NN

To SM (227)
(I apologize for the clipped nature of this post: I don’t have time to sit and make the prose nice)

I asked:

“I presume that we can agree that the apostles consistently give distinct and non-equivalent instructions to husbands and to wives separately:
Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Pet 3, etc. – In each case the wife specifically is told that she is to be submitted (”hupatassoe”) to her husband; while in each case the husband is given a distinct and different instruction.”

If I may paraphrase: You answered – ‘No, the distinctions of instruction given to husbands and wives are due to the particular people and circumstances which the apostle is addressing.”

I shall lay out the argument from beginning to end as a thread of formal logic –

• The apostle tells the wife and the husband different things. (This is indisputably in the text itself – the sentences which Peter & Paul address to “husbands” and “wives” are different)
• There are three possibilities regarding the differences:
  1) The differences are purely prosaic & have no substantive meaning
  ~ This is implausible as the words used are quite different and non-parallel; also two different apostles in three different places utilize extremely similar instructions which differentiate between husbands and wives
  2) The instructions are intended only a particular set of specific individuals or only to the specific culture being addressed and are not universal.
  ~ This in unsupportable due to in text commentary of the apostles on the matter; each time the apostle discusses the matter he makes no reference whatsoever to the particular circumstance or culture. In various places Paul comments on the metaphysical origin for differentiation between the husband and the wife. In Ephesians 5, Paul makes analogy between the marriage relationship of a man and a woman to the union of Christ with the Church – this relationship, by definition, transcends any cultural boundaries. In 1 Tim 2, Paul makes differentiation between men and women and then gives the reason that it is due to the events with Adam & Eve in Genesis – again the events of Genesis preceed any particular human culture. The commentary offered by the apostle when discussing the nature of any gender based distinction in marriage universally denies us any possibility of concluding that the remarks are only pertinent to a specific culture. Rather, they are transcendent and will therefore find expression within any particular culture. This brings us to the third possibility –
  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 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. Since Paul explicitly gives no such equivalent instruction to the husband the relationship logically must be hierarchical.

Thus is it demonstrated that the apostolic instruction regarding the marital relationship is both hierarchical and universal in application.

Having gotten thus far let me state clearly that the origination of hierarchy from the basis of what I have called “eros” is a hypothesis on my part. It fits by far the best with all available evidence provided by Scripture that I have seen – but I cannot logically prove it in the same way (as a scientist trained in formal logic I mean something very specific when I say “prove”).

…. My computer is apparently not liking the length of this response, lest I lose it I shall continue later in another comment rather than risk losing this. This is also probably a good stopping point to make sure that there are no questions thus far.