.
Subsection
5th Commandment
Fathers’ Authority in Giving Daughters Away in Marriage
Rechabites bound by Forefather?
.
.
Order of Contents
Article 1
Luther on Fatherhood 1
Nature & Extent of Authority 3
Fathers are not Kings 1
How far Children are to Obey their Parents 6
Latin 1
.
Article
John Witherspoon’s 10 Pieces of Advice on Raising Children
.
Martin Luther on Fatherhood
The Estate of Marriage (1522) HT: Andrew Myers
“Now observe that when that clever harlot, our natural reason (which the pagans followed in trying to be most clever), takes a look at married life, she turns up her nose and says, “Alas, must I rock the baby, wash its diapers, make its bed, smell its stench, stay up nights with it, take care of it when it cries, heal its rashes and sores, and on top of that care for my wife, provide for her, labor at my trade, take care of this and take care of that, do this and do that, endure this and endure that, and whatever else of bitterness and drudgery married life involves? What, should I make such a prisoner of myself? O you poor, wretched fellow, have you taken a wife? Fie, fie upon such wretchedness and bitterness! It is better to remain free and lead a peaceful. carefree life; I will become a priest or a nun and compel my children to do likewise.”
What then does Christian faith say to this? It opens its eyes, looks upon all these insignificant, distasteful, and despised duties in the Spirit, and is aware that they are all adorned with divine approval as with the costliest gold and jewels. It says, “O God, because I am certain that thou hast created me as a man and hast from my body begotten this child, I also know for a certainty that it meets with thy perfect pleasure. I confess to thee that I am not worthy to rock the little babe or wash its diapers. or to be entrusted with the care of the child and its mother. How is it that I, without any merit, have come to this distinction of being certain that I am serving thy creature and thy most precious will? O how gladly will I do so, though the duties should be even more insignificant and despised. Neither frost nor heat, neither drudgery nor labour, will distress or dissuade me, for I am certain that it is thus pleasing in thy sight.”
A wife too should regard her duties in the same light, as she suckles the child, rocks and bathes it, and cares for it in other ways; and as she busies herself with other duties and renders help and obedience to her husband. These are truly golden and noble works. . . .
Now you tell me, when a father goes ahead and washes diapers or performs some other mean task for his child, and someone ridicules him as an effeminate fool, though that father is acting in the spirit just described and in Christian faith, my dear fellow you tell me, which of the two is most keenly ridiculing the other? God, with all his angels and creatures, is smiling, not because that father is washing diapers, but because he is doing so in Christian faith. Those who sneer at him and see only the task but not the faith are ridiculing God with all his creatures, as the biggest fool on earth. Indeed, they are only ridiculing themselves; with all their cleverness they are nothing but devil’s fools.”
.
On the Nature & Extent of a Father’s Authority
Article
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel – Assertion 1, point 1, p. 69 lt col mid in Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), question 17
.
Quotes
Order of
Rutherford
Baxter
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843)
Question 13, p. 50 rt col
“I conceive that there be diverse subjections to these [persons] that are above us some way natural, and therefore I rank them in order, thus:
1. There is a subjection in respect of natural being, as the effect to the cause; so, though Adam had never sinned, this morality of the Fifth Command should have stood in vigor, that the son by nature, without any positive law, should have been subject to the father, because from him he has his being, as from a second cause. But I doubt if the relation of a father, as a father, does necessarily infer a royal or kingly authority of the father over the son; or by nature’s law, that the father has a power of life and death over, or above, his children, and the reasons I give are:
(1) Because power of life and death is by a positive law, presupposing sin and the fall of man [Gen. 9:5-6]; and if Adam, standing in innocency, could lawfully kill his son, though the son should be a malefactor, without any positive law of God, I much doubt [Gen. 4:14-15].
(2) I judge that the power royal, and the fatherly power of a father over his children, shall be found to be different; and the one is founded on the law of nature, the other, to wit, royal power, on a mere positive law.
2. The degree or order of subjection natural is a subjection in respect of gifts or age. So Aristotle (1 polit., chp. 3) says, “that some are by nature servants.” His meaning is good — that some gifts of nature, as wisdom natural, or aptitude to govern, has made some men of gold, fitter to command, and some of iron and clay, fitter to be servants and slaves…
It is possible Plato had a good meaning (Dialogue 3, Of Laws) who made six orders here. “1. That fathers command their sons; 2. The noble the ignoble; 3. The elder the younger; 4. The masters the servants; 5. The stronger the weaker; 6. The wise the ignorant.” Aquinas (22, q. 57, article 3), Driedo (de libert. Christ, bk. 1, p. 8), following Aristotle (polit. bk. 7, ch. 14) hold, though man had never sinned there should have been a sort of dominion of the more gifted and wiser above the less wise and weaker; not antecedent from nature properly, but consequent, for the utility and good of the weaker, in so far as it is good for the weaker to be guided by the stronger, which cannot be denied to have some ground in nature.”
