EPHESIANS 6:1-9

These verses are a continuation of the series of teachings begun at 5:22 generally known as “Household Codes.” “Given the dominant place of the household concept within the culture of Paul's day, its impact upon his teachings is not surprising. (Towner)  Other New Testament examples include Colossians 3:18-4:1 and I Peter 2:13-3:8. Burroughs notes that “significantly they contain a degree of mutual submission.” Thus, as Towner says: “NT application of the tradition of the household code reflects a degree of fairness and justice absent from Greco-Roman reflection, and all relationships, attitudes, and status/authority within them are mitigated by the presence of the Lord.”

The section can be outlined as such:

    A. wives (5:22-24)

        B. husbands (5:25-33)

    A'. children (6:1-2)

        B'. fathers (6:4)

    A''. slaves (6:5-8)

        B''. masters (6:9)

In each pair, the responsibility of the socially weaker member is addressed first. Also note that A' and A'' end with promises while B' and B'' contain warnings instead. The mutuality of the responsibilities is stressed at the end of B, A'', and B''.

Ephesians 6:1-3 There is a parallel to this teaching found in Proverbs 4:10: “Listen to me, son, and accept my words and the years of your life will be many.” Kaiser qualifies these words as follows: “Since we live in a fallen world and are involved with more issues and influences than just this one named in the fifth commandment, some respectful children have died young – sometimes due to no fault of their own.” In a NT context, Paul may well have had in mind eternal life rather than earthly existence, especially in light of v. 4 which assumes that the parents will be raising them in a spiritual environment. And finally, we must keep in mind that the phrase “in the Lord” does not imply that they are only to obey if the parents are Christians. (Hoehner)

Ephesians 6:4 “It is easier to be severe or indulgent, but children need discipline and admonition when combined with a gentle understanding of their needs and limitations.” (Harpur)  I should add that merely ignoring the child is not offered as an option either. Hoehner explains that “bring them up” means “to provide for their physical and spiritual needs.”

Selter notes that the Greek words for "discipline" and "correction" are pretty much synonymous in meaning. He stresses that this is not any particular method of instruction that is in mind but whether it is directed toward the Lord. By contrast, Ralph Martin says that paideia = education by discipline while nouthesia = education by oral teachings.

Ephesians 6:5-9   Of course, the teachings regarding the slave-master relationship are the most problematic and time-conditioned ones in this series. They certainly should not be misconstrued, as some Bible critics have, to say that Paul wholeheartedly endorsed the institution of slavery. To do so is as ill-founded as was the use of this passage by slave-owners in earlier America to justify their immoral actions. Commentators are in basic agreement on how we should take this passage in light of the historical and cultural context of the time.

    Towner: “...the emphasis...upon behavior that is visibly respectable and appropriate would seem to imply that the apostle desired the church to meet these social expectations as far as possible...The indications allow the conclusion that his aim was to promote a manner of social behavior that was respectable in the eyes of those outside the church.” This was “as an aid to the execution of the evangelistic mission in a potentially hostile world.”

    Harpur: “The apostles did not consider it to be any part of their mission to alter the structure of human society...by any direct activity. Christian standards of behaviour would, and do, profoundly affect society in the course of time.”

    Furnish: “It is doubtful whether he [Paul] or any other first-century Christian could have envisioned a political order without the institution of slavery, for it was one of the foundations of the social and economic stability of the Roman Empire...Moreover, even if Christians could have envisioned the abolition of slavery, they would have been powerless to bring it about.” As Ralph Martin points out, to have attempted to do so would have led to suicidal action. However, a close reading of Paul's Letter to Philemon better reveals Paul's personal views on the subject of slavery, although he carefully couches his language in a somewhat subtle manner.

It is obvious from Paul's advice, that the slaves of his day were not always very enthusiastic about performing their duties, which was full understandable since they really had no choice in their lot in life. But what I find amazing is the number of employees today who begrudge their employers even a minimum amount of effort on their part. And yet they expect more and more perks. They act even worse than the older brother in Jesus' parable who said that his father had treated him like a slave.