The Practical Theonomist

On the Authority of the Father

2012-01-16T13:44:00.002-06:00

On the Authority of the Father

There seems to be some confusion as to my position on theauthority of the father after marriage, including some implication that what Iam teaching is radical and new. I would like to state that I hold to the sameview on this issue[1] asJohn Calvin and John Gill. Thus while my view may be wrong, it is neitherradical nor new.

This paper presents many of their comments on this issue. Itis rather long, as I did not wish to quote them out of context. The format isas follows: I have presented in bold particular comments or parts of commentsthat highlight various issues… and yet leave the comments in their context. Ihave underlined and footnoted some comments that I would disagree with or haveother issues with. I have attempted to alternate the comments of Calvin withthose of Gill so as to not prejudice the paper toward one or the other.Occasionally I will present another commentator whose views echo or reinforcethose of Calvin and Gill.

I want to be very clear. I am not saying that Calvin,Gill, etc. agree with my views; I am saying that I agree with theirs. Ifthere is anything I have written about the authority of the father that doesnot seem to correspond with the views presented here, it is almost certainly amisstatement in that other document. I hope and pray that this paper willclarify my views.

Vaughn Ohlman

1 Eph 6:1-2

Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this isright. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment withpromise;)

Eph 6:1-2-Gill

Children, obey your parents in the Lord,.... The persons whose duty this is,"children", are such of every sex, male and female, and of every age,and of every state and condition; and though the true, legitimate, andimmediate offspring of men may be chiefly respected, yet not exclusive ofspurious children, and adopted ones, and of children-in-law; and the persons to whom obedience from themis due, are not only real and immediate parents, both father and mother, butsuch who are in the room of parents, as step-fathers, step-mothers, guardians,nurses, &c. and all who are in the ascending line, as grandfathers,grandmothers, &c. to these, children should be subject and obedient in allthings lawful, just, and good; in everything that is not sinful and unlawful,by the word of God; and in things indifferent, as much as in them lies, andeven in things which are difficult to perform: and this obedience should behearty and sincere, and not merely verbal, and in show and appearance, normercenary; and should be joined with gratitude and thankfulness for pastfavours: and it should be "in the Lord"; which may be consideredeither as a limitation of the obedience, that it should be in things that areagreeable to the mind and will of the Lord; or as an argument to it, because itis the command of the Lord, and is wellpleasing in his sight, and makes for hisglory, and therefore should be done for his sake:

for this is right; it appears to be right by the light ofnature, by which the very Heathens have taught it; and it is equitable fromreason that so it should be; and it isjust by the law of God, which commands nothing but what is holy, just, andgood.

Eph 6:2-Gill

Honour thy father and mother,.... This explains who parents are, and points at some branches of obediencedue unto them; for they are not only to be loved, and to be feared, andreverenced, their corrections to be submitted to, offences against them to beacknowledged, their tempers to be bore with, and their infirmities covered; butthey are to be honoured in thought, word, and gesture; they are to be highlythought of and esteemed; they are to be spoken to, and of, very honourably, andwith great veneration and to be behaved to in a very respectful manner; andthey are to be relieved, assisted, and maintained in comfortable way when aged,and in necessitous circumstances; and which may be chiefly designed. So theJews explain כבוד,"the honour" due to parents, by, &c. מאכיל, "giving them food, drink", and"clothing", unloosing their shoes, and leading them out and in (x).Compare with this 1Ti_5:4; See Gill on Mat_15:4;

which is the first commandment with promise: it is the fifthcommandment in the decalogue, but the first that has a promise annexed to it:it is reckoned by the Jews (y) the weightiest of the weightiest commands of thelaw; and the reward bestowed on it, is length of days, as follows.

(x) T. Hieros.Kiddushin, fol. 61. 2. T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 31. 1, 2. Maimon. &Bartenora in Misn. Kiddushin, c. 1. sect. 7. (y) Debarim Rabba, sect. 6. fol.241. 3.

Eph 6:1-Calvin

1. Children, obey. Why does the apostle use the word obeyinstead of honor, which has a greaterextent of meaning? It is because Obedienceis the evidence of that honor which children owe to their parents, and istherefore more earnestly enforced. It is likewise more difficult; for the humanmind recoils from the idea of subjection, and with difficulty allows itself tobe placed under the control of another. Experience shews how rare this virtueis; for do we find one among a thousand that is obedient to his parents? By afigure of speech, a part is here put for the whole, but it is the mostimportant part, and is necessarily accompanied by all the others.

In the Lord. Besides the law of nature, which isacknowledged by all nations, the obedience of children is enforced by theauthority of God. Hence it follows, thatparents are to be obeyed, so far only as is consistent with piety to God, whichcomes first in order. If the command of God is the rule by which the submissionof children is to be regulated, it would be foolish to suppose that theperformance of this duty could lead away from God himself.

For this is right. This is added in order to restrain thefierceness which, we have already said, appears to be natural to almost allmen. He proves it to be right, becauseGod has commanded it; for we are not at liberty to dispute, or call inquestion, the appointment of him whose will is the unerring rule of goodnessand righteousness. That honor should be represented as including obedience isnot surprising; for mere ceremony is of no value in the sight of God. Theprecept, honor thy father and mother, comprehends all the duties by which thesincere affection and respect of children to their parents can be expressed.

Eph 6:2-Calvin

2.Which is the first commandment with promise. The promisesannexed to the commandments are intended to excite our hopes, and to impart agreater cheerfulness to our obedience; and therefore Paul uses this as a kindof seasoning to render the submission, which he enjoins on children, morepleasant and agreeable. He does not merely say, that God has offered a rewardto him who obeys his father and mother, but that such an offer is peculiar tothis commandment. If each of the commandments had its own promises, there wouldhave been no ground for the commendation bestowed in the present instance. Butthis is the first commandment, Paul tells us, which God has been pleased, as itwere, to seal by a remarkable promise. There is some difficulty here; for thesecond commandment likewise contains a promise,

“I am the Lord thy God, who shew mercy unto thousands ofthem that love me, and keep my commandments.”

(Exo_20:5.)

But this is universal, applying indiscriminately to thewhole law, and cannot be said to be annexed to that commandment. Paul’sassertion still holds true, that no other commandment but that which enjoinsthe obedience due by children to their parents is distinguished by a promise.

Eph 6:2-Wesley

Honour - That is,love, reverence, obey, assist, in all things. The mother is particularlymentioned, as being more liable to be slighted than the father. Which is thefirst commandment with a promise - For the promise implied in the secondcommandment does not belong to the keeping that command in particular, but thewhole law. Exo_20:12

Eph 6:1-2-Genevan Bible

Children, (1) obeyyour parents (2) in the (a) Lord: (3) for this is right.

(1) He comes to another part of a family, and shows that theduty of the children toward their parents consists in obedience to them. (2)The first argument: because God has so appointed. And upon this it follows alsothat children are obligated to obey their parents, that they may not swervefrom the true worship of God.

(a) For the Lord is author of all fatherhood, and thereforewe must yield such obedience as he will have us. (3) The second argument:because this obedience is most just.

(4) Honour thyfather and mother; (5) (which is the first commandment with (b) promise;)

(4) A proof of the first argument. (5) The third argumenttaken of the profit that ensues from it: because the Lord gave this commandmentamong all the rest a special blessing.

(b) With a special promise: for otherwise the secondcommandment has a promise of mercy to a thousand generations, but that promiseis general.

2 The Fifth Commandment

Exo 20:12 Honourthy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which theLORD thy God giveth thee.

Fifth Commandment.-Calvin

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be longupon the land which the lord thy god giveth thee.

(Institutes:35). The end of this commandment is, that sincethe Lord takes pleasure in the preservation of his own ordinance, the degreesof dignity appointed by him must be held inviolable. The sum of thecommandment, therefore, will be, that we are to look up to those whom the Lordhas set over us, yielding them honour, gratitude, and obedience. Hence it follows, that every thing in theway of contempt, ingratitude, or disobedience, is forbidden. For the termhonour has this extent of meaning in Scripture. Thus when the Apostle says,“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour,” (1 Tim.5:17), he refers not only to the reverence which is due to them, but to therecompense to which their services are entitled. But as this command to submitis very repugnant to the perversity of the human mind (which, puffed up withambitious longings will scarcely allow itself to be subject), that superioritywhich is most attractive and least invidious is set forth as an examplecalculated to soften and bend our minds to habits of submission. From thatsubjection which is most easily endured, the Lord gradually accustoms us toevery kind of legitimate subjection, the same principle regulating all. For tothose whom he raises to eminences he communicates his authority, in so far asnecessary to maintain their station. The titles of Father, God, and Lord, allmeet in him alone and hence whenever any one of them is mentioned, our mindshould be impressed with the same feeling of reverence. Those, therefore, towhom he imparts such titles, he distinguishes by some small spark of hisrefulgence, so as to entitle them to honour, each in his own place. In thisway, we must consider that our earthly father possesses something of a divinenature in him, because there is some reason for his bearing a divine title, andthat he who is our prince and ruler is admitted to some communion of honourwith God.

(Institutes:36). Wherefore, we ought to have no doubt thatthe Lord here lays down this universal rule—viz. that knowing how every individual is set over us by his appointment, weshould pay him reverence, gratitude, obedience, and every duty in our power.And it makes no difference whether those on whom the honour is conferred aredeserving or not. Be they what they may, the Almighty, by conferring theirstation upon them, shows that he would have them honoured. The commandmentspecifies the reverence due to those to whom we owe our being. This Natureherself should in some measure teach us. For they are monsters, and not men,who petulantly and contumeliously violate the paternal authority. Hence, theLord orders all who rebel against their parents to be put to death, they being,as it where, unworthy of the light in paying no deference to those to whom theyare indebted for beholding it. And it isevident, from the various appendices to the Law, that we were correct instating, that the honour here referred to consists of three parts, reverence,obedience, and gratitude. The first of these the Lord enforces, when he commandsthat whose curseth his father or his mother shall be put to death. In this wayhe avenges insult and contempt. The second he enforces, when he denounces thepunishment of death on disobedient and rebellious children. To the thirdbelongs our Saviour’s declaration, that God requires us to do good to ourparents (Mt. 15). And whenever Paul mentions this commandment, he interprets itas enjoining obedience.213213 Exod.21:17; Lev. 20:9; Prov. 20:20; Deut. 21:18; Mt. 25:4; Eph. 6:1; Colloss. 3:20.

Exo 20:12 -Calvin

I am not ignorant that the Tables of the Law are usuallydivided in a different manner; (1) for those, who make only one of the firsttwo Commandments, are obliged finally to mangle the last. Thus the prohibitionof God to covet either our neighbor’s wife or his house, is foolishly separatedinto two parts, whereas it is quite clear that only one thing is treated of, aswe gather from the words of Paul, who quotes them as a single Commandment.(Rom_7:7.) There is, however, no need of a lengthened discussion here, sincethe fact itself explains how one error has grown out of another; for, when theyhad improperly hidden the Second Commandment under the First, and consequentlydid not find the right number, they were forced to divide into two parts whatwas one and indivisible. A frivolous reason is assigned by Augustine why theycomprised the First Table in three commandments, viz., that believers mightlearn to worship God in the Trinity, and thus to adore one God in threepersons. By inconsiderately trifling with such subtleties, they have exposedGod’s law to the mockeries of the ungodly. Josephus (2) indeed rightlyenumerates the Commandments themselves in their proper order, but improperlyattributes five Commandments to each Table; as if God had had regard toarithmetic rather than to instruct His people separately in the duties ofcharity, after having laid down for them the rules of piety. For up to thispoint the rule of rightly serving God has been delivered, i. e. , the FirstTable embraces a summary of piety; and now the Law will begin to show how menought to live with each other, otherwise one Table would have been enough, norwould God have divided his Law without a purpose. But whereas piety (3) andjustice comprise the perfect rule for the direction of our lives, it wasnecessary to distinguish these two parts, that the people might understand theobject of the Law, of which we shall again speak hereafter.

Exo_20:12-Calvin

Honor thy father Although charity (as being “the bond of perfectness,”Col_3:14) contains the sum of the Second Table, still, mutual obligation doesnot prevent either parents or others, who are in authority, from retainingtheir proper position. Nay, human society cannot be maintained in itsintegrity, unless children modestly submit themselves to their parents, andunless those, who are set over others by God’s ordinance, are even reverentlyhonored. But inasmuch as the reverence which children pay to their parents isaccounted a sort of piety, some have therefore foolishly placed this precept inthe First Table. Nor are they supported in this by Paul, though he does notenumerate this Commandment, where he collects the sum of the Second Table,(Rom_13:9;) for he does this designedly, because he is there expressly teachingthat obedience is to be paid to the authority of kings and magistrates. Christ,however, puts an end to the whole controversy, where, among the precepts of theSecond Table, He enumerates this, that children should honor their parents.(Mat_19:19.)

The name of the mothers is expressly introduced, lest theirsex should render them contemptible to their male children.

It will be now wellto ascertain what is the force of the word “honor,” not as to its grammaticalmeaning, (for כבד, cabad, is nothing else butto pay due honor to God, and to men who are in authority,) but as to itsessential signification. Surely, since God would not have His servants complywith external ceremonies only, it cannot be doubted but that all the duties ofpiety towards parents are here comprised, to which children are laid underobligation by natural reason itself; and these may be reduced to three heads, ie. , that they should regard them with reverence; that they should obedientlycomply with their commands, and allow themselves to be governed by them; andthat they should endeavor to repay what they owe to them, and thus heartilydevote to them themselves and their services. Since, therefore, the name ofFather is a sacred one, and is transferred to men by the peculiar goodness ofGod, the dishonoring of parents redounds to the dishonor of God Himself, norcan any one despise his father without being guilty of an offense against God,( sacrilegium.) If any should objectthat there are many ungodly and wicked fathers whom their children cannotregard with honor without destroying the distinction between good and evil, thereply is easy, that the perpetual law of nature is not subverted by the sins ofmen; and therefore, however unworthy of honor a father may be, that he stillretains, inasmuch as he is a father, his right over his children, provided itdoes not in anywise derogate from the judgment of God; for it is too absurd tothink of absolving under any pretext the sins which are condemned by His Law;nay, it would be a base profanation to misuse the name of father for thecovering of sins. In condemning, therefore, the vices of a father, a trulypious son will subscribe to God’s Law; and still, whatsoever he may be, willacknowledge that he is to be honored, as being the father given him by God.

Obedience comes next, which is also circumscribed by certainlimits. Paul is a faithful interpreter of this Commandment, where he bids“children obey their parents.” (Eph_6:1; Col_3:20.) Honor, therefore, comprises subjection; so that he who shakes off theyoke of his father, and does not allow himself to be governed by his authority,is justly said to despise his father; and it will more clearly appear fromother passages, that those who are not obedient to their parents are deemed todespise them. Still, the power of a father is so limited as that God, on whomall relationships depend, should have the rule over fathers as well aschildren; for parents govern their children only under the supreme authority ofGod. Paul, therefore, does not simply exhort children to obey their parents,but adds the restriction, “in the Lord;” whereby he indicates that, if a fatherenjoins anything unrighteous, obedience is freely to be denied him. Immoderatestrictness, moroseness, and even cruelty must be born, so long as a mortal man,by wickedly demanding what is not lawful, does not endeavor to rob God of Hisright. In a word, the Law so subjects children to their parents, as thatGod’s right may remain uninfringed. Anobjection here arises in the shape of this question: It may sometimes happenthat a son may hold the office of a magistrate, but that the father may be aprivate person, and that thus the son cannot discharge his private duty withoutviolating public order. The point is easily solved: that all things may be sotempered by their mutual moderation as that, whilst the father submits himselfto the government of his son, (4) yet he may not be at all defrauded of hishonor, and that the son, although his superior in power, may still modestlyreverence his father.

The third head of honor is, that children should take careof their parents, and be ready and diligent in all their duties towards them.This kind of piety the Greeks call ἀντιπελαργία, (5) because storks supplyfood to their parents when they are feeble and worn out with old age, and arethus our instructors in gratitude. Hence the barbarity of those is all the morebase and detestable, who either grudge or neglect to relieve the poverty oftheir parents, and to aid their necessities.

Now, although the parental name ought, by its own sweetness,sufficiently to attract children to ready submission, still a promise is addedas a stimulus, in order that they may more cheerfully bestir themselves to paythe honor which is enjoined upon them. Paul,therefore, that children may be more willing to obey their parents, reminds usthat this “is the first commandment with promise,” (Eph_6:2;) for althougha promise is annexed to the Second Commandment, yet it is not a special one, aswe perceive this to be. The reward, that the days of children who have behavedthemselves piously to their parents shall be prolonged, aptly corresponds withthe observance of the commandment, since in this manner God gives us a proof ofHis favor in this life, when we have been grateful to those to whom we areindebted for it; whilst it is by no means just that they should greatly prolongtheir life who despise those progenitors by whom they have been brought intoit. Here the question arises, since this earthly life is exposed to so manycares, and pains, and troubles, how can God account its prolongation to be ablessing? But whereas all cares spring from the curse of God, it is manifestthat they are accidental; and thus, if life be regarded in itself, it does notcease to be a proof of God’s favor. Besides, all this multitude of miseriesdoes not destroy the chief blessing of life, viz., that men are created andpreserved unto the hope of a happy immortality; for God now manifests Himselfto them as a Father, that hereafter they may enjoy His eternal inheritance. Theknowledge of this, like a lighted lamp, causes God’s grace to shine forth inthe midst of darkness. Whence it follows, that those had not tasted the mainthing in life, (6) who have said that the best thing was not to be born, andthe next best thing to be cut off as soon as possible; whereas God rather soexercises men by various afflictions, as that it should be good for themnevertheless to be created in His image, and to be accounted His children. Aclearer explanation also is added in Deuteronomy, not only that they shouldlive, but that it may go well with them; so that not only is length of lifepromised them, but other accessories also. And in fact, many who have beenungrateful and unkind to their parents only prolong their life as a punishment,whilst the reward of their inhuman conduct is repaid them by their children anddescendants. But inasmuch as long life is not vouchsafed to all who havedischarged the duties of piety towards their parents, it must be rememberedthat, with respect to temporal rewards, an infallible law is by no means laiddown; and still, where God works variously and unequally, His promises are notmade void, because a better compensation is secured in heaven for believers,who have been deprived on earth of transitory blessings. Truly experience inall ages has shown that God has not in vain promised long life to all who havefaithfully discharged the duties of true piety towards their parents. Still,from the principle already stated, it is to be understood that this Commandmentextends further than the words imply; and this we infer from the followingsound argument, viz., that otherwise God’s Law would be imperfect, and wouldnot instruct us in the perfect rule of a just and holy life.

