What does it mean to obey your parents in the Lord (Ephesians 6:1)?

The directions given are very brief and very simple; albeit they comprehend the whole circle of children's lives. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee and thou mayest live long on the earth." (Eph. 6:1-3.) "Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto" (in, the same word as in Ephesians) "the Lord." (Col. 3:20.)

It is of the first importance to observe that children — the children of whom we speak — are thus set in direct personal responsibility to the Lord. Placed under parental authority, they are at the same time recognized as being under responsibility to Christ, and hence their obedience is to be rendered "in the Lord." This at once defines the character and the limit of their duty; for the commands of the parent, when rightly given, have a divine sanction, so that the child not only obeys the parent, but also the Lord. On the other hand, no command could be binding to which obedience in the Lord could not be rendered. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right." (Eph. 6:1.) It could not be right for the child to do anything which would be sin against the Lord. The harmony between the two - the duty and the limit — is beautifully (because perfectly) exemplified in the case of the Lord Jesus when a child. When He was twelve years of age, Joseph, His reputed father, and His mother took Him up to Jerusalem to the feast. On their return He remained behind in Jerusalem. On discovering His absence, Joseph and Mary "turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking Him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. And when they saw Him, they were amazed: and His mother said unto Him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And He said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they understood not the saying which He spake unto them. And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but His mother kept all these sayings in her heart." (Luke 2:42-51.) In this lovely incident we have the two things-responsibility of obedience, and its limit before God — in perfect adjustment. The Lord in grace having become a child, takes the place of a child, and as such owns His responsibility of obedience to Joseph and Mary, while, at the same time, He acknowledges and affirms that He must be about His Father's business. "Son," said Mary, "why hast thou thus dealt with us?" etc.; words which, whatever their tenderness, implied a reproach. But the answer given silenced all complaint: ""Wist ye not, did ye not know, as ye ought to have done, that my Father had the first claim upon me, and that therefore in absenting myself from you, I was acting in obedience to Him?" Thus the Lord Jesus is also the child's perfect example; and it is added, in order to emphasize this truth, "And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them."

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."

The subjection of children to their parents is part of God's order as seen in nature; and under the law a special blessing was attached to the observance of the commandment in which this duty was enjoined. Christianity takes up the obligation, but transplants it from natural to divine ground. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and thy mother; which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." (Eph. 6:1-3.) Thus the obligation of children, as of wives, is connected with "the Lord." It is not merely the dictate of nature, though perfectly right, but the acknowledgment of the Lord's claims as represented in the parents. The blessed Lord Himself, who "learned obedience," was the beautiful example of this. Of Him in His lifetime it is recorded that He went with His parents "to Nazareth, and was subject unto them." The law is not here introduced as showing that believers are under it, but as proving the special value which God attached to this duty, so as even to depart from the ordinary character of law, by coupling it with a promise which makes known the connection between this duty and earthly blessing.

But the duty is not one-sided. The apostle adds, "And ye, fathers, provoke not your children to wrath but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." (v. 4.) Both parents are to be obeyed, but this admonition is addressed only to the fathers. This may be partly because fathers are more likely to err in the provoking of their children to wrath than mothers; but the principal reason is that the father, as the head of the house, is responsible to God for the bringing up of the children, and he is treated on the ground of this responsibility. This principle, as seen in Eli's case, runs throughout Scripture. It is all the more solemn because under Christianity the children are already holy, as belonging to the house of God; and the obligation is therefore the greater to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." The Israelites were holy by birth — not personally, but as belonging to a nation set apart to God — and therefore the fathers were to instruct the children in the law, their then link with God. So Christian parents are to instruct their children as to what becomes the holy character which attaches to them as members of a Christian family.

The subjection of children to their parents is part of God's order as seen in nature; and under the law a special blessing was attached to the observance of the commandment in which this duty was enjoined. Christianity takes up the obligation, but transplants it from natural to divine ground. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and thy mother; which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." (Eph. 6:1‑3.) Thus the obligation of children, as of wives, is connected with "the Lord." It is not merely the dictate of nature, though perfectly right, but the acknowledgment of the Lord's claims as represented in the parents. The blessed Lord Himself, who "learned obedience," was the beautiful example of this. Of Him in His lifetime it is recorded that He went with His parents "to Nazareth, and was subject unto them." The law is not here introduced as showing that believers are under it, but as proving the special value which God attached to this duty, so as even to depart from the ordinary character of law, by coupling it with a promise which makes known the connection between this duty and earthly blessing.

