John Calvin Commentary Exodus 20:12

"Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee." — Exodus 20:12 (ASV)

I am not ignorant that the Tables of the Law are usually divided in a different manner;¹ for those who make only one of the first two Commandments are finally obliged to mangle the last. Thus the prohibition of God to covet either our neighbor’s wife or his house is foolishly separated into two parts, whereas it is quite clear that only one thing is addressed, as we gather from Paul’s words, who quotes them as a single Commandment (Romans 7:7).

There is, however, no need of a lengthy discussion here, since the fact itself explains how one error has grown out of another. For when they had improperly hidden the Second Commandment under the First, and consequently did not find the right number, they were forced to divide into two parts what was one and indivisible.

A frivolous reason is assigned by Augustine why they comprised the First Table in three commandments, namely, that believers might learn to worship God in the Trinity, and thus adore one God in three persons. By carelessly trifling with such subtleties, they have exposed God’s law to the mockery of the ungodly.

Josephus² indeed rightly enumerates the Commandments themselves in their proper order, but improperly attributes five Commandments to each Table, as if God had regarded arithmetic rather than instructing His people separately in the duties of charity after He had laid down for them the rules of piety.

For up to this point, the rule of rightly serving God has been delivered, that is, the First Table embraces a summary of piety. Now the Law will begin to show how people ought to live with each other; otherwise, one Table would have been enough, nor would God have divided His Law without a purpose. But since piety³ and justice comprise the perfect rule for the direction of our lives, it was necessary to distinguish these two parts, so that the people might understand the object of the Law, of which we shall speak again later.

Honor your father. Although charity (as being the bond of perfectness,Colossians 3:14) contains the sum of the Second Table, still, mutual obligation does not prevent parents or others in authority from retaining their proper position.

Indeed, human society cannot be maintained in its integrity unless children modestly submit to their parents, and unless those who are set over others by God’s ordinance are reverently honored. But since the reverence which children pay to their parents is considered a type of piety, some have therefore foolishly placed this precept in the First Table.

Nor are they supported in this by Paul, though he does not enumerate this Commandment when he collects the sum of the Second Table (Romans 13:9). He does this intentionally, because he is there expressly teaching that obedience is to be paid to the authority of kings and magistrates. Christ, however, puts an end to the whole controversy when, among the precepts of the Second Table, He enumerates this: that children should honor their parents (Matthew 19:19).

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

It will now be well to ascertain the force of the word “honor,” not as to its grammatical meaning (for כבד, cabad, is simply to pay due honor to God and to men who are in authority), but as to its essential meaning.

Surely, since God would not have His servants comply only with external ceremonies, it cannot be doubted that all the duties of piety towards parents are included here, to which children are obligated by natural reason itself. These may be reduced to three main points, that is:

1. That they should regard them with reverence;
2. That they should obediently comply with their commands and allow themselves to be governed by them; and
3. That they should endeavor to repay what they owe them and thus heartily devote themselves and their services to them.

Since, therefore, the name of Father is a sacred one and is transferred to men by the peculiar goodness of God, dishonoring parents results in dishonor to God Himself, nor can anyone despise his father without being guilty of an offense against God (sacrilegium).

If anyone should object that there are many ungodly and wicked fathers whom their children cannot regard with honor without destroying the distinction between good and evil, the reply is easy: the perpetual law of nature is not subverted by human sins. Therefore, however unworthy of honor a father may be, he still retains, because he is a father, his right over his children, provided it does not in any way detract from the judgment of God.

For it is too absurd to think of excusing, under any pretext, the sins condemned by His Law; indeed, it would be a base profanation to misuse the name of father to cover sins. In condemning, therefore, the vices of a father, a truly pious son will subscribe to God’s Law, and still, whatever the father may be, will acknowledge that he is to be honored as the father given to him by God.

Obedience comes next, which is also circumscribed by certain limits. Paul is a faithful interpreter of this Commandment when he instructs “children obey their parents” (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20). Honor, therefore, includes subjection, so that he who shakes off his father's yoke and does not allow himself to be governed by his authority is justly said to despise his father. It will appear more clearly from other passages that those who are not obedient to their parents are considered to despise them.

