What is Love? Baby don't hurt me...

[FollowingHim]

I agree that love is an action and a choice, definitely. However I don't believe that it has to exist in the absence of feeling and emotion. The tone of posts to me has sounded like people are scoffing at the very idea of any sort of feeling attached to the word "love", but while a relationship cannot be sustained in a healthy way based solely on feelings I don't think it's biblical to think that it should exist or would be healthy to never have positive emotion either.

Ideally love is accompanied by feeling and emotion, I don't think anyone is saying that it must be completely unemotive. But emotions must be secondary. Emotions are fickle, they come and go. For instance, when someone is less lovable our emotional attachment may be less than when they were more lovable. "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Even though there was nothing about us that would trigger an emotional attachment, we were in open rebellion against him, He still chose to love us. In the same way, we are called to love people who we may feel little emotional love towards at that particular time (enemies, fellow believers, even wives). This is why I would put the focus very firmly on love being a choice.

I too greatly enjoy the emotions associated with love! But I try to consider those separately to "love", if that makes sense. In the same manner that the smell of a meal is different to the meal itself.

 

[windblown]

Fascinating. It was my understanding before this thread that agape was always the godly, unconditional love and phileo was the affectionate love between friends. (Isn't there a third kind too?) But looking into it, you can definitely have ungodly agape.

I'd posit that agape and the Hebrew 'aheb' are the same since the lawyer was quoting the Law when asked by Jesus how to inherit eternal life in Luke 10. (This is the aheb of Song of Solomon too!) When you scroll through the instances of aheb, you also find many times when people's objects of 'aheb' are foolish or sinful.

I'm very interested in phileo and why it is used at times alternately with agape. For instance, Jesus and Peter's exchange in John 21:15-17.

I'm not sure how comfortable I am talking about the husband's love. Usually I get a spirit check in the women's groups when the husbands' role comes up because I don't think it should be our (wives) concern, since their love or lack of love should hold no bearing on our own actions. But a couple of things to mention...and this is just from a wife's perspective on receiving love.

In the Ephesians passage, Christ lays down his life for the Church then sanctifies it. I think the word sanctification would be crucial to understand here. How are we sanctified? What is our role in the sanctification process?

Should love always feel good when we're receiving it? Like a child with discipline, love is going to hurt at times. This leads nicely into the word nourishment also used in Ephesians. Do children want to eat their veggies? Would it be loving to let them sit all day watching tv or get them outside riding their bikes? Which is harder for them?

Last little side note that I thought was interesting... Along with 'nourish' in Eph., there's 'cherish' which is only used one other time in the NT, referring to a nursing mother's instinct. (Now how would men be able to exhibit that? )

 

[FollowingHim]

Another relevant musical interlude: Luv is a verb (DC Talk)

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Phileo is often used as a part of a compound word, which has it's dark side too. (Lovers of pleasure, self, money are all variant words starting with phileo) The word translated 'contention' or ''strife' is philoneikia, or to love victory. Like agape, half it's virtue is what it's being utilized for. Unlike agape, as a compound word, it's precise meaning and tone varies greatly depending on the word it's married to. For instance in Titus 2:4 it is certain that the love a woman has for her husband (philandrous) and the love she has for her children (philoteknous)

The variant that I find the greatest imperative for is philadelphia, as it is the virtue that Peter asserts must be in some way present before agape can be attempted without risking grievous error in 2 peter 1:7. Phileo seems to be motivated by an approval of some quality in the object of love, and punctuated by some form of devotion or affection stemming from that approval. Agape does not seem to require any significant lovable quality and is expected to continue even after all possible approvable qualities have ceased, and obviously it is punctuated by a number of activities that go beyond affection. I would posit that a man has phileo for his dog, but a junkie has agape for his needle. I say this in the sense that a man will choose his drug even after it has lost it's ability to please him and has ruined his life, but normally if a dog does that it gets put down.

We are commanded to evidence agape for the brethren; as in John 13:35 it is listed as the evidence of a disciple that they have agape for each other. However brotherly love comes first because in 1 Peter 1:7 agape is to be added to philedelphia; also in 1 thesselonians 4 Paul asserts that that they have no need for Paul to write to them about it, because they are already being taught Agape by God. It seems to me that once someone has truly grasped agape, they will have already mastered brotherly love. It seems also that a man who tries to leapfrog affection for the brethren to attain agape will fail. Or again, you can not love the unlovely if you cannot first manage to love the lovely.

