Fear of God

[rockfox]

Just catching up this conversation. Reverence is a subject that interests me as it is little taught or followed and at first hard to understand given our modern mindsets. A couple questions...

There is no mention of the wrath of God on any of his people.

Are you saying that since there is no wrath there is no place for fear of God by the Christian? Or that there still something to fear, but wrath isn't it?

6: punishment for our day-to-day sins? No. Our sins are already forgiven. But we do know that He is capable of punishing sin, and therefore fearful, even if we do not need to fear this personally.

Prov 3:11-12; Heb 12:5-11 God says he chastens and disciplines those whom he loves (literally speaking: flogs); and it is painful (i.e. something naturally to be feared) and if we are not chastened we are not His. What is that chastening for if not day to day sins? I'm not to fear transgressing the moral code I can read but will be punished for not following His will on things I can't read? It's not clear what the chastening is for in Hebrews 12, though the context seems to go back at least as far as verse 1 and mentions sin twice in v1 and v3.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Please give book, chapter, versus that says that. I like the idea but an unmarried woman can fear G-d and the fact that there's no scripture that backs up that's statement makes that arguement a mute point.

So just to be sure I'm understanding correctly. Phobos a word that can be translated as fear, reverance, respect or awe. Should be translated fear. The original statement was that it was changed to fit a modern feminist veiw. It's was said the verse spoken of was changed from fear (of punishment and/or wrath) to respect and reverence to be feminist freiendly, but in reality was only translated as fear after 1800s during the begging of the suffrage movement, and the rule of thumb was being challanged, possible agenda? I would agree if it had been translated from fear after the feminist movement to respect/reververence, but that is not the case. So that reasoning is bunk. Yet the stance is still that it should be translated as fear, because a few scholars in a hand full of bible translations decided that. No mortal man's decision to translate a word as fear trumps Yeshua telling us not to fear those who cannot destroy body and soul. Unless those scholars are the authority and Yeshua isn't. We have a choice here, either accept what Yeshua said as the truth or follow the teachings of Man. I know I dont have to remind you but others who may be reading might need to be reminded, when scripture seems to contradiction it's self the cause is our interpretation. Here it's the word of Yeshua vs the word of man i.e. the scholars or if your saying that the translation as fear is Authoritive, then it's The Son contradicting The Father.

John 5:19
So Yeshua said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

That shows us that it's not the Father and Son in conflict. That leaves only Man and Yeshua.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Yeshua came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

That shows us who's words care weight, not the scholars who's translation contradicts Yeshua.

No, you're not understanding me correctly. Phobos, a word that can be translated as fear, reverence, respect or awe should be translated as fear, reverence, respect and awe. It shouldn't be translated as reverence alone. It isn't just reverence. It's also fear, respect and awe. I've never tried to deny the reverence is in there, I just don't want to lose all the rest of it too.

And I don't see a contradiction with Matthew 10. The admonition to not fear those who can kill the body but not the soul seems to be pretty narrowly focused and by no means would trump a direct command to fear someone else. I think the Words of Jesus argument is a VERY dangerous and slippery slope. The whole book is the Word of God. It all integrates. There isn't a hierarchy here.

It is interesting to note here too that Matthew 10 doesn't draw a distinction between the presumed fear that is being directed at those who can kill the body and the presumed reverence that should be directed at God. It seems like if there was a distinction to be made then this would be the place for it. It's admittedly circumstantial but not insignificant.

As far as a chapter and verse to show that a woman who fears her husband is really fearing God, well I have to admit that it seems self-evident that IF God commands women to fear their husbands then obeying that command would be also fearing God. All I can come up with off the top of my head is Sarah calling Abraham master and it being counted to her as faith. But the simple fact that marriage is a metaphor wherein the wife represents the church and the husband represents Christ seems to imply that there would be a very strong similarity in the way the wife/church interacts with the husband/Christ.

And just to touch on the translation thing, I checked Wycliffe and he translates phobos as "dread" in most of the verses we've been discussing, including Ephesians 5:33 and Tyndale uses fear. So it might not be as a recent an invention as all that.

 

[rockfox]

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. Eph 5:33

It has been my understanding that this is most accurately translated reverence and that in essence it means respect born of fear. It is not simply respect as modern translations like to water it down to, which lacks fear; nor pure terror, which lacks respect. However you want to translate this word, if the message doesn't connotate fear in some manner, its not being true to the Greek. You could compose a sentence in English using either fear or respect that communicates the same meaning as reverence via the context; but in Eph 5:33 the necessary context is lacking, especially for modern readers. For example: "Treat firearms with respect", the context being: be afraid and handle them carefully lest you be shot.

