NN

To Cheryl (Comment # 5);

I start by highlighting one critical point in your argument:

If we see Jesus as the perfect example of husbandly love, the very first thing that we see Him doing in coming to earth is giving up His rights and His authority so that He can live for and die for His bride. (emphasis mine)

No, He didn’t. He gave up His rights certainly (e.g. Phil 2:7) – but nowhere are we told that He gave up His authority. In fact we are told quite the opposite in a great many places (e.g. Matt 9:6, Matt 28:18, etc.) Being of the power and authority of God, He chose a life of service to those under His authority. I agree that Christ is the perfect example of husbandly love (just as Paul said) – but realize that Christ’s serving us does not lessen His authority over us. The words and instructions of Christ are authoritative because they come from authority; from the Christ – our celestial and ultimate Bridegroom to the Church; of whom our present marriages are but shadows.

Since you repeatedly reference the matter: The word ‘hupotassoe’ appears directly in Eph 5:22 in the Textus Receptus, while it is referenced elliptically from the previous verse in the GNT Morph (Greek can do that in a way English cannot). But, in either case the idea is in the verse – Agreed? So the only question is how we are to correctly interpret it.

You say:

Secondly agape love transcends any other kind of love and so if there were a competing kind of love in a relationship it must be under agape love not forcing agape love under submission to a lesser love. Agape is God’s kind of love and it is the highest of all… Where is the proof that another kind of love will force agape love to be underneath and subordinate to a secondary kind of love?

But I have already answered that in my post which you referenced:

While this certainly refutes the standard objection posed by Egalitarian thought based on this passage, let us not lose sight of the positive understanding which we should take away from this. The operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship; but, the love of Christ – agape – is of FIRST IMPORTANCE. When you are married you are FIRST a christian, then a spouse. Just as in any other aspect of life; Christ is to be central and our other actions a corollary of this most fundamental truth. It is an issue of first and second things. Submission is enjoined within marriage, true; but if this interferes with christian interaction then you have done it wrong. And you will lose not only the good of the christian interaction but will destroy the good of submission in the the marital interaction. And when this plays out is it any wonder that so many people question the apostle’s instructions.

And finally, you state:

You did say that the instructions are the same for both wives and slaves and the same word used. If you are not saying that the submission of women is the same as submission of slaves then why did you link the two? What is the sameness that you are claiming?

I simply pointed out that Paul gave parallel instructions using the same verbage. Surely this must inform our understanding of how the apostle uses this word, no?

Despite my desire to continue – this response is already too long. So I shall stop here in the interests of retaining what brevity I can.