SM

NN, thanks for the reply at (50 )

“Which is of course not the definition or meaning of authority. Rather, these are the characteristics of the Christian usage of any authority. To use the English definition of the word – “authority: the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.””

I am familiar with the English definition. Because it has been defined by some differently than the dictionary entry and because it has been used as a different part of speech than it is classified is what has caused confusion.

“Self-sacrificing, nourishing, cherishing – these are the characteristics of Christ’s application of authority.”

Actually, no, in the context of Eph 5 under discussion, self-sacrificing, nourishing, & cherishing are characteristics of how Christ’s AGAPES the Church.

“Husbands also are not told “have authority” – the asymmetry of the relationship makes this implicit and inescapable.”

You are saying:

Husbands have authority because there is hierarchy.
There is hierarchy because husbands have authority.

I think you know better than I what that is called.

According to your thesis, this asymmetry, which you define as hierarchy, exists because of the presence of eros between a husband and a wife. You haven’t provided scriptural support for your claim other than Eph 5:22 in which you say it is apparent but have not explained how it is apparent.

I don’t know what you mean by the asymmetry of the relationship makes the husband’s authority “implicit”. However, (and this is just one the problems I see with your thesis) hierarchy based on eros is tenuous. Eros (romance, affection, sexual desire) fluctuates in a committed relationship for different reasons. If hierarchy exists because of the presence of eros between the spouses, then when eros is not a factor hierarchy is then escapable?

“Rather, they are told what to do with it; how to reflect Christ in it.”

Husbands are *never* told what to do with *authority*. Husbands in Eph 5 are told to model Christ-like agape. Love your wife by nourishing her, cherishing her, and sacrificing yourself for her.

Can we agree that husbands are not told to have authority but are told to love their wives as Christ love the Church and gave Himself up for her and are told to nourish and cherish her?

Tiffany,

I am not seeking to be satisfied or to convince you. I am seeking to understand. The only way we can understand each other is if we use words as they are defined long before we got here or if we agree on new the definitions.

I truly lacked understanding because when I read the phrase “take authority”, I understand it to mean “to take control, dominion, to settle issues, to judge, etc. ” rather than “to nourish, to cherish, and to self-sacrifice”.

In order to understand you, I have to know how you define words. Once I understand how you define words, I think I can better communicate.

You have been generous with your time

Tiffany: “I jumped the gun in saying you were understanding completely.”

I am understanding. This is exactly what I saw in NN’s posts, too, i.e. having a unique definition for authority (#347) that I would venture to say would be lost on most English speakers beyond third grade as by then they can identify a noun from a verb.

“Yes the distinction is on the idea of taking something vs rather on being being and doing something.”

This distinction would probably not be necessary if authority were used properly as a noun rather than to mean being or doing which necessitates a verb. You are making a distinction that a man does not *take* authority over his wife but he “authorities” his wife. The former “take authority over his wife” issue is a moot point if using your definition of authority. It wouldn’t be anymore awkward to say—a man does not take nourishing, cherishing, and self-sacrificing over his wife than it is to say a husband “authorities” his wife. It is awkward because we wouldn’t say a man should not “take agape over his wife”.

I think this distinction would become unnecessary if the word authority were used correctly and the correct verb agape used.

“Authority is a noun but when nouns are used as verbs they become gerunds….”

A gerund is a verbal with an -ing ending that can act as a noun. You are not using authority as a gerund; you are using it as a verb.
Example using your definition of authority (nourshing, cherishing, self-sacrificing) as a verb–

According to Eph 5, the call of husbands is to authority their wives as Christ agape the Church.

Either way it wouldn’t make sense.

Example using your definition of authority as a gerund:

Authority(ing) your wife as Christ does the church is the call of husbands.

I didn’t check, but I don’t expect anyone will find “authority(ing)” in the dictionary. However, we could take the verb “love”, add -ing, and make it into a gerund acting as a noun and the subject of this example:

Loving your wife as Christ agapes the church is the call of husbands.

“Yes, I believe the husband is an Authority (a noun) and then enacts authority…..in a Christ like way (loving, self-sacrifing, nourishing, cherishing…”.

Dave and TL (508 & 509) have defined authority. It is only a noun and not a verb or a gerund. Loving, self-sacrificing, nourishing, cherishing are all verbs and are used in Eph 5 to describe the action entrusted to husbands to agape their wife.

Also, though this text was to real people in real time, specifically husbands, the text does not require of husbands something that wives should not do. In other words, if husbands are to “authority” their wives as you define it, so wives are to “authority” their husbands.

May you enjoy your Memorial Day.

