Fear / Phobeō / φοβέω

This was originally posted in 2011; I am still trying to go through this blog and re-release older posts, and maybe instead of posting them at their original date, I'll just post them as new and state that it was an older post? Hmmm. We'll see. I seem to be very hit-and-miss with this blog, but I assure you, I'm still here! 

Ok - here's the original post, with a new section added in.

-----

This is me, thinking out loud. Just thought I'd share it with others this time.

The Greek word Phobeō / φοβέω (Strong's #5399) is pronounced fo-be'-ō and is in the New Testament nearly 100 times. Here is the breakdown [for the KJV]:

62 times it is translated into the English word 'fear' 'feared' 'feareth' 'fearing'
23 times it is translated into 'be afraid'
5 times it is translated into 'be afraid of'
1 time it is translated into 'reverence'

Then there is also #5401 phobos / φόβος pronounced fo'-bos which is in the NT nearly 50 times: 41 times as 'fear' and three times as 'terror'. It is also coupled with 5399 once as 'afraid'.

And there is #5400 phobētron / φόβητρον pronounced fo'-bā-tron which is in the NT once as 'fearful sights'.

[New section: And if you dig into the Septuagint side of things, the first use of G5399 in the OT is Genesis 3:10 ... where God asked Adam why he hid and Adam said, "I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself." G5399 is in the Greek OT 327 times. As far as I can tell, it's Hebrew equal is H3372 - found in the Hebrew OT 314 times, mostly as "fear", "afraid", "terrible", "dreadful", and three times as "reverence". Side note, the first use of H3372 is also Genesis 3:10.]

So ... what is my point?

Many months ago I was writing an article about wives submitting to their husbands. This word 'reverence' came up in one of the verses to women, so I looked it up in the Strong's. The English word 'reverence' is used in the NT 6 times ... in 3 different gospels accounting the same parable (the parable of the husbandmen and vineyard 'they will reverence my son'). In Hebrews it's used twice, both in chapter 12 ... and then of course it's used in Ephesians 5:33 - let the wife see that she reverence her husband.

I noticed that the word 'reverence' here was a different Greek word than the others. I am no Greek scholar and I do not trust in Strong's definitions entirely, so when I look up a particular word, I do not just assume Strong's has the right definition of the word. Instead, I like to see how that SAME Greek word is used in other parts of the bible - I think this gives a better picture of the use of the word in question. The word 'reverence' here in Ephesians is the Greek word "phobeo" ... and yes ... this is the ONLY time this word is translated as 'reverence' instead of 'fear' or 'be afraid' or 'terror'. Another thing I like to do is interchange the words and see if any or all of the English words used for one Greek word will fit in the different verses the word is used in context ... in almost every case, the word reverence did not make sense if it was used to replace 'fear', 'afraid' or 'terror'.

So here is the Greek word used almost 150 times in the NT. Each time it is the English word 'fear' or something very similar. One time it is the English word 'reverence' and conveniently that one time is in regards to the husband/wife relationship. Why is that? My personal thought - our modern day perverted ways of thinking cannot fathom the thought of a wife fearing her husband in that way. Sarah feared Abraham and called him lord. She submitted to him in everything. She trusted in the Lord for the one He put over her and she is the only woman specifically pointed out as an example for us in the NT.

I cannot imagine very many wives calling their husband 'lord' or even submitting to them as the scriptures say they are supposed to.

Well, those are my thoughts.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should ...

As an "american woman" in the 21st century there are all sorts of things I can do, but that does not mean I should. This post could go so many directions, but let me narrow it down to a few examples for the sake of time; feel free to add your own.

Just because I can go to the store every day doesn't mean I should.

Just because I can use the internet to look up all sorts of things doesn't mean I should.

Just because I can get in my vehicle and drive 8 hours doesn't mean I should.

Just because I can pick up the phone and talk for an hour doesn't mean I should.

Just because I can sit on the couch and watch television for any amount of time doesn't mean I should.

Just because I can speak my mind freely to whomever I want in any way I want [writing, talking, social media, etc.] doesn't mean I should.

And so on.

Just because we can do so many things does not mean they are profitable and good for us to do. So often we are busy doing things that have no eternal value (and in fact these things hinder our walks with the Lord) instead of just simply doing what is right in front of us. In today's fast paced, modern society we forget that things were not always this way nor should they be this way. Our minds have been skewed, God's truths perverted.

Something David said in his message today fits very well in here. Our job is to do what pleases our master, not us. For children, that is to please their parents. For women, that is to please their husband or head. For men, that is to please Christ. For Christ, that is to please God. We must each lay down our own will and do the will of our head or master.