[ @ZecAustin your message came in as I wrote this, I'm interested on your take on the above paragraph.]

Furthermore simple respect doesn't carry the depth of feeling and honor that reverence does. Thayer puts it thus: "to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience". An example of how this practically played out in the first century: when coming before a king or other high official people would kneel in reverence before them. The idea being you show proper respect knowing it is a powerful person who could order your death. For a scriptural example that communicates the feeling see Esther.

To me, this idea we shouldn't fear God/husband is wrapped up in the touchy feely modern day Jesus as boyfriend and fills whats missing in your life false gospel that is lacking in any fear whatsoever. Most people, Christian and non-Christian alike, object to the idea they ought to fear God, lest they have to obey Him. The Gospel of Nice.

As a bunch of men it is easy for you all to forget the level of day to day fear many women have. Fear of mice, dark places, being alone, traveling, scary men, etc. When it comes to men, there is little about the average effete millennial or Gen X office worker that inspires fear; all the more so the soft pudgy beta's that frequent churches these days and walk in fear of women. But with truly masculine men it is very different; the very presence of such men, even kind ones, inspires fear in a woman at the limbic level. Just from his very presence apart from any real potential for violence or discipline. However most modern husbands don't inspire this kind of fear; at best they get begrudging respect, at worst contempt. But the thing is, at their core women want a man that inspires this fear in them, for they want a strong man who can hold them and protect them. You see a similar thing at work with women who love horror movies and roller coasters: they desire the terror.

While it is tempting to do proof-texting and play verses against one another out of context like with 1 John 4:18; this is not rightly dividing the word. For example the same Paul who wrote to Timothy in 2 Tim 1:7:

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

also said to Timothy in 1 Tim 5:20:

Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

And who was Paul talking about that should fear? He was talking about rebuking elders! Those who should fear here then either the congregation of Christians or the non-sinning elders (or both); Christians all. So while one could stand on 2 Tim 1:7 to claim we ought not fear God or man under any circumstance, that is not accurate in the light of all scripture or even that verse (spirit of fear is not the same as never fearing).

Here again in 1 Tim 5:20 we see translator bias. The word fear is phobon; 'fear, dread, terror'. But a few translations completely hide that connotation saying things like 'take warning'.

And as nice as that juxtaposition between the two letters to Timothy is, I just now realized it's stronger than that because while I had the KJV of 2 Tim 1:7 memorized (translation: fear), digging into the Greek I see the word is not from phobos but deilia: translated timidity, reticence. In other words it doesn't carry the same connotation of fear at all and is also commonly translated 'spirit of timidity'. Likewise in English while you can fairly say that the timid are fearful; it doesn't carry the same connotation of terror.

Speaking of 1 John 4:18, most of the conversation has missed its context. You talk about perfect love casting out fear but back up one verse and John tells you the point of that:

Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment

This wasn't written to say we ought have no fear at all of God and man, but to say we ought be able to boldly approach the thrown of God; in this context on the day of judgment and in other contexts in scripture through prayer. Remember the context of this whole book which John was very clear about: that they may have assurance of their salvation and confidence in God.

There is a similar parallel misunderstanding in 1 John 4:18 when it talks about 'fear of punishment'. You could likewise argue this means God will never punish us yet we know clearly from both the OT and NT that God chastens those whom are His (and if He doesn't then we're not His). But remember the context: the day of judgment. The word punishment can also be translated torment, which brings to mind the wailing and gnashing of teeth of those judged and cast out. There is a difference between the chastening (discipline, punishment, etc) of the Lord in the here and now and the ultimate punishment at the judgement.

 

[Nikud]

No, you're not understanding me. Phobos, a word that can be translated as fear, reverence, respect or awe should be translated as fear, reverence, respect and awe.

Ok gotcha that clears up alot because thats what I was emphasing bringing up the phobos teachings connection to the Yirah teachings. It means all those things at the same time but sometimes there is an emphasis on one aspect of the word because of context.

And just to touch on the translation thing, I checked Wycliffe and he translates phobos as "dread" in most of the verses we've been discussing, including Ephesians 5:33 and Tyndale uses fear. So it might not be as a recent an invention as all that.

