL (564) I don’t think its just physical nor social power which makes the man more powerful within marriage. Even though western society is egalitarian, husbands still have HUGE POWER to affect their wives.

And the tendency among egals to try to level the genders bothers me because I think there is a backlash to it. “pro-choice” for example: the desire to get rid of that part of me which makes me distinctively female.

And while the CULTURE may succeed in being egalitarian where there really is not much distinction between male and female, that is impossible within marriage (unless a couple remains childless).

pinklight: Husbands do have power but I don’t think this is the kind of thing that comps are laying claim to – power to hurt and damage.

They are seeing half of it, though. They are seeing the lesson in Ephesians 5 that husbands have POWER to speak and minister LIFE to the spirits of their wives. The Kassian quote acknowledges this:

from “Steel Magnolia” by Mary Kassian

The first man called himself “Ish” and the woman “Ishsha.” This appears to be an extremely clever and profound play on words. The sound of these two Hebrew words is nearly identical-Ishsha merely adds a feminine ending- but the two words have a complementary meaning. Ish comes from the root meaning “strength” while Ishsha comes from the root meaning “soft.”

The implication becomes clearer when we observe the biblical meaning of a man’s “strength.” Strength refers to a man’s manhood- his potency, virility, and procreative power (Psalm 105:36; Proverbs 31:3; Genesis 49:3). By contrast, a woman’s “softness” has to do with her pregnability, penetrability, and vulnerability (in a very positive sense). One commentator has suggested English equivalents of “Piercer” and “Pierced One.”

The bodies of male and female reflect this idea. A man’s body is built to move toward the woman. A woman’s body is built to receive the man. But the pattern goes beyond the mere physical difference between men and women to encompass the totality of their essence: The man was created to joyfully and actively initiate and give. The woman was created to joyfully and actively respond and receive. The woman is the “soft” one – the receiver, responder, and relater. The man is the “strong” one with greater capacity to initiate, protect and provide. Each is a perfect counterpart to the other.

Kassian’s description above has the ring of truth to me. It goes right along with wives ARE SUBJECT to their husbands IN EVERYTHING. But she only shares one side of the coin: where the husband is sowing GOOD. If the husband is sowing BAD, the “Piercer” causes ever so much hurt to the “Pierced One”.

pinklight 552

My question is then does the husband have authority TO

1) make final decsions
2) tell his wife what is truth and what is not
3) decide for her if she can or cannot be a teacher, pastor etc
4) tell her to submit
5) tell her that he has authority TO __________
6) overrule her will
7) be judge in the home
8) be “head” of the home

This list which could be anwered by “yes” or “no” could go on and on…

My answer to ALL of them is “NO!”

Except on #1 if they have mutually decided that he is more gifted in a certain area and should make the decisions for them in that area. And the same would go for delegating the wife as the final decision making authority over realms in which she is more gifted (eg the Prov 31 woman does not appear to consult her husband in her trading and real estate ventures).

Dave (555)

I find that frustrating, as egals will do that with other words. They will take the lexicon listing and choose the definition they like.

Scripture interprets scripture. If JESUS says “this is what authority is to look like” I’ll take his word over Webster’s every time.

If you are stuck on Webster, then I choose to do the egal thing and I select from the listing the definition “POWER”. Husbands have POWER. Egals can deny that till they are blue in the face and it doesn’t change it. Husbands have POWER to deeply wound their wives, to pierce them. OR they have POWER to return to the Garden of Eden- to lift their wife up beside them to share dominion – Ephesians 1:20-22, 2:6

And though wives have POWER too (to wound their husbands in various ways) I THINK based on a wife being SUBJECT TO HER HUSBAND IN EVERYTHING AS THE CHURCH IS SUBJECT TO CHRIST that husbands have greater power to wound their wives than vice versa. GOD KNOWS a woman’s characteristics and vulnerabilites.

Its amusing to me that scientific research has proven the differences between men and women but the drumbeat continues that they are the same.

Kristen (535) http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/#comment-12407

The woman (later named Eve) responded differently when confronted with her decision to eat the fruit. http://godswordtowomen.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/adam-and-eves-response-to-their-failure-compared/ Cheryl has noted this and blogged on it before.

Ever since, like their anatomy, women tend to internalize shame (accept blame) and men tend to externalize shame (blameshift). Scientific research confirms this. Here’s a link: Women guilty of feeling too guilty, study shows
Many men, on the other hand, stay emotionally detached, study suggests

It seems to be even different than that. Jesus is not noting between types of authority. Jesus is saying NOT TO SEEK AUTHORITY. Instead, if one wishes to be great let him/her think about serving/ministering (diakonos). And if one want to be the greatest or first let him/her be a a freely committed life indentured slave (duolos). We are not to be thinking of being served as in one who commands others but rather our lives should be centered on presenting our bodies as living sacrifices doing the works of God for God’s purposes. -TL

Precisely!

And since I realized this, I realized who is “wearing the pants” in most of the churches. Who is in the kitchen serving? Who is minding the nursery? Who is wrapping a towel around her waist and taking the position of the lowest slave to wash the feet of the saints?

Unfortunately, wives across the land have usurped their husband’s authority!

(I am being a bit tongue in cheek there to make a point)

Correction- in 527 I meant to address Susanna Krizo

Dave http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/#comment-12398

Carolyn Custis James wisely observes in her blog entitned “hesed and submission” http://www.whitbyforum.com/2007_11_01_archive.html

What helped me to deepen my understanding of these important words—hesed and submission—was to throw out Webster’s Dictionary and consult instead the dictionary according to Jesus.

When one consults “the dictionary according to Jesus”
authority bears little resemblance to the world or Webster’s definition.

