Cheryl Schatz

NN,
A warm welcome to my blog!

You said under point 1:

Both in current thought and even back then, the existence of lawful claim of a subject does not negate governance.

Paul appealed to the Roman government with his Roman rights, but this doesn’t translate to a husband and wife situation. A wife is not appealing to her husband as governor to claim her rights. Her husband does not have a “right” as “governor” while she has a “right” as a “subject”. Paul shows in the text that the two have equal rights without one having a higher right than the other. I think you are clearly comparing apples to oranges.

Under point 2, you said:

We are called to total unity with Christ and yet to absolute obedience to him. We are called his friends only after we have called him Lord (Jhn 15:14-15).

Jesus is both God and the resurrected man. We cannot compare Him to the human husband as the human husband is not the wife’s Master and Lord. The wife is never told to give absolute obedience to the husband. Christ then is in a category of His own that no man is to replicate His authority as God.

Thanks for pointing out what you think are flaws. It is always good to have feedback on the posts and on the comments too. I think those who read this post can evaluate for themselves whether you have pointed out a legitimate flaw or whether the “flaw” is not a flaw at all in the argument but a valid point.