QQ65-66. What is forbidden in, and what reason is annexed to, the fifth commandment?

A (65). The fifth commandment forbiddeth the neglecting of, or doing anything against, the honor and duty which belongeth to every one in their several places and relations.

A (66). The reason annexed to the fifth commandment is, a promise of long life and prosperity (as far as it shall serve for God’s glory, and their own good) to all such as keep this commandment.

We saw last time that the authority figure stands in for God, as His representative is authoring or ordering God-glorifying activity in the home, schoolhouse, workplace, the church, and the civil sphere. 

So, a good child strives to make his parents look good, and a faithful worker or church member likewise has a care to the visible image of God of their employer and their elders—all primarily so that the mission gets accomplished. 

What might strike us as one of those “harsh” rules in the law of Moses was this one, that, “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death” (Ex. 21:17; cf. Lev. 20:9). I said at first that God loves authority. There is a flip side to that coin. God hates rebellion. As Luther said after the Peasants’ Revolt in 1525, “There is nothing more poisonous, noxious, and utterly devilish than a rebel.”1 Now we will make a distinction between proper submissive disagreement in a home, a peaceable dissent among church members, and even civil disobedience, all in its place. But pure rebellion is what the devil did at the beginning of creation; and so in that sense Luther was right. 

Neglecting Honor or Outright Dishonor

Brakel gave a list of sins prohibited in the command—six of superiors to subordinates and five of subordinates toward their superiors—and so we will use his template, but re-summarize in more concise, contemporary language. As to those sins of superiors,

First, by rendering the arrangement “despicable,” through tyranny.

Second, by actively communicating arrogance or cruelty toward them.

Third, by an evil example.

Fourth, by not seeking the advantage (the good) of their subordinates. 

Fifth, by neglecting discipline or instruction.

Sixth, by imposing (in the place of discipline) severity for one’s own ends.2 

On the flip side are those sins of the subordinates, which Brakel lists as:

First, “when they have no esteem in their heart for their superiors.”

Second, “when they are inwardly opposed to and have an aversion for their superiors.”

Third, “when they are unfaithful,” not doing their duties.

Fourth, “when they are disobedient.”

Fifth, “when they mock … or ridicule them.”3

A few passages to consider in support of that list: “Cursed be anyone who dishonors his father or his mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen’” (Deut. 27:16); “Listen to your father who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old” (Prov. 23:22). Conversely, “A fool despises his father’s instruction” (Prov. 15:5). “There are those who curse their fathers and do not bless their mothers” (Prov. 30:11); and in the law of Moses, “For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him” (Lev. 20:9). Incidentally, this was the sin of Ham with regard to Noah, when he “saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside” (Gen. 9:22). The context of the response of the brothers makes plain that the sin was mockery. 

In order to prevent God’s people from turning into devils (to use Luther’s language), the strictest boundaries were placed,

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear” (Deut. 21:18-21).

First, note his age. This is not a tender child. But even so: Why? Because just as the punishment of Nadab and Abihu, for perverting God’s worship (Lev. 10:1-3), was not “harsh,” so as a microcosm of God’s temple, the earthly home, must sanctify God’s ordained authority. Not only is this not a “tender child,” but Hodge reminds us that this is also a very early stage of society, in which tribes and clans are spread out, and fathers are acting as magistrates, given charge of civil affairs.4 Consequently such punishments only appear strange to us because we hear “family” in a modern sense that does not overlap with the other social spheres. That is an easy facet of the Mosaic law to neglect.

Here is a specific “case study,” from a real dialogue I just had this week with a young Christian who will go unnamed.

YC. Is it wrong for a parent to hinder their child from working a part time job?

M. It can depend on many circumstances. Since they are parents and (if) the child is underage and under their authority, there may be compelling reasons.

YC. Oh ok, but if the child is of age, and wants to work? Also would it be wrong for the child to ask why, but the parent to not tell them?

M. To the second question, I cannot say it would be wrong for the same reasons mentioned above. To the first, what “of age” is one meaning? If out of the house, yes. If not, all the same eventualities still apply.

YC. Oh ok, so even if the child can legally work i meant, but are still living with the parents.

M. They are under the parent's authority. "Legally" doesn't settle the matter.

YC. Oh ok, thank you for clarifying. Would it be sinful for the child to ask why?

M. No it wouldn’t be sinful to ask. But it would be sinful if they badgered the parents after the initial set of answers.

YC. Right, that would enter into the realm of disrespect and dishonoring right?

M. Yes, very much so.

YC. Sorry, just one last question. What if the parents are not really answering why?

M. The same applies. Surely the parents are not unaware that they are not answering. To try to shake it out of them as if they are some kind of a vending machine or a punching bag is all the more disrespectful.

YC. Even purposefully not answering?

M. Especially purposefully. Think about it. To challenge their purpose is to now challenge both 1. their initial reason, and 2. their right to have a reason that is concealed. It is to treat them like children or worse.

Multigenerational Life—the Fruit of Honor

Let me paint a picture for you first. This comes from Genesis 1 and 2. From the beginning, dominion implies filling the earth and subduing it (cf. 1:28). Filling the earth with what and who will do that? More image-bearers. I am well aware of all the legalistic ways that this can be conceived and imposed on others whose circumstances are not the same as those who do the imposing. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!

We mentioned that the fifth commandment (like the fourth) is a mixed precept. It is moral law with a civil (the fourth came with a ceremonial) dimension. But Ephesians 6:1 will not allow us to draw that line in between the command and the promise in every sense. Why is that? Because Paul explicitly says,

“(this is the first commandment with a promise), ‘that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land’” (Eph. 6:2-3).

