Family Rules
Ephesians 6:1-4
“Family Rules”
Have you ever noticed that this world seems to struggle just a little bit with authority? I wondered how you might respond to that this morning. It seems like the only stories that qualify for the 6:00 news are ones where authority is flouted, whether on the world scene or here in our nation, or locally right here at home.
And it doesn’t stop there either, does it, because all of those are community categories. We struggle with authority personally, too, don’t we? Anybody here who doesn’t have trouble with some point of authority in your life? Husbands, wives, are you free of conflict in the home? Parents and children, are you always in good standing with one another?
Maybe we’re getting a little bit ahead of ourselves; let me ask this differently. Have you ever met anybody that actually deserved a parking ticket? How about deserved to be cited for an accident? Have you ever met anybody who really deserved it? “Yeah, that was my fault from beginning to end.” Ever heard that? Not often. Have you ever met anybody that deserved to be fired, or deserved a bad review at work? “Oh, somebody is out to get me, there’re just jealous of how well I’m doing.” That’s the one I hear more often than any. Have you ever heard anybody who is actually late because of poor time management? Sorry, that one’s not fair on Sunday morning, is it? You know, I have heard from several different Christians regarding issues surrounding time management: things like, “If God had meant us to see the sunrise He’d have scheduled it later in the day.” Do you live with that sort of attitude, that sort of approach? Do you struggle with authority?
You know the passage before us this morning is a bit out of order, isn’t it? You heard me say Eph.6, and you said, “Oh, he got it wrong.” No, no, we are going to be in Eph.6 this morning. I know we’ve only completed through v.5 of c.5, and yet because of the occasion, I have decided to go just a little bit out of order and jump ahead to Eph.6:1-4 before we continue on with the exposition of c.5. And I have done so because of Father’s Day. Fathering and family and authority are present in this passage of Scripture. It teaches us something about all of them.
Many of our reflections on fatherhood that we’ve shared this morning have their roots in this passage. But the passage doesn’t get to father’s right off the bat. It’s only four verses long and fathers are the ultimate addressee in this passage. But this is a passage that talks to us just a bit about home life. It addresses children; it gives a foundational principle for them.Then it has a word for fathers that would have been more counter-cultural in the day it was written than it even sounds to us today. All of that is present here, and yet it’s tucked into the context of a study of authority. Because, you see, if we had unpacked Ephesians up to this point, we would see that up through c.5, v.21 we’ve got some instruction being given to the body of Christ as a whole. And then the tone changes just a little bit toward the end of c.5 beginning in v.21ff.
But now we really are getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s just turn our attention to this text and see what it has to tell us about family appropriate to the day, Father’s Day, but also about authority. Here in Eph.6:1-4 Paul issued three charges—one of them a bit secondary, but three charges—to different family members in order to teach some significant lessons about authority.
An Explicit Charge to Children – 1
Actually this is pretty straightforward teaching: listen to your parents and do what they say. Willing obedience is one of the clearest demonstrations of submission to authority. Although it works a bit differently in the husband/wife relationship, Peter elevated Sarah as an example of submission by praising her obedience to her husband in 1Pe.3:5.
Now don’t jump to any rash conclusions; we’ll get into the husband/wife roles in a few weeks. For now, though, it is enough to acknowledge that even while there are some significant differences between the parent/child relationship and that of the husband/wife in this context you can see that there are also significant similarities. Both are asymmetrical relationships—that simply means that the roles within the relationship are distinct; they are complementary; they differ from one another in terms of accountability and responsibilities; they are not interchangeable.
Family, like marriage, is designed by God as an authority structure, and it operates best as that design is followed. Such authority structures teach us something about what it means to walk with God—we’ll see some of that in the next two verses. But here in v.1 willing submission to the divinely established authority in our lives is right—not just advisable or preferable, but right.
We’ll look into that word submission a bit more thoroughly as we address 5:22, 24. But here the word is obey. And the relationship is children to parents. I doubt seriously whether anyone present today needs biblical proof that it’s best—indeed, it’s right—for children to obey their parents. Under the OT law, in fact, a persistently disobedient and unrepentant child was stoned to death by the men of the community under the authority of the elders (Deu.21:18-21). And in the NT, disobedience to parents was, according to Paul, a clear demonstration of Gentile depravity (Rom. 1:30) and also a sign of the unrestrained evil in the end times (2Ti.3:2) (O’Brien 440-1) Children should obey their parents; this is right.
There is one additional phrase in this verse, though, and it’s a challenging one: in the Lord. The big question: Is it intended to modify the word parents or the word obey? And there’s a big difference. If it modifies parents, then the sense is that children are to obey their parents who are in the Lord—meaning that their parents are Christians. Thus, if they’re parents are not in the Lord then technically they’re not compelled to obey. But an entailment of this is that children are only compelled to obey their parents—Christian or non-Christian—if their parents instruction is consistent with biblical teaching.
