Who Should We Obey? (Part 1)

Obey God

This should be one of the most obvious truths in the whole Bible. As His people, we are instructed to obey God "that it may be well with thee." We also obey to show our love for Him and in appreciation that He "first loved us."

God Delegates Authority

The principle of obeying God extends to obeying those He has setup as authorities in our lives. God has entrusted people in certain positions with some of His authority and to rebel against that delegated authority is still to rebel against God. The verses specifically mention kings, but it follows that the idea of delegated authority holds true in other areas where God commands us to give submission. There are several types of authority that we are commanded to submit to, among them governors, husbands, parents, brethren and spiritual mentors. Obviously, when God instructs us to obey someone in some matter, to disobey them in that matter is to disobey God's command as well, so it is essential to understand how much authority God has delegated and to whom he has delegated it.

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

When God grants authority it comes with responsibility and misusing that authority to the detriment of those you are responsible for brings a greater condemnation. In fact, in the cases of David killing Uriah and of the husband who makes his wife break her vow, using authority to cause a sin to be committed results in the authority figure being the one charged with the iniquity rather than the underling. Just as Yeshua "bears our iniquities," and leaves us guiltless, so we see that the wife required to break her vow is also free of iniquity since the husband bears it.

Equal or Unequal Authorities?

The New Testament has the same underlying Greek root word used to command submission to magistrates, to each other, and to laborers in the church, wives to their husbands and slaves to their masters. From that, some would conclude that each of these authorities is due the same type of submission or obedience. Yet in each of the verses above, we are commanded to love someone and the passages all use the same Greek root word for love. That doesn't mean that each love is equal though. We are to love Yahweh, love our wife and love our neighbor, but the modifying words describe the responsibility for each love. Love Yahweh with your heart, soul, mind and strength, love your wife as Christ loved the church and love your neighbor as yourself. In each case love is required, but to different levels.

Pertaining to this article, we see the same concept when it comes to submission. When standing alone, the word holds the idea of honoring, hearkening and complying, yet in some cases, we have more words that describe to what level we should submit. Thus we need to examine each type of authority to determine who we should obey when, since we have been given at least slightly different instructions for each different authority type.

"Servants, Obey in All Things"

Directly applied, our society does not have the same type of slaves or indentured servants that this command is addressed to. However, understanding what the Father's commands are for slaves can help us as we look at some of the other authorities and also has some application towards modern situations. For instance, employees basically assume indentured servitude for the hours that they are on the job. Although, unless there is some contract they have entered, they can usually "be made free" at any point by simply quitting.

The underlying root word used really does mean "obey" and is stronger than the one used for "submit" throughout the New Testament. Beyond that, the importance of slaves obeying their masters is driven home by a number of descriptive phrases that are applied. "That the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed," "in singleness of heart," "as unto Christ," "heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men," "shewing all good fidelity," and "obey in all things" all add to the strength of this command. Generally, Christians will agree that this command can be taken at face value, but if you push far enough most will add exceptions and say that obedience to a master is not required in certain cases. One commonly supported claim is that a slave should not obey if his master gives an order to do something that would violate one of God's commands.

Exceptions?

So, do the passages instruct absolute obedience or do we see evidence for exceptions? To start with, unlike other commands like, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication," (Matthew 5:32) or, "As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men," (Romans 12:18) the command for servants to obey does not have an explicit exception or conditional contained in the text. In fact, the modifier is to "obey in all things!" I don't know of any Christian who honestly thinks that there are exceptions to "Giving thanks always for all things" (Ephesians 5:20) or "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12) or "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:20)

On top of that, we have 1 Corinthians 7:22 that teaches a slave is "the Lord’s freeman" while a freeman is "Christ’s servant." Since a freeman is free from commands that a slave is bound by, it makes sense that a slave, as "the Lord's freeman" and not "Christ's servant," is released from God's other commands in order to obey his earthly master. Conspicuously, this teaching contains the command to get your freedom if possible so that you can be free to be "Christ's servant." We should not hang around in slavery, being required to break God's commands if we have a way out. (So modern employees should most likely appeal to their boss or, if necessary, quit when faced with this scenario.)

