Understanding the Fifth Commandment: Why respect for parents is not fearful in nature

Many parents think that the Fifth Commandment gives them absolute authority over their children, enough to demand respect from children. This is a common misconception that many parents believe - that they can unilaterally rule over their children like tyrants. The fact of the matter is that the purview of the Fifth Commandment does exist, but is narrow and refers to abuse of parents, meaning elder abuse, not merely "talking back". Back talk was encouraged in biblical times, in fact.

It says in Exodus 20:17 KJV:

Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD giveth thee.

This refers to elder abuse. Elder abuse of parents was rampant in Ancient Israel, in a way that blamed the victim. Adult children would gaslight their parents, meaning sending them on their merry way, because they wanted things from their parents. This commandment was enshrined by the Lord in order to enable the Israelite government to clamp down on elder abuse of parents, predicting ahead of time a surge in elder abuse cases. Adult children were given many warnings before some received 40 minus 1 lashes with the rod of correction. This abuse did not include "talking back", even in expletives, as "cursing parents" referred to gaslighting curses. The abuse had to be severe and prolonged with many warnings. The mentality of broader Israelite society was like with how flawed humans react to most abuse - blame the victim, and suspect all elder abuse victims of punishing their children. Punishing children was more widely punished and hated severely by Israelite society, and so in order to admit to being beaten and taken advantage of by your own child, you had to admit to a lot of ignorant people that you, as the parent, failed your child. 

Every single parent and adult is guilty in relation to children, and is deserving of DEATH and DESTRUCTION merely for existing in relation to children, with parents/adults being meek and shamefaced in relation to children, being shut up in the Lord for being the entitled adults that they are. Parents especially are to put their children first, and themselves last, to the point of dutiful and selfless submission to children and their every vulnerable need, expecting absolutely nothing in return from children or others, with this leading to secure and safe rest in parents. The Fifth Commandment is repeated Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to secure, vulnerable rest in the love and grace of parents, with children feeling safe and secure in parents enough to tell parents anything and everything under the sun, expecting no punishment or reprisal in return. Respect for parents, in this context, means respecting parents enough to give them a piece of your mind, and then they thank you later for the criticism. Children in biblical times trusted their parents enough to be naked in front of them. On one hand, children went naked wherever they went, but on the other hand, children were supervised wherever they went - they rested in the supervision of adults, never leaving the line of sight of mothers or fathers, but more so mothers. Child nudity was children baring their vulnerability to parents, as nudity in ancient Israel and adjoining churches meant exposed vulnerability, and children were seen as vulnerable then.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to damages, or the slightest of offense perceived by the child, including the slightest of offensive touch or speech perceived by the child, with this including striking, punishing, or controlling a child for any reason, regardless. The Apostle Paul was lifting up the Law on punishing children, as many members of the Colossian church were punishing their children as part of Hellenistic custom. Punishing a child carried severe penalties in the Bible, meaning it was seen as deserving of death, even in the Early Church where the death penalty was abolished. The seven rod verses in Proverbs, and the verse in Hebrews 12:6, do not refer to spanking, but to the rod of correction, with the verse in Hebrews being symbolic for enduring hardship. The verses in Proverbs depicting the rod are all repealed verses, meaning they only apply to the context that they were given to, as they reference a dated form of judicial corporal punishment specific to the Old Testament - the 40 minus 1 lashes with the rod of correction. No minor child suffered the rod as a punishment, as it was intended for ADULT children only. Minor children could not stand trial due to assumed inability to form the level of entitlement necessary to commit a crime, meaning youthful inexperience - you either has to know ALL of the Law, meaning your education was complete, or you knew nothing because you were still learning the law as a child. All anger expressed towards a child is sin, as anger has a moral legal meaning to it, meaning the moment you open up with anger at your child, you take them to court in the exchange, which is unlawful for minor children under age 18, as they are minors and cannot stand trial in a moral legal exchange.

The Fifth Commandment, for minor children, isn't about obligations to parents, but secure, vulnerable rest leading to cooperation. The idea is that a child who rests in parents out of trusting them securely and safely will want to take up a vocation through a parent or elder's example, usually a parent or elder that they like and look up to. There is no need to even teach children how to behave - they will absorb such a lesson at their own pace from adults, by watching adults, and seeing how they behave, so behave as if the eyes of Texas are upon you - for your children's eyes are the eyes of Texas in this context.

Secure, vulnerable rest then meant child nudity in the house. What this did was lower the level of attachment to an equal level, and enable a secure parent-child bond through skin-to-skin closeness and intimacy with one's child as a mother. Fathers were simply friends on an equal level, but had connotational sexual attraction at the "spray tan oil" level, meaning like spraying the attraction on bare, exposed skin like sun tan spray, with older daughters being the main target for attraction, but with the attraction being completely centered and self-controlled away from children, with attractions to children being channeled into solo masturbation, where they remained - mothers guarded their children, especially their daughters, even from internal threats such as parent attraction from a father. Fathers were passive in relating to their children, having no physically aggressive instinct, letting children drag them around like a human ragdoll. Mothers nurtured, and fathers encouraged. Fathers struggled then with setting limits, fighting through the attraction, with mothers being more sturdy, as she didn't feel attraction to her children, but simply was driven by instinct through the Holy Spirit. Mothers did set the limits for the children, but only rarely, as a means to mete out a righteous test, and if children didn't listen, it was assumed that they weren't able to. Some of this context may be dated, but much of this context applies today, including the parent attraction in attachment parenting homes. Like today, sexual behavior with a child was seen as deserving of Hell and death, as it was seen as fornication, even in "gunning down" stance.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke children to anger will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them burn in the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Let them descend into the ever-burning Hell of fire and torment, suffering in God's Wrath forever and ever! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!