Authority after marriage

I list here a study, published elsewhere, as part of a discussion on facebook.

 ------------

1.       I believe that, while the nature of their relationship can and indeed must change over the years and through various circumstances, the fathers authority over his son is permanent.

2.       I believe that all human authority relationships  (husband, father, king, elder) can operate only within their allowed jurisdiction. Thus all human authorities have their limits, and times when they are not to be *obeyed*. And that there are times when, on God’s direct order, these relationships are changed outside of their normal boundaries. But these are exceptional and not normative.

3.       I believe that, generally, the son is to remain a part of his father’s household, and that his economy is to be part of that economy in general.

To summarize my position, it is that the authority of the father does not cease at age 13, 16,18, 21, 25, 30, 31, or marriage.

My Arguments and Witnesses

1)      It is almost difficult to argue this point because the witness of Scripture on this point is so consistent.

a.       No command indicates that the authority of the father ceases at any point.

b.      No example of any Godly child shows them demonstrating the cessation of  the father’s authority at any particular point (outside of issues of obedience to God, which would be equally valid in a young child).

c.       The example of Christ clearly demonstrates that, even for the Son of God, and a co-equal member of the Trinity, His subordination to His Father’s authority is without end.

d.      Dozens of other lesser examples show Godly (and ungodly!) children stating and implying that the fathers authority is without cease by obeying their father when they are older, married, even after he is dead.

2)      Biblical law and judgments clearly indicate the authority of the father over older children (Duet 21:18-21, Esau, Samuel).

3)      The word ‘command’ is used in Scripture, by God, to positively speak of the way that a father speaks to his grown sons/generations. The same word is only used elsewhere in authority relationships.

4)      The word ‘children’ used in the command for ‘children’ to obey their parents,  is not used, in Scripture, to speak specifically of young people. Usually the word is used specifically of those under an authority.

5)      Indeed, the word children is specifically used in religious authority relationships to speak to grown men and call them to obedience. It is even used in our relationship to God; none of which give any indication of  our obedience ceasing. Mat 10:21  And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the [children] shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
or Mat 9:2  And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; [Son], be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
or Mar 10:24  And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, [Children], how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! And then Christ says to adults, using the same word: Joh 8:39  They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

6)      Disobedience to parents is often mentioned in circumstances that are not easily explainable as applying only to children: Rom 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; ²⁹  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, ³⁰  Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, ³¹  Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 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.
and
2Ti 3:1  This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. ²  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, ³  Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, ⁴  Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; ⁵  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. ⁶  For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
and
Pro 6:20  My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: (in the context of warning against a prostitute, and in the context of his being called ‘a man’.)

7)       The Word ‘house’, which is a term of authority in Scripture, is used of married men living under their father’s authority. For example: Gen 28:2  Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother. (Thus Laban, a married man, was listed as part of ‘his father’s house’) Gen 7:1  And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. (Thus Noah and his three married sons were all seen as part of ‘his house’ and given commands via their father.) Gen 17:12  And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. Gen 34:19, Gen 46:27, Ex 2:1, Ex 16:31,

8)      The modern church (in contradiction to Calvin and others) has Paul’s exegesis of the fifth commandment, in effect, separating the fifth commandment into two sections: one part (honor thy parents) which continues for life, and another part (obey your parents) which ends at some age he doesn’t specify (and the modern church argues over).

9)       Pro 23:26  My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways. 

10)    Scripture law and pattern make it clear that the norm is for the son to be part of the economy of his fathers house until that  father dies (outside of exceptional circumstances). The laws concerning the land and inheritance indicate that the sons would, normally, be working on their fathers fields, with his flocks, etc. The land in Israel was divided according to the living father, not distributed among married sons. Then the sons would receive their inheritance when their father died. The implication, and every indication, is that the sons would continue to work their fathers land until he died. (See the example of the older brother of the prodigal Luke 15:31)

11)   The antonym to ‘obey’ is ‘disobey’.

The Commentators

Clark

Clark writes (in an interesting twist on the story of Esau, who was over 40 and married at the time): whereas there is nothing more plain than that he did this with a sincere desire to obey and please his parents. Having heard the pious advice which Isaac gave to Jacob, he therefore went and took a wife from the family of his grandfather Abraham, as Jacob was desired to do out of the family of his maternal uncle Laban.

