Right after I became a Christian
at age 19, I started bringing my Bible to work with me. I remember one of my coworkers saw that I had
my Bible with me, and she asked to see it.
Soon she was leafing through the pages until she came to today’s passage
from Ephesians 5. She read it out loud
to me, and then she said, “This passage is why I’m not a Christian. Telling a woman in an abusive marriage to
submit to her husband is terrible advice.”
We might question my coworker’s
particular application of this passage; however, her feelings about this
passage are reflective of a lot of people today. We can even see this in how Christian
marriage has evolved through the years.
In the 1892 edition of the Book of
Common Prayer, the ceremony for marriage included the following vows for
the woman:
“Wilt thou have this Man to thy wedded husband, to live together after
God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou obey him, and
serve him, love, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and,
forsaking all others, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?”
The ceremony had
no such admonition for the man.
However,
by the 1928 edition of the Book of Common
Prayer this section was dropped and the vows for the husband and wife are
identica, with no references to wifely obedience.
Today we look at the thorny
question of how to understand and apply the household code we find in Ephesians
5:21-6:9. We find here instructions to husbands and wives, parents and
children, slaves and masters. This is
perhaps the most controversial part of Ephesians, and I’m going to try to do my
best to do justice to this passage.
Household Codes
I want to start by talking about
household codes in general. A household
code is a list of responsibilities for the various members of a household. These household codes were very common in the
ancient Greco-Roman world. The first of
these household codes (that we know of) goes back to the Greek philosopher
Aristotle. And from Aristotle onward, we
find this kind of literature throughout Greek and Roman authors, most following
Aristotle’s basic framework.
These household codes were all
based on the universal assumption in the ancient world that the husband/father
was the only person in a household who had any legal rights. The Romans called this person the paterfamilias, the father of the
household. Everyone else in the
household was duty bound to be in subjection to the paterfamilias, because he represented the interests of everyone in
the household. Wives, children, and
slaves were all considered the property of the paterfamilias and were thus protected under Roman property laws. Wives,
children and slaves were not considered free individuals. Their social and legal standing in society
was tied to the paterfamilias.
Greco-Roman household codes
followed the same structure we find here in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians: wives and husbands, children and parents,
slaves and masters. In fact, the exact
same three pairs are mentioned in the same order in Aristotle’s household code
(Politics, Book 1, XI). The focus of these codes is always on proper
authority and obedience to the paterfamlias. You see, in the Greco-Roman world, the
household was viewed as a microcosm of the state. If households were in turmoil, that was
viewed as a threat to the stability of the Roman empire. As the household went,
so the empire went. If the paterfamlilas’ authority was being
undermined or subverted, it was feared that this would ultimately work its way
to the subversion of the entire Roman world.
Rebellion against the paterfamilias
was treasonous to the Greco-Roman mind.
Enter the early Christian movement. We find in the earliest New Testament
writings an emphasis on the equality of people within the Church. One of the earliest New Testament writings,
Paul’s letter to the Galatians says, “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” (Gal 3:28 NRSV). In
the early churches, slaves could be elders and leaders, and women could preach
the gospel and serve in leadership.
As the early Christian movement
grew, the Roman government began to take notice. It’s very likely that this radical emphasis
on equality among Christians was viewed with distrust and fear by the
Romans. Remember, anything that
disrupted the paterfamilias’
authority was viewed as subversive to the government. Thus, the practice of the early Christians
was probably viewed as very dangerous.
Consequently, it’s in the later
New Testament writings that we find these household codes, like what we find
here in Ephesians. We also find a similar
household code in Colossians, and another in 1 Peter, all later writings of the
New Testament. Many scholars believe
that these household codes are included in these later New Testament writings
to allay the growing fears the Roman government had about the early
Christians. By including household codes
that at least appeared to be consistent with Aristotle, Plutarch and other
Greco-Roman authors, outsiders of the Christian movement would potentially be
less concerned that the Christian movement was subverting the empire.
Christian Application of the Household Codes
Christians have treated these
household codes in at least three ways.
Some Christians simply assume
that these codes are a wholesale Christian endorsement of ancient patriarchy. These Christians are concerned about modern
society’s movement away from patriarchy.
These Christians claim that the biblical model is for the Christian man to
act as the Roman paterfamilias in his
household. These Christians say that the
primary duty of Christian wives in marriage is submission to their
husbands. For example, one prominent author from some Reformed circles says, “Every biblical Christian holds to patriarchy." Christians who believe these household
codes endorse patriarchy sometimes insist that wives not work outside of the
home, forego a college education, and that children’s dating lives be arranged
by the father.