David pointed out that it's not real submission if you do what pleases your master only so you can hurry up and get back to whatever it is YOU want to do. But rather, our whole lives and beings are to be wrapped up in doing what pleases our master and none of it wrapped up in what pleases us. We are to lay our lives down and die to self. That is submission.

Women today are so out of order and I know our selfish, humanistic society has greatly helped this lack of order. If we love the Lord we will spend our time focused on ways we can please our master/head ... and in doing so we are doing what pleases the Lord.

So, just because you can do xyz, first examine yourself and ask, "Is this the most profitable thing I could be doing right now?" "Am I doing this for selfish motives?" "Does this  action serve my 'head' / 'master' or my flesh?" Etc.

Genesis 3:16

Genesis 3:16 is a verse I ponder from time to time; I'd like to share some of my ponderings here and will be sharing it in several versions.

First, the KJV ... of which I often get frustrated at for writing things in such a way that seems to muddy the waters of an otherwise clear passage. This is probably not KJV fault but maybe just 400+ years of change in our language and understanding and use of various words (for instance, not very long ago the word 'gay' meant happy, yet how many youth today know that? It only took a few decades to totally change the meaning of that word). But ... I DO believe KJV translators had some biases. We must be careful. Even still, I appreciate the KJV ... most of the time ...

KJV
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

This is supposed to be a curse. Will anyone argue against me when I say that a man WANTS his wife to desire him? I don't think so! So obviously in the context of the passage this is not what is being said. Well, not that I can see anyway when I apply basic logic (again ... doesn't the man WANT his wife to desire him?!?!).

These next two versions seem totally different from each other, with the latter being more like the KJV.

Here's how the NLT words it:

Then he said to the woman,

“I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy,
    and in pain you will give birth.
And you will desire to control your husband,
    but he will rule over you

And now the Message (a.k.a. mess)
 He told the Woman:

“I’ll multiply your pains in childbirth;
    you’ll give birth to your babies in pain.
You’ll want to please your husband,
    but he’ll lord it over you.”

Pretty different, huh?

A footnote in the English Standard Version (ESV) and the English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) said "your desire shall be FOR your husband" could read "your desire shall be AGAINST your husband"

A footnote in the NLT (posted above with 'you will desire to control your husband') says: Or And though you will have desire for your husband, / he will rule over you.

Seriously? Is it really that hard to understand? "It could be "for" ... or it could be "against" ... completely opposite.

The Expanded Bible (EXB) with the verse the referenced says:
Then God said to the woman,

“I will ·cause you to have much trouble [or increase your pain]
    ·when you are pregnant [in childbearing],
and when you give birth to children,
    you will have great pain.
You will greatly desire [^Cthe word implies a desire to control; 4:7] your husband,
    but he will rule over you.”
Genesis 4:7 that it refers to in the text is this: ⁷ If you do things ·well [correctly; appropriately], ·I will [^Lwill I not…?] accept you, but if you do not do them ·well [correctly; appropriately], sin is ·ready to attack you [^Lcrouching at the door]. Sin ·wants [desires to control; 3:16] you, but you must rule over it.”

1599 Geneva Bible
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly increase thy sorrows, and thy conceptions. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thy desire shall be subject to thine husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

A lot of the translations say "in spite of this" or something similar instead of "YET" ... your desire shall be for your husband; in spite of this he will rule over you (basically). That and "yet" totally change the whole meaning of the verse. Some say 'but". Some say "and"... your desire shall be for your husband but he will rule over you. Your desire shall be for your husband and he will rule over you.

Check out the Living Bible (TLB)
Then God said to the woman, “You shall bear children in intense pain and suffering; yet even so, you shall welcome your husband’s affections, and he shall be your master.”

Hmmmm..... 

NET New English Translation
To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”

Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
Also God said to the woman, I shall multiply thy wretchednesses and thy conceivings; in sorrow thou shalt bear thy children; and thou shalt be under (the) power of thine husband, and he shall be lord of thee.

The Voice (what?! interesting)
(to the woman) As a consequence of your actions,
        I will increase your suffering—the pain of childbirth
    And the sorrow of bringing forth the next generation.
        You will desire your husband; but rather than a companion,
    He will be the dominant partner.

Well, I think you get my point. Why all the differences? These differences can really shake the faith of someone who puts their trust in man instead of God.

Let's just be honest: women really DO desire to rule over their husbands. It takes a woman that is totally committed to God's will to be able to overcome this desire and be in her proper place. The scriptures are so clear: God, Christ, Man, Woman. So many times in the New Testament we are told to submit, obey, be quiet, be meek, chaste, keepers at home, etc. This seems like bondage to the outside looking in (see my last post), however for a woman that really fears and loves God, being in her proper place is the only way she obtains true peace and freedom.