Eph 6:1–4 — Will Obedient Children Live Long in the Land? Yes!
Why does Paul quote the fifth commandment along with its theocratic promise of long life in the land to motivate Christian children to obey their parents? Verse 3 seems to clash with verse 1. Verse 1 is an evangelical imperative calling for obedience grounded in the indicative of union with Christ (“obey your parents in the Lord”). Verse 3 seems to be an odd reversion to the works-principle of the old covenant, which threatened disobedient Israelite children with death and offered obedient children long life in the land.
Critical scholars appeal to this as evidence that the author of Ephesians was a second generation Paulinist who had not fully mastered Paul’s radically Christocentric ethical thought. Andrew Lincoln, who rejects Pauline authorship for Ephesians, argues that these words could only have been written by a Jewish disciple of Paul at a time when the imminent expectation of the return of Christ had begun to wane.1. This is one way around the problem, but in effect we are asked to remove Eph. 6:3 from our Bibles as a sub-Christian ethic inconsistent with truly Pauline theology. This approach is not open to those who are committed to the orthodox doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Scripture.
Many Reformed and evangelical commentators therefore take Eph. 6:2-3 literally as a general promise that obedient children are hereby promised an extended and prosperous life. For example, Shorter Catechism # 66 interprets “the reason annexed to the fifth commandment” as “a promise of long life and prosperity (as far as it shall serve for God’s glory and their own good) to all such as keep this commandment” (cp. WLC # 133). Peter O’Brien (who is normally very insightful as a commentator on Paul) states that by removing the concluding clause of the fifth commandment (“that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you”), Paul “reapplies” and “universalizes” the promise to all obedient children. “Obedient sons and daughters are assured that it will go well with them and that they will enjoy long life on earth, wherever they may live.” There are exceptions, of course, but this does not overthrow the general principle.2
Charles Hodge speaks of this promise as a statement of “the usual course” of divine providence:
The promise itself has a theocratical form in the Old Testament; that is, it has specific reference to prosperity and length of days in the land which God had given to his people as their inheritance. The apostle generalises it by leaving out the concluding words, and makes it a promise not confined to one land or people, but to obedient children everywhere. If it be asked whether obedient children are in fact thus distinguished by long life and prosperity? the answer is, that this, like all other such promises, is a revelation of a general purpose of God, and makes known what will be the usual course of his providence. That some obedient children are unfortunate and short-lived is no more inconsistent with this promise, than that some diligent men are poor is inconsistent with the declaration, “The hand of the diligent maketh rich.” Diligence, as a general rule, does secure riches; and obedient children, as a general rule, are prosperous and happy. The general promise is fulfilled to individuals, just so far “as it shall serve for God’s glory and their own good.”3
Whatever truth there may be in the observation that as a general rule obedient children live happier and more fulfilled lives, it is extremely unlikely that this is what Paul has in mind. The “as a general rule” interpretation does not do justice to the context of Ephesians as a whole, in which Paul consistently interprets the old covenant promise pertaining to the land as a type of the eternal, eschatological inheritance of the saints in the age to come:
Ephesians 1:3 - Paul’s doxology of praise for “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” echoes the language of Gen. 12:1-3 where God first reveals the land-promise to Abraham (the verb euvloge,w in the LXX seems to be echoed by Paul in his use of the noun euvlogi,a). Paul interprets the Abrahamic blessing in terms of its antitypical reality by adding the modifying terms “spiritual” and “in the heavenly places.” Eph. 1:4-5 - Our eternal predestination in Christ before the foundation of the world “unto the adoption as sons” is an allusion to Israel’s identification as God’s firstborn son (Exod. 4:22-23; 13:1, 11-16; Hosea 11:1). Paul appears to be conflating the Hebraic law that the firstborn has the legal right to the father’s inheritance with the Roman law concerning adoption as a testamentary procedure for bequeathing the father’s patrimony to a non-biological heir. Eph. 1:7 - As Paul continues the motif of the elect as the heirs of God, he speaks of the work of Christ as the means by which we