Theology and Economics: Paul's Subversion of the Empire

Some of the most controversial passages in Scripture deal with the "household codes" in the New Testament epistles. Most prominent among these are Ephesians 5:18-6:9 and Colossians 3:18-4:1. Some scholars regard Ephesians and Colossians as deutero-Pauline epistles written after Paul's death. Part of the case against Pauline authorship is their inclusion of the household codes and their "culturally accommodating" nature. I find the deutero-Pauline view unpersuasive, but this issue is not central to our purposes here. What is central is the household codes. Far from being "accommodating," I think they are radically subversive of the Roman Empire. I will direct my attention to the household code in Ephesians 5:18-6:9. We cannot appreciate the impact of this scripture without cultural context.

Context

Greco-Roman Households

Writing instructions for proper household management was a common practice of Greek social philosophers. These "household codes" usually instructed the father in the household to "rule" over his household wisely. Instructions were not given to the wife, children, and slaves. The husband/father/master was exhorted to bring his wife, children, and slaves into submission as his duty in preserving the social order. (1)

The Roman household (familia) structure was very similar to the Greek household structure. The ruler of the Roman household was called the paterfamilias. His wife, children, and slaves were subject to him until his death. It is important to understand that the household code in Ephesians is not referring to three separate sets of relationships. (husband and wife, father and children, master, and slaves) It refers to the relationship of one person, the paterfamilias, to the rest of the household. (2)

The archetypical Roman household was the villa in the Roman countryside. These were self-sufficient plantations. The paterfamilias might live at the villa only for part of the year. Indeed, he might have had more than one villa and a residence in the city. Wealth through agriculture was the epitome of social status, while wealth gained through merchant trade was unseemly to the Roman hierarchy (although trading was widely practiced.) (3)

Unlike our use of the term "household" to refer to a family's residence, the Roman household was an estate with land. Most people in the Empire did not live in households. Most people in the New Testament era lived in multistory apartment buildings (insulae) with small shops on the ground floor where the residents worked. A "deluxe" apartment might be on the first floor behind the shops occupied by those with more wealth. Only the very wealthy had stand-alone homes in the city. (4)

In the age preceding Jesus' birth, the paterfamilias essentially had the power of life and death over the household members. There is evidence that authoritarian household rule was lessening in the First Century C.E. Women enjoyed more freedom and slave manumission had become so prevalent that the Roman establishment feared a dilution of Roman citizenship. (5) Caesar Augustus decreed in 4 C.E. that emancipation was prohibited before age thirty and placed limits on total emancipation each year. (6) This degree of social change made those with power in First Century Rome more apprehensive about threats to the social order.

Worship and Voluntary Associations

Worship of the Roman gods was considered essential to reinforcing Roman social values. Failure to participate in this worship made one suspect. Households were expected to worship the deity worshiped by the paterfamilias as well as honor the festivals of other deities throughout the year. In the century preceding Jesus' birth, the Jews had been granted an exemption from worshiping the Roman deities and from engaging in emperor worship. Christians were viewed as a Jewish sect until about 64 C.E. when Nero singled out Christians responsible for a massive fire in Rome. Until then, Christians were also exempt from the Roman worship requirements. The Jewish rebellion in the late 60s C.E. ended the worship exemptions. (7)

Rome forbade public assemblies except for gatherings of approved voluntary associations, of which there were four types by the First Century C.E.: professional, religious, burial, and household. Professional associations met to deal with issues related to their trade. Religious associations met to honor and worship a deity. Since the Jews had permission to worship their god, they were permitted to erect synagogues in Roman cities. Burial associations usually consisted of people wanting to provide a decent burial for themselves and their relatives. They usually consisted of the poor, ex-slaves, and slaves without wealthy patrons. By paying an initiation fee, paying monthly dues, and participating in the burial of others, members could ensure a decent burial for themselves. Household associations comprised members of a household plus those free and slave individuals associated with the household. (8)

Initially, churches formed in synagogues, but Christians were no longer welcomed as the fracture between Judaism and Christianity widened. We can tell from Paul's letters that some churches become household associations sponsored by a wealthy patron. Scholar James Jeffers also believes that some churches may have met as burial associations based on certain hints in Paul's letters. The burial associations were the least formal and required only the submission of a list of members to the authorities. This would likely have been the best option for a church of poor members without a patron. (9)

What is especially innovative about the "household of God" language used by Paul is that it envisions a connection of the individual associations to each other as one household with Christ as the paterfamilias. This appears to have been true from the beginning. Roman associations had no such connectedness. (10) But this was a minimal difference compared to other distinctions. As Jeffers observes, to the Romans, "the Christians were a mysterious combination of Jews, Gentiles, and Romans. They acted like a single people, even though they represented many nations. To the Romans, this clearly was unnatural." (11) Furthermore, the Christians didn't worship the Roman gods. Instead, they worshipped a figure from the backwaters of the Empire who had been crucified, the most shameful form of execution the Romans could imagine. (12) Christians were frequently accused of being everything from atheists to cannibals (i.e., "eating the body of Christ") who were a potential threat to the social order of the Empire.

