Household Codes: The Meaning Then And Now
BIST 509 NEW TESTAMENT II PROFESSOR YINGER
The Household Codes
The Meaning Then and Now
Kandi Caines
4/4/2012
“The woman is ‘in all things inferior to the man’ said first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. It was in this oppressive context that Christianity was born.”1 When the Lord came to earth in the form of a man Jesus, the Lord chose to make a stand for women’s rights. These bold and liberal actions were embraced and repeated by his disciples; and are reflected in their writings. This lead to the new emerging Christian church having a reputation for its radical beliefs when it came to women. Yet many modern Christian churches continue to teach that God ordained a hierarchy relationship …show more content…
between the man and woman, husband and wife. Herein lies the irony; the very scriptures the modern church uses to teach that women are under the authority of men, are the very scriptures that (when studied in context) exposes the truth in this matter.
Some of these scriptures include Col.
3:18-4:1 and Ephesians 5:2, bible scholars refer to these as the household codes (a cultural tradition in Greco-Roman times). In this paper I will be focusing on the Col household code (Col 3:18-4:1). I will explore what these household codes would have meant to the original hearers in light of our knowledge of the ancient household codes and how we are to implement them today.
In Greco Roman culture (the time in which Jesus and Apostle Paul lived), the management of one’s household was considered of primary importance; it was thought to be the key to a healthy community. It became common practice for the wise men and philosophers to write on household management policies and procedures. These instructions are known as ancient household codes, amongst the most recognized and quoted household code is Aristotle’s Politics, written about 335 BC, Aristotle …show more content…
writes:
Now that it is clear what are the component parts of the state, we have first of all to discuss household management (οικονομία); for every state is composed of households (εξ οικιών). Household management falls into departments corresponding to the parts of which the household in its turn is composed; and the household in its perfect form consists of slaves and freemen. The investigation of everything should begin with its smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these three relationships, I mean that of mastership, that of marriage and thirdly the progenitive relationship {Pol. I 1253b 1-1
2
The majority of Roman citizens were poor, with a minority of free citizens who were able to support themselves and the rest living on welfare. Most of the poor people lived in overcrowded blocks of flats without adequate plumbing or heating. 3 Only the wealthy citizens owned land and household structures were very different in ancient times. Most of these families made a living from the work done on their own land; they had slaves to carry out this work. Managing a household was similar to running a small business. The family’s size was bigger as people had more children and many men had children born to them from their slaves. Therefore, a household was a small community in and of itself.
Being that the men took the dominant role in ancient days; the responsibility of keeping their small community in order became the responsibility of the man. In order to accomplish this, the man (leader) of the house took supreme authority over all members of the house. The man of the house had the ultimate authority to lay down the law, enforce all the rules and execute all punishments to those who break the rules; up to and including death of a household member. As would be expected, power was misused leading to many wife’s, children and countless slaves (women, men and child) being physically, emotionally and sexually abused at the hand of their master.4 Some men proved to be terribly lazy managers, failing to enforce anything on anyone. Yet for some men it became a bragging right (a symbol of status) as they began to measure each other’s performance on their ability to manage. For instance, a good manager would have his slaves educated and schooled in their individual craft. However, a great manager would have the same high caliber of staff, all of whom were born in his household. This would be evident to all that he is an excellent manager and would gain him great respect in the community.
Churches met in households, which may be one of the reasons Paul addressed the issue of household codes with the growing Christian churches in Colossians. In fact many believe that Col 4:15 states that the Colossians church was led by a woman. Colossians is one of the few churches that Paul wrote to that he did not start.5 Paul wrote to the church after being informed that there were some Christian Jews spreading false teachings throughout the congregation. The primary purpose of the letter seems to be to address these false teachings. Interestingly enough, (and Eduard Schweizer agrees with me) it appears that Paul is also correcting false teachings within the household codes6
“Col.
