[dallasapple]

But of course Im confused how could that one verse be "fear and trembling" "subject to "(in the passive verb way) and respect(as in tell him how great he is) all in the same breath 

Dallas

[mkgal1]

TL.....I'm wondering if we should begin a new thread (since this isn't something mentioned in the book---as far as I know).  Or....are we still on topic, to discuss Eph 5:24---since it should be in context with Eph 5:33?

[TL]

Go ahead and start a new thread in the Bible study or theology section..

[TL]

But of course Im confused how could that one verse be "fear and trembling" "subject to "(in the passive verb way) and respect(as in tell him how great he is) all in the same breath 

Dallas

FWIW, I am not convinced that the verb used (phobeo) means respect as in tell him how great he is.  I think it means respect as in be mindful, aware, careful, treat with honor and some deference, which shows an element of fear but subdued from being terrified.

[Charis]

I actually agree with what you are saying.  However, I do not believe that is precisely what Paul is saying.  The reason is it is a verb.  Verbs require action on someone's part, in this case it is the wives who must — "so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing".

If I remember correctly, it's a passive verb tense that is used there.  http://concordances.org/thayers/5293.htm

passive verb is still a form of verb. The women are still being told to take an action upon themselves "let the wives be".  It is the wives who are to take (instigate) the action, thus they respond to their own directive.  It is not a noun , nor is it in relation to another's action.  To say wives are subjected to the action of their husbands is different IMO.

I know you don't like big quotes but this is a page back.  If you look at the link mkgal provided, you will see several passives.  Romans 8:20 is passive.  Luke 2:51; Luke 10:17, 20; Romans 8:7; Romans 13:1; 1 Corinthians 14:32; 1 Corinthians 16:16; Ephesians 5:21 Ephesians 5:24; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5, 9; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:18; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; 1 Peter 5:5 are also all passive.  For the latter group, the link says a dude named Bultman says they have a "middle force".  That is his opinion.  I checked with a Professor of classical Greek.  He says that if no actor is expressly named in the passage, they ASSUME a middle force.  He also told me that GOD as the actor in Eph 5:24 is a possibility but it cannot be proven from the Greek so it was up to me to advocate convincingly for that understanding.

[Charis]

The actor in Eph 5:24 is God, not the husband, not the wife.   I think Paul is referring back to Gen 3:16. 

"Wives are subject to their husband in everything"
=
"your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you"

He is stating a fact of married life in feminine skin.

Just like sweat and thorns still interfere with the working world, wives still desire their husbands and husbands have still have HUGE power and influence over their wives emotionally- automatically/passively/as soon as they marry and as long as they remain married.

Dallasapple has pointed out that wives have power and influence over their husbands emotionally.  I'm just not sure that it is to the same degree?  EVERYTHING means EVERYTHING and ONLY WIVES are subject in EVERYTHING (the way I read Eph 5:24 in context). 

TL what do you do with "EVERYTHING" if you presume a wife is responsible for voluntary performance of whatever Eph 5:24 is saying?

[Charis]

Rom 8:20-21

WHO is the actor who subjected the creation to futility in hope? 

Same one who spoke Gen 3:16 and Gen 3:18-19 and Eph 5:24 (which is more accurate in the YLT IMO). 

"but even as the assembly is subject to Christ,
so also [are] the wives to their own husbands in everything. " Eph 5:24 YLT

 

[TL]

“Just like sweat and thorns still interfere with the working world, wives still desire their husbands and husbands have still have HUGE power and influence over their wives emotionally- automatically/passively/as soon as they marry and as long as they remain married.”

I agree with that.  I just do not see that that is what Paul is saying.

“Dallasapple has pointed out that wives have power and influence over their husbands emotionally.  I'm just not sure that it is to the same degree?  EVERYTHING means EVERYTHING and ONLY WIVES are subject in EVERYTHING (the way I read Eph 5:24 in context). “

Well, I don’t know if a wife or husband is influenced by everything their spouse does and/or says.  Guess that depends on each persons personality and make up.

What I do with the everything, is that in their lives together the wife is to honor, esteem, value, promote for the good, do things to better, the husband.  I do not see that as a problem as the choice of what to do, how to do it, when to do it are all in the discretion of the wife.  She is not taking orders.  She is determining to do the best for her husband without dishonoring herself or God in the process.

Also,  I do not see God as having subjected the wife to the husband.  Different terminology IMO.

Nevertheless, it is completely fine with me that you see it that way.  In the end all I think we end up both advocating honoring the husband, though coming from different angles. 

BTW, I sent you a PM.

[dallasapple]

Well, I don’t know if a wife or husband is influenced by everything their spouse does and/or says.  Guess that depends on each persons personality and make up.

totally agree...I dont beleive for one second their is somethign about a female that makes her prone to be automaticaly influenced by 'everything" any more than a man ..and in either gender it can be NOT everytyghing just as equally..Its situational as well as our individual sensitivities and needs..(or percieved needs)..

Dallas

[Guy Coe]

To some extent, we need to remember that in some Scriptures, at least, we are "reading each other's mail" and would do well to remember that these passages are not intended as a method of laying blame and and giving specific advice for every situation.   They often constitute "universal principles" but less often are simply straightforward  "situational applications." 

The common, default view among many evangelicals is "all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that my neighbor (or my spouse) may be told exactly what to do."  We're supposed to read them for our own obedience, first and foremost, and not primarily as a means to control or blame others. 

It is precisely here where Jesus manifests an approach which is less "bullying" than the way we do a lot of our Bible-thumping.  Namely, He asks questions of an individual much more often than we do, and tries to help lead others to a good conclusion through questions, more often than answers.
 
I say this by way of reminder to myself, as much as anything else!  It all starts with respecting the dignity of another person, and not being so quick to judge, and instead sincerely asking, "Well, what do you think about this?"