 

[SonoLumen]

I can't really think of Love without thinking of Johns letters and their "straight to the heart" approach to this. Love is ultimately going to have many, many, many expressions. I mean, God is a creative being and I think Love is pretty important masterpiece that he has given us in his Word, and continues to give to us all, through himself, since he is the very love received.

1) God is objectively the substance of love.
2) Love is the expression of the objective substance of God communally.
3) The highest form of that expression is sacrificial.

For God (love as object) so loved (love as expression) that he gave his Son (objective love expressed in its highest form) that whoever believes...

I love that love points to the heart of the gospel, and that when we see it in its essential form, we see the person of Yeshua, his actions, his sacrifice, his very glorious substance. Therefore we believe because he first loved us.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Agape does not seem to require any significant lovable quality and is expected .

I like this. This makes sense, both coming from God (we have nothing to offer Him that causes Him to love us) and coming from us towards others. It also takes it out of the ethereal realms and brings it down to something I can apply in my life.

I admit that I struggle with "love". It's so subjective. How do you apply it? How do I assure I'm being loving? Being nice isn't being loving. I know a lot of men who are very nice to the wives and children and can't stand to be around them, or let them function in all kinds of sin. That's not loving. So what is?

Western husbands have given their wives everything from the dishwasher to the vote to an unassailable super-legal status, but none of it has been loving.

So I ask the question again, how am I to treat my wife so that when I get to heaven God is pleased? I want strategies. I want a plan of attack. What is the biblical standard for loving your wife?

I know the goal is Christ and His love for the church but when I look at how He treated the church He walked with physically, it doesn't look like anything we would describe as loving. We get all hung up on the crucifixion part of the verse but we forget that it doesn't end there.

I refuse to accept that it isn't concrete. I refuse to accept that it's some kind of happy happy joy joy you'll know it when you feel it kind of crunchy granola with a low calorie soda and good time rockin' rola sort of thing. Nothing in the Christian walk is like that.

And don't tell me it's when a wife is happy or thriving because I've seen a lot of really unhappy women who have surprisingly good husbands.

 

[andrew]

And don't tell me it's when a wife is happy or thriving because I've seen a lot of really unhappy women who have surprisingly good husbands.

It's sort of pointless to go on and on about how you're seeking answers and then rule out answers that don't meet your preconceived criteria. What's your working definition of "good" husband?

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I'll leave out the flowers and jewelry and dinner dates because a) I'm rubbish at them anyway and b) That's probably mostly phileo, which is still very much love, but not the agape of the direct commandment.
So I'm gonna go step by step down the old 1 cor 13 lane because that's an exceedingly comprehensive look at agape.

Love is patient (longsuffering) and shows itself to be kind. (mild, pleasant) : Therefore I put forth that to love a wife with agape is to put up with things that irritate you for a long, long time; and then rather than displaying that irritation, to meet it with kindness. I would not say this means to ignore bad behavior, but that the correction itself must be gentle and without a show of anger. Chores neglected, advice ignored, responsibilities poorly carried out, affection not rendered: all met with a form of correction that falls far short of justice. We do not pay her back as she has dealt. We do not scourge, we do not strike. (And that's where I stand on THAT)

Love does not envy: We do not concern ourselves with any perception that she's getting the better part of this marriage deal. We do not care if we're putting more into the relationship than she is. We do not care if we care more, or try harder, or if she has an easier time of it. We do not sulk about it.

Love does not parade itself: I suggest that to apply that, we do not brag about the amount of control we have over our wives. Nor do we make a pointless show of her submission.

Is not puffed up: We resist the ever present pull of pride to make our decisions for us. That means that sometimes, frame has to be broken. (There's a time to realize that Agape transcends even the holy red pill)

Does not behave rudely (I think KJV renders it better- unseemly): We will employ a sense of proportion and comparative modesty with our wives. This is absolutely subjective, as the other usage of the word is also subjective. At the very very least, it means we will not violate our conscience with our wives.