The problem I had originally with The Wycliffe bible is that's the ones from the late 1300s are a translation of the Latin Vulgate and there fore a translation of a translation. Now that they have removed the phrase Son of G-d from their version of the bible to avoid offending Muslims I have no confidence in its translations in any form. Tyndale worked in an age in which Greek was available to the European scholarly community for the first time in centuries so he was anything but an expert in it. But i do like it and forgot about it. I'll concede that a couple of translations of before 1800 said fear but I already stated why I would question those translations but there may be a few others in other language. The late 1700s to the early 1800s was a time where alot of alterations to scripture happened. In 1769 extensively re-edited by Benjamin Blayney, the King James Version, produced the first time Phoebe was refered to as a Deacon in an English translation.

 

[Mojo]

@rockfox, this is a powerful statement. I like it.

As a bunch of men it is easy for you all to forget the level of day to day fear many women have. Fear of mice, dark places, being alone, traveling, scary men, etc. When it comes to men, there is little about the average effete millennial or Gen X office worker that inspires fear; all the more so the soft pudgy beta's that frequent churches these days and walk in fear of women. But with truly masculine men it is very different; the very presence of such men, even kind ones, inspires fear in a woman at the limbic level. Just from his very presence apart from any real potential for violence or discipline. However most modern husbands don't inspire this kind of fear; at best they get begrudging respect, at worst contempt. But the thing is, at their core women want a man that inspires this fear in them, for they want a strong man who can hold them and protect them. You see a similar thing at work with women who love horror movies and roller coasters: they desire the terror.

This is what we need to develop in ourselves. A man doesn't need to be 6'2" with eyes of blue to have that presence, though. Just being a man willing to stand up for himself and his women, even in the face of bad odds, and is willing to speak his mind with force and conviction can make her feel that way.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Now we’re getting somewhere! Love the thoughts and the questions. I don’t have time tonight to continue in depth but will try to address them in the next day or so.

 

[rockfox]

This is what we need to develop in ourselves. A man doesn't need to be 6'2" with eyes of blue to have that presence, though. Just being a man willing to stand up for himself and his women, even in the face of bad odds, and is willing to speak his mind with force and conviction can make her feel that way.

Yes. Gravitas, confidence, charisma, force of will, swagger, speaking with authority; all similar ideas. One person can communicate weakness or strength, simply by how they act and carry themselves. It is what separates leaders from sheep; the respected from the unnoticed.

But there is also a purely physical aspect. The muscled man is not purely a visual phenomena but also reflected at the chemical level, which a woman will subconsciously pick up (there are hormone receptors in the nose which connect to the brain which we don't consciously notice). Muscle produces testosterone, fat produces cortisol (which inhibits testosterone) and estrogen.

But these things also tie together. You can psychologically raise your testosterone levels simply by standing straight with chest out and legs spread.

[edited for correctness: we don't consciously smell the hormones, though our brain subconsciously processes it. But an alert person can pick up on the fact they're smelling them. And in some species there are other pheromones produced we can pick up.]

 

[rockfox]

As a bunch of men it is easy for you all to forget the level of day to day fear many women have. Fear of mice, dark places, being alone, traveling, scary men, etc. ...the very presence of [msculine] men, even kind ones, inspires fear in a woman at the limbic level. Just from his very presence apart from any real potential for violence or discipline.

I was talking about this thread with my wife this evening and she said something that I thought summed it up well...

You're stronger than me, why wouldn't I fear you.

Which I thought summed up rather well my point about the female mindset of fear and the nature of man and woman.

at their core women want a man that inspires this fear in them, for they want a strong man who can hold them and protect them. You see a similar thing at work with women who love horror movies and roller coasters: they desire the terror.

My point in bringing this up isn't to say women are commanded to fear because they like it, or because it comes naturally to them; thats not the message of Eph 5:33 which is much more than simply fear. Rather it is that fear is inevitable and a natural (created) impulse; not some great evil.

You see, fear is simply a subset of feelbads. Part of the woman worship of modern Christianity is teaching, implicitly or explicity, that making a woman feel bad is sinful. This has its motivation in the fear and worship of women (as the superior head of the family), but it also has its source in the false gospel of a buddy boyfriend Jesus here to give us gifts / complete our life / make us happy / give us our best life now. This is a perversion of Christianty that ignores the suffering of all the major saints, which see's no value in suffering, and has memory holed the prophecies that we are not greater than our master and will bear persecution.