are heirs. In Christ we have “redemption through his blood.” This is an allusion to the exodus (redemption) and to the Passover (blood) as the moment when Israel was “adopted” and given the right to inherit. Eph. 1:11, 14, 18 - The inheritance theme is now made explicit. In Christ we have “obtained an inheritance.” Indeed, we are God’s inheritance (“His inheritance in the saints”), as was Israel (Psalm 33:12). Eph. 2:1-7 - Paul now translates the same ideas into prophetic idiom. He describes our redemption in terms taken from Ezekiel’s vision of the resurrection of the dry bones (Ezekiel 37). When we were dead in sin, slain by the Law and exiled from the inheritance, God made us alive by raising us up together with Christ, thus restoring us to the land. Eph. 2:10 - Just as Ezekiel’s vision of the resurrection of the dry bones is an allusion to the creation of man from the dust of the ground by means of the inbreathing of the divine Spirit (Gen. 2:7), so Paul’s depiction of our co-resurrection with Christ is also spoken of as a new creation. “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works.” Eph. 2:19-22 - Paul continues the Ezekiel motifs. Just as Ezekiel moves from the re-creation of an eschatological Israel to the building of an eschatological temple (Ezekiel 40-48), so Paul rounds out this chapter by identifying the church, founded on Jesus Christ, as God’s spiritual temple. Eph. 2:12, 19; 3:6 - Most Gentile God-fearers in the old covenant were “strangers and aliens,” dwellers in the land, but non-inheritors. Now in Christ, we are “fellow heirs” of the promise in Christ. Eph. 3:18 - Paul’s prayer that we might know “the breadth and length and height and depth” of Christ’s love echoes (even as it expands upon) the command to Abraham to “walk about the land through its length and breadth” (Gen. 13:17). Eph. 4:30 - We have been “sealed with the Spirit for the day of redemption.” Note the allusion to the Glory-cloud that was Israel’s downpayment during the wilderness wandering of the inheritance to be given them in the time of Joshua. Eph. 5:5 - Another explicit reference to the inheritance, identified in this case with having a share in “the kingdom of Christ and God.”
It is difficult to believe that the same apostle who has consistently interpreted the land spiritually in terms of the believer’s inheritance in Christ throughout Ephesians 1-5, would suddenly revert to a non-eschatological common-grace meaning in Eph. 6:3. That Paul has not “nodded off” momentarily is demonstrated by his terse parenthetical remark, “which is the first commandment with the promise.” In his epistles Paul consistently uses the word “promise” (evpaggeli,a) to refer to the blessings held forth in the guaranteed Abrahamic promise of the eternal inheritance in Christ, the Seed to come (Rom. 4:13ff; Gal. 3:16ff; Eph. 1:13; 2:12; 3:6). Thus, we must conclude that Paul is really speaking of the antitypical blessings guaranteed to the heirs of the new covenant using old covenant language. The promise to obedient children is eternal life in the heavenly inheritance - makrocro,nioj evpi. th/j gh/j in typological idiom.
A further weakness of the Westminster/O’Brien/Hodge interpretation is that it undercuts the specifically Christological orientation of the exhortation to Christian children (“children, obey your parents in the Lord”). If the promise is a generic Proverbs-type statement that obedient children tend to live longer and happier lives, then it holds for non-Christian children too in accordance with common grace. But this would then contradict Paul’s “in the Lord” qualification in verse 1. It would also contradict the surrounding paranetic context, which is limited to those who are in Christ. In the preceding context Paul addresses husbands and wives, not in general terms applicable to all marriages contracted according to the provisions of common grace, but in covenantally specific terms, grounding the principles that govern Christian marriage in the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the church (5:22-33). In the subsequent context Paul likewise speaks to Christian slaves and Christian masters, exhorting them to their respective duties in Christ (6:5-9). Thus, it would be utterly inappropriate to find Paul suddenly reverting to a common grace ethic in his discussion of the parent-child relationship. Indeed, Paul makes it very clear that he is not departing from his consistent new covenant ethic, since each of the three relationships is marked by language that establishes the duties contemplated on the ground of union with Christ. In each case, the subordinate party is called to submit as to the Lord: “wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (5:22); “children, obey your parents in the Lord” (6:1); “slaves, be obedient to your masters … as to Christ … as slaves of Christ … as to the Lord” (6:5-7).
