By Shane Kastler
In the book of Ephesians, the Apostle Paul commands children to obey their parents; and in so doing he cites the fifth commandment from the Decalogue. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), that it may go well with you and that you may live long on the earth.” (Eph. 6:1-3 NASB) One might wonder why he would cite something from the Law when in other places he goes to great pains to say that Christians are not under the Law. Why would Paul cite a “law” that in other places he declares himself “free” from? Is he suffering from theological amnesia? Or is Paul here being used by God in his role of New Testament Apostle to pen the New Testament scriptures in a distinctly New Covenant way? This is exactly what I believe is going on; not only in Paul's use of the Decalogue; but also in his altering of it. Perhaps you didn't realize that he altered it, but he did. Let me explain how and why he did; and furthermore why it is completely legitimate and right for him to do so.
There are three major interpretations for why Paul would cite the Decalogue in this passage. I believe two of these interpretations to be incorrect; and only one to be hermeneutically and exegetically justifiable. The first view is that Christians are still to adhere to the full Law of Moses, so Paul's use of it is completely normal. This view would be so patently unbiblical that it's hardly worth the time to refute. In addition to Jesus' declaration that he had come to “fulfill the Law” (Matt. 5:17) Paul is overwhelmingly adamant that Christians are not under the Law. For example, to the Corinthians Paul wrote, “To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law.” (1 Cor. 9:20-21 NASB) To the Romans Paul wrote, “You are not under law, but under grace.” (Rom. 6:14) And to the Galatians, Paul rebukes them regarding circumcision by telling them, “Every man who receives circumcision, is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” (Gal. 5:3) Here, not only does Paul refute any idea of the Christian being “under the Law” but he also refutes the idea of dividing the Law into various portions. Paul is adamant that the Law must be accepted as a unit and that if you require “circumcision” then you must also require every other aspect of the Law as well. Which brings me to the second interpretation.
Probably the most common interpretation for Paul's use of the Decalogue (at least in Reformed circles) is that Christians are not under the civil and ceremonial Law; but are still under the so called “moral” Law. The thinking here is that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial aspects of the Law (dietary restrictions for example) and the civil aspects of it (stoning adulterers for example) but that the “moral” aspects of the Law remain intact and binding. This line of reasoning goes on to declare the Ten Commandments to be the apex of God's moral law and thus the greatest code of conduct under which a believer could live. And so, according to this view, it is quite natural for Paul to quote the Decalogue, since Christians are still “under” it.
There are several problems with this view. To begin with, Paul goes to great pains to NOT separate the Law into sections. The verse cited above from Galatians regarding circumcision is an unmistakable example of Paul's view of the Law as a coherent unit. The same could be said for Jesus, who declared, “I did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17) In other places I have attempted to explain Jesus' meaning of “abolish”; but suffice it to say here, he unmistakably declares that he came to “fulfill” the Law. If Jesus had said “I did not come to abolish but to fulfill the CIVIL Law....and also the CEREMONIAL aspects......but not the MORAL, so you should still adhere to the Ten Commandments as your highest ethical standard.” Then this interpretation would hold water. But Jesus didn't say that; so it doesn't. Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law and he offers no divisions of it. And so, neither should we.
Of course the idea of a “moral” law found in the Decalogue falls apart with a New Testament examination of the Sabbath (the fourth commandment). While some might hold to a Saturday sabbath and others to a Sunday “Christianized” sabbath; the New Testament is clear that the Sabbath has gone away, having been fulfilled in Christ. With that truth declared, the New Testament goes on to instruct us to “Let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17 NASB) This would be an extraordinarily odd thing for Paul to write to the Colossians if Christians were still under the Ten Commandments in general, and Sabbath law in particular. Furthermore, it would be an extraordinarily odd thing to say if we are to view the Ten Commandments as “moral law” distinct from the rest of the Law. This type of exegetical extraction is simply unwarranted. Which leads me to the third interpretation.