The "Head" metaphor

English-speaking people today use "heart" and "head" as metaphors for "emotion" and "intellect," respectively. Additionally, we also use "head" to mean "authority," "starting point," "first in order," and "prominence." In fact, Webster's unabridged dictionary lists 85 different connotations for the word "head!"

The heart was associated with emotion, mind, intellect, will, and spirit for the ancient Greeks. For example, Jesus said,

But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. (Matthew 15:18-19)

Kephale is the Greek word for head. The traditional English connotation assumed of the head metaphor in scripture has been to use it as a synonym for "in authority over." Some Greek lexicons include authority as a possible interpretation. However, closer examination using more recent scholarship indicates more nuance with this metaphor.

Kephale comes from the root word kapto, which means "seize," in the sense of "grabbing a hold of" the most readily taken hold of a body part. Word studies of the ancient Greek manuscripts have turned up more than 2,300 instances of the word, but only 49 cases are metaphorical, including 12 instances in the New Testament (13). Interpretation of these 49 metaphorical uses is hotly contested. Southern Baptist Wayne Grudem and many fundamentalists are quick to demonize as radical feminists anyone who departs from interpreting "head" as authority in scripture. Furthermore, there is not complete unanimity about the word's meaning among those who discount the authority interpretation. (14)

Paul refers to Christ as "Lord" throughout his letters. Christ is Lord of the Church. Yet, in just a handful of references, Paul also describes Christ as head of the Church. He never uses head in reference to any worldly authority. Why use this metaphor? What nuance did Paul intend to communicate?

Let us first look at Paul's exhortations in Colossians 2:18-19 and Ephesians 4:15-16 about remaining grounded in Christ:

18 Do not let anyone disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, dwelling on visions, puffed up without cause by a human way of thinking, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God. (Colossians 2:18-19)

15 But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body's growth in building itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:15-16)

Just like a plant grows out of a root, the Greeks believed that the body grew out of the head. This makes good sense if you consider that most inputs to the body enter through the head: food, water, air, sight, and hearing.

Paul also uses the connotation of prominence or preeminence in Colossians 1:18:

He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything.

Now turn to Ephesians 1:20-23 where many would say there is a clear use of "head" as authority.

20 God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. 22 And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Notice that in verses 20-22, through the word "feet," there is a description of Christ assuming Lordship status over every power. Next comes "and," suggesting that something besides becoming ruler has happened.

...and has made him the head (over/of) all things for the church …

Why?

… which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

To be the animating life source that fills the entire body! (15)

The Household Code: Ephesians 5:18-6:9

This passage has at least two astonishing aspects when we consider the social context and language issues. First is the fact that Paul addresses the subordinate participants in the household, not just the paterfamilias. This elevates them to full participants in the life of the household, not just inferiors to be ruled over. (16) They are to do their duties not out of submission to the natural order but as a service to God in mutual submission.

Second, if Paul were to imitate Plato or Aristotle, Paul would have used the Greek exousia (privilege or authority) to describe the paterfamilias relationship to his wife and those in the household. Nowhere does Paul tell the paterfamilias to either be in authority or to "be the head!" The "head" language is used in reference to his wife.

22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, … 33 Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband. (Ephesians 5:22-25, 33)

Plato or Aristotle could not have fathomed giving such instructions to a woman. Like children and slaves, they were subjects. Period! No need to give a reason. Yet Paul feels compelled to give reasons. Submission by the wife is not given to the paterfamilias because he is the ruler of the household. It is no longer about status and male superiority, as with the Greeks and Romans. Submission is given to a husband out of appreciation for the life-giving sustenance and resources he provides to the household out of service to Christ; just as Christ is the animating source for his body, the Church. The paterfamilias is the patron for his household subjects, and in Roman culture, that commands respect and service. To not be "subject" to him would have been absolutely scandalous in the eyes of the Romans who already saw scandal among the Christians where there was none. It would have severely discredited the gospel.

