Video Transcript: The Household Code
In this segment, we're going to talk about something that is very important and very contentious. And that is these literary constructs that are that we call the household codes for want of a better name. It is those passages, particularly in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5, and I Peter 2 that talk about mutual relationships within the household. We have to begin with Aristotle, because Aristotle, in the first book of Politics, says that there are three relationships that the head of a household has to entertain has to have, there is husband-wife, father children, and master-slaves. So we are assuming here a household, an ancient Greek household, of sufficient economic status, that there are slaves in the household. So we have these three relationships. And from Aristotle onward, there are what we call treatises on household management, in the Hellenistic period, all written in Greek coming from Greek writers in the Hellenistic period. And they discuss how the head of the household should relate to these three groups of people. Aristotle had said that, with regard to the man's wife and his children, he should act as a constitutional monarch. So a monarch for sure, a ruler, but one who is governed by moderation. With regard to the slaves, he should act like a despot like an absolute ruler. So there are differences in the relationships, it's not as if he should relate to, to wife, to children and to slaves in the same way. What you see here is the, the classic male supremacy theory in which the freeborn man is the ruler of everyone in different ways. But of everyone. Aristotle also says that there are some people who are slaves by nature, they'll never be anything else. Now, in Aristotle's world, he didn't have this high degree high number of manumissions of slaves that we have talked about previously, that's Roman. So he doesn't know that, for him a slave is a slave forever. So we have this very, very authoritarian kind of an image of how the household should be run. And in these treatises on household management, there, there are different approaches to it. But basically, it's very interesting to read them, because they all assume that the the head of the household, the husband Father, is the one who is older and more experienced. Now remember what we've said before about age at marriage, and even into the Roman period that the husband is likely at first marriage to be almost 10 years older than his bride. So there is an element there of the man being more experienced, more, hopefully more mature. And particularly in one of these discussions, it says how he should teach his young bride how to run the household. Now, that's laughable, because the boys didn't get that kind of education. It's the girls who knew how to run the household. And in this treatise, there's an imaginary conversation and she says, yes, please teach me Please teach me. Well, you know, this is a this is a made up conversation. And one can suppose that very few girls were that naive to think that the husband actually knew what to do with the household. She's the one who knows. But there are interesting discussions there about her her duties, including the care of the slaves, taking care of nursing sick slaves, sick enslaved people in the household, as well as the children. So they're, they're very interesting treatises to read and you do see in them the the ways in which women In the household were were expected to, to perform and to, to have the skills in an in a high status household, she's not going to do all the cooking. Slaves and slave people are, but she's the one who has to supervise. She's the one who has to know how to manage all of this. In lower economic status households, certainly the the wife is the one who was going to do a lot of the work. But these treatises on household management don't really deal with lower status, households, that they're, they're intended for wealthy people and high status people. So we have all that as a background, and it's household management. Now, we come to the New Testament passages, and particularly in Colossians 3, and Ephesians 5, and then there's a bit of it in in I Peter in chapter 2. What is important to understand, you see, most of us come directly at the biblical texts. And we aren't aware of that background, that I've just talked about the background, that is treatise on household management addressed to the man, the head of household, and it's all to him, it's how he should relate to everybody else. What's different in these biblical texts, and that I think, makes them progressive in their day is that both sides of the pair are addressed. Not only husband, but also wife, not only father, but also children, not only master, but also slave. And the subordinate group are addressed first. and I don't know whether you have noticed that when you've looked at these texts, wives first, then husbands, children, then father, and, and most of our translations say parents, given the what we know about the situation, it really is fathers, but with mothers joined in, and then masters and slaves. And, of course, women also owned enslaved people. There are slaveholders who are also women, that's not envisioned at all. So, what is is different here, what is what is new, in a way, with one or two previous exceptions, is the way in which all the groups are addressed. And subordinate groups first. Could any writer in this culture in the first century have imagined have talked about complete equality between