The natural sense itself dictates to us that we should obeyrulers. If servants obey not their masters, the society of the human race issubverted altogether. It is not, therefore, the least essential part ofrighteousness (7) that the people should willingly submit themselves to thecommand of magistrates, and that servants should obey their masters; and,consequently, it would be very absurd if it were omitted in the Law of God. Inthis commandment, then, as in the others, God by synecdoche embraces, under aspecific rule, a general principle, viz., that lawful commands should obtaindue reverence from us. But that all things should not be distinctly expressed,first of all brevity itself readily accounts for; and, besides, another reasonis to be noticed, i. e. that God designedly used a homely style in addressing arude people, because He saw its expediency. If He had said generally, that allsuperiors were to be obeyed, since, pride is natural to all, it would not havebeen easy to incline the greater part of men to pay submission to a few. Nay,since subjection is naturally disagreeable, many would have kicked against it.God, therefore, propounds a specific kind of subjection, which it would havebeen gross barbarism to refuse, that thus, their ferocity being graduallysubdued, He might accustom men to bear the yoke. Hence the exhortations arederived, that people should “honor the king;” that “every soul should besubject unto the higher powers;” that “servants should obey their masters, eventhe froward and morose.” (Pro_24:21; 1Pe_2:13; Rom_13:1; Eph_6:5; 1Pe_2:14.)

(1) See Becon’s Catechism, part 3, (Parker Society’sedition,) p. 60, et seq. See also Bullinger’s Decades, (Parker Society,) vol.1, p. 212; and Hooper’s Early Writings, (Parker Society,) pages 349-351; andCalvin’s Institutes, lib. 2. cap. 8, Section 12. It appears that this error maybe traced to Augustine, (Quaest. in Exo_71:0, and Ep. ad. Jan. 119,) who,without omitting the Second Commandment, divided the precepts of the FirstTable into three, on the supposition that their number was allusive to theTrinity. He, however, contradicts himself elsewhere, (Quaest. Vet. et NoviTest., lib. 1:7;) but Peter Lomb. adopts his erroneous division, and separatesthe Tenth Commandment into two parts. (Lib. 3, Distinct. 37 and 40.)

(2) See Jewish Antiq., book 3. chap. 5. Section 5. In sect.8 it is added: “When he had said this he showed them two tables, with the tencommandments engraven upon them, five upon each table; and the writing was bythe hand of God.”

(3) “La piete que nous devons a Dieu, et l’equite que nousdevons a nos prochains;” the piety which we owe to God, and the equity which weowe to our neighbors. — Fr.

(4) There is a delightful illustration of this point, whichwill occur to many, related in More ’s Life of Sir Thomas More, ch. 6. Section5, — “Now it was a comfortablething for ante man to behold how two great rooms of Westminster-hall were takenup, one with the son, the other with the father, which hath as yet never beenheard of before or since, the son to be Lord Chancellor, and the father, SirJohn More, to be one of the ancientest Judges of the King’s Bench, if not theeldest of all; for now he was near 90 year old. Yea, what a grateful spectaclewas it, to see the son ask the father’s blessing every day upon his knees,before he sat in his own seat, a thing expressing rare humility, exemplarobedience, and submissive piety.”

(5) “Let us consider what is meant by the Gentiles’ ἀντιπελαργεῖν, which is to requite onegood turn with another; and especially to nourish and cherish them, by whomthou thyself in thy youth was brought up and tendered. There is among theGentiles a law extant, worthy to be called the mistress of piety, whereby it isenacted that the children should either nourish their parents or else lie fastlettered in prison. This law many men do carelessly neglect, which the storkalone, among all living creatures, doth keep most precisely. For othercreatures do hard, and scarcely know or look upon their parents, ifperadventure they need their aid to nourish them; whereas the stork dothmutually nourish them, being stricken in age, and bear them on her shoulders,when for feebleness they cannot fly.” — Bullinger’s Second Decade, Serm. 5,Parker Society’s edit., vol. 1, p. 272. See also Hooper’s Early Writings,Parker Society’s edit., p. 359. “Follow the nature of the cicone, that in heryouth nourisheth the old days of her parents.” — Plin., lib. 10 cap. 23, Nat.Hist.

The Fr. concludes the sentence thus: “et ainsi nous sontcomme maistresses pour nous apprendre a recognoistre le bien que nous avonsreceu de ceux qui nous ont mis au monde et elevez;” and so are, as it were, ourmistresses to teach us to repay the benefits of those who have brought us intothe world and reared us.

(6) This famous sentiment of antiquity is found in theElegies of Theognis, some 500 years B.C., —

Pa&gt;ntwnme&lt;n mh&lt; fu~nai ejpicqoni&gt;oisin a]riston,

Mhd j ejsidei~naujgav ojxe&gt;ov hjeli&gt;v.

Fu&gt;ntad j o[pwv w]kiva pu&gt;lav aji`&gt;daw perh~sai

Kai&lt;kei+sqai pollh&lt;n gh~n ejpamhsa&gt;menon. — 425-428.

It is also reported by Plutarch, in his Παραμυθητικὸς προς Απολλώνιον, by whom, as well as byCicero, it is called the reply of Silenus to Midas, — “Affertur etiam de Silenofabella quaedam: qui cum a Mida captus esset, hoc ei muneris pro sua missionededisse scribitur: docuisse regem, non nasci homini longe optimum esse;proximum autem, quamprimum mori.” — Tusc Quaest. 1:48. “Ex quo intelligi licet, non nasci longeoptimum esse, nec in hos scopulos incidere vitae; proximum autem, si natus sis,quamprimum mori, et tanquam ex incendio effugere fortunae. Sileni quae ferturfabula, etc.” — Consolatio. Lactantius refers to the latter passage, De falsasapientia, Section 19. “Hinc nata est inepta illa sententia, etc.”

(7) “Parsjusticiae non postrema.” — Lat. “Une partie de la justice, qui nous devons tousgarder;” a part of righteousness which we ought all to observe. — Fr.

Exo 20:12-Gill

Honour thy fatherand thy mother, &c. Which is the fifth commandment of the decalogue, but isthe first commandment with promise, as the apostle says, Eph_6:2 and is thefirst of the second table: this, thoughit may be extended to all ancestors in the ascending line, as father's fatherand mother, mother's father and mother, &c. and to all such who are in theroom of parents, as step-fathers and step-mothers, guardians, nurses, &c.and to all superiors in dignity and office, to kings and governors, to masters,ministers, and magistrates; yet chiefly respects immediate parents, both fatherand mother, by showing filial affection for them, and reverence and esteem ofthem, and by yielding obedience to them, and giving them relief and assistancein all things in which they need it; and if honour, esteem, affection,obedience, and reverence, are to be given to earthly parents, then much more toour Father which is in heaven, Mal_1:6.

that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thyGod giveth thee; that is, the land of Canaan, which he had given by promise totheir fathers, and was now about to put them, their posterity, into thepossession of: this further confirms the observation made, that this body oflaws belonged peculiarly to the people of Israel: long life in any place orland is a blessing in itself, not always enjoyed by obedient children, thouobedience to parents often brings the judgments of God on persons; so that theysometimes die an untimely or an uncommon death, as in the case of therebellious son, for whom a law was provided in Israel, and Absalom and others,see Lev_20:9 Aben Ezra takes the word to be transitive, and so the words may beread, "that they may prolong thy days"; or, "cause thy days tobe prolonged"; meaning either that the commandments, and keeping of them,may be the means of prolonging the days of obedient children, according to thedivine promise; or that they, their father and mother, whom they harbour andobey, might, by their prayers for them, be the means of obtaining long life forthem; or else that they, Father, Son, and Spirit, may do it, though man's days,strictly speaking, cannot be shortened or lengthened beyond the purpose of God,see Job_14:5 the Septuagint version inserts before this clause another,"that it may be well with thee", as in Deu_5:16 and which the apostlealso has, Eph_6:3 and where, instead of this, the words are, "and thoumayest live long on the earth"; accommodating them the better to theGentiles, to whom he writes.

Exo 20:12 -Clarke

Honor thy father and thy mother - There is a degree ofaffectionate respect which is owing to parents, that no person else canproperly claim. For a considerable time parents stand as it were in the placeof God to their children, and therefore rebellion against their lawful commandshas been considered as rebellion against God. This precept therefore prohibits, not only all injurious acts,irreverent and unkind speeches to parents, but enjoins all necessary acts ofkindness, filial respect, and obedience. We can scarcely suppose that a manhonors his parents who, when they fall weak, blind, or sick, does not exerthimself to the uttermost in their support. In such cases God as truly requiresthe children to provide for their parents, as he required the parents to feed,nourish, support, instruct, and defend the children when they were in thelowest state of helpless in fancy. See Clarke’s note on Gen_48:12. The rabbinssay, Honor the Lord with thy substance, Pro_3:9; and, Honor thy father andmother. The Lord is to be honored thus if thou have it; thy father and mother,whether thou have it or not; for if thou have nothing, thou art bound to begfor them. See Ainsworth.

That thy days may be long - This, as the apostle observes,Eph_6:2, is the first commandment to which God has annexed a promise; andtherefore we may learn in some measure how important the duty is in the sightof God. In Deu_5:16 it is said, And that it may go well with thee; we may therefore conclude that it will goill with the disobedient; and there is no doubt that the untimely deaths ofmany young persons are the judicial consequence of their disobedience to theirparents. Most who come to an untimely end are obliged to confess that this,with the breach of the Sabbath, was the principal cause of their ruin. Reader,art thou guilty? Humble thyself therefore before God, and repent. 1. Aschildren are bound to succor their parents, so parents are bound to educate andinstruct their children in all useful and necessary knowledge, and not to bringthem up either in ignorance or idleness. 2. They should teach their childrenthe fear and knowledge of God, for how can they expect affection or dutifulrespect from those who have not the fear of God before their eyes? Those whoare best educated are generally the most dutiful. Heathens also inculcatedrespect to parents.

Ουδεν προς θεων τιμιωτερον αγαλμα αν κτησαιμεθα πατρος καιπροπατορος παρειμενων γηρᾳ, και μητερων την αυτην δυναμιν εχουσων·οὑς ὁυταν αγαλλῃ τις,τιμαις γεγηθεν ὁ θεος. - Πας δη νουν εχων φοβειται καιτιμᾳ, γονενων ευχας ειδως πολλοις και πολλακιςεπιτελεις γενομενας.

Plato de Leg., lib. xi., vol. ix, p. 160. Ed. Bipont.

“We can obtain no more honorable possession from the godsthan fathers and forefathers worn down with age, and mothers who have undergonethe same change, whom when we delight, God is pleased with the honor; and everyone that is governed by right understanding fears and reverences them, well knowingthat the prayers of parents oftentimes, and in many particulars, have receivedfull accomplishment.”

Exo20:12 -Wesley

Honor thy father and thy mother - There is a degree ofaffectionate respect which is owing to parents, that no person else can properlyclaim. For a considerable time parents stand as it were in the place of God totheir children, and therefore rebellion against their lawful commands has beenconsidered as rebellion against God. This precept therefore prohibits, not onlyall injurious acts, irreverent and unkind speeches to parents, but enjoins allnecessary acts of kindness, filial respect, and obedience. We can scarcelysuppose that a man honors his parents who, when they fall weak, blind, or sick,does not exert himself to the uttermost in their support. In such cases God astruly requires the children to provide for their parents, as he required theparents to feed, nourish, support, instruct, and defend the children when theywere in the lowest state of helpless in fancy. See Clarke’s note on Gen_48:12.The rabbins say, Honor the Lord with thy substance, Pro_3:9; and, Honor thyfather and mother. The Lord is to be honored thus if thou have it; thy fatherand mother, whether thou have it or not; for if thou have nothing, thou artbound to beg for them. See Ainsworth.

That thy days may be long - This, as the apostle observes,Eph_6:2, is the first commandment to which God has annexed a promise; andtherefore we may learn in some measure how important the duty is in the sightof God. In Deu_5:16 it is said, And that it may go well with thee; we maytherefore conclude that it will go ill with the disobedient; and there is nodoubt that the untimely deaths of many young persons are the judicialconsequence of their disobedience to their parents. Most who come to anuntimely end are obliged to confess that this, with the breach of the Sabbath,was the principal cause of their ruin. Reader, art thou guilty? Humble thyselftherefore before God, and repent. 1. As children are bound to succor theirparents, so parents are bound to educate and instruct their children in alluseful and necessary knowledge, and not to bring them up either in ignorance oridleness. 2. They should teach their children the fear and knowledge of God,for how can they expect affection or dutiful respect from those who have notthe fear of God before their eyes? Those who are best educated are generallythe most dutiful. Heathens also inculcated respect to parents.

Plato de Leg., lib. xi., vol. ix, p. 160. Ed. Bipont.

“We can obtain no more honorable possession from the godsthan fathers and forefathers worn down with age, and mothers who have undergonethe same change, whom when we delight, God is pleased with the honor; and everyone that is governed by right understanding fears and reverences them, wellknowing that the prayers of parents oftentimes, and in many particulars, havereceived full accomplishment.”

3 Exo 21:15

Exo 21:15 And hethat smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Exo 21:15-Gill

And he that smitethhis father or his mother,.... With his fist, or with a stick, or cane, or suchthing, though they died not with the blow, yet it occasioned any wound, orcaused a bruise, or the part smitten black and blue, or left any print of theblow; for, as Jarchi says, the party was not guilty, less by smiting there wasa bruise, or weal, made, or any mark or scar: but if so it was, then he shallbe surely put to death; the Targum of Jonathan adds, with the suffocation of anapkin; and so Jarchi says with strangling; the manner of which was this, theperson was sunk into a dunghill up to his knees, and two persons girt his neckwith a napkin or towel until he expired. This crime was made capital, to showthe heinousness of it, how detestable it was to God, and in order to deter fromit.

Exo 21:15 - Calvin

The commandment is now sanctioned by the denunciation ofcapital punishment for its violation, yet not so as to comprehend all who havein any respect sinned against their parents, but sufficient to show that therights of parents are sacred, and not to be violated without the greatestcriminality. We know that parricides (8) as being the most detestable of allmen, were formerly sewn up in a leathern sack and cast into the water; but Godproceeds further, when He commands all those to be exterminated who have laidviolent hands on their parents (9) or addressed them in abusive language. Forto smite does not only mean to kill, but refers to any violence, although nowound may have been inflicted. If, then, any one had struck his father ormother with his fist, or with a stick, the punishment of such an act of madnesswas the same as for murder. And, assuredly, it is an abominable and monstrousthing for a son not to hesitate to assault those from whom he has received hislife; nor can it be but that impunity accorded to so foul a crime muststraightway produce cruel barbarism. The second law avenges not only violencedone to parents, but also, abusive words, which soon proceed to grosser insultsand atrocious contempt. Still, if any one should have lightly let drop someslight reproach, as is often the case ill a quarrel, this severe punishment wasnot to be inflicted upon such, all inconsiderate piece of impertinence: and theword קלל, kalal, fromwhich the participle used by Moses is derived, not only means to reproach, butalso to curse, as well as to esteem lightly, and to despise. Whilst, therefore,not every insult, whereby the reverence due to parents was violated, received thepunishment of death, still God would have that impious pride, which wouldsubvert the first principles of nature, held in abhorrence. But, inasmuch as itmight seem hard that a word, (10) however unworthy of a dutiful son, should bethe cause of death; this objection is met, by what is added by God inLeviticus, “his blood shall be upon him, because he hath cursed his father ormother:” as if He would put a stop to what men might otherwise presume toallege in mitigation of the severity of the punishment.

(8) By the Roman law parricides were sewn up in a leathernsack with a dog, a cock, a viper, and a monkey, and east into the sea, or thenearest river. — Vide Cicero pro Rose. Amer., 2:25, 26.

(9) “Ceux qui auront outrage pere ou mere, soit de faict, soitde parole;” those who shall have outraged father or mother either by act orword. — Fr.

(10) “Une injure verbale;” a verbal injury. — Fr.

4 Exo 21:17

Exo 21:17 And hethat curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Exo 21:17-Gill

And he that cursethhis father, or his mother,.... Though he does not smite them with his hand, orwith any instrument in it, yet if he smites them with his tongue, reviles andreproaches them, speaks evil of them, wishes dreadful imprecations upon them,curses them by the name explained, as the Targum of Jonathan calls it, by thename Jehovah, wishing the Lord would curse them, or that his curse might lightupon them, see Pro_20:20, shall surely be put to death; or be killed withcasting stones on him, as the Targum of Jonathan, or with stoning; so Jarchi,who observes, that wherever it is said, "his blood be upon him", itis meant of stoning, as it is of the man that curses his father or his mother,Lev_20:9 which was after this manner, the place of stoning was two cubits high,to which the malefactor with his hands bound was brought; from whence one ofthe witnesses against him cast him down headlong, of which, if he did not die,then they took up stones and cast on him, and if he died not through them, thenall Israel came and stoned him; that is, the multitude upon the spot: thisverse in the Septuagint version follows Exo_21:15, with which it agrees, bothrespecting the same persons.

Exo 21:17-Henry

II. Concerning rebellious children. It is here made acapital crime, to be punished with death, for children either, 1. To striketheir parents (Exo_21:15) so as either to draw blood or to make the placestruck black and blue. Or, 2. To curse their parents (Exo_21:17), if theyprofaned any name of God in doing it, as the rabbies say. Note, The undutifulbehaviour of children towards their parents is a very great provocation to Godour common Father; and, if men do not punish it, he will. Those are perfectlylost to all virtue, and abandoned to all wickedness, that have broken throughthe bonds of filial reverence and duty to such a degree as in word or action toabuse their own parents. What yoke will those bear that have shaken off this?Let children take heed of entertaining in their minds any such thought orpassions towards their parents as savour of undutifulness and contempt; for therighteous God searches the heart.

5 Deu 5:16

Deu 5:16 Honourthy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thydays may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which theLORD thy God giveth thee.

