Paul’s
understanding of the church can be fruitfully compared to the wider, Greek
philosophical discussion of the state in antiquity. This is in part because the Church functions
as an alternative ‘citizenship’: ‘But our
citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior,
the Lord Jesus Christ’ (Phl. 3.20). It
is also in part because politics involved an understanding of the family, just
as, for Paul, the Church involved directives regarding the family (including
slaves). The present essay comes in the
form of a table in which I offer suggestions regarding the similarities and
differences between Paul’s writings and an important philosophical work, Aristotle’s
Politics, written some 400 years
before Paul. If Paul did not for some
reason know the text of this work, he most certainly would have been party to
discussions related to its contents.
Through such a comparison, we are able to put Paul’s comments about the
Church and about women and slaves in the context of the larger discussion of the
organization of society –politics[2] and
economics.[3] In particular, Paul's words about household members--husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves, young and old--are in view here (Eph. 5.21-6.9; Col. 3.18-4.1; 1 Cor. 7; 1 Tim. 2.8-15 (cf. 1 Cor. 14.33b-36); 1 Cor. 11.2-16; and Titus).
Significance of This Study
One significance of this study is that it
contributes to our questions about Paul’s views on slavery and women. Comparisons to earlier, well-known pieces of
literature or to contemporary literature typically shed more light on what a
person has actually said. Another
significance is that such a comparison helps us see Paul’s concerns regarding
the church—particularly the unity of Christian communities—not only as
theological, as they are, but also as political. Indeed, Paul’s letter to the Ephesians reads
as the apostle’s own ‘Politics.’
Also, our own context raises an additional significance
of such a study. The West typically
lumps a variety of social and ethical topics into the same category, that of
human rights and freedoms. This is
understandable only with respect to the West’s own intellectual history since
the mid-1600s, the Enlightenment. So,
e.g., we hear that freedom for slaves, women, and homosexuals should be taken
together as a single moral issue: extending freedom to the socially
marginalized. This is, however, an
entirely anachronistic argument: Paul would have considered comments made about
masters and slaves, husbands and wives, men and women, and parents and children
in terms of ‘politics’—the organization of a community. Morality certainly impinges on this
discussion, but Paul would never have considered a discussion of the
organization of community in the same light as a discussion of personal ethics. For him, sexual morality was fixed in the
commandments of God, and continuation in immoral behaviors meant exclusion from
the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6.9-11; Eph. 5.5).
The modern attempt to see homosexuality not in terms of ethics but in
terms of politics—the roles and rights of persons in society—is an instance of
miscategorization and anachronistic reading of texts.
Note that the following study is only partial—no grand
conclusions should be drawn. Many
further sources and authors would need to be considered. This study, however, does help to distinguish
a discussion of households and the state from personal ethics. Also, if it is insufficient for understanding
Aristotle or antiquity fully on the issues raised, it does help us to read Paul
with greater clarity. Of course, these comparisons are only suggestive for reading Paul and not complete studies of the relevant texts. The more general point being made here is that such a comparison helps us see how Paul understood the church as a community comprised in large
part of households (even if some individuals were unmarried).
Finally, this study highlights the significance of considering the church as a community made up of households. This places an emphasis on thinking through the importance of ministry that gives support and direction to families. Also, the notion of the church as a larger social unit, a community, within society is important. This is why 'Church' can be understood as universal--it is all of society in Christ--and as a much smaller unit, typically under 100 members in a given city (those who could fit into a larger home). The mega-church in our day, on the other hand, is conceived of as a large gathering of individuals with different needs and interests. We might find Paul concerned about the loss of the family unit in this modern-day social construction of the church. While other concerns may also question the notion and practices of mega-churches, if we are to have them (and I do not recommend this), we may begin some improvement with a more robust focus on the family as building blocks of any larger community.
Finally, this study highlights the significance of considering the church as a community made up of households. This places an emphasis on thinking through the importance of ministry that gives support and direction to families. Also, the notion of the church as a larger social unit, a community, within society is important. This is why 'Church' can be understood as universal--it is all of society in Christ--and as a much smaller unit, typically under 100 members in a given city (those who could fit into a larger home). The mega-church in our day, on the other hand, is conceived of as a large gathering of individuals with different needs and interests. We might find Paul concerned about the loss of the family unit in this modern-day social construction of the church. While other concerns may also question the notion and practices of mega-churches, if we are to have them (and I do not recommend this), we may begin some improvement with a more robust focus on the family as building blocks of any larger community.
