SM

NN (239)
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.”

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. This was a reality, not a truth, whose negative implications, as well as any positives, have been felt by cultures throughout human history.

The authors may very well be instructing the original audience how to best live within their current cultural climate given their station in life. They may be explaining how the gospel informs their station in life in practical ways. Specifically, because of the differentiation that existed in the culture, for wives for whom it was already a cultural mandate to not only submit but obey, 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.).

I agree that nothing in the logic chain proves that culturally mandated differentiation is hierarchical. However, the differentiation that existed within the culture was assumed and so was hierarchy. I suspect it was a climate completely foreign to our modern sensitivities.

NN: “To prove that we must examine the particular instructions give:”

So you are now trying to prove hierarchy apart from “eros” which is in contradiction to your thesis in your article under discussion on this thread.

NN: “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.”

It’s already been said, but the verb for vs 22 is borrowed or implied from vs 21, so if hierarchy is in vs 22 then it is in vs 21. NN, are you saying that everyone is to obey everyone else? Even if “obedience” was in view in vs 21, the call for wives to “obey” out of reverence for Christ elevates the aberrant societal obligation imposed on them because of gender differentiation that was not present in the Beginnings.

Also, the coin had Caesar’s insignia, so it belonged to Caesar. Jesus’ wit—gotta love it! I see no relevance of giving to Caesar what is his and Paul’s instruction to wives in Eph.

Because there is no explicit equivalent instruction to the husbands the relationship logically must be hierarchical? Really? There is no specific instruction for women to “agape” their husband? Should they? Of course! There is no specific instruction for husbands to respect their wife? Should they? Of course!

NN: “Since Paul explicitly gives no such equivalent instruction to the husband the relationship logically must be hierarchical.”

In your article under discussion here, you claim when we look at Eph 5:22 “it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – ‘eros’… The presence of this type of love is distinctive of the marriage relationship….And if we recognize that this sort of love is between two ‘inequivalent’ people then the hierarchical nature of the marital relationship instructed by Paul becomes evident.” You continue, “[a]nd 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.” You also add, “[t]he operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship…” which you conclude is patriarchal hierarchy.
You are now claiming that the seemingly absence of an equivalent instruction specific to husbands is the basis for hierarchy.

You presume “X” where X=absence of an equivalent instruction specific to husbands
Logical consequence is “Y” where Y=hierarchy

NN, is this now your position and do you want to retract your thesis:– patriarchal hierarchy is a natural and God-made consequence of “eros” between two “inequivalent” people in marriage?

NN, I have been more than generous with my time to interact specifically to your comments and questions. Now, I eagerly await “all the available evidence from the scriptures” that supports your “eros” thesis, unless of course you are retracting it.