.
Question 16, pp. 65-66 While Rutherford here summarizes the objection of an opponent, Rutherford does not object to the principles put forth.
“The Prelate [John Maxwell] objects out of Spalato, Arnisaeus and Hugo Grotius… All government and superiority in rulers is not primely and only for the subjects’ good; for some are by God and nature appointed for the mutual and inseparable good of the superior and inferior, as in the government of husband and wife, or father and son; and in herili dominio, in the government of a lord and his servant, the good and benefit of the servant is but secondary and consecutively intended, it is not the principal end, but the external and adventitious [end], as the gain that comes to a physician is not the proper and internal end of his art, but follows only from his practice of medicine.”
.
Richard Baxter
Christian Directory (London, 1673), pt. 4, ch. 19, title 2, pp. 114-15
Ҥ2. Question 2. Is a son bound by the contract which his parents or guardians made for him in his infancy? Answer:
To some things he is bound and to some things not. The infant is capable of being obliged by another upon four accounts:
1. As he is the parent’s own (or a master’s to whom he is in absolute servitude);
2. As he is to be ruled by the parents;
3. As he is a debtor to his parents for benefits received;
4. As he is an expectant or capable of future benefits to be enjoyed upon conditions to be performed by him.
1. No parents or lord have an absolute propriety in any rational creature; but they have a propriety secundum quid [according to which] and ad hoc [to this]: And a parent’s propriety does in part expire or abate as the son grows up to the full use of reason and so has a greater propriety in himself.
Therefore he may oblige his son only (on this account) so far as his propriety extends, and to such acts; and to no other: For in those his will is reputatively his son’s will. As if a parent sell his son to servitude, he is bound to such service as beseems one man to put another to.
2. As he is rector to his child, he may by contract with a third person promise that his child shall do such acts, as he has power to command and cause him to do: As to read, to hear God’s Word, to labor as he is able: But this no longer than while he is under his parent’s government: And so long obedience requires him to perform their contracts, in performing their commands.
3. The child having received his being and maintenance from his parents, remains obliged to them as his benefactors in the debt of gratitude as long as he lives: And that so deeply that some have questioned whether ever he can requite them (which quoad valorem beneficii [unto the valor of the benefit] he can do only by furthering their salvation; as many a child has been the cause of the parent’s conversion).
And so far as the son is thus a debtor to the parents, he is obliged to do that which the parents by contract with a third person shall impose upon him. As if the parents could not be delivered out of captivity, but by obliging the son to pay a great sum of money, or to live in servitude for their release: Though they never gave him any money, yet he is bound to pay the sum, if he can get it, or to perform the servitude: Because he has received more from them, even his being.
4. As the parents are both owners (secundum quid [according to which]) and rulers and benefactors to their child, in all three respects conjunct, they may oblige him to a third person who is willing to be his benefactor, by a conditional obligation to perform such conditions that he may possess such or such benefits: And thus a guardian or any friend who is fit to interpose for him may oblige him. As to take a lease in his name, in which he shall be bound to pay such a rent, or do such a service, that he may receive such a commodity which is greater.
Thus parents oblige their children under civil governments to the laws of the society or kingdom, that they may have the protection and benefits of subjects. In these cases the child can complain of no injury, for it is for his benefit that he is obliged: And the parent (in this respect) cannot oblige him to his hurt: For if he will quit the benefit, he may be freed when he will from his obligation, and may refuse to stand to the covenant if he dislike it. If he will give up his lease, he may be disobliged from the rent and service.
§. 3. In all this you may perceive that no man can oblige another against God or his salvation: And therefore a parent cannot oblige a child to sin, nor to forbear hearing or reading the Word of God, or praying or any thing necessary to his salvation: Nor can he oblige him to hear a heretical pastor, nor to marry an infidel or wicked wife, etc.
§. 4. And here also you may perceive on what grounds it is that God has appointed parents to oblige their children in the Covenant of baptism, to be the servants of God and to live in holiness all their days.
§. 5. And hence it is apparent that no parents can oblige their children to be miserable, or to any such condition which is worse than to have no being.
§. 6. Also that when parents do (as commonly they do) profess to oblige their children as benefactors for their good, the obligation is then to be interpreted accordingly: And the child is then obliged to nothing which is really his hurt.
