Fear of God

[andrew]

Zec, is windblown afraid of you? Why? What are you going to do to her if she steps out of line? What is she actually be afraid of?

I agree with the logic of what you said after my post when it comes to understanding scripture generally, but let's get real. This thread has gone over 100 posts yammering about whether or not wives should be scared of their husbands. You say they should—what does that mean for you in practice?

Meanwhile, what the heck does this mean?

A righteous woman fears her husband

So if my women aren't scared of me they're unrighteous? Is that where you're going with this?

I continue to assert that a bunch of men should be discussing how we can better love our wives, for real, in practice, instead of making abstract assertions about how they should be afraid of us and then thinking we've accomplished something. Frankly, I think this entire thread is a colossal waste of time—change my mind.

 

[FollowingHim]

What I believe is that if a bunch of men are going to sit around dissecting the exact fear response women are supposed to have to male authority, they'd be using their time more wisely discussing how to be better men.

Well said Andrew. I've been avoiding this for similar reasons. This entire discussion is a classic example of what we are told NOT to do in 2 Timothy 2:14.

I'll make one little side-point though, because I find this interesting:

That's sounds like Stockholm syndrome.

In my personal opinion, what is called "Stockholm syndrome" is a God-given coping mechanism for women captured in war etc. It's going to happen, it's always happened, you'll never stop it. So as well as giving laws regulating the practice, God also designed women with an in-built coping mechanism that would help them to actually see the positives in the situation and be able to eventually come to a place where they can find enjoyment in life regardless of their circumstances. In saying this I am not in any way promoting the mistreatment of women, rather marveling at the foresight of a loving God who has prepared people for every situation, even undesirable ones.

 

[IshChayil]

Zec, is windblown afraid of you? Why? What are you going to do to her if she steps out of line? What is she actually be afraid of?
I agree with the logic of what you said after my post when it comes to understanding scripture generally, but let's get real. This thread has gone over 100 posts yammering about whether or not wives should be scared of their husbands. You say they should—what does that mean for you in practice?...
I continue to assert that a bunch of men should be discussing how we can better love our wives, for real, in practice, instead of making abstract assertions about how they should be afraid of us and then thinking we've accomplished something. Frankly, I think this entire thread is a colossal waste of time—change my mind.

Well said Andrew. I've been avoiding this for similar reasons. This entire discussion is a classic example of what we are told NOT to do in 2 Timothy 2:14.

I chimed in because I don't know these guys pushing the "maybe it really does mean wives should feel terror," line and I thought just in case someone thinks wife beating is OK (or the implied threat of a beatin') or someone who reads these posts later may come to that conclusion so for my perspective; the time was very well spent refuting that shizat.
I'm agreeing with @Kevin though that some folks just won't cede a point no matter the mountain of evidence you show them.

 

[andrew]

just in case someone thinks wife beating is OK (or the implied threat of a beatin') or someone who reads these posts later may come to that conclusion so for my perspective; the time was very well spent

Point taken.

 

[rockfox]

No, and to suggest that is a straw man.

Not trying to set up a straw man, that's why I asked the question. What you wrote could be interpreted either way and I was trying to better understand.

 

[rockfox]

I continue to assert that a bunch of men should be discussing how we can better love our wives, for real, in practice, instead of making abstract assertions about how they should be afraid of us and then thinking we've accomplished something. Frankly, I think this entire thread is a colossal waste of time—change my mind.

Are you the spiritual head of your house? Do you love your wife by washing her in the water of the word? If so, then how do you teach her to:

the wife see that she reverence her husband

Her accomplishing this is as important to your marriage (and her own spiritual health) as you loving your wife.

How is a wife to 'do reverence'? What do I teach her on this? That is the question that got me interested in this topic. It is not taught at all in our church or culture; in fact everything in both fights against it. And if we want to have a solid foundation in our marriage upon which to add other women, it behooves us to get this right.

And it means something much much more and deeper than just 'respecting him'. I think reverence is a good translation; it contains respect, also honor, and much much more. But you can't separate and toss out fear from that, it's the root meaning of the word.

I know this is an uncomfortable topic. But it is as important as love in the marriage. Ignore it or toss it out at your own peril. And this is related to many other things, not just marriage...

For likewise we are to be teaching men and women to be reverent (Titus 2). Another verse that ties this together is 1 Peter 2:17:

Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

IMO and based on my own experience, reverence comes from knowledge. Too often men have made it nigh impossible for their wives to truly reverence them because the wives know who they are. Conversely, some women truly reverence their husband and thank God every day that He has given them a true husband. They do this because they know their husband.

I agree that reverence is different from respect or even honor. Honor is something you give someone else because of their position regardless of whether they are honorable or not, respect because of their accomplishments and reverence because of who they example.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The teachings of fear of G-d begins in the Tanahk. 90% of the new Testament teachings are continuation of the teachings in the Tanahk. If you remove those teachings and their meanings then your looking at a incomplete narrative.