Tiffany,

Now that I understand that you use authority as a verb rather than a noun, I hope to understand:

When a wife is nourishing, cherishing, self-sacrificing, giving her life for her husband is she authority(ing) her husband?

Yes, it is normative. I call it what Eph 5 calls it love–nourishing, cherishing, self-sacrificing not authority, and as for me, I do not believe that this is anything a wife should not do.

Tiffany,

I think I understand that you indeed are not saying a husband should “take authority” because there the verb is “take” and the object is the noun, “authority”. I think I understand that for you the word authority is a verb; authority is something a husband does i.e. nourishing, cherishing, self-sacrificing, so he would not “take authority” he would simply “authority (nourish, cherish, self-sacrifice for) his wife”.

Am I understanding correctly?

Tiffany @ 494

“Both NN and I have repeatedly said that Biblical authority is loving, self- sacrifice, nourishing, cherishing, my-life-for yours.”

authority = self-sacrifice, nourishing, cherishing, my life for yours

So is authority the English word that best captures agape used by the author and as described in Eph 5 as self-sacrificing, nourishing, cherishing?

If so, then would your definition of authority be lost on the unbeliever or the Believer if we said a fundamental principle of Christianity is “authority your neighbor as yourself”?

“If we are to interpret that Ephesians 5 & other passages imply ‘authority’ on the part of the husband….” (NN 486)

Any authority seen in Eph 5 is inferred based on what one believes is implied in the instruction to agape rather than agape’s actual meaning because that is the action in which husbands are entrusted.

“…we must…still examine what it says about the enactment of this ‘authority.’ Simply looking at the phrase “as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for her” I think captures it all.”

Husbands are to agape their wives as Christ loved the Church, not husbands authority their wives as Christ loved the Church. There is not even a hint of an instruction to authority your wife.

“Rather, in the Highness of His authority – He chose to serve us and give His own life in sacrifice for us.”

In the Highness of His AGAPE–he chose to serve us and give His own life in sacrifice for us. It is explicit in the text: Husbands AGAPE your wife as Christ AGAPE the church and gave Himself up for her.

“If the ‘authority’ of the husband is to mirror this then we must take it to mean quite the same thing…..And we are told that in marriage we are to reflect the relationship of Christ and the Church…”

TL has said multiple times that Christ’s love for the church reflects the bonding (oneness) of human marriage. There is nothing in the text that indicates a sanctioned patriarchal authority is to mirror Christ’s authority.

NN,

My mistake; I thought you would have understood authors, books, lecturers, pastors, etc. who were giving an exposition upon their exegesis of Eph 5:22 and shaped or informed your eros thesis is what I was asking.

Admittedly, complementarianism & egalitarianism as systematized Christian doctrines are new concepts for me. However, despite the reading that I have done, I have not heard any leading pastors, authors, etc. teach that eros in marriage is what constitutes patriarchal hierarchy.

I am just wondering if the exegesis and exposition of authors, lecturers, pastors, etc. shaped your ideas that lead to your thesis or if it is original to you?

Thanks.

Tiffany,

I read your posts, but it does not answer in what sphere you believe husbands have 100% authority.

Also, based on what you described, when the Eph 5:21-33 principles are applied practically it doesn’t sound like Christian husbands do anything a Christian wife should not do or that Christian wives do anything a Christian husband should not do.

NN,

Just in case it was missed in an earlier comment could you give me the names of authors, books, lecturers, pastors, etc. who have shaped or informed your eros thesis about Eph 5:22? I would be willing to search them out to see if they could help me understand.

NN at 461,

All I have been asking for is a brief exposition of your exegesis of Eph 5:22 on which you base your claim. No common ground is necessary for you to simply explain based on your exegesis of the text how you come to the conclusion that eros is operative in the author’s intent to give an instruction to wives that would differentiate them from husbands and be the basis for patriarchal hierarchy.

Tiffany, (459)

Those are your words not mine. I have read your posts, and you ARE talking in terms of authority. So, in what sphere does a husband have 100% authority over his wife. I am trying to learn from you. You can say so, and I have the prerogative to agree or not.

Tiffany # 456,
“I don’t believe husbands have 100% authority over wives. But rather 100% within a certain sphere….”

What is the sphere in which a husband has 100% authority over his wife?

Greg @ 450,

I don’t have a doctorate in physics and am not confident that NN will return to respond to 450. What slipped by at 207?

NN,

Have you heard elsewhere this concept that the presence of eros in marriage constitutes the basis for hierarchy and is revealed in Eph 5:22. If so where? What authors, books, speakers, lecturers, pastors have informed your understanding of this concept?

Kindly,

Tifanny, re 430

My comment at 426 was because based on your comments at 416, we do not share the same perspective of what NN was doing.