But the duty is not one‑sided. The apostle adds, "And ye, fathers, provoke not your children to wrath but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." (v. 4.) Both parents are to be obeyed, but this admonition is addressed only to the fathers. This may be partly because fathers are more likely to err in the provoking of their children to wrath than mothers; but the principal reason is that the father, as the head of the house, is responsible to God for the bringing up of the children, and he is treated on the ground of this responsibility. This principle, as seen in Eli's case, runs throughout Scripture. It is all the more solemn because under Christianity the children are already holy, as belonging to the house of God; and the obligation is therefore the greater to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." The Israelites were holy by birth — not personally, but as belonging to a nation set apart to God — and therefore the fathers were to instruct the children in the law, their then link with God. So Christian parents are to instruct their children as to what becomes the holy character which attaches to them as members of a Christian family.

Let us briefly look at the relations of children and fathers, as well as of servants and masters. Here, obedience is the grand point pressed on the inferior in each case. As all saints are called to submit themselves one to another in the fear of Christ, and wives especially to their own husbands, subject to them in every thing, so children are to obey their parents in the Lord. (Ver. 1.) It is not that the Holy Ghost has not a suited and a serious word for their fathers; but, in general, how easy is the flow of a christian household 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 perilous last days; but it is not enough; nor is conscience, all-important as it is in its place, an adequate guard, nor can it be a spring of power; but the Lord is. And how blessed, where duty is clothed with and absorbed in Him! This, and nothing less than this, is pressed by the Holy Ghost.

Nay, my young friends, you forget that however obedient and dutiful you may have been when you were unconverted, you could not have displayed the life of Christ. When born again, you received a life entirely new, which manifests itself in the ways of Christ. I am sorry if you have not yet learned that unless you are watchful it is self that rises to the surface and not Christ. The same thing may be done either for self or for Christ. I mean that you may, for instance, obey your parents in order to please yourself, or to please Christ. The latter is showing piety at home. The spirit of Christ is then displayed in all your filial relationships, and all the household can see it.

125 In 2 Corinthians 6 we have a string of examples, of different shades of meaning, still shewing that in which he approved himself a minister of God; that in which the characterizing power came out in which he was shewn to be suitably such. It was not merely that in those states his conduct proved it, nor simply by these things as a means: all concurred in giving evidence. This case is the more remarkable because he changes it after a while to διά. This is only a change of style occasioned by ὅπλων, which were clearly instruments, and not merely characteristic as to the state he was in; and διά goes on rightly because there is contrast: the most opposite things were the means of shewing it. The "yet" inserted in English (ver. 8) is wrong. So "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by (ἐν) the wife" — not "by means of" (διά). Then it would be more real; but just as a Jew was profaned in the Gentile wife — was so characterized in respect of the wife, as quâ husband of the Gentile woman, the marriage giving him this character — so the converse held good in Christianity: the other stood, as wife, sanctified by the husband; or, vice versâ. This characteristic force is plain in many cases, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, ἐν δόλῳ, ἐν κρυπτῳ, ἐν προσώπῳ, λόγος ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ — where it does not mean being really in Christ, it is the same with "Christ," or "the Lord." "Receive her in the Lord," "only in the Lord"; that is, the sense of the Lord, and what He is in the soul, and what the person is as respects His will and claims, is to characterize the reception, the marrying, etc. So of "children, obey your parents in the Lord." "Ye are not in flesh but in Spirit." This characterizes your state, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. So Christ was declared to be Son of God "in power," ἐν δυνάμει, this characterizing the state of sonship of which the proof was given. On the whole, when it is not used in a material or local sense, ἐν characterizes (not in its source, that is ἐκ, but) what accompanies it; very commonly in English it must be rendered with or by. So in English, "He did it out of hatred" to me: that was its source, cause. "He did it in hatred" or "with hatred"; this characterizes the act when he was doing it. "He did it in self-will." It is the description of the state or condition in which he who acts is.

That there may be no mistake, we may ask in a definite form, Is there any limit to the obedience which a parent may require from his children? We have already alluded to this; but the subject is so important that it seems advisable to enter upon it more fully. The words, then, "in the Lord," and "well pleasing in the Lord," define, as we judge, both the nature and the limit of children's obedience to their parents; that is, in the first place, obedience never acquires its proper character unless the Lord Himself is the object before the mind. It must be done as unto Him — unto Him who gives both the parents and the children their relative positions. In the second place, unless the action required can be done in the Lord, it is not binding. If a command be given by a parent to a child which cannot be obeyed with a good conscience before the Lord, then it is not of force in His presence. This principle is constantly affirmed in the Scriptures. Thus we are enjoined to "be subject unto the powers that be;" but when Nebuchadnezzar commanded Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to fall down and worship the golden image which he had set up in the plain of Dura, they replied, "We will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. (Dan. 3:14-18.) Peter and John also, when forbidden to speak at all, or teach in the name of Jesus, answered, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." (Acts 4:18-19.) While therefore God confers authority upon men in the different relationships of life, He never abdicates His own, or suffers any human claim to limit His own supremacy. The Lord Jesus thus said, "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." (Matt. 10:37; see also Luke 14:26.)