3:18-4:1 is referred to as the first ‘Christian’ household rule;”7 as it was the first time, the household codes were incorporated in New Testament literature. “Many are of the view that the New Testament household codes display Hellenistic influence as outlined by Aristotle’s Politics.” 8 Balch argues that in incorporating the household codes into the NT, the authors employed what he calls a ‘selective inculturation.’ In this ‘selective inculturation’, the NT authors borrowed and adapted cultural traits from the donor culture, including even a model for family life.” “Balch argues that one of the most striking similarities between the NT texts and those having an Aristotelian influence was the teaching regarding the three-pairs of relationships: wife-husband, children-father (parents), and slaves-master. This is claimed to be a key identifier of the household management
topos.9
“Colossians has the threefold pattern consistent with the treatment of the three relationships in the traditional discussion of household management.”10 Wives submit to husbands, husbands love wives. Children obey parents, father do not embitter your child. Slave obey master, master do right by your slave. Whereas Aristotle writes, Husband rules his wife; wife obeys her husband. Paterfamilias rules the child; child obeys the paterfamilias. Master rules the slave; slave obeys the master.
They are similar yet we can also see the differences, the most noticeable being who is addressed. Aristotle’s household code is not referring to three separate sets of relationships. It is referring to the relationship of one person, the master of the house, to the remainder of the household. 11 In the Colossians code, we see Paul addressing all the parties involved. 18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Here Paul begins the passage by addressing the female first. This is significant and very bold as it goes directly against all cultural norms. Aristotle states, “The male is superior to the female and therefore rules over her”.12 “In Greco –Roman household codes the man is addressed first and foremost.” 13 “Jewish Rabbis in the first century were encouraged not to teach or even to speak with women. Jewish wisdom literature tells us "he that talks much with womankind brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Law and at the last will inherit Gehenna [hell]."14 This explains why in (John 4:27) when the disciples returned and were “surprised” because Jesus was talking with a women. Yet in vrs 18 not only is the woman addressed, she is addressed before the man. The phrase ‘as is fitting in the Lord’ is not just a slight Christianization. This phrase reveals the full meaning of the exhortation. It serves as the defining aspect of the command, not as its basis. That is, it redefines “submit” in a radical way. The idea of what is fitting draws on some philosophers of the period. For example, Stoics argued that everyone should live according to the structure of the cosmos. Colossians’ addition of “in the Lord” does not make conforming to the present world order a Christian duty (contra Pokorny’ 180), nor does it show that the author accepts a hierarchy of creation that places husband over wife (contra O’Brien 222). Instead, this phrase must be heard in context of the status leveling proclaimed in 3:11 and of a house church that has a woman exercising a leadership role. In this context, the tension between the exhortations (wives submit to your husband’s) and its qualification (as is fitting in the Lord) could not be missed. No one-sided submission is appropriate to what is “fitting in the Lord15
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Love used in vrs 19 refers to the Greek word Agapao which is used of God’s love revealed in Christ (Jn 3:16). 16
Paul followed Jesus leading which is evident in Paul’s teaching on mutual not one-sided submission Nowhere is the head of household told to rule his household. Members of the household, as women are treated as free moral agents who have the ability to choose how to behave within the household. 17 What a contrast from the secular household codes, which teach very clearly on the roles of women. “Most notably, husbands are in authority and rule over their wives, and wives submit and obey their husbands; this is a clear cut hierarchical status arrangement.” 18
In vrs 20 we again see that the child is addressed which in and of itself is anti traditional. Once more, the child is addressed before the father. It appears that Paul is attempting to change the perception of the child; helping them to understand that it is the Lord who is the true head, master and that in obeying their parents they are obeying and pleasing the Lord; and in this there is reward, favor from God. Whereas with the secular household codes the main motivator appears to be fear, the goal is not to displease the parent and thus incur their wrath. In vrs 21 Paul is really bringing the man to accountability here by saying, do not treat your children in a manner as to cause them to misbehave - thus abusing your power. Nowhere in the secular codes themselves does it hold a man responsible for treating their child in a loving just manner. In vrs 22-25 Paul addresses the slaves. This is most profound, as slaves (according to Aristotle) were not even to be considered as human, but rather a tool. By Paul addressing the slaves alone, he is declaring them worthy of humanity. Paul takes it a step further than this by stating that the slaves will receive an inheritance; this is radical! Slaves were not worthy of consideration as part of humanity let alone worthy of an inheritance-as one who shares the same blood. The word for Master in vrs 22 is the same word used for Lord in vrs: 20. Paul seems to be attempting to shift the slave’s focus, to give them correct perspective-it is God whom they should be concerned with as he is their master.