Deu 5:16-Gill

Honour thy fatherand thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee,.... And is the firstcommandment with promise, as the apostle observes, Eph_6:2 with a promise oflong life and happiness in the land of Canaan, as follows:

that thy days may be prolonged; see Exo_20:12 here it isadded:

and that it may go well with thee; and which the apostlealso has in the place referred to:

in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee; the land ofCanaan; which the same apostle explains to a greater latitude:

that thou mayest live long on the earth; applying it toChristians under the Gospel dispensation, whether Jews or Gentiles.

Deu 5:16 –Genevan

(g) Honour thy fatherand thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may beprolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thyGod giveth thee.

(g) Not for a show, but with true obedience, and due reverence.

Deu 5:16-Wesley

Honour thy fatherand mother - Hast thou not been irreverent or undutiful to either? Hast thounot slighted their advice? Hast thou chearfully obeyed all their lawfulcommands? Hast thou loved and honoured their persons? Supplied their wants, andconcealed their infirmities? Hast thou wrestled for them with God in prayer?Hast thou loved and honoured thy prince, and avoided as fire all speaking evilof the ruler of thy people? Have ye that are servants done all things as untoChrist? Not with eye - service, but in singleness of heart? Have ye who aremasters, behaved as parents to your servants, with all gentleness andaffection? Have ye all obeyed them that watch over your souls, and esteemedthem highly in love for their work's sake?

6 Deu 21:18-21

Deu 21:18 If aman have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of hisfather, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him,will not hearken unto them:

Deu 21:19 Thenshall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto theelders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; Deu 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of hiscity, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; heis a glutton, and a drunkard. Deu 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: soshalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Deu 21:18 -Calvin

18.If a man have a stubborn. What God had previouslyadverted to in two clauses, tie now embraces in a general law, for it cannot bedoubted but that by rebellious children all are designated who are abusive orinsulting to their father and mother. Forif it be a capital crime to be disobedient to parents, much more is it to strike,or beat them, and to assail them with reproachful words. In sum, Mosesdeclares that those are deserving of death who are of such a stubborn andintractable disposition as to reject the authority of their father and mother,and to hold them in contempt. Whence also we infer what it is to honor ourfather and mother, for the punishment is only denounced for the transgressionof the Commandment. When, therefore, thelaw delivers over to death all who contumaciously rebel against the disciplineof their parents, it follows that they have refused them their due honor.An admirable means, however, of moderating the severity of the law isintroduced, when God requires the case to be decided on the evidence of thefather and mother; and commands that it should be publicly heard, so that nonemay be condemned at the will of private individuals. By the Roman law the powerof life and death over his children (11) was given to the father, because itwas not probable that fathers would be carried away by such senselessinhumanity as to deal cruelly with their own bowels; but, since sometimesfathers are found who are not unlike wild beasts, and examples show us thatmany, blinded by hate or avarice, have not spared their own children, thisconcession of the Roman law is justly to be repudiated. I allow, indeed, thatthose who desired to inflict punishment on their children called their friendsinto council; but, whereas, the walls of a private dwelling conceal manydisgraceful things, God imposed a much better restraint on parents when He didnot suffer them to go further than to lay the information and to give theirtestimony. For, although he would have credit given to their testimony, still,when the children were brought to the tribunal of the judges, a legal trimundoubtedly ensued; and this form of proceeding is prescribed, viz., that thefather and mother should bring their son and make their complaint before thejudges of his incorrigible stubbornness. It is true that the sentence isimmediately subjoined; yet we must infer, nevertheless, that the judgespronounced it before the criminal was stoned, else it would have beenridiculous that they should sit there like cyphers. The very mention of atrial, therefore, implies that the son was heard in his defense, so as to clearhimself of the crime, if he was not guilty of it: for, suppose the morosenessof the father and mother were notorious; or that the father accused the son bythe instigation of a stepmother; or that any unworthy spite were discovered; orthat the father and mother had conspired to destroy their son in a fit ofpassion: the defense of the cause is, therefore, implied in the adverb then,(12) for it would have been more than absurd that the son should be condemnedwithout being heard. Especially, when he was to be stoned by the whole people,it was necessary that he should be first convicted; and on this ground he wasbrought forth publicly, that he might be allowed to plead his cause. Butalthough those were condemned who were addicted to other vices also, yet Mosesexpressly mentions gluttons and drunkards, to show that, although no capitalcrime were alleged, still, dissolute profligacy was sufficient, if the soncould not be corrected by his parents; for it is plain that those are in adesperate state who have so east away submissiveness and shame as to receive noprofit from the admonitions of their parents. From the end of the verse wegather what was the twofold object of the punishment — that the earth should bepurged of the sins whereby it was in a manner, polluted, and that the death ofhim who had transgressed might be an example to all.

(11) “A father among the Romans had the power of life anddeath over his children. He could not only expose them when infants, but, evenwhen his children were grown up, he might imprison, scourge, send them bound towork in the country, and also put them to death by any punishment he pleased,if they deserved it. Sall. Cat., 39.; Liv., 2:41; 8:7; Dionys., 8:79.” — Adam’sRom. Antiq.

(12) The particle וsometimes has this force, but is here translated in A V and

Deu 21:18-21-Gill

If a man have astubborn and rebellious son,.... It is observed (w) that this law quicklyfollows, and is subjoined to that which relates to the marriage of a womantaken captive, because often from such marriages wicked and refractory childrenhave sprung, and which they exemplify inthe case of Absalom, whose mother they say David took in war and married: thecharacter of such a son follows, and by which it may be known that he isstubborn and rebellious; stubborn in his nature, and rebellious in his actions;behaves contrary to the laws of God, and the instructions of his parents; whathe should do, that he does not; and what he should not do, that he does; willnot do what is commanded him, and will do what is forbidden him,notwithstanding all counsels, admonitions, and corrections given him: whichwill not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother; isdisobedient to the commands of either of them; see Pro_30:17 and, when theyhave chastened him, will not hearken to them; when they have reproved him bywords, and corrected him with blows; the Jews understand this of scourging orbeating by the order of the sanhedrim, after admonition given; it is said (x),"theyadmonish him before three (a court of judicature consisting of three judges),and they beat him; but it seems rather to respect private corrections of theirown by words and stripes, which having no effect, they were to proceed asfollows.''

(w) Moses Kotensis Mitzvot Torah, pr. affirm. 122. Kimchi in2 Sam. 3. 3. (x) Misn. Sandedrin, c. 8. sect. 4.

Then shall hisfather and his mother lay hold on him,.... With their own hands, or cause himto be apprehended by others, in which they were to agree, and which the Jewsgather from hence;"if (say they (y)) the father is willing (to bring himto justice), and the mother not willing, if his father is not willing and themother is willing, he is not reckoned a stubborn or rebellious son, until theyboth agree:" and bring him out unto the elders of his city; according tothe Misnah (z), the sanhedrim, or court of judicature, consisting of twentythree; for they say, that after he has been admonished and scourged by order ofthe bench of three, if he returns to his corrupt and wicked ways again, he isjudged by the court of twenty three: and unto the gate of his place; or city,where the court sat; so the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, to the gate of thesanhedrim of his place.

(y) Misn.Sanhedrin, c. 8. sect. 4. (z) Ibid.

And they shall sayunto the elders of his city,.... In open court, what follows, at the same time,according to the Targum of Jonathan, acknowledging their own sins, for whichsuch a calamity had befallen them, saying,"we have transgressed the decreeof the word of the Lord, because is born unto us a son that is stubborn,&c.''see Joh_9:2. this our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obeyour voice; one of an obstinate disposition, will have his own will and way, isperverse and refractory; honours not, but despises his parents, and isdisobedient to their commands, unruly and ungovernable: the Jews gather (a)many things from hence, for which there is little foundation, as that they mustbe neither dumb, nor blind, nor deaf; though what they further observe is notmuch amiss, concerning this rebellious child, that the law respects a son andnot a daughter, because a daughter generally is more tractable; and lesscapable of doing mischief than a son; and a son and not a man, for if at man'sestate, and for himself, he is not under the power of his parents; and yet nota child or a little one, for that is not comprehended in the commands; he mustbe according to them thirteen years of age and one day, and he must be a sonand not a father [2](b):he is a glutton and a drunkard; which, according to the Misnah (c), is one thateats half a pound of flesh, and drinks half a log of Italian wine; R. Josesays, a pound of flesh and a log of wine; but the decision was not according tohim; the first rule stood: now half a pound of flesh, and half a log of wine,which was about three egg shells, or a quarter of a pint, would be at this dayreckoned very little by our grandsons of Bacchus, as Schickard observes (d);but in an age of severer discipline, as he says, in the tender candidates oftemperance, it was reckoned too much, and was a presage of a future glutton:and it must be further observed to denominate him a rebellious son, what he ateand drank was to be what he stole from his parents, and did not eat and drinkit at home, but abroad, and in bad company; so Jarchi remarks on the text, heis not guilty until he steals, and eats half a pound of flesh, and drinks halfa log of wine; in which he seems to have respect to the Jewish canon (e),"ifhe steals from his father and eats it in a place in his father's power, or fromothers and eats it in a place in their power, or from others and eats it in aplace in his father's power; he is not reckoned a stubborn and rebellious son,unless he steals from his father, and eats it in a place in the power ofothers,''see Pro_23:20, the Jews seem to refer to this when they charged Christwith being a glutton and a winebibber, Mat_11:19 being desirous of having himthought as such an one.

(a) Misn.Sanhedrin, c. 8. sect. 4. (b) Ut supra, (Misn. Bava Bathra, c. 8.) sect. 1.Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (c) Ib. sect. 2. (d) Jus Regium Heb. c. 5.Theor. 17. p. 364. (e) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 8. sect. 3.

And all the men ofhis city shall stone him with stones, that he die,.... The populace; that is,after his trial is finished, and he is condemned to die; and he was not stoneduntil the three first judges were there (by whom he was admonished, and orderedto be beaten), as it it said, "this is our son", this is he that was beatenbefore you (f); and according to the Targum of Jonathan,"if he feared(God, and showed any token of repentance) and received instruction, and they(his parents) desired to preserve him alive, they preserved him; but if herefused and was rebellious, then they stoned him;''but the Jews say this law,and that of retaliation, were never put into execution: so shalt thou put awayevil from among you; put a stop to, and prevent such an evil for the future,and remove the guilt of it; or, as the Targum of Jonathan, him that doeth thatevil: and all Israel shall hear, and fear; it being to be publicly notifiedthroughout the land, that such an one suffered death for such a crime, whichwould be a means of deterring others from the same; so Jarchi remarks,"here(says he) a proclamation was necessary to be made by the sanhedrim, as thatsuch an one was stoned because he was stubborn and rebellious;''for themystical sense of this see Eph_2:2.

(f) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 3. sect. 4.

Deu 21:18-21 -Barnes

The formal accusation of parents against a child was to bereceived without inquiry, as being its own proof. Thus the just authority ofthe parents is recognized and effectually upheld (compare Exo_20:12; Exo_21:15,Exo_21:17; Lev_20:9); but the extreme and irresponsible power of life anddeath, conceded by the law of Rome and other pagan nations, is withheld fromthe Israelite father. In this, as in the last law, provision is made againstthe abuses of a necessary authority.

7 Lev 19:3

Lev 19:3 Yeshall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am theLORD your God.

Lev 19:3 - Calvin

Since this passage unquestionably relates to the explanationof the Fifth Commandment, it confirms what I have before shown, that the honor which God-commands to be paid toparents, does not consist in reverence only, but also embraces obedience.For the reverence which He now prescribes will render children submissive andcompliant. Now, then, we more clearly understand how parents are to be honored,when God exhorts their children to beware of offending them; for this is, in aword, the true manifestation of filial piety, calmly to bear the yoke ofsubjection, and to prove by acts a sincere desire to obey.

Lev 19:3-Gill

Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father,.... Thishas respect to the fifth command, which is the first with promise, and is herereferred to first, because a man has his beginning in the world from hisparents, and by them he is trained up in the observance of all the other lawsof God, equally to be respected; and the fear of them is not servile, but filial, joined with love andaffection to them, and includes an inward esteem and reverence of them, anoutward respect unto them, a readiness to obey their commands, and giving dueand equal honour unto them; See Gill on Exo_20:12; Pythagoras, Phocylides,and other Heathens, next to honouring God, exhort to the honour and reverenceof parents:

Lev 19:3-Wesley

His mother - Themother is put first, partly because the practice of this duty begins there,mothers, by perpetual converse, being sooner known to their children than theirfathers; and partly because this duty is commonly neglected to the mother, uponwhom children have not so much dependence as they have upon their father. Andthis fear includes the two great duties of reverence and obedience. And keep mysabbaths - This is added, to shew, that, whereas it is enjoined to parents thatthey should take care the sabbath be observed both by themselves and theirchildren, it is the duty of children to fear and obey their parents in thismatter. But that, if parents should neglect their duty herein, or by theircommand, counsel, or example, draw them to pollute the sabbath, the children inthat case must keep the sabbath, and prefer the command of God before thecommands of their parents.

8 Eze 22:7

Eze 22:7 In theehave they set light by father and mother: in the midst of thee have they dealtby oppression with the stranger: in thee have they vexed the fatherless and thewidow.

Eze 22:7 – Gill

[Speaking of thePrinces of Israel] In thee have they set light by father and mother,.... Through whom they received their being fromGod; by whom they were brought into the world, brought up and educated; and towhom they owed great respect, honour, and obedience; but, on the contrary, theywanted affection to their persons, showed great disrespect to their commands,and treated them with irreverence and contempt; a sin of a very heinous nature,of the first magnitude; reckoned among the very Heathens as next to contempt ofGod, and disobedience to him; is directly contrary to a law of God, andthreatened with a curse, and a severe punishment, Exo_20:12 by theconnection of the words with the preceding, the princes of Israel seemintended; the children of the nobles, and the sons and daughters of the king;who, it might have been thought, by the character they bore, the station theywere in, and the politeness of their education, would have behaved in anothermanner; and if this sin prevailed among them, no doubt it did among those of alower class, who are always influenced by such examples:

in the midst of thee have they dealt by oppression with thestranger; the proselyte, as the Septuagint; him that was converted to me, asthe Syriac version; which is an aggravation of the sin, that it was not merelya stranger that came about civil business, but one who came from foreign partsto worship the Lord at Jerusalem, as the Ethiopian eunuch did: now, to oppresssuch an one, either by private frauds, or by injustice in a court ofjudicature; to exact upon him for food or lodging; or circumvent and overreachhim in trade and commerce; or distress him by vexatious lawsuits, when ignorantof the laws and customs of the country; at a distance from his friends, and inwant of money, must be a very great evil; and yet even the princes themselvesin Jerusalem were guilty of it:

9 Mic 7:6

Mic 7:6 For theson dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, thedaughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of hisown house.

Mic 7:6-Gill

For the sondishonoureth the father,.... Speaks contemptibly of him; behaves rudely towardshim; shows him no respect and reverence; exposes his failings, and makes himthe object of his banter and ridicule; who ought to have honoured, reverenced, and obeyed him, being theinstrument of his being, by whom he was brought up, fed, clothed, and providedfor; base ingratitude!

the daughter riseth up against her mother; by whom she hasbeen used in the most tender and affectionate manner; this being still moreunnatural, if possible, as being done by the female sex, usually more soft andpliable; but here, losing her natural affection, and forgetting both her relation and sex, replies to her mother, givingill language; opposes and disobeys her, chides, wrangles, and scolds, andstrives and litigates with her, as the Targum: or rises up as a witnessagainst her, to her detriment, if not to the taking away of her life:

the daughter in law against her mother in law; this is notso much to be wondered at as, the former instances, which serve to encourageand embolden those that are in such a relation to speak pertly and saucily; toreproach and make, light of mothers in law, as the Targum; or slight and abusethem:

a man's enemies are the men of his own house; his sons andhis servants, who should honour his person, defend his property, and promotehis interest; but, instead of that, do everything that is injurious to him.These words are referred to by Christ, and used by him to describe the times inwhich he lived, Mat_10:35; and the prophet may be thought to have an eye to thesame, while he is settling forth the badness of his own times; and the Jewsseem to think be had a regard to them, since they say (y), that, when theMessiah comes, "the son shall dishonour his father", &c. plainlyhaving this passage in view; and the; whole agrees with the times of Christ, inwhich there were few good men; it was a wicked age, an adulterous generation ofmen, he lived among; great corruption there was in princes, priests, andpeople; in the civil and ecclesiastical rulers, and in all ranks and degrees ofmen; and he that ate bread with Christ, even Judas, lifted up his heel againsthim. The times in which Micah the prophet here speaks of seem to he the timesof Ahaz, who was a wicked prince; and the former part of Hezekiah's reign,before a reformation was started, or at least brought about, in whose reigns heprophesied; though some have thought he here predicts the sad times in thereign of Manasseh, which is not so probable.

(y) Misn. Sotah, c. 9. sect. 15.

10 Jeremiah35

INTRODUCTION TO JEREMIAH 35 -Gill

In this chapter the disobedience of the people of the Jewsunto God is aggravated by the obedience of the Rechabites to their father; andthe one are threatened with the judgments of God upon them, and the other havea promise of the divine blessing. The time of this prophecy is observed;Jer_35:1; an order to bring the Rechabites into one of the chambers of thetemple, which was done accordingly, Jer_35:2; wine is set before them to drink;which they refuse; alleging the command of their father to the contrary,Jer_35:5; which they had carefully and constantly obeyed in every part of it,excepting that which respects their dwelling in tents; for which they give areason, Jer_35:8; by this instance of filial obedience to parents, thedisobedience of the Jews towards their Father, which is in heaven, isaggravated; who, though he gave them laws and commandments, and sent hisprophets to put them in mind of them, and exhort them to obedience, yethearkened not to them, Jer_35:12; wherefore the Lord threatens to bring all theevil on them he had pronounced, Jer_35:16; and promises the sons of Rechab thatthere should be always some of them that should minister unto him, Jer_35:18.

Jer 35:8-Gill

Thus have we obeyedthe voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father,.... The above was the charge he gave them; and this, in every article ofit, they had carefully and constantly kept, though it had been for the space ofthree hundred years, or thereabout; as follows: in all he hath charged us, todrink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters; whichwas the first of the precepts he gave them: and which they were now tempted todisregard, but were resolved to observe it, as they had hitherto done.The rest of the articles follow.