But we can all quickly see the problem with this: It puts the child in the place of evaluating not only the spiritual status of the parent, but the wisdom of their instruction as well—both well beyond the abilities a child and contrary to the flow of this passage. Furthermore, both Paul (Rom.13:1) and Peter (1,2:13) delivered instruction to all believers to submit even to governing authorities—hardly a godly institution in their day or in ours! Peter (1,3:1) continued on to instruct Christian wives to submit to their husbands even if they are non-Christians. God’s call to submit to ruling authorities in our lives is not conditioned upon spiritual life being observable, or even present, within those who wield that authority.
And this is especially true if we consider ourselves to be the spiritual judge determining whether our authorities are acting in a godly manner. Consider Isaac. Suppose he had decided—and who would argue—that a godly father would not lay his son on an altar intending to make him a sacrifice. On the one hand, he couldn’t have been more right—as Scripture would eventually make clear, this was explicitly forbidden. On the other hand, though, something very unusual was going on in this encounter between God and Abraham. And Isaac was a key player without any apparent knowledge of the bigger picture. He allowed his father to bind him (Gen.22:9) and place him on the altar. And along with his father he was privileged to see that God then provided a ram for the sacrifice. Thus, not only did Abraham’s wife submit to her husband in difficult circumstances, but Abraham’s son obeyed his father in at least equally difficult circumstances. They entrusted themselves to God who judges justly and he preserved them. We don’t always see the big picture; we must submit to authority.
It doesn’t appear best, therefore, to see the phrase in the Lord as modifying the word parents. Rather, if it modifies the word obey, then the meaning of the verse becomes a bit clearer. The sense is that children obey in the Lord. They obey in the power of the Lord, or as an expression of love or obedience to the Lord. Or we might say that children who are in the Lord should obey their parents—it is an expression or an indication of their devotion to the Lord. This latter approach makes a lot more sense, especially in light of the message of Col.3:20: Children obey your parents in everything for this pleases the Lord. Not only do we see that the Lord is delighted by a child’s obedience, but we are also reminded that his call to obedience is unconditional—the text says, in everything.
While it is important to note that exceptions will always arise in a fallen world—patterns of obedience, for instance, will alter as the child grows older—we also need to be realistic about situations in which children are being mistreated or used for illegal activity. There are always tragic exceptions. But, while it is important to note that exceptions will always arise in a fallen world, it is also very important to note that no mention is made of those exceptions as the principle is laid out. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” That is Paul’s explicit charge to children.
An Implicit Charge to Believers – 2-3
Vv.2-3 say, “‘Honor your father and mother’ (this is the first commandment with promise), ‘that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.’” Initially this may seem like it’s just a restatement of v.1 with a bit of additional context—perhaps just a completion of the idea. I believe it is all of that; but I also believe it is significantly more. I believe it is an expansion of the idea in v.1 to include some of its foundation, application, and fruit.
Obviously the foundation is from the OT law, the ten commandments. Paul is quoting from Deu.5:16, which restates and slightly expands on Exo.20:12, the fifth commandment. The implication is that there is continuity from OT to NT on this point, but also that obedience like this is foundational to the human experience.
Now, to address a bit of a technicality before moving on, it is interesting to ask what first means. Some suggest it means that the fifth commandment is actually first in priority. Many Jewish rabbis argue in this direction, and the first few verses of Lev.19 lend some weight to it. Right on the heels of calling Israel to be holy, Moses wrote, “Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father.” This was followed by the fourth commandment (keep the Sabbath) then the second (make no graven image). If the fifth commandment is a priority, the thought is that the first four defend the call to love God with all our being, and the last five address loving neighbor as ourselves. The fifth is then the hinge on which the law swings from loving God to loving neighbor. It simultaneously underscores proper acknowledgement of God-instituted authority while turning our attention toward human relationships.
But still, a rather convincing case can be made for the fact that, if there is any commandment that is first in priority it would have to be the first commandment—have no other gods before me. Thus others argue that first means this is the first commandment that includes a promise, namely, that life will go well with you in the land if you obey.
The problem is (Exo.20:4-6) that the second commandment also seems to have included a promise. It reads, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” And this is a glorious promise! But at the end of the day, it is not stated as a promise, but just as a factual state of affairs. God will ultimately bless those who honor him and curse those who don’t.
The application of the original promise to Israel is that things would go well with them in the land as they obeyed. This is not a promise of longevity in either testament. It is a promise about the fullness of life lived according to the covenant, enjoying the blessings of God reserved for the faithful. As Paul quotes the promise here in Eph.6, he conspicuously omits the final phrase. Deu.5:16 reads, “Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.” As a nation their days would be prolonged in the land, and their lives would go well as they honored the authority structure established in the family—as they honored their parents.
