Functional Obedience

Obedience has two steps. Actually a lot more than two steps. But assuming that we have already finished some of the steps, such as determining who is our authority and in what areas that they have authority… we are left with at least two steps in determining our obedience:

1. What is the will of those in authority over us?

   and

2. How can we carry out that will?

Introduction

Ross Byrd and I are sort of having a discussion as to what the proper role of the wife is. Or, more precisely, when God tells the wife to ‘submit to’ (be in subjection, obey, reverence) her husband (Greek: hupotassō, hupakouō, hupotagē, phobeō ) what does that mean?

Now Ross started with a post and then, in response to my follow up posts, has basically said that I haven’t yet reached the point where we disagree.

I used the phrase "the best *functional* term" for a reason. Because, ala John Frame, I am interested in *application* more than literal translation. I agee that "submit" is a much better translation than "honor," certainly FAR better than "trust."

…I still don't think that "obey" is the best functional term to summarize Paul's point here

Ross Byrd

So as to the question of the actual best translation of the word, he seems to be saying that ‘submit’ is good, and ‘obey’, ‘honour’, and ‘trust’ are bad. He says nothing about the various permutations of ‘subjection’. (ie ‘subject to’, ‘be in subjection to’, etc.)

Given that the Scriptures are our first line of understanding the will of God, this idea of ‘submit’ would then be, as I understand it, his starting point in understanding what God’s will is vis a vis wifely obedience to her husband. Or wifely submission, or subjection, or honouring, etc.

Consider a military situation, where the high command has sent a message to some lower command. The message might read, “Attack hill 406 at dawn.” In order to understand the will of the high command, one might need to know what ‘attack’ means (and, no, that is not obvious. A military command rarely attacks by merely ‘sending everyone in the command running screaming up the hill. Attacks happen in certain ways, with certain units leading, certain weapons used, a certain amount of ammunition in reserve, etc.). And they would need to know what ‘Hill 406’ means. They would have to have an accurate map, etc.

And hopefully they would know what ‘dawn’ meant, altho that, too, might differ in different situations. Does one send the planes off two hours before dawn so they arrive at dawn? Or launch the planes at dawn?

So, in order for the orders to be obeyed, they first have to be understood. Understood in the language and the context they were issued.

Words, Words

Which is why my first few posts, and their appendix, concerned the words. And not just the dictionary meaning of the words, but the words as they appeared in context. Because in order to deal with ‘how to carry out a command’, you first have to understand the command you are to carry out. The words, and the context.

And the word ‘obedience’ is no different. Nor is submit, or honour, or trust, or subjection. Both the context of Scripture (how the word is used elsewhere in Scripture) and the context of the culture (how the word would have been understood by its orginal hearers) are important in determining what the author meant by the word. How it was intended to function.

Function, Function… what’s your Function?

Because it is only once that we understand what the words mean that we can begin the difficult work of seeing what they mean… to us. In our situation. Is the command reigning us back, or spurring us forward?

I once had a very interesting discussion with a Mennonite. His view was that Christ, when He came to Earth, got rid of God’s Law. He used Christ’s Words, “You have heard it said… but I say unto you…” as his foundation.

I pointed out to him that in each case, what Christ did was not to limit God’s Law, but extend it. Not to destroy it, but to advance it. To move ‘not killing’ to include ‘not hating’. So what Christ did was the exact opposite of what my Mennonite friend was proposing. Christ was calling on us not only to ‘not kill’ but also to ‘not hate’. Indeed, to love.

Higher up and Farther in

I believe that what a study of the words and culture here show is that the idea of wifely ‘obedience’ is, functionally speaking, likely to get understood by modern husbands and wives in the same way as my Mennonite friend. They will be tempted to say, “Well… God isn’t calling on wives to *obey* their husbands. He is just calling them to… take their counsel into account.”

When, in fact, the opposite is true. God isn’t calling on wives to *merely obey* their husbands… He is calling on them to submit to them. He is not calling on wives just to listen to the occasional command and reluctantly carry it out, He is calling on them to determine the will of their husbands, and to go above and beyond even that.

The lowest form of obedience is that the slave. An obedience where the power is all on the side of the one giving the orders, and the only expectation is a slavish (see, its right in the word) carrying out of literal commands.

Or the obedience of the young child, where the parent not only has the power, but also all of the knowledge. The child not only has to pee in the potty, but to be taught to pee in the potty.

The obedience of the wife is in a different universe. Like the obedience of a disciple to his master, a soldier to his commander, and the Son of God to His Father: the submission of a wife to her husband fully encompasses ‘obedience’, but goes well beyond it. The wife has power and agency, and is called to lay down that power and use that agency to serve her husband. To do his will.

Conclusion

The problem with determining the proper functional understanding of the wifely submission to her husband, like the submission of a soldier to his superior, is that it is the will of the superior which determines what that submission will look like. The obedient wife to one husband might look very different than the obedient wife to another husband. Following orders as a pilot may look very different than following orders as a foot soldier.

What isn’t different between them is the core of the meaning of submission: doing the will of those in authority over you. That is the key factor that Christ taught us.

Notes

His full quote:

Hi Von,

I'm sorry. I DID see your piece and read through it once. I've entered a very busy season and haven't been able to find the time to respond. Hopefully I will soon. In short, as far as your argument is a linguisitic argument, as is, "What is the best English word to directly translate from the Greek?"...I would say that my initial argument--whether in the above essay or in my response to you--has almost nothing to say to that one way or the other. I used the phrase "the best *functional* term" for a reason. Because, ala John Frame, I am interested in *application* more than literal translation. I agee that "submit" is a much better translation than "honor," certainly FAR better than "trust." That just not the point I was ever trying to make. My point was: what is the best way to characterize how Paul's "submission" (of wife) and "love" (of husband) might function for the Christian today. I still don't think that "obey" is the best functional term to summarize Paul's point here, for reasons that I have already stated. However, this, I stress, is *not* making a technical point about language, but rather a functional point about application. I even grant, once again, that obedience may be (and often is) involved. I simply don't think it is the best word to characterize the central function of what Paul means here. Overall, I don't think our exchange has yet quite risen to the level of "disagreement." I suspect we may have very clear disagreements. But so far, you seem not to be engaging my argument close enough to have reached a place of actual disagreement with my argument. Which is fine. You may not be all that interested in my purpose here. And insofar as your purpose is to clarify the best technical term for translating the Greek into English, I might be willing to say that your translations is as good as any. I'm just un-interested in that debate. Again, my interest is application, not translation. I grant that the two are related. But the application may be debated, even once we have agreed upon the translation. Perhaps I can post more later on your end!https://www.patientkingdom.com/p/wives-submit/comment/56141607?utm_source=activity_item#comment-57538358?utm_source=activity_item

Link to ‘triperspecivalism’: https://frame-poythress.org/what-is-triperspectivalism/

As that link didn’t give any particular information as to how we should functionally translate ‘submit’, ‘reverence’, or ‘lord’, I didn’t reference it in the article above.

---

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von