week .. help

HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSEHOLD CODES The household during the early Roman imperial period played a central part in the economic, cultural, political, and religious life of the society. Aristotle’s theories of the family and polis (Pol. 1253b) reflected and shaped social reality, and his ideas, broadly speaking, influenced the Greco-Roman world. Imperial Rome emphasized the Roman family as foundational to the imperial power base. Three pairs of superordinate/subordinate groups formed the theoretical family: husband/wife, father/child, and owner/*slave. The highly stratified culture found representation in the hierarchically ordered family structure that emphasized cohesion, but at the expense of the subordinate members. While *women and freeborn children had some legal protections and agency, slaves lacked social honor and had no legal family or inheritance and few legal protections; their life could be described as “social death” (Patterson, 38). 1. Greco-Roman Households 2. Greco-Roman Household Codes 3. Pauline Household Codes 1. Greco-Roman Households. Family units included parents and children, and perhaps grandparents, cousins, slaves, and freed men and women. The family revolved around the parents, and even more, the oldest male (father or grandfather). Theoretically, the father had absolute authority over his children, but in practice, social conventions and pressures mitigated this power, except in one important area: the father chose whether to raise a child born to his wife (Cicero, Att. 11.9). Most people married in their late teens or early twenties, were widowed or divorced, and remarried once or twice. Couples hoped for a harmonious relationship. The *marriage was sine manu, which meant that authority over the wife was not transferred to the husband by her family, but the latter retained authority (manus). The woman brought a dowry to the marriage, which was returned to her if her husband died or they divorced. The wife might have her own sources of *wealth outside of her husband’s control. Some households were led by women. If a woman was widowed or divorced, her children were considered part of the husband’s family. Infant mortality was high, with approximately 50 percent of children dying before their tenth birthday (Laes, 26). Children were thought to need strict discipline and training, for they lacked reason. Additionally, their character was established at birth, and circumstances revealed it. About age seven, children began working in shops or fields, although there is also artwork portraying children playing with toys (Laes, 22-49). In their early years, slave and free children were raised together in the home (MacDonald, 36-48). Adult children showed their piety by caring for their aging parents, a duty second only to honoring the gods. 2. Greco-Roman Household Codes. 2.1. Aristotle’s Household Structure and Social Hierarchy. The household codes (Haustafel, pl. Haustafeln) grew out of Aristotle’s political theories formed in Athens, which at the time was a slave economy. Reflecting on the ontology or nature of male, female, child, and slave, Aristotle argued that the superordinate member of the pair (male, father, slave master) was by nature superior and better fitted to command (Pol. 1.5.1-2). Free men were distinguished by distinct virtues such as courage and self-control (Hering, 206); females were by nature inferior in both

the physical and rational sense (Historia animalium 2.3.501b19-21; De partibus animalium 2.7.653a28-29). Thus, the wife showed courage by submitting to her husband (Pol. 1260a). Aristotle posited that some humans were “natural slaves,” and since nature is good, therefore the slave and the owner benefit from slavery (Pol. 1252a30-34; 1255a28; Garnsey, 108-27). Aristotle did not base his opinions of slavery on race or skin color but viewed his Greek culture as superior and evaluated other ethnic groups as inferior, and thus more likely to be natural slaves. The slave had minimal virtue and lacked reason; therefore, the owner must rule the slave absolutely (Eth. nic. 8.11.6-7). Aristotle labeled the slave a human tool whose owner had despotic power. In contrast, the father was to rule his child benevolently (Pol. 1278b32-37; Eth. nic. 1161a 30-b6). 2.2. Roman Modification to Aristotle’s Household Structure. Stoic philosophers of the first century AD focused less on politics and more on *ethics. Musonius Rufus concentrated on the husband/wife pair, urging husbands to use sexual self-control. A husband should promote philosophical learning with his wife, so that she could keep the house, be chaste, and forgo extravagances and passions. Martha Nussbaum cautions that what looks like advocacy for wives in Musonius Rufus neglects the fact that her virtue is shown only in certain areas of life, in the domestic sphere, and not in social, political, and cultural arenas where decisions affecting her would be made (Nussbaum, 302). Plutarch’s treatise Advice to the Bride and Groom likewise advocates for wives to be taught *philosophy to mitigate the woman’s natural tendency toward irrationality and passions. Plutarch modifies Aristotle’s insistence on male superiority and female inferiority but still sees the husband as the superior “soul” and the wife as the inferior “body” in the union. The harmony and affection promoted within the marriage is based on the wife accepting her husband’s gods, friends, and goals (Plutarch, Conjugalia Praecepta). Seneca looked at the owner/slave pair. He was most interested in fostering an owner’s self-control and spoke metaphorically about the owner enslaved by his passions. Seneca rejected Aristotle’s argument of the natural slave and encouraged merciful treatment of slaves to prevent their uprising (Ben. 3.20.1-2; Contr. 