Trust, Honour, and Obey
As anyone who has ever been overseas can readily tell you, the proper translation of words from language to language can be very important. That woman may not be embarrassed, she may be pregnant.1
But when we deal with the words God uses in Scripture, the importance rises. We may end up not merely embarrassed (or pregnant), we may end up teaching destructively false doctrine.
Linguistics
The subject of this post, let me hasten to say, will be purely linguistic and doctrinal. In it I wish to examine several words used in modern discourse and The Scriptures, and compare, contrast, and revise my remarks.
The key words we will be examining are those used in the relationship between a husband and his wife. Specifically the words translated here ‘under obedience’, ‘submit yourselves’, ‘subject unto’, ‘obedient to’, ‘be in subjection to’:
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, G5293 as also saith the law.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves G5293 unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto G5293 Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves G5293 unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient G5293 to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection G5293 to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1Pe 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection G5293 unto their own husbands:
1Pe 3:6 Even as Sara obeyedG5219 Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjectionG5292.
Introduction
This discussion is of long standing in all of my writing, but the specific triggering incident’ was the reaction of Ross Byrd to my post Trust… and Obey. When I told him, on his post, that I had responded, we had a discussion and he ended up saying:
As far as your argument goes, I will have to think on it. I agree that Abraham’s trust is most truly embodied in his obedience. I have myself written about that. But I definitely don’t think the English word “obey”—which is used generally in response to commands—is the best functional term to characterize a Christian wife’s role with regard to her husband. I believe marital relations should exist in proper hierarchy (as is true of all relationships, even the Father and the Son). I believe what Paul says here and in 1 Cor 11 is true and in some ways straightforward though in others ways quite mysterious (as just about all scholars agree with regard to 1 Cor 11). You seem to take a common sense approach: that submission obviously means obedience and that obedience obviously means exactly what it sounds like: same as a dog to its master, a child to her mother, a slave to his master. I do not think obedience to anyone other than God—though it is definitely called for in innumerable cases—is entirely straightforward. For instance, a child of five obeys his parents very differently than a child of 15. A child of 35 may not explicitly “obey” his parents at all and yet may still be in submission to their authoritative role in his life. In short, I have a hard time trusting an argument about obedience between humans that does not leave room for nuanced consideration of situation and perspective. The biblical norm alone, however clearly stated in the text. is not enough to make for absolutely clear-cut application. (See John Frame’s tri-persepctivalism.) Even “thou shalt not kill” does not always means “thou shalt not kill,” etc. If you agree with this, then I would suggest that “honor” is a better word than “obey.” Honor will oftentimes include obedience, of course, but nuance is involved. You may even consistently honor someone who does not consistently give you commands (e.g. an adult parent or…a husband). There are, for instance, many ways that adult children must honor their parents without directly obeying their commands. The same may possibly be said of wives to husbands.
All that to say, I believe you can still honor and submit to someone without the necessity of obeying explicit commands (if that person is not God). That may be because the nature of the relationship is such that explicit commands are not (or are not often) given. Or it may be because the commands given are not trustworthy and wisdom would say not to obey them. In either case, I don’t see obedience as functionally central to every relationship of submission (nor do I see commands as central to every hierarchical relationship). Though, of course, it is in the relationship of young children to their parents.
This post is not complete. It is meant to be accompanied by an appendix, which will provide the voluminous details that this post lacks. Cause otherwise this post would be so huge as to be almost unreadable. I encourage everyone to use the appendix to help understand this post. It is also the first in a series.
Linguistic only
I definitely don’t think the English word “obey”—which is used generally in response to commands—is the best functional term to characterize a Christian wife’s role with regard to her husband.
[His initial words]
I would suggest that “trust” is the better word.
[Edited by the author to say:]
I would suggest that “honor” is a better word than “obey.”
Once again I wish to underline and emphasise that I am responding here ONLY to the linguistic issue. When going from the Jewish understanding of NT Greek, how are we to understand Paul’s use of the Greek word ‘hupotassō’, as it applies to the relationship between husbands and wives?