Other Christians say that these
household codes are no longer applicable at all today. These Christians say, “We no longer live in a
patriarchal society and we no longer practice slavery, so these passages don’t
really have any application for us today.” For example, many church
lectionaries skip these codes in Sunday Bible readings, as if these codes are
not relevant to the modern church.
However, if we as Christians believe that all parts of the Bible are
inspired and thus relevant to our spiritual lives, this would seem like an odd
position.
Finally, other Christians—and I
would be in this camp—read these household codes on two different levels. On one level, the authors of these household
codes (Paul and Peter) seem to accept patriarchy as a given. They don’t dispute
it, argue with it, or reject it. They
simply begin with patriarchy as their starting point. This would set Roman outsiders at ease when
they encountered these writings. But on the other level, the actual
instructions given to husbands, fathers, and masters in these household codes
actually subvert Roman patriarchal assumptions.
Consider slavery as an
example. Nowhere does the Bible condemn
the practice of slavery. All three
household codes in the New Testament encourage slaves to obey their slave
owners. However, a careful reading of what
the Bible actually says to Christian slave owners reveals that a Christian
master who is true to the Bible’s teaching would release their slaves (see
especially Paul’s letter to Philemon).
So simultaneously the New Testament accepts the practice of slavery as a
given, but it then subverts the assumptions that perpetuate slavery among
Christians. This would eventually come
to full bloom during the abolitionist movement in the seventeenth and
eighteenth century.
I think this is true of the
husband/wife and parent/child relationships as well. So in my view, Paul uses the assumptions of
patriarchy as his starting point but then subverts patriarchy in the actual
instructions he gives to husbands and fathers.
Application to Today
So how do we apply these
household codes to the Christian life today?
If we’re not going to simply reject them out of hand, but we’re also not
going to embrace their surface endorsement of patriarchy, how do we engage them
in a thoughtful, nuanced way today?
Well here in Ephesians a good
place to start is the main command for this entire section, which is found in
v. 21, “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21
NRSV). This command connects this household code with everything that comes
before it in chapter 5 of Ephesians. And
chapter 5 of Ephesians focuses on wise living in a hostile, pagan environment
by being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Holy Spirit filled believers will submit themselves to each other out of
their respect for the Lordship of Jesus Christ in their lives. This overarching command to be subject to
each other applies to all Christians, husbands as much as wives, parents as
much as children, and masters as much as slaves. This is one of those “one another” commands
that we find in the New Testament, such as “love one another,” “be at peace
with one another,” “honor one another,” and “forgive one another.” Like these other “one another” commands,
Ephesians 5:21 is universally binding with no exceptions. All believers are called to loving, mutual
submission with other believers.
Only then does Paul move into
marriage in v. 22. In fact, in the Greek
text v. 22 has no verb, instead relying on v. 21 for its verb. It literally reads, “Wives to your husbands
as to the Lord.”
Now the command for wives to be
subject to husbands sounds on the surface like any other ancient Greco-Roman
household code. Paul merely adds the
phrase, “As to the Lord.” But remember
this verse is relying on v. 21 for its verb, “Be subject to one another.” You
see Paul is not saying that husbands
should not be subject to their
wives. That’s already covered in v.
21. Paul seems to be saying that in the
context of mutual submission within the entire Christian community (established
in v. 21), Christian wives ought to pay special attention to living out this
command with their husbands.
What’s surprising then is Paul’s
command in v. 25, for husbands to love their wives. A typical ancient Greco-Roman household code
would say something like this: “Wives be subject to your husbands; Husbands
rule over your wives.” But very
subversively Paul says, “Husbands love your wives with Christ’s own love.” Now just like with mutual submission, this
does not leave the wife off the hook when it comes to loving her husband. All Christians are called to love one
another, including wives their husbands.
It’s as if Paul is saying that all Christians are called to love each
other on the context of Christian community, and Christian husbands ought to pay
particular close attention to doing this with their wives.
Both submission and love flow
both ways in Christian marriage.
I like the way Pastor Tara Beth
Leach puts it in an article on Christian marriage for Missio Alliance:
“Paul paints a marital picture that is the
way of Jesus: humility, real love, sacrifice, and unity. It’s husband and wife,
hand in hand, knee to knee, trying to out-serve one another. “You first!”, says
the husband. “No, you first!”, says the wife. As the husband and the wife both
submit to Christ, out flows radical acts of love, selflessness, and sacrifice
for one another; it is the central ingredient to the Spirit-led life.”