Does not seek it's own: Oh my my my. How can we ever attain this? How can our dealings with our wives, whose very purpose is to serve us with relentless enthusiasm, be removed from our desire to be served enthusiastically and efficiently? But there it is; at the root our motives behind our dealings with them cannot be "how do I stand to benefit from this?" The opposite must be true. We must do all for her benefit.

Is not provoked : That one is fairly straighforward. A provoked man, acting on passion or anger and not self controlled kindness is not acting within Agape. Agape doesn't have a bad day.

Thinks no evil : I'm torn between "devises no evil" and "suspects no evil" Either way, the first is a gimme, and the second one is reinforced in a minute.

Does not rejoice in iniquity but rejoices in the truth : Our agape for our wives is keenly concerned about her spiritual and moral state and growth. I'm noting the word rejoice. Agape means we are EMOTIONALLY invested in or wives' spiritual life. Our hearts should not be glad when she does something wrong (even if it's something we might want her to do) and our hearts should absolutely be gladdened when she does what is right.

bears all things/ endures all things: Jesus says that sexual immorality is acceptable grounds for divorce without becoming an adulterer. Even so, I would say that agape would bear and endure even this. There is nothing unbearable for agape.

believes all things / hopes all things : I picture it thus... that a man full of agape is a sucker for his wife. He is hopelessly deluded that one day his wife will quit smoking like he's told her to. He works overtime taking her at her word instead of what simple logic would say. He treats her at all times like she has finally learned her lesson, and will do no more wrong. At no time will he give into sarcasm or irony when dealing with his wife. Like an endless roll of toilet paper, every new square will be fresh and clean, regardless the fate of all previous squares. He is a Pollyanna, not because he is an idiot, but because he has purposed to have overwhelming optimism for his wife. And an optimistic man is never an impatient man.

Love never fails : Which I must point out does not mean love always SUCCEEDS. What it means is that Love does not die out, cease, or vanish. Agape does not have a 'limit'. Agape persists. Agape continues every day.

And as unsatisfying as Agape seems like for a husband, I can only say what must Christ be going through with His Church? The points where I feel least like evidencing Agape for my wife are also the points that I rely the most upon in my relationship with Christ. Mainly, I don't like to think of myself as a sucker that believes in the noble nature and good intentions of women, but oh... do I ever hope that Christ believes in me beyond what reason would allow.

I have enjoyed a couple of late night libations while typing this. I hope my grammar has not suffered overmuch.

 

[SonoLumen]

Now that the ontological stuff is out of the way:

The points I think I am strong at:

1) I think it finds a primary purpose in provision of opportunity and livelihood, so I am willing to work hard to make sure my household has their basic needs met, and hopefully, thrive. This world can be daunting and difficult and it is my job as a man to provide a shield of sorts against that.

2) Another main point is enjoyment. You have to figure out ways that you "enjoy" your wives/family, and do those things together. They will always feel it if your truly enjoying them, giving them attention, its in our flesh. Its like when someone yawns and then you yawn, except far more powerful from a bonding perspective.

3) You seek to understand you wives needs, you lead them to find their provision in God whenever possible, you facilitate the needs you are able to. You have a general attitude of wanting to support your wives and encourage their enjoyment of life.

The points that I struggle with but I truly believe are equally important and really help counterbalance the first three properly applied:

4) You always keep the proper order, and remember that anything can be a false idol next to the living God. He is 1st, which means his Word and his morality is first. To be more blunt: forget Eve, throw down the apple and take off...as long as we have God, we have all we could ever need.

5) You honestly self-assess your own needs as a man: your job after all is to provide stability, and a healthy and happy husband / father is a critical component to this. This requires a degree of introspection, patience, and prayer. You keep in mind you are responsible to God, and try to be honest and humble in your self assessment.

6) You make decisions keeping all of these things in mind and lead your family forward. You should be trusting Yahweh all the way through, cause this could get messy/difficult. Wives have needs, you have needs, your kids will have needs, and you assume responsibility as the head of the household for helping get those needs met.

7) If there is no food on the table and the ship is sinking: see point 1. If your unhappy with your wife or family, see point 2. If your happy but your wife isn't, see point 3. If your brave and inclined towards psychological difficulty and emotional paradoxes, see points 4, 5, 6, and 7.

