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.