(vrs4:1) Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. “Right is taken from Greek word Dikaios from Dike (just / righteous) it describes one who acts conformably to justice and what is right without any deficiency or failure.” 19 “In Greco Roman times, a slave was the lowest strata in the social order, lacking the dignity, which comes from being a free man. A slave possessed no rights and therefore lived in full dependence on his master and for this reason could suffer severe cruelty at the hands of an unjust master.” 20 In fact, in the secular codes, slaves are thought of more or less as a means to an end, rather than humans with equality. Adherence to, and enforcement of, status differences was another frequent concern of the ancient household codes. It was argued that failure to have proper respect for status differences would cause the social order to dissolve into chaos. We see a sharp change of direction in the Colossian codes. The submission of each lower status member is transformed from the human head of household unto the Lord. It is the Lord alone who has the power, the Lord alone that one should fear. The human head of household is not told to rule the household, instead is told to act justly and finds himself in status reversal, being likened to a slave in verse 4:1. 21
The emphasis on good treatment of humans brings about an atmosphere of equality; resulting in humanization of the household members as oppose to objectifying them. Paul clearly states that the master was to be loving, kind and fair to those he leads. In addition, man is held accountable for the way that he treats his slaves. Some have argued that Paul wrote on the household codes to encourage the newly developing church to obey Roman customs in light of the Roman persecution of the church. Although Paul did not organize a revolt against the government, there is no evidence to prove that Paul supported the social structure of his times. Instead, Paul and the Christian church entered the structures of the society and observed the surface appearances of those structures. Yet they completely redefined their identity in terms that were disconnected from these structures and they lived by values set forth by Jesus, namely love. 22
“It is argued that this Col text assumes and reinforces “a relation of domination and submission between the sexes. 23 There are the traditionalists who argue that these codes encourage a more hierarchial ordering of roles, in favor of a male-headed household model and in some cases, control of potentially subversive women. 24 “While this may sound extreme to some, it is certainly one of the thoughts that run through not a few persons minds if and when they hear the words read from the pulpit on a Sunday morning. Thus, the problem, with this argument, has to do with the content itself of the passage.” 25 Paul was following the radical teachings of Christ. Jesus showed us new ways in which to deal with family. Jesus taught on the proper perspectives that believers must have. The gospel of Matthew contains five discourses. The fourth discourse (chapter 18) is concerning life in the Kingdom. Carolyn Osiek and David Balch (drawing on the work of Warren Carter) see the collection of stories immediately following the fourth discourse (chapters 19-20) functioning as a household code. Here is a breakdown of Jesus household code.
(Husbands and Wives) – Matt. – 19:3-12
When the Pharisees approach Jesus and ask him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason he deems appropriate. Jesus replies 4 “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,” 5 and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. 19:4-6 (NRSV) Jesus quotes directly from the Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, highlighting man and woman united as one body in marriage. A wife is not a thing or a piece of property for the man to dispose of at his pleasure but rather she is an integral part of his body. Jesus elevates the status of women to full partners with their husbands in marriage.
(Children - Matthew 19:13-15) (Slaves – Matthew 20:17-28) 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (20:25-28)
Jesus has turned the whole question of slavery upside down. In a mind-bending upheaval of the Greco-Roman and Rabbinic model of the paterfamilias, with its obsession on status enforcement, Jesus transforms the paterfamilias into the slave of the household! It is hard to overstate how subversive and scandalous this teaching was. Jesus begins this last section noting his impending death by crucifixion (vv. 17-19). He is preparing to lay down his very life in service of the newly constituted household of God.
We actually see Jesus household code echoed in Ephesians: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” Ephesians 5:25. Ironically, this same scripture has frequently been misinterpreted as instruction for husbands to rule over their wives
A whole theology of headship was built where husbands are told to be in authority because Ephesians 5:23 says they are to be the head of the house and women are to submit to their husband 's headship. In other words, head is synonymous with rule or authority. Now many who hold to this understanding insist on what is called soft patriarchy. There is to be leadership by the husband but it is of servant-leadership variety, not domination. This is not an unreasonable reading of the passage if we rely upon our Western English metaphors for the word head. 26
So why are there so many false teachings in modern churches on these scriptures? This oppressive nature toward women has occupied a huge stronghold in the church throughout the centuries. “It has been suggested that the negative representations of the female, and specifically the misogynist expansions of the Eden story that associate Eve with sin, death, and suffering, resulted from the superimposition of Greco-Roman thought and cultural forms on the biblical world.