NN @ 361
“To SM (360)
Concerning most of your misconceptions I shall bite my tongue since you are apparently unwilling to work through a formal logic chain point by point.
Let me ask you only one question with regard to your conclusion:
Do you believe in the “Trinity”? Pray tell, where is that word used in Scripture?
(… rhetorically and for the sake of charity I would like to leave it at that and presume that you can see the flaw in what you have concluded – but I should probably be extra careful to be crystal clear and not leave such things presumed. If you believe in the “Trinity” then you believe that concepts are found in the Bible which are never mentioned as such. This is in direct contradiction to your claim concerning my conclusion.)”

This was NN’s response to repeated requests for what it is in Eph 5:22 and what he claims to have read in scripture that supports his thesis that the presence of eros in marriage constitutes a patriarchal hierarchy. I pleaded with NN to sell me his conclusion, but he never provided anything.

I have made no claims, so I don’t know what misconceptions he is talking about. I am simply interacting with his claim.

So, when NN asks one question about my conclusion (which he doesn’t identify because I haven’t made one) he diverts attention to the concept of the Trinity and the word not being in the scripture though the concept is. When he did this, I recognized it for what it was and didn’t address it.

I know you may not have read all the comments concerning this topic, but the comments at 416 seem to me like a misrepresentation of what I believe the thread reveals. The thread I believe reveals that the the issue with NN’s claim was not whether eros was a biblical concept but whether as NN claims Eph 5:22 and all the available evidence in scripture he has read establishes a patriarchal hierarchy because eros exists in marriage.

your comment at 416 was
426 NN was attempting to find common ground with SM by showing that a concept can be Biblical and used to understand concepts in the Bible even if the word is never used. Eros is clearly in the Bible as a concept. And Biblically eros should only exist between husband and wife, it is a distinction of that relationship. Using eros to describe a relationship in the Bible is no different than using trinity if we adhere to the parameters that cheryl set forth.

Tiffany, (416)

What I and others have been asking of NN was for him to explain how it was apparent in Eph 5:22 as well as the available evidence NN has read in scripture that eros marriage constitutes patriarchal hierarchy.

NN (413)
“I think perhaps you mistook the meaning of my argument. It was simply in response to the repeated statements to the effect that:

‘ Since the word “eros” is not in the Bible, the concept is
not Biblical.'”

NN, this was not the repeated statement by me anyway or what I have understood others to be saying on this issue. I do not recall claiming that eros is not a biblical concept. What as been asked by me and other commenters is for you to show where it is “apparent” in Eph 5:22 and all the other scripture you have read that supports your claim that the presence of eros in marriage constitutes the basis for hierarchy.

NN,
Re 391
NN: “It is often very easy to ready a sentence and get very caught up in our prior presumptions about theology and miss the content of the sentence itself.”

This is exactly the concern I expressed to you at 364:

“It appears you are reading the Eph text with the presupposition that Paul is establishing a set of behaviors intended to differentiate (“to tell between”, “to distinguish”, “to discriminate”, “to set apart”) husbands from wives. Given your presupposition you read Paul’s text as if his intention is to give wives a mode of behavior that is intended to set them apart (differentiate them) from husbands. In your view, since the instruction is based on an intention to differentiate between husbands and wives, only wives are to submit because a husband is not a wife and a wife is not a husband.”

Charis, (388)

You are correct that only women can get pregnant.

However, within the context of NN’s article his thesis was that in Eph 5:22 it is apparent that eros is “operative” in the instruction to wives and that the presence of eros in marriage constitutes hierarchy. NN’s use of symmetric interchangeably for hierarchal informs his definition of asymmetric. In the following posts, direct quotes from NN’s article and comments on this thread were used by multiple commenters and the blog host, and he was given opportunities to clarify or correct: 4, 18, 34, 113, 120, 137, 170, 177, 183, 185, 189, 193, 195, 197. There are many more, but I hope this will suffice.

Even at 289 I give NN another opportunity:
Begin Quote
X= operation of eros within the marital relationship between two “inequivalent” persons
Y=”an [sic] natural and god-made asymmetry of the relationship (hierarchy)

“Would you like to reword your thesis and any restatements i.e. the one above from the article under discussion? If so, how would you restate it?”
End Quote

NN, never took this or the many opportunities to refine his thesis that hierarchy (asymmetry of the relationship) is based the presence of eros.

Charis: “Just because the Greek word never appears in Scripture, that does not mean the concept of eros has no bearing on understanding Ephesians 5.”

NN’s claim was not that eros bore on his understanding of Eph 5. My best guess is that is probably the truth. But, it is just a guess.

