Cheryl Schatz

NN,
You said:

Your assumption is that “I am comparing apples to oranges” – but my very point was that this was an assumption of yours and not intrinsic to the word itself. Therefore this passage can either be interpreted as a situation in which hierarchical governance exists or not.

If you read again my comments, I clearly state that this passage is a unique passage (the only one…) and the usage of the word is always defined by the context. There is nothing in the context that gives more authority to the husband nor is there anything in the passage that gives the husband the right to veto the wife’s will regarding no separation. The passage cannot be interpreted with hierarchical governance even though CBMW would like it that way. They give no reason for interpreting it this way except that this is the way they interpret all the other marriage passages and this one must fall within the “normal” responsibility of the husband.

As far as the other passages go, they are not in this discussion at this time other then they do not contain the word authority. I have made no other claims in this particular post. We have discussed other issues of marriage in other posts and we will be discussing more issues in the future, but for this post, my claim stands.

1. There is only one place where authority is used in the marriage between the husband and wife.

2. Is this one text where the word authority is used, there is no indication that the man has an overriding veto power over the wife’s will regarding separation.

3. In this one text both the husband and wife are given equal authority and the when a separation may happen, it may not occur without both agreeing to the separation.