The instructions related to slaves, women, and children in the New Testament might be characterized by the concept of mutual submission in Christ. The authors of the New Testament were certainly products of their time, while simultaneously promoting a strong counter-cultural initiative. The following brief analysis not only interacts with the relevant biblical passages that point to the household codes, but it also engages both Craig Keener and Shi-Min Lu to highlight the biblical perspective within a Greco-Roman culture.
The key biblical passages that address the household codes are Ephesians 5:21-6:9, Colossians 3:18-4:1, and 1 Peter 2:11-3:7. Regarding slavery, the Greco-Roman culture provided a certain amount of humane treatment to slaves. S. Scott Bartchy explains that Augustus honored freed slaves who served in the military, and laws were passed in the first century to limit the punishment of slaves.[1] However, in a fascinating passage, the apostle Paul commands servants to obey their masters while on earth, but then profoundly goes on to state, “Masters, do the same to them” (Eph 6:9, English Standard Version). Within the cultural milieu of the day, Paul did not advocate overthrowing the institution of slavery, or any other domestic institution for that matter, but, as Keener notes, to suggest that masters “do the same” to the slaves as slaves do to the masters is certainly a radical approach that moves well beyond ethical theory and into praxis.[2] The radicalness of Paul’s thought moves beyond treating slaves as fellow servants (Eph 6:9), and also includes husbands serving their wives by giving themselves up for them (Eph 5:25), and serving children by not provoking them (Eph 6:4). The master becomes the servant; the boss becomes the slave. The concept continues to be radically relevant in the twenty-first century. By way of illustration, Paul would not likely attempt to overthrow the office of the President that pervades every corner of American culture, but he would clearly redefine even the modern perspective of most presidents. Keener observes that Paul frames the entire household code directives within the concept of “mutual submission: submitting to one another (Eph 5:21) and doing the same things to them (Eph 6:9).”[3]
Although overtones of Pauline thought pervaded Greco-Roman culture, nothing close to Paul’s radical approach existed in ancient times. According to Keener, Xenophon hinted at mutual submission, but did not suggest complete mutuality; the Stoic thinker Musonius Rufus purported an equality between men and women but stopped short of Pauline thought; Aristotle and later Philo asserted that the male was by nature superior, and, finally, Josephus assumed that the instability of women made them unfit for court testimony.[4] Paul’s radicalness continues in his letter to the Colossians. Regarding slavery, most translations render Colossians 4:1 something like “treat your bondservants justly (δίκαιον) and fairly (ἰσότητα).” However, Keener contends that a comprehensive lexical analysis shows that ἰσότητα normally means “equality” not “fairly.”[5] If Keener is correct, then further evidence exists for Paul’s counter-cultural perspective of mutual submission.
Shi-Min Lu also spends considerable time engaging the ancient Greco-Roman environment in order to elucidate an understanding of the household codes within the New Testament. Lu recognizes that the topic of household management can be traced to Plato and his ideal state as well as to Aristotle and his concept of harmony in the city-state.[6] Without question, both thinkers recognized the contribution of domestic affairs within a broader society. Likewise, Augustus, according to Lu, promoted domestic stability by passing laws that encouraged procreation while also exposing adultery.[7] Although ancient thought leaders, at times, pointed to a more egalitarian environment, Everett Ferguson notes that life was difficult for women because they were not treated as equals.[8] In sum, men continued to rule women in the ancient Greco-Roman culture and lacked the mutuality conveyed within the biblical teaching of the New Testament.
Although the Christian perspective did not attempt to usurp or overthrow any ancient domestic institution, the question remains as to what initiated such a strong initiative further down the path of equality. Lu believes the answer lies within the gospel message. To be clear, Lu is not referring to a gospel built upon prompting an individual to raise a hand, walk down an aisle, and land on a list of “wins.” Instead, Lu is referring to a new cosmic reality, a new personhood, a new identity in Christ.
Specifically, the language that precedes the codes in 1 Peter 2:11-3:7 properly explains the reason for the biblical departure from the current culture.[9] The author of 1 Peter clearly communicates that believers are born again into a newly inaugurated eschatological inheritance and reality (1 Pet 1:3-5) while reminding his readers that they had been singled out as a chosen race for the possession of God as God’s own people (1 Pet 2:9-10, italics mine). In other words, people did not possess women, slaves, or children; God possessed His people whose identity was forged in Christ through the Spirit. Accordingly, Andrew Lincoln asserts that mutuality between believers occurred because of the Christians’ new identity in Christ.[10] As a result, Lu explains that the New Testament household codes highlight both the grace and mercy of the gospel “for the oppressed and marginalized.”[11] The radicalness of the New Testament’s concept of mutual submission built on a foundation of a believer’s identity in Christ provides the backbone for a biblical perspective of the household codes that were both informed by the Greco-Roman culture while simultaneously departing from it.
_________________________________
[1] S. Scott Bratcher, “Slaves and Slavery in the Roman World,” in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 175.
[2] Craig S Keener, “Mutual Submission Frames the Household Codes,” Priscilla Papers 35, no. 3 (2021): 10.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 11.
[5] Ibid., 12.
[6] Shi-Min Lu, “Woman’s Role in New Testament Household Codes: Transforming First-Century Roman Culture,” Priscilla Papers 30, no. 1 (2016): 9.
[7] Ibid., 10.
[8] Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 78.
[9] Lu, “Woman’s Role in New Testament Household Codes,” 11–12.
[10] Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, vol. 42, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David Allen Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2014), 366–368.
[11] Lu, “Woman’s Role in New Testament Household Codes,” 14.
Bibliography
- Bratcher, S. Scott. “Slaves and Slavery in the Roman World.” In The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, edited by Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.
- Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
- Keener, Craig S. “Mutual Submission Frames the Household Codes.” Priscilla Papers 35, no. 3 (2021): 10–14.
- Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. Vol. 42, Word Biblical Commentary, edited by Bruce M. Metzger, David Allen Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2014.
- Lu, Shi-Min. “Woman’s Role in New Testament Household Codes: Transforming First-Century Roman Culture.” Priscilla Papers 30, no. 1 (2016): 9–15.