Fear isn't some great evil. In fact, you could say it is a positive good since it leads to wisdom and arguably salvation. In this way it is much like God's chastening for us; unpleasant in the moment but for our own good. There is a natural analog to this as well: pain.

Much like fear and feelbads and death, the modern world hates pain (anything that's not unending hedonistic happiness is evil I guess). Yet pain is a biological necessity. Without pain, you cannot get strong. Without pain, you do not know when to stop doing something lest you permanently damage your body. Without pain, you do not know when to eat or when your body is ill. Pain is unpleasant, but absolutely necessary for life.

Where am I going with all this? I could get lost in the back and forth minutue of proof texting. But my purpose here is to strike to the root, to expose the underlying cultural assumptions which leads to the modern Christian's objection to the idea that Christians aught to have fear; even if they don't realize why and themselves reject the false gospel's of the world. We're all swimming in the modern cultural soup and bit by bit coming to terms with the mountain of false ideas we've been saddled with.

 

[IshChayil]

Before we get started let me say that I don't think I've ever disagreed with Kevin before

Wow color me amazed fellas

Phobos, a word that can be translated as fear, reverence, respect or awe should be translated as fear, reverence, respect and awe...

As far as I can tell Kevin, it doesn't. Our modern English translations seem to make the distinction and the original just considered it all the same integrated concept.

This issue occurs across all languages. One languages will have 1 word for 2 or more concepts. It's not a problem for those fluent in the "other" language because context usually makes a thing clear. Speakers won't even be aware that in the presence of certain other words the nuance of the word is established.
Supposedly there are 50 eskimo words' for snow. When scholar's wish to address this issue they will research the passages which use the word in in question to establish the semantic domain of the word(s) in question. They'll look for patterns of surrounding words and such.
In English use the word get.
Let's get a pizza. Do you get the joke? Don't get mad. Get in the car. Don't let the lamb get away. Don't get yourself killed. I need to get hired.
We understand the context as native speakers but it varies wildly with the word get. I'd never tell a foreigner that it's just all an integrated concept to get.
Get means precisely 1 thing in any given context, and that's it.

Yes, but Yirah is not the word used in my original post in reference to wives fearing (phobeō) her husband, it is the word phobeō used here, and "reverence" was not the meaning used here with this wording.

Lol, I think I perfectly understood the debate...
The question before us is whether or not women are to be terrified of their husbands and whether men should be terrified of God, from which ever angle you want to come from. All of the evidence I've seen says that yes they are. ...

As @Kevin pointed out, greek fobéō maps to Hebrew Yirah (fear/revere) and only quite rarely to words for terror/dread like Chetat or pachad
@Kevin's point is an excellent point; for those interested I have this report so you can see how the ancient Septuagint translators mapped certain Hebrew words to the Greek word "fobéō". This is a complete mapping of all occurrences of fobéō in the LXX Old Testament.

