Charis

Dave,

I finished reading your reply. I don’t agree with Dave on the hierarchy part. But there is a difference between men and women. In a sense, the woman is utterly helpless as to whether and how she is sown. She IS SUBJECT in a passive sense.

In his list of posts which he said relates to his eros hypotheses, nn has another post about “conquest” which I read this morning. I need to think about that one some more. ..

Dave,
Thank you for at least attempting to understand but never mind.

And that is probably completely unclear!

I have an blog post with pictures and a song which I think illustrates how Ephesians 5 reflects eros

http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/submission/submit-as-to-the-lord/

I just lost a whole reply and I’m bowing out, NOT because I am sensitive or taking it personally. I think the assumptions and accusations are more a reflection on the people making them than on myself and I don’t take them personally. But when I spend time on replies that are going into a black hole, its poor stewardship and I always regret it!

I spent some time reading several posts on nn’s blog this morning and I am not sure he and I see eros in Eph 5 in the same manner but I did attempt to illustrate that in my comment 376.

eg. nn’s post about “perfecting” his wife. Based on her personal testimony of a clear “before and after” I though Cheryl might be able to grasp how a husband through choosing to follow the unilateral instructions to husbands to “nourish and cherish” to understand and to live with and value as a co-heir has a part in bringing his wife to perfection.

How does Ephesians convey eros?

The husband plants the seed into his open vulnerable wife (who IS subject to him in everything as the church is subject to Christ). The resulting “ONE FLESH” is nourished and cherished by the wife as her own body (BY NATURE AND DESIGN). ONLY the husband is expressly instructed to NOURISH and CHERISH his wife as his own body. To do so, he needs to choose to lay down life and die to himself.

The “one flesh” within the wife is PERFECTED through her nourishing and cherishing. I agree with nn that a nourishing and cherishing, laying down life husband plays a HUGE part in “perfecting” his wife. And one that is doing the opposite plays a huge part in aborting her potential.

CHERYL #392) The explicit definition of the Trinity is found in the Scripture. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. There is only one God.

This is different than attaching an express definition of romantic love which is not in the passage. Two totally different animals and I am quite surprised that you tried this tactic. This reasoning is common in the cults but not common in Christianity so I am very surprised you used it.

Are you suggesting that NN and those who believe eros has a bearing on properly understanding Eph 5 are heretics?

I’m gonna be blunt. Such judgments are why I unsubscribed from the blog and don’t hang around here much anymore. Instead of feeling that my perspectives were heard and really considered and weighed, I felt unheard and judged.

Dave,

I think she is more vulnerable because of her anatomy and because of the consequences of the Fall. And I think, as NN suggested in 239

3) The instructions are intended to be universal as part of the current created order (whether due to God’s original design or as a result of the Fall it is the proper order now)

The consequence of the Fall for women involves multiplication of and pain in childbirth, as well as “her desire shall be for her husband and he will rule over her”. This is not a command any more than Adam’s consequence is a command to sweat and deal with thorns. Its a condition.

To the woman he [God] said,
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
Genesis 3:16

Not “command” but “condition”
Not “prescription” but “description”

Likewise- Ephesians 5:24 “wives [subject] to their own husbands in everything”

Not “command” but “condition”
Not “prescription” but “description”

What happened in Gen 3:16 is not called a “curse”.

God did not “curse” Eve (or Adam).

They received consequences, and the consequences recorded in Gen 3:16 are redemptive in that they create a level of pain which causes one to turn from what has become an idol and see God.

1. Before the Fall, they were eternal beings so if they had children they would not need to have many of them

2.Most animals only mate seasonally. Among animals (besides humans) a female “desire” for the male generally does not exist and there is no mating outside the season of fertility. Why are humans different when a rare “season” like animals would work fine for fulfilling “be fruitful and multiply”? For redemptive purposes IMO.

