gengwall

NN – Another thought. Your theory relies on explicit and narrow definitions of words from an author who is quite noteworthy for stretching the conventional meanings of words and using them in novel contexts. I believe I could say your theory is on shaky ground just by citing the numerous times Paul goes beyond tradition and cultural convention in his writing. To presume that Paul is being dogmatic with ‘hupotassoe’ really doesn’t give the aopstle his due as a thinker, informer, and teacher.