SM

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”.