Collins goes on to observe that this turn toward negative views of women cannot exclusively be attributed to Greek influences.” 27
“Scholars that study this era note that the household codes also found their way into the teaching of the Jewish Rabbis in the centuries prior to Christ. While Arius Didymous may have seen women as innately inferior to men, some rabbis began to find biblical warrant for this assessment. They viewed Eve as the prototype woman who was easily deceived or she was a seductress luring men to their doom. Rabbi Judah, a contemporary of Josephus, said ‘a man must pronounce three blessings each day:’ Blessed be the Lord who did not make me a heathen; blessed be he who did not make me a woman; blessed be he who did not make me an uneducated person.’” 28 Although there were differences among the leading rabbis, many published scholars, including people like Kenneth Bailey, see a significant devaluation of women and an intrusion of Greek thought into rabbinic teaching during the Second Temple era.29 It continues, as modern day churches continue to teach false doctrine in the pulpits. In reading passages in Colossians and Ephesians, we must realize that these controversial scripture on women need to be wrestled with in great stride. For it is not a small matter to subjugate an entire gender race especially when done in the name of God. If Gal 3:18 Paul teaches that in Christ there is no distinctions between male and female, slave or free, and Peter told husbands to consider their wives as heirs with them of the gracious gift of life (1Pet 3:7). Why is this teaching so hard for a man to receive? Why do men respond the same today as they did to Jesus when he informed them they lacked the power to terminate the women at will, thereby removing man 's authoritarian rule. His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." (Mathew19:10)
“The theological value of the household codes are (as Schrage has indicated), frequently estimated to be less than admirable, and at best, an indication of the corruption of pristine Christian thought. Indeed the household codes have attracted attention beyond biblical scholarship, drawing sharp criticism. “
30
Bibliography
Ron Rhodes. “The Debate over Feminist Theology: Part Three in a Three Part Series on Liberation Theology”. Christian Research Journal, pg 20 (Summer 1991). Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Feminism.html. (accessed March 28, 2012).
Kruse, Michael. “Household: Jesus’ Household Codes Pt 2.’ Kruise Kronicle. Entry posted July 05, 2007. http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2007/07/household-the-h.html. (Accessed February 2, 2012).
Gardner Jane F, Wiedmann Thomas E.J. The Roman Household: A Sourcebook, (Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World). (London, simultaneously USA and Canada, Routledge, 12/04/1991) pg 65.
Yamauchi, Edwin. Harpers World of the New Testament. First edition, (San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishing, 1981) pg 90.
David l. Balch, Household Codes, The Acchor Bible Dictionary Vol 3, (New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1992) pg 319.
Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical hand-book to the epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon. Myers Commentary on the New Testament. Fourth edition. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers 1885) pg 193.
Schweizer, Eduard. The Letter to the Colossians. (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982). PAGE 213.
Boring, M. Eugene, Berger Klaus, and Colpe Carsten (editors), Hellenistic commentary to the New Testament. (Nashville Abingdon Press, 1995) pg
YINGER, KENT. New Testament II. George Foxx Seminary. (Lesson taught February 27, 2012) Osiek, Carolyn, Balch L. David. Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches. First edition (Louisville, Kentucky Westminster John Knox Press 1997)
Sage Journals, doi: 10.1177/0142064X9902107405Journal for the Study of the New Testament (October 1999) vol. 21 no. 74 93-112
Alaska, Considering the Roman Household codes, Complegalitarian Blog (December 25, 2007) http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/2007/12/considering-roman-household-codes.html (accessed march 27/2012)
Frank J. Matera, New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul, (Westminster John Knox Press
8/1/1996) (Aristotle politics Bk 1 pt 5) pg 299
Jerry L. Sumney, Colossians: A Commentary, first edition, (Kentucky, Westminister John Knox Press 2008)
Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D and Warren Baker D.R.E.,(editors) Hebrew Greek Key Word Study Bible NIV, (Chattanooga, TN, AMG Publisher 1996)
Schaefer, Kurt C., Husband, Wife, Parent, Child, Master, Slave: The Economic Context of the New Testament Household Codes. (Presented at the 25th Anniversary ACE Conference, April17, 2009) http://www.illinoisgcf.org/ephesians/page2/assets/Schaefer-HouseholdCodes.pdf (see e.g., Seim, 1995) (accessed April 2012)
The Household Codes
The Meaning Then and Now
Kandi Caines
4/4/2012
“The woman is ‘in all things inferior to the man’ said first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. It was in this oppressive context that Christianity was born.”1 When the Lord came to earth in the form of a man Jesus, the Lord chose to make a stand for women’s rights. These bold and liberal actions were embraced and repeated by his disciples; and are reflected in their writings. This lead to the new emerging Christian church having a reputation for its radical beliefs when it came to women. Yet many modern Christian churches continue to teach that God ordained a hierarchy relationship …show more content…
between the man and woman, husband and wife. Herein lies the irony; the very scriptures the modern church uses to teach that women are under the authority of men, are the very scriptures that (when studied in context) exposes the truth in this matter.