φοβέω — fobéō (in LXX)
ירא—be afraid; fear (226): Gen 3:10; 18:15; 21:17; 26:24; 32:7; 43:23; 50:21; Ex 1:17; 2:14; 14:31; Lev 19:3, 30; 25:36; 26:2; Num 12:8; 21:34; Dt 1:21; 2:4; 4:10; 5:29; 6:13; 7:18; 10:20; 13:11; 17:13; 19:20; 21:21; 28:10; 31:6, 12; Jos 4:14; 9:30; 10:25; 24:14; Jdg 4:18; 6:23; Ru 3:11; 1 Kgdms 3:15; 4:20; 12:18, 24; 15:24; 18:12; 23:17; 28:13; 31:4; 2 Kgdms 1:14; 6:9; 12:18; 3 Kgdms 1:50; 3:28; 4 Kgdms 1:15; 10:4; 17:28, 36, 38; 19:6; 1 Ch 10:4; 22:13; 2 Ch 6:31; 20:3; Esd B 11:11; 14:14; Job 5:21; 6:21; 32:6; Ps 3:7; 26:1; 33:10; 45:3; 48:17; 54:20; 63:5; 64:9; 75:9; 90:5; 117:6; 118:120; Prov 3:7; 14:16; Ec 3:14; 8:12; Isa 7:4; 10:24; 40:9; 41:10; 43:1; 44:2; 54:4; 57:11; Jer 1:8; 5:22; 17:8; 26:27; 39:39; 48:18; Lam 3:57; Ezek 2:6; 11:8; Da 10:12; Hos 10:3; Amos 3:8; Jon 1:5, 16; Mic 7:17; Hab 3:2; Zeph 3:7; Hag 1:12; Zech 9:5; Mal 2:5
יָרֵא—fear/revere; fear (56): Ge 22:12; 32:11; 42:18; Ex 9:20; Dt 7:19; 20:8; Judg 7:3, 10; 1 Kgdms 23:3; 3 Kgdms 18:3, 12; 4 Kgdms 4:1; 17:32, 33, 34, 41; Esd B 17:2; Ps 14:4; 21:24, 26; 24:12, 14; 30:20; 32:18; 33:8, 10; 59:6; 60:6; 65:16; 84:10; 102:11, 13, 17; 110:5; 111:1; 113:19, 21; 118:74, 79; 127:1, 4; 134:20; 144:19; 146:11; Pr 13:13; 14:2; Ec 7:19; 8:12, 13; 9:2; Is 50:10; Je 33:19; 49:11, 16; Mal 3:16; 4:2
פחד—be startled; tremble; dread (8): Dt 28:66, 67; Ps 52:6; Isa 12:2; 19:17; 51:13; 60:5; Jer 40:9
ראה—see (5): Ex 20:18; 3 Kgdms 19:3; Job 37:24; Eze 18:14; Mic 6:9
חתת—be dismayed (3): Josh 1:9; Jer 1:17; 10:2
גור—be terrified; be afraid (2): Num 22:3; Ps 21:24
חיל—writhe; tremble (2): 1 Ch 16:30; Ps 76:17
רעשׁ—shake; quake; cause to shake (2): Je 29:22; Eze 27:28
חרד—tremble; make afraid (2): Eze 26:16, 18

Unique Mappings
זעק—cry out; cry: Jdg 6:34; מָחָר—tomorrow: 2 Ch 20:17; נפל—fall: Es 9:2; פַּ֫חַד—dread: Es 9:2; יוֹם—day: Ps 55:4; אָגוּר—Agur: Pr 24:24; חֲרָדָה—terror/panic; trembling: Pr 29:25; קוץ—detest: Isa 7:16; ערץ—be in dread; cause terror: Is 29:23; אֶרְאֶלָּם—hero: Isa 33:7; יִרְאָה—fear/reverence; fear: Is 63:17; עֶ֫בֶד—servant: Is 66:14; דאג—be anxious; have worry; worry: Jer 17:8; יָגוֹר—filled with fear/frightened: Je 46:17; עזז—be strong; prevail: Da 11:12

Total LXX usages: 321
OK so let's look at the first 2 entries and the single entry You'll notice that in the entire Greek Old Testament, Fobéō maps to some form or ירא yrʿ 226+56+1 times.
This means that whenever we see Fobéō in the Greek new testament, this word mapped back through the Septuagint to Hebrew ירא fear/revere 88% of the time.
LXX was trusted and quoted by New Testament authors.
Dread, terror, tremble, shake traditional translations account for 19 occurrences in the Tanakh. That's 6%

So, first off, if we don't know anything else about the verse, if we come across fobéō in the Greek New testament, knowing the New Testament writers relied often on the LXX, if we assume the meaning of the word continues in the small section of the bible which is the New Testament in the same manner is it did in the huge section which is Tanach, I think it's fair to say there is only a 6% chance it means something like Dread, terror, tremble, shake in any given verse and 88% chance it means fear or revere (which is a separate problem).
So hopefully this can at least knock out any reasonable notion that wives should dread, tremble, terror idea of their husbands.
Reverence, however, is certainly quite still on the table.

 

[rockfox]

So hopefully this can at least knock out any reasonable notion that wives should dread, tremble, terror idea of their husbands.

I wouldn't call a 6% chance unreasonable.