Aristotle's, Politics Compared to Paul
Aristotle,
Politics
|
Paul
|
1. State is made up of villages, then
households/families, then individuals (I.2-3).[4]
|
Paul sees the Church as made up of two
groups of humanity—Jews and Gentiles. The world is now divided between those 'in Christ' and those who are not (but who are invited to receive Jesus as Lord). The local church is made up of households and of individuals. Paul's pastoral directives are not merely
given to individuals in the church; they are also given to households as the state of the
church depends on the state of both households and individuals.
|
2. Aristotle likens the relations of
state, family, individuals to the body, with its parts (foot, hand) (I.2).
|
Paul also uses the metaphor of the
body when discussing the church. Like
Aristotle, the image is used to show the synergy of the parts.
|
3. Master and slave have the same
interest: the master can foresee by exercising the mind, and the slave or
subject is able to effect such foresight with the use of his/her body (I.2).
|
Paul makes no distinction between masters and slaves
in their natural abilities. He does
not ground the master-slave relationship in nature but sees it as a social
arrangement. (1) Paul may either be encouraging slaves to disregard their
social status or to accept freedom if possible. In Philemon, he undermines the social
relationships of the institution of slavery for Christians. Also, it is possible to translate 1 Cor.
7.21 either as, ‘Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned
about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present
condition now more than ever’ (NRSV) or as ‘Were you a slave when you were
called? Don't let it trouble you-- although if you can gain your freedom, do
so’ (NIV) (the ESV agrees: ‘Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned
about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the
opportunity’). (2) Paul includes slave traders in a list of sinful persons (1
Tim. 1.10). (3) Paul sees life in
Christ to make everyone a slave of Christ and everyone free in Christ, thus
relativizing human, social institutions.
Marriage, by contrast, is not a human social institution but is part
of the natural order and God’s design.
|
4. ‘Seeing then that the state is made
up of households, before speaking of the state we must
speak of the management of the household. The parts of
household management correspond to the persons who compose the
household, and a complete household consists of slaves
and freemen. Now we should begin by examining everything in its fewest possible elements;
and the first and fewest possible parts of a family are
master and slave, husband and wife, father and children’
(I.3).
|
For Paul, the church is made up of
households, and a household contains husband and wife, parents and children,
masters and slaves. Management of the
households relates to the church (1 Cor, Eph, Col, 1 Tim, Titus). Paul’s understanding of a ‘household’ is
the same as Aristotle’s—and all in that day: he is not trying to suggest
something different but is trying to show the difference Christ makes for the
household of his day—masters and slaves included.
|
5. ‘The master is only the master of
the slave; he does not belong to him, whereas the slave
is not only the slave of his master, but wholly belongs to
him. Hence we see what is the nature and office of a slave; he who is by nature not his own but another's man, is by nature a slave;
and he may be said to be another's man who, being a human
being, is also a possession’ (I.4).
|
The slave and master have the same
Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality (Eph. 6.9)
|
6. ‘People are by nature either
masters or slaves: For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of
their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others
for rule’ (I.5). ‘Slaves are
inferior to masters, like bodies to souls, and they should be ruled, and
their slavery is both expedient and right’ (I.5).
|
(1) Paul does not agree. He places both masters and slaves on the
same level. Both have a Master in
heaven. The slave’s work is to be done
not for the earthly but the heavenly master.
The master is to treat the slave justly and fairly because he knows he
has a heavenly Master.
(2) For Paul, the master-slave
relationship is purely conventional, not natural. The slave, however, can reconfigure his or
her role so that what he or she does is a testimony to God and a service to
fellow-believers: ‘Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard
their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the
teaching may not be blasphemed. 2
Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the
ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all
the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved’
(1 Tim. 6.1-2).
|
7. ‘The same holds good of animals in relation
to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and
all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then
they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female
inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity,
extends to all mankind’ (I.5).
|
One cannot find Paul agreeing with this without qualification. He might see the male as the head, but not
because of natural superiority.
