I think Eggerichs pretty much nailed it. Sure, love and respect need to go both ways, but there are definitely general differences in emphasis and responsibility (I would say “duty” but people think that’s a bad word nowadays).
Maybe a good way to tune Eggerich’s thesis would be to say that “love and respect” as he uses the terms are really both subsets of love. It has to do with the form of expression.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think Eggerichs pretty much nailed it. Sure, love and respect need to go both ways, but there are definitely general differences in emphasis and responsibility (I would say “duty” but people think that’s a bad word nowadays).
Eggerichs does seem to recognize that love and respect are not needs that are exclusive to each spouse. He calls them “primary” needs, or something similar. So in conclusion, Paul points out in 5:33 that husbands especially need respect from their wives especially need love from their husbands. I think that’s what you are also saying.
That about sums it up. Read the book a couple of times but it’s been a few years. There’s a passage in Peter (2nd, I think) that says honor all men. Respect is foundational to all human relationships, I believe. And as the most basic form of “do unto others…” it really *is* love—of a particular sort. Husbands are especially well served by that particular sort.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion
NewEggerichs nailed it
I think Eggerichs pretty much nailed it. Sure, love and respect need to go both ways, but there are definitely general differences in emphasis and responsibility (I would say “duty” but people think that’s a bad word nowadays).
Maybe a good way to tune Eggerich’s thesis would be to say that “love and respect” as he uses the terms are really both subsets of love. It has to do with the form of expression.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewYes, I Agree
Eggerichs does seem to recognize that love and respect are not needs that are exclusive to each spouse. He calls them “primary” needs, or something similar. So in conclusion, Paul points out in 5:33 that husbands especially need respect from their wives especially need love from their husbands. I think that’s what you are also saying.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
NewYes
Read the book a couple of times but it’s been a few years.
There’s a passage in Peter (2nd, I think) that says honor all men. Respect is foundational to all human relationships, I believe. And as the most basic form of “do unto others…” it really *is* love—of a particular sort.
Husbands are especially well served by that particular sort.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.