But aside from that, do I understand you correctly that you're saying they should 'fear' (or revere) him but not be in 'terror' of him? To me fear and terror are just a difference of degrees on a very wide continuum of scaredness. Is that also true in the Greek and Hebrew?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Wow color me amazed fellas


This issue occurs across all languages. One languages will have 1 word for 2 or more concepts. It's not a problem for those fluent in the "other" language because context usually makes a thing clear. Speakers won't even be aware that in the presence of certain other words the nuance of the word is established.
Supposedly there are 50 eskimo words' for snow. When scholar's wish to address this issue they will research the passages which use the word in in question to establish the semantic domain of the word(s) in question. They'll look for patterns of surrounding words and such.
In English use the word get.
Let's get a pizza. Do you get the joke? Don't get mad. Get in the car. Don't let the lamb get away. Don't get yourself killed. I need to get hired.
We understand the context as native speakers but it varies wildly with the word get. I'd never tell a foreigner that it's just all an integrated concept to get.
Get means precisely 1 thing in any given context, and that's it.




As @Kevin pointed out, greek fobéō maps to Hebrew Yirah (fear/revere) and only quite rarely to words for terror/dread like Chetat or pachad
@Kevin's point is an excellent point; for those interested I have this report so you can see how the ancient Septuagint translators mapped certain Hebrew words to the Greek word "fobéō". This is a complete mapping of all occurrences of fobéō in the LXX Old Testament.

φοβέω — fobéō (in LXX)
ירא—be afraid; fear (226): Gen 3:10; 18:15; 21:17; 26:24; 32:7; 43:23; 50:21; Ex 1:17; 2:14; 14:31; Lev 19:3, 30; 25:36; 26:2; Num 12:8; 21:34; Dt 1:21; 2:4; 4:10; 5:29; 6:13; 7:18; 10:20; 13:11; 17:13; 19:20; 21:21; 28:10; 31:6, 12; Jos 4:14; 9:30; 10:25; 24:14; Jdg 4:18; 6:23; Ru 3:11; 1 Kgdms 3:15; 4:20; 12:18, 24; 15:24; 18:12; 23:17; 28:13; 31:4; 2 Kgdms 1:14; 6:9; 12:18; 3 Kgdms 1:50; 3:28; 4 Kgdms 1:15; 10:4; 17:28, 36, 38; 19:6; 1 Ch 10:4; 22:13; 2 Ch 6:31; 20:3; Esd B 11:11; 14:14; Job 5:21; 6:21; 32:6; Ps 3:7; 26:1; 33:10; 45:3; 48:17; 54:20; 63:5; 64:9; 75:9; 90:5; 117:6; 118:120; Prov 3:7; 14:16; Ec 3:14; 8:12; Isa 7:4; 10:24; 40:9; 41:10; 43:1; 44:2; 54:4; 57:11; Jer 1:8; 5:22; 17:8; 26:27; 39:39; 48:18; Lam 3:57; Ezek 2:6; 11:8; Da 10:12; Hos 10:3; Amos 3:8; Jon 1:5, 16; Mic 7:17; Hab 3:2; Zeph 3:7; Hag 1:12; Zech 9:5; Mal 2:5
יָרֵא—fear/revere; fear (56): Ge 22:12; 32:11; 42:18; Ex 9:20; Dt 7:19; 20:8; Judg 7:3, 10; 1 Kgdms 23:3; 3 Kgdms 18:3, 12; 4 Kgdms 4:1; 17:32, 33, 34, 41; Esd B 17:2; Ps 14:4; 21:24, 26; 24:12, 14; 30:20; 32:18; 33:8, 10; 59:6; 60:6; 65:16; 84:10; 102:11, 13, 17; 110:5; 111:1; 113:19, 21; 118:74, 79; 127:1, 4; 134:20; 144:19; 146:11; Pr 13:13; 14:2; Ec 7:19; 8:12, 13; 9:2; Is 50:10; Je 33:19; 49:11, 16; Mal 3:16; 4:2
פחד—be startled; tremble; dread (8): Dt 28:66, 67; Ps 52:6; Isa 12:2; 19:17; 51:13; 60:5; Jer 40:9
ראה—see (5): Ex 20:18; 3 Kgdms 19:3; Job 37:24; Eze 18:14; Mic 6:9
חתת—be dismayed (3): Josh 1:9; Jer 1:17; 10:2
גור—be terrified; be afraid (2): Num 22:3; Ps 21:24
חיל—writhe; tremble (2): 1 Ch 16:30; Ps 76:17
רעשׁ—shake; quake; cause to shake (2): Je 29:22; Eze 27:28
חרד—tremble; make afraid (2): Eze 26:16, 18