Indeed, he can even present two sides of an argument: while the wife
was created for the husband and not vice-versa (1 Cor. 11.9), Paul can also speak
of the inter-dependency of men and women: ‘Nevertheless, in
the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from
man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God’ (1 Cor. 11.11-12).
|
In Eph 5.21-6.9 and Col. 3.18-4.1,
Paul assumes the adult male as the head of the house. His concern is not to reaffirm this but to show
how Christ makes a radical difference in the relationships within the
traditional home. He does, however,
engage Scripture in discussing the husband-wife and parents-child
relationships. Significantly, he does
not invoke Old Testament texts in the master-slave relationship.
|
|
9. Aristotle sees the male-female
relationship as based in nature (the male is naturally superior),
constitutional (people agree to the relationship, and in this case, they
agree that the male is more fit to command), and yet permanent (men and women
do not take turns ruling).
(1) ‘Males rule females by nature:
‘Again, the male is by nature
superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules,
and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity,
extends to all mankind’ (I.5).
(2) ‘Of household management we have
seen that there are three parts- one is the rule of a
master over slaves, which has been discussed already, another
of a father, and the third of a husband. A husband and father, we saw, rules over wife and children, both free, but the rule
differs, the rule over his children being a royal, over
his wife a constitutional rule. For although there may
be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by
nature fitter for command than the female, just as the elder and full-grown is superior to the younger and more immature. But
in most constitutional states the citizens rule and are ruled
by turns, for the idea of a constitutional state implies
that the natures of the citizens are equal, and do not
differ at all. Nevertheless, when one rules and the other
is ruled we endeavor to create a difference of outward forms and names and titles of respect, which may be illustrated by the
saying of Amasis about his foot-pan. The relation of the
male to the female is of this kind, but there the
inequality is permanent. The rule of a father over his
children is royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royal power’
(I.12).
|
(1) Paul may have understood the
husband-wife relationship (rather than male-female relationship?) to be based
on natural differences. He argues that
women should not rule over their husbands (or should we see this as about women and men?) because Adam was created
first (1 Tim. 2.12-13). Also, women
should not teach because, prototypically, Eve was the one deceived in the
garden of Eden (1 Tim. 2.12-14). (As
Aristotle claims—without worrying about a need to prove the point—the man is
understood to be more fit to rule.) Rather, the woman’s natural role (one not
befitting a man) is in childbearing (1 Tim. 2.15). [One needs to remember that women typically lacked an education at the time.]
(2) Paul also grounds the husband-wife
relationship in a ‘constitutional’ arrangement that is permanent. ‘But I want you to understand
that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his
wife, and God is the head of Christ’ (1 Cor. 11.3); ‘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’ (Eph. 5.23).
|
10. ‘A question may indeed be raised, whether there is any excellence at all in a slave beyond
and higher than merely instrumental and ministerial
qualities- whether he can have the virtues of
temperance, courage, justice, and the like; or whether slaves possess only bodily and ministerial qualities’ (I.13). ‘It is evident,
therefore, that both of them must have a share of virtue, but varying as natural subjects also vary among themselves’
(I.13). Virtues differ according to
the kind of rule exercised: ‘But the kind of rule differs; the freeman rules
over the slave after another manner from that in which
the male rules over the female, or the man over the
child; although the parts of the soul are present in an
of them, they are present in different degrees. For the slave has no deliberative
faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without authority, and
the child has, but it is immature. So it must necessarily be supposed to be with the moral virtues also; all should partake of them,
but only in such manner and degree as is required by
each for the fulfillment of his duty…. All classes must be
deemed to have their special attributes; as the poet says of
women,
11. "Silence is a woman's glory, " but this is not equally the glory of man.’ (I.13). |
(1) Paul does not worry about masters
and slaves sharing in a need to develop the higher virtues.
(2) Paul does accept, though, that
persons in different roles require different virtues.
(3) Aristotle’s distinctions between
types of rule may help in reading Paul on the rule of a husband over his
wife, of parents over their children, and masters over their slaves. Aristotle accepts that the woman has
mature, deliberative faculties—she just has no authority (in the
‘constitutional’ relationship of marriage), and her ‘glory’ is in exercising
silence. In 1 Tim. 2, Paul seems to
allow a flaw to the woman’s deliberative faculties: she (Eve) was deceived in
the garden. The result of the
reasoning is the same as Aristotle’s and society’s in general: the woman’s
glory is in her silence. (Cf.
1 Cor. 14.33-35.) Yet Eph.
5.21-24, the wife’s subjection to her husband in all things is not said to be
due to a flaw in her deliberative faculty but due to the constitutional
relationship of husband and wife.
Note, however, that Aristotle accepted this relationship based on an
assumption that the man was naturally more fit to rule—a position Paul may
well have entertained as well, since he would surely see the man’s submission
to Christ in this way (Eph. 5.23).