I'm all about integrating the Old and New, I don't even really like those phrases except that they aid easy conversation. But we can't use either to mitigate something we don't like in the other. Verse in the Old Testament that don't directly relate to marriage aren't going to be effective tools for rewriting verses in the New that do.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Too often men have made it nigh impossible for their wives to truly reverence them

This is why the conversation is important @andrew . The idea exists even here that women are exempt from being good wives (and hence good disciples of Christ) based on their husband's behavior. We have to know what the times call for and our times call for women to be taught how to be good women regardless of the world around them. They have to be taught that there is a standard, a set standard, not their emotions, that they have to live up to.

What we are hearing from the "Ain't Skeered" crowd ends up at the modernist conclusion that women can sit in judgement of their husbands and depose them if necessary. It's the same arguments. "If a husband is a good husband then a woman will be a good wife." Let's try that another way though, "If a wife is a good wife, a husband will be a good husband." How many times have we told a man that he just has to love his rebellious whore of a wife and that if he's a good enough husband she'll respond to that?

Now what kind of holy hell would erupt on this forum if I told a battered woman that if she submits and is a good wife to her unemployed drug addict of a baby daddy that he'll start treating her right? The explosion could be seen from New Zealand to Oklahoma. And I think @FollowingHim and @Verifyveritas76 would readily admit to this.

So this debate is vitally important. The instructions for wives are definite and very challenging. How far do they go? I think this is probably the most important topic in front of this body right now.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec, is windblown afraid of you? Why? What are you going to do to her if she steps out of line? What is she actually be afraid of?

I agree with the logic of what you said after my post when it comes to understanding scripture generally, but let's get real. This thread has gone over 100 posts yammering about whether or not wives should be scared of their husbands. You say they should—what does that mean for you in practice?

Meanwhile, what the heck does this mean?

So if my women aren't scared of me they're unrighteous? Is that where you're going with this?

I continue to assert that a bunch of men should be discussing how we can better love our wives, for real, in practice, instead of making abstract assertions about how they should be afraid of us and then thinking we've accomplished something. Frankly, I think this entire thread is a colossal waste of time—change my mind.

So there are three things to respond to here; does windblown fear me, are your wives unrighteous women and why isn't this thread a colossal waste of time.

To the first question, does windblow fear me? I will quote her response verbatim, "Unfortunately not. If I did I would be a much better wife." Do with that what you will. I would add that I don't think I really fear God. If I did I would be a much better Christian. The Metaphor works and it's a beautiful thing.

As far as your wives are concerned I am neither competent or foolish enough to try and ascertain. They seem like excellent women when I've seen them. I do know this, they're commanded to phobos you (whatever phobos means at this point) and so that would factor in to whether the are obedient to God's Word. Only you and God have any insight in to that.

As to why this conversation is important; you already know that answer. Our responsibilities as men don't end with ourselves. We have to train our sons and daughters on how to be good husbands and wives and we are responsible to God for our wives as well.

 

[FollowingHim]

I do see your points Zec. I think there's a balance here. Scripture is clear that a wife should submit to her husband regardless of his character, just as slaves are to submit to their masters regardless of their character, and through their good example hope to influence others towards God. I agree, and this is an uncomfortable teaching.

The problem is when we focus on the extremes. It is only the extremes that are uncomfortable - and the extremes are usually not relevant to our lives. In fact, they're usually a complete waste of our time to even consider. I would expect that none of our wives are truly in "terror" of us - and if they were, I'd want to know the details, because terror is usually the result of unloving treatment.

If we take one tiny extreme question - in this case "should a wife feel terror towards her husband" and go to great lengths to show that she should, we end up risking ACTUALLY encouraging a man to take this grain of "knowledge" and use it as an excuse to terrorize his wives. Which none of us would advocate. But that's what it LOOKS like some of you are promoting - even though you obviously are not.

Maybe it is possible to argue on an extremely hypothetical basis that within the enormous melting pot of emotions that a woman feels towards her husband, there should be a few drops of terror in the mixture adding a bit of spice to the brew. But even if we were to concede that (which I am not), it's still a very minor portion of the brew. The vast majority of what she is feeling is NOT terror, but reverence, love etc.

Should we be finding this minor portion, figuring out whether they should be feeling it, and if we decide so trying to encourage it in some way? Or should we be focussing on what is more important?

As an aside, how do you think any single women will react to a thread discussing whether wives should be terrified of their husbands, is this conducive to polygamy or not?!

 

[Joleneakamama]

To the first question, does windblow fear me? I will quote her response verbatim, "Unfortunately not. If I did I would be a much better wife."

I understand her sentiment. Fear is hard to have when you know your husband has a sincere desire to do right, and loves you too. I actually disobeyed direct explicit instruction, within the last few months, and there is really no excuse for that.
We should set a good example for our children, and others of trusting those in authority.
I see the other points being made too, just had a minute though and wanted to chime in a little.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

What we are hearing from the "Ain't Skeered" crowd ends up at the modernist conclusion that women can sit in judgement of their husbands and depose them if necessary.