I think in our culture a lot of men have the first three down, and subconsciously suppress the latter. That will for the most part keep a woman satisfied and at ease in a relationship. I honestly questions those men though, because I have known so many "submissive" men in my days, who were good at the status quo but I rarely saw passion or purpose in.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It's sort of pointless to go on and on about how you're seeking answers and then rule out answers that don't meet your preconceived criteria. What's your working definition of "good" husband?

Because that's not an answer. A wife could have an awful husband and still be happy and fulfilled if she's being a godly woman. Likewise a very good husband could just be married to a lousy woman. There is no way to make that an accurate barometer.

And what I'm looking for is the biblical standard, not gut instinct, finger in the wind.

 

[andrew]

Whatever. What about the answer to my question?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Whatever. What about the answer to my question?

I don't really have a working definition, that's my point. A husband should have a job obviously but what comes after that? In the past I've assumed that a good man was automatically a good husband. I am still inclined to that but am not as sure as I once was.

I'm only being a tiny bit disingenuous here. I'm 95% sincere in my question. I am starting with what is love because I know it's the answer everyone will give but I have more questions.

I would be very interested in your definition Andrew.

 

[Eristhophanes]

But I would really like to hear some good old BF hairsplitting over what scripture says about the love that is commanded of husbands in Ephesians 5:25.

I'm not sure about hair-splitting because this is pretty solid.

Genesis 3:16 says "he shall rule over you."

Read Numbers 30 and think about that. The only women who didn't have a man in charge of them holding them accountable were the divorced women and the widows (verse 9).

I wrote an essay on this once, "Why Feminists Don't Like To Talk About Eve." If you look at the story, consider that Genesis 3:16 was a judgment. Adam and Eve were in paradise. No sin was in the world. They were created by God as perfect as He created them and did not have a sin nature.

Consider that point for a moment. They were the only people other than Jesus to not have a sin nature.

Eve had no children, no job, no neighbors, no social media, no cell phone, no responsibilities other than helping Adam. The greatest woman who ever lived, the top of the pile, no woman got better than Eve. Mary may have been more blessed, but no woman was greater than Eve. She only had ONE RULE to follow. Just one. And we all know how that worked out. She allowed Satan to use her as a tool to take down the greatest man, the head of God's creation. Because she couldn't follow one rule. The only one she had.

So, what do you call a person when under ideal conditions, no excuses, no extenuating circumstances, no nothing... they can't follow even ONE RULE? The technical term is "incompetent" and when presented with a person who is not competent you appoint a guardian for them. Which is what God did when he said of the husband "he shall rule over you." Now go back and read Numbers 30 again. Reads a bit different now when you understand the context. Because God doesn't change.

The big change for the New Testament was God commanded the husbands to not just hold their wives accountable, but to love them. That's a huge change from just ruling over them, but it did not in any way change the fact that he was to rule over them. That's the lie of feminism, that the women are equal and not under the man's authority. The context for every passage in the NT about the submission of wives has as its context Genesis 3:16. Now comes the hard part for the women.

Revelation 3:19 gives the only specific example of how Christ loves His church. He holds them accountable for their behavior because He loves them. He said "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline, be zealous therefore and repent."

A rebuke is oral, disciplining (chastening as some translations put it) is done with a rod.

So, other than Ephesians 5 (which was general), what are some other examples of how Christ loves His church? My experience is that most women hate being spanked but they love the fact that if they get too far out of line that they will be taken in hand. I've also known a couple of spankos, that's a different deal, not talking about that.

However, what Genesis 3:16 said about the husband ruling over the wife also points to something else. Her desire is for a man to rule over her and that means husbands have an obligation to be fit to rule. The problem I see in virtually every church I now of is the men have had all the masculine dominance stomped out of them and they're subservient pukes who drank the koolaid of "mutual submission" and their wives hold them in contempt. Very few men these days are fit to rule, but that's what women want because God made it that way.

God said their desire would be for their husband. There husband is to rule them. They desire a man who is fit to rule them and when they find one, you'd be amazed at what happens.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

So interesting! I'm not sold on the idea of working backwards from Christ's relationship with us and reproducing every aspect of that in a husband's relationship with his wife, though. Especially because as children we are already proper recipients of chastisement; also because we are used to referring to ourselves as the Bride when the actual marriage has not occurred yet. The bride-price has been paid, for sure, but he hasn't loaded us into the wagon and taken us home yet.