(4) In 1 Cor. 11.14-15, Paul also
speaks of the differing ‘glory’ (or disgrace) of women and of men.
|
12. The management of a household also
involves wealth, and Aristotle distinguishes the art of acquisition of wealth
from the management of wealth (I.8-9).
Wealth: ‘There are two sorts of
wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part of
household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly
censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men
gain from one another. The most hated sort, and with the
greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of
money itself, and not from the natural object of it’ (I.10).
|
Paul downplays the importance of the
acquisition and management of wealth, replacing this with the pursuit of
virtue: ‘Of course, there is great gain in godliness combined
with contentment; 7 for we
brought nothing into the world, so that we can take nothing out of it; 8 but if we have food and
clothing, we will be content with these.
9 But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and
are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into
ruin and destruction. 10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness
to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with
many pains. 11 But as for
you, man of God, shun all this; pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love,
endurance, gentleness. 12
Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life, to which
you were called and for which you made the good confession in the presence of
many witnesses’ (1 Tim. 6.6-12).
Aristotle sees three different types of gaining of wealth, one more
honorable than another (household management, retail trade, and usury).
|
13. Book II addresses the unity of a
community. Aristotle argues against
Socrates, saying uniformity does not produce community, but unity involves
diverse persons.
|
Paul is greatly concerned with this
issue for the church. Ephesians, in
particular, is a work written about the peace and unity of the
Church/church. Like Aristotle, he
argues not for uniformity but for unity among diverse members. Yet this is a unity formed not around
tolerance of opposing viewpoints and practices but unity formed under the
Lordship of Christ, the truth of the Gospel, and confession of the one faith.
(1) For Paul, what provides unity for
the church is Christ, who is head (Eph. 1.20-23).
(2) Also, one might say that unity is
in the Gospel: ‘the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of
the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel’
(Eph. 3.5).
(3) Finally, one might say that the Church’s unity emerges from ‘making
every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one
Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, 6 one God and
Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But each of us was given grace
according to the measure of Christ's gift’ (Eph. 4.3-7).
|
14. Aristotle explores at some length
different cultural practices and social constitutions regarding private and
communal property. E.g., he says:
‘Even supposing that the women and children belong to individuals,
according to the custom which is at present universal….’ (II.5) [They are considered
possessions]. Aristotle here discusses
whether having possessions in common would be good, but this quote shows he
considers a wife and children to be a man’s possession. ‘And yet by reason of goodness, and in respect of use, 'Friends,' as the proverb says, 'will
have all things common.' Even now there are traces of such a
principle, showing that it is not impracticable, but, in
well-ordered states, exists already to a certain extent
and may be carried further. For, although every man has his
own property, some things he will place at the disposal of his friends, while of others he shares the use with them’ (II.5).
|
(1) Paul does not see wives and children as
‘possessions.’ He rather casts the
relationship in terms of love and respect.
(2) The Jerusalem Church also experimented with
a new social order regarding private and communal property: ‘All
who believed were together and had all things in common’ (Acts 2.44). Paul does not lay down any rule for his
churches regarding property, although he does press his churches on financial
matters as they pertain to their understanding of Christian community, support
for the Jerusalem church, and support for his own ministry.
|
With such a comment, it is helpful to
be reminded that slavery in the 1st century was varied and quite
different in many respects from slavery in more modern times. Moreover, the church included everyone,
including men and women, free persons and slaves, and different ethnic groups
(Gal. 3.28; Col. 3.11).
|
|
16. Aristotle (like Socrates in
Plato’s Republic and Laws) concerns himself at great length
with rulers and subjects. But he says
that ‘there is another omission in Plato’s Laws: Socrates does not tell us how the
rulers differ from their subjects’ (II.6).
Aristotle discusses varied practices by different states—oligarchies,
democracies, tyrannies, etc.
|
Paul does not seem to consider 'leadership' a Christian way of thinking about ministry, as in our day. After all, he sees Christ as the head of the
community. In Ephesians, he does not
speak of ‘leaders’ but of persons who help the body, the Christian community,
function. The apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors and teachers in the community (Eph. 4.11) are not the
‘head.’ They do not rule over the
members of the body. Rather, they
‘equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of
Christ’ (4.12).
