From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Tue May 16 2000 - 13:49:40 EDT
<x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:25 EDT
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Eph. 5:33</title></head><body>
<div>At 9:07 AM -0700 5/16/00, Michael Abernathy wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">Fellow
B-Greekers,</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">My gut feeling in
reading plhn kai `umeis `oi kaq `ena, `ekastos, thn `eautou gunaika
òutws agapatw `ws `eauton, `h de gunh `ina fobhtai ton andra is
that hina used as an imperative carries the idea that the wives must
respect their husbands but that respect should be predicated upon the
love of their husbands. Am I reading too much into
this?</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">Thanks in
advance</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">Michael
Abernathy</font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Having seen Harold Holmyard's response to this,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 8:39 AM -0500 5/16/00, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:</div>
<div>>Do you mean that women are not obliged to respect their
husbands if they do<br>
>not sense love coming from their husbands?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I think I'd prefer to put it this way: I don't see any
conditional aspect either way: both obligations seem to be stated as
absolute. If you start making either imperative conditional, look
what you get:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>(1)
wives aren't obliged to respect husbands who don't love them;</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab>and</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>(2)
husbands aren't obliged to love wives who don't respect them.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I don't read the text as implying either the one or the other of
these propositions.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I think that if one is going to be serious about Eph 5:33, one
ought not to imagine that either party is free from obligation. I
suspect, however, that when either party fails to fulfil such an
obligation, the marriage is in pretty bad shape (to put it
mildly).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-- <br>
<br>
Carl W. Conrad<br>
Department of Classics, Washington University<br>
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243<br>
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com<br>
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/>
</body>
</html>
</x-html>