« Is “Right” and “Wrong” Simply a Matter of “Human Flourishing”? | Main | Did a Concern for the Species Influence Our Moral Development? »

August 02, 2013

Comments

Lets slow down a little.

The line Brett calls a definition of the husband being the head of the wife...

...and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
... ends a passage where Paul speaks generally (of moral accountablity, it seems). That section is not written to husbands and wives. And it's not specifically about their relations.

Husbands and wives have not been mentioned up to that point.

When, next, Paul does give specific instructions for wives he says...

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be [subject] to their husbands in everything.

That last sentence bears repeating

But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be [subject] to their husbands in everything.

Subject to their husbands in everything. Everything!

Finally, Paul says husbands are to love their wives but NOT that they are to be subject to their wives.

So: Be subject to each other. But wives: be subject to your husbands in all things. Husbands: love your wives. Wives: respect your husbands.

RonH

RonH

So on your read, the husband is the savior of the wife certainly, and of his family most likely?

Grown-up books.....


How does God love His beloved atop Love's Cross?

What sort of Crown does this suffering servant flaunt?


Where is Love's Self located inside of these motions amid that which is Self-Other?


Marriage is in fact the most sexest and anti Male-Self amalgamation I know of.

In fact, the wife may disobey and her (female) prayers to Love are yet heard in the general sense, yet if he (male) comes short of Love's Eternally Sacrificed Self there within marriage, Peter tells him he need no longer pray for his prayers are not heard in the specific sense.

You misapply Love's topography and then cry foul.

You then point to insects who make sex-slaves of whole groups in their colony and cry "See! -Tis love's mechanism!"

Love is you know not what.

God is Love.

Marriage is a costly affair for all involved. We are two halves of a whole, simply, and the tendency of all involved is toward the Self, at the cost of the Other. Only, this manifests in different lines in the Masculine and Feminine halves. "I respect you, but do not love you" cuts the Feminine more than the Masculine. "I love you but do not respect you" cuts the Masculine more than the Feminine. Thus scripture's weighted directions to each, heavier on those lines. Thus to the Masculine, "Love her unconditionally. Thus to the Feminine. "Respect him unconditionally.

Both, of course, are to die. The Self must be debased and the Other must be glorified, in both directions, and to the uttermost. Such is love.

The only "difference" amid this This-That, amid this Masculine-Feminine that is love's Self-Other is that he who wears the crown must be the first to die.

Such is love.

RonH,

I commend you for going back to the text to check out Brett's response. It's a noble thing (Acts 17:11).

If I might suggest a minor correction to your summary:

Be subject to each other. But Particularly, wives: be subject to your husbands in all things. Husbands: love your wives by laying down your lives for them. Wives: respect your husbands.

Does that give husbands a free pass to belittle and boss their wives around? By no means! It gives us a mandate to serve them, and put their well-being before our own.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/husbands-who-love-like-christ-and-the-wives-who-submit-to-them

The dance amid Love/Respect referenced earlier is developed more fully in “Love & Respect” by Emerson Eggerichs.

Scripture is clear. Love one another unconditionally, the weight of which falls more often, though not always, atop our Masculine tendencies. Respect one another unconditionally, the weight of which falls more often, though not always, atop our Feminine tendencies.


From whence all this?


Within the uncreated amalgamation that is Love’s E Pluribus Unum we find therein no such thing as a beginning, no such thing as an end, for Uncreated Love just is that living water where the Self just is everlastingly poured out and this river just is that living water whereby the Other just is everlastingly filled up and such Living Water has no beginning, no end, and such Water empties, and fills, everlastingly.

Of course, for us, the Created, there must be a beginning. Thus, the first to die. This weight, this Crown, this command to be the first to die, is placed atop that half of Mankind found within the Masculine. The Feminine half is given no such specific. This is why the Masculine, and not the Feminine, is warned that failure in this death of self will hinder the husband’s prayers, while no such warning is given to the wife. This is that which we call the Crown atop the Masculine’s head.