Similarly, where ‘elders’ or
‘overseers’ and ‘deacons’ are mentioned (1 Timothy and Titus; Phil. 1.1), they
are not persons who exercise authority out of some office they hold; rather,
they exercise a function or role to help the community. Their purpose is not to occupy an
authoritative position but to exercise a responsibility. Thus, even apostles and angels are to be
ignored if they do not fulfill their responsibility to present the Gospel as
it is (Gal. 1.8).
|
17. Aristotle discusses the merits of
having all things in common, proposed first by Phaleas and also by Socrates
(Plato, Republic). The discussion has to do with trying to
eliminate theft and to stop unqualified accumulation of wealth and honor.
Aristotle notes that want is not the
only reason for crime; people also desire ‘superfluities so that they can
enjoy pleasures without pain’ (II.7).
‘For the nobles will be dissatisfied because they think
themselves worthy of more than an equal share of honors;
and this is often found to be a cause of sedition and
revolution. And the avarice of mankind
is insatiable; at one time two obols was pay enough; but
now, when this sum has become customary, men always want more and more
without end; for it is of the nature of desire not to be satisfied, and
most men live only for the gratification of it. The beginning of reform
is not so much to equalize property as to train the nobler sort of
natures not to desire more, and to prevent the lower from getting more;
that is to say, they must be kept down, but not ill-treated.’
(II.7).
|
Ephesians 4:28 Thieves must give up stealing; rather let
them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to
share with the needy.
Titus 2:9-10 9 Tell slaves to be submissive
to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to
talk back, 10 not to
pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they
may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.
1 Timothy 6:6-10 6 Of course, there is great gain
in godliness combined with contentment;
7 for we brought nothing into the world, so that we can
take nothing out of it; 8
but if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these. 9 But those who want to be rich
fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires
that plunge people into ruin and destruction.
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil,
and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and
pierced themselves with many pains.
|
18. ‘The rule of a master, although
the slave by nature and the master by nature have in
reality the same interests, is nevertheless exercised primarily with a view to the interest of the master, but accidentally
considers the slave, since, if the slave perish, the
rule of the master perishes with him. On the other hand,
the government of a wife and children and of a household,
which we have called household management, is exercised in the first instance for the good of the governed or for the common
good of both parties, but essentially for the good of
the governed, as we see to be the case in medicine,
gymnastic, and the arts in general, which are only accidentally
concerned with the good of the artists themselves’ (III.6).
|
1. Paul sees treatment of slaves not
in terms of the master’s self-interest but in terms of the master’s obedience
to his own heavenly master (Col. 4.1).
Thus he is to be concerned with justice and fairness.
2. Paul does see a man’s treatment of
his wife in terms of self-interest, but of the sort one has for one’s own
body (Eph. 5.28-30)—nourishing and caring for it. But he first casts the relationship in
terms of love, just as Christ’s love for the Church in giving his life for it
(Eph. 5.25-27).
|
19. ‘Of the above-mentioned forms, the
perversions are as follows: of royalty, tyranny; of
aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy.
For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the
wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the
common good of all’ (III.7).
|
For Paul, Christian community is self-giving
in order to benefit not one group over another but all. He begs the Ephesians ‘to
lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and
gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 making every effort to
maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ (Eph. 4.1-3).
|
Further Study
1. Household Codes
Those
wishing to pursue this line of enquiry further might find the following primary
sources on household codes in ancient writings helpful.
New Testament Household Codes
1.
Colossians 3.18-4.1
2.
Ephesians 5.21-6.9
3.
Titus 2.1-10
4.
1 Peter 2.17-3.7
Hellenistic Judaism
1. Philo, Hypothetica 7.1-9 (cf. Decal 165-7)
2. Josephus, Against Apion 2, 190-219
3. Pseudo-Phocylides 175-227
Household Codes in
Greek and Roman Literature
1. Aristotle, Pol. 1.2 [as noted in the table, above]
2. Seneca, Ep. 94; De Benef. 2.18.1ff
3. Plutarch, LibEd 10
4. Epictetus, Dissertationes 2, 10, 3, 7
Household Codes in
the Early Church
1.
1 Clement 1.3; 21.6-9; 38.2
2.
Ignatius, Polycarp 4.1-6.1 4—slaves; 5--marriage
3.
Polycarp, Phil. 4.2-6.3 4—wives, widows; 5—deacons, young men;
6--elders
4.
Didache, 4.9-11 parents, masters-slaves
2. Ethics and Roles
in the Household
The ‘politics’ of the household gives way to a
discussion of moral conduct for the different groups of the household and
within the larger social group (church, state).