But here in Ephesians Paul did not refer to the land as that given to the NT people of God, the church. Thus, the meaning of his words is something more like the words of the niv: “that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”
The family is the fundamental social unit and the primary locus of enculturation. The lessons of life are learned first and most enduringly in the family. Where there are solid families, then there are solid societies. And the opposite is also true. Foulkes captured all these ideas in one statement when he wrote (172), “It is not necessary to take the promise in an individualistic sense, or as a literal promise of longevity. Although the singular pronoun was used in the original, it is doubtful if, even in the Old Testament days, it was intended as a personal promise for those who showed filial piety. Then, as in any generation, it could be seen that the strength of family life, and the training of children to habits of order and obedience, were the means and the marks of the stability of a community or nation. When the bonds of family life break up, when respect for parents fails, the community becomes decadent and will not live long.”
That is the application. The fruit that is grown is realized as this promise and its application are experienced in individual lives. I believe that is what Paul was urging here. In his urging of the people to live in a manner worthy of their calling, he addressed first the body of Christ as a whole, arriving at the bottom line of mutual submission out of reverence for Christ. Then he offered additional instruction on relationships that are not so symmetrical, using a sampling of three: marriages, families, and the workplace. As he addressed the middle of these three, the family, he began with the most fundamental instruction—the family commandment—because even fathers and mothers had to obey their fathers and mothers as they were coming along. But he did not fail to mention that there is an implication for all believers in that, learning to obey from our earliest years is perhaps the central ingredient to the fullness of our lives in the Lord.
The things we learn when we’re young are the things that remain with us when we’re old. I’m not much of a golfer. I realize saying that as a new resident of the western suburbs is like a fish saying, “I’m not much of a swimmer.” But, hey, my family is intact! Some years ago the pastoral staff on which I was serving made a trip to a driving range. Grant hadn’t hit a golf ball in years, but his swing was out of a textbook, and his ball was long and straight. Why? He had learned to golf when he was young. When we learn to obey in our earliest years, we’re better equipped to do it is our later years. It extends the quality of our lives, and in the normal course of affairs may even extend the quantity of our lives. That is Paul’s implicit word to believers here.
An Explicit Charge to Fathers – 4
This has particular relevance for today. “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” Fathers are given a negative command and a positive one. Now, thes charges apply to both mother and father—it is no more appropriate for a mother to provoke her children to anger than it is for the father to do so—but it is addressed specifically to fathers in a passage that does not mind addressing the parents as a unit, as we can clearly see from v.1.
The implication is that fathers may have a unique ability in both areas—to provoke to anger and to provide discipline and instruction. This point is not hard to grant. The further implication is that the father has a responsibility to his children to avoid antagonism and to provide training. This is also easy to grant. But the counter-cultural nature of the request can be lost on us 21st century Christians. The father had absolute authority over his children in the Roman world. The principle was known as patria potestas and it gave him extensive power. There would have been no paradigm for a father having an obligation to his children.
For Christian fathers, though, there were clear obligations. The call was to loving firmness, gentle instruction, a balance of intimacy and authority. Calvin wrote of children, “Let them be fondly cherished.” The word honor in v.2 could be translated fear—just as we are to fear the Lord. There is also an element of that which should be nurtured into a child. Paul modeled what all this could look like in v.1. He addressed the children in the congregation personally. Think about that! We’re not very inclined to give a portion of our worship services to children, but Paul used a portion of God’s word to address them directly. The word discipline actually means strict discipline. Nurture, as used in the kjv, is too weak. The cognate verb means to chasten but can also be used in the wider context of instruction. Paul is referring to training in righteousness. Instruction is correction by word of mouth; reproof is implied, but so are advice and encouragement.
And here the words of the Lord seem to refer to discipline and instruction that move the child toward the Lord, that are rooted in the Lord. His is the focal point of learning, just like he was back in 4:20.
This is the explicit charge to the father: don’t make your children angry, but help them understand how to have a genuine relationship with God—intimacy and authority. Teach them to respect authority by properly exercising authority. Some are too passive. Some are too active. Take time!
Conclusion
We are all subject to earthly authorities by God’s design—Marriage, Family, Work: 5:22-33; 6:1-4, 5-9, Government: Rom.13; 1Pe.2 (Police, traffic lights…), Church Heb.13:17. Honoring authority is essential to our well-being before God. This promise and others—to us and to Israel—maintain covenant relationship, fellowship. Love is the greatest commandment. Jesus said, “If you love me you’ll obey me” (Joh.14:15). Submissiveness is central to who we are (Rom.13:2). As we’re called to exercise authority, we truly succeed only as we align ourselves with God’s authority.
Suppose we become involved in government—a political official. Suppose we become a teacher in a school, an elder or deacon or ministry leader at church, a husband, a father, our authority needs to imitate God authority. That is how we’re to pray for leaders—that we might live godly lives. They influence us! And it is just the same in the home. When you have authority you cannot flaunt it; that’s tyranny. Fathers have influence because he’s been given authority by God. And it should be used to establish a godly home and a godly example. Promise Keepers illustrated this by giving the percentage of times a whole family comes to saving faith after one has done so. I don’t recall the specific numbers, but it was only a small percentage of the time when a child is the first converted; perhaps ten or fifteen percent. With the mother, it is maybe a third of the time. But it is well into the majority of the time when the father is the first to trust in Christ. That is no accident.