God's Secret Plans: File #14
Starting in Ephesians 5:21, Paul goes through several different relationships and outlines how Christians should behave within them, giving pairs of interlocking commands, all underscored by the principle of humility and “the fear of God.” (Ephesians 5:21)
The first pair of commands is found in Ephesians 5:22-33 and deals with the family. The second pair of these commands is found in Ephesians 6:1-4 and continues to deal with the family, but now specifically with parents and children. As with the preceding passage, there are two interlocking commands for two members of an interlocking organism. A man is the father of his son and a boy is the son of his father which, together, comprises the relationship we call the family. These relationships are asymmetrical--that is, the two sides are not the same and do not relate to each other in the same way. They are like puzzle pieces which fit together precisely because they are different shapes. We can see this if we think of the spiritual side of it. In Ephesians 5, Paul spends a good deal of time showing how Christ's relationship to the church is like that of a husband's relationship to his wife. Paul does not draw a similar analogy here, but other places in the Bible do--God is our father and we are His children, and many of the things we say about the relationships between parents and children do apply to our relationship with God. And, obviously, in our relationship to God, we stand in a different position to God than God stands to us. Because God is God and we are us, what we do for God and what God does for us is very different. And because a parent and a child are different, their duties to each are different. This may be particularly clear to a person because every parent was, once, a child.
Paul tells children to do two things for their parents: obey (6:1) and honor (6:2). The word used here for obey comes from a word that means 'to hear' and has the idea of listening attentively, especially to someone in authority. It could be literally translated: Children, listen to your parents. The idea is that children should have open ears to the commands of their parents and be willing to do what they are told. This is fairly straightforward. (Obviously, there will be times when a parent's command to a child will go contrary to some other duty so that a child cannot follow both, but that is a question of ethics which is outside the scope of this passage.)
The second thing Paul says that children should do is “honor” their parents, this being, of course, a quotation from the Ten Commandments. (Deuteronomy 5:16) The word which Paul uses here (used throughout the NT for this commandment) means: "to prize, i.e. fix a valuation upon; by implication, to revere:--honour, value." (Strong, #5091) It is also used for honoring God (John 5:23), civil authorities, and ultimately all men. (1 Peter 2:17)
If we value something, we treat it in a different way. Whether the value is financial, artistic, or merely sentimental, it does alter the way we treat a thing. Ezekiel 22:7 talks about Judah's failure to keep this command, saying that people have “set light by father and mother.” The opposite of honoring parents is to take them lightly, to treat them as something not valuable, worthless. If we think something has no value then we will take it carelessly and lightly.
In light of this, there is something odd about Paul's command and that is its general and universal scope. We can see easily that some particular child might have good cause to honor, to value one of their parents--that in their case, they had a 'valuable' asset in having such a parent and so should honor them accordingly. But that isn't what the text says: instead, we have a seemingly general and universal command for children to honor their parents, regardless of how honorable any given parent may happen to be.
In other words, it is the “office” or position of the parent which requires honor from children. The following quotation comes from a Harold and Banner Press Sunday School Quarterly: "The Greek concept here is that some should be valued or honored for the office they hold. These included, but were not limited to, kings, teachers, and parents. A significant feature about the New Testament use of this word is that we are taught to honor all people due to their position of being created in the image of God." There a certain valuation, honor, respect which we owe to people because of what or who they are, not because they have done anything to earn our honor. When Peter said we should honor political officials, he was living under the reign of Nero, a very bad emperor even by Roman standards. When Paul was on trial before the Sanhedrin in Acts 23, he responded sharply to a comment of one of the members only to realize that it was High Priest Ananias who had spoken. And he commented, by way of apology: “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” (Acts 23:5) Even though Paul was being framed for his failure to cooperate with official Judaism, he still recognized that a certain respect and honor was due to the High Priest. (And while the American political system is distinctly different from the imperial system of Rome, still, showing some degree of respect to political leaders, even those like Nero and Ananias, who oppose us and what we stand for, might not be that bad of an idea.) And in the same way, parents are honorable, worthy of honor, because of the fact that they are parents, in virtue of that office, not specifically on their personal character or how well they execute their duties as parents. God has established various authorities in the world, and one of these is the authority of parents over children--parents must, therefore, be honored as such. This is the foundation of all authority.
It should be noted that this follows through in some sense for all the commands given in this section. Children are not told to honor only good parents, and parents are not told to nurture only good children. Wives are not told to submit only to loving husbands and husbands are not told to love only submissive wives. Because the duties arise from the relationships themselves, they remain more-or-less constant regardless of the character of those in the relationship.
There is something important to note about the obedience and honor enjoined in this passage: that it is “in the Lord.” (6:1) For Paul to say that children should obey their parents was nothing revolutionary, far less so in his society than in ours. That was nothing strange. What was strange is the new dimension of meaning he adds to it. On this phrase “in the Lord,” Klyne Snodgrass comments: "[I]t means to obey as part of one's relation to the Lord. The meaning is virtually synonymous with 'as to the Lord' in 5:22 or 6:6... That children should obey their parents was a given in his society, but for him it was 'right' because of their relation to Christ." (The NIV Application Commentary: Ephesians, 321) In other words, for children to obey their parents--or for any of the groups Paul mentions to do as he instructs--was not merely a good idea, but a part of their relationship with Jesus, a part of their spiritual life. In the Old Testament, God manifested His glory through dramatic displays and events. But in the New Testament, He manifests His glory through His people in their everyday, ordinary lives. Husbands and wives; parents and children; masters and servants, living a commonplace, mundane existence could become channels through which the splendor of God could be seen. The primary objection to so much of the talk in the modern church about desire God or revival is that it is looking for God to come in some extraordinary event, but the whole message of the New Testament is the glorious revelation that God may come in ordinary events. One might wonder how a child could do something to please God. A child cannot be a preacher, a teacher, a missionary, or give large sums of money to the church--the things most people think are the only ways to please God. But Paul says that for a child to fulfill his role as a child, to honor and to obey his parents, is “well pleasing to the Lord.” (Colossians 3:20)
So children are to obey and honor their parents in the Lord. In saying all this, we have already seen part of the reason behind the command, but there are two specific other reasons given in the text. One is found in verse 1: “This is right.” The obedience of children to parents is right, something intrinsically moral, part of the basic ethical framework of the world, growing out of the nature and command of God.