One can speak of the virtues relative to persons in different roles
within a society (or, as our first example, different contexts).
New Testament Initial
Moral Teaching for New Converts: Personal, Church, and Community Ethics
1
Thessalonians 4.1-12 helps us see that from early on in his missionary work,
Paul directed his churches about how to live in a way pleasing to God. 1 Th. 4.3-16 offers a threefold lecture on
such living: sexual control, love within the church, and life in the world
(live quietly, mind your own affairs, work, behave properly, be dependent on no
one). This has something of the form:
self, church, world, and as such fits the most general form of early Christian
moral codes.
New
Testament Teaching for Different Groups on Marriage and Sexuality
1 Corinthians 7
7.2-5: Husbands and Wives
7.8-9:
Widowers and widows
7.10-17:
Divorce, Christian and Mixed Marriages
7.25-38:
Unmarried and betrothed
7.39-40:
Remarriage of widows
New Testament Moral
Teaching for Various Groups in the Church
1
Timothy
1 Tim. 1.8-11: Ethics
for Different Groups in the Church
1
Tim. 2.8-15: Men and Women in the Church
1
Tim. 3.1-13: Overseers and Deacons
1
Tim. 5.1-21: Old and Young Men, Old and Young Women, Old and Young Widows, and
Elders
1 Tim. 6.1-2: Slaves
1 Tim. 6.17-19: Rich
Titus
1.5-9:
Elders or Overseers
2.1-10:
Older Men and Older Women, Young Women and Young Men, Titus, and
Slaves
3.1-11:
The Christian and the World, the Christian within the Church
1 Peter 2.17-3.7
1 Peter 2.12-17 Church and Larger Community
1 Peter 2.18-25 Slaves
1 Peter 3.1-6 Women
1 Peter 3.7 Men
1 Peter 3.8-12 Christian Community
1 Peter 2.17-3.7
1 Peter 2.12-17 Church and Larger Community
1 Peter 2.18-25 Slaves
1 Peter 3.1-6 Women
1 Peter 3.7 Men
1 Peter 3.8-12 Christian Community
3. Primary Source Quotations
Aristotle
has further comments on the household.
All but one of the following quotations comes from his Economics (Greek: oikos, from which we get our English word, ‘Economics,’ means ‘house.’ In Economics,
Aristotle compares Housecraft (the art of governing a house) to Statecraft
(the art of governing a nation).) It is interesting to read these excerpts in regard to the role and status of women in Aristotle's day--and this seems to be relevant to Paul's day as well.
Aristotle, Economics 1.1344b[5]
There are four qualities which the head of a household must possess in dealing with his
property. Firstly, he must have the faculty of acquiring, and secondly that of
preserving what he has acquired; otherwise there is no more benefit in
acquiring than in baling with a colander, or in the proverbial wine-jar with a
hole in the bottom. Thirdly and fourthly, he must know how to improve his
property, and how to make use of it; since these are the ends for which the
powers of acquisition and of preservation are sought.
Aristotle, Economics 3.1
A good wife should be the mistress of her home, having under her
care all that is within it, according to the rules we have laid down. She
should allow none to enter without her husband's knowledge, dreading above all
things the gossip of gadding women, which tends to poison the soul. She alone
should have knowledge of what happens within, whilst if any harm is wrought by
those from without, her husband will bear the blame. She must exercise control
of the money spent on such festivities as her husband has approved, keeping,
moreover, within the limit set by law upon expenditure, dress, and ornament;
[10] and remembering that beauty depends not on costliness of raiment, nor does
abundance of gold so conduce to the praise of a woman as self-control in all
that she does, and her inclination towards an honorable and well-ordered life.
For such adornment of the soul as this is in truth ever a thing to be envied,
and a far surer warrant for the payment, to the woman herself in her old age and
to her children after her, of the due need of praise.