He was given opportunities to qualify his thesis. I said in this thread at 227 and elsewhere that if he intended to claim observation, experience, or anecdotal evidence to support his claim to do so, but he stood by his claim at 239 saying it “fits best with all available evidence provided by Scripture that [he had] seen”.

Tiffany, thank you for the response.

(381)
“That 1. (an assumed premise that Christ has redeemed His people)
That 2. Christ is continuing to sanctify his people
so that 3. He might present Her (the Church) to Himself as blameless
That 4. The oneness which will be between the Church and Christ is not yet complete and will not be until after the marriage supper of the Lamb.”

I thought that might be what you meant.

(372) “the wife is to learn how to submit to her husband by knowing how the Church is to submit to Christ. And that in so doing will be a beautiful shadow (and convey truth to all who see it) of the relationship that is to come after the Church (the Bride) is joined to Christ (her bridegroom).”

Tiffany, the beautiful shadow of wifely submission) is to convey truth to whom after the marriage supper of the Lamb?

376 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.”

NN has acknowledged that eros was never used in scripture (359). No one has said that just because eros is not in the scripture that it is taken out of marriage.

Tiffanny, since my conversation on this thread has been mostly one-sided today, I’ll venture into this one.

At 372 what do you mean by “that is to come after the Church (the Bride) is joined to Christ (her bridegroom)”?

NN,

NN (357) “I did not say that Paul “attempted to differentiate between husbands and wives” – I said that Paul’s instructions did differentiate between husbands and wives. That is, he addressed both individually and gave them differentinstructions…”

I know. I am keeping up. To your assertion at 239 that your “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,” I responded at 335:

(335) “I do not believe Paul or Peter’s address to wives and husbands was an attempt to ‘differentiate between husbands and wives.’ There already existed within the culture a very clear demarcation between the genders.”

It appears you are reading the Eph text with the presupposition that Paul is establishing a set of behaviors intended to differentiate (“to tell between”, “to distinguish”, “to discriminate”, “to set apart”) husbands from wives. Given your presupposition you read Paul’s text as if his intention is to give wives a mode of behavior that is intended to set them apart (differentiate them) from husbands. In your view, since the instruction is based on an intention to differentiate between husbands and wives, only wives are to submit because a husband is not a wife and a wife is not a husband.

I am telling you that the clear lines of demarcation were already assumed in the culture, and that Paul was using the gospel to inform how wives and husbands live within their current situation not teach some type of behavior incumbent upon women to tell between wives and husbands.

NN, do you mean to use a word other than differentiate or do you mean something else altogether?

NN (357): “(You keep trying to jump ahead to what you presume my argument will be without following the argument itself – one must always read an argument for what it actually is.)”

You give me too much credit.

NN (357): “In fact you yourself acknowledge this “differentiation” but attribute it to culture – that’s a valid hypothesis, but to even make such a hypothesis you first must acknowledge differentiation. Until you can actually do that nothing else that I can say will make sense.”

Again, there existed a differentiation in the culture between men and women, husbands and wives. It was assumed by the culture. We do not agree that the Apostle Paul was establishing behavioral standards for wives in order to differentiate them from husbands.

NN (357): “ So, can we agree on this point? >>The apostle Paul gave different and distinct instructions to husbands and wives.”

Because of the differentiation that was assumed by the culture, Paul shows how the gospel informs their lives according to their station. The gospel elevates their societal obligation by impressing upon wives to “submit as unto the Lord,” but even more remarkable in a society consumed by status and prominence was the instruction to all—regardless of status or prominence–(men included) to “submit to one another” (Eph 5:21, etc.).

So, do you agree that in Eph 5:21-22 the early Christians, both male and female and married and single, who were concerned with status and prominence are instructed to submit to one another out of reference for Christ and the societal obligation of women at the time is elevated by invoking a disposition as unto the Lord?

From SM 358:

“NN article and quoted here re Eph 5:22: “But now we move on to the instruction which Paul gives to wives… And as we do so it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – “eros””

Do you agree that nowhere in Eph 5:22 is “eros” explicitly or implicitly addressed?

NN article and quoted here re Eph 5:22: “And we see that in the marital relationship – when there is “Eros” that this leads to the specific instruction of the wife to submit to the husband AND the husband to take responsibility over this to exercise a sacrificial love to care for his wife.

Do you agree that nowhere in Eph 5:22 does Paul address or seem remotely concerned with “eros” as a condition for the instruction he is giving wives to submit to their husband?

Do you agree that nowhere in Eph 5:22 or through the end of the chapter for that matter that Paul addresses or seems remotely concerned with “eros” as a condition to any instruction given to husbands?