7.6.18; Ep. 123.1-4). The male owner also had sexual privileges over his male and female slave, and owners often prostituted their slaves. Social norms frowned on female owners having sex with their slaves. Slaves might be permitted by their owner to form a marriage of sorts, but the slave “husband” did not have exclusive sexual privilege, for the slave woman was still sexually available to her owner and anyone to whom he gave her. Additionally, any children from the slave marriage were the property of the owner. Owners might use the threat of separation to make the slave couple work harder. Slaves as young as seven, but typically older, could be used sexually. Art and poetry testify to this ubiquitous practice; for example, a slave owner wrote a eulogy to his deceased twelve-year-old slave boy, Glaucias, a sexual favorite, a delicium (Laes, 223-30). However, no evidence exists that Jewish families or the Christian communities sexually used slaves (Philo, Abr. 133; Spec. 3, 37-42; Contempl. 60-62; Josephus, Ant. 1.200-201; Ag. Ap. 2.37 §§273-275; Did. 2.2; Barn. 10.8). Scholars debate whether Paul permitted Christian owners sexual access to their slaves (Glancy, 60; Harper, 87-92). 2.3. Freedmen and Freedwomen. An important social and legal category not reflected in the household codes is that of the freed man and woman. Slaves could be manumitted, but the social stain of slavery remained on their character, and they continued to serve their former

owner in the capacity of a client to their patron. Slaves might save money (peculium) to buy their *freedom, although the money would remain in some sense with the owner, who was now the patron (Mouritsen, 177-80; 1 Cor 7:22). Female slaves were more typically freed through marriage to their owner, and they might earn money from gifts for sexual favors (Pomeroy, 195-98). Rarely were agricultural or mining slaves freed; most died on the job. 2.4. Jewish Authors on Marriage and Slavery. Jewish writers weighed in on marriage and slavery (Hezser, 124-29). Josephus states that Scripture indicates a woman is inferior to her husband in all things (Ag. Ap. 2.25 §204). Philo of Alexandria analyzed slavery through the lens of Torah’s teaching on the Sabbath. Slaves and owners were of the same nature (Spec. 2.69; 3.137), and owners “submitted” to do tasks on Sabbath that were regularly done by the slave, for the slave abstains from work on that day (Spec. 2.66-67). 3. Pauline Household Codes. At least some of Paul’s churches met in homes (Adams, 10). For example, Paul addresses Nympha and the Laodicean *church meeting in her home (Col 4:15), and his *coworkers Priscilla and Aquila held church meetings in their home (1 Cor 16:19). Education and training in the *gospel message, along with rites of *baptism and the *Lord’s Supper, characterized these meetings. The familial categories of married/single/widowed, freeborn and slave children, slave women and men, freedmen and -women, and slave owners shaped the community as much as their occupational categories or whether they were Jew or *Gentile. For example, when Paul answers the Corinthians’ questions about marriage, he also mentions the Jew and Gentile (1 Cor 7:18-20), the slave (1 Cor 7:21-24), and daughters (1 Cor 7:36-38). Paul adds another dimension to the church family, namely, the virgin/celibate adult woman who does not marry but serves the church community (1 Tim 5:3-16). 3.1. The Context of the Household Codes in Ephesians and Colossians. The household code structure occurs most directly in Ephesians and Colossians. Scholars offer several reasons for its inclusion. Some argue the instructions were apologetic, presenting the church as a nonthreatening group that supported the social status quo (Lincoln, 397). This position assumes the content of the instructions are in line with the broader cultural norms. Others suggest the focus is inward as the author instructs the young church in living out the unity in community established in Christ (Gombis, 176). Scholars debate the authorship of both epistles, but to avoid the awkwardness of using “the author” or speaking with the passive voice, this article presents Paul as the author. Paul introduces his household codes section in Ephesians with a lengthy sentence about being filled with the *Holy Spirit, expressed by singing psalms, giving thanks, and submitting to each other out of reverence or *fear (phobos) for *Christ (Eph 5:18-21; see also Col 3:15-17). The reciprocity reflected in the reciprocal pronoun “one another” (allēlous) and the insistence on respect being given first to Christ frame the subsequent injunctions for the three pairs within the household structure. Paul repeats the title “Christ” throughout the codes, reinforcing Christ as the standard by which to understand and emulate reverence, *love, and obedience. Colossians focuses throughout the short letter on Christ as *Lord, with the believer as his *servant (Col 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7, 12). In both letters, the context of the household codes is the church’s *worship of God and imitation of Christ’s sacrificial love for his church.