For those of us living in 21st Century democracies with a range of options for governing our social institutions, it is hard to appreciate just how unalterable social structures must have seemed to Paul until Christ returned. Social structures were not on Paul's radar. What Paul was concerned about was how we live within the given structures. If people lived in genuine submission to each other, then the power inequities of the structures would be rendered meaningless. Key to his teaching is how the ones with power choose to live; in this case, the paterfamilias. The most stunning aspect of Paul's household code is the absence of an exhortation to rule. Instead, he told the paterfamilias to live as servants to those in his household, even to the point of death, just as Christ, the ultimate "head," had done to give life to his body the Church. (17)

This ethic fully realized would no doubt transform any social structure. Indeed, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Church continued its practice of baptizing slaves, based largely on the ethics taught in passages like this. Eventually, edicts were passed prohibiting Christians from holding other Christians as slaves. Slavery was effectively abolished in Europe by the turn of the first millennium (at least until Spain resurrected it against the Church's wishes in the 15th Century.) (18)

It is impossible to know the impact Paul anticipated his subversive other-centeredness strategy would have on social structures. It was Paul who wrote, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) What we do know is that it was a direct extension to having the mind and heart of Christ as he fills the earth with his eikons, giving witness of the coming age of shalom.

(1) James S. Jeffers. "The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity." Downers Grove, IL: 1999. 86-87, 105-107.

(2) Jeffers, 86-87.

(3) Jeffers, 184.

(4) Jeffers, 55-56.

(5) Concerning the role of women, see David C. Verner. "The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles." Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series; no. 71. Chico, CA: Scholar Press, 1983. 64-65. And David A. deSilva. "Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture." Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000. 180-183. On slavery, see Jeffers, 242.

(6) Jeffers, 230.

(7) Jeffers, 102, 105.

(8) Jeffers, 72-77.

(9) Jeffers, 76-77.

(10) Jeffers, 84.

(11) Jeffers, 108.

(12) deSilva, 44-50.

(13) Richard S. Cervin, "Does Kephale Mean 'Source' or 'Authority' in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal," Trinity Journal 10 NS (1989), 85-112. 85.

(14) I. Howard Marshall. "Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33." An essay in Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. "Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy." Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004, pages 186-204. 198.

(15) Gilbert Bilezikian, "I Believe in Male Headship." Article at Christians for Biblical Equality website. Accessed March 16, 2005. www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/male_headship.shtml.

(16) Jeffers, 86.

(17) Gordon D. Fee. "The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18-6:9." Priscilla Papers. 16:1  (Winter, 2002), 3-8. Online here.

(18) Rodney Stark, "The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success." New York: Random House, 2005. 200-202.

Update: Rodger Sellers sent me a link that diagrams Ephesians 5:18-22. You can see what he had to say in the comments, but I thought I would link it here: Ephesians 5:18-22

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

Comments

[Rodger Sellers]

"Submission by the wife is not given to the paterfamilias because he is the ruler of the household. It is no longer about status and male superiority as with the Greeks and Romans. Submission is given to a husband out of appreciation for the life giving sustenance and resources he provides to the household out of service to Christ;... The paterfamilias is the patron for his household subjects and in Roman culture that commands respect and service."

While I'll agree with the historical fact of the above in Roman culture, I'm not convinced that's what the passage is saying. (Or at least not all that it's saying.)

Vs. 21, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ," is the controlling verb for the following phrases, especially the "target" (vs. 22) some use in an attempt to justify the "complementarian" point of view towards women. (Check out all the stuff posted by MH people on several of the gridblogs about International Women's Day for this, especially all the stuff Rachelle got on her blog at http://www.thursdaypm.org/blog/rachelle/ -- it's her Wed. Mar. 8th post)

Literally, it reads "being subjet to one another" (with that being the controlling verb for what follows), then the wives / husbands parts are participial, gaining their meaning from the verb and then adding nuance to the verb. But my take is that mutual submission - of equals - the "there is no longer male and female" of Gal. 3: 28 - is the idea that's being presented here.

The "being subject" for wives (while I'll grant may be a bone thrown to Roman culture like you seem to be saying)is one nuance to mutual submission while the "loving your wives just as Christ loved the church" is another - both of these are subordinate to the verb in vs. 21. To try to then further subordinate one of these to the other is non-sensical.

I've posted a sentence diagram that I toted around for years before scanning here: http://www.rodgersellers.com/Ephesians%205.htm (I'm not sure how to enter that as a link, so sorry about the cut and paste needed -- don't know enough HTML for that.)

