I heard the argument again yesterday. A friend emphasizing a major point of his regular teaching, "The Bible doesn't say that awoman has to love her husband- she just has to respect him."
"And that should be good enough for him". " But he still has to love and honor her".
I read Doug Wilson saying the same thing a few days before (Reforming Marriage, pg. 26), "Wives are nowhere specifically commanded to love their husbands".
Then somehow Wilson gets away from Titus 2:4 by saying that, 'this verse doesn't count- because it uses love as a "compound word"'. Hmmm.
Would this argument stand up to Jehovah's Witnesses who claim that the trinitarian-God is, "not a compound being- because he is not specifically called a 'compound being' in the Bible"?
And wouldn't it follow then- that women do not have to love their children either? Because this verse uses love as a "compound word" as well?
But we know that doesn't follow, don't we? Don't we?
Does it not then follow, that since wives needn't love their husbands- that the church needn't love Christ?
That the church merely needs to respect Christ? That she need not be "ONE FLESH" with Christ?- Ephesians 5:30-32.
That she just needs to give Christ the respect that "He desperately needs"?
Would Wilson also say that the Bible doesn't endorse oral sex either? Because it never uses the compound word "oral sex"?
We know from his book (pg. 106)- that he would not say that. And we know from this article by leading translator Bill Mounce- that Mounce would not say that either.
And would Mounce not also say that some form of the Granville Sharp rule of translation also applies to this verse construction as well? That there is a parallel construction? That the same qualities that apply to "husband" also apply to "children"?
Then why would Wilson and Eggerichs present this concept? Is it to dissemble that popular "in love" concept?
A concept that is nowhere presented in the Bible? Now, that would be a noble undertaking but...
So, in keeping with that same Mounce article- let's not attribute motives. But let's assess the implications of this profound new teaching.
A wife not having to love her husband.
A wife not having to sacrifice for her husband. Hmmm...
A mother not having to love her children.
A mother not having to sacrifice for her children. Hmmm...
Any men here- still desirous of an unloving bride?
Any Christ here-still desirous of an unloving church?
For a church that would thereby "blaspheme the Word" [the subsequent verse in Titus]?
The Word that is God?
Surely the compound-Word will "spit you out"!- Rev. 3:16
For God was not so "in-love" with this world that...