There is great sexism within marriage, for there is great self-sacrifice within love’s triune comprised of Self, of Other, and of that which these first two distinct-s in union necessarily beget, which is the singular-Us that just is love’s E Pluribus Unum.


Marriage, in this peculiar, and no other, sense, is a pattern, an image, of what God actually is within His triune topography, which is simply love’s topography.


Such is Love’s Triune.


He who wears the Crown must be the first to die.


Husband: when you and your wife arrive at the unavoidable Y in the road (they will come by the thousands), -tis upon you, and no other, to be the first to die.


For those who focus on this un-fair cost to the Masculine, we need only point their eyes, now focused on Love’s Half in which the Self is forever pouring-out, over to Love’s Half in which the Other is forever filling-up, and there, inside that which these Two necessarily beget through their eternally sacrificed selves, inside love’s e pluribus unum, all who have died are found alive again, and this to the full.


I am a husband. I have died. Was dead. And yet I live. The more I die, the more I find I am alive. I am a Man. I was lost. I was dead. And yet now I live. The Last Adam so speaks, that A to Z Who shouts, “I am He who was dead and yet lives”.


This is the inescapable image of ultimate actuality. We can’t avoid it.


Such is Love’s topography. Marriage is to be like this. Mankind is to be like this. God is like this. This is His Image.

Jesse,

I can't agree with replacing 'But' with 'Partcularly'.

Don't you think Paul had a reason for saying

But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be [subject] to their husbands in everything.
With the word 'everything', Paul carves out an exception.

If your wife is subject to you in all things, then you are not subject to her in anything.

If you and your wife are subject to one another, then she is not subject to you in all things.

RonH

Verse 21: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."


One-verse theologies tend to erase one verse at the total expense of another.


One-verse straw-men engage in this same type of intellectual error.


We must spread our minds and hearts wide, for we've got to come up with a picture, a painting, that houses all of the above.

If we fail there, we have created, if by the Church, our one-verse theology, or, if by one not of the Church, our one-verse straw-man.


RonH's painting just cannot house all of the facts, whereas, Jesse's does.


This same sort of error shows up in many arenas where scripture's end-points, scripture's [A to Z] is concerned, not just here......


Submit to one another.


RonH will have none of that.


Scripture tells us that a Man and Wife are One-Flesh, in Ephesians, and no longer Two Fleshes.


Yet, also in Ephesians, we find scripture addressing the Male/Female Distinct Agencies there within that One-Agency.


Now, a one-verse error (staw-man) would be to state something like, “Clearly, the marriage is comprised of two separate distinct-s”. Another one-verse error (straw-man) would be something like, “Clearly the marriage is comprised of one singular distinct.”


Both are perfectly correct.
Both are perfectly mistaken.


Love just is both One and Three. A Husband and a Wife just are the Self, the Other (Two Distinct-s), and, we are also told that this union just is the singular E Pluribus Unum of Love’s Singular-We which those first two distinct-s necessarily beget.


Is it Self? Well, yes.
Is it Other? Well, yes.
Is it the singular Self-Other? Well, yes.

So it is One and it is Three? Well, yes.


Both submit to each other? One submit to another? But how can it be both? One and three? The Wife is not told anywhere here in Ephesians chapter 5 to love the husband: well then, clearly the wife need not love the husband. Sigh....Whatever. All of scripture is like this.

This is how we avoid this challenge’s sort of stereotypical, one-verse, intellectually contracted error which some seem to make where scripture’s [A to Z] is concerned. We have to spread our Mind and our Heart wider……….. Love’s topography will not be discovered any other way. At least not scripture’s sort of Love.

Scripture tells us these very same things of both Uncreated Mind’s Know-ing and of Created Mind’s Know-ing, for the epistemological experience just does happen, just does take place amid the contextual topography that can only be described as necessarily triune. Just like Love. But all of that is another story entirely, but one which our Atheist and Agnostic friends will also misrepresent with various one-line straw-men. Such is what they are doing here as they are refusing to incorporate all of scripture’s [A to Z] self-described endpoints.

scbrownlhrm,

Submit to one another.
RonH will have none of that.

Sure, I'll have some of it.