Jer 35:14-Gill

The words of Jonadabthe son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons, not to drink wine, areperformed,.... That article particularly, respecting drinking wine, has beencarefully observed; which, though so agreeable to the nature of man, whatcheers the heart of God and man, and was not prohibited them by any law of God;yet, being forbidden by their father, they abstained from it: for unto this daythey drink none, but obey their father's commandment; though prescribed themthree hundred years ago; during all which time they had punctually observed it,even to that very day; which might with great truth and strictness be said;since they had that very day refused to drink any: notwithstanding I havespoken unto you, rising early, and speaking; who am the eternal God; the Kingof kings; the great Lawgiver, able to save and to destroy; who had spoken tothem, and given them laws as soon as they were a people, very early, in thetimes of Moses, on Mount Sinai and Horeb; and of which they had been remindedtime after time, and enforced by proper arguments and motives; whereas thecommand of Jonadab was that of a mere man, not above three hundred years ago,and of which his posterity had never been put in mind, but as it was handeddown from father to son; and this they constantly observed: but ye hearkenednot unto me; so that their disobedience was greatly aggravated.

Jer 35:16-Gill

Because the son ofJonadab the son of Rechab,.... Here we have the contrast between the Rechabitesand the Israelites; the obedience of the one, and the disobedience of theother; the design of which is to aggravate and expose the sin of the Jews,since the former

have performed the commandment of their father, which hecommanded them; that particular commandment of not drinking wine, which theyhad never once violated in such a course of time; nor could they now beprevailed upon, even by the prophet himself, to do it:

but this people hath not hearkened unto me; the Lord theirGod, their father that bought them, made them, and established them. Grossingratitude! Deu_32:6.

Jer 35:18-19-Gill

And Jeremiah saidunto the house of the Rechabites,.... To the family of them, to those that werewith him in the temple, and while they were there; and what he said to them,which is as follows, was by the order and direction of the Lord:

thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; he uses thesame titles, when speaking to them, as to the Jews, expressive of hissovereignty, power, and grace:

because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab yourfather; that particular command concerning not drinking wine:

and kept all his precepts, and done according to all that hehath commanded you; all the rest, as well as that; though they were many, theytook notice of them, and observed them; they kept them in their minds andmemory, and made them the rule of their actions, and conformed to them in allrespects.

Therefore thus saiththe Lord of hosts, the God of Israel,.... Whohas enjoined children obedience to their parents, and has promised to rewardit, and does:

Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to standbefore me for ever; which may be understood of a long time, of ages to come; oras long as the people of the Jews were a people, or the world should stand, theposterity of this man should continue: or, "a man shall not be cut offfrom Jonadab &c." (h); his offspring shall never fail. It is certainthat some of this family returned from the captivity, 1Ch_2:55; and, accordingto Scaliger (i), the Hasidaeans sprung from them. And, if any credit could begiven to Benjamin Tudelensis, there were Rechabites in the twelfth century, sincethe times of Christ; for he tells (k) us, that in his travels he found a placewhere Jews dwelt, who were called Rechabites. The phrase, "to stand beforeme", is by the Targum paraphrased,

"ministering before me;''

serving and worshipping God, for they were religious people;that is, in their own families, carrying on religious worship among themselves,and not in the temple, where they had no office, and did no service; thoughsome think they had, because called scribes, 1Ch_2:55. Kimchi says that some oftheir Rabbins asserted that the daughters of these people married priests, andso some of their children's children offered sacrifice on the altar. And ifwhat Eusebius reports from Hegesippus is true, there were priests of thisfamily after the times of Christ; for he says (l), that when the Jews werestoning James the just, a priest of the sons of Rechab cried out, saying, stop,what are ye doing? but these testimonies are not to be depended on; however, wemay be sure of this, that the promise of God shall not fail, but be certainlyaccomplished. Very appropriate are the words of the learned Alting (m) uponthis subject:

"not only the Lord promises length of life to theobedient, which proselytes, equally with Israelites, have the promise of; but,particularly, that the posterity of Jonadab should not perish, should have aplace in the church of God, and an admission to the gracious enjoyment of God;not as priests and Levites, but as other Israelites and strangers, Isa_56:4; sothat the posterity of Jonadab must still continue, and hope of restoration ofthem with the Israelites remains; as in Jer_31:36; but in the same way andmanner; so that being equally sharers in exile, they are to be restored after along interruption. Indeed, the family is not at this day known; but from theignorance of men, to the denial of a thing, there is no available argument.Families cannot be confounded, since they descend by the fathers; mothers donot belong to them; and as is the father as to tribe, so also is the son andgrandson, and so on. A genealogical series may perish from the knowledge ofmen, but not from the nature of things, and the knowledge of God. Though theseeds of wheat, barley, and other things, may be mixed together, that mencannot distinguish them, yet their distinction does not perish; and God notonly knows it, but also discovers it, when he makes every seed to rise in itsown body, 1Co_15:37; so must we judge concerning families.''

Perhaps, since these Rechabites were proselytes, and notIsraelites, the conversion of the Gentiles may be respected; who are priests ina spiritual sense, and minister before the Lord, offering up, through Christ,the spiritual sacrifices of prayer and praise; and such a generation to servethe Lord will never be wanting.

(h) לאיכרת איש ליונדב "non exidetur vir Jonadabo",Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Schmidt, &c. (i) Elench. Trihaeres. c.24, (k) Itinerarium, p. 82. (l) Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 23. (m) Apud Witsii Exercitat. 9. de Rechabitis inMiscell. Sacr. tom. 2. p. 235, 236.

Jer 35:8 - Calvin

Jeremiah explains at large what might have been expressed infew words, in order to amplify the constancy of the Rechabites. For one mayobey his father, and yet be not so fixed in his purpose, but that he might onsome slight occasion fail in his duty. Jeremiah here shews that such was theprompt perseverance of the Rechabites, that they could not be enticed by havingwine set before them; but that as though no temptation had been presented tothem, they kept the commandment of their father, who, at the same time, hadbeen dead, as it has already appeared, some ages before.

They then said, that they hearkened to the voice of Jonababthe son of Rechab, their father; and also added, according to all the thingswhich he has commanded us tle again relates what Jonadab had commanded, and tothis belongs the sentence, According to all things, etc. For had he orderedthem only to be abstemious, to obey would not have been difficult or hard; hedesigned to bind them to a wandering life, that they might be covered only bytents, and that they might not possess anything. As then Jonadab did not in onething only try the obedience of his family, it appears more clearly how greatwas their promptitude and perseverance in obeying.

They then said, first, that they were not to drink wine; andalso added, all their days We indeed know that the Nazarites were forbidden todrink wine, but it was only for a time, until they had performed their vow; wealso know, that when the priest was discharging his duty, he was not allowed,for that time, to take wine. But afterwards the priests as well as theNazarites, resumed their common mode of living. But to taste no wine throughoutlife was a thing far more difficult. The Prophet, no doubt, detailed theseparticulars, that he might load the Jews with greater disgrace, who, in amatter the most just, and by no means hard, were not, as we shall see, obedientto God. They said, We, our wives, our sons, our daughters, as though they hadsaid, “This precept has ever been observed in our family; and what has beendelivered to us, by our fathers, we have followed to this day, as also ourfathers, who obeyed the command of a dead man, because his will had beenexplained to them.”

Jer 35:14 -Calvin

It is then added, confirmed have been the words of Jonadabby his children; but my people do not obey me. But as we have said in the lastlecture, the Prophet touches particularly on this circumstance, — that theRechabites obeyed the command of their father in not drinking wine: this washard; they did not drink even to that day But what did God require from hischildren? only to receive his Law, and not to go astray, as it is here added,after alien gods. There is, then, a contrast between the hard precept of Jonadaband the equity of the Law; for God required nothing from his people except torender him pure worship, he says, They have drunk no wine to this day — andwhy? because they obeyed; that is, there was no scruple of conscience toprevent them, but the authority of a man who was dead so far prevailed witItthem, that they willingly gave up the use of wine. “As then simple obedience,that is, piety or respect for their father, produced such influence on theRechabites, how is it that I am not heard? for I have spoken,” he says, “sothat the sin of the people is not excusable on the ground of ignorance.”

Then he adds, Early rising and speaking Here assiduity anddiligence are mentioned. Jonadab only once gave his command to his children;that command, which might have been forgotten, remained perpetually in thehearts of his sons, so that they taught the same to his grandsons. But Godcommanded what was right not only once, but rose up early, that is, hesedulously anticipated them; for by this metaphor he intimates that he did notwait until after a continued licentiousness they became more addicted to theirvices; for we know that those who have for many years been without restraint,are not easily brought into order, but they become habitually refractory. Andhence, also, it comes to be necessary to form those from infancy who are to beruled by us; for if they be allowed to act as they please, their wantonnesscannot afterwards be restrained by any laws. God then says, that he rose upearly, that is, that he anticipated the Jews, so that together with their milkthey might imbibe religion.

Jer 35:16 -Calvin

The Prophet says nothing new here, but confirms what hasbeen said before; and this he did, that the indignity of the people’s conductmight more fully appear, inasmuch as, on one hand, a mortal man, and he nowdead, retained authority over his posterity, having once laid on them arestraint in a matter hard and difficult; while God, on the other hand,effected nothing, though he had constantly addressed and exhorted his people,had sent prophets, and ceased not to invite them to himself, and had not onlyinvited them, but also kindly allured them by setting before them his favors,and gave them hope as to the time to come. Since God, then, had tried all means,but without any success, the hopeless depravity of the people became henceevident. This is the import of the whole.

Jer 35:18 –Calvin

Here the Prophet, that he might affect the Jews more deeply,promises a reward to the sons of Jonadab, because they obeyed their father; andhe promises them a blessing from God. Noris it to be wondered at, for this commandment, as Paul says, is the first towhich a promise is annexed. (Eph_6:2) God promises generally a reward toall who keep the Law, for every command has in general connected with it thehope of reward; but this is in a special manner added to the Fifth Commandment:“Honor thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest prolong thy life,” etc. It is, then, nothing strange that Godpromised a reward to the Rechabites, because they followed the command of theirfather, for he had promised that in the Law.

But what the Papists allege, that the obedience rendered tothe Church is on the same account pleasing to God, may, as we have said, beeasily confuted; for if the Rechabites had followed the command of their fatherin a thing unlawfill, they would have been worthy of punishment; but as this precept,as we have shewn, was not inconsistent with God’s Law, God approved of theirobedience. But the laws which are made for the purpose of setting up fictitiousmodes of worship are altogether impious, for they introduce idolatry. God hasprescribed how he would have us to worship him; whatever, therefore, men bringin of themselves is wholly impious, for it adulterates the pure worship of God;and further, when necessity is laid on consciences, it is, as we have said, atyrannical bondage. Such was not the object of Jonadab; for what he commandedhis posterity was useful, and referred only to things of this life; and it didnot bind their consciences; for when it was necessary they moved to Jerusalemand dwelt as others in houses; for they did not erect tents at Jerusalem, butlived in hired dwellings; and yet they obeyed their father’s command, for hispurpose in ordering them to dwell in tents, was, that they might remainunincumbered, so that they might be always ready to move. We hence see howfoolishly the Papists pervert this passage in order to support their tyrannicallaws.

And thus this truthmay stand, that the obedience of the Rechabites pleased God, because natureitself requires that children should obey their parents; and we also know thatGod often rewards the shadows of virtues in order to shew that virtuesthemselves are pleasing to him. (100) But there is no doubt but that thispromise, as I have before said, was designedly given, in order to stimulate theJews, according to what is said in the Song of Moses,

“I will provoke them by a foolish nation, because they haveprovoked me by those who are no gods; and I will take vengeance on them, for Iwill bring forth nations which were not before.” (Deu_32:21)

(100) We see an instance of this in Ahab, 1Kg_21:27. — Ed.

Jer 35:19 -Calvin

So then God now, in order to excite and rouse the Jews,promises to bless the Rechabites, because they had been obedient to theirfather, There shall not be cut off a man from Jonadab, that is, from theoffspring of Jonadab, standing (literally) before my face; but as theconciseness of the verse renders it obscure and ambiguous, I have introduced anaddition, — but that he may stand before my face And he says that they wouldstand before his face, not that they were to be priests or Levites, as some ofthe Rabbins have said, who have applied this passage to the priesthood, becauseit is often said in Scripture both of the Levites and the priests, that theystood before the face of God. They, therefore, think that the same thing ismeant here when spoken of the Rechabites. But this is a strained meaning. Godsimply intimates, that some of Jonadab’s offspring would be always living, andthat through his special favor, that their obedience might not appear to be withoutits just reward. This is the meaning. Now follows,

11 Matt15:5-6

Mat 15:5 But yesay, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, bywhatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, heshall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by yourtradition.

Mat_15:5~Barnes

It is a gift - In Mark it is “corban.” The word “corban” isa Hebrew word denoting a gift.

Here it means a thing dedicated to the service of God, andtherefore not to be appropriated to any other use. The Jews were in the habitof making such dedications. They devoted their property to God for sacred uses,as they pleased. In doing this they used the word קרבן qaarbaan or κορβᾶν korban, or some similar word, saying, this thing is “corban,” i. e., itis a gift to God, or is sacred to him. The law required that when adedication of this kind was made it should be fulfilled. “Vow and pay unto theLord your God,” Psa_76:11. See Deu_23:21. The law of God required that a sonshould honor his parent; i. e., among other things, that he should provide forhis needs when he was old and in distress. Yet the Jewish teachers said that itwas more important for a man to dedicate his property to God than to provide forthe needs of his parent.

If he had once devoted his property once said it was“corban,” or a gift to God - it could not be appropriated even to the supportof a parent. If a parent was needy and poor, and if he should apply to a sonfor assistance, and the son should reply, though in anger, “It is devoted toGod; this property which you need, and by which you might be profited by me, is“corban” - I have given it to God;” the Jews said the property could not berecalled, and the son was not under obligation to aid a parent with it. He haddone a more important thing in giving it to God. The son was free. He could notbe required to do anything for his father after that. Thus, he might, in amoment, free himself from the obligation to obey his father or mother. In asense somewhat similar to this, the chiefs and priests of the Sandwich Islandshad the power of devoting anything to the service of the gods by saying that itwas “taboo,” or “tabooed;” that is, it became consecrated to the service ofreligion; and, no matter who had been the owner, it could then be appropriatedfor no other use. In this way they had complete power over all the possessionsof the people, and could appropriate them for their own use under the pretenceof devoting them to religion. Thus, they deprived the people of their propertyunder the plea that it was consecrated to the gods. The Jewish son deprived hisparents of a support under the plea that the property was devoted to theservice of religion. The principle was the same, and both systems were equallya violation of the rights of others.

Besides, the law saidthat a man should die who cursed his father, i. e., that refused to obey him,or to provide for him, or spoke in anger to him. Yet the Jews said that,though in anger, and in real spite and hatred, a son said to his father, “Allthat I have which could profit you I have given to God,” he should be free fromblame. Thus, the whole law was made void, or of no use, by what appeared tohave the appearance of piety. “No man, according to their views, was bound toobey the fifth commandment and support an aged and needy parent, if, eitherfrom superstition or spite, he chose to give his property to God, that is, todevote it to some religious use.”

Our Saviour did not mean to condemn the practice of givingto God, or to religious and charitable objects. The law and the gospel equallyrequired this. Jesus commended even a poor widow that gave all her living,Mar_12:44, but he condemned the practice of giving to God where it interferedwith our duty to parents and relations; where it was done to get rid of theduty of aiding them; and where it was done out of a malignant and rebelliousspirit, with the semblance of piety, to get clear of doing to earthly parentswhat God required.

12 Gen24:5

Gen 24:5 And theservant said unto him, Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow meunto this land: must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thoucamest?

Gen 24:5- Calvin

And the servant said unto him. Since he raises no objection respecting Isaac, we may conjecture thathe was so fully persuaded of his integrity as to have no doubt of hisacquiescence in his father’s will.

13 Gen2:24

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleaveunto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Gen 2:24- Gill

Therefore shall aman leave his father, and his mother,.... These are thought by some to be thewords of Moses, inferring from the above fact, what ought to be among men; andby others, the words of Adam under divine inspiration, as the father of mankindinstructing his sons what to do, and foretelling what would be done in allsucceeding ages: though they rather seem to be the words of God himself, bywhom marriage was now instituted; and who here gives direction about it, anddeclares the case and circumstance of man upon it, and how he would and shouldbehave: and thus our Lord Jesus Christ, quoting these words, makes them to bethe words of him that made man, male and female, and supplies and prefaces themthus, and said, "for this cause", &c. Mat_19:5 so Jarchiparaphrases them,"the Holy Ghost said so:''not that a man upon his marriage is to drop his affections to hisparents, or be remiss in his obedience to them, honour of them, and esteem forthen, or to neglect the care of them, if they stand in need of his assistance;but that he should depart from his father's house, and no more dwell with him,or bed and board in his house; but having taken a wife to himself, shouldprovide an habitation for him and her to dwell together: so all the threeTargums interpret it, of quitting "the house of his father, and hismother's bed":

Gen 2:24 -Calvin

24.Therefore shall a man leave It is doubted whether Moseshere introduces God as speaking, or continues the discourse of Adam, or,indeed, has added this, in virtue of his office as teacher, in his own person.(151) The last of these is that which I most approve. Therefore, after he hasrelated historically what God had done, he also demonstrates the end of the divineinstitution. The sum of the whole is, that among the offices pertaining tohuman society, this is the principal, and as it were the most sacred, that aman should cleave unto his wife. And he amplifies this by a superaddedcomparison, that the husband ought to prefer his wife to his father. But the father is said to be left notbecause marriage severs sons from their fathers, or dispenses with other tiesof nature, for in this way God would be acting contrary to himself. While,however, the piety of the son towards his father is to be most assiduouslycultivated and ought in itself to be deemed inviolable and sacred, yet Moses sospeaks of marriage as to show that it is less lawful to desert a wife thanparents. Therefore, they who, for slight causes, rashly allow of divorces,violate, in one single particular, all the laws of nature, and reduce them tonothing. If we should make it a point of conscience not to separate a fatherfrom his son, it is a still greater wickedness to dissolve the bond which Godhas preferred to all others.

