How do you balance leave and cleave with honoring your parents?

p123 [F Rowan] MY DEAR BROTHER, - As long as a child is of the household, actually in relationship with its parents, the duty of obedience remains. If a man is married, he begins a new house, and is the head of it, leaves his father and mother. But as long as he or she is of the house, obedience is the duty, as the relationship remains. "In the Lord" is the limit and character of the obedience. If I had a Jewish or heathen parent who commanded me to deny Christ, I could not do it. It is not "in the Lord." If the parent be merely unjust in ways, and no duty be compromised, I believe the part of children to be patience and casting themselves on the Lord. I can suppose a child engaged in a positive duty, which the parents in such case would have no right to cause the child to break through. "In the Lord" has nothing to do with the character of the parents, but the conduct of the child; otherwise it would absolve from all obedience the child of heathen or Jewish parents. The obedience is "in the Lord."

Verse 31. "For this cause shall a man leave," etc. This view of the mystery of Christ is now completed by a reference to the primal institution of the marriage state, which is here presented by the Spirit as a type of the spiritual blessedness of the second Adam and His ransomed bride. The connexion in which the Apostle's quotation stands with his previous doctrine is quite clear. It was when Adam had accepted Eve as God's crowning gift, recognizing in her not only her Creator's fairest handiwork, but also his own flesh, that the Divine sanction of the marriage bond was formally pronounced: "For this cause," etc. The original mystery of creative power should thus be had in a perpetual remembrance by the institution of a relation in which divided being became, in name and interest, and close affection, one. Marriage begins a new estate. Father and mother are to be loved and honoured still, but relied on no longer as protectors. The man departs from his state of filial dependence to become himself the head of a new house. Now the espousals of the first man, Adam, was the type of the joy of Him who was to come. The woman whom the Lord God built up out of the man's substance, to be a help meet for him, was a shadow of her whom Christ now owns and cherishes as Himself. A little meditation on the end and order of this paradisaical marriage will bring out into still richer and clearer distinctness the marvellous blessedness of this calling of the Church.

Up to the time of a man's marriage the chief relationship in which he stands is that of a son, and his responsibility is towards his parents, but when he marries he leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife. Henceforward she becomes his chief care, for he and she are no more twain but one flesh.

Up to the time of a man's marriage the chief relationship in which he stands is that of a son, and his responsibility is towards his parents, but when he marries he leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife. Henceforward she becomes his chief care, for he and she are no more twain but one flesh.

But the Lord makes it transparently clear that the basic, original order in creation is not to be changed, but affirmed by the truth of the kingdom of heaven. God, in creating both male and female, made a marked distinction between them, but in marriage indicated a unity of vital character. Because of God's manifest order in creation it was right that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. This verse settles many questions. First, when marriage takes place, the man (or woman) is no longer in the place of subjection to parents. Secondly, he cleaves to his wife:--only one wife, so that bigamy and polygamy are absolutely unscriptural. Cleaving to his wife involves genuine love for her, and faithfulness and devotedness.

(2.) We have another word in Ephesians — cited, it is true, from the law, but here reaffirmed as to its moral force — to express what is due from children to their parents. That word is "honour." "Honour thy father and mother." If obedience describes the responsibility of children as to conduct and action, "honour" expresses rather what should be their habitual feeling towards their parents. It is a peculiarly solemn word; for it is the same as that used by our blessed Lord when He says "that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him." (John 5:23.) In fact, it is a term descriptive of true filial piety; for to honour their parents children must not only acknowledge their position, and their right of parental control, but they must esteem and reverence them, as set in their place of authority by the Lord. Hence the child that honours his parents will love to pay them the outward expressions of homage and respect, will prize their counsels and instructions, obey them in their absence as in their presence, avoid everything that could give them pain or sorrow, rejoice to defer to their feelings and desires, and will in every possible way, by word, manner, and action, rejoice to accord to them that filial respect and attention which belong to the place to which they have been divinely appointed.