3. In the immediate context of Gen 3:16, multiplication of childbirth and pain in it is mentioned- two mentions of pregnancy, which is a result of sex

4. This one is anecdotal, but my mother always referred to menstruation as “the curse” and it does come with such unpleasantries as PMS and menopause so I rather think it was not part of Eve’s garden experience

5. There is no record that Adam “knew” Eve nor did she conceive before the Fall. People ASSUME that means I consider sexual pleasure an evil along the lines of Augustine who thought they would multiply with no pleasure. Not true. Sex was God ordained by “be fruitful and multiply” and God designed it pleasurable. But I believe their total intimacy with God and one another was extremely satisfying and pleasurable in a way we only see in a mirror dimly (if we are so blessed) and they were not focused on sex like we are. They were, perhaps, quite young and it was not time for that yet- Eve had not come into season

6. Gen 3:16 indicates that Adam would now “rule over her”. Testosterone is the hormone which drives male aggression. So, perhaps just as Eve had a huge hormonal change upon the Fall, so did Adam.

7. Husband “rule over” goes right along with “wives are subject” and that is in the PASSIVE voice. My experience is that my husband DOES “rule over” me, I AM “subject to him” in a way over which I have absolutely no control. He has the power to wilt me with a few sharp words or to make me bloom with some nourishing and cherishing.

DESIRE and RULE can be so very destructive, but they can also be REDEMPTIVE, bringing the marriage relationship into closer resemblance with garden intimacy.

Dave,

To understand the unique/one way vulnerability of women sexually, even though its old, this sure rang true to me!

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/lesson%206.htm

And now, excuse me, the two youngest of my 8 children are ready to read from Chronicles of Narnia before bed.

Dave (380)
When I was pondering NN’s eros hypothesis:

“The operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship….”

Indeed! Women are the only ones who get pregnant, which is extremely asymmetrical. (Some factions of our egalitarian culture have ways of attempting to erase this particular asymmetry.)

SM (382) Yes, and the tone of some replies to him distressed me. Just because the Greek word never appears in Scripture, that does not mean the concept of eros has no bearing on understanding Ephesians 5. What does “one flesh” mean within marriage?

In your comment #239, I agree with 1, 2, and 3 (for 3, male rule is clearly a result of the Fall. The male and female were both given equal dominion/AKA authority in Gen 1:26-28.)

However, here is where I think you are missing some pieces:

QUOTE NN: The above logic chain proves that the differentiation between men and women is a truth which transcends particular culture – but it does not prove that it is hierarchical. To prove that we must examine the particular instructions give:
Women are told to “hupotassoe” their husbands – this same general instruction is used by Paul in the same context to describe the proper actions of citizens toward their governments and slaves toward their masters. Furthermore, we are instructed by the Christ that we are to obey the governing authorities (”render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”) so we must interpret Paul’s specific instructions to wives to be in keeping with his use of the words to describe other obedience relationships ENDQUOTE

NN, The hupotasso verbs used in Ephesians 5 are all PASSIVE
http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm
(with the exception of the one added to Eph 5:22 in the Textus Receptus- which is an interpretational addition muddying the waters IMO). So Eph 5:21-22 reads “BEING SUBJECT to one another… wives to husbands” and Eph 5:24 reads “wives ARE SUBJECT to their husbands in everything just as….”

Its the same concept as Douglas Wilson observed about “the husband IS the head of the wife” http://nuallan.livejournal.com/6888.html . The wife IS subject to her husband. I think “vulnerable” conveys the meaning. Wives are vulnerable to their husbands in a way which does not go vice versa. To me, eros seems to be a kind of object lesson of this.

Charis

Quote NN : “The operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship”

I agree with NN and I think its in Ephesians 5 quite clearly. Doesn’t make husband or wife inferior or superior, but they are different and the instructions to each are different .

Click Here for a photo of “one flesh” (don’t worry, its nothing inappropriate).
How did that happen?
Methinks eros might have had a part.
Who will “nourish and cherish” the “one flesh” by nature and design”as her own body”?
OTH, Who, according to Ephesians 5, is instructed to CHOOSE to nourish and cherish his wife as his own body NOT by nature and desigh but by decision of the will?