Furthermore, I do not see the particular word for chastisement (paideuo) in reference to a man and his wife. However I do see it in reference to children, prisoners, and students. In fact, as Heb 12:7 says : "If you endure chastening, God dealeth with you as SONS".

In addition, Eph 6:9 commands masters to stop threatening their slaves. My presumption is that a man who may not threaten his slave, may also not beat his slave. I think it's a reasonable presumption. It would be a strange world where a master could beat his slave, but telling him he would beat him is considered over the line.

If so... why does a wife still need a beating when the servants she is above in station may not even be threatened? She is not a child that must be taught right from wrong.

Running out of segways, but here is another: If a man is to cherish and nurture his wife like he would his own body, what man is there that takes a rod to his own back? I have been a person that struck myself for failure to perform a difficult and tedious task, I have know another to slap himself around for lack of self-control. Both acts were characterized by EXTREME emotional agitation, which is nothing at all like the dispassionate chastisement one would visit on a child. Remembering also that a woman is the weaker (read: more fragile) vessel. She is not just part of your body, but a delicate part of your body. In my blind rage against my inability to beat Bionic Commando, I beat my thigh blue and purple. I would not have landed a single blow upon my weaker vessel a few inches higher.

'nother generic segway, but I do not see a husband disciplining his wife at the garden, I don't see it after the garden, I don't see it in the patriarchs, I don't see it regulated in the Law (I do see slave beating in the Law... but no wife beating...) , I don't see wife beating even in Judges (good night!), I almost could swear I saw it in the prophets but Hosea 2:16 dissipates my concern about the Lord's relationship with Israel. I don't see it in the proverbs. The rod is crawling all over fools and children... but stands apart from the wife. What to do if you have a quarrelsome wife? Retreat to the roof! Where's that blasted rod??? Nowhere to be found. And like I said, I see no direct command or expectation in the New testament either.

Disciplining a son has a huge head of steam behind it, old and new testament.

Wife beating is not modeled for us. Neither is it commanded, or prescribed in the new testament.

Am I saying that there aren't dynamics between a man and wife where physical discipline isn't possible? I don't even know. But I will say that those circumstances sound abnormal.

Whereas a good whipping seems absolutely necessary for a child, I see no justification for treating a full grown woman like a child.

 

[Eristhophanes]

If so... why does a wife still need a beating when the servants she is above in station may not even be threatened? She is not a child that must be taught right from wrong.

This is what I mean. "beating." I didn't say beating, didn't imply it and that's not what the word means. And you know that. But, it makes good rhetoric. So you used it that way.

It was only up until about 60-70 years ago that the difference between discipline, along the lines of corporal punishment and beating were well understood. Drop back to the 1930's-1950's and you can find lots of examples of wives being spanked in the media and in movies. Feminism denies this, but they can't deny the fact that it happened far more often than anyone can imagine today.

The consensus among women I know and have known who were part of families that practiced Christian Domestic Discipline was that they didn't want to be spanked but sometimes they needed to be spanked. Sometimes they'd test their husband just to see if he would. And they liked the fact that they had a husband who loved them enough to hold them accountable. Only a fool would claim that all women are alike. Some are quiet and submissive and do what they can to control themselves. Others are not.

There are actually more verses that talk about corporal punishment of adults than children and most of them are not gender specific. So... why does "he shall rule over you" mean the husband does not have the authority to punish members of his household for dishonor, disobedience, disrespect or dangerous behavior? Husbands were commanded to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. Rev. 3:19 is specific as to how Christ loves His Church. Why would that only apply to men? And if grown men are to be punished, why not women?

But... feminism.

Some can accept that others cannot. Most men cannot do that sort of thing because their wives would not tolerate it from them. Perhaps from some other man, but not from him. I can still remember the first time I told another man's wife that she needed to be spanked. She told me that she would never allow it from him but she might like it if I did. I learned to be careful of saying that. But when a single woman gets obnoxious, disrespectful or whatever, looking her in the eye and saying "You need to be spanked" can have quite the interesting reaction.