We also have a couple stories that support the view that servants are to give absolute obedience. In 1 Kings 5, after being healed from his leprosy, Naaman tells Elisha that he will no longer sacrifice to any God but Yahweh, but he mentions that when he goes with his master to a pagan temple he will have to bow down and requests, "Yahweh pardon thy servant in this thing." Elisha's response, "Go in peace," gives a measure of assurance that he will receive that forgiveness.

In Luke 19:22-23 and the parallel passage in Matthew 25:26-27 we have a parable where a nobleman (representing Yeshua in the final judgement) calls his servants to account. He says, "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?" This implies that had the servant been serving his (perceived) immoral master "with singleness of heart," he should have used even immoral means to serve him (usury is generally equivalent to oppression of the poor in the Bible.) Instead, the servant is punished for NOT performing an immoral action on behalf of his (perceived) immoral master.

Considering 1 Peter 2:18, "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward," we can see that absolute obedience, even to the unrighteous master, is what the scripture intends.

"Children, Obey Your Parents in All Things"

We can see from Colossians 3:20 and Ephesians 6:1-4 that children who are not yet grown or "brought up" are commanded to obey their parents "in all things." Once again, "all things" is about as strong as the command can be put and the word for obey is more stringent than what is used for "submit" through the New Testament. I don't think there is much question that a child should outright obey all his parents' commands until he is grown.

As a side note, I believe that the scriptural age of manhood comes at twenty which was the cut off point for those who were not allowed to enter the promised land because of their sins. (Numbers 32:11) It is possible that a man who married younger than twenty (1 Corinthians 11:3) or who has been deemed of age by his father (Galatians 4:1-2) would also qualify as no longer children.

As far as whether absolute obedience is due to parents beyond the age of manhood, the rest of the injunctions regarding parents seem to be more concerned with honor than obedience. There are death penalties in the law for cursing or striking parents and "Honour thy father and thy mother" is one of the ten commandments spoken by the voice of God, so disobeying parents even as a grown man is not to be taken lightly, but looking at the way the underlying Greek and Hebrew words are used throughout the rest of the scripture, it doesn't seem to require obedience. In fact, Galatians 4:1-2 states that a child's status changes from being the same as a slave (who must obey) to something different when he comes of age. This strongly implies that slave-like obedience to parents for adult sons is not an outright commandment.

One passage (also a nearly identical one in Romans 1:30) that might be used to argue for full adult obedience to parents is 2 Timothy 3:2 which lists several sins, one of which is often translated "disobedient to parents." The root Greek word though is used much more often to mean "persuade" or "trust" rather than "obey." Considering that trusting, being persuaded by and honoring are closely related concepts, I'm inclined to think that "dishonoring parents" is the sin that Paul is trying to get across. Still, there are blessings mentioned in the Proverbs as well as in Jeremiah 35 to the Rechabites for adult obedience to parents, so to disobey parents, even as a grown man, should be a last resort and perhaps only done when trying to keep another command.

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord"

For wives, the main Greek word for "submit" (honoring, hearkening and complying) is what is used in most of the passages. Only once in reference to a wife and her husband do we have the Greek word "obey" that is used repeatedly for children and slaves. That instance is in Peter 3 where holy women's submission is likened to, "Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord." From this we see that wifely submission involves some level of obedience as well. The question is, how much? Putting together the phrases and modifiers that we are given along with the word "submit" in each passage, I think we can get a pretty good idea.