I think there is a difference between believing a husband has authority/power (which he DOES and a great deal of it) and extending that to the claim that he has “final decision making authority”. The commenters have understood NN believes in the latter but I haven’t seen that in his words that I have read, so I want to ask him

NN, do you believe that God has given husbands “final decision making authority”?

Thank you, NN. I read the excerpt of Doug Wilson’s at the link and I think he’s right about that. The husband IS the head. Its DESCRIPTIVE of what he IS- for better or for worse. Its not something which he can choose to exercise or not. Its his IDENTITY and by it he will minister: Will he minister LIFE or DEATH?

The coupling in the passage is
submissionLOVE, not submission head

The coupling for HEAD is BODY and as was discussed earlier this is an intimacy/interdependence metaphor and not about “submission vs. AUTHORITY” as the blog title suggests.

Cheryl that was a very moving testimony about how your husband “let go” of control over you. My research indicates that the hupotasso verbs in Eph 5:21 and Eph 5:24 are in the PASSIVE VOICE. IOW when Paul says “wives ARE SUBJECT to their husbands IN EVERYTHING” its DESCRIPTIVE not PREscriptive.

When your husband was a control freak, you WERE SUBJECT to him just like you ARE SUBJECT to gravity on planet earth. That affected you deeply. Could we say it ministered DEATH to you as his BODY.

Now that he has “let go” you remain SUBJECT TO him and the fact that he now has FULL CONFIDENCE in you (like a Proverbs 31 husband) has nourished and cherished you as his BODY and ministered LIFE.

So, IMO, NN is right about a husband having authority/power. But I would not call it “authority OVER” I would call it “authority TO”. God has given NN authority TO minister LIFE or DEATH to his wife/BODY.

(and vice versa for wives, BTW)

it wouldn’t also fit that after they are “found out” he blames his wife for his sin instead of continuing to lay down his life for her and take the fall for her. And it seems to be that God gives Adam no condemnation for his way of loving her enough to lay down his life for her (after refusing to lift a finger to help her when she was in her deception).

Cheryl, did you mean “condemnation” or “commendation” above? “Condemnation” makes no sense to me in context.

Certainly, Adam failed at the commission to “keep”=guard,watch, protect ore else what was the enemy doing in there unchallenged? And if, as the text seems to indicate in the plain English, Adam was “with her” when the serpent was weaving his tale, then Adam again fails to guard,watch, protect.

In the events and motives leading up to the Fall, they both made poor choices (though I think our armchair judgments of them may assume far more negatively than the reality of a perfect couple very near to an umarred image of God). However, the real difference comes in their responses when confronted with their bad decisions. That is where I see more of a distinct contrast. Adam blameshifts and “covers up his sin” while Eve tells the truth/comes clean without blaming her husband or God. Bushnell refers to her as the first Believer in the Messiah. Eve Becomes a Believer

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/04/29/why-let-women-lead-bible-studies/#comment-11679

Cheryl: God isn’t silent. God said in Genesis 3:17 “because you did (this) and (that) cursed is….” God not only turns Adam’s excuse around as a charge of sin (the first “because” cause), but He adds the words “listened to the voice of your wife” which is an indication that the watchman listening to his wife’s deception in silence was a grave sin.

Adam was the designated “keeper” of the Garden. A look at the Hebrew word for Adam’s commision to “KEEP” the garden and the greek word for a wife’s commision to KEEP the home will confirm that neither job is about domestic servitude. The commission is to be a WATCHMAN and Titus 2 confers this responsibility upon wives. “Keeper of the Home” – OIKOUROS.

To rephrase Cheryl’s observation:
“the watchman listening to her husband’s deception in silence is a grave sin!”