It shows what I'm trying to convey.

RPS

[Michael Kruse]

Thanks for this Rodger!

I realized about 3/4 the way into writing this post I was trying to do too much with it. I don't think I fleshed out some pieces as well.

"While I'll agree with the historical fact of the above in Roman culture, I'm not convinced that's what the passage is saying. (Or at least not all that it's saying.)"

I agree that this is not all that it is saying. I suspect Paul has two aims in mind here. One is relationships within the household. Second is the relationship of the household to the larger world.

I fully agree with you that the "submission to one another out of reverence for Christ" is the controlling portion for what follows. What I am speculating is that if Paul stopped here and said nothing more you would have had a completely egalitarian household. I also suspect that had households lived openly in an egalitarian way the Romans would have quickly crushed the movement. Thus, Paul feels the need to give more instruction. I am suggesting that the wife subjecting herself to her husband as the “head” is the practical and culturally specific expression of the higher principle of “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” within the Greco-Roman context.

Applying this to today's culture does NOT mean women submitting to their husbands as providers! It is no longer a scandal for husbands and wives to live as equals, therefore there is no need to "camouflage" their egalitarian relationship. Paul’s household code was a strategic not a universal trans-cultural mandate.

That is mostly what I was trying to say but maybe didn’t too well. Feedback like yours is exactly why I am writing this stuff. Thanks!

[Rev. Thomas E. Smith]

John Howard Yoder's work, The Politics of Jesus (1972) calls this "revolutionary subordination." I think his argument and yours are very similar. While the NT commands submission everywhere, it does so knowing full well that the unspoken expecation is that slaves, wives, and even children would refuse to submit to idolatry regardless of consequences from the "head of household." Submission is a radically subversive method of preaching the gospel from a place of weakness in the Roman world, submission in all respects but one! This is how the Roman culture was brought to its knees by the gospel, for as goes the household, so goes the empire. The only thing they could throw at slaves and women was death, which turned out to be not much of a weapon, for those who confessed faith in Jesus Christ knew that death was a defeated foe. We completely miss the point of the household codes when we abstract them from their first century evangelistic and appologetic context.

[Michael Kruse]

Thanks for this reminder about Yoder. I think that this is one of the great contributions Anabaptists like Yoder have brought to the Church.

What I wrestle with is this. Short of insurrection, it seems there was little people could do to change the social structures of the day in the New Testament era. Today, where “we the people” are the government, there are a variety of ways we may go about influencing social structures. It seems to me that submission and other-centeredness are still at the core but I sense that we are to engage culture in ways that New Testament Christians couldn’t and Anabaptists often haven’t. Yet I think the Reformed tradition often places too much faith in its ability to transform through political engagement. Maybe that is why God gave us each other. *grin*

[Rodger Sellers]

"What I am speculating is that if Paul stopped here and said nothing more you would have had a completely egalitarian household. I also suspect that had households lived openly in an egalitarian way the Romans would have quickly crushed the movement."

Yeah: Good point -- begrudgingly acknowledged... Simply because it really does a mind trip on me to delve too deep into the possibility that Paul was "working the process" a la church / empire political culture! :)

RPS

[Hannah Im]

Thanks so much for this. Your explanation of κεπαλη in the passages above finally helped make this more clear to me. I studied this passage in an exegesis class at Dallas Sem, but I wasn't exposed to as much modern (read: complimentarian) scholarship as I would have liked.

This is my first visit to your blog, but not my last.

[Michael Kruse]

Hi Hannah. I'm glad you found this post helpful.

I am about to wrap up my endless series on Theology and Economics. Sometime in August I hope to dive into the subordination of women question. I want to look at slavery, womens' subordination, and homosexual practice. I want to process in public how I have to the conclusions that slavery is wrong, women are equal to serve in every kind of ministry and homosexual practice is against God's will. Some see my position on women directly to affirmation of homosexual practice. It doesn't. Processing these three ethical issues has led to some the richest Bible study I have ever done. I do hope you will check back and thanks for stopping by.

[LISTENING]

I look forward to checking in on your posts regarding slavery, the role of women, and homosexuality....

[Michael Kruse]

Thanks listening. First I have to find the exit out of my theology and economics series. (I've fallen in. And I can't get out!) Actually I think I should be done in early August. I have a five post deal I want to do on Tom Skinner and a couple of book reviews. Then I think I should be ready to go. Thanks for visiting!