They shall be one flesh (152) Although the ancient Latininterpreter has translated the passage ‘in one flesh,’ yet the Greekinterpreters have expressed it more forcibly: ‘They two shall be into oneflesh,’ and thus Christ cites the place in Mat_19:5. But though here no mentionis made of two, yet there is no ambiguity in the sense; for Moses had not saidthat God has assigned many wives, but only one to one man; and in the generaldirection given, he had put the wife in the singular number. It remains,therefore, that the conjugal bond subsists between two persons only, whence iteasily appears, that nothing is less accordant with the divine institution thanpolygamy. Now, when Christ, in censuring the voluntary divorces of the Jews,adduces as his reason for doing it, that ‘it was not so in the beginning,’(Mat_19:5,) he certainly commands this institution to be observed as aperpetual rule of conduct. To the same point also Malachi recalls the Jews ofhis own time:

‘Did he not make them one from the beginning? and yet theSpirit was abounding in him.’ (153) (Mal_2:15.)

Wherefore, there is no doubt that polygamy is a corruptionof legitimate marriage.

(151) See Le Clerc on this verse, who takes the same view asCalvin.

(152) “Erunt in carnem unam.” — “In carne una.” — Vulgate. Εἰς σάρκα μίαν.— Sept.

(153) “Spiritus abundans in eo erat ” The word abundans hasin English the force of superabounding. — Ed

and shall cleave unto his wife; with a cordial affection,taking care of her, nourishing and cherishing her, providing all thingscomfortable for her, continuing to live with her, and not depart from her aslong as they live: the phrase is expressive of the near union by marriagebetween man and wife; they are, as it were, glued together, and make but one;which is more fully and strongly expressed in the next clause:

and they shall be one flesh; that is, "they two",the man and his wife, as it is supplied and interpreted by Christ, Mat_19:5 andso here in the Targum of Jonathan, and in the Septuagint and Samaritanversions: the union between them is so close, as if they were but one person,one soul, one body; and which is to be observed against polygamy, unlawfuldivorces, and all uncleanness, fornication, and adultery: only one man and onewoman, being joined in lawful wedlock, have a right of copulation with eachother, in order to produce a legitimate offspring, partaking of the same oneflesh, as children do of their parents, without being able to distinguish theflesh of the one from the other, they partake of: and from hence it appears tobe a fabulous notion, that Cecrops, the first king of Athens, was the firstinstitutor of matrimony and joiner of one man to one woman; whence he was saidto be "biformis" (p), and was called διφυης; unless, as some (q) havethought, that he and Moses were one and the same who delivered out the firstinstitution of marriage, which is this.

(p) Justin. eTrogo, l. 2. c. 6. (q) Vid. Saldeni Otia Theolog. Exercitat. 1. sect.14. p. 13, 14.

14 Conclusion

Not in addition to anything above, but as a, hopefullyuseful, summary, I have taken some of the quotes above and organized them intoseveral sections.

That the fifth commandment 'honor' includes obedience as a natural andnecessary part:

Calvin:

It will be now well toascertain what is the force of the word “honor,” not as to its grammaticalmeaning, (for כבד, cabad, is nothing else butto pay due honor to God, and to men who are in authority,) but as to itsessential signification. Surely, since God would not have His servants complywith external ceremonies only, it cannot be doubted but that all the duties ofpiety towards parents are here comprised, to which children are laid underobligation by natural reason itself; and these may be reduced to three heads, ie. , that they should regard them with reverence; that they should obedientlycomply with their commands, and allow themselves to be governed by them; andthat they should endeavor to repay what they owe to them, and thus heartily devoteto them themselves and their services. Since, therefore, the name of Fatheris a sacred one, and is transferred to men by the peculiar goodness of God, thedishonoring of parents redounds to the dishonor of God Himself, nor can any onedespise his father without being guilty of an offense against God, (sacrilegium.) If any should object thatthere are many ungodly and wicked fathers whom their children cannot regardwith honor without destroying the distinction between good and evil, the replyis easy, that the perpetual law of nature is not subverted by the sins of men;and therefore, however unworthy of honor a father may be, that he stillretains, inasmuch as he is a father, his right over his children, provided itdoes not in anywise derogate from the judgment of God; for it is too absurd tothink of absolving under any pretext the sins which are condemned by His Law;nay, it would be a base profanation to misuse the name of father for thecovering of sins. In condemning, therefore, the vices of a father, a trulypious son will subscribe to God’s Law; and still, whatsoever he may be, willacknowledge that he is to be honored, as being the father given him by God.

Gill:

Honour thy father and thy mother, &c. Which is the fifthcommandment of the decalogue, but is the first commandment with promise, as theapostle says, Eph_6:2 and is the first of the second table: this, though it may be extended to all ancestorsin the ascending line, as father's father and mother, mother's father andmother, &c. and to all such who are in the room of parents, as step-fathersand step-mothers, guardians, nurses, &c. and to all superiors in dignityand office, to kings and governors, to masters, ministers, and magistrates; yetchiefly respects immediate parents, both father and mother, by showing filialaffection for them, and reverence and esteem of them, and by yielding obedienceto them, and giving them relief and assistance in all things in which they needit; and if honour, esteem, affection, obedience, and reverence, are to be givento earthly parents, then much more to our Father which is in heaven, Mal_1:6.

That the term 'obey' applies to those of all ages":

Gill:

The persons whoseduty this is, "children", are such of every sex, male and female, andof every age, and of every state and condition; and though the true,legitimate, and immediate offspring of men may be chiefly respected, yet notexclusive of spurious children, and adopted ones, and of children-in-law; and the persons to whom obedience from themis due, are not only real and immediate parents, both father and mother, butsuch who are in the room of parents, as step-fathers, step-mothers, guardians,nurses, &c. and all who are in the ascending line, as grandfathers,grandmothers, &c. to these, children should be subject and obedient in allthings lawful, just, and good; in everything that is not sinful and unlawful,by the word of God; and in things indifferent, as much as in them lies, andeven in things which are difficult to perform: and this obedience should behearty and sincere, and not merely verbal, and in show and appearance, normercenary; and should be joined with gratitude and thankfulness for pastfavours: and it should be "in the Lord"; which may be consideredeither as a limitation of the obedience, that it should be in things that areagreeable to the mind and will of the Lord; or as an argument to it, because itis the command of the Lord, and is wellpleasing in his sight, and makes for hisglory, and therefore should be done for his sake:

Calvin:

An objection herearises in the shape of this question: It may sometimes happen that a son mayhold the office of a magistrate, but that the father may be a private person,and that thus the son cannot discharge his private duty without violatingpublic order. The point is easily solved: that all things may be so tempered bytheir mutual moderation as that, whilst the father submits himself to thegovernment of his son, (4) yet he may not be at all defrauded of his honor, andthat the son, although his superior in power, may still modestly reverence hisfather.

That 'leave and cleave' does not imply the separation of the son from hisfather's authority, nor the formation of a new, independent, 'household':

Calvin:
But the father is said to be left notbecause marriage severs sons from their fathers, or dispenses with other tiesof nature, for in this way God would be acting contrary to himself. While,however, the piety of the son towards his father is to be most assiduouslycultivated and ought in itself to be deemed inviolable and sacred, yet Moses sospeaks of marriage as to show that it is less lawful to desert a wife thanparents. Therefore, they who, for slight causes, rashly allow of divorces,violate, in one single particular, all the laws of nature, and reduce them tonothing. If we should make it a point of conscience not to separate a fatherfrom his son, it is a still greater wickedness to dissolve the bond which Godhas preferred to all others.

Gill:

not that a man uponhis marriage is to drop his affections to his parents, or be remiss in hisobedience to them, honour of them, and esteem for then, or to neglect the careof them, if they stand in need of his assistance; but that he should departfrom his father's house, and no more dwell with him, or bed and board in hishouse; but having taken a wife to himself, should provide an habitation for himand her to dwell together: so all the three Targums interpret it, of quitting"the house of his father, and his mother's bed

May God be glorified as we seek to understand this importantissue,

In Him,

Vaughn Ohlman

[1]All Godly men disagree in some areas or have differing emphasis etc. Thus whilesaying ‘I agree’ with Calvin and Gill I do not mean that they or I are in 100%agreement on every single aspect of every single verse concerning this issue:neither Calvin with Gill nor I with either. I do mean that our positions are sosimilar that, as a generalization, I feel extremely comfortable saying ‘weagree’. If anything Calvin and Gill convict me with their more radical views onthe issue.

[2] Itis a little unclear if Gill, here, is quoting or stating his own view. But,even if he thinks that the law of a rebellions son does not apply to a man whohas become a father, he is still clear, elsewhere, that that son still owesobedience to his father.

The Jurisdiction of the Father over older sons

2012-01-16T13:33:00.001-06:00

The following document represents my views, and the views of the commentators posted (in the post itself) alone, and should not be taken as representing the views of anyone I am associated with.

The Jurisdiction of the Father overolder sons

Throughout history the norm has been to assume that father'scontinue to have authority over their sons after their marriage, and thatScripture teaches this. Recently our churches have not only denied this, butassume that it has always been denied, by all Godly men. So I thought it wouldbehoove me to lay out some of this history and then look at some passages whichmight give us clues as to the limits of that jurisdiction.

First of all some commentators and their views:

Calvin

Calvin doesn't even seem to have asked the question as towhether this authority continues, but just assumed that his audience wouldunderstand that. However his assumptions still come clear in several spots. Forexample, in a discussion insisting on the necessity of a son obeying hisfather, says:

Still, the power of a father is so limited as that God, onwhom all relationships depend, should have the rule over fathers as well aschildren; for parents govern their children only under the supreme authority ofGod. Paul, therefore, does not simply exhort children to obey their parents,but adds the restriction, “in the Lord;” whereby he indicates that, if a fatherenjoins anything unrighteous, obedience is freely to be denied him. Immoderatestrictness, moroseness, and even cruelty must be born, so long as a mortal man,by wickedly demanding what is not lawful, does not endeavor to rob God of Hisright. In a word, the Law so subjects children to their parents, as that God’sright may remain uninfringed. An objection here arises in the shape of thisquestion: It may sometimes happen that a son may hold the office of amagistrate, but that the father may be a private person, and that thus the soncannot discharge his private duty without violating public order. The point iseasily solved: that all things may be so tempered by their mutual moderation asthat, whilst the father submits himself to the government of his son, (4) yethe may not be at all defrauded of his honor, and that the son, although hissuperior in power, may still modestly reverence his father.

Thus we see that he has no problem viewing the 'child' as amagistrate, and thus exercising civil authority over his father, a 'privateperson'. Surely no one can argue here that, somehow, Calvin is simply assumingthat this magistrate is unmarried?

Much is made, nowadays, of a proposed distinction between'honor' and 'obey'. Children, we are told (meaning young, immature, anddefinitely unmarried persons) should obey their parents, but 'adults' (meaningthe opposite) should only 'honor' them. Calvin puts this distinction to rest,stating, in his commentary on the fifth commandment:

The sum of the commandment, therefore, will be, that we areto look up to those whom the Lord has set over us, yielding them honour,gratitude, and obedience. Hence it follows, that every thing in the way ofcontempt, ingratitude, or disobedience, is forbidden. For theterm honour has this extent of meaning in Scripture.

According to Calvin, then, honor implies obedience. Indeedin his earlier commentary he says:

It will be now well to ascertain what is the force of theword “honor,” not as to its grammatical meaning, (for כבד, cabad, is nothing elsebut to pay due honor to God, and to men who are in authority,) but as to itsessential signification. Surely, since God would not have His servants complywith external ceremonies only, it cannot be doubted but that all the duties ofpiety towards parents are here comprised, to which children are laid under obligationby natural reason itself; and these may be reduced to three heads, i e. , thatthey should regard them with reverence; that they should obediently comply withtheir commands, and allow themselves to be governed by them; and that theyshould endeavor to repay what they owe to them, and thus heartily devote tothem themselves and their services. Since, therefore, the name of Father is asacred one, and is transferred to men by the peculiar goodness of God, thedishonoring of parents redounds to the dishonor of God Himself, nor can any onedespise his father without being guilty of an offense against God, (sacrilegium.) If any should object that there are many ungodly and wickedfathers whom their children cannot regard with honor without destroying thedistinction between good and evil, the reply is easy, that the perpetual law ofnature is not subverted by the sins of men; and therefore, however unworthy ofhonor a father may be, that he still retains, inasmuch as he is a father, hisright over his children, provided it does not in anywise derogate from thejudgment of God;

and

Lev 19:3: Since this passage unquestionably relates tothe explanation of the Fifth Commandment, it confirms what I have before shown,that the honor which God-commands to be paid to parents, does not consist inreverence only, but also embraces obedience. For the reverence which He nowprescribes will render children submissive and compliant. Now, then, we moreclearly understand how parents are to be honored, when God exhorts theirchildren to beware of offending them; for this is, in a word, the truemanifestation of filial piety, calmly to bear the yoke of subjection, and toprove by acts a sincere desire to obey.

More could be posted from Calvin, but let us see if he wasunique in his views. Considering John Gill, we read:

and, even more clearly:

Exo 20:12 Honour thyfather and thy mother, &c. Which is the fifth commandment of the decalogue,but is the first commandment with promise, as the apostle says, Eph_6:2 and isthe first of the second table: this, though it may be extended to all ancestorsin the ascending line, as father's father and mother, mother's father andmother, &c. and to all such who are in the room of parents, as step-fathersand step-mothers, guardians, nurses, &c. and to all superiors in dignityand office, to kings and governors, to masters, ministers, and magistrates; yetchiefly respects immediate parents, both father and mother, by showing filialaffection for them, and reverence and esteem of them, and by yielding obedienceto them, and giving them relief and assistance in all things in which they needit; and if honour, esteem, affection, obedience, and reverence, are to be givento earthly parents, then much more to our Father which is in heaven, Mal_1:6.

Matthew Henry speaks to the same issue, linking the fifth commandment'honor' clearly to obedience:

I. The fifth commandment concerns the duties we owe to ourrelations; those of children to their parents are alone specified: Honour thyfather and thy mother, which includes,

1. A decent respect to their persons, an inward esteem ofthem outwardly expressed upon all occasions in our conduct towards them. Fearthem (Lev_19:3), give them reverence, Heb_12:9. The contrary tothis is mocking at them and despising them, Pro_30:17.

2. Obedience to their lawful commands; so it is expounded (Eph_6:1-3):“Children, obey your parents, come when they call you, go where they send you,do what they bid you, refrain from what they forbid you; and this, as children,cheerfully, and from a principle of love.” Though you have said, “We will not,”yet afterwards repent and obey, Mat_21:29.

3. Submission to their rebukes, instructions, andcorrections; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, out ofconscience towards God. 4. Disposing of themselves with the advice, direction,and consent, of parents, not alienating their property, but with theirapprobation.

5. Endeavouring, in every thing, to be the comfort of theirparents, and to make their old age easy to them, maintaining them if they standin need of support, which our Saviour makes to be particularly intended in thiscommandment, Mat_15:4-6.

The reason annexed to this commandment is a promise: That thydays may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Having mentioned,in the preface to the commandments, has bringing them out of Egypt as a reasonfor their obedience, he here, in the beginning of the second table, mentionshis bringing them into Canaan, as another reason; that good land they must haveupon their thoughts and in their eye, now that they were in the wilderness.They must also remember, when they came to that land, that they were upon theirgood behaviour, and that, if they did not conduct themselves well, their daysshould be shortened in that land, both the days of particular persons whoshould be cut off from it, and the days of their nation which should be removedout of it. But here a long life in that good land is promised particularly toobedient children. Those that do their duty to their parents are most likely tohave the comfort of that which their parents gather for them and leave to them;those that support their parents shall find that God, the common Father, willsupport them. This promise is expounded (Eph_6:3), That it may be wellwith thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. Those who, in consciencetowards God, keep this and the rest of God's commandments, may be sure that itshall be well with them, and that they shall live as long on earth as InfiniteWisdom sees good for them, and that what they may seem to be cut short of onearth shall be abundantly made up in eternal life, the heavenly Canaan whichGod will give them.

On the use of the word 'technon' in Scripture

Objection is made by modern readers that it is only 'children'that are to obey their parents. However what is that word 'children' that weread in Eph 6:1?

John Gill, commenting on the passage, says:

Eph 6:1-Gill

Children, obey your parents in the Lord,.... The personswhose duty this is, "children", are such of every sex, male andfemale, and of every age, and of every state and condition; and though thetrue, legitimate, and immediate offspring of men may be chiefly respected, yetnot exclusive of spurious children, and adopted ones, and of children-in-law;and the persons to whom obedience from them is due, are not only real andimmediate parents, both father and mother, but such who are in the room ofparents, as step-fathers, step-mothers, guardians, nurses, &c. and all whoare in the ascending line, as grandfathers, grandmothers, &c. to these,children should be subject and obedient in all things lawful, just, and good;in everything that is not sinful and unlawful, by the word of God; and inthings indifferent, as much as in them lies, and even in things which aredifficult to perform: and this obedience should be hearty and sincere, and notmerely verbal, and in show and appearance, nor mercenary; and should be joinedwith gratitude and thankfulness for past favours: and it should be "in theLord"; which may be considered either as a limitation of the obedience,that it should be in things that are agreeable to the mind and will of theLord; or as an argument to it, because it is the command of the Lord, and iswellpleasing in his sight, and makes for his glory, and therefore should bedone for his sake:

for this is right; it appears to be right by the light ofnature, by which the very Heathens have taught it; and it is equitable fromreason that so it should be; and it is just by the law of God, which commandsnothing but what is holy, just, and good.