If this is the takeaway from my posts, it’s a bad understanding.

My initial thought I felt was pretty clear that wrath within covenant was a horrible representation of the Father. That has been the entirety of my posts as I recall them. Just because I take a stand against something that I’ve found to be unbiblical does not equate that I then must get in the other ditch of no fear. I’m just not in the ditch of any wrath within covenant. In fact, I believe this to be the primary motive for the Isaiah 4 passage. Protection from impending wrath if you are within covenant with an Adown.

I felt that this was a potentially productive thread initially and still see that potential if for no other reason than we understand true reverence and it’s role both to our Lord and how we example that role of lord to the women he’s given us to steward.

As I understand it, the biggest thing that a daughter of God should have to fear within covenant is that the covering of the Adown could be removed or that she could be shalaked (put outside the tent) and that loss of her advocate when the judge comes to the door. Everything else comes down to a loss of fellowship.

 

[The Revolting Man]

we end up risking ACTUALLY encouraging a man to take this grain of "knowledge" and use it as an excuse to terrorize his wives. Which none of us would advocate. But that's what it LOOKS like some of you are promoting - even though you obviously are not.

And again we want to change the instructions to wives because we're worried about what the husbands will do. This seems wrongheaded to me, and maybe even smacks of white knighting a little bit (Okay, a lot).

As an aside, how do you think any single women will react to a thread discussing whether wives should be terrified of their husbands, is this conducive to polygamy or not?!

I don't have to answer this FH. You know that the answer is that if its scriptural then yes, it's conducive to everything, including polygyny.

 

[The Revolting Man]

If this is the takeaway from my posts, it’s a bad understanding.

It's the logical result though. It is what will, and always has resulted from this line of thinking.

I felt that this was a potentially productive thread initially and still see that potential if for no other reason than we understand true reverence and it’s role both to our Lord and how we example that role of lord to the women he’s given us to steward.

Well that would be useful, how do you guys define reverence?

As I understand it, the biggest thing that a daughter of God should have to fear within covenant is that the covering of the Adown could be removed or that she could be shalaked (put outside the tent) and that loss of her advocate when the judge comes to the door. Everything else comes down to a loss of fellowship.

Now you see all that sounds terrifying to me. It sounds like something you should be deathly afraid of.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

It's the logical result though. It is what will, and always has resulted from this line of thinking.

Not true. This would only be true if you go from one extreme to the other. As rightly dividing believers, we are called to identify truth wherever that puts us, not to identify with one extreme because the other extreme is worse.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Now you see all that sounds terrifying to me. It sounds like something you should be deathly afraid of.

I also know people who are deathly afraid of electricity and one man (an electrician) who survived electrocution.

I am not afraid of electricity, even though I’ve been “bit” several times. Is it extremely dangerous? Sure, but it’s something that demands respect and a certain amount of caution, not terror. The more you know about something and understand how it works, the more confident you are in proximity while retaining a healthy respect for its boundaries. This is why we are exhorted to examine ourselves, to see if we be in the (boundaries) faith.
I don’t have to be terrified because someone already died for my sins. I just have to make sure that I’m under His covering. My concern is not death, but covenant.

 

[andrew]

Well said, VV76.

One point to add: I don't try to teach my women to fear me (or reverence me or even respect me). My aim is to be the husband they reverence and submit to willingly, and if I 'teach' them anything in this domain it will be only through the example of my relationship with God. The idea that I would be teaching them in a bible study way to act a certain way toward me regardless of how they actually see me is to say that I would be teaching them hypocrisy, which is abhorrent to me.

The burden is on you, RF & Zec, and anyone else banging this drum, to show us what you mean and how you do it. Otherwise, this thread is . . . wait for it . . . a waste of time.

Zec, your and windblown's casual admission that she does not fear you and you do not fear God leaves us with a big empty hole where the point of this debate should be. When you fear guys can show us what you mean and how you got there, and what we're doing wrong and how we can fix it, we can have a different conversation.

 

[The Revolting Man]

. The idea that I would be teaching them in a bible study way to act a certain way toward me regardless of how they actually see me is to say that I would be teaching them hypocrisy, which is abhorrent to me.

Zec, your and windblown's casual admission that she does not fear you and you do not fear God leaves us with a big empty hole where the point of this debate should be. When you fear guys can show us what you mean and how you got there, and what we're doing wrong and how we can fix it, we can have a different conversation.

So these two thoughts seem radically opposed to me. You abhor hypocrisy but my admission that I don't know how to do this negates the whole passage. That just doesn't compute.

We aspire to do things correctly. We're not doing them correctly. And if we ever get this item correct then there will be many more for us to move on to. We still need to know what's correct. I just don't believe that you really think that God's instructions are pointless to know the truth about.

 

[andrew]

It doesn’t negate the whole passage. It negates the whole debate.