Unique Mappings
זעק—cry out; cry: Jdg 6:34; מָחָר—tomorrow: 2 Ch 20:17; נפל—fall: Es 9:2; פַּ֫חַד—dread: Es 9:2; יוֹם—day: Ps 55:4; אָגוּר—Agur: Pr 24:24; חֲרָדָה—terror/panic; trembling: Pr 29:25; קוץ—detest: Isa 7:16; ערץ—be in dread; cause terror: Is 29:23; אֶרְאֶלָּם—hero: Isa 33:7; יִרְאָה—fear/reverence; fear: Is 63:17; עֶ֫בֶד—servant: Is 66:14; דאג—be anxious; have worry; worry: Jer 17:8; יָגוֹר—filled with fear/frightened: Je 46:17; עזז—be strong; prevail: Da 11:12

Total LXX usages: 321
OK so let's look at the first 2 entries and the single entry You'll notice that in the entire Greek Old Testament, Fobéō maps to some form or ירא yrʿ 226+56+1 times.
This means that whenever we see Fobéō in the Greek new testament, this word mapped back through the Septuagint to Hebrew ירא fear/revere 88% of the time.
LXX was trusted and quoted by New Testament authors.
Dread, terror, tremble, shake traditional translations account for 19 occurrences in the Tanakh. That's 6%

So, first off, if we don't know anything else about the verse, if we come across fobéō in the Greek New testament, knowing the New Testament writers relied often on the LXX, if we assume the meaning of the word continues in the small section of the bible which is the New Testament in the same manner is it did in the huge section which is Tanach, I think it's fair to say there is only a 6% chance it means something like Dread, terror, tremble, shake in any given verse and 88% chance it means fear or revere (which is a separate problem).
So hopefully this can at least knock out any reasonable notion that wives should dread, tremble, terror idea of their husbands.
Reverence, however, is certainly quite still on the table.

I was wondering when you were going to chime in on this thread Ish. As usual your knowledge and breadth of information is truly (no sarcasm) impressive. And as happens slightly more than 6% of the time, I completely disagree with your conclusions. All of your occurrences still contain the concept of both reverence and fear, at least in the definition you provided. So the 19 occurrence just serve to show the true depth of the word. And even if they didn't you still can't deny that we are to fear and dread and tremble and quake before the Lord at various times and for various reasons and there is direct line drawn between the relationship between wives and husbands and Christ and church. Even in the Revelation the 7 churches are given some pretty dire warnings. True fear is a component of this relationship. I don't see how when you look at the totality of what is said (some might call this context and now I am being sarcastic) that you can come up with any other conclusion.

 

[IshChayil]

...
But aside from that, do I understand you correctly that you're saying they should 'fear' (or revere) him but not be in 'terror' of him?

Right, context determines if we translate it as fear or revere but both are on the table.
Terror/dread/shaking is off the table.

To me fear and terror are just a difference of degrees on a very wide continuum of scaredness. Is that also true in the Greek and Hebrew?

Yes, but the reason for the existence of severe words in language serves the purpose that we need not assume an extreme position when using a less extreme/generalized word.
When we say someone punished his son, we understand that may include spanking and we generally know it doesn't mean beat him to a pulp. We need a huge contextual/syntactic hint to push us over that limit if we want to use the generalized word to mean an extreme position...example: when the psycho in a movie says "I'm going to p-u-n-i-sh you!" the context does allow for pulp-fiction style beatings.

I was wondering when you were going to chime in on this thread Ish. As usual your knowledge and breadth of information is truly (no sarcasm) impressive. And as happens slightly more than 6% of the time, I completely disagree with your conclusions. All of your occurrences still contain the concept of both reverence and fear, at least in the definition you provided. So the 19 occurrence just serve to show the true depth of the word. And even if they didn't you still can't deny that we are to fear and dread and tremble and quake before the Lord at various times and for various reasons and there is direct line drawn between the relationship between wives and husbands and Christ and church. Even in the Revelation the 7 churches are given some pretty dire warnings. True fear is a component of this relationship. I don't see how when you look at the totality of what is said (some might call this context and now I am being sarcastic) that you can come up with any other conclusion.

thanks Zec, baruch Hashem.
I was not removing "fear" from the equation, only your position that it could be terror (and Sean Miller's that we aren't talking about yirah ירא ). I agree that fear/reverence is much harder to establish the boundary.
So can we agree that wives should not have terror of their husbands? That's primarily what my post was responding to; to remove that one extreme from the equation (and to provide all the verse references/mappings for anyone more interested in this than me to run with)

 

[Shibboleth]

Is it possible that fear/reverence/awe, at its basic emotional core, simply involves a recognition of the magnitude another's power relative to oneself? Whether that recognition of power leads one to a response of awe or terror depends on your standing with the other, but maybe that response isn't the core concept involved in the word?