The only problem is that discipline is the flip-side of dominance and some women like that. They will be brats until they get the spanking they desire. Because it isn't a punishment, it's a reward. However, as a rule, women will not put up with it from a man they don't respect that they aren't attracted to.

And, I know you won't like having this pointed out, but carefully examine 1st Peter 3:1. It begins with a direct reference to chapter 2 and the servants and masters. What kind of punishment do you suppose Peter was talking about that she would bear up well under?

You can argue all day long that Scripture doesn't command corporal punishment for wives and I'll agree up to a point. However, I don't think it can be denied that the husband has the authority to do so and it's his prerogative. It starts with "he shall rule over you" and goes to Numbers 30. Then the command to the wife to submit to her husband in everything. And the command in 1st Peter 3:1-6 to submit to him even if he is disobedient to the Word. And the direct reference to servants and masters with the example of Christ's suffering?

I know it's difficult, but the Word says what it says.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

This is what I mean. "beating." I didn't say beating, didn't imply it and that's not what the word means. And you know that. But, it makes good rhetoric. So you used it that way.

A rebuke is oral, disciplining (chastening as some translations put it) is done with a rod.

Help me, help you... help me. I infer that you believe it is proper to 'discipline' a wife with a rod. If you didn't mean to imply it... I'm sure I can be forgiven the misunderstanding.

I cry foul about your objection to the word 'beat'. When I refer to how I intend to punish the corpus of my children, I don't tell them I'm going to visit discipline upon their hindquarters. I tell them (Language alert) I'm going to beat their ass. I beat my children. beat beat beat. I am a child beater. Oh how I beat kids. I have zero problems saying that, even if society would label me an abuser. Saying that wife beating sounds bad is mox nix to me. I don't use it for rhetoric's sake. I was pretty happy with the logic I was using, without needing to resort to rhetoric.

Drop back to the 1930's-1950's and you can find lots of examples of wives being spanked in the media and in movies.

As a man who has thoroughly rejected everything my culture has to offer in the way of gauging right and wrong, why would you bring up what the previous generations considered to be normal to me? I can hardly countenance the idea that Christians of the 30's had a better idea of how agape relates to treating a wife based on the movies and media produced then.

The consensus among women I know and have known who were part of families that practiced Christian Domestic Discipline

The consensus among all my pot smoking friends is that marijuana is actually good for cognitive functions. Also it will cure most social problems. My personal opinion of CDD is that it is kink. As long as it is safe, sane and consensual, I don't have a problem with it.

But when a single woman gets obnoxious, disrespectful or whatever, looking her in the eye and saying "You need to be spanked" can have quite the interesting reaction.

Kink, I say.

The only problem is that discipline is the flip-side of dominance and some women like that.

Right. Of all the children I've beaten, none have ever intentionally provoked me to get more of the same or said the words "Thank you sir may I have another?" KINK!

And, I know you won't like having this pointed out, but carefully examine 1st Peter 3:1.

You're going to have to spell this one out for me. I'm looking at a direct commandment for wives to submit themselves to their sinning douchebag husbands on the off chance that their chaste, Godfearing lifestyle will will cause their husbands to repent of their douchebaggery without speaking of it. It may very well be that she is bearing up under harsh beatings from her husband. Buuuut... so what? Inasmuch as we already covered that her husband is a sinning canoe that transports feminine hygiene products... (alright it says they obey not the word.) Ok so the husbands are disobedient to the word. So why exactly does this help us believe that their husbands are at all justified in anything they might be doing? Because it really really doesn't from my point of view.

the husband has the authority to do so and it's his prerogative. It starts with "he shall rule over you"

Like it is the King's prerogative to oppress his people if he wants? I suppose I agree, but it makes him a bad king.
That doesn't sound at all like agape.

goes to Numbers 30.

Annulling vows sounds like rulership to me. I'm good with Numbers 30.

Then the command to the wife to submit to her husband in everything. And the command in 1st Peter 3:1-6 to submit to him even if he is disobedient to the Word. And the direct reference to servants and masters with the example of Christ's suffering?

Yes. And we are also told to offer the other cheek when struck, and to travel 2 miles when only compelled to travel one. That is a far cry from proving that the striker or compeller is actually showing agape to us. The issue I thought we were concerned with is "How does agape act towards his wife?" not "How much does abuse does agape soak up from her husband?"