BTDT! I repent!

responding to TL http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/04/29/why-let-women-lead-bible-studies/#comment-11660

The consequence of Adam’s “inordinate turning” to lay down his life for Eve in direct and conscious rebellion against God is the first “role reversal”:

NOW woman’s “desire will be for your husband” and she will “lay down her life” in ways that viloate God’s will and plan (though I don’t think women are conscious of doing so, there is definitely an element of deception)

I found Waneta’s comment #28 very insightful about the pure motives of Eve. http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/04/29/why-let-women-lead-bible-studies/#comment-11658

That is the first I have heard this, and I think Waneta has hit on the truth! But I am inclined not to judge Adam’s motives quite so harshly. While Adam was not deceived and did deliberately rebel (according to the testimony of Scripture), he was also pure before the Fall, and I wonder if he chose to “lay down his life for his wife”? Jesus, the second Adam, laid down His life for His bride, but He was doing so in submission to God rather than rebellion.

Perhaps Adam put his wife before God and decided that since she was going to die, he would join her in death?

What resource are you looking at that has it as an imperative in Col 3:18.

http://interlinearbible.org/colossians/3.htm
and
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Col&c=3&v=18&t=KJV#conc/18

I was not aware that S4A had a different parsing there, nor that S4A had an extra hupotasso in the middle voice in Eph 5:22.

Interesting…
Thanks gengwall

gengwall-206

I was aware of that for Colossians 3:18 (see my NOTE at the bottom of comment # 196)

However, to my ears, the COMMAND of Colossians 3:18 is far FAR “softer” than taking Ephesians 5:24 as a COMMAND.

Colossians 3:18 sounds conditional to me-
“I COMMAND you wives to submit… WHEN it is FITTING IN THE LORD.”

Whereas, Eph 5:24 states the Fact that wives ARE in subjection to their husbands in EVERYTHING. (thank God that is NOT a COMMAND 🙂 )

It seems, like you are saying that Paul is simply stating the obvious about people’s “status”. I believe essentially the opposite – that Paul is instructing people to change the status quo.

Its not an either/or IMO. Paul is doing both/and.

Looking at the verb forms helps to sort out which is descriptive (of how things ARE) and which is prescriptive (what one needs to DO if one wants a biblical marriage)

And BTW I do feel understood by you gengwall. Thank you for that. I really appreciate your making the effort to understand what I am saying! 🙂

Merry Christmas!

It seems like you are saying that Paul is simply stating the obvious about people’s “status”.

Yes, in the case of SUBJECTION (which is in the passive voice)
(BTW CLEAVE of verse 31- directed to husbands- is also in the passive voice)

No, in the case of LOVE (which is in the active voice and imperative mood, ie iis a command)

Voice/Mood/etc can be easily viewed here for all the verbs of Ephesians 5. http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm The second line in blue of the interlinear. Move the mouse over the abbreviation.

AND even CBMW husbands, if they understood this, would be going right to Ephesians 5:21 to INSIST that this (PASSIVE) SUBJECTION is MUTUAL!!!! 🙂

which it is

the mutual subjection of Ephesians 5:21 is also in the PASSIVE voice

I would say that the heart and the brain are an example of mutual subjection, they are one body, interconnected, interdependent. AND their subjection is PASSIVE, ie there is no volition, no choice to it.

Perhaps I am still being misunderstood regarding “voluntary”/volition? I am not saying that a wife is FORCED into subjection. I am saying that she has no volition in it, she just is subject to her husband (the greek verb is PASSIVE). As a garden is SUBJECT to the gardener, without volition nor choice. The garden will flourish or die depending upon whether the gardener chooses to nourish and cherish or not. So the wife is SUBJECT to the husband in EVERYTHING (PASSIVE), and the husband is to LOVE (4 times in the IMPERATIVE).

Husbands should be sweating about this subjection, not wives.

Hi gengwall,

You have misunderstood me. I am not saying a wife’s submission is “voluntary”. I am saying that she IS in subjection (connected?) to her husband. She has no choice. Does your heart “choose” to be in subjection (connected?) to your brain? Upon marriage a husband holds his wife’s heart in his hand. He has a great deal of power to minister LIFE or DEATH to her. Hence the instruction to him in Eph 5 to agapete is in the imperative, while there are no imperatives there directed unilaterally to the wife.