This, then, is the province over which a woman should be minded to
bear an orderly rule; for it seems not fitting that a man should know all that
passes within the house. But in all other matters, let it be her aim to obey
her husband; giving no heed to public affairs, nor desiring any part in
arranging the marriages of her children. [20] Rather, when the time shall come
to give or receive in marriage sons or daughters, let her even then hearken to her
husband in all respects, and agreeing with him obey his behest; considering
that it is less unseemly for him to deal with a matter within the house than it
is for her to pry into those outside its walls. Nay, it is fitting that a woman
of well-ordered life should consider that her husband's uses are as laws
appointed for her own life by divine will, along with the marriage state and
the fortune she shares. If she endures them with patience and gentleness, she
will rule her home with ease; otherwise, not so easily. Wherefore not only when
her husband is in prosperity [30] and good report does it beseem her to be in
modest agreement with him, and to render him the service he wills, but also in
times of adversity. If, through sickness or fault of judgement, his good
fortune fails, then must she show her quality, encouraging him ever with words
of cheer and yielding him obedience in all fitting ways; only let her do
nothing base or unworthy of herself, or remember any wrong her husband may have
done her through distress of mind. Let her refrain from all complaint, nor
charge him with the wrong, but rather attribute everything of this kind to
sickness or ignorance or accidental errors. For the more sedulous her service
herein, the fuller will be his gratitude [40] when he is restored, and freed
from his trouble; and if she has failed to obey him when he commanded aught
that is amiss, the deeper will be his recognition ‘of her loyalty’ when health
returns. Wherefore, whilst careful to avoid such ‘misplaced obedience’, in
other respects she will serve him more assiduously than if she had been a
bondwoman bought and taken home. For he has indeed bought her with a great
price—with partnership in his life and in the procreation of children; than
which things nought could be greater or more divine. And besides all this, the
wife who had only lived in company with a fortunate husband would not have had
the like opportunity to show her true quality. For though there be no small
merit in a right and noble use of prosperity, still the right endurance of
adversity justly receives an honor greater by far. [50] For only a great soul
can live in the midst of trouble and wrong without itself committing any base
act. And so, while praying that her husband may be spared adversity, if trouble
should come it beseems the wife to consider that here a good woman wins her
highest praise. Let her bethink herself how Alcestis would never have attained
such renown nor Penelope have deserved all the high praises bestowed on her had
not their husbands known adversity; whereas the troubles of Admetus and Ulysses
have obtained for their wives a reputation that shall never die. For because in
time of distress they proved themselves faithful and dutiful to their husbands,
the gods have bestowed on them the honor they deserved. To find partners in
prosperity is easy enough; [60] but only the best women are ready to share in
adversity. For all these reasons it is fitting that a woman should ‘in time of
adversity’ pay her husband an honor greater by far, nor feel shame on his
account even when, as Orpheus says, “Holy health of soul, and wealth, the child
of a brave spirit, companion him no more.”
Aristotle, Economics 3.2
Such then is the pattern of the rules and ways of living which a
good wife will observe. And the rules which a good husband will follow in
treatment of his wife will be similar; seeing that she has entered his home
like a suppliant from without, and is pledged to be the partner of his life and
parenthood; and that the offspring she leaves behind her will bear the names of
their parents, her name as well as his. And what could be more divine than
this, or more desired by a man of sound mind, [70] than to beget by a noble and
honored wife children who shall be the most loyal supporters and discreet
guardians of their parents in old age, and the preservers of the whole house?
Rightly reared by father and mother, children will grow up virtuous, as those
who have treated them piously and righteously deserve that they should; but
‘parents’ who observe not these precepts will be losers thereby. For unless
parents have given their children an example how to live, the children in their
turn will be able to offer a fair and specious excuse ‘for undutifulness’. Such
parents will risk being rejected by their offspring for their evil lives, and
thus bringing destruction upon their own heads.
Wherefore his wife's training should be the object of a man's
unstinting care; [80] that so far as is possible their children may spring from
the noblest of stock. For the tiller of the soil spares no pains to sow his
seed in the most fertile and best cultivated land, looking thus to obtain the
fairest fruits; and to save it from devastation is ready, if such be his lot,
to fall in conflict with his foes; a death which men crown with the highest of
praise. Seeing, then, that such care is lavished on the body's food, surely
every care should be taken on behalf of our own children's mother and nurse, in
whom is implanted the seed from which there springs a living soul. For it is
only by this means that each mortal, successively produced, participates in
immortality; and that petitions and prayers continue to be offered to ancestral
gods. [90] So that he who thinks lightly of this1
would seem also to be slighting the gods. For their sake then, in whose
presence he offered sacrifice and led his wife home, promising to honor her far
above all others saving his parents, ‘a man must have care for wife and
children’.
Now a virtuous wife is best honored when she sees that her husband
is faithful to her, and has no preference for another woman; but before all
others loves and trusts her and holds her as his own. And so much the more will
the woman seek to be