The idea that agape allows a husband to manually correct his wife through violent means, as one might a child, because agape would demand she bear under it, makes no sense. Agape allows itself to be killed for the sake of love. It does not follow that the killer is therefore acting on agape.

 

[andrew]

I don't really have a working definition, that's my point.

Zec, come on. You said, "And don't tell me it's when a wife is happy or thriving because I've seen a lot of really unhappy women who have surprisingly good husbands." To be able to make an assertion like that, you have to have some kind of meaning behind "unhappy women" and "good husbands". If I ask you what you mean by "good husband", you should be able to just tell me what you had in mind when you said you had seen a lot of them.

I would be very interested in your definition Andrew.

Zec, come on. You said, "And don't tell me it's when a wife is happy or thriving because I've seen a lot of really unhappy women who have surprisingly good husbands." Apparently you're not interested in my definition at all, because when I ask you why you're ruling out answers while asking a question, your rather cheeky answer is, "[W]hat I'm looking for is the biblical standard, not gut instinct, finger in the wind."

As for your false dichotomy, again I say, whatever. When you guys finish discussing Greek declensions and whatever else you think is relevant, you're going to circle back to the question that matters: "How do I know if I'm doing it right?" If the best answer you've got is "because I am acting in a manner that I judge to be consistent with my interpretation of the bible passages that I think are relevant, regardless of outcomes in terms of the emotional and spiritual health of my wife", then I guess that's what you've got.

 

[FollowingHim]

To summarise a most entertaining exchange:
Eristophanes: A man has the scriptural authority to physically discipline his wife if he chooses to.
Slumberfreeze: A man living by agape would choose not to physically discipline his wife.
As far as I can see, you're both right.

 

[UntoldGlory]

Slumber, my patience for arguing against people who want to justify acting like a "canoe for transporting feminine hygiene products" is at an all time low, so thank you for doing that so eloquently.

I'd also like to point out how ridiculous it sounds to me to talk about how much women really want to be spanked for being naughty. To me it sounds *at best* like kink, and *at worst* like a self deluded excuse for abuse and victim blaming.

I like Samuel's synopsis. Basically there is a difference between what we may have the *authority* to do, and what we *should* do.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec, come on. You said, "And don't tell me it's when a wife is happy or thriving because I've seen a lot of really unhappy women who have surprisingly good husbands." To be able to make an assertion like that, you have to have some kind of meaning behind "unhappy women" and "good husbands". If I ask you what you mean by "good husband", you should be able to just tell me what you had in mind when you said you had seen a lot of them.


Zec, come on. You said, "And don't tell me it's when a wife is happy or thriving because I've seen a lot of really unhappy women who have surprisingly good husbands." Apparently you're not interested in my definition at all, because when I ask you why you're ruling out answers while asking a question, your rather cheeky answer is, "[W]hat I'm looking for is the biblical standard, not gut instinct, finger in the wind."

As for your false dichotomy, again I say, whatever. When you guys finish discussing Greek declensions and whatever else you think is relevant, you're going to circle back to the question that matters: "How do I know if I'm doing it right?" If the best answer you've got is "because I am acting in a manner that I judge to be consistent with my interpretation of the bible passages that I think are relevant, regardless of outcomes in terms of the emotional and spiritual health of my wife", then I guess that's what you've got.

There is nothing cheeky about it Andrew. This is Biblical Families, not I Think Families. Now that answer might have been cheeky.

I did have an assumption of what a good husband is coming in. He has a decent job, he is focused on establishing a legacy and he loves his wife, whatever that means.

I stand by my claim that you can't judge a husband or a wife by their spouse. Hosea was married to a literal whore who constantly sold herself into whoredom. Abigail was married to a moron.

Now obviously elders are to be judged by their families comportment and if a decent woman trying to live a godly wife has a good husband then she will thrive. It can be a good verification method in individual cases, but its not a proactive approach.

In truth though I think we've answered the initial question which admittedly I worded poorly.

I wanted to know what is the definition of the love we're commanded to have for our wives and we've demonstrated that it is the Corinthians love deliberately applied. I think that's important. It de-mystifies the whole thing and makes it applicable, something you can do as opposed to some Pentecostal style experiential anointing that has to be waited on from above.