Clarke again writes: On filial respect to aged and destitute parents we have already had occasion to speak; see Gen_48:11. The duty of children to their parents only ceases when the parents are laid in their graves, and this duty is the next in order and importance to the duty we owe to God. No circumstances can alter its nature or lessen its importance; Honor thy father and thy mother is the sovereign, everlasting command of God. While the relations of parent and child exist, this commandment will be in full force.

Gill

Gen 2: 24

not that a man upon his marriage is to drop his affections to his parents, or be remiss in his obedience to them, honour of them, and esteem for then, or to neglect the care of them, if they stand in need of his assistance;

Lev 19:3  Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father,.... This has respect to the fifth command, which is the first with promise, and is here referred to first, because a man has his beginning in the world from his parents, and by them he is trained up in the observance of all the other laws of God, equally to be respected; and the fear of them is not servile, but filial, joined with love and affection to them, and includes an inward esteem and reverence of them, an outward respect unto them, a readiness to obey their commands, and giving due and equal honour unto them

Calvin

On Adam

24. Therefore shall a man leave It is doubted whether Moses here 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.¹⁵¹¹⁵¹  See Le Clerc on this verse, who takes the same view as Calvin. The last of these is that which I most approve. Therefore, after he has related historically what God had done, he also demonstrates the end of the divine institution. The sum of the whole is, that among the offices pertaining to human society, this is the principal, and as it were the most sacred, that a man should cleave unto his wife. And he amplifies this by a superadded comparison, that the husband ought to prefer his wife to his father. But the father is said to be left not because marriage severs sons from their fathers, or dispenses with other ties of 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 assiduously cultivated and ought in itself to be deemed inviolable and sacred, yet Moses so speaks of marriage as to show that it is less lawful to desert a wife than parents. Therefore, they who, for slight causes, rashly allow of divorces, violate, in one single particular, all the laws of nature, and reduce them to nothing. If we should make it a point of conscience not to separate a father from his son, it is a still greater wickedness to dissolve the bond which God has preferred to all others.

On Isaac:

Gen 24:63 For such was the piety of Isaac, that he undoubtedly studied to discharge every duty towards his father: this alone was wanting, that they did not live in the same house. Moses also relates how it happened that Isaac met with his wife before she reached his home.

On Duet 5:16

Obedience comes next, which is also circumscribed by certain limits. 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 the yoke 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 from other passages, that those who are not obedient to their parents are deemed to despise them.   

In Leviticus

II. That children be obedient to their parents: “You shall fear every man his mother and his father, Lev_19:3. 1. The fear here required is the same with the honour commanded by the fifth commandment; see Mal_1:6. It includes inward reverence and esteem, outward expressions of respect, obedience to the lawful commands of parents, care and endeavour to please them and make them easy, and to avoid every thing that may offend and grieve them, and incur their displeasure. The Jewish doctors ask, “What

In Proverbs

Prov 6:20

Children, when they are grown up, must remember the law of a good mother, as well as the commandment of a good father, Ecclesiasticus 3:2. The Lord has given the father honour over the children and has confirmed the authority of the mother over the sons.

Jer 35

With regard to the subject itself, the solution is certain and easy, --

 that the Rechabites are not commended as though they had obeyed their father as God, but that they obediently received what their father had commanded them, because it was only a civil precept: he therefore had in view an ulterior object; and he did not require abstinence from wine and other things for its own sake. And Paul, even by one sentence, has settled this controversy; for when he exhorts children to obey their parents, he modifies his exhortation by saying,

 "In the Lord." (Ephesians 6:1)

 We then see that Paul commands children to obey their parents, not in everything, or without limitation, but so that God, who is the Sovereign and the only Father of all, may still retain his authority, and that earthly parents may not claim for themselves so much authority as to ascend the throne of God, as though they were lawgivers to souls.

 Let us now proceed --

… They said,

 We, our wives, our sons, our daughters, as though they had said, "This precept has ever been observed in our family; and what has been delivered to us, by our fathers, we have followed to this day, as also our fathers, who obeyed the command of a dead man, because his will had been explained to them."

…

And he says, so

 as to obey me God shews that he required nothing unjust from the Jews, so that a true excuse could be pretended, as though he was too rigid: "I require only," he says, "that ye obey me: this is all my severity, for lovely is the rule of meekness which I use towards you. Since, then, I demand nothing but what children ought willingly to render to their fathers without being admonished, how is it that this mederation is so displeasing to you, and can by no means be approved by you?"