Some of these scriptures include Col.
3:18-4:1 and Ephesians 5:2, bible scholars refer to these as the household codes (a cultural tradition in Greco-Roman times). In this paper I will be focusing on the Col household code (Col 3:18-4:1). I will explore what these household codes would have meant to the original hearers in light of our knowledge of the ancient household codes and how we are to implement them today.
In Greco Roman culture (the time in which Jesus and Apostle Paul lived), the management of one’s household was considered of primary importance; it was thought to be the key to a healthy community. It became common practice for the wise men and philosophers to write on household management policies and procedures. These instructions are known as ancient household codes, amongst the most recognized and quoted household code is Aristotle’s Politics, written about 335 BC, Aristotle …show more content…
writes:
Now that it is clear what are the component parts of the state, we have first of all to discuss household management (οικονομία); for every state is composed of households (εξ οικιών). Household management falls into departments corresponding to the parts of which the household in its turn is composed; and the household in its perfect form consists of slaves and freemen. The investigation of everything should begin with its smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these three relationships, I mean that of mastership, that of marriage and thirdly the progenitive relationship {Pol. I 1253b 1-1
2
The majority of Roman citizens were poor, with a minority of free citizens who were able to support themselves and the rest living on welfare. Most of the poor people lived in overcrowded blocks of flats without adequate plumbing or heating. 3 Only the wealthy citizens owned land and household structures were very different in ancient times. Most of these families made a living from the work done on their own land; they had slaves to carry out this work. Managing a household was similar to running a small business. The family’s size was bigger as people had more children and many men had children born to them from their slaves. Therefore, a household was a small community in and of itself.
Being that the men took the dominant role in ancient days; the responsibility of keeping their small community in order became the responsibility of the man. In order to accomplish this, the man (leader) of the house took supreme authority over all members of the house. The man of the house had the ultimate authority to lay down the law, enforce all the rules and execute all punishments to those who break the rules; up to and including death of a household member. As would be expected, power was misused leading to many wife’s, children and countless slaves (women, men and child) being physically, emotionally and sexually abused at the hand of their master.4 Some men proved to be terribly lazy managers, failing to enforce anything on anyone. Yet for some men it became a bragging right (a symbol of status) as they began to measure each other’s performance on their ability to manage. For instance, a good manager would have his slaves educated and schooled in their individual craft. However, a great manager would have the same high caliber of staff, all of whom were born in his household. This would be evident to all that he is an excellent manager and would gain him great respect in the community.
Churches met in households, which may be one of the reasons Paul addressed the issue of household codes with the growing Christian churches in Colossians. In fact many believe that Col 4:15 states that the Colossians church was led by a woman. Colossians is one of the few churches that Paul wrote to that he did not start.5 Paul wrote to the church after being informed that there were some Christian Jews spreading false teachings throughout the congregation. The primary purpose of the letter seems to be to address these false teachings. Interestingly enough, (and Eduard Schweizer agrees with me) it appears that Paul is also correcting false teachings within the household codes6
“Col.