Still, a father's power is so limited that God, on whom all relationships depend, must have authority over fathers as well as children, for parents govern their children only under the supreme authority of God.

Paul, therefore, does not simply exhort children to obey their parents, but adds the restriction, “in the Lord;” by which he indicates that if a father commands anything unrighteous, obedience must be freely denied him.

Immoderate strictness, moroseness, and even cruelty must be borne, as long as a mortal man, by wickedly demanding what is not lawful, does not attempt to rob God of His right.

In short, the Law subjects children to their parents in such a way that God’s right remains uninfringed.

An objection arises here: It may sometimes happen that a son holds the office of a magistrate while the father is a private citizen. In such a case, the son might not be able to discharge his private duty without violating public order. The point is easily solved: all things may be so balanced by their mutual moderation that, while the father submits to his son's governance,⁴ he is not at all defrauded of his honor, and the son, although superior in power, may still modestly reverence his father.

The third aspect of honor is that children should take care of their parents and be ready and diligent in all their duties towards them. The Greeks call this kind of piety ἀντιπελαργία,⁵ because storks supply food to their parents when they are feeble and worn out with old age, thus serving as our instructors in gratitude. Hence, the barbarity of those who either grudge or neglect to relieve their parents' poverty and aid their necessities is all the more base and detestable.

Now, although the parental name ought, by its own sweetness, to be sufficient to attract children to ready submission, still a promise is added as a stimulus, so that they may more cheerfully motivate themselves to pay the honor which is commanded of them.

Paul, therefore, that children may be more willing to obey their parents, reminds us that this “is the first commandment with promise” (Ephesians 6:2). For although a promise is attached to the Second Commandment, it is not a special one, as we perceive this one to be.

The reward—that the days of children who have behaved piously towards their parents will be prolonged—aptly corresponds with observing the commandment, since in this way God gives us proof of His favor in this life when we have been grateful to those to whom we owe our life. While it is by no means just that those who despise the progenitors who brought them into life should greatly prolong their own lives.

Here the question arises: since this earthly life is exposed to so many cares, pains, and troubles, how can God consider its prolongation a blessing? But since all cares spring from the curse of God, it is clear that they are incidental; and thus, if life is regarded in itself, it does not cease to be a proof of God’s favor.

Besides, all this multitude of miseries does not destroy the chief blessing of life, namely, that people are created and preserved for the hope of a happy immortality. For God now manifests Himself to them as a Father, so that later they may enjoy His eternal inheritance.

The knowledge of this, like a lighted lamp, causes God’s grace to shine forth in the midst of darkness. Hence it follows that those⁶ had not tasted the main thing in life who have said that the best thing was not to be born, and the next best thing to die as soon as possible; whereas God rather trains people through various afflictions, so that it is nevertheless good for them to be created in His image and to be considered His children.

A clearer explanation is also added in Deuteronomy, not only that they should live, but that it may go well with them; so that not only is length of life promised them, but other additional benefits also.

And in fact, for many who have been ungrateful and unkind to their parents, life is prolonged only as a punishment, while the reward for their inhuman conduct is repaid to them by their own children and descendants.

But since long life is not granted to all who have fulfilled the duties of piety towards their parents, it must be remembered that, with respect to temporal rewards, no infallible law is laid down. And still, where God works variously and unequally, His promises are not nullified, because a better compensation is secured in heaven for believers who have been deprived on earth of temporary blessings.

Truly, experience in all ages has shown that God has not promised long life in vain to all who have faithfully fulfilled the duties of true piety towards their parents.

Still, from the principle already stated, it is to be understood that this Commandment extends further than the words imply; and this we infer from the following sound argument, namely, that otherwise God’s Law would be imperfect and would not instruct us in the perfect rule of a just and holy life.

Natural sense itself dictates that we should obey rulers. If servants do not obey their masters, human society is completely subverted. It is not, therefore, the least essential part of righteousness⁷ that people willingly submit to the command of magistrates and that servants obey their masters; and, consequently, it would be very absurd if it were omitted in the Law of God.

In this commandment, then, as in the others, God by synecdoche embraces, under a specific rule, a general principle, namely, that lawful commands should receive due reverence from us.