(Note: Col 3:18 has an imperative “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” but if we select from the range of meanings for hupotasso-‘connection’ and for anako/”fit”-“connect”, the verse would be rendered “Wives be connected to your husbands as you are connected in the Lord”)

I think I erred and copied too much from the notepad, so please disregard that LOOOOOOOOOng comment in moderation

Susanna Krizo,

I am intrigued by your research and insights on hupotasso, and by your new book. Can you provide an e-mail address?

The reason I asked nn for a source for the use of hupotasso in the postal system with the meaning, “stick (to)”, “attach” is that I have noticed a thread of “attachment” like glue 🙂 in the teaching to BOTH husbands and wives (a head and body are quite “attached”)

From Perseus, here are some definitions of the relevent words:

[upotasso LSJ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du(pota%2Fssw)
post in the shelter of
append
underlie, to be implied in or associated with

Col 3:18 anakonh%3Dken&la=greek&prior=w(s&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0155:book=Colossians:chapter=3:verse=18&i=1#lexicon)be connected with
belong

Eph 5:31 cleave see also http://scripturetext.com/ephesians/5-31.htm
glue on or to
to be stuck to, stick or cleave to

The latter is in the “leave and cleave” instruction. I am intrigued that “LEAVE” is in the ACTIVE voice “The active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action” while cleave is in the PASSIVE voice ( as is hupotasso in Ephesians 5). Passive voice- where the subject receives the action without volition/will on the part of the subject

Seems a husband’s “CLEAVE-ing” is dependent upon his “LEAVE-ing father and mother”. I take “LEAVE-ing” as not mere geographical distance but putting behind “the futile ways of the forefathers”/”your vain conduct [received] by tradition from your fathers” 1 Peter 1:18

I had a last comment for Susanna which may be stuck in moderation?

Susanna Krizo,

Oddly, the anti-spam word is “CONNECT” 😀

I am intrigued by your research and insights on hupotasso, and by your new book. Can you provide an e-mail address?

The reason I asked nn for a source for the use of hupotasso in the postal system with the meaning, “stick (to)”, “attach” is that I have noticed a thread of “attachment” like glue 🙂 in the teaching to BOTH husbands and wives (a head and body are quite “attached”)

From Perseus, here are some definitions of the relevent words:

[upotasso LSJ](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Du(pota%2Fssw)
post in the shelter of
append
underlie, to be implied in or associated with

Col 3:18 anakonh%3Dken&la=greek&prior=w(s&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0155:book=Colossians:chapter=3:verse=18&i=1#lexicon)be connected with
belong

Eph 5:31 cleave see also http://scripturetext.com/ephesians/5-31.htm
glue on or to
to be stuck to, stick or cleave to

The latter is in the “leave and cleave” instruction. I am intrigued that “LEAVE” is in the ACTIVE voice “The active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action” while cleave is in the PASSIVE voice ( as is hupotasso in Ephesians 5). Passive voice- the subject receives the action without volition/will on the part of the subject. However, IMO the passive accomplishment of “cleaving” remains contingent upon his active “LEAVE-ing” which I suggest is not just geographical distance, but leaving behind the “empty ways of his forefathers” as Peter puts it in 1 Pet 1:18.

I suggest that the passive voice of hupotasso is evidence that biblical teaching about wifely subjection is not a command to women. Commands are in the imperative. (eg. verse 25 directed to HUSBANDS is in the imperative love-agapete) . Rather this submission is a state of being and a response. Much like a garden passively receives watering, nourishing, cherishing,. The garden is SUBJECT TO the gardener. If tending, nourishing, cherishing, is neglected, the garden wilts and dies.