3:18-4:1 is referred to as the first ‘Christian’ household rule;”7 as it was the first time, the household codes were incorporated in New Testament literature. “Many are of the view that the New Testament household codes display Hellenistic influence as outlined by Aristotle’s Politics.” 8 Balch argues that in incorporating the household codes into the NT, the authors employed what he calls a ‘selective inculturation.’ In this ‘selective inculturation’, the NT authors borrowed and adapted cultural traits from the donor culture, including even a model for family life.” “Balch argues that one of the most striking similarities between the NT texts and those having an Aristotelian influence was the teaching regarding the three-pairs of relationships: wife-husband, children-father (parents), and slaves-master. This is claimed to be a key identifier of the household management
topos.9
“Colossians has the threefold pattern consistent with the treatment of the three relationships in the traditional discussion of household management.”10 Wives submit to husbands, husbands love wives. Children obey parents, father do not embitter your child. Slave obey master, master do right by your slave. Whereas Aristotle writes, Husband rules his wife; wife obeys her husband. Paterfamilias rules the child; child obeys the paterfamilias. Master rules the slave; slave obeys the master.
They are similar yet we can also see the differences, the most noticeable being who is addressed. Aristotle’s household code is not referring to three separate sets of relationships. It is referring to the relationship of one person, the master of the house, to the remainder of the household. 11 In the Colossians code, we see Paul addressing all the parties involved. 18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Here Paul begins the passage by addressing the female first. This is significant and very bold as it goes directly against all cultural norms. Aristotle states, “The male is superior to the female and therefore rules over her”.12 “In Greco –Roman household codes the man is addressed first and foremost.” 13 “Jewish Rabbis in the first century were encouraged not to teach or even to speak with women. Jewish wisdom literature tells us "he that talks much with womankind brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Law and at the last will inherit Gehenna [hell]."14 This explains why in (John 4:27) when the disciples returned and were “surprised” because Jesus was talking with a women. Yet in vrs 18 not only is the woman addressed, she is addressed before the man. The phrase ‘as is fitting in the Lord’ is not just a slight Christianization. This phrase reveals the full meaning of the exhortation. It serves as the defining aspect of the command, not as its basis. That is, it redefines “submit” in a radical way. The idea of what is fitting draws on some philosophers of the period. For example, Stoics argued that everyone should live according to the structure of the cosmos. Colossians’ addition of “in the Lord” does not make conforming to the present world order a Christian duty (contra Pokorny’ 180), nor does it show that the author accepts a hierarchy of creation that places husband over wife (contra O’Brien 222). Instead, this phrase must be heard in context of the status leveling proclaimed in 3:11 and of a house church that has a woman exercising a leadership role. In this context, the tension between the exhortations (wives submit to your husband’s) and its qualification (as is fitting in the Lord) could not be missed. No one-sided submission is appropriate to what is “fitting in the Lord15
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Love used in vrs 19 refers to the Greek word Agapao which is used of God’s love revealed in Christ (Jn 3:16). 16
Paul followed Jesus leading which is evident in Paul’s teaching on mutual not one-sided submission Nowhere is the head of household told to rule his household. Members of the household, as women are treated as free moral agents who have the ability to choose how to behave within the household. 17 What a contrast from the secular household codes, which teach very clearly on the roles of women. “Most notably, husbands are in authority and rule over their wives, and wives submit and obey their husbands; this is a clear cut hierarchical status arrangement.” 18
In vrs 20 we again see that the child is addressed which in and of itself is anti traditional. Once more, the child is addressed before the father. It appears that Paul is attempting to change the perception of the child; helping them to understand that it is the Lord who is the true head, master and that in obeying their parents they are obeying and pleasing the Lord; and in this there is reward, favor from God. Whereas with the secular household codes the main motivator appears to be fear, the goal is not to displease the parent and thus incur their wrath. In vrs 21 Paul is really bringing the man to accountability here by saying, do not treat your children in a manner as to cause them to misbehave - thus abusing your power. Nowhere in the secular codes themselves does it hold a man responsible for treating their child in a loving just manner. In vrs 22-25 Paul addresses the slaves. This is most profound, as slaves (according to Aristotle) were not even to be considered as human, but rather a tool. By Paul addressing the slaves alone, he is declaring them worthy of humanity. Paul takes it a step further than this by stating that the slaves will receive an inheritance; this is radical! Slaves were not worthy of consideration as part of humanity let alone worthy of an inheritance-as one who shares the same blood. The word for Master in vrs 22 is the same word used for Lord in vrs: 20. Paul seems to be attempting to shift the slave’s focus, to give them correct perspective-it is God whom they should be concerned with as he is their master.