• Ephesians 5:22 says submit "as unto the Lord." What level of obedience do we owe when submitting to Yeshua? A wife being asked to submit to her husband the same as if he were God implies absolute obedience is owed.
• Ephesians 5:23 says that "the husband is the head of the wife" and 1 Corinthians 11:3 confirms the concept comparing it to God being the head of Christ and Christ being the head of the husband. We know that the husband owes absolute obedience to Christ, and Christ himself said in John 8:28 "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me."
• Ephesians 5:24 says "as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." There are two intense phrases here. "As the church is subject unto Christ" is again a relationship where we know full obedience is owed; and at the end of the verse, we have the phrase "in every thing" that rebuts any idea of exception.
• Ephesians 5:33 says let "the wife see that she reverence her husband." The word "reverence" here is usually translated fear, for instance in Mark 4:41, "And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" I think godly fear is intended, like the kind David had when he would not strike even a fallen, disgraced Saul simply because Saul was Yahweh's anointed ruler. (1 Samuel 24:6 and 2 Samuel 1:14)
• Colossians 3:18 says to submit "as it is fit in the Lord" and Titus 2:5 gives a similar but stronger reason for submission, "that the word of God be not blasphemed." When it comes to obeying authority, the reputation of God's word is at stake if we choose to rebel.
• 1 Peter 3:1 commands submission so "that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won." Similar to preventing the word of God from being blasphemed, wifely submission is what Peter ties to winning an unrighteous husband. On top of that, the passage tells women to submit to husbands who are not right with God, which almost certainly means she would be asked to do things that are wrong.
• 1 Peter 3:6 goes on to say that Sarah obeying Abraham was an example of holy submission "whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." Since fear of a husband is actually instructed, we can know that the "afraid with any amazement" that a wife should avoid relates to outside consequences. The example in the verse, Sarah, would have had plenty of reason to be afraid that obeying Abraham in only admitting she was his sister would bring bad consequences - especially since it was based on the idea that if she was his wife, they would try to kill Abraham to get her, but in only claiming to be his sister, the evil men would just take her! Not unexpectedly, she ended up in a king's harem, (still obedient in saying only that she was Abraham's sister) but she had no need to be "afraid with any amazement" because God ultimately intervened.
• 1 Corinthians 14:34 says women "are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." The only passage in the law that directly speaks of obeying a husband that I am aware of is Genesis 3:16 which uses a word for "rule" that is often used to describe kings' or Yahweh's authority as well.

Taken together, the verses we have about wifely submission paint a pretty strict picture. Even so, many try to claim exceptions to the command. Often the exception put forth is that a woman should not obey her husband if he asks her to do something contrary to God's word. On the surface this makes sense; if God is the ultimate authority, we should always obey Him. On the other hand, if we can show that this exception does not actually exist, then all other exceptions must be discarded as well since they pale in comparison.

So, examining the passages carefully, is there reason to believe that a husband will bear the guilt, leaving his wife free if he requires her to do something against God's word? Besides the phrases like "in everything" and "as unto the Lord" in the list above, we have a couple other passages that I believe demonstrate a wife is free from guilt in such cases.

In Numbers 30 the instructions for vows demonstrate this concept. Multiple times it says "Yahweh shall forgive her" about a wife whose husband voids her vow; and in the last case, where a husband at first establishes the vow and later voids it, it says of her husband "he shall bear her iniquity." This means that the wife is breaking a command (keep your vow) because of her husband, and the husband, not the wife is charged with the iniquity. This clearly shows that in this case a wife can obey her husband even to the point of breaking another command.

Similarly, in Matthew 5, a man who wrongfully divorces his wife, "causeth her to commit adultery." The blame for the wife's sin committed after the divorce is not placed on her, but on the man who wrongfully divorced her and put her in a bad situation. (This helps show that a man's sin can cause his wife's sin and the man is the one held guilty on both accounts.)

In reality, it often isn't as simple as a husband telling his wife to break a command; usually there is a difference of opinion on what a command actually means. Applying 1 Corinthians 14:35, we once again come up with a situation where the wife should obey the husband. In the passage, wives are instructed, "if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home." This means that if a husband and wife are debating a question involving the scripture, the wife is told to ask her husband for the answer to the question! In other words, the idea that a wife should disobey her husband when he tells her to break a command has no basis logically, since her husband is the one who teaches her what the command is.

This is not to say that a wife should not make an appeal if she believes her husband is making a bad decision. Moses, Paul, Ezekiel and others appealed the decisions of Yahweh Himself at times. A wife who happily goes along with sin would be in the position of Sapphira who was struck down by the Spirit for "agreeing together" with her husband to lie in Acts 5. (Logically, since Peter denounced Sapphira and held up Sarah as an example, this means that Sarah went into Abimelech's harem for Abraham unwillingly.)

In light of all the above, I believe the teaching that a wife is called to obey her husband, "in everything" is the only one that can fit with all the scriptural evidence.

There are other types of authority, but this is already getting long. At this point I plan to address the obedience owed to civil and religious authorities, in a follow-up article.