 

[IshChayil]

Is it possible that fear/reverence/awe, at its basic emotional core, simply involves a recognition of the magnitude another's power relative to oneself? Whether that recognition of power leads one to a response of awe or terror depends on your standing with the other, but maybe that response isn't the core concept involved in the word?

Yes, I think @FollowingHim painted a nice picture earlier in this thread about how a father is big and scary (tough) but since the kid knows the father is on their side, this results in awe/reverence rather than fear / and when the kid misbehaves it can move more towards fear.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Is it possible that fear/reverence/awe, at its basic emotional core, simply involves a recognition of the magnitude another's power relative to oneself? Whether that recognition of power leads one to a response of awe or terror depends on your standing with the other, but maybe that response isn't the core concept involved in the word?

This!!!

 

[The Revolting Man]

Right, context determines if we translate it as fear or revere but both are on the table.
Terror/dread/shaking is off the table.


Yes, but the reason for the existence of severe words in language serves the purpose that we need not assume an extreme position when using a less extreme/generalized word.
When we say someone punished his son, we understand that may include spanking and we generally know it doesn't mean beat him to a pulp. We need a huge contextual/syntactic hint to push us over that limit if we want to use the generalized word to mean an extreme position...example: when the psycho in a movie says "I'm going to p-u-n-i-sh you!" the context does allow for pulp-fiction style beatings.


thanks Zec, baruch Hashem.
I was not removing "fear" from the equation, only your position that it could be terror (and Sean Miller's that we aren't talking about yirah ירא ). I agree that fear/reverence is much harder to establish the boundary.
So can we agree that wives should not have terror of their husbands? That's primarily what my post was responding to; to remove that one extreme from the equation (and to provide all the verse references/mappings for anyone more interested in this than me to run with)

Unfortunately, I can not remove terror from the list.

 

[rockfox]

Is it possible that fear/reverence/awe, at its basic emotional core, simply involves a recognition of the magnitude another's power relative to oneself? Whether that recognition of power leads one to a response of awe or terror depends on your standing with the other, but maybe that response isn't the core concept involved in the word?

I think it goes the other way around. You feel terror, and if that powerful being is on your side, that becomes awe and reverence. But it has its root, its birth, in terror (just as the root of the word translated reverence means terror). For an example of that at work in scripture, read the many encounters with angels.

Be careful though, it sounds like you're making it an either/or terror or awe choice. That is not necessarily so, emotions are not logical. For example, a woman can simultaneously feel both scared of her husband and protected/secure in his arms; all in one emotion at one time.

My biggest quibble on this translation isn't with the degree of fear; but the idea that there aught be no fear at all. Without the fear component you simply have respect, not reverence. And well, the nature of women is that any man she doesn't fear will be regarded as weak and women tend to not respect, or loose respect for weak men; and sometimes, come to outright despise him.

So can we agree that wives should not have terror of their husbands? That's primarily what my post was responding to; to remove that one extreme from the equation

You haven't eliminated that option from the equation, only counted it unlikely. Why do you want to eliminate it?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So, leaving the aspect of terror and wrath aside for the moment, what are Biblically justifiable reasons why a wife should fear her husband? (Other than the dead horse that we’ve been beating about fearing God). In the real world, what does that look like.

 

[PeteR]

Have been reading the hairsplitting of fear/awe/terror with interest. Does it occur to us that psychological and emotional background and baggage significantly color each person's understanding? To wit: I have a dear lady friend who was, for nearly ten years, radically abused by her husband. The last time, he nearly killed her. She knows terror from one claiming to love her. She would/could never understand or associate that term with her Father. Point, except in God's dealing with enemies or the wicked, I would never refer to Him as a terror in front of her and @ZecAustin 's position that the wife should be in terror would immediately terminate any friendship.

 

[Nikud]

I think it goes the other way around. You feel terror, and if that powerful being is on your side, that becomes awe and reverence. But it has its root, its birth, in terror (just as the root of the word translated reverence means terror).

That's sounds like Stockholm syndrome.