I'll have all of it.

Clearly I have to - it's there.

What I will have none of is the idea that it somehow erases the Biblical power imbalance between men and women in the church and between husbands and wives at home.

Paul demands that wives 'submit to their husbands' and be 'subject to their husbands in everything'.

What I will have none of is the idea that somehow cancels these demands when he says 'submit to one another' or 'Husbands, love your wives'.

Get it?

That is because you cannot embrace that love is both one and three, in both directions. That love is both emptying out and filling up, in both directions. You reject parts rather than force a painting which houses, fully, all parts. You are not allowing scripture to present its own A to Z. I see no such power play over women in scripture......Not only are men & women equal joint heirs in Love's Kingdom, they are called, equally, to love's eternally sacrificed self, and all are valuable regardless of the mindset of the spouse, the society, and the culture.


Your cherry picking outside of Love's [A to Z] is of no consequence to the truth of the matter here.


Insects & sex slavery? Mechsnism of programming & Delusion? Women trust their own mind here RonH. They know they are valuable and their mind perceives the hollow offer you, atheism, make.....

Odd. Paul neglects, here, to tell women to love their husbands.

I wonder what our cherry pickers will make of it.

The answer is simple for the cherry picker:

The is no, none, topography within Love's Triune which presses upon a woman, ever, to love her husband.


Submit one to another.

How is it possible that we find no nudges pushing wives to love their husbands?
What does that mean?


I know I must have missed them so please let me know (anyone) if you find one (seriously, my search seemed thorough but, well, I’m not willing to spend an hour on this silliness).

A brief delay: “The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” If we would like to cherry pick, we can take this in its extreme literal sense and violate other verses which lend parameters and body to this verse, but, as a cherry picker, we need not. The husband’s body is the property of the wife. Hard Stop.


(Submit one to another…..?)


It gets worse,


In a quick search of the whole New Testament for the word “WIFE” and the word “WIVES” in the NIV version many, many matches show up. In exactly none of the matches, zero, do we find the wife, or wives, pushed upon, or nudged, at all, ever, to love her/their husband/husbands.

Therefore it is quite clear. The New Testament Covenant is an arrangement between Humanity and God wherein wives need not, ever, at all, love their husbands. In fact, we can take this lack of specific injunction and apply it in a way which contradicts other verses. And then we can hold up this absurd straw-man and shake our fists.

Ephesians is written for real adults with real marriages who have real tensions between love and respect. Marriage is a costly affair for all involved. We are two halves of a whole, simply, and the tendency of all involved is toward the Self, at the cost of the Other. Only, this manifests in different lines in the Masculine and Feminine halves. "I respect you, but do not love you" cuts, hurts, the Feminine more than the Masculine. "I love you but do not respect you" cuts, hurts, the Masculine more than the Feminine. Thus scripture's weighted directions to each, heavier along those lines. Thus to the Masculine, "Love her unconditionally”. Thus to the Feminine, "Respect him unconditionally”.

Submit one to another.

Wives, your husband’s body is your property.

Wives, you will find no nudges to love your husband. None at all. So, therefore……………….

The only thing worse than an absurd one-verse theology is an absurd one-verse straw-man.

Genesis 3:16 is proof that God's own stated end-points in scripture's [A to Z] describes inequality between Male/Female as the Dark Outside. In Leviticus we find all the same endpoints when it comes to Sons, Slaves, and everything in between. The Language and Definitions Pre-Fall is very different from the Language and Definitions after our fall into Self. Also, the Language and Definitions Post-Resurrection, where Man is again offered the Way into Other, are once again that which is found Pre-Fall.


No difference in male, female, Jew, Gentile, slave, free, and so on. All are His Beloved.


This business of slavery and male/female and all of that is an "issue" only because the atheist does not take God at His Own Word in scripture's own self-described End-Points there in Word's [A to Z] wherein Love is the Beginning and End of all things, for God Himself is His Own Means to His Own Ends, as He Himself Ransoms, Restores, and fills up all things. "~~Behold, I make all things new~~"

The comments to this entry are closed.