But that all things are not distinctly expressed is readily accounted for first by brevity itself; and, besides, another reason is to be noted: that is, God intentionally used a simple style in addressing an unrefined people because He saw its appropriateness.

If He had said generally that all superiors were to be obeyed, since pride is natural to all, it would not have been easy to incline the majority of people to pay submission to a few. Indeed, since subjection is naturally disagreeable, many would have rebelled against it. God, therefore, sets forth a specific kind of subjection, which it would have been gross barbarism to refuse, so that, their ferocity being gradually subdued, He might accustom people to bear the yoke.

Hence the exhortations are derived, that people should “honor the king;” that “every soul should be subject unto the higher powers;” that “servants should obey their masters, even the froward and morose” (Proverbs 24:21; 1 Peter 2:13; Romans 13:1; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Peter 2:14, 18).

¹ See Becon’s Catechism, part 3, (Parker Society’s edition,) 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; and Calvin’s Institutes, lib. 2. cap. 8, Section 12. It appears that this error may be traced to Augustine, (Quaest. in . See also Bullinger’s Decades, (Parker Society,) vol. 1, p. 212; and Hooper’s Early Writings, (Parker Society,) pages 349-351; and Calvin’s Institutes, lib. 2. cap. 8, Section 12. It appears that this error may be traced to Augustine, (Quaest. in Exodus 71, and Ep. ad. Jan. 119,) who, without omitting the Second Commandment, divided the precepts of the First Table into three, on the supposition that their number was allusive to the Trinity. He, however, contradicts himself elsewhere, (Quaest. Vet. et Novi Test., lib. 1:7; ) but Peter Lomb. adopts his erroneous division, and separates the Tenth Commandment into two parts. (Lib. 3, Distinct. 37 and 40.), and Ep. ad. Jan. 119,) who, without omitting the Second Commandment, divided the precepts of the First Table into three, on the supposition that their number was allusive to the Trinity. He, however, contradicts himself elsewhere, (Quaest. Vet. et Novi Test., lib. 1:7; ) but Peter Lomb. adopts his erroneous division, and separates the 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 ten commandments engraven upon them, five upon each table; and the writing was by the hand of God.”

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

⁴ There is a delightful illustration of this point, which will occur to many, related in More’’s Life of Sir Thomas More, ch. 6. Section 5, — “Now it was a comfortable thing for ante man to behold how two great rooms of Westminster-hall were taken up, one with the son, the other with the father, which hath as yet never been heard of before or since, the son to be Lord Chancellor, and the father, , ch. 6. Section 5, — “Now it was a comfortable thing for ante man to behold how two great rooms of Westminster-hall were taken up, one with the son, the other with the father, which hath as yet never been heard of before or since, the son to be Lord Chancellor, and the father, Sir John More, to be one of the ancientest Judges of the King’s Bench, if not the eldest of all; for now he was near 90 year old. Yea, what a grateful spectacle was 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, exemplar obedience, and submissive piety.”, to be one of the ancientest Judges of the King’s Bench, if not the eldest of all; for now he was near 90 year old. Yea, what a grateful spectacle was 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, exemplar obedience, and submissive piety.”

⁵ “Let us consider what is meant by the Gentiles’ ἀντιπελαργεῖν, which is to requite one good turn with another; and especially to nourish and cherish them, by whom thou thyself in thy youth was brought up and tendered. There is among the Gentiles a law extant, worthy to be called the mistress of piety, whereby it is enacted that the children should either nourish their parents or else lie fast lettered in prison. This law many men do carelessly neglect, which the stork alone, among all living creatures, doth keep most precisely. For other creatures do hard, and scarcely know or look upon their parents, if peradventure they need their aid to nourish them; whereas the stork doth mutually 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 her youth nourisheth the old days of her parents.” — Plin., lib. 10 cap. 23, Nat. Hist.

⁶ This famous sentiment of antiquity is found in the Elegies of Theognis, some 500 years B.C., —

⁷ “Pars justiciae non postrema.” — Lat. “Une partie de la justice, qui nous devons tous garder;” a part of righteousness which we ought all to observe. — . “Une partie de la justice, qui nous devons tous garder;” a part of righteousness which we ought all to observe. — Fr..