I suggest that the statement in Ephesians 5:24 should not make wives sweat at all. Rather, husbands should be sweating. She has no power nor control to resist. When she marries, her husband holds her heart in his hands. Will he be harsh and trample her under his feet? crushing her spirit? or will he be like Christ and minister LIFE?

The way I am seeing this passive voice of submission in marriage is reflected by this quote from the movie Fireproof:
A woman is like a rose.
If you treat her right she blooms.
If you treat her wrong she wilts.
In this way, a wife is subject to her husband as the church is subject to Christ.

But Christ ministers LIFE, while a husband is capable of ministering a great deal of death.

And a husband has a particular power and influence upon a wife that may not go “vice versa” because she is uniquely “subject to” (being harmed by?) him moreso than he to her. John Gottman observed this in his marriage laborator (see quote below). This view also makes sense of the instruction to wives that they need to PHOBEO their husbands (Eph 5:33).

Susanna Krizo mentioned this passive state of submission/cooperation of women in comment 184:

Women tend to smile more than men, and often their smile is taken for approval, whereas it is often just part of their nature as co-operative beings (women tend to be more co-operative, especially during the childbearing years due to large amount of estrogen. This does not mean that men are less co-operative, but some studies have shown that testosterone makes men more hierarchical, and dominating in relationships)

and John Gottman has observed and reported this from his laboratory research

This observation led me to formulate the hypothesis that marriages work to the extent that men accept influence from, share power with women. Next I applied this to a longitudinal study of 130 nonviolent newlywed couples and found that, amazingly, those in which the men who did not accept influence from their wives wound up divorced. The prediction rate was very good, 80% accuracy, and it did not work the other way around: Most wives accepted influence from their husbands, and the acceptance predicted nothing. from [Gottman “The Marriage Clinic”]

nn said (in comment 20):

Paul makes a point of “hupotassoe” when speaking to the wife (and a point of agapao when talking to the husband) indicating distinction between the two.

And on the possible meanings of “hupotassoe,” it should be pointed out that this is the word used in Luke 10 to describe the subjection of devils to the commands of the apostles. I think this could hardly be couched as a friendly exchange of suggestions.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in Greek, but I did take hermeneutics in seminary and learn how to use Word Study Tools for exegesis.

If you will go to these links at BLB: Luke 10:17-20 and Eph 5:24 and scroll down, you will see that the form of hupotasso is exactly the same in Luke 17, 20, and Ephesians 5:24. ???????????=hupotassetai.

If you scroll down further, you will see the parsing of the verb under “Tense” and all three cases are identified as the PASSIVE voice. I also checked the interlinear at: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm
and
interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm
They all identify these instances of “subjection” as passive voice where the subject receives the action without volition/will on the part of the subject.

nn, though on the surface, a shocking parallel, I think your example of the submission of the devils to the apostles actually provides a great deal of insight as to the nature of the submission of wife to husband. Do the devils have any will in their submission? Do they choose their submission? Can they decide not to submit? No, they are in subjection without any volition/will on their part. Their subjection is not a “command” that they must “obey”; their subjection their state of being, which they cannot resist even if they wanted to.

Likewise, the submission/subjection of the wife in Ephesians 5 as well as in 1 Peter 3 is stated with verbs using the passive voice. This suggests that a wife’s submission/subjection is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Its not a COMMAND, its her state of being which she cannot resist even if she wanted to.

Just read through the entire conversation over the course of two days. I hope its not too late to ask some questions? make some comments? I will break up my comments into sections because I have included more links than the filter will allow in one comment.

NN said: Most commonly used in literary works by the ancient historians to describe military action. As time went on the word became much more widely adopted, used by Greek playwrights and considerably even in common writing. For instance, one common non military specialized usage was in document preparation to denote attachments & submissions. (E.g. “we submit the attched note for your inspection”, or “see appended note”).

I recall reading that the word hupotasso was commonly used in the postal system with the meaning, “stick (to)”, “attach”. Can you (or someone) point to the original source of that information as I would like to have an accurate citation (for an article)?