Eph 6:2-Gill

Honour thy father and mother,.... This explains who parentsare, and points at some branches of obedience due unto them; for they are notonly to be loved, and to be feared, and reverenced, their corrections to besubmitted to, offences against them to be acknowledged, their tempers to bebore with, and their infirmities covered; but they are to be honoured inthought, word, and gesture; they are to be highly thought of and esteemed; theyare to be spoken to, and of, very honourably, and with great veneration and tobe behaved to in a very respectful manner; and they are to be relieved,assisted, and maintained in comfortable way when aged, and in necessitouscircumstances; and which may be chiefly designed. So the Jews explain כבוד,"the honour" due to parents, by, &c. מאכיל, "giving themfood, drink", and "clothing", unloosing their shoes, and leadingthem out and in (x). Compare with this 1Ti_5:4; See Gill on Mat_15:4;

He references his commentary on Matt 15:4:

Mat 15:4 ForGod commanded, saying,.... That he might not be thought to suggest thiswithout any foundation, he gives them an instance, wherein a command of God wastransgressed, by the observance of their tradition: the command he refers to,stands in Exo_20:12 and is this;

Honour thy father and mother. This was a plain commandof God, written with his own hand, and delivered by Moses to them; it was of amoral nature, and of eternal obligation: and to be understood, not merely ofthat high esteem parents are to be had in by their children, and of therespectful language and gesture to be used towards them, and of the cheerfulobedience to be yielded to them; but also of honouring them with theirsubstance, feeding, clothing, and supplying them with the necessaries of life,when they stand in need thereof; which is but their reasonable service, for allthe care, expense, and trouble they have been at, in bringing them up in theworld: nor did the Jews deny this to be the duty of children to their parents,and own it to be the sense of the commandment: they say (p), that this is theweightiest commandment among the weighty ones, even this, the honouring offather and mother; and ask,

"What is this honour? To which is replied, he must givehim food, drink, and clothing; buckle his shoes, and lead him in, and bring himout.''

They indeed laid down this as a rule, and it seems a veryequitable one (q); that,

"when a man's father has any money, or substance, hemust be supported out of that; but if he has none, he must support him out ofhis own.''

Is Gill right? Does 'Technon',G5043, the word used in this passage and parallel passages, mean 'of every age and condition'? Is Calvin andHenry right, when they link the fifth commandment to 'obedience' in a definitiveway in his commentary on the same text?

We did a study on the word 'technon' and found that it hasat least two meanings in the NT. Or, at least, two uses. Firstly it is used foractual offspring; sometimes young, sometimes of a vague age, and sometimesolder. Then it means, and this is its most common use, 'one under authority'and is usually directed at older people:

It is used for young offspring: (4 uses)

Mat 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation,and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her [technon], and wouldnot be comforted, because they are not.

1Th 2:7 But we were gentle among you, even as a nursecherisheth her [technon]:

Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the starsof heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before thewoman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her [technon] as soon asit was born.

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was torule all nations with a rod of iron: and her [technon] was caught up unto God,and to his throne.

It is used to mean, vaguely, offspring (29 uses)

Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, Wehave Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of thesestones to raise up [technon] unto Abraham.

Mat 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give goodgifts unto your [technon], how much more shall your Father which is in heavengive good things to them that ask him?

Mat15:26 But he answered and said, It isnot meet to take the [technon]'s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Mat18:25 But forasmuch as he had not topay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and [technon], and allthat he had, and payment to be made.

Mat19:29 And every one that hath forsakenhouses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or [technon],or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inheriteverlasting life.

Mat22:24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If aman die, having no [technon], his brother shall marry his wife, and raise upseed unto his brother.

Mat27:25 Then answered all the people, andsaid, His blood be on us, and on our [technon].

Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the [technon] firstbe filled: for it is not meet to take the [technon]'s bread, and to cast itunto the dogs.

Mar10:29 And Jesus answered and said,Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, orsisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or [technon], or lands, for my sake,and the gospel's,

Mar10:30 But he shall receive anhundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers,and [technon], and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternallife.

Mar12:19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If aman's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no [technon], thathis brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

Luk 1:7 And they had no [technon], because thatElisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.

Luk 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit andpower of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the [technon], and thedisobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for theLord.

Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy ofrepentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to ourfather: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up [technon]unto Abraham.

Luk11:13 If ye then, being evil, know howto give good gifts unto your [technon]: how much more shall your heavenlyFather give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Luk14:26 If any man come to me, and hatenot his father, and mother, and wife, and [technon], and brethren, and sisters,yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luk18:29 And he said unto them, Verily Isay unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, orwife, or [technon], for the kingdom of God's sake,

Luk20:31 And the third took her; and inlike manner the seven also: and they left no [technon], and died.

Luk23:28 But Jesus turning unto them said,Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your [technon].

Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your [technon],and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Act 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no,not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to himfor a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no [technon].

Act13:33 God hath fulfilled the same untous their [technon], in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is alsowritten in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Act 21:5 And when we had accomplished those days, wedeparted and went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with wives and [technon],till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed.

Act21:21 And they are informed of thee,that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses,saying that they ought not to circumcise their [technon], neither to walk afterthe customs.

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified bythe wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your[technon] unclean; but now are they holy.

1Th 2:11 As ye know how we exhorted and comforted andcharged every one of you, as a father doth his [technon].

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, havinghis [technon] in subjection with all gravity;

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife,ruling their [technon] and their own houses well.

Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife,having faithful [technon] not accused of riot or unruly.

2Jn 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her [technon],whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known thetruth;

It is used for older offspring (6 uses)

Mat10:21 And the brother shall deliver upthe brother to death, and the father the [technon]: and the [technon] shallrise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

Mat21:28 But what think ye? A certain manhad two [technon]; and he came to the first, and said, [technon], go work today in my vineyard.

Mar13:12 Now the brother shall betray thebrother to death, and the father the [technon]; and [technon]shall rise upagainst their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.

Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: andhis mother said unto him, [technon], why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold,thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

Luk15:31 And he said unto him, [technon],thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

1Ti 5:4 But if any widow have [technon]or nephews,let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: forthat is good and acceptable before God.

It is used for older people under some authority (48 uses)

Mat 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sickof the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sickof the palsy; [technon], be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

Mar 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto thesick of the palsy, [technon], thy sins be forgiven thee.

Mar10:24 And the disciples were astonishedat his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, [technon], howhard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Luk16:25 But Abraham said, [technon],remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewiseLazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Mat11:19 The [technon] of man came eatingand drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friendof publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Mat23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou thatkillest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how oftenwould I have gathered thy [technon]together, even as a hen gathereth her chickensunder her wings, and ye would not!

Luk 7:35 But wisdom is justified of all her [technon].

Luk13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, whichkillest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often wouldI have gathered thy [technon]together, as a hen doth gather her brood under herwings, and ye would not!

Luk19:44 And shall lay thee even with theground, and thy [technon] within thee; and they shall not leave in thee onestone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave hepower to become the [technon]s of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham isour father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's [technon], ye would dothe works of Abraham.

Joh11:52 And not for that nation only, butthat also he should gather together in one the [technon] of God that werescattered abroad.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with ourspirit, that we are the [technon] of God:

Rom 8:17 And if [technon], then heirs; heirs of God,and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may bealso glorified together.

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall bedelivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the [technon]of God.

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed ofAbraham, are they all [technon]: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of theflesh, these are not the [technon] of God: but the [technon] of the promise arecounted for the seed.

1Co 4:14 I write not these things to shame you, but asmy beloved [technon] I warn you.

1Co 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto youTimotheus, who is my beloved [technon], and faithful in the Lord, who shallbring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

2Co 6:13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak asunto my [technon],) be ye also enlarged.

2Co12:14 Behold, the third time I am readyto come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, butyou: for the [technon] ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents forthe [technon].

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem whichnow is, and is in bondage with her [technon].

Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forthand cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more [technon] thanshe which hath an husband.

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the [technon] of promise.

Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not [technon] of the bondwoman, but of thefree.

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversationin times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the fleshand of the mind; and were by nature the [technon] of wrath, even as others.

Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear [technon];

Eph 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now areye light in the Lord: walk as [technon] of light:

Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the [technon]sof God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whomye shine as lights in the world;

Php 2:22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a [technon]with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel.

1Ti 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own [technon] in the faith:Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, [technon]Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou bythem mightest war a good warfare;

2Ti 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved [technon]:Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

2Ti 2:1 Thou therefore, my [technon], be strong inthe grace that is in Christ Jesus.

Tit 1:4 To Titus, mine own [technon] after the commonfaith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christour Saviour.

Phm 1:10 I beseech thee for my [technon] Onesimus,whom I have begotten in my bonds:

1Pe 1:14 As obedient [technon], not fashioningyourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

1Pe 3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling himlord: whose [technon] ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid withany amazement.

2Pe 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannotcease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised withcovetous practices; cursed [technon]:

1Jn 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hathbestowed upon us, that we should be called the [technon]s of God: therefore theworld knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the [technon]s of God, andit doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shallappear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

1Jn 3:10 In this the [technon] of God are manifest,and the [technon] of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not ofGod, neither he that loveth not his brother.

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the [technon] ofGod, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

2Jn 1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy [technon]walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.

2Jn 1:13 The [technon] of thy elect sister greet thee.Amen.

3Jn 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my [technon]walk in truth.

Rev 2:23 And I will kill her [technon] with death; andall the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts:and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Other Scriptures also give us some strong hints that age ormarriage do not separate us from our duty to be obedient to our parents. InRomans 1, for example we see, in the midst of a list of grievous sins,beginning with blasphemy and continuing through Sodomy we read:

Rom 1:25 Who changedthe truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more thanthe Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vileaffections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which isagainst nature: Rom 1:27 And likewisealso the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust onetoward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving inthemselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain Godin their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those thingswhich are not convenient; Rom 1:29 Beingfilled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness,maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Rom1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful,proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Rom1:31 Without understanding,covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Rom1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God,that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same,but have pleasure in them that do them.

Then again in II Timothy we have a similar list. In themidst of such sins as 'trucebreakers' and 'incontinent' we find 'disobedient toparents':

2Ti 3:1-8 This knowalso, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves,covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,unthankful, unholy, Without naturalaffection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers ofthose that are good, Traitors, heady,highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying thepower thereof: from such turn away.

For of this sort arethey which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, ledaway with divers lusts, Ever learning,and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, sodo these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning thefaith.

2012-01-13T11:07:00.000-06:00

I recently wrote a review for the book: Best Forgotten by Paula Vince.

Ok, to get started, this book was excellent. I tend to write negative reviews focusing (as you will see below) on what I don't like, so I want to get started by saying that this book was excellent, and I was pleased to review it.

Now that that's out of the way, moving on to the fun part :)

First of all, Australia and Britain have got to get their quotation marks switched over to the international (read 'American') standard. It is very annoying to have real quotes set off with glorified apostrophes ;)

Secondly, more seriously, while I was kept going (and kept up late) reading this book, I was very disappointed in the climax of this book for several reasons:

***Warning, Spoiler alert***

First of all, it wasn't climactic. Several huge tensions were raised in the book, and basically ignored or glossed over in the climax. For example, everyone the lead character talks to in the book insists that, once he regains his memory, he will reject everyone and anything that he has dealt with/done since losing his memory. But this turns out to be rather squishily not only not the case, but not even that much of an issue.

From a theological standpoint the climax was disappointing as well. The book brought forward, perhaps not that clearly but they were present, sins by all of the major characters. (Indeed, one thing that seemed missing from the book was any sort of 'normal' character.) Biblically speaking the proper reaction to sin, revealed, is repentance: Acknowledgement and turning from the sin and recognition that Christ, and Christ alone, can cause and mediate that repentance.

But Christ and repentance both seemed, here, to be painted in pastel undertones. The horror of the various sins tended to be treated as a product of a difficult past (in the case of the main characters rebellion and hatred) or excused as the fault of other peoples (in the case of the secondary characters sin of divorce and remarriage).

Christ promises us a new birth, and a new creation, not a vague and gradual change to becoming a nicer and freindlier person. He calls us to repent and turn from our present sins, not to paper over them with excuses.

I recently read a book (Man and Wife by Willkie Collins) which also captivated me, and kept me up late reading. Not claiming to be a Christian book it nevertheless dealt with some Christian themes. Perhaps even inadvertently the author forced his characters into dramatic confrontations with good and evil. Some succeeded, some failed, but all were, at least, confronted and challenged; forced to act, to decide, and to face the consequences of their decisions.

I received this book through the Book Crash program, my first. I will be passing this book on to others, and I do recommend it. I would have loved to have been able to review it before publication :)

Three views of the qualifications of elders

2012-01-03T09:31:00.002-06:00

It seems to me that there are, basically, three basicinterpretations of the marriage qualifications of elders extant right now, andI thought it would be useful to list them.

First of all, here is the text, relevant bits particularly selected(taken from I Tim 3):

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, Onethat ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with allgravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he takecare of the church of God?)

This is what I think the text means, given the linguisticsof the entire passage:

An elder must be an older, married man, not a young virginman. He must have children, hopefully grandchildren. These children and his whole house must beunder control, Godly children, a good witness to his ability to lead a family inGodliness. Because, if a man has not shown that he is capable of raising afamily in Godliness, then what on Earth are you doing considering having himlead the church?!

This is what the Catholics seem to think it means:

A bishop may not be the husband of one wife and, hopefullyhas no children, for a leader of the church should not be involved in anythingso degrading as sex. Having raised a family is no qualification for leadershipin the church, quite the reverse.

This is what protestants seem to think it means:

It doesn’t matter if the elder/pastor is married or has children.If he has children we hope that they are under control, but we certainly don’tmake that a qualification; being much more concerned about his seminaryqualifications and preaching style.

2011-12-14T14:14:00.001-06:00

I published a review of Christian Smith's book, "The Bible Made Impossible" and the author himself has chosen to attack my review:

Here is my review:

This review is not a comprehensive review, of which there are many, but will focus on two items of weakness in the book, weaknesses, that, in my opinion, undermine the rest of the book.

The first weakness is the straw man which Doctor Smith sets up for himself and labels 'Biblicism'. It is always a straw man when you define your opponents, but it is doubly a straw man when you do so with a list of ten items which they believe... a list written by you.

Doctor Smith offers us such a list. On page 4 he lists ten things that make up, in his opinion, 'Biblicism'. Now, the interesting thing is, taken literally, Doctor Smith now has no opponent. I doubt there is one person on the face of the planet who, reading that list, would say, "Yes, that is what I believe." I myself am a radical of probably the exact type that Doctor Smith hopes to oppose, and yet I would not claim to believe even one of his ten points as he wrote them.

He himself lists dozens of authors and slogan writers and, again, I doubt that even one of them would agree to all ten of his points, and most would probably object to the wording of all of them.

If Doctor Smith had truly intended to engage real opponents instead of straw ones, the task would have been easy. He could have quoted the London Baptist Confession, the Westminster Confession, the Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy or any of a dozen other confessions and took them on point by point. Instead he decided to create his own list, a list that defines no one.

The second great difficulty with this book is that its founding thesis is, in a word, false. He proposes a theory, which he entitles Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism, which is self-evidently untrue. He states it on page x as, "Even among presumably well-intentioned readers-- including many evangelical Biblicists-- the Bible, after their very best efforts to understand it, says and teaches very different things about most significant topics." implying that, if the Scriptures were truly inerrant, sufficient, and the like; this could not be.

If he had studied the works of prominent Biblicists, such as the apostle Paul, Calvin, RC Sproul and the like, he would have understood just how this assumption is categorically false. He would have understood how it is that an inspired, inerrant word could still manage to 'say and teach' different things about significant topics. In a word, "sin". You see, the Scriptures teach, and Godly Biblicists throughout the ages have always taught, that the perfection of our understanding God's Word is marred, not by the work of the author, not by the perfection of the result, nor by any imperfection in the Holy Spirit; but by the stubborn and pervasive sin of 100% of the hearers.

You see there are no 'well-intentioned' readers, and there is no one who uses his 'best efforts' to understand the Scripture. We may use those words, in a light way, to describe ourselves and others, but we must never ignore that the heart of man is desperately wicked. Even redeemed men sin, and sin grievously. One of those sins is to deliberately misunderstand the Scriptures; another is to do so ignorantly... either due to our own laziness of not studying, or a lifestyle of other sins that blocks our ability (and desire) to understand what Scripture so plainly says.

So there is, actually, nothing at all confusing or contradictory about having an inerrant, sufficient Scripture and a church which preaches a hundred contradictory things. It's called 'sin'.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

The comments can be found here.

The Fear of God

2011-11-11T22:04:00.001-06:00

A Review of The Fear of God

by

Arnold L. Frank

"The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."

The Fear of God is just the kind of book on doctrine that I like: a thorough and well organized treatment of a subject. Most modern books tend to take a verse, or an idea, and then launch themselves into spasms of prose, wandering through page after page without hardly a glance back at the Scriptures. Mr. Frank's book gets going with the Scriptures on page one and never looks back.

The book is very well organized, showing several aspects of the fear of the LORD and several other types of fear. As long as one doesn't take the various divisions as being necessarily doctrine in themselves, these are very helpful in understanding the subject. He speaks of that fear that brings us to Christ, and that fear which we bring away from our encounter with Him. He speaks of the fears that keep us from Christ, and the fear that brings us to worship Him more and aright.

The conclusion of the book is one of the best sections, bringing us to exactly what must be taught (he says 'preached', but as a father I tend to 'teach' not 'preach) on the subject. And he, very appropriately, focuses on the Law of God... how the fear of God must, inevitably, if it is real, lead to an understanding of and obedience to the law of God.

If I have a cavil about the book it would be that the 'Summary' sections for each chapter were not as helpful as they could be. I heard a famous preacher once describe good preaching as saying what you were going to say, saying it, and saying what you've said. I find the 'saying what you've said' bit a bit weak. Note to the Canadian Human Rights Commission: This article may cause people to have contempt for certain groups, including those who murder innocent children, 214th District Court Judge Jose Longoria, and members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I support The Constitution Party. Items copied from Life Site News are: Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

On Being Desperate

2011-10-17T17:15:00.003-05:00

I heard a message on Sunday in which an imaginary father, on meeting a young man who stated his readiness to marry his daughter, castigated the young man, in a speech which was of equal part funny and tragic, for being 'desperate'.

We laughed, as, I assume, we were meant to. But, all kidding aside, desperation is a good thing.

The word 'desperate' has a bad name, I'll grant you. It has a kind of physical background. One thinks of the drowning victim as being 'desperate' to get air, or the parent as searching 'desperately' for their lost child.

This makes it seem odd, for us, growing up as we did, to think of a young man searching 'desperately' for a wife. We see him as running around, gasping for air, 'desperately' talking to father after father, hoping against hope that one of them will give him a wife. Funny, eh?

But, wait a minute. Why are we laughing? Air is a good thing, a necessary thing. Sure, one could make a comedy sketch about it, but a real drowning should not be, must not be, funny.

Is marriage an equally good thing? Is the young man without a wife actually missing a vital part of his life? Surely, as Christians, we know the actual answer to that. Did not God, Himself, say, "It is not good for man to be alone."?