husband and wife? I don't think so. It is just not part of their imagination. Now remember, Paul in Galatians 3:28 this very important passage says that in Christ, there is no longer male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female, but all are one in Christ Jesus. He says all are one in Christ Jesus, He does not say all are equal. The idea of social equality, across gender, across social status, is really not something that that people had imagined. It's really not something that that that people could understand at that point. And that's why I say that these household codes in their own context, are, are progressive, because they are granting personhood to everyone involved. A very interesting point on this, is that somehow after the New Testament, and with the exception of a document that's called the first letter of Clement, which probably comes from late first century, right around the time of the writing of the last books of the New Testament. First Clement also has one of these household codes with mutual relationships in the in the household. After that, it disappears. It just disappears. It is not there in early Christian literature and one wonders what happened to it and it just in got, did they think everything was said or it didn't bear repeating anymore, or they just weren't that interested in it or what we really don't know. But the interesting thing is that it is that kind of language now the subordination language begins to appear in discussions in treatises about the organization of the church. So it becomes subordination to the church leaders. And so the the idea of subordination is still there, but it really gets subsumed into discussions of church authority. I'd like to look for a moment at one of these household codes at the one in Ephesians, in Ephesians, chapter 5. And just to comment on some of it, in the light of what we've been talking about, and what's very important is, when you're looking at this is to look at verse 21. Because Ephesians 5:21 says, Submit to one another, out of reverence for Christ. That's the starting point. The the, the ideal is this mutual submission. And, and I also want to highlight that in the relationship wives to husbands, it's submission. It's, it's, it's hupotasso is the word in Greek and it is. Yeah, it's to, to just in its origin, to place oneself under. So it's, it's not, it's not harsh. Whereas with the children and with the slaves, the word is hupakoe, and it's obey. So wives are not told to obey their husbands, but rather to be subordinate, in the same way, that in verse 21, everyone is to be subordinate to one another. And the, the way in which the subordination happens is that it's, it's very Christological, in Ephesians 5 because the husband is the image of Christ, the wife is the image of the church. And what it's really talking about is the relationship between Christ and the church. When you come to the slaves, because I want to comment on that, because we we've looked at slavery in a previous segment, it's obey your earthly masters, as you would obey Christ. So again, the husband is put in the position of Christ, same thing with the children. So it's, it's an admonition to obey lovingly with reverence, as you would to Christ, which is a beautiful ideal, it's also very dangerous. Because this opens itself to, to the suffering of abuse. And so, after that, masters, treat your slaves with reverence with respect, don't threaten them, because the one who is the both their master and yours is in heaven. And there's no partiality with him. There's no favoritism, there's no there's no regard for one more than the other. And I think that's a very important principle. In cultures in which slavery is no longer legal, we no longer practice it. As I've said, Before, it happens for sure. involuntary servitude in some way happens in every culture, but it's not legal. And we need to, to hold on to that principle that's there at the end. It's in 6, chapter 6, verse 9, that God shows no partiality. And so, if we are in enfleshed, incarnated in social structures, some of which may not be just, we need to remember that the that our relationships with the people involved must still be just must still be with reverence, that we must know that God does not favor one over the other. And God does not favor the wealthy God does not favor men over women. God does not favor the person in situation of social power. So, at the beginning, and at the end of this text, there are important principles that we really need to pay attention to. So finally, this is, of course, a very, as I said, contentious passage, and the one in Colossians. And in I Peter as well. And when when we're asking ourselves what to do with it, I think it's not a question of history would have hermeneutics of interpretation of careful interpretation, principles of interpretation, the interpretation of biblical authority. So if we, if we want to really understand these texts, I think we can't pick and choose on this issue. We can't focus on husbands and wives, wives and husbands, and say, We must focus on this without also looking at the children and parents, and at the slaves and masters and if we say that slavery is no longer tolerated, then we have to look at what we're how we're interpreting the whole passage. It's all or nothing. We can't just take part of it and say this is normative when the other part is not. And so if we don't think that slavery should exist today, then we have to be very careful in how we interpret the rest of the passage.