Paul addresses the three pairs that make up the Greco-Roman culture’s conceptual family structure: husband/wife, parent/child, owner/slave. In each case, he addresses the subordinate member first, perhaps for two reasons. First, Paul signals his respect for them, for these letters were read aloud in the churches. Second, Paul wishes to constrain the superordinate’s power given by society. Paul considers an additional pair, Jew/Gentile, included in the familial structure as siblings, adopted children of God, co-heirs together in Christ (Eph 2:15-19; see also Gal 3:28; Braxton, 94). 3.2. Husband and Wife. In Ephesians, Paul’s first sentence to wives borrows the participle submitting from the preceding verse, thereby linking the two verses. Only two other contemporary examples survive of wives instructed to submit (Plutarch, Conjugalia Praecepta 33; Pseudo-Callisthene 1.22.4). Usually, wives are instructed to obey their husbands. In Colossians, Paul commands wives to submit themselves to their husbands, using the same verb “to submit.” Paul draws on the *body metaphor he has used throughout Ephesians to refer to the husband as the *head of his wife. The metaphorical meaning of the Greek term “head” (kephalē) is contested. Some argue it reflects “leader” (Grudem, 51). Others suggest “source,” such as the headwaters of a river (Fee, 502-3). A third position postulates the noun is best understood as preeminence or as a synecdoche for the whole (Thiselton, 821). A fourth position connects family, ancestry, and *identity within the metaphor (Westfall, 82-84). A fifth position argues that the metaphor focuses on “one flesh” unity (Sumner, 167). In using the head/body figure of speech, Paul opens new ways of understanding Christ and his body, the church, in which a husband can imagine himself not in terms of *leadership but as loving his wife as Christ loves the church. Paul commands husbands three times to love (agapaō) their wives in a self-sacrificial way, imitating Christ’s love (Eph 5:2, 25; see also Col 3:19). Paul commands the husband to love his wife as his own body, as he loves himself (Eph 5:28-29; Westfall, 93-94). Such self-sacrifice by the superordinate member of the pair is strongly countercultural and reflects the mutuality of the Genesis quotation that husband and wife become one *flesh (see also 1 Cor 7:2-4). The wife is not subsumed into her husband, but each as individuals join to be one flesh. 3.3. Parent and Child. The instruction for children to obey parents is qualified as “in the Lord” (Eph 6:1; see Col 3:20). Paul uses a similar phrase when addressing wives, but he does not stipulate that wives obey their husbands. By mentioning the Lord and citing Scripture (Ex 20:21; Deut 5:16), Paul circumscribes obedience to those actions that would honor God; Paul does not condone immoral requests from parents. Musonius Rufus makes a similar distinction; if a father forbids his son to study philosophy, the son must nevertheless pursue study, for such activity obeys the gods, which is the son’s higher calling (Musonius Rufus, Discourses 16.30-31, 104-106). Slave children attending church would have an owner, not a father per se, and adults in the church would serve the surrogate parental role. Romans encouraged education, and Christian communities followed suit. In the church, slave children received the same teachings as their free counterparts by fathers, mothers, and surrogate mothers and fathers. Paul commands fathers to not frustrate (parorgizō) or provoke (erethizō) their children but instruct them (Eph 6:4; Col 3:21). Paul probably highlights fathers because society empowered fathers with extensive control over their children during the father’s lifetime. However, the commandment requires children to honor both father and mother, and mothers (and grandmothers) educated children, as in the case of Timothy (2 Tim 1:5).

