Cheryl Schatz

Still no answer Mark? I would think you should try a positive approach of your own understanding of authority and submission first. If you have not yet figured out how to give a response, that would be quite telling. It is harder than it looks, eh?

You said to pinklight:

Does he talk about about Adam providing for Eve- NO! The only thing that goes back to Gen is the one flesh union- the marriage- not the supposed provisional priority of the male

Paul talks about the husband to love and give himself up as Christ did. Giving oneself up is part of the provisional aspect of Christ’s love that is to be reflected by the husband and he is to “nourish” her, a link to provision. Are you not complying with this and refusing to provide for your own wife as Paul said husbands were to do? Why a denial that there is a provisional aspect of Christ’s love which is to be modeled by the husband?

Here is the fallicy of Cheryl’s son’s whole argument. Not to mention his claims that we are equal with Christ in the sense that we are sinless and whatever else it was that he said.

No wonder you said whatever else it was that he said because you obviously were skimming through it again and misread. Ryan did not say that “we are sinless”. I would encourage you to understand a position first before you throw out an answer, because an uninformed “answer” doesn’t make for a good argument.

Both ideas are completely foreign to the text and Paul’s meaning.

Not so. Provision is in the text. See Jamieson, Fausset, Brown:

(Eph. 5:29) nourisheth—Greek, “nourisheth it up,” namely, to maturity. “Nourisheth,” refers to food and internal sustenance; “cherisheth,” to clothing and external fostering.
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Eph 5:29).

Mark, I can’t believe that you are working to be in ministry and then you ask this question:

Now in what way does Christ provide physically for us.

Christ as God provides our daily food, our very breath and life and our spiritual nourishment. I could go on and on and on about what He does for us as our source, but surely you have seen this from the Scriptures and from personal experience or do you not even pray for your needs?

Philippians 4:19 (NAS)
19 And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

Does he go and earn money and supply our physical needs in the same way a husband is supposed to under the egalitarian position.

You are just playing silly. It comes across as mocking Christ to me. Are you really intending to do that?

Straight away the comparison Paul makes becomes meaningless.

Looking at the text in a mocking fashion will always make it seem “meaningless”. Is this the best that you can do?

That is why egals have to talk about Christ provision being different to the husbands provision- thus we no longer have a comparison.

Provision is compared to provision. No one has ever said that the multi-human body that is Christ’s wife is to be taken exactly as the one woman human wife of one man. No exegete compares the two as exactly the same and for you to make Christ’s work as Savior as exactly the same as the husband’s work for his wife, your entire “case” has fallen apart at the seams.

So why is the comp position so much more consistent- it doesn’t swap and fiddle and sqirm and make nonsense out of the passage.

The comp position isn’t consistent at all. You can’t show us how a wife’s submission is something that God refuses to allow a man to do the same thing for her. Secondly the issue of the husband’s authority and how he is to take it over his wife is not consistent or even understandable and most comps cannot even come up with a real life example of Christ’s love for the bride as shown by their own taking authority over their wife. Third, comps continually have to disregard the reciprocal grammar of verse 21. Why? Because it doesn’t fit their world view. Egals don’t need to ignore the grammar to make their view fit.