Yea, all the propriety and government of parents cannot authorize them to oblige the child to his hurt, but in order to some greater good, either to the parents themselves, or to the commonwealth, or others: At least that which the parents apprehend to be a greater good: But if they err through ignorance or partiality, and bind the child to a greater hurt for their lesser good (as to pay 200 l. to save them from paying 100 l.) whether their injury and sin do excuse the child from being obliged to any more than the proportion of the benefit required, I leave undetermined.”
.
Fathers are Not Kings
Quote
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), p. 62 lt col mid
“But I do not believe that, as royalists say, the kingly power is essentially and univocally that same with a paternal or fatherly power; or that Adam, as a father, was as a father and king; and that suppose Adam should live in Noah’s days, that by divine institution and without consent of the kingdoms and communities on earth, Adam hoc ipso [by this itself], and for no other reason but because he was a father, should also be the universal king, and monarch of the whole world;
or suppose Adam was living to this day, that all kings that has been since, and now are, held their crowns of him, and had no more kingly power than inferior judges in Scotland have, under our sovereign king Charles, for so all that has been, and now are, lawful kings, should be unjust usurpers; for if fatherly power be the first and native power of commanding, it is against nature that a monarch who is not my father by generation, should take that power from me, and be a king over me and my children.”
.
How Far Sons & Daughters are to Obey Their Parents
See also, ‘How Far Commands of Authorities Bind the Conscience
Rechabites bound by their Forefather?’.
.
Order of Contents
Westminster
Quotes
.
Westminster Larger Catechism
“Q. 127. What is the honour that inferiors owe to their superiors?
A. The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart,[l] word,[m] and behaviour;[n] prayer and thanksgiving for them;[o] imitation of their virtues and graces;[p] willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels;[q] due submission to their corrections;[r] fidelity to,[s] defence,[t] and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places;[v] bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love,[w] that so they may be an honour to them and to their government.[x]
[l] Mal. 1:6. Lev. 19:3
[m] Prov. 31:28. 1 Pet. 3:6
[n] Lev. 19:32. 1 Kings 2:19
[o] 1 Tim. 2:1,2
[p] Heb. 13:7. Phil. 3:17
[q] Eph. 6:1,2,5-7. 1 Pet. 2:13,14. Rom. 13:1-5. Heb. 13:17. Prov. 4:3,4. Prov. 23:22. Exod. 18:19,24
[r] Heb. 12:9. 1 Pet. 2:18-20
[s] Tit. 2:9,10
[t] 1 Sam. 26:15,16. 2 Sam. 18:3. Esth. 6:2
[v] Matt. 22:21. Rom. 13:6,7. 1 Tim. 5:17,18. Gal. 6:6. Gen. 45:11. Gen. 47:12
[w] 1 Pet. 2:18. Prov. 23:22. Gen. 9:23
[x] Ps. 127:3-5. Prov. 31:23“
.
Q. 128. What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
A. The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them;[y] envying at,[z] contempt of,[a] and rebellion[b] against, their persons[c] and places,[d] in their lawful counsels,[e] commands, and corrections;[f] cursing, mocking,[g] and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonour to them and their government.[h]
[y] Matt. 15:4-6
[z] Num. 11:28,29
[a] 1 Sam. 8:7. Isa. 3:5
[b] 2 Sam. 15:1-12
[c] Exod. 21:15
[d] 1 Sam. 10:27
[e] 1 Sam. 2:25
[f] Deut. 21:18-21
[g] Prov. 30:11,17
[h] Prov. 19:26“
.
Quotes
Order of
Luther
Calvin
Gillespie
Poole
Durham
.
1500’s
Martin Luther
That Parents Should Neither Compel Nor Hinder the Marriage of Their Children, And That Children Should Not Become Engaged Without Their Parents’ Consent (1524) in Luther’s Works (Fortress Press, 1962), vol. 45, Christian in Society II
“It is quite certain therefore that parental authority is strictly limited; it does not extend to the point where [it may] wreak damage and destruction to the child, especially to its soul. If then a father forces his child into a marriage without love, he oversteps and exceeds his authority. He ceases to be a father and becomes a tyrant who uses his authority not for building up — which is why God gave it to him — but for destroying.
He is taking authority into his own hands without God, indeed, against God. The same principle holds good when a father hinders his child’s marriage, or lets the child go ahead on his own, without any intention of helping him in the matter (as so often happens in the case of step-parents and their children, or orphans and their guardians, where covetousness has its eye more on what the child has than on what the child needs).”
.
John Calvin
Commentary on Eph. 6:1-2, “Children obey your parents in the Lord”
“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.”
.
Commentary on Matt 8:21
“21. Lord, permit me to go first and bury my father. …He was prevented from immediately obeying the call of Christ by the weakness of thinking it a hardship to leave his father. It is probable that his father was in extreme old age: for the mode of expression, Permit me to bury, implies that he had but a short time to live. Luke says that Christ ordered him to follow, while Matthew says that he was one of his disciples. But he does not refuse the calling: he only asks leave for a time to discharge a duty which he owes to his father. The excuse bears that he looked upon himself as at liberty till his father’s death.