3.4. Owner and Slave. The third set within the household codes is the owner/slave pair. Before turning to the text, a brief word must be said about the metaphorical use of “slave” in Paul’s letters. Paul refers to himself as a slave of Christ (Rom 1:1; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:1; see also Jas 1:1, 2 Pet 1:1), drawing on OT images of the faithful Israelite serving God (Num 12:7; Jer 25:4; Ezek 38:17). Paul also describes believers as “slaves” of *righteousness, in contrast to those who are slaves of *sin (Rom 6:17-18). The metaphor is limited, in that Paul does not imagine God or Jesus Christ as the typical slave master who is given free rein to dominate their slaves (Harris, 142). In Ephesians, Paul charges the slave to obey with fear and trembling (Eph 6:5), a phrase that is best understood as respecting or honoring their human master even as all believers honor or fear Christ (Eph 5:21; Col 3:22-25; see also Phil 2:12; 1 Cor 2:3; 2 Cor 7:15; 1 Tim 6:1-2). This verse has been used out of context to condone domestic *violence, much to the church’s shame (Fowl, 197). As he does with wives, so too in Ephesians 5:22 Paul adds the phrase “as to Christ” (hōs tō Christō) and does not repeat the verb “to obey” before the phrase, although some English translations add the verb. With this phrase, Paul stresses that the slave’s actions provide an opportunity to model Christ to the rest of the church, thereby attaining honor. Moreover, the slave will gain a reward from God for the good work done (Eph 6:8; Col 3:24-25; 2 Cor 5:10). Having a reward and gaining an inheritance are remarkable promises available to the Gentile believing slave. Paul begins his address to the owners in Ephesus with the command to do to slaves the same things (ta auta, Eph 6:9), which can be translated “in the same way.” Paul could be pointing owners to emulate the slaves’ wholehearted service (Eph 6:7) or their good deeds (Eph 6:8). John Chrysostom exegetes the passage as Paul’s exhortation that owners serve their slaves (Hom. Eph. 6.9; PG 62:157). Similarly, Paul insists to the Colossian owners that they do what is right and equitable (to dikaion kai tēn isotēta, Col 4:1) to their slaves, a posture that dignifies the slave in sharp contrast to wider social norms (McKnight). Not only does the slave represent a model of discipleship for the owner, but the owner’s special privilege of domination is taken away in Christ. Paul insists that the owner may not threaten the slave (Eph 6:9). The injunction would include threatening the use of physical force, or the withholding of food, water, or suitable clothing, or separating a mother from her child, or two slaves who love each other. Paul provides no exception to this ruling; even the disobedient slave cannot be threatened. Paul grounds his *teaching in the theological reality that God shows no favoritism (see also Acts 10:34; Gal 2:6; Col 3:25; Jas 2:1). To the Colossians, Paul points to the crucified and risen Lord as the master in heaven, who expects his followers to emulate the self-sacrificial love he displayed on the *cross. Paul lives out these words in his letter to Philemon, wherein he asks that this owner accept his newly converted slave, Onesimus, as a brother/sibling in Christ and no longer as a slave (Philem 15-16). See also COLOSSIANS, LETTER TO THE; EPHESIANS, LETTER TO THE; HEAD; KINSHIP LANGUAGE IN PAUL; MAN AND WOMAN; MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE, ADULTERY AND INCEST; SEXUALITY, SEXUAL ETHICS; SLAVE, SLAVERY; VIOLENCE. BIBLIOGRAPHY. E. Adams, The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses?, LNTS 450 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013); B. R. Braxton, No Longer Slaves: Galatians and African American Experience (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002); G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987); S. E.

Fowl, Ephesians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012); P. Garnsey, Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); J. A. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); T. Gombis, The Drama of Ephesians: Participating in the Triumph of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010); W. Grudem, “Does κεφαλή (‘Head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2336 Examples,” TrinJ ns 6.1 (1985): 38-59; K. Harper, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013); M. J. Harris, Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999); J. P. Hering, The Colossian and Ephesian Haustafeln in Theological Contexts: An Analysis of Their Origins, Relationships, and Message (New York: Lang, 2007); C. Hezser, Jewish Slavery in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); E. Laes, Children in the Roman Empire: Outsiders Within (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC 42 (Dallas: Word, 1990); M. Y. MacDonald, The Power of Children: The Construction of Families in the Greco-Roman World (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014); S. McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018); H. Mouritsen, The Freedman in the Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); M. C. Nussbaum, “The Incomplete Feminism of Musonius Rufus, Platonist, Stoic, and Roman,” in The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece, ed. M. C. Nussbaum and J. Sihvola (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 283-325; O. Patterson, Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982); S. B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves (New York: Schocken, 1995); S. Sumner, Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003); A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000); C. Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016). L. H. Cohick