(vrs4:1) Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. “Right is taken from Greek word Dikaios from Dike (just / righteous) it describes one who acts conformably to justice and what is right without any deficiency or failure.” 19 “In Greco Roman times, a slave was the lowest strata in the social order, lacking the dignity, which comes from being a free man. A slave possessed no rights and therefore lived in full dependence on his master and for this reason could suffer severe cruelty at the hands of an unjust master.” 20 In fact, in the secular codes, slaves are thought of more or less as a means to an end, rather than humans with equality. Adherence to, and enforcement of, status differences was another frequent concern of the ancient household codes. It was argued that failure to have proper respect for status differences would cause the social order to dissolve into chaos. We see a sharp change of direction in the Colossian codes. The submission of each lower status member is transformed from the human head of household unto the Lord. It is the Lord alone who has the power, the Lord alone that one should fear. The human head of household is not told to rule the household, instead is told to act justly and finds himself in status reversal, being likened to a slave in verse 4:1. 21
The emphasis on good treatment of humans brings about an atmosphere of equality; resulting in humanization of the household members as oppose to objectifying them. Paul clearly states that the master was to be loving, kind and fair to those he leads. In addition, man is held accountable for the way that he treats his slaves. Some have argued that Paul wrote on the household codes to encourage the newly developing church to obey Roman customs in light of the Roman persecution of the church. Although Paul did not organize a revolt against the government, there is no evidence to prove that Paul supported the social structure of his times. Instead, Paul and the Christian church entered the structures of the society and observed the surface appearances of those structures. Yet they completely redefined their identity in terms that were disconnected from these structures and they lived by values set forth by Jesus, namely love. 22
“It is argued that this Col text assumes and reinforces “a relation of domination and submission between the sexes. 23 There are the traditionalists who argue that these codes encourage a more hierarchial ordering of roles, in favor of a male-headed household model and in some cases, control of potentially subversive women. 24 “While this may sound extreme to some, it is certainly one of the thoughts that run through not a few persons minds if and when they hear the words read from the pulpit on a Sunday morning. Thus, the problem, with this argument, has to do with the content itself of the passage.” 25 Paul was following the radical teachings of Christ. Jesus showed us new ways in which to deal with family. Jesus taught on the proper perspectives that believers must have. The gospel of Matthew contains five discourses. The fourth discourse (chapter 18) is concerning life in the Kingdom. Carolyn Osiek and David Balch (drawing on the work of Warren Carter) see the collection of stories immediately following the fourth discourse (chapters 19-20) functioning as a household code. Here is a breakdown of Jesus household code.
(Husbands and Wives) – Matt. – 19:3-12
When the Pharisees approach Jesus and ask him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason he deems appropriate. Jesus replies 4 “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,” 5 and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. 19:4-6 (NRSV) Jesus quotes directly from the Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, highlighting man and woman united as one body in marriage. A wife is not a thing or a piece of property for the man to dispose of at his pleasure but rather she is an integral part of his body. Jesus elevates the status of women to full partners with their husbands in marriage.
(Children - Matthew 19:13-15) (Slaves – Matthew 20:17-28) 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (20:25-28)
Jesus has turned the whole question of slavery upside down. In a mind-bending upheaval of the Greco-Roman and Rabbinic model of the paterfamilias, with its obsession on status enforcement, Jesus transforms the paterfamilias into the slave of the household! It is hard to overstate how subversive and scandalous this teaching was. Jesus begins this last section noting his impending death by crucifixion (vv. 17-19). He is preparing to lay down his very life in service of the newly constituted household of God.
We actually see Jesus household code echoed in Ephesians: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” Ephesians 5:25. Ironically, this same scripture has frequently been misinterpreted as instruction for husbands to rule over their wives
A whole theology of headship was built where husbands are told to be in authority because Ephesians 5:23 says they are to be the head of the house and women are to submit to their husband 's headship. In other words, head is synonymous with rule or authority. Now many who hold to this understanding insist on what is called soft patriarchy. There is to be leadership by the husband but it is of servant-leadership variety, not domination. This is not an unreasonable reading of the passage if we rely upon our Western English metaphors for the word head. 26
So why are there so many false teachings in modern churches on these scriptures? This oppressive nature toward women has occupied a huge stronghold in the church throughout the centuries. “It has been suggested that the negative representations of the female, and specifically the misogynist expansions of the Eden story that associate Eve with sin, death, and suffering, resulted from the superimposition of Greco-Roman thought and cultural forms on the biblical world.