Paul's citing of the Decalogue in Ephesians 6 is very much in keeping with the New Covenant idea of Christ and His inspired apostles taking passages from the Old Testament and presenting them to New Covenant believers, through a distinctly New Covenant lens. To say it another way, we don't look to Moses as our Lawgiver, but rather we look to Christ. As the Father commanded the disciples when they sought to elevate Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased, listen to Him!”(Matthew 17:5)
Paul's point then, in Ephesians 6 is that “honoring father and mother” was “right” in the past, present, and future. It was “right” under the Law of Moses. It was “right” in the New Testament. And it is “right” today and will always be “right” in this temporal world where we live. In fact, it was even “right” prior to the giving of the Law to Moses. An example of this can be seen in how Noah's sons treated him in that unfortunate scene of Genesis 9 where Noah becomes drunk and appears to pass out naked in his tent. One of his sons, it seems, made fun of him by bringing Noah's condition to the attention of his two brothers. But the other two brothers treated their father with “honor” by walking backward and covering him with a sheet. Ham, the dishonorable son, is cursed for his behavior, while Shem and Japheth are blessed. (Gen. 9:25-27) Thus showing us the command to “honor father and mother” existed prior to Sinai.
It would seem to be a massive over reaction to claim that Paul's citing of one commandment in Ephesians 6 is a declaration that all of the Ten Commandments; or so called “moral law” is thus binding on the believer. While there is no question that in terms of content, we see overlap between Old and New Covenant commandments; Paul does something very subtle here that might be missed by the casual observer. He tweaks the commandment from the Decalogue by slightly altering the “promise” that goes along with it. In it's original context of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, the commandment offers the promise of “your days being prolonged in the land that the Lord your God shall give you” (Exo. 20:12) and that “it may go well with you in the land.” (Deut. 5:16) The promise here is clearly given to the children of Israel under the Old Covenant regarding the “promised land.” So, in Ephesians 6, we might ask why would an Ephesian Christian of gentile lineage care about a Hebrew land promise? Answer: they wouldn't. And Paul doesn't make one.
Paul's intent here is clearly “New Covenant” in scope. As he has already gone to significant pains to point out the old distinctions of “Jew” and “Gentile” are gone away with and we are all “one body” in Christ. (Eph. 2:16) That the dividing wall between “Jew” and “Gentile” has been destroyed by the work of Christ. (Eph. 2:14) And that Gentiles who were once far off have been “brought near by the blood of Christ.” (Eph. 2:13) Paul would not simply do an about-face and lurch back into the Old Covenant Hebrew land promises. Instead he brings that promise into the New Covenant in a distinctly New Covenant kind of way by promising not “long life in the land that the Lord your God shall give you” but by promising simply “long life on the earth.” New Testament scholar Peter O'Brien points out that “For the Christian son or daughter the promise attached to this commandment, which is transformed as it is taken up into 'the Law of Christ', is no longer limited geographically. 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.” (The Pillar New Testament Commentary: Ephesians, pg. 444)
Another possible interpretation is that Paul's reference to the “earth” (which can also be translated “land”); is a reference to the “new Heavens and the new Earth.” (2 Pet. 3:13) Or to the “heavenly Jerusalem” (Rev. 21:2) which is far and away superior to the earthly one. Regardless of which view one takes of “earth” it's clear that Paul is talking about more than simply the physical land of promise; and it's clear that he is referring to someone other than ethnic Jews. He is speaking of a much greater promise and he is speaking to an expanded group of people (both Jew and Gentile); who are members of a much “better covenant” which is enacted upon much “better promises.” (Hebrews 8:6) Indeed he is speaking of a covenant that will ultimately include representatives from “every tongue, tribe, people, and nation.” (Revelation 5:9)
In conclusion, what we see Paul doing with the Decalogue in Ephesians 6 is very much in line with what we see Jesus and the Apostles doing with other Old Testament passages. Both those regarding the Law and those that do not. Of course this is entirely acceptable, given that Jesus is Lord and that the New Testament scriptures have primacy over the Old; and as New Covenant believers we are to interpret the Old in light of the New.
Jesus also quotes the Decalogue, word for word, in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5). And then He alters it with his well known "But I say unto you..." passages. The injunction against murder becomes one against hatred. The injunction against adultery becomes one against lust. And with Paul, the injunction to “honor father and mother” that it may go well with you in the land; becomes a promise that expands well beyond physical Palestine. Just as when Peter writes of a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession” (all phrases describing Israel in the Old Covenant); he applies them to the church, made up of both Jew and Gentile, which is the "true" Israel.
Paul doesn't return to the Law as his primary ethical standard in Ephesians 6. He cites it; and he tweaks it, as it applies for a New Covenant believer. So we rejoice in all that Christ has “fulfilled” on our behalf; and we look to He and His apostles to instruct us in true godliness; not according “to the letter, but of the Spirit.” (2 Cor. 3:6)
Comments