Suzanne,

Regarding eros, perhaps this will help?

from “Steel Magnolia” by Mary Kassian
http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Steel-Magnolia

The first man called himself “Ish” and the woman “Ishsha.” This appears to be an extremely clever and profound play on words. The sound of these two Hebrew words is nearly identical-Ishsha merely adds a feminine ending- but the two words have a complementary meaning. Ish comes from the root meaning “strength” while Ishsha comes from the root meaning “soft.”

The implication becomes clearer when we observe the biblical meaning of a man’s “strength.” Strength refers to a man’s manhood- his potency, virility, and procreative power (Psalm 105:36; Proverbs 31:3; Genesis 49:3). By contrast, a woman’s “softness” has to do with her pregnability, penetrability, and vulnerability (in a very positive sense). One commentator has suggested English equivalents of “Piercer” and “Pierced One.”

The bodies of male and female reflect this idea. A man’s body is built to move toward the woman. A woman’s body is built to receive the man. But the pattern goes beyond the mere physical difference between men and women to encompass the totality of their essence: The man was created to joyfully and actively initiate and give. The woman was created to joyfully and actively respond and receive. The woman is the “soft” one – the receiver, responder, and relater. The man is the “strong” one with greater capacity to initiate, protect and provide. Each is a perfect counterpart to the other.

I would not call what a husband has “authority over” and I noticed that Tiffany objected to that term as well. A husband has “authority to” nourish, cherish, etc.

Whatever God CALLS one to do and to be,
HE is ready willing and able
to equip and empower one
to do and to be!

And I think when NN and Tiffany are saying that biblical authority is different than worldy authority, they are saying something that Jesus said:

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

So a woman who is servile toward her husband is usurping his authority. BTDT for many years!

http://hupotasso.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/rolereversal.jpg

The consequences of the Fall remain (including husband rule and wife’s desire for him) and are redemptive in that they force us into such pain that we have nowhere else to turn but Jesus.

2 Corinthians 4:11
For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.

Dave (433) I understand that Eve’s condition post fall is not a command but prescriptive etc. This is why I believe some cultures/societies do result in women being more vulnerable. The thing is that in Ephesians Paul is speaking of God’s plan for all things to be brought into harmony with Christ as the head (Eph 1:10) and explains how this should happen in God’s church now. Effectively Paul is describing in Ephesians 5 what redeemed life is like – not fallen life. The same in 1 Cor 11:11-12.

Dave,
Let me ask you a question.

Do you still deal with the consequences of the Fall of thorns, weeds, and sweat in your work?

Likewise, women still deal with the consequences of the Fall of husband rule and the desire for him. Women remain more vulnerable.

And those consequences will never go away as long as we live.

Now, they are certainly mitigated by the gospel/GOOD NEWS. For mitigation regarding the work consequences, see Matthew 6:25-34 for example.

Mitigation of the consequences on marriage? See the end of Eph 5.

For nn,
Marriage was never intended to be a bed of roses for the husband with an ever obedient (slave) wife. If it was, God would have stopped at monkeys or dogs (who can be trained in obedient servitude) and Jesus would not have told the shocked disciples (3 times in one spot!) they better seriously consider. remaining eunuchs rather than the take on the rigors of marriage Matthew 19 1ff

Dave (472),

You died to self, laid down your life, and washed your wife’s feet.

May your tribe increase!

You can get an idea here of how my marriage worked before I renounced husband obedience and idolatry. http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/biblically-does-submission-equal-obedience/

Dave,

Correction in 439
I don’t agree with Dave on the hierarchy part.
should be
I don’t agree with nn on the hierarchy part

OK, Dave, I found this in my writings. Perhaps its a bit clearer about the direction of my thinking regarding the intersection of eros with the latter part of Eph 5? Several of the comments I read are reading my words in a way which takes the concept waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too far (I don’t have time to correct their assumptions).

Why is the instruction to “nourish and cherish as your own body” given exclusively to husbands, never to wives?

My theory is that a married woman would presumably become a mother (barring the tragedy of infertility) and a mother nourishes and cherishes another as her own body by NATURE and by DESIGN. GOD KNOWS that she will not be able to be selfish when it comes to her own flesh and blood baby (unless she goes against nature, not unheard of among humankind)

Whereas, men are universally deprived of this experience. A man has no “maternal instinct” driving him to self sacrifice in order to nourish a baby at 2am. His “death to self” must come about as a decision of his will.

This is from “My spiritual autobiography: or, How I discovered the unselfishness of God” By Hannah Whitall Smith

My children have been the joy of my life. I cannot imagine more exquisite bliss than comes to one sometimes in the possession and companionship of a child. To me there have been moments, when my arms have been around my children, that have seemed more like what the bliss of heaven must be than any other thing I can conceive of; and I think this feeling has taught me more of what are God’s feelings towards his children than anything else in the universe. If I, a human being with limited capacity, can find such joy in my children, what must God, with his infinite heart of love, feel towards his; In fact most of my ideas of the love and goodness of God have come from my own experience as a mother, because I could not conceive that God would create me with a greater capacity for unselfishness and self-sacrifice than he possessed himself; and since this discovery of the mother heart of God I have always been able to answer every doubt that may have arisen in my mind, as to the extent and quality of the love of God, by simply looking at my own feelings as a mother. I cannot understand the possibility of any selfishness on the mother’s part coming into her relation to her children. It seems to me a mother, who can be selfish and think of her own comfort and her own welfare before that of her children, is an abnormal mother, who fails in the very highest duty of motherhood . . . Since I had this insight of the mother-heart of God, I have never been able to feel the slightest anxiety for any of his children; and by his children I do not mean only the good ones, but I mean the bad ones just as much.