Collins goes on to observe that this turn toward negative views of women cannot exclusively be attributed to Greek influences.” 27
“Scholars that study this era note that the household codes also found their way into the teaching of the Jewish Rabbis in the centuries prior to Christ. While Arius Didymous may have seen women as innately inferior to men, some rabbis began to find biblical warrant for this assessment. They viewed Eve as the prototype woman who was easily deceived or she was a seductress luring men to their doom. Rabbi Judah, a contemporary of Josephus, said ‘a man must pronounce three blessings each day:’ Blessed be the Lord who did not make me a heathen; blessed be he who did not make me a woman; blessed be he who did not make me an uneducated person.’” 28 Although there were differences among the leading rabbis, many published scholars, including people like Kenneth Bailey, see a significant devaluation of women and an intrusion of Greek thought into rabbinic teaching during the Second Temple era.29 It continues, as modern day churches continue to teach false doctrine in the pulpits. In reading passages in Colossians and Ephesians, we must realize that these controversial scripture on women need to be wrestled with in great stride. For it is not a small matter to subjugate an entire gender race especially when done in the name of God. If Gal 3:18 Paul teaches that in Christ there is no distinctions between male and female, slave or free, and Peter told husbands to consider their wives as heirs with them of the gracious gift of life (1Pet 3:7). Why is this teaching so hard for a man to receive? Why do men respond the same today as they did to Jesus when he informed them they lacked the power to terminate the women at will, thereby removing man 's authoritarian rule. His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." (Mathew19:10)
“The theological value of the household codes are (as Schrage has indicated), frequently estimated to be less than admirable, and at best, an indication of the corruption of pristine Christian thought. Indeed the household codes have attracted attention beyond biblical scholarship, drawing sharp criticism. “
30
Bibliography
Ron Rhodes. “The Debate over Feminist Theology: Part Three in a Three Part Series on Liberation Theology”. Christian Research Journal, pg 20 (Summer 1991). Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Feminism.html. (accessed March 28, 2012).
Kruse, Michael. “Household: Jesus’ Household Codes Pt 2.’ Kruise Kronicle. Entry posted July 05, 2007. http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2007/07/household-the-h.html. (Accessed February 2, 2012).
Gardner Jane F, Wiedmann Thomas E.J. The Roman Household: A Sourcebook, (Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World). (London, simultaneously USA and Canada, Routledge, 12/04/1991) pg 65.
Yamauchi, Edwin. Harpers World of the New Testament. First edition, (San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishing, 1981) pg 90.
David l. Balch, Household Codes, The Acchor Bible Dictionary Vol 3, (New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1992) pg 319.
Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical hand-book to the epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon. Myers Commentary on the New Testament. Fourth edition. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers 1885) pg 193.
Schweizer, Eduard. The Letter to the Colossians. (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982). PAGE 213.
Boring, M. Eugene, Berger Klaus, and Colpe Carsten (editors), Hellenistic commentary to the New Testament. (Nashville Abingdon Press, 1995) pg
YINGER, KENT. New Testament II. George Foxx Seminary. (Lesson taught February 27, 2012) Osiek, Carolyn, Balch L. David. Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches. First edition (Louisville, Kentucky Westminster John Knox Press 1997)
Sage Journals, doi: 10.1177/0142064X9902107405Journal for the Study of the New Testament (October 1999) vol. 21 no. 74 93-112
Alaska, Considering the Roman Household codes, Complegalitarian Blog (December 25, 2007) http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/2007/12/considering-roman-household-codes.html (accessed march 27/2012)
Frank J. Matera, New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul, (Westminster John Knox Press
8/1/1996) (Aristotle politics Bk 1 pt 5) pg 299
Jerry L. Sumney, Colossians: A Commentary, first edition, (Kentucky, Westminister John Knox Press 2008)
Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D and Warren Baker D.R.E.,(editors) Hebrew Greek Key Word Study Bible NIV, (Chattanooga, TN, AMG Publisher 1996)
Schaefer, Kurt C., Husband, Wife, Parent, Child, Master, Slave: The Economic Context of the New Testament Household Codes. (Presented at the 25th Anniversary ACE Conference, April17, 2009) http://www.illinoisgcf.org/ephesians/page2/assets/Schaefer-HouseholdCodes.pdf (see e.g., Seim, 1995) (accessed April 2012)