Dave

I have tried to read all of the comments…you guys really get going when you get going! I hope in saying the following I have not missed something so that I am stating the obvious!

I was thinking that NN has a point in that Paul did have a ‘right’ to appeal to the higher authority (I realise that he was trying to suggest that the ‘right’ was an authority but Cheryl has addressed that). What NN says is true, Paul had this right. Not only that but I think it also relates directly to 1 Cor 7. But I think NN has not applied his own thinking correctly. If he has he would have come to the conclusion that 1 Cor 7 does provide evidence for egal thinking and undermines comp thinking. Let me explain!

In verse 3 we see these rights clearly outlined. These are the same as Paul’s right to a trial. They are ‘conjugal’ rights as one version puts it (ESV I think). They are an ‘obligation’ or a debt owed. The interesting thing is that then in verse 4 Paul tells us where the appeal goes to – the ‘governance’ as NN put it. The woman is entitled to her conjugal rights and if she is denied she can appeal to herself as it is her that has authority over his body – she is the governing authority! Go Girl!!! Likewise the same for the husband. Go Boy.

Beyond this there is no governance or higher authority. NN was trying to play with words (like taking ‘authority’ and making it ‘rights’) so as to skew the passage to only talk about rights. He could then claim that governance was not there and this had to be decided from other verses. He is wrong!