Within the context of a
patriarchal society, and even using some of the language of patriarchy, Paul
paints a beautiful picture of Christian marriage based on mutual
submission.
Paul’s approach in Ephesians
reminds me of the movie My Big Fat Greek
Wedding. The main character of the film is a young woman named Toula. Toula really wants to go to college, but her traditional
Greek father won’t let her. Toula appeals
to her mom. She asks her mom, “Now what
do I do? Dad’s word is final. He’s the head of the house.” Toula’s mother replies, “He may be the head,
but the wife is the neck. The neck turns the head where she wants it to. Let me talk to him.” And Toula ends up going to college. That scene is an image of mutual submission
happening underneath the superficial trappings of traditional patriarchy. They talk about headship and wifely
submission, but the way it actually works its way out is through mutual love
and submission.
Now let’s consider Paul’s analogy
between Christ with the Church and Christian marriage we find here in Ephesians. I think we should be cautious about pushing
this analogy too far, because if we do the husband ends up being the wife’s
savior in v. 23 and the one who makes the wife holy in v. 26. If we press the analogy too far, we end up
subverting the role of Jesus in the wife’s life and replacing Jesus with her
husband. This would be tantamount to
idolatry, replacing the true object of devotion (Jesus) with an inferior object
of devotion (her husband). No matter how
godly and loving a Christian husband might be, he is still sinful and in need
of transformation into holiness. So we
should keep our application of this analogy simple: The submission of the Church to Christ is a
reason for wives to submit to their husbands.
And Christ’s love for the Church is a reason for husbands to love their
wives. I think it’s that simple.
In chapter 6 Paul applies this
same ethic to parents and children.
Notice here that Paul presumes that children will be present in Christian
worship. He addresses them in this
letter which is to be read aloud in the context of the worshipping
community. Children are already treated
as full-fledged members of the Christian community. In v. 2 fathers are particularly warned
against being overly harsh with their children. In Greco-Roman families, the
father functioned as the magistrate of the family. Andrew Lincoln in his commentary on Ephesians
says, “The paterfamilias also had the
authority to decide on the life and death of his newborn children. Weak and deformed children could be killed,
usually by drowning, and unwanted daughters were often exposed sold” (Andrew
Lincoln, Ephesians, 399). That makes
Paul’s words to fathers here so counter cultural.
Paul applies the same ethic to
slaves and maters in vv. 5-9. Again he
calls slaves to be subject to masters.
But masters are reminded that they are ultimately accountable to God for
how they treat their brother or sister who is a slave.
Conclusion
Understanding applying these
household codes is risky business. It’s
certainly easier to ignore them. But I
want to suggest that Paul begins with a patriarchal framework and on the
surface at first appears to endorse that framework and commend it to the
Church. But a careful reading of what
Paul actually says actually subverts that very framework. The Romans were right to fear the early
Christians because over time the gospel of Jesus Christ would put husbands and
wives on equal footing, it would protect and confer dignity on children, and it
would ultimately lead to the abolition of slavery among Christians.
Consider how this happened with
slavery. Baylor University social
historian Rodney Stark says, “The New Testament’s teaching about slaves and
masters was a little seed that over time would grow and sprout into the Abolitionist
Movement” (Rodney Stark, For the Glory of
God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of
Slavery). By the 17th and
18th centuries in England and America it did. And now all Christians in the world condemn
the practice of slavery as sinful and incompatible with the Christian
life.
Our calling as Christians is to
demonstrate to the world how marriages and families look when followers of
Jesus live out the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Christian marriage it is a
husband and a wife, committed to mutual submission and mutual love that
embodies the mystery of Christ and his Church.
You see we no longer live in the
kind of patriarchal society the early Christians lived in, so there’s no longer
a reason to hold on to patriarchy today.
It’s as if patriarchy was the husk, the outer shell, that contained the
kernel, which was the gospel ethic of mutual love and submission. We let go of the husk once we discover the
kernel inside. Patriarchy is passing
away and I think Christians should rejoice in its demise. We shouldn’t treat women as the property of
men. We shouldn’t tolerate male violence against women. The age of patriarchy is passing away and
Christians should rejoice at its demise as much as they rejoiced at the demise
of slavery. But we hold on to the
kernel, to the calling, to the gospel to live in loving mutual submission to
one another out of reverence for Jesus Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment