5th Commandment Question

[Shadow Forge]

The fifth commandment states " Honour thy father and thy mother:that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee"
Question: Besides the obvious, would this commandment also extend to honoring one's ancestors?

 

[alexanderjames]

How would you honour your ancestors?

 

[Shadow Forge]

How would you honour your ancestors?

Not in a worshipping nor religious aspect rather living one's life that is not only pleasing to the Lord but also to your ancestors. In addition, studying and learning from genealogy and one's ancestral history.

 

[Edward]

My reading is that it governs relations with the living:

126. What is the general scope of the fifth commandment?
The general scope of the fifth commandment is the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals.

127. What is the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors?
The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defense and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.

128. What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against, their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their government.

131. What are the duties of equals?
The duties of equals are, to regard the dignity and worth of each other, in giving honor to go one before another; and to rejoice in each other’s gifts and advancement, as their own.

132. What are the sins of equals?
The sins of equals are, besides the neglect of the duties required, the undervaluing of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving at the advancement or prosperity one of another; and usurping pre-eminence one over another.

 

[Shadow Forge]

My reading is that it governs relations with the living:

126. What is the general scope of the fifth commandment?
The general scope of the fifth commandment is the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals.

127. What is the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors?
The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defense and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.

128. What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against, their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their government.

131. What are the duties of equals?
The duties of equals are, to regard the dignity and worth of each other, in giving honor to go one before another; and to rejoice in each other’s gifts and advancement, as their own.

132. What are the sins of equals?
The sins of equals are, besides the neglect of the duties required, the undervaluing of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving at the advancement or prosperity one of another; and usurping pre-eminence one over another.

Would I then be correct in saying that studying the American Civil War and honoring those who fought it would be wrong? Or remembering your ancestors and learning about their lives? It is almost like saying they are dead get over it.

 

[MyCrows]

Would I then be correct in saying that studying the American Civil War and honoring those who fought it would be wrong? Or remembering your ancestors and learning about their lives? It is almost like saying they are dead get over it.

I think it comes down to how you are seeking to honor them. Their spirit is departed, we are forbidden to pray for them.

Learning about them is another thing entirely I think. If I were to learn about my great-grandfathers life, and came to find out he opposed the faith up until his dying breath, what would I do to honor him? And would that be pleasing to God?

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15

 

[johnmo]

It seems hard to believe one could read the Old Testament and come away thinking that ancestors are not to be highly honored. I think especially the commands around "due reverence" and "imitation of their virtues and graces" obviously include the dead. Is there really a question about whether one should show honor as well as grief for one's father after his death?

I think the implication of the catechism's reading of the fifth commandment is that not only one's literal blood relatives, but the honored dead of one's nation should be given "due reverence" and we should imitate their virtues and graces.

 

[Shadow Forge]

I wasn't speaking of praying for them nor setting up a shrine to them. But remembrance of who they were, the lives they lived, etc.. even if one disagreed with their positions.

 

[MyCrows]

It seems hard to believe one could read the Old Testament and come away thinking that ancestors are not to be highly honored. I think especially the commands around "due reverence" and "imitation of their virtues and graces" obviously include the dead. Is there really a question about whether one should show honor as well as grief for one's father after his death?

I think the implication of the catechism's reading of the fifth commandment is that not only one's literal blood relatives, but the honored dead of one's nation should be given "due reverence" and we should imitate their virtues and graces.

What virtues and graces do the denizens of hell possess? And are we to continue to bear with their infirmities?

 

[johnmo]

What virtues and graces do the denizens of hell possess? And are we to continue to bear with their infirmities?

The same as when they were alive. It should be easier to bear with a past wicked king's infirmities now that he no longer bear's the sword.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

We should be careful about judging parties belonging to the past by present-day standards; whereas, judging them by the standard of their day is reasonable, as is judging them by the timeless standard of God's word. For the most part, what follows has upward-looking or superior regard (as opposed to peer regard or regard for subordinates) in mind.

We should show respect for honorable persons of the past, again holding them to their standard and to universal norms (if we correctly ascertain them). But this is a far cry from uncritically praising previous generations, or "fearing to speak ill of the dead." Some execrable persons should be deplored, now so long (perhaps) after their unlamented passing. Nor should we tribally venerate our fathers for nothing but our connection to them. If we know of a wickedness they steeped in, even if it was in ignorance, we should not hesitate to distance ourselves, careful to thank God that "but for his grace also go I."

We have all been rescued from some form of past-connection, be it Adam and the curse that fell on our first-father; or from some other line of gospel-banishment which left some forbear of ours in thrall to idols, superstition, and folly. Even Abraham was delivered from such things, Jos.24:2! Had he not been, he would not be our faith-father (but perhaps another); and what he was we should have rejected. We honor him for his faith, and for God's peculiar use of him in redemptive history where practically all our knowledge of him is found. We should not respect his lies or his stumbling (also recorded for us) which show him fallible; some falsely and with misguided respect exonerate Abraham from any sin, and make his every remembered word and act respectable. Repudiation of the past necessarily involves some degree of disrespect, a fact we should admit yet find a limit for taking to any end.

Who are we to judge Abraham, who is such a father to us? Well, are we the ones judging; or are we receiving the judgment of God--one that commends Abraham to us, while not covering him with rose-tint at all angles? If we know less of any man than we know of a Bible character, even a biological ancestor, we should pay the minimal respect we would an older if unfamiliar living relative. No man is due unqualified honors. We owe honor to man as the divine image-bearer, as parent or surrogate, and as office-bearer. All these are in relation of man to God. We are to give EVERY due honor "in the Lord," or "as unto the Lord." And if in any case a man demand divine honor that supersedes his authorization, or demands approval for his ungodliness, we must respectfully refuse it, unless or until we have been duly appointed to dispense divine disrespect for one that deserves it.

 

[Polanus1561]

Put it this way. My descendants do not need to do that (if I had my way). I would rather they honor me if they so desire to do so by honoring my God as their God.

 

[MyCrows]

The same as when they were alive. It should be easier to bear with a past wicked king's infirmities now that he no longer bear's the sword.

So, none?

 

[Ed Walsh]

Not in a worshipping nor religious aspect rather living one's life that is not only pleasing to the Lord but also to your ancestors.

You mean like the Rechabites?

‭Jeremiah 35:1-2 KJV‬
[1] The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying, [2] Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.

Read the rest of the story if not familiar.

 

[johnmo]

So, none?

I think contra mundum is correct that “some execrable persons should be deplored.” The kings who did evil in the sight of the Lord come to mind. But I think the tendency should be to honor even the very flawed. David’s song honoring Saul at his death would be an example. I think most of us are more likely to err in the side of too little than too much honor for ancestors.

 

[MyCrows]

I think contra mundum is correct that “some execrable persons should be deplored.” The kings who did evil in the sight of the Lord come to mind. But I think the tendency should be to honor even the very flawed. David’s song honoring Saul at his death would be an example. I think most of us are more likely to err in the side of too little than too much honor for ancestors.

My point is that our duties required in commandment, is in regards to the living. We pray for our superiors, honor their perceived virtues, bearing with their infirmities, with the hope that they would come to repentance.

These things have no value when directed toward the dead, other than superstition.

 

[Shadow Forge]

We should be careful about judging parties belonging to the past by present-day standards; whereas, judging them by the standard of their day is reasonable, as is judging them by the timeless standard of God's word. For the most part, what follows has upward-looking or superior regard (as opposed to peer regard or regard for subordinates) in mind.

We should show respect for honorable persons of the past, again holding them to their standard and to universal norms (if we correctly ascertain them). But this is a far cry from uncritically praising previous generations, or "fearing to speak ill of the dead." Some execrable persons should be deplored, now so long (perhaps) after their unlamented passing. Nor should we tribally venerate our fathers for nothing but our connection to them. If we know of a wickedness they steeped in, even if it was in ignorance, we should not hesitate to distance ourselves, careful to thank God that "but for his grace also go I."

We have all been rescued from some form of past-connection, be it Adam and the curse that fell on our first-father; or from some other line of gospel-banishment which left some forbear of ours in thrall to idols, superstition, and folly. Even Abraham was delivered from such things, Jos.24:2! Had he not been, he would not be our faith-father (but perhaps another); and what he was we should have rejected. We honor him for his faith, and for God's peculiar use of him in redemptive history where practically all our knowledge of him is found. We should not respect his lies or his stumbling (also recorded for us) which show him fallible; some falsely and with misguided respect exonerate Abraham from any sin, and make his every remembered word and act respectable. Repudiation of the past necessarily involves some degree of disrespect, a fact we should admit yet find a limit for taking to any end.

Who are we to judge Abraham, who is such a father to us? Well, are we the ones judging; or are we receiving the judgment of God--one that commends Abraham to us, while not covering him with rose-tint at all angles? If we know less of any man than we know of a Bible character, even a biological ancestor, we should pay the minimal respect we would an older if unfamiliar living relative. No man is due unqualified honors. We owe honor to man as the divine image-bearer, as parent or surrogate, and as office-bearer. All these are in relation of man to God. We are to give EVERY due honor "in the Lord," or "as unto the Lord." And if in any case a man demand divine honor that supersedes his authorization, or demands approval for his ungodliness, we must respectfully refuse it, unless or until we have been duly appointed to dispense divine disrespect for one that deserves it.

You mean like the Rechabites?

‭Jeremiah 35:1-2 KJV‬
[1] The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying, [2] Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.

Read the rest of the story if not familiar.

Allow me to simplify why I asked the question. If one had ancestors that fought in WWII and they are proud of their ancestors for doing so. They study the war, especially where their ancestors played a role, and so forth. One is simply doing all of this in remembrance and thanks to their ancestor. Another example is myself.. I am very pro Confederate though I did not have any ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. I align with the Confederacy on ideological points. I love studying the war from a birds eye view but focus my attention on the south. I honor the men of both sides for fighting by learning and remembering the war but also southern literature, agriculture, art, etc.. all southern. I take pride in my southern heritage and of course my European heritage as one cannot deny their bloodline.

 

[johnmo]

We pray for our superiors, honor their perceived virtues, bearing with their infirmities, with the hope that they would come to repentance.

These things have no value when directed toward the dead, other than superstition.

How does that square with the honor shown to the dead in the Bible, even to some who showed great "infirmities" even up to their death? Why wouldn't it still be valuable to the living to imitate the dead? Part of the purpose of honor is to motivate oneself and other people to imitate the honorable person, which seem very applicable to the dead. In fact, there is no longer a danger of puffing up a dead person's pride by honoring them.

Another purpose of honor is to reward virtue. I can see how there could be a superstitious belief that a dead person is actively receiving honor, but I don't think this is common. Living people are capable of being motivated by a desire to be honored after their death, and in order to promote that we can honor the dead in order that the living will desire to be honored in their death.

I recently visited Washington, DC and visited monuments to dead Americans with my children. We learned about their lives in museums and discussed how they built our country and defended it and what virtues the monuments were built to inspire. I think it was good for each of us, and I don't think anyone held a superstitious belief that George Washington was actively enjoying our presence at any of these sites.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

The Scriptures are full of examples of honoring the memory of the honorable dead, especially as regards their burial. Their death does not nullify the obligation to show them honor.

When we honor the memory of our deceased ancestors, we honor God for his works in them. When we forget their example, etc., we forget the works of the Lord.

One brother above mentioned the Rechabites, who are commended for maintaining the customs established by their ancestor. The women of Israel held a yearly commemoration of Jephthah's daughter being devoted to the Lord in her virginity (Judges 11:40).

The light of nature itself teaches us that we should honor those who have gone before us. That's why people name cities after great men, set up monuments to their memory, tell about them in their history books, teach moral anecdotes about them to their children, etc.

 

[johnmo]

maintaining the customs established by their ancestor

Initially I had thought that only the parts of the fifth commandment about honor and imitation was applicable to the dead, since it would seem there is no obligation of obedience to the dead, who can no longer command. But now I'm not so sure given the reference to the Rechabites and Jephthah's daughter and thinking about how constitutions and laws work. A constitution, and the laws written under it, are written with the expectation that they will be obeyed following the death of their writers. We can amend the constitution and laws of our nation, but maybe by making the process difficult (one needs a supermajority usually) and just the reticence we usually have to change law on a whim is an expression of obedience to our forefathers. But it's also just desirable from the standpoint of order, since constantly changing law is destabilizing (but maybe that order is part of why God gave us the fifth commandment).

Within the family, the maintenance of family traditions or even household "rules" could be a limited sort of obedience afforded to our dead parents.

 

[MyCrows]

Speaking of Washington, our government honors Thomas Jefferson, a man who openly denied God's Word, and butchered the revelation of God, by building a monument in honor of him, slapping his face on our currency, and topping it off by paying tribute with tiny words "In God we trust".

Jesus rebuked the pharisees for decorating the tombs of the prophets, as an act of hypocrisy. And we expect God to be glorified when we honor Him alongside a blasphemer, in the same breath?

And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. Matthew 8:21-22

Did Jesus deny this man the opportunity to do what he was obligated to do for his dead father?

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. Genesis 4:16-17

Men have been naming cities after their fathers(and children), for aeons. It's pride.

 

[johnmo]

Did Jesus deny this man the opportunity to do what he was obligated to do for his dead father?

Calvin believes he was so obligated:

By these words Christ does not condemn burial: for it would have been shameful and cruel to throw away the bodies of the dead unburied, and we know that the custom of burying originated in a divine command, and was practiced by the saints, in order to strengthen the hope of the last resurrection. He intended only to show, that what ever withdraws us from the right course, or retards us in it, deserves no other name than death.

Men have been naming cities after their fathers(and children), for aeons.

Does the naming of the tribes of Israel, and the nation itself, also entail pride? The naming of Jerusalem as the city of David?

 

[MyCrows]

Calvin believes he was so obligated:


Does the naming of the tribes of Israel, and the nation itself, also entail pride? The naming of Jerusalem as the city of David?

Calvin believes someone was obligated, namely, the other dead.

Not necessarily. I'm not drawing parallels between Cain and the patriarchs, just Cain and our pride as fallen men in general.

 

[johnmo]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Calvin's explanation for the passage is

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.

So the duty exists, but one's duty to God supersedes such duties to men. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we should honor our ancestors in a way that turns us aside from honoring God.

I don't understand your arguments about naming. It seemed like you were saying it is inappropriate to name cities after great men, and it seems like that would imply that it was inappropriate to name Jerusalem after David, but I might be misunderstanding.

You mentioned the problem of honoring Jefferson, but Paul told people to honor the emperor, so clearly it is permissible to honor blasphemers. We don't honor Jefferson or the emperor for blasphemy, but for civic virtue.

 

[MyCrows]

We don't honor Jefferson or the emperor for blasphemy, but for civic virtue.

The emperor was alive. We honor those in power according to the honor due to them, because of the authority God has given them.

 

[johnmo]

We honor those in power according to the honor due to them, because of the authority God has given them.

But also because "he is God's servant for your good." Insofar as he does that, honor is due to him. One can be grateful for him, imitate him, and praise him before others for carrying out this service even when he is dead.

 

[EmilyF]

Put it this way. My descendants do not need to do that (if I had my way). I would rather they honor me if they so desire to do so by honoring my God as their God.

I think this would be the right way to do it if at all. Maybe learning about them/telling your kids what you know about them would be nice and show your respect for elders, but if they were pagan there is not much needed other than a basic description/photo.

 

[joebonni63]

I think it's you honor your mother & father just as your parents honored their mother & father and then it becomes generational as your family tree grows. So because your parents honored their mother & father so will you and as your children will as well.

 

[MyCrows]

"That which is required, as it is always our duty, so it is to be performed as often as opportunity is afforded and as it does not interfere with the performance of our other duties. We are commanded, for instance, to honor our parents; but unless they are alive or present with us, we do not have the opportunity of performing this duty."

"A Treatise on The Law and The Gospel" : John Colquhoun, as published by Reformation Heritage Books

From Chapter 4 - The rules for understanding aright the Ten Commandments.

 

[johnmo]

Calvin on 1 Tim 5:4

To shew piety towards their own house ... by cultivating human piety, [widows] should train themselves in the worship of God; lest a foolish and silly devotion should divest them of human feelings. Again, let widows learn to repay what they owe to their ancestors by educating their own offspring.

For this is good and acceptable before God Not to shew gratitude to our ancestors is universally acknowledged to be monstrous; for that is a lesson taught us by natural reason. And not only is this conviction natural to all, that affection towards our parents is the second degree of piety; but the very storks teach us gratitude by their example; and that is the etymology of the word ἀνιπελαργία But Paul, not satisfied with this, declares that God hath sanctioned it; as if he had said, “There is no reason why any one should think that it has its origin in the opinion of men; but God hath so ordained.”