Surely it is the young man who is not desperately searching for a wife that we should be... not laughing at, but accusing of failing to seek for his own good with appropriate emotion. "He who finds a wife has found a good thing", no? "And obtains favor from the Lord". The man who is blessed by the Lord will have a wife, like a fruitful vine, and children, like olive plants, surrounding their table. So let's stop laughing at that 'desperate' young man and, instead, start chiding his church, and his father, and the father's of the young women, who are not 'letting him marry'.

Leave and Cleave

2011-09-24T19:17:00.000-05:00

Leave and Cleave

Introduction

Some question has been raised on the issue of the ‘leave andcleave’ of Genesis two. I would argue that much of what we believe about thisverse is false; and it is false because we have been inculcated into ourAmerican culture in such a way that we can blind ourselves to dozens ofBiblical precepts and examples cling to a false version of this passage.

Like any other passage in Scripture, we need to interpretthis passage in light of the rest of Scripture. If we find our naturalinterpretation warring with what the rest of Scripture says, then we need tore-examine our interpretation.

The text in question is, in the interlinear form:

And in the authorized version:

Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken fromman, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of mybones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was takenout of Man. Gen 2:24 Therefore shall aman leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and theyshall be one flesh. Gen 2:25 And theywere both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

The standard American interpretation of this verse seems tobe:

God is here commandingmen who get married to come out from under the authority of their parents, andform, along with their new wife and whatever children they may have, a newhousehold. From this point on, sons no longer owe obedience to their fathers,but only honor and respect.

I believe this interpretation is false on several points:

1) A minor point, but it is uncertain that it isGod who is speaking here (except in that He speaks in all of Scripture).Linguistically it seems as if it is Adam (our federal head, and as yet untaintedby sin) who is speaking, and others have proposed Moses as a commentary on thestory.

2) I do not believe that this is a command.

a. We are led to be believe that it is a command bythe word ‘shall’. While the word ‘shall’ in English does often signal a command,even a brief look at the use of the word in some nearby texts will show that thatis by no means how it is always used:
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which isupon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is thefruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto thewoman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in theday ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity betweenthee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thyhead, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shallit bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Now, while Gen 1:29 might possibly be considered a command, there is no waythat Gen 3:4,5, and 18 can be considered in that light. Indeed a simple searchof the use of the English word will show that it is not even usually used inthat way, but as a future or perhaps future/prophetic sense. And this is asense that accords perfectly with Adams (or God, or Moses’s) statement here.

b. It is important when reading any command, ordeciding whether something is a command, to read the surrounding text. In thiscase the significant text is the verse before:
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of myflesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
This verse is significant to our discussion because the first verse of our textsays, “Therefore”. As most of us have had pounded into our heads, when we see a‘therefore’ we need to look at what it is ‘there for’; or, we need to look atthe previous verse or passage and see what leads up to this ‘therefore’. In thiscase we see Adam referencing the one flesh nature of the Woman’s creation.
In addition we look back into the text and see the reason for the woman’screation: that it was not good for man to be alone, that he needed a helpmeet.
In this case then we see Adam reacting to this. The creation of a helpmeet forthe man, a helpmeet created out of his own flesh. How then should we interprethis statement? Are we to interpret this as ‘Therefore a man *must/is commandedto* leave his father and mother, and *must/is commanded to* cleave to hiswife?’ Or is it more likely ‘Therefore a man *will* leave his father and motherand *will* cleave to his wife’?

c. The actual verb involved, as the aboveinterlinear shows, is actually, in the Hebrew, in the present tense, ‘a man *isleaving*’, ‘a man *is clinging*’.

d. If it is a command, it is a strange command.Most other commands (I can think of no serious exception) are, at some point inScripture, listed at some point as being condemned in the life of someindividual. Adultery, murder, theft, deception, idolatry… all of these are condemnedwhen some individual (or several) engage(s) in them.
Even such subtle commands as ‘multiply and replenish’ are, as in the case ofOnan, seen to have a tangential relationship to a punishment.
Yet this particular command, if it is a command, is never seen as enforced.Indeed, if it is interpreted in the manner Americans would like, it is one ofthe more frequently disobeyed commands in Scripture.

3) It does not imply any change in authority.

a. Indeed, if it does, it contradicts itself; atleast if Adam is the speaker. We would have the nonsense of our Great, great,etc. grandfather giving us a command which obliterates the command itself; acommand denying his own authority to give us commands.

b. Scripture from one end to another shows multipleand serious examples of the son being under the authority of the father. Themost serious is that of the Son being under the authority of the Father; i.e.Christ Himself, when speaking of His own actions, speaks of them all as beingdone soley in response to the authority of His father.
And it is not Christ alone, indeed it far from being Christ alone, that we seeacting in obedience to their father. All throughout Scripture we see sons,older sons, responding to the authority of their father and fathers beingpunished or rewarded for the obedience or disobedience of his sons.

4) Nowhere is the newly married son seen formingtheir own house upon their marriage, nor ever being commanded to. Instead wesee frequently, and in extremely Godly cases, sons considering themselves asstill part of their fathers house and/or Godly fathers considering their sonsas part of their house. Even Christ spoke of ‘In my Father’s House’ as theplace to which he would bring his bride.

Conclusion

In the question of how we should prepare our sons to marry,I believe that Scripture clearly teaches that we prepare our sons to becomepart of our household; that we should seek a multi-generational household withmulti-generational influence. They should indeed be prepared to work, but thework need not be some independent ‘job’ that is necessary for the son to‘support’ his wife.

And specifically, nowhere in Scripture is it even hinted atthat fathers should continue to insist that their sons continue in frustrated celibacybecause of their lack of ‘preparedness’. God Himself tells us that ‘it is notgood for man to be alone’, and I do not believe we ever read of anymodification of that principle of ‘unless he is not prepared to have a wife’. Insteadwe read, in multiple locations, of the blessing and benefits that a wife bringsto a man; of the needs and desires of his that she fulfills. And we read,continually and constantly, of the blessings of Godly children that God wishesto give the man, his parents, his church, and his nation.

Let us not promote our own wisdom above the direct commandsof God, relevant precepts of God, and the Godly example of the patriarchs.

Appendix

My son earlier started on a response to Michael Pearl whenhe made a similar claim. The following is a collection of notes intended to bepart of a larger paper.

I. Scripture commands children to be obedient totheir parents, and makes no exception for certain ages.

A. Scriptural pattern illustrates godly men andwomen obeying their parents

1. Scriptural examples of younger or indeterminate children obeyingtheir parents

a) David

b) Joseph

c) Miriam

d) Isaac at sacrifice

e) Christ to Mary/Joseph

f) Daughter of Jeptha

g) Rachel

h) Leah

i) Lots daughters

j) Jdg 12:9 And he had thirty sons, and thirty daughters,whom he sent abroad, and took in thirtydaughters from abroad for his sons. And he judged Israel seven years.

k) Gen 21:21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wifeout of the land of Egypt. (Ishmael)

2. Scriptural examples of older children obeyingtheir parents and being blessed for it.

a) Specific obedience

(1) We notice that when Isaac was given his brideRebecca he was past the age of ‘adult’ in Mr. Pearls description. Now, some mayquestion whether Isaacs actions were ‘obedient’. However we will pose thequestion in its entirety and leave the reader to judge: What would be thereaction of an American male of, say, forty years old, if his father sentsomeone else out to get him a wife, that person brought the woman back, andpresented her to him. Would his first reaction not be something on the order of‘who does my father think he is, to be picking a wife for me at my age?”

(2) Similarly, what would be the reaction of theaverage American woman if she heard her father say something like ‘Gen24:51 Behold, Rebekah is before thee,take her, and go, and let her be thy master's son's wife, as the LORD hathspoken.’

(3) Or try aforty year old Americans mans reaction to this: Gen 28:1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, andcharged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters ofCanaan. Gen 28:2 Arise, go to Padanaram,to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thenceof the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother. Gen 28:3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make theefruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people; Gen28:4 And give thee the blessing ofAbraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the landwherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham. …Gen 28:7 And that Jacob obeyed his father and hismother, and was gone to Padanaram;

(4) What does God say of Solomon? 1Ki 3:3 And Solomon loved the LORD, walking in thestatutes of David his father: only he sacrificed and burnt incense in highplaces.

(5) What daughter in law nowadays would react asRuth did to her mother in law’s commands? Rth 3:3 Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, andput thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: but make not thyselfknown unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking. Rth 3:4 And it shall be, when he lieth down, thatthou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncoverhis feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do. Rth3:5 And she said unto her, All that thousayest unto me I will do. Rth 3:6 Andshe went down unto the floor, and did according to all that her mother in lawbade her.

(6) We will later have an entire section on all theways that Jesus Christ said he would obey and serve his father.

(7) When David was ready to die (I Kings 2), hecalled his son Solomon to him, and ‘commanded’ him as to how he was to rule,including not only broad spiritual instructions, but specific instructions asto how he was to make certain decisions… after David was dead, when Solomon was‘a man’ and a king.

(8) What does the non-prodigals sons statements (andhis fathers response) tell us about a fathers authority over an older son?(Luke 15:29) Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo,these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thycommandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry withmy friends: Luk 15:30 But as soon asthis thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hastkilled for him the fatted calf. Luk 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have isthine.

(9) Benjamin, a father of ten, was not ‘allowed’ togo on a trip for food for his family until his father permitted it.

(10) Saul, soon to be king, followed his fathercommandments. 1Sa 9:3 And the asses ofKish Saul's father were lost. And Kish said to Saul his son, Take now one ofthe servants with thee, and arise, go seek the asses.

(11) Jesses sons came at the behest of their father,in spite of being adults.

(12) Joseph, dying, gave multi-generationalinstructions to his adult sons.Heb 11:22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of thechildren of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.

b) Working under father generally

In Scripture the regular rule is for sons to work undertheir father. It is not the universal rule, but it is the regular one. How thenthis separation of authority that is supposed to occur? Who decides if the sonshould work for the father?

(1) Sons of Zebedee

(2) Joseph and brothers: Gen 37:2 These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph,being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the ladwas with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives:and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report.

(3) Isaacs sons

(4) Laban’s sons

(5) Gen 36:24 And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was thatAnah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon hisfather.

(6) Exo 2:16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drewwater, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock.

(7) Rachel worked for her father

(8) Rebeccah worked for her father

(9) Moses worked for his father in law (Ex 3:1)

(10) 1Sa 17:15 But David went and returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep atBethlehem.

(11) I Ch 25:6 All these wereunder the hands of their father for song in thehouse of the LORD, with cymbals, psalteries, and harps, for the service of thehouse of God, according to the king's order to Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman. 1Ch 25:7 Sothe number of them, with their brethren that were instructed in the songs ofthe LORD, even all that were cunning, was twohundred fourscore and eight.

a. Luk2:49 And he said unto them, How is itthat ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

c) Kings of Judah

d)

3. Scripture has specific examples of older childrennot obeying their parents and not being blessed by it

When sons are seen as disobeying their fathers, they areseen as being cursed for it.

a) Esau

b) Prodigal son

c) 1Sa 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that hissons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of thecongregation. 1Sa 2:23 And he said unto them, Why do ye such things?for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. 1Sa2:24 Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make theLORD'S people to transgress. 1Sa 2:25 If one man sin against another, the judgeshall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him?Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORDwould slay them.

d)

e) Kings of Judah

4. Scripture condemns fathers for their sonsdisobedience

Similarly, Scripture condemns fathers whose sons disobeythem.

a) 1Sa 3:12 In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house:when I begin, I will also make an end. 1Sa 3:13 For I have told him that I will judge hishouse for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons madethemselves vile, and he restrained them not. 1Sa3:14 And therefore I have swornunto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purgedwith sacrifice nor offering for ever.

b)

5. Scripture has specific examples of exceptionspresented as exceptions

a) Abraham

b) Gideon

c) Sampson

6. Scripture presents no examples of childrendisobeying their parents in non-exceptional cirucumstances and being blessedfor it.

Jacob obeys his mother and thusdecieves his father at age 40: Gen 27:8 Now therefore, my son, obey my voiceaccording to that which I command thee.

Tamar obeys her father in lawsinstructions, until they no longer apply, then takes deceptive action into herown hands: Gen 38:11 Then said Judah toTamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah myson be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did.And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house.

7. Scripture has specific examples ofmultigenerational obedience

Scripture contains examples of multi-generational obedience.The most significant of these can be found in Jeremiah 35. In that passage weread of a family whose great, great…. Great grandfather gave them certaincommands. Decades later they are still following them. And God gives them oneof the more profound blessings in the Scriptures as a result.

Surely if God intended to make it clear that we were NOT toobey our fathers when we were adults, He would NOT have used this example.

a) The Rechabites

B. Scriptural precept commands all children to beobedient to their parents

1. Scripture speaks of adult children as part oftheir fathers household

a) Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so,I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

b) Jdg 6:15 And he said unto him, Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold,my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father'shouse.

c) Jdg 11:7 And Jephthah said unto the elders of Gilead, Did not ye hate me, andexpel me out of my father's house? and why are ye come unto me now when ye arein distress?

d) Jdg 11:36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouthunto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thymouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, evenof the children of Ammon.

e) Jdg 14:19 And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon,and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave change of garmentsunto them which expounded the riddle. And his anger was kindled, and he went upto his father's house.

f) Jdg 16:31 Then his brethren and all the house of his father came down, and tookhim, and brought him up, and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol in theburyingplace of Manoah his father. And he judged Israel twenty years.

g) 1Sa 9:20 And as for thine asses that were lost three days ago, set not thy mindon them; for they are found. And on whom is all the desire of Israel? Isit not on thee, and on all thy father's house?

h)

2. Scripture gives precepts which specificallycommand obedience to fathers.

a) Eph 6:1-2

b) Col 3:20

c) Prov 6:20-24

d) Pro 23:22 Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother whenshe is old.

e)

3. Scripture gives parental commands, proverbs etc.which imply their obedience to, by older children

a) Proverbs written to sons, speaks of ‘long life’

b) Proverbs written to sons, continually usesmetaphor of women to make its points

c) Gen 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his householdafter him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment;that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

d) Exo 22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay moneyaccording to the dowry of virgins.

e) Deu 22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto theelders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; Deu 22:19 Andthey shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give themunto the father of the damsel, because he hath broughtup an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife;he may not put her away all his days. Deu 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house,and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because shehath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shaltthou put evil away from among you.

f) Jos 15:17 And Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it: and he gavehim Achsah his daughter to wife.

g) Jdg 15:2 And her father said, I verily thought that thou hadst utterly hated her;therefore I gave her to thy companion: is not her younger sister fairerthan she? take her, I pray thee, instead of her.

h) Pro 23:26 My son, give me thine heart, and let thineeyes observe my ways. 23:27 For a whore isa deep ditch; and a strange woman is anarrow pit.

i) Pro 29:3 Whoso loveth wisdom rejoiceth his father: but he that keepeth companywith harlots spendeth his substance.

j) Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful childrennot accused of riot or unruly.

k) 1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children andtheir own houses well.

l) 1Th 2:11 As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you,as a father doth his children,

m) Col 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children ofdisobedience:

n) Eph 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord:walk as children of light:

o) Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these thingscometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

p) Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

q) Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are thechildren of Abraham.

Joshua 1:9 As for me and my house,we will serve the Lord.

4. Scripture givesexamples of godly laws which punish children, obviously older, who arenot obedient to their parents

a) Deut 21

b) Prov 30:17

c) Christ reaffirms these laws as Godly

(1) Mat 15:6

(2) Mar 7:10

C. Scriptural precept and pattern calls man to obeyGod ‘the father’

1. Metaphor deliberately used in situations of‘obedience’.

a) Used by Christ (John 12:49, John 14:31)

(1) Joh 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but theFather which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what Ishould speak. Joh 12:50 And I know that his commandment is lifeeverlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, soI speak.

(2) Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a manlove me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come untohim, and make our abode with him. Joh 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings:and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. Joh15:10 If ye keep my commandments, yeshall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abidein his love.

(3) Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power tolay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have Ireceived of my Father.

(4) Joh 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye havelifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he,and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Fatherhath taught me, I speak these things.

(5) Joh 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgmentis just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father whichhath sent me.

(6) Luk 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me:nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

(7) Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying,O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not asI will, but as thou wilt.

(8) Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, thesame is my brother, and sister, and mother.

(9) Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into thekingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

(10) Indeed I can find no example of Jesus saying heneeded to ‘obey’ in the context of God as God, or God as Lord. He always seemsto say it as God the Father.

b) 2Sa 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, Iwill chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children ofmen:

2. Opposite metaphor frequently speaks to obedience“Children of…”

a) II John 1:4

b) 1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, andkeep his commandments.

c) 1Jn 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil:whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not hisbrother.

d) Heb 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation whichspeaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, norfaint when thou art rebuked of him: Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, andscourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Heb 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with youas with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? Heb 12:8 Butif ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards,and not sons.

e)

In all of this, no mention is ever made of a time whereobedience is to cease.

Be not 'Content'

2011-09-19T15:57:00.000-05:00

I have learned to be content

The other day I was having a discussion with an unmarriedyoung man (not so young, I imagine) and when discussing his marriage state Iwas admonished by the young man and an (I imagine) unmarried young woman that his proper state was'contentment'. The following verse was quoted:

Php 4:11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for Ihave learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. Php4:12 I know both how to be abased, and Iknow how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to befull and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. Php 4:13 I can do all things through Christ whichstrengtheneth me.

Now this is an excellent verse, and an important concept.But I am going to go out on a limb here and challenge all of our unmarried young men to 'Be not 'content''. (Singlequotes around the word 'content' courtesy of a certain recently-marriednot-so-young-man of my acquaintance).

First of all, let us look at when we are to be content. Paul himself provides circumstances here: fullvs hungry, abound vs suffer need.

And again in his epistle to Timothy he speaks of similarissues:

1Ti 6:7 For we brought nothing into thisworld, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. 1Ti 6:8 And having food and raiment let us betherewith content. 1Ti 6:9 But they thatwill be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish andhurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of allevil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, andpierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1Ti 6:11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things;and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. 1Ti6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, layhold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a goodprofession before many witnesses.

