Respect

In a recent conversation with someone, we were discussing the problem of "submit" as meaning "respect" rather than "subordinate". This person suggested that we are all required to submit to one another (each of us to everyone) which obviously couldn't mean that all subordinate themselves to everyone, so "submit" must not mean "subordinate". No, we're all to respect each other. That's the only possible answer. Now, it's possible to pull this out of the air like that because my Bible actually does say, "Let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Eph 5:33). "There, see? It is defining the earlier 'submit' as 'respect'." Maybe.

First, I would actually define "submit" in Eph 5:21 by the texts that follow it. Wives submit "as to the Lord". Husbands submit by loving their wives "as Christ loved the Church." Children submit by obeying their parents. Slaves submit by obeying their masters. Masters submit by not threatening or dishonoring their slaves. All submit, but not all in the same way. But, hey, that's just me, right?

Beyond that, I made a simple mistake. I looked up the word "respect" used in Eph 5:33. Yeah ... shouldn't have done that. Why? Because the word used there is not "respect". It is phobeo, the verb form of phobos, our source of "phobia", and meaning the same thing -- fear. It is almost always translated as "fear" or "terror" and almost never as "respect" (or "reverence" in some). So, if we're going to use Eph 5:33 to define "submit", we'll need to do so with some accuracy ... and that would be fear.

But I had to ask myself, "Why do so many translations use 'respect' or 'reverence' here when in almost every other place it is 'fear'?" And then I thought, "Why ask myself? I know an honest-to-goodness Greek scholar. Ask him." This is what he told me:

Protestant translations tend to translate phobos and phobeo as "respect," "revere," or "reverence" because of a general failure to grasp the biblical distinction among the following concepts: "fright," "terror," "fear that," and "fear to." "Fright" or "terror" are appropriate translations of phobos in 1 John 4:17-18. "Fear that" is the kind of fear that subverts and destroys confidence. Anyone who "fears that" he will fall to his death should never go mountain climbing. "Fear that" is the kind of fear that an abused child has toward an abusive father. "Fear to" is proper fear. Anyone who does go mountain climbing had better be governed by "fear to fall," for such fear incites caution, preparedness, and the proper use of climbing gear. "Fear to" is godly fear, "fear to fail," "fear to incur God's anger." "Fear to" is the kind of fear that regulates behavior to be godly, pleasing to God, and to shun sinning that provokes God's displeasure. "Fear to" is the only kind of fear that is compatible with confidence and assurance. In fact, gospel-borne assurance of salvation always entails the godly "fear to fall and to perish."

Hence, when the NT exhorts wives to "fear" their husbands, it is certainly admonishing them to "revere" their husbands, but such "reverence" is generally an inadequate translation, for "reverence" must entail fear, "fear to" incur the husband's displeasure. Such fear is the godly kind of fear that governs a wife's conduct in relation to her husband. Such fear is the kind of fear that we all are to hold within our hearts toward those whom God has placed over us, for to hold such fear is to manifest the proper posture of fear ultimately toward God himself upward through the ranks of authority that God has established. We are to fear those who govern over us, not cowering in fright but fearing to incur their wrath, for God placed them in authority over us for good, not for evil (though many of them choose to do evil toward us). Cf. Romans 13:1-7.

If, then, you want to understand "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" to mean what Eph 5:33 says it means, please, by all means, go right ahead. It means a fear of incurring the husband's wrath, a right fear that governs conduct, demands respect to those in authority, a fear that drives us to obey. Go ahead. Use that one. I'm okay with that.
___________________
Side Note: I wrote this post a day before I read this blog entry. Note just from the summary that "The following context specifies the kind of submission Paul has in mind" ... like I said up there in my second paragraph. The referenced material points out that "one another" cannot mean "everyone to everyone" because texts like Rev 6:4 ("Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people should slay one another") become impossible. (Seriously, would anyone argue that everyone gets slain?) Imagine if we did that with 1 Cor 11:33, where we are told, "So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another." That would require that we never eat because we need to wait for everyone. Thus, there are obviously limits to "one another". When Paul told us to "bear one another's burdens" (Gal 6:2), he didn't mean "bear all burdens", but "bear the burdens of those who need help." Thus, "submit one to another" does not require "submit to everyone", but is explained in the texts that follow and does not correspond with an egalitarian reading of the text. But, you'll have to read the thing yourself. I just found it interesting to get such support right after writing this.