Children, then, are to be in complete subjection to their parents, except in the single case of their commands coming into conflict with the authority and claims of the Lord. Making this exception — and even emphasizing it — children must be very careful not to plead it in any doubtful cases: they should be very sure that there is opposition to the Lord's claims in the parental command before they venture to refuse obedience; i.e. they must be assured that the reason for so grave and solemn a step springs from no fancies of their own, but from the conviction of what is due to the Lord. For it is He who has given their parents the place of supreme authority in the family, and hence it is only when it would be for His own glory that this authority may be disregarded. "Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord." It is not supposed in this injunction, inasmuch as the epistle is addressed to believers, that any command given by the parent could conflict with the Lord's authority; and the addition of the words, "for this is well pleasing unto the Lord," defines the circle of the extent and supremacy of parental authority, as we have just explained. We thus see that parents are absolute in their own circle — the circle described by God; but this circle is included within the larger one, over which the Lord Himself is supreme.

Obedience is urged on two grounds. First, "For this is right." (Eph. 6:1.) That is, God declares that obedience is a righteous thing to be rendered by children to their parents; that it is suited to the place of a parent to command, and to the place of a child to obey. Secondly, it is said, "For this is well pleasing in the Lord." Here children are reminded of their responsibility, and encouraged by the assurance of the Lord's approbation in their subject path. And the value God sets upon filial obedience may be gathered from His estimate of disobedience. Thus in the law we read, "Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother." (Deut. 27:16; see also Exodus 21:17; Deut. 21:18-21; Proverbs 30:11, 17.) The apostle also stigmatises disobedience to parents as one of the characteristic signs of the perilous times of the last days (2 Tim. 3:1-2), and of great moral corruption. (Rom. 1:30.) And the slightest acquaintance with the facts of life will abundantly show that the first step in a downward career has often commenced with disobedience to parents. Write the histories of all the poor prodigal sons and daughters who, at the present moment, are seeking to satisfy their hunger with the "husks that the swine do eat," and it will be found that the root of all their temporal wretchedness may be traced back to self-will and insubjection in their paternal home.

Both therefore by encouragements and warnings are children reminded of the value God sets upon their obedience to their parents. Let every child then shun the temptation to disobedience, as one of Satan's most dangerous snares, and be encouraged ever to keep the place of subjection to the parent's will, knowing that it is well-pleasing in the Lord.

It is noticeable that the Spirit of God gives similar instructions as to the relationships of life in Colossians as here; though not with the same fulness, nor quite upon the same lines. The latter is especially to be seen in the word to children: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right" (just). So reads Ephesians: but in Colossians the apostle merely states, "for this is well-pleasing to the Lord." Was the variation because of the legal tendencies of the latter? From the forms etc., which had such attraction for their brethren at Colosse, the Ephesians were apparently quite clear, through grace; therefore the apostle was free to say "this is just," without fear of the word being misapplied by them.

Everywhere in scripture is filial obedience pressed, and the Lord Himself in the home at Nazareth has left an example which should be studied (Luke 2:51). Disobedience to parents is one of the unhappy moral signs of the last days (2 Tim. 3:2), as also absence of natural affection; elements painfully and increasingly apparent on every hand. But the obedience must be "in the Lord"; all obedience having this important qualification. A heathen parent might bid his child sacrifice to idols: must he obey? Where the express will of God is crossed, such can only answer as Peter and John to the priests who bade them preach no more in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:19; Acts 5:29) Nothing and no one must be allowed to come in between the conscience and God.

Children are to obey their parents. Certainly the parents are responsible to guide and train the children properly, for children need proper discipline. Whether the discipline is always perfectly fair or not, still the child is to obey. Let the child always be reminded that the Lord is well pleased with their obedience. There may be very unusual circumstances in which a parent requires something morally wrong from a child, as for instance, stealing or cheating, or worshiping an idol. This would be a plain exception, in which case the child should firmly, but not defiantly, refuse to obey the parent. Ephesians 6:1 reads, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord," So the child should always obey unless he is required to disobey the Lord.