The second reason is very interesting, not so much for what it says, but for what it tells us about the Bible. Paul says that this commandment--to honor our father and mother--"is the first commandment with promise" or, as several versions translate it, "a promise." That promise, of course, is the words found in Deuteronomy 5:16: "that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Paul seems to be pointing to this fact--that a special promise was attached to this commandment--as proof of how important it is. It was important enough that God saw fit to attach a promise to it.
As said, this commandment with its attendant promise is part of the Ten Commandments which God gave to Israel from Mt. Sinai. We find the commandments first given in the Old Testament, beginning with these words in Exodus 20:1-2: "And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." This is the opening of the Ten Commandments. It is important to remember that these commands, as much of God's revelation in the Old Testament, is tied to a specific time and place. The Ten Commandments are anchored to the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and were given as civil laws to the newly formed nation in the desert.
For that reason, there are many Christians who argue that the Ten Commandments are not, specifically, binding on us today and have no real relevance outside of a certain historical and theological interest. Of course, certain commands found within the Ten Commandments--the prohibition of murder, for instance--are related elsewhere in scripture and so are binding on modern Christians; but the Ten Commandments as such are no more binding than the Jewish laws about property rights. The Ten Commandments are tied to the deliverance from Egypt and the Promise of Canaan--to a specific time and situation in the past.
But that's what makes this particular command so interesting. Because, as we've already seen, the Ephesian church was largely Gentile, “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise.” (Ephesians 2:12) And yet, despite this Gentile presence, Paul did not scruple at presenting not only a commandment from the Jewish law but a promise as well. Taken in its original context, the promise for a long life in the land seems to be referring directly to the Jewish possession of Canaan. But Paul took it and applied in a general sense to all people. However one understands this promise or the command, Paul makes it clear that it applies to all people, not just to the Jews. In other words, the fifth commandment--as the fifth commandment--had a relevancy to the Gentiles to whom he wrote. The promise as well as the command, which seemed restricted at first, are given here a universal application. It seems only logical, then, to argue that all ten of the commandments are still relevant and binding today.
So what is meant by the promise attached to this command? Most commentators agree that it should not be considered an absolute promise; that honoring one's parents absolutely guarantees long life. And this can be proved from Scripture. Luke 2:51 tells us that Jesus was subject unto His parents--that is, He obeyed and honored them. And yet He died while still comparatively young. Therefore this cannot be taken in an absolute sense because of the sinful conditions of the world. Rather it seems to be a more general promise, that this is what generally follows this type of behavior. Klyne Snodgrass points out that the honoring of parents is the foundation of a stable and a secure life. (The NIV Application Commentary: Ephesians, 322) One might say that obedience to this commandment brings its own reward. However, as the reward is promised by God we know that it must come ultimately from Him--as do all good things. God's laws are the only possible foundation for a happy or long life.
That is what Paul says to the children. In verse 4 he gives the other side, the command to the parents. (The word translated 'fathers' was sometimes used in Greek to mean both male and female parents and so here may mean both fathers and mothers. In any case, most commentators agreed that the mother is included by implication even if not specifically mentioned.)
First, we have a negative, what the parents are not to do. “Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath.” (Ephesians 6:4) The Greek word here means “to rouse to wrath, to provoke, exasperate, anger.” (Thayer) Paul says basically the same thing in Colossians 3:21 but adds the warning, “lest they be discouraged”--that is, lest they lose heart and give up. This is contrasted with two positives--that parents are to bring up their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” The word translated nurture means education, instruction, discipline. Admonition means to call attention to something or give warning. So these might be seen as both the positive and negative sides of training--instruction in the right and warning against the wrong.
If there were no parents, there would be no children. And if parents--or someone else standing in the place of the parents--do not care for their children, their children would never survive to grow up. Chesterton said somewhere that the foundation of the family is the fact that children are generally younger than their parents. If children are to survive childhood, merely in a physical sense, it will be because of the help of parents. And if children are to become adults, become equipped to take their place in the world, it will be, generally speaking, because of the training of adults, of parents or those who stand in the place of parents.
These two commands stand, then, in an interesting relation to each other and to the previous two. Children are to obey and respect their parents, placing them, in some sense, in a subordinate position to the parents, but the parents are to train and instruct the children. The children are to obey the parents so that the parents may serve the children, by bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord--just as the wife is to submit to the husband and the husband is to love the wife and give himself for her. This is not a political authority, a self-centered tyranny, especially as Paul takes care to remind parents not to anger and discourage their children. Rather, this was an authority aimed at service, to prepare children to take their place in the world--and, particularly, to do so as Christians--to be reared in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Comments
Post a Comment