In view of these weighty contextual considerations - Paul’s thorough-going typological/eschatological interpretation of the land-promise, and his consistently Christ-centered paranesis - we are forced to consider a radically different interpretation of Eph. 6:1-3. Based on what we have seen so far, Paul is affirming rather plainly that obedient children will be given “long life” in the eternal inheritance in Christ. This may seem to be what Paul is “plainly” saying, but it immediately raises an urgent question: doesn’t this contradict Paul’s own teaching that salvation is not by works but by grace (e.g., Eph. 2:1-10)? How can Paul tell Christian children that if they obey their parents they will go to heaven?
To answer these questions, consider the paranetic parallel in the immediate context to husbands and wives (Eph. 5:22-33). There seems to be an analogy between the husband’s love for his wife, by which he serves her and pursues her sanctification, and the father’s love for his children, by which his discipline becomes a means of grace resulting in their salvation. This is brought out by the parallel use of the verb evktre,fw (to nourish) in 6:4 and 5:29. Therefore, just as the wife is not only submitting to her husband “in everything,” but is submitting (ideally) to his Christ-like love and nourishment resulting in her progressive sanctification, so also the child is not only obeying every command issued by his or her parents but is submitting to the parental nurture that leads to salvation.
It needs to be pointed out, however, that there is a unique aspect to children’s submission to parental authority. As long as they are minors under parental authority, obedience to parents is a means of grace by which faith in Christ is gradually and organically created and nourished. This is because parents represent the authority of Christ in their lives as training and preparation for adulthood when they no longer need to be “under guardians and managers” (Gal. 4:1-3). As they grow older, their faith will be more and more directed to Jesus Christ without the mediation of parental authority.
To a certain extent we can say the same thing about wives and slaves, for they are told to submit to husbands and masters “as to the Lord.” In other words, they are to view their husband or their master not as he is a mere human being who in himself would be unworthy of their submission, but as the Lord. They are to serve the Lord by means of submission to the man. This is an act of faith which demonstrates the reality of their submission to Christ. But there is an important difference. The submission of wives and slaves as an act of faith presupposes, but does not create, faith in Christ. The promise to wives and slaves is not, “If you obey you will inherit eternal life,” but, “Obedience to your earthly master is evidence of your faith in Christ and will therefore be rewarded as service to Christ himself” (cp. Col. 3:24).
Covenant children, by contrast, possess a more direct promise, on account of the God-ordained organic connection between faithful covenant nurture and the fulfillment of the covenant promises concerning the salvation of the Christian household (Matt. 19:13-15; Acts 2:39; 16:31; 1 Cor. 7:14; 2 Tim. 1:5; Heb. 11:9). Children who are still under the authority of their parents are promised the eternal inheritance itself (“long life in the land”), if they submit “in the Lord” to the gospel-suffused covenant nurture of their parents.
Ernest Best perceptively suggests that the genitive kuri,ou (“the discipline and instruction of the Lord”) ought not to be interpreted as an objective genitive, “the instruction about the Lord.” He thinks a subjective genitive is in view. “The Lord is seen as the ultimate instructor who works through the father … the father mediates the Lord’s instruction” (Best, Ephesians, ICC [T & T Clark, 1998], p. 569-70). Children who submit to parental instruction are saving their souls, for Christian parents mediate the discipline and instruction of Christ himself.
Thus, it is a true statement: keeping this commandment in Christ brings with it the ultimate eschatological and soteriological blessings of which long tenure in the land for obedient Israelite children was but a picture. This isn’t salvation by works but salvation by faith in the context of the covenant promise that God saves children by means of their obedient submission to the Christ-centered nurture and discipline of their parents.