Children, obey your parents in [the] Lord, for this is just.
The letter has just spoken to husbands and wives. Now it turns to the children of the house. Two questions follow. Why is a child's obedience called "right," and what does "in the Lord" add?
Obedience to parents is not a Christian invention. It stood in nature and in the law. But the apostle does not just repeat it — he moves it to new ground.
The subjection of children to their parents is part of God's order as seen in nature. Under the law, God attached a special blessing to keeping the commandment that required this duty. Christianity takes up the obligation, but transplants it from natural ground to divine ground... So the obligation of children, like that of wives, is tied to "the Lord." It is not just what nature dictates, though that is perfectly right. It is the acknowledgment of the Lord's claims as represented in the parents. The Lord Himself, who "learned obedience," was the beautiful example of this. It is recorded that in His life on earth He went with His parents to Nazareth and "was submissive to them."
The phrase "in the Lord" is not reserved for children. It runs through every instruction here, tying each member of the family to one authority.
Each of us acknowledges Christ as Lord, and we are to carry out the responsibilities of every relationship in the fear of the Lord. The wife is to be subject to her own husband "as to the Lord" (v. 22). Children are to obey their parents "in the Lord" (Ephesians 6:1). Fathers are to train their children in the "admonition of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). Servants are to do "service as to the Lord" (Ephesians 6:7). And masters are to remember that they have a Master in heaven.
Family feeling is good. But the verse does not rest a child's obedience on it. Kelly explains why something stronger is needed.
A Christian household runs easily where the young obey — above all, where they "obey in the Lord." Natural affection is sweet, and the lack of it is a sign of the dangerous last days. But it is not enough. Conscience is not enough either. It matters greatly in its place, but it is not an adequate guard, and it cannot be a spring of power. The Lord is. And how blessed it is when duty is clothed with Him and absorbed in Him!
The reason Paul gives is fitness. Command belongs to one place, obedience to the other.
Obedience is urged on two grounds. First, "For this is right" (Eph. 6:1). That is, God declares that obedience is a righteous thing for children to give their parents. It suits the place of a parent to command, and the place of a child to obey.
The same writer traces where the opposite road leads:
Even a little acquaintance with life shows that the first step in a downward career has often begun with disobedience to parents. Write the histories of all the poor prodigal sons and daughters who are now trying to satisfy their hunger with the "pods that the pigs ate." You will find that the root of all their misery goes back to self-will and refusal to submit in their father's home.
The child is under the parent and, at the same time, answerable to Christ Himself. That double standing strengthens the parent's word and sets a limit on it.
It is of the first importance to notice that children are set in direct personal responsibility to the Lord. They are placed under parental authority. At the same time they are under responsibility to Christ, and so they are to obey "in the Lord." This at once defines both the character and the limit of their duty. The commands of the parent, when rightly given, have God's authority behind them, so the child obeys not only the parent but also the Lord. On the other hand, no command could be binding if the child could not obey it in the Lord.
Another writer shows what that limit looks like in practice:
There may be very unusual circumstances in which a parent asks a child to do something morally wrong — stealing, cheating, or worshipping an idol. This would be a plain exception. In that case the child should refuse to obey the parent, firmly but without defiance. Ephesians 6:1 reads, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord." So the child should always obey unless he is told to disobey the Lord.
- Ground. Obedience to parents already stood in nature and in the law. This verse lifts the same duty onto divine ground, where the parent's claim is the Lord's claim.
- Spring. Affection and conscience are good, but neither supplies power; the Lord Himself is the spring that makes duty easy and glad.
- Right. The reason given is fitness before God. It suits a parent to command and a child to obey. Self-will at home has been the first step in many ruined lives.
- Limit. "In the Lord" both binds and bounds. The child obeys the parent as obeying Christ, so no order that means disobeying Christ can bind him.
- Reach. The same three words govern wives, fathers, servants and masters. One Lord orders the whole household, not five separate rules.
Honour thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with a promise,
Paul is speaking to children in a Christian home, and he backs his instruction with the fifth of the Ten Commandments. So what does it mean to honour a father and mother, and why does a letter so full of grace lean on a law given to Israel?
Verse 1 tells children to obey. Verse 2 uses a different word, and one writer draws out the difference.
Obedience describes what children owe in conduct and action. "Honour" expresses something else — the settled feeling they should carry towards their parents. It is an unusually solemn word. It is the same word our blessed Lord uses when He says, "that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." (John 5:23.) … To honour their parents, children must not only accept their position and their right to control them. They must also value and deeply respect them, as those the Lord has set in their place of authority.
Why does the apostle quote the Ten Commandments at all? Writers answer that the quotation shows what God thinks of this duty.
Children being subject to their parents is part of God's order as seen in nature. Under the law God attached a special blessing to keeping the commandment that laid down this duty. Christianity takes up the obligation, but moves it from natural to divine ground… So the duty of children, like that of wives, is tied to "the Lord." It is not merely what nature dictates, though nature is perfectly right here. It is the recognition of the Lord's claims, as represented in the parents. The Lord Himself, who "learned obedience," was the beautiful example of this. Scripture records that in His lifetime He went with His parents to Nazareth and "was submissive to them."… The law appears here not to show that believers are under it, but to prove the special value God attached to this duty. He even stepped outside the ordinary character of law by joining a promise to it — a promise that shows the link between this duty and earthly blessing.
That leaves the motive changed, even while the duty stands.
A father may be hard and cruel, but his children are still to honor him. A mother may even be irresponsible, but her children are to honor her — that is, to show proper respect. This is not a legal commandment for believers today, yet Ephesians 6:1 shows it still carries moral weight. Our motive is not to submit to legal demands, but to delight in pleasing God.
One thing sets this command apart from the other nine: its wording. The others carried a threat; this one carried an offer.
The command to honour father and mother was the first commandment with promise, as the apostle says when writing to the Ephesians. Other commandments had the threat of death attached to them. This one carried the promise of long life on the earth. The apostle's reasoning is this: if a Jewish child was not only bound, but encouraged by such a promise, to deeply respect his parents, how much more should a Christian child obey them — not merely in the law, but in the Lord.
The promise attached to this command was earthly — long life in the land. So how does it reach a Christian?
There is no real difficulty about the force and limits of this command. The relationship it deals with belongs to this life, and so does the promise. What the land was to the Israelite by natural descent, the word of grace now is to those who share in the heavenly calling. For them, godliness holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come (1 Tim 4:8).
But long life on earth is not promised to every obedient Christian.
There is no doubt a government of God going on through all the present time, and in it these things are fulfilled in a measure… As Christians, they may be taken from the earth when, simply as obedient children, they would have been kept on it. But the Christian's loss is gain, as we know.
The fifth commandment is not a small household rule. Breaking it once carried a severe penalty, and keeping it guards the commands that follow.
The penalty announced against the "stubborn and rebellious son," who would not "obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother," may seem very severe to us. But it shows how much importance God puts on this fifth commandment. If everyone kept it faithfully, there would be very little breaking of the five commandments that follow it.
- Honour — obedience covers what a child does; honour covers what a child feels. The same word describes the honour due to the Son, which sets the standard high.
- Ground — the duty starts in nature, but Christianity moves it onto divine ground. A child honours parents "in the Lord," and the Lord Himself was submissive to His own parents.
- Promise — this is the one command of the ten that came with an offer instead of a threat: long life on the earth.
- Reach — because God valued this duty so highly under law, the claim on a Christian child is greater, not smaller. Children owe respect even to a hard parent.
- Result — God still rewards obedience in this life, though He may take a believer home early. Where children keep this one command, they keep most of the rest with it.