Our first thought may be: “What land!” Since, in the New Covenant, the ethno-centric shape of the people of God branches out to the nations, many wrongly conclude that there is no more connection between adhering to the way of the fatherhood and longevity. Not so! Endurance is still at stake in people groups—families, schools, church traditions, and nations, all stand or fall on building upon or else knocking down the foundations that the fathers set. So, “If one curses his father or his mother, his lamp will be put out in utter darkness” (Prov. 20:20), or again, “The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures” (Prov. 30:17).

On the flip side, the Bible treats the worst treatment of parents as characteristic of the end of a people: of Judah, “Father and mother are treated with contempt in you” (Ezk. 22:7); and ““disobedient to parents” is the phrase used of the corrupt Gentiles in the ancient world (Rom. 1:30), and of the world in the Last Days (2 Tim. 3:2). 

Now there may be an eschatological dimension to this as well, as Frame comments, “I am inclined to think that Paul here [i.e. Ephesians 6:3] recontextualizes the promise of Exodus 20:12 and applies it to the land promised to Christians—the whole earth.”5 I think that’s true, but I also insist that the eschatological and ultimate is never to be pit against the ethical and proximate. 

We cannot use the kingdom of Christ and the new creation as an excuse to cut ties with this natural bond. And this begins with what should be the innate love that one would naturally possess for parents (but for sin). You will recall that in one showdown between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, this came into play.

“Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, ‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.’ He answered them, ‘And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, ‘What you would have gained from me is given to God,’ he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God” (Mat. 15:1-6).

This raises the controversial matter of NATURAL AFFECTIONS raised over the past few years, which, at its extreme, takes the form of Kinism or Racial Realism. Let me ask the question like this: Does the fifth commandment ever demand that I attend to my own kin—my tribe (so here, I do not mean simply providing for parents or grandparents in their old age, or all of the ordinary duties towards one’s children already discussed)—a more expanded circle, yet from my own ethnos, in such a way that I must consider those outside that group as something less than my neighbor? Now, there’s no technical way to frame the question, because typically it is hard to pin down those who make this argument.  

For all that is difficult in this subject, one thing ought to be abundantly clear: Surely God would not have us obey the fifth commandment only by breaking the sixth! But didn’t Jesus probe into the heart of murder to discover anger and insults? (cf. Mat. 5:21-22)

APPLICATION

Use 1. EVANGELICAL USE. On Paul’s list of those most terrible sins, typifying the human race under wrath, he includes, “disobedient to parents” (Rom. 1:30). One of the great uses of the law that can soften the heart for the gospel to do its work, on younger children, is the many obligations that children have to their parents, but fail in. And if we’re worried that this will be a constant discouragement-fest—not if we are proactive in explaining the positive: casting that vision of authority. That God has us (our home) on a mission. 

“The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice; he who fathers a wise son will be glad in him” (Prov. 23:24).

You know who really obeyed the Fifth Commandment? Jesus Christ did. God the Father is the Father of the righteous One. He has made him glad, and because he did that in our place, we now make the Father glad. We saw that from John 5:17-19 last time.

Use 2. CIVIL USE. Not only the citizens of modern Western nations, but the church in particular, has been in unrepentant sin, for generations, in casting aside what it took our forefathers centuries to set in place: “Do not move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set” (Prov. 22:28). This is much more than a failure of education, but it’s not less. As Psalm 78 and other places in Scripture would impress upon us, education is at least the passing on, from one generation, to another, the ABCs of living unto God and with each other.

Many theologians have noted the implications for parents as educators at preceisely this point. Deuteronomy 6:6-9 and Matthew 28:19-20 have long been held forth as the principal Old and New Testament mandates to parents to see to it that children are brought up under the proper view of the world. Hodge is instructive on this point.

“If therefore the state assumes that the education of the people is one of its functions, it is bound in a Christian country … to conduct the schools on Christian principles, otherwise it tramples on the most sacred rights of the people. This the people will never submit to, unless they lose all interest in their religion.”6

And anticipating the matter of whether the mandate calls for direct (or indirect) parental instruction, Hodge continues:

“If parents themselves conduct the education of their children, these are the principles upon which it must be conducted. If they commit that work to teachers, they are bound, by the law of God, to see that the teachers regard these divine prescriptions; if they commit the work to the state, they are under equally sacred obligation to see that the state does not violate them. This is an obligation which they cannot escape.”7

Use 3. DIRECTIVE USE. We should notice from Ephesians 6:1 and Colossians 3:20 that this commandment is still abiding in the New Testament and one more evidence of what we mean by moral law. And the Ephesians passage especially is interesting, as the promise is also reiterated. The promise, no less than the duty, must belong to that law of nature. Clearly it is not that the children of Gentile will live long in Canaan! Just as much, one is not given a guarantee of literal long life here. Many of the purest saints died young, whether Lady Jane Gray, David Brainerd, Robert Murray McCheyne, or Jim Eliot. However, the basic pattern of honor and obedience to rightful authority and the preservation of these social orders ought to be a great concern to the Christian. 

_______________________

1. Luther, Against the Murderous Peasants.

2. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, III:189.

3. Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, III:190.

4. Hodge, Systematic Theology, III.19.9.

5. Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 591.

6. Hodge, Systematic Theology, III.19.9.4.

7. Hodge, Systematic Theology, III.19.9.4.