Saul had abandoned the responsibilities of his calling for self-gratification: shall David his for the sake of his parents? The importance of the question is our plea for dwelling on it; for duties and cares may lead a true soul astray when mere self-seeking would alarm it. Now the claims of natural affection are not to be refused: scripture maintains them (Ex. 20:12, 1 Tim. 5:8). They must, however, be subordinate to the higher claims of Him Who created all things for His pleasure. Neither the dead nor the living, however dear, must be allowed to interfere (Luke 9:59-61). He must be first, and all needed things will be added.

The Lord said, "He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:37) and again, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). In these words the Lord declared the condition of discipleship. This condition was based upon the acknowledgment of His authority as paramount and absolute. No human tie should have a superior claim to that of the Lord Jesus. And in the utterances quoted, He contemplated a case where family authority sought to override His word as Master. Even in national government parental claims or filial responsibilities are not allowed to absolve a subject from allegiance to the Crown, or to screen a criminal from retributive justice. Must the Lord of all ask less than this from the subjects of His kingdom? If patriotism demands that a man shall leave all to serve his country, who should complain when the Master calls His disciples to leave all to serve Him?

There is, therefore, no inconsistency in our Lord's teaching. In the one case, He set the divine call above the claims of filial duties, while in the other, He condemned the Pharisees who set human tradition above filial duty, an inversion for which there was no adequate warrant. The question of mutual obligation in the family is one which can only be finally settled by divine authority. God alone, who established the responsibility of children to their parents, can abrogate that responsibility, and from the beginning He recorded His permission that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife (Gen. 2:24). The parental home might be quitted to form a new relationship of a natural order. In the New Testament we have a relationship of a spiritual order entered by a similar renunciation. At the call of Jesus, James and John left their father Zebedee in the ship with their hired servants and went after Him. It was so with others, as Peter said, "Lo, we have left all and followed thee." But we read that the Lord said to another, "Follow me," and he was ready with an excuse. He took refuge in his filial responsibilities, and desired that he might be allowed to wait until his father was dead and buried. Clearly this man, judged by his own confession, was not prepared to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. And accordingly the Lord said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:59, 6o). He had yet to learn the absolute supremacy of the One who said to him, "Follow me."

Child and parent, are you not, as a believer, a child of God? Have you not your Father's ear? You have only to show to your father and mother what Christ showed out towards His parents. Yours will know and own the power, if you are walking with the Lord Jesus Christ and God your Father. The same with servants. We who are masters and mistresses have a very solemn sin lying at our door for not knowing how to form in our houses homes that those who are with us might feel to be places that they covet, and to which, when they leave, they love to turn back, and to look to us for counsel. I ought to be one whom they knew (be they Christians or not) as having a Master in heaven, one ever a master for their blessing. If a servant complained, I ought to say, "Have you been to the Lord, and have you spread out all before Him, all before your Father, and have you found nothing to check complaint?" Of course there are difficulties in every relationship; but, oh, to know what the setting is in which the two jewels are locked together! It is pure gold — gold, not of Ophir, but the divine antitype, Christ, in heaven. Marriage is like a finger pointing to the union of Christ and the Church, and what a poor-hearted thing he must be who, with the arm of a wife pressing on his own, has never thought of it as pointing to the love of the Lord Jesus Christ for that Church for whom He gave Himself, and which He is to present to Himself without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. G. V. W.

Many of the young people of the present day seem to regard their parents as belonging to the old school and being deficient in education. Hence, the readiness to contradict their parents and set up their own opinion. All this is unnatural and ungodly. It ought not to be tolerated. And we may also add a hint as to the very objectionable habit adopted by many young people of calling their father and mother by heartless, objectionable names. We would entreat all our young friends to watch against these things and against the spirit from which they proceed, and to cultivate a reverential spirit which will surely lead to a respectful manner towards their parents. It is a good proof of a good education when children respect their parents. Need we add that in all matters where God's authority is concerned, it must rise above all other claims! Oh, for the adjusting power of grace and truth!