Specifically, I wish to examine the following words that he uses in his responses: trust, obey, honour, command as well as the words submit and subjection, which come from the KJV. I wish to examine his argument that, in our current day, ‘honour’ (or ‘trust’) are better words to use than ‘obey’.
KJV
Now, lest this turn into a KJV onlyist discussion forum, let me post a few other versions, and we will see that a similar theme prevails:
Titus 2:5
Louis Segond
à être retenues, chastes, occupées aux soins domestiques, bonnes, soumises à leurs maris, afin que la parole de Dieu ne soit pas blasphémée.
Websters
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Luther
sittig sein, keusch, häuslich, gütig, ihren Männern untertan, auf daß nicht das Wort Gottes verlästert werde.
Young’s Literal
sober, pure, keepers of their own houses, good, subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be evil spoken of.
Trust
I definitely don’t think the English word “obey”—which is used generally in response to commands—is the best functional term to characterize a Christian wife’s role with regard to her husband….
[initial words]
I would suggest that “trust” is the better word.
[Edited by the author to say:]
I would suggest that “honor” is a better word than “obey.”
Ross initially proposed that we use the word ‘trust’ instead of ‘obey’, which seemed odd to me because the words seem, not opposites, but have widely divergent semantic domains. And they are definitely different words in Greek:
G1679 (Strong)
ἐλπίζω
elpizō
el-pid'-zo
From G1680; to expect or confide: - (have, thing) hope (-d) (for), trust.
Total KJV occurrences: 31
G3982 (Strong)
πείθω
peithō
pi'-tho
A primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty): - agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) content, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.
Total KJV occurrences: 55
G4100 (Strong)
πιστεύω
pisteuō
pist-yoo'-o
From G4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.
Total KJV occurrences: 248
Second of all, as far as I can tell, the word ‘trust’ is never used in this context. The closest I can think of is Proverbs 31, where we see the heart of the husband trusting in the wife.
What is very true is that because we trust in The Lord, we place ourselves in subjection to His commands. And one of His commands is that we obey those He places in authority over us. Which, for the wife, includes her husband.
The use of the word ‘trust’ here would mean that wives are literally commanded to trust their husbands. Which, given the rather common implication of ‘being convinced by’, would be… odd.
Honour
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Ephesians 5:33
I definitely don’t think the English word “obey”—which is used generally in response to commands—is the best functional term to characterize a Christian wife’s role with regard to her husband.
I would suggest that “honor” is a better word than “obey.”
Ross then proposed that we use the word ‘honour’ instead of ‘obey’. This is a fascinating choice, as, historically and Biblically, the word honour has a much wider semantic domain than that of ‘obey’. Biblically, 'honour’ includes respect, care, and obedience.
If we look at Ephesians 5:33 we will see that I missed a word in my analysis here, which adds weight to the idea of ‘honour’. In that passage we read that the wife is to ‘reverence’ her husband. Which would add the idea of ‘respect’ to that of ‘obey’, leaving only ‘care’. And there are many other passages that make it clear that a wife is to care for her husband.
There are two specific problems that I can see with using the word ‘honour’ in this context for modern readers:
While the word ‘honour’ in Scripture clearly means ‘obedience, respect, and care’; the same cannot be said for modern American English. There is means a vague sort of ‘pay light homage to’. As in ‘honorary degree’. Which is less than a real degree.
The ideas of ‘place yourself under’ seem missing from the meaning of ‘honour’, which makes it a poor substitute for ‘subject’ and ‘submit’ etc.
Obey
…it may be because the commands given are not trustworthy and wisdom would say not to obey them…
One important thing to realize in this study, is that the word ‘obey’ was a much stronger word when the KJV was translated than it is today. And the obedience required of wives, children, and slaves in the time of the New Testament would be unimaginable to modern readers.