Jesus likewise spoke of contentment:

Luk 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him,saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man,neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

As did the writer to the Hebrews:

Heb 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: forthereby some have entertained angels unawares. Heb 13:3 Remember them that are in bonds, as boundwith them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also inthe body. Heb 13:4 Marriage ishonourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers Godwill judge. Heb 13:5 Let your conversation bewithout covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for hehath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

James goes beyond this, calling for rejoicing through trialsand temptations:

Jas 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fallinto divers temptations; Jas 1:3 Knowingthis, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. Jas 1:4 But let patience have her perfectwork, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask ofGod, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shallbe given him. Jas 1:6 But let him ask infaith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea drivenwith the wind and tossed. Jas 1:7 For letnot that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. Jas 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in allhis ways.

Jas 1:9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in thathe is exalted: Jas 1:10 But the rich, inthat he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away. Jas1:11 For the sun is no sooner risen witha burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, andthe grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade awayin his ways.

Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endurethtemptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which theLord hath promised to them that love him.

In Scripture we see dozens of Godly men sufferingpersecution and even death, going contentedly through (or, occasionally, not socontentedly, being human) their trials.

So how then can I insist that we 'be not 'content''?

Be not content

Well, let's look at some men that were not 'content' in Scripture. Some men that, far from accepting thecircumstances they were in, instead actively fought against them, changingthose very circumstances, or at least rebuking those who caused them.

We are told that Godly men are not to be content with sin,their own or others.

Lev 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thineheart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin uponhim.

Consider Christ and the moneychangers.

Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, andcast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tablesof the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, Mat 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My houseshall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

How 'content' was he to let that circumstance continue?

Or consider his admonition to the gentleman with the beam inhis eye.

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. Mat7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, yeshall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to youagain. Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is inthy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Mat7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother,Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is inthine own eye? Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite,first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearlyto cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Here we see Christ 'discontent'. He condemns the man for hisjudgment, and for the beam, and then, when the beam is finally removed, headmonishes to man to then, finally, help remove the speck from his brotherseye. All in all, a lot of things to be discontent with.

Consider the man who is actively condemned for preachingcontentment by James: Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren,though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? Jas2:15 If a brother or sister be naked,and destitute of daily food, Jas 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace,be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those thingswhich are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead,being alone.

His brother was in need. Preaching contentment, even beingcontent yourself (content with your brother's situation), was completelyforbidden. What was needed was action: meeting the need, finding and providingthe necessary food and clothing.

So, what is the difference? Well, it seems to me that thedifferences is one of between enduring a passive evil, or difficulty... versuschanging an active evil. Where the situation is one's own sin, another's sin, abrothers need.. then action is required; positive action to end or at leastrebuke the sin of another, end one's own sin, or meet the need.

A passive evil

So, how does this apply to being unmarried? Well, my fear isthat too many Christian young people see being unmarried as a passive evil...or even a passive good. Their path to marriage seems, to them, to be somethingthat resides outside of themselves, something that God must initiate, in somemysterious way. And, being unmarried for long after they had thought they wouldbe married, they have begun to deceive themselves into thinking that this mustbe God's will for them.[i]

But is it? Everything that happens is God's will, in thegeneral sense, but is it God's will, when your car is stuck in a ditch, that itstay stuck in the ditch? Are we tolounge by the side of the road hoping for a passing tow truck? Or are we towhip out our cell phone, or wave down passing motorists? Walk to a gas station?

Is this ditch of being unmarried that so many of them are inreally what God has for our young people? Or are they in the ditch because wehave driven them there? And because they have left themselves there?

Scripture is full of admonitions to marriage, beginning withGod Himself, not content with his creation, stating, "It is not good forman to be alone."[ii]I Cor 7:9 specifically insists that the unmarried man or woman who isstruggling with lust must marry[iii].I Cor 7:2 states that, because of fornication each man and each woman shouldmarry.[iv]These sentiments are reflected in Proverbs 5, where the Godly man rejoices inthe bed of the wife of his youth, instead of the bed of the strange woman.

"Take wives, take wives for your sons, give yourdaughters in marriage" the Jews were told in the Old Testament[v]."I would that the younger women marry..."[vi]"Teach them to love their husbands, love their children, manage theirhouseholds..."[vii]we are told in the NT.

But even more importantly we are told that marriage is theseedbed of an elder. That it is in marrying, having children, and raisinga Godly household that a man becomesqualified to rule the house of God.[viii]In the OT we see God treating Israel as a wife, even an adulterous wife. InEphesians five we find the pinnacle of the role of marriage: our humanmarriages are a reflection of the very relationship between Christ and thechurch.

And so I argue that our unmarried young men should 'be not'content'' in their unmarried state, anymore than they should in any 'not good'state. They should, instead, be strong and courageous. They should lay asideevery weight of false doctrine, false modesty, and fear, and... get married. Itis not good for man to be alone, and so, you man, should not be alone.

The major problem, as I have written time and time again, isnot our young men, nor our young women, although they both have their share ofthe blame. The real problem is the father's of the church. We have taught asystem: courtship, that specializes in rejecting or delaying marriages[ix].Without Scriptural warrant, and in the face of clear Scriptural commands, itdoes not 'let them marry'. It says, 'not yet', 'not now', and 'not to thisperson'. Our fathers need to 'be not content' with this system and return tothe Biblical system of taking wives for our young sons, and giving our young daughtersin marriage.

[i]And write blog posts and theological articles 'explaining' this.

[ii] Gen2:18 And the LORD God said, It isnot good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

[iii]Calvin writes of this passage: let every one, in abstaining from marriage, doit so long as he is fit to endure celibacy. If he has not the power ofsubduing his passion, let him understand that the Lord has made it obligatoryon him to marry.

[iv]Calvin writes: "as for those that have the gift of abstinence frommarriage, he leaves them at liberty, [371] while he commands others to provideagainst their infirmity by marrying."

[v]Jer 29:6

[vi] 1Ti5:14 I will therefore that the younger womenmarry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary tospeak reproachfully.

[vii] Tit2:4 That they may teach the young womento be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers athome, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be notblasphemed.

[viii]1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be ... thehusband of one wife,...1Ti 3:4 One thatruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

1Ti 3:5 (For ifa man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the churchof God?)

[ix]See http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/what-are-you-doing/16206880 formore on this issue.

Casting Down the Idols of Courtship: Perfection

2011-09-10T18:18:00.000-05:00

Casting Down the Idols of Courtship

We need to be always living ‘semper reformada’. One of themost important ways in which we must do that is to be always searching ourlives for idols, gods of our current age or of our own invention, which havecrept into our lives and which we must cast down. In our current desire to seeto the proper marriages of our sons and daughters we have invented a system,which we call courtship, in which we have incorporated several of these idols…idols that must be cast down. Here I present some of them.

Perfection

But this is not a Scriptural principle, nor is it theScriptural standard. Far from the Scriptural emphasis being on the protectionof daughters, it is on the provision of daughters: the provision of daughtersto other men’s sons. And far from Scripture presenting a principle of marriageto the perfect young man; they focus and insist on the exact opposite, on theprovision of a daughter to an imperfect and needy young man.

As harsh and unfeeling as it sounds to our ears a daughteris not seen as a rose to be hidden under glass, but a gift to be given. Herfruitfulness is frequently mentioned, her delicate sensibilities less so. Sheis seen as at her best when rising to a difficult task, not when tenderlysheltered. And the entire focus of Scripture is not on her father, but on herhusband. How then can it be the role of that father to refuse to give her tothat husband?

“But,” it will be asked by many fathers, “don’t I have theright to refuse a given suitor?” Of course you do… if by ‘right’ you meanpower. If by ‘right’ you mean ‘is it the right thing to do?’ then you must askyourself if, by denying this suitor, are you increasing the number of marriagesin the church? If so, then yes. A non-Christian young man can, indeed shouldnormally, be refused. An excommunicant young man, still living unrepentant,should also be refused. Marrying your daughter to one of these decreases thenumber of Godly, Christian marriages.

But how is it a form of obedience to God’s charge to ‘Letevery man have his own wife’ to answer ‘but not my daughter’? How could Godhave said, “It is better to marry than to burn” and have meant that onlyperfect young men should marry?

James says Jas 1:2-4 My brethren, count it all joy when yefall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faithworketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may beperfect and entire, wanting nothing.

Do we not deny our daughters joy when we are overlyprotective? Do we not deny them the opportunity to grow and be fruitful. Evenphysical growing has growing pains. What is it that we fear in pain andsuffering? Paul embraced it. All marriages, indeed all of life, will includepain and suffering. We are all fallen creatures and we sin against each other.It is through that pain and suffering, through those difficult trials, that theLord transforms us and can use us for His glory. It is when we are weak that weare strong, because we are strong in His strength, not our own.

Rebekah’s was blessed with the blessing: Thou art oursister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possessthe gate of those which hate them. Gen 24:60 It was not a blessing of ease orlack of pain. It was a blessing of fruitfulness and conquest. Hebrews 11 asksus to emulate and follow those who: “…Who through faith subdued kingdoms,wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenchedthe violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were madestrong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.Women [who] received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured,not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: Andothers had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds andimprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, wereslain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; beingdestitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) theywandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. (Heb11:33-38 IAV)” Nowhere is it said that we should emulate those who, out of fearof giving their daughter to a sinful and imperfect young man, kept her safelyhome. Indeed Christ said, to the man who hid his talent: “ Thou wicked andslothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather whereI have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to theexchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath tentalents.” God has given us our daughters as stewards, and he expects a return.A fruitful and blessed return, not a shameful and cowardly protection.

Casting Down the Idols of Courtship: Human Wisdom

2011-09-09T14:50:00.000-05:00

Casting Down the Idols of Courtship

Human Wisdom

An interesting thing happens to many Godly men on the way tomarrying their children. Having studied the Scriptures intensely as to how theyshould baptize their children, educate their children, and discipline theirchildren… they suddenly run out of steam when it comes to marrying theirchildren.

In these other areas they fully believe that Scripture issufficient. They pull out verses from Deuteronomy to show that it is fatherswho are principally responsible for their children’s education; verses fromProverbs that speak of how the children should be disciplined.

Even examples are brought into play. They rejoice with Godover Abraham who, it was said, “…will command his children and his householdafter him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment;”

And yet, somehow, when it comes time to marry theirchildren, Abraham isn’t good enough. All of the law, and teachings, andexamples are, suddenly, outdated, irrelevant, old-fashioned and unwise.

Suddenly principle after principle, derived from man’swisdom, start crowding out Biblical principles. Suddenly what Abraham did,which seemed a marvelous act of faith when the children were five and six, thewhole ‘sending the servant off to get a wife for Isaac’ thing, seems a preposterousold custom now that those same children are old enough to actually get married.Rebecca’s obedient ‘I will go’ in response to her father’s unequivocal givingof her in marriage[1] issuddenly replaced by the father’s voluminous teaching on the various ways toevaluate a suitor and a declamation of his lack of responsibility for hereventual choice. Adam’s rejoicing in the presentation of a wife is replacedwith a dozen ‘pre-marriage’ steps, from ‘pre-friendship’ through ‘engagement’.

What happened? How did the Scriptures suddenly becomeunclear? Does the Sufficiency of Scripture really mean that God, in an area ofhuman interaction that has existed since Abel, did not provide us with a singleexample of getting married done ‘right’?

God has provided us with clear examples, clear law, andclear teaching: all of which refute the principles of courtship. We need to notsubstitute our own ‘wisdom’ for God’s instructions.

[1]Gen 24:50 Then Laban and Bethuelanswered and said, The thing proceedeth from the LORD: we cannot speak untothee bad or good. Gen 24:51 Behold,Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master's son'swife, as the LORD hath spoken. Calvin writes: “…Bethuel … had … unreservedlygiven his daughter in marriage…” and Gill writes: “her marriage [to] Isaac… was agreed upon”

Casting Down the Idols of Courtship: Quasi-Covenant

2011-09-08T15:46:00.000-05:00

Casting Down the Idols of Courtship

Quasi-covenant

The courting relationship, like the dating relationships of‘boyfriend/girlfriend’ represents a quasi-covenant. The two, the boy and thegirl, are bound together in a commitment… of a sort. The boy has permission to‘court’ the girl; to attempt to win her affections toward marriage. He has the soleand unique permission (unlike in dating) to spend romantic/sexual time withher, forming a relationship with her.

This relationship is, intentionally, designed to lead towardmarriage… to lead to life time oneness and commitment. The two are intended tobe ‘exploring’ their ‘compatibility’… getting to know each other at a depththat neither has done before with anyone except for their parents or siblings.

And getting to know each other with the deliberate intent offinding out if this person should be their spouse.

Nowhere in Scripture do we see anything resembling such aquasi-covenant. Scripture teaches us that the young man should be consideringthe young woman as a ‘sister’, never as a future wife. Still less does it speakof any intermediate period where the two ‘hang out’ together to try to figureout if they are ‘right’ to be married.

Casting Down the Idols of Courtship: Giving our Daughters to Imperfect Young Men

2011-09-07T12:55:00.000-05:00

Casting Down the Idols of Courtship

Our culture, at least the courtship part of it, has made a principle out of a father’s protection of his daughter; and extended it to a prejudice toward refusing ‘imperfect’ young men in marriage toward their daughters. It is assumed, and sometimes stated, that one of the purposes of the path to marriage is the protection of the daughter; a protection which, it is implied, can only happen if imperfect and unworthy young men are rejected.

But this is not a Scriptural principle, nor is it the Scriptural standard. Far from the Scriptural emphasis being on the protection of daughters, it is on the provision of daughters: the provision of daughters to other men’s sons. And far from Scripture presenting a principle of marriage to the perfect young man; they focus and insist on the exact opposite, on the provision of a daughter to an imperfect and needy young man.

As harsh and unfeeling as it sounds to our ears a daughter is not seen as a rose to be hidden under glass, but a gift to be given. Her fruitfulness is frequently mentioned, her delicate sensibilities less so. She is seen as at her best when rising to a difficult task, not when tenderly sheltered. And the entire focus of Scripture is not on her father, but on her husband. How then can it be the role of that father to refuse to give her to that husband?

“But,” it will be asked by many fathers, “don’t I have the right to refuse a given suitor?” Of course you do… if by ‘right’ you mean power. If by ‘right’ you mean ‘is it the right thing to do?’ then you must ask yourself if, by denying this suitor, are you increasing the number of marriages in the church? If so, then yes. A non-Christian young man can, indeed should normally, be refused. An excommunicant young man, still living unrepentant, should also be refused. Marrying your daughter to one of these decreases the number of Godly, Christian marriages.

But how is it a form of obedience to God’s charge to ‘Let every man have his own wife’ to answer ‘but not my daughter’? How could God have said, “It is better to marry than to burn” and have meant that only perfect young men should marry?

James says Jas 1:2-4 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

Do we not deny our daughters joy when we are overly protective? Do we not deny them the opportunity to grow and be fruitful. Even physical growing has growing pains. What is it that we fear in pain and suffering? Paul embraced it. All marriages, indeed all of life, will include pain and suffering. We are all fallen creatures and we sin against each other. It is through that pain and suffering, through those difficult trials, that the Lord transforms us and can use us for His glory. It is when we are weak that we are strong, because we are strong in His strength, not our own.

Rebekah’s was blessed with the blessing: Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them. Gen 24:60 It was not a blessing of ease or lack of pain. It was a blessing of fruitfulness and conquest. Hebrews 11 asks us to emulate and follow those who: “…Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women [who] received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. (Heb 11:33-38 IAV)” Nowhere is it said that we should emulate those who, out of fear of giving their daughter to a sinful and imperfect young man, kept her safely home. Indeed Christ said, to the man who hid his talent: “ Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.” God has given us our daughters as stewards, and he expects a return. A fruitful and blessed return, not a shameful and cowardly protection.

My First Three Arguments?

2011-09-06T23:28:00.000-05:00

I had a gentleman comment on my book, the Covenant of Betrothal. His blog is called ‘Old Testament Studies’ blog and someone sent hima link to my book. He had some interesting things to say, things that were ratherintelligent. Unfortunately, he seems not to have actually read my book. Many ofthe ‘objections’ that he raised were actually things I had dealt with, in a wayhe would approve of.

It would probably be boring to deal with the entire post, somuch of which would make sense if it was actually written about someone whobelieved the things he accused me of. But, for now, I will just deal with hisfirst point. He writes:

I only looked at the first three arguments: the argumentfrom Rebekah and Isaac; the notion that this was meant to contrast with Jacoband Rachel; and the idea that Genesis 2 is antithetical to young peoplechoosing their spouse.

Now, this is fascinating for two reasons. First of all, I amfascinated to find out that the first seventeen pages of my book, the entirefirst chapter, the one that lays out the whole reason and method for the restof the book… contains no arguments. The way I counted it there seemed to bedozens of arguments per page. So, I ‘m not at all sure how he figures that the argumentshe mentions are the ‘first three’.

The second fascinating thing is that the three things hementions are not, actually, arguments in my book. Of course, if he had actuallyread the first part of the book (or the rest of it) he might have understoodthis.

What he doesn’t understand was what my entire book is allabout. The point and goal of my book is to try to determine how God would haveus get married (or, for fathers like myself, how our children should marry). Myoperating assumption is that Scripture does, actually, speak to that.

So what I did, what I do, is take the various proposals:dating, courtship, and betrothal. More specifically, I examine the variousprinciples behind these methods.

Dating and courtship, for example, have a basic principle,expressed variously but basically, “No one should get married without firstgoing through a period of friendship, getting to know each other, and the like.”

Now, does the story of Adam and Eve support, or deny, thatthesis? Did the first marriage, which God Himself arranged (pun intended) involvea ‘period of friendship’, where Adam and Eve ‘got to know each other’? Was itonly after that period that Adam finally got down on one knee and asked Eve tobe his wife?

Another principle favored by the dating and courtship crowdis “It must be the child themselves that picks their spouse, and initiates the process.”Does the story of Isaac (where his father sent a servant for a wife for Isaac)or even the story of Jacob (where his father commanded him to take a wife from thedaughters of Laban) support or refute that thesis? Does Scripture show thesetwo men rejecting their father’s choice? With God’s encouragement, of course?

As the beginning of my book makes clear, our goal was to gothrough the entire Word of God to see what the law, teaching, and examples hasto say. And what they have to say, over and over again, is not dating, and notcourtship. Principle after principle of courtship and dating are consistentlyrefuted; principle after principle of what we call ‘The Covenant of Betrothal’are consistently affirmed.