…

They have drunk no wine to this day -- and why? because they obeyed; that is, there was no scruple of conscience to prevent them, but the authority of a man who was dead so far prevailed witIt them, 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 the Rechabites, how is it that I am not heard? for I have spoken," he says, "so that the sin of the people is not excusable on the ground of ignorance."

…

The Prophet says nothing new here, but confirms what has been said before; and this he did, that the indignity of the people's conduct might more fully appear, inasmuch as, on one hand, a mortal man, and he now dead, retained authority over his posterity, having once laid on them a restraint in a matter hard and difficult;… Here the Prophet, that he might affect the Jews more deeply, promises a

 reward to the sons of Jonadab, because they obeyed their father; and he promises them a blessing from God. Nor is it to be wondered at, for this commandment, as Paul says, is the first to which a promise is annexed. (Ephesians 6:2) God promises generally a reward to all who keep the Law, for every command has in general connected with it the hope 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 God promised a reward to the Rechabites, because they followed the command of their father, for he had promised that in the Law.

…

And thus this truth may stand, that the obedience of the Rechabites pleased God, because nature itself requires that children should obey their parents; and we also know that God often rewards the shadows of virtues in order to shew that virtues themselves are pleasing to him. [100] But there is no doubt but that this promise, as I have before said, was designedly given, in order to stimulate the Jews, according to what is said in the Song of Moses,

 "I will provoke them by a foolish nation, because they have provoked me by those who are no gods; and I will take vengeance on them, for I will bring forth nations which were not before." (Deuteronomy 32:21)

 So then God now, in order to excite and rouse the Jews, promises to bless the Rechabites, because they had been obedient to their father, There shall not be cut off a man from Jonadab, that is, from the offspring of Jonadab, standing (literally) before my face;

Eph 6:1

1. Children, obey. Why does the apostle use the word obey instead of honor, ¹⁶⁷¹⁶⁷  “Τιμᾷν properly signifies, ‘to perform one’s duty to any one;’ and here reverence must comprehend the cognate offices of affection, care, and support. The same complexity of sense is observable in the classical phrase τιμᾷν τὸν ἰατρόν[to reverence the physician.] — Bloomfield. which has a greater extent of meaning? It is because Obedience is the evidence of that honor which children owe to their parents, and is therefore more earnestly enforced. It is likewise more difficult; for the human mind recoils from the idea of subjection, and with difficulty allows itself to be placed under the control of another. Experience shews how rare this virtue is; for do we find one among a thousand that is obedient to his parents? By a figure of speech, a part is here put for the whole, but it is the most important part, and is necessarily accompanied by all the others.

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

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

Barnes

… it is important, because the family government is designed to be an imitation of the government of God. The government of God is what a perfect family government would be; and to accustom a child to be obedient to a parent, is designed to be one method of leading him to be obedient to God. No child that is disobedient to a parent will be obedient to God; and that child that is most obedient to a father and mother will be most likely to become a Christian, and an heir of heaven. And it may be observed, in general, that no disobedient child is virtuous, prosperous, or happy. Everyone foresees the ruin of such a child; and most of the cases of crime that lead to the penitentiary, or the gallows, commence by disobedience to parents.

Clarke

Eph 6:1 

Children, obey your parents - This is a duty with which God will never dispense; he commands it, and one might think that gratitude, from a sense of the highest obligations, would most strongly enforce the command.

Geneva

Eph 6:1  Children, ⁽¹⁾ obey your parents ⁽²⁾ in the ^(a) Lord: ⁽³⁾ for this is right.

⁽¹⁾ He comes to another part of a family, and shows that the duty 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 also that children are obligated to obey their parents, that they may not swerve from the true worship of God.

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

From a Jewish commentator on Jewish law:

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=sam_blaustein

It is ultimately concluded that while many similarities are present [between American and Jewish law], Jewish law provides a higher threshold for satisfying the requirement in that while the duty to obey is present throughout one’s life, the formal duty to support becomes effective upon the age of majority and devotion lasts forever.

A distinction can be drawn between placing an affirmative command to support one’s parent and a prohibition against disobeying, and therefore dishonoring the parent.