From Christ’s reply we learn, that children should discharge their duty to their parents in such a manner that, whenever God calls them to another employment, they should lay this aside, and assign the first place to the command of God. Whatever duties we owe to men must give way, when God enjoins upon us what is immediately due to Himself. All ought to consider what God requires from them as individuals, and what is demanded by their particular calling, that earthly parents may not prevent the claims of the highest and only Father of all from remaining entire.”
.
1600’s
George Gillespie
English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 3, ch. 4, p. 49
“I have also proven before that human laws do not bind to obedience but only in this case, when the things which they prescribe do agree and serve to those things which God’s Law prescribes: so that as human laws they bind not, neither have they any force to bind, but only by participation with God’s Law.”
.
Matthew Poole
Commentary on Jer. 35, v. 19
“But it is a question of more moment: How God promises a reward to these sons of Jonadab [who are Rechabites] for obeying the command of their [fore-]father [to dwell in tents and not drink wine], and whether they had sinned if they had not obeyed this command of Jonadab; which brings in another question:
Whether parents have a power to oblige their children in matters which God has left at liberty? To which I answer:
1. God might reward these Rechabites for their reverence and obedience to Jonadab their father, though these were not strictly, by the Divine law, obliged thus far to have obeyed him; as He rewarded David for his thoughts in his heart to build him a house, though it was not God’s will that He should do it; so as God’s promise of the reward does not prove their obedience in this particular to have been their duty. Admit that it remained still a matter of liberty, yet the general honour and reverence they testified might be rewarded by God.
2. Unquestionably parents have not a power to determine children in all things as to which God has left them a liberty, for then they have a power to make their children slaves, and to take away all their natural liberty. To marry or not, and to this or that person, is [a] matter of liberty. Parents cannot in this case determine their children; Bethuel, Gen. 24:58, asks Rebekah if she would go with Abraham’s servant before he would send her.
3. In matters of civil concernment they have a far greater power than in matters of religion. All souls are God’s, and conscience can be under no other dominion than that of God.
4. In civil things parents have a great power, during the nonage of children, and after also in matters which concern their parents’ good, as to command them to assist them, to help to supply their necessities, etc.
5. Parents being set over children, and instead of God to them, as it is their duty to advise their children to the best of their ability for their good; so it is the duty of children to receive their advice, and not to depart from it, unless they see circumstances so mistaken by parents, or so altered by the providence of God, as they may reasonably judge their parents, had these known or foreseen it, would not have so advised. But that parents have an absolute power to determine children in all things as to which God has not forbidden them, and that children by the law of God are obliged to an obedience to all such commands, however they may see their parents mistaken, or God by his providence may have altered circumstances, I see no reason to conclude. Jonadab had prudently advised his sons as before mentioned; they were things they might do, and which by experience they found not hurtful to them, but of great profit and advantage, and that with reference to all the ends of man’s life: herein they yield obedience, and pay a reverence to their parent; this pleases God, He promises to reward them with the continuance of their family, according to what He had said, Ex. 20:12, in the Fifth Commandment, which the apostle calls the first commandment with promise.”
.
Commentary on Eph. 6:1-2, “Children obey your parents in the Lord”
“Either because the Lord commands it,or in all things agreeable to his will.”
.
James Durham
The Law Unsealed, or a Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments… 7th ed. (Glasgow: 1777), On the 5th Commandment, p. 302 (mid)
“…so this rule is always to be carried along in practice, and this honor and obedience must be still ‘in the Lord’; that is, there must be a reserving to the Lord his due. For God is the supreme Father, and all our respect to under-fathers of the flesh is to be subordinate to the Father of spirits (Heb. 12:9), so as He may have the first place for whose cause we give reverence to them; and so that word is still true (Acts 4:19), ‘It is better to obey God than man.’ Man is only to be obeyed in the Lord (Eph. 6:1). And thus refusing to comply with unjust commands, is not disobedience to parents, but high obedience to God, the refusal being conveyed respectfully and after the due manner.”
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations, vol. 4 (Utrecht, 1667), 50. ‘A Syllabus of Questions on the Decalogue’, ‘On the 5th Commandment’,
‘Of the order & duties of parents & children’ 794
‘Of stepfathers, stepmothers, stepchildren, fathers-in-law, a mother-in-law, son-in-laws, etc.’ 795
‘On adoption & the adopted’ 795
‘On legal tutors, guardians and writers of testaments’ 795
.
.
.
Related Pages