So when we ask ourselves what word best represents the meaning of the Greek used in the New Testament to describe the relationship between husband and wife, we need to realise that our words ‘obey’, ‘submit’, and ‘subjection’ are far milder than their equivalents would have been in Greek, not stronger.
And given that the word ‘honour’ includes the implication of obedience as well as respect and are, that makes Ross’s quote doubly problematic. Whether the Scriptures say that wives are merely to ‘obey’ their husbands, or it says they are to ‘honour’ them, the above quote is out of bounds, since it seems to leave the wife in the role of judging the wisdom of her husband’s commands, and deciding whether or not to obey them.
Which, it should be noted, is contrary to the definition of obedience. It is a common truism to say that something is not ‘obedience’ unless you don’t want to do it. My granddaughter wins no awards for obedience if she goes and eats chocolate ice cream when I tell her to. And Peter very clearly insists on the wifely obedience to a husband who obeys not the word!
Commands
And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you:
Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.
Jeremiah 35:18-19
There are few words as closely linked in Scripture as ‘obey’ and ‘commands’. To try to divorce ‘commands’ from ‘obey’ seems very hard. There is a way in which it can be done, but it is literally the exact opposite of the direction that many in the modern church wish us to go. It is to follow the example of Christ.
Because, while Christ clearly followed the commands of God the Father , He went well beyond that. He came to do the will of His Father. This concept would tie back into the husband trusting in the wife. The husband can trust the wife, if her will is to do his will.
The truly obedient person does not merely follow the explicit commands of those in authority over him (although he does do so). He does his best to obey the will, even the unexpressed will, of those in authority over him. Of learning, from day to day, what that will is, and learning how to best carry it out.
Submission
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
I Peter 3:6
Now I have often seen people say that the Scriptures don’t call for a wife to ‘obey’ her husband. Instead, they say, they call for her to ‘submit to’ him, or to be in ‘subjection to’ him. The KJV and other translators didn’t see it that way, but let’s examine the idea of submission. Is the ‘submission’ or ‘subjection’ of the wife more or less than the concept of obedience?
What has been traditionally taught, and what the Scripture clearly shows, is that the subjection of the wife is not *less than* obedience, it is more. It is not less than ‘honour’, it is more. The word used for the wife does not imply a lesser subjection than that of the child, it involves more. The word in Scripture is used for slaves to masters, Citizens to laws, and Christians to God.
The word ‘submission’, when applied to the wife, unlike the word ‘obey’ when used with, say, inanimate objects, implies a deliberate action. It implies that the subject of the verb ‘to submit’ has agency and power. And that they use that agency, they harness that power, to deliberately and consciously place themselves in a position of honouring and obeying someone whom God has placed over them. They may think their decisions are unwise, they may be more competent, a better speaker, a quicker decision maker. But, in obedience to God’s command… they submit to the husband that God Himself has placed over them.
It should also be noted that the statement is actually false. While in several places the word used for ‘children obey’ is a different word that that used in ‘wives submit’, in other places they are the same word.
Conclusion
There is no question that there are huge differences between the submission that the wife gives to her husband, and that the church gives to God. Above all, because it is secondary. Wives are to submit to their husbands because that is God’s command to the church.
But, then, everything in our life is done in reflection of God, and in obedience to God. God is our Father , but we have earthly fathers. Christ is our Priest, but He gave us earthly elders. Christ is King, Christ is Lord… but we have earthly authorities.
In the end, we are slaves, and He is our Master. But we have earthly authorities. We have earthly authorities that He designed and that He gave to us and that He calls us to obey.
In the end, we are called to obey untrustworthy earthly authorities, because we have a trustworthy Heavenly Authority who commands it. The wife who honours, who submits to, who places herself in subjection under, who obeys.. her husband; does so because of her trust in God.
Note: This post is accompanied by an enormous appendix. I have tried to link some of it, and I am hoping it will serve as a resource for this and other posts.
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
In Spanish the word for ‘pregnant’ looks like the English word ‘embarassed’.