Do you agree that nowhere in Eph 5:22 or through the end of the chapter Paul specifically instructs husbands to “take responsibility over this”, whatever “this” is?

Do you agree Paul was instructing husbands to “agape” their wives in the manner in which Christ “agapes” His Bride?

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

Do you agree that Eph 5:22 and the whole of scripture never address, explicitly or implicitly, a notion that a “natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship” is the consequence of the “operation of eros within the marital relationship”?

(NN 359) “The word itself is never used in Scripture. ”

Common ground!

NN, thank you for finally helping put to bed your thesis concerning eros as the basis for hierarchy as a biblical concept. We have found common ground in that scripture never addresses explicitly or implicitly a notion that a “natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship” (patriarchal hierarchy) is the consequence of the “operation of eros within the marital relationship.”

NN,

NN article and quoted here re Eph 5:22: “But now we move on to the instruction which Paul gives to wives… And as we do so it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – “eros””

Do you agree that nowhere in Eph 5:22 is “eros” explicitly or implicitly addressed?

NN article and quoted here re Eph 5:22: “And we see that in the marital relationship – when there is “Eros” that this leads to the specific instruction of the wife to submit to the husband AND the husband to take responsibility over this to exercise a sacrificial love to care for his wife.”

Do you agree that nowhere in Eph 5:22 does Paul address or seem remotely concerned with “eros” as a condition for the instruction he is giving wives to submit to their husband?

Do you agree that nowhere in Eph 5:22 or through the end of the chapter for that matter that Paul addresses or seems remotely concerned with “eros” as a condition to any instruction given to husbands?

Do you agree that nowhere in Eph 5:22 or through the end of the chapter Paul specifically instructs husbands to “take responsibility over this”, whatever “this” is?

Do you agree Paul was instructing husbands to “agape” their wives in the manner in which Christ “agapes” His Bride?

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

Do you agree that Eph 5:22 and the whole of scripture never address, explicitly or implicitly, a notion that a “natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship” is the consequence of the “operation of eros within the marital relationship”?

NN(339)

NN: “Actually if you read (318) & (328) – it is apparently quite the opposite of what Gengwall has been saying. Though if you read what I have said previously (76) – it is what I have been saying all along…”

I’ve read multiple times (318) & (328) & (76). So far, I am keeping up with you.

I was very aware when I made my last comment of your distinction—the use of quotes to set off the word authority which can indicate it is a foreign word or that the word has a special or peculiar meaning to the writer. It could be you had another intention altogether which is really irrelevant because you end the paragraph by defining your concept of authority which is actually the virtue love explicitly stated and described in the biblical text:
NN: (317) “I quite agree that Paul was both wives and husbands radical things about marriage – I think that Paul was telling husband’s that, in Christ “authority,” is quite a different thing and to be used in an entirely different way than the world preaches.That it is about nurturing and sacrificing, quite the opposite of the self-centered power of the world.”

Gengwall: (318)
“LOL – well then it isn’t authority. If it looks like a sheep, and walks like a sheep, and bahs like a sheep, it certainly isn’t a duck.”

Right. I understand you are using the word authority in place of the action “agape.”

You are using a noun (authority) and not an action. The action entrusted to husbands in Eph 5 is “agape”. Husbands ( action ). Husbands “agape”. Husbands nurture. Husbands sacrifice. Husbands care. Husbands cherish. Husbands love like Christ. Not…. Husbands authority.

NN (76): “Paul tells husbands in Ephesians 5 – in Christ, “authority” is not about my comfort, it is not about the fact that I would really like a glass of iced tea right now…”

Paul is not telling in Eph 5 what authority is not, but what “agape” is.

NN, do you agree that husbands are to “agape” their wives. If so, do you agree that “agape” looks like how Christ loved the church and that to “agape” your wife means to nourish her and to sacrifice for her benefit?

If so, can we agree to use the word “agape” from the text to mean husbands are to nourish, care, and sacrifice for their wives?

NN (317)

“I quite agree that Paul was both wives and husbands radical things about marriage – I think that Paul was telling husband’s that, in Christ “authority,” is quite a different thing and to be used in an entirely different way than the world preaches. That it is about nurturing and sacrificing, quite the opposite of the self-centered power of the world.”

That is not unlike what I and gengwall have been saying to you.

NN (328)

Do wives nurture, self-sacrifice, promote the welfare of their husband? If so, is this “authority” when these virtues are performed by a wife or is it called something else?

Is there any virtue a husband performs or any guiding principle a husband lives by that should not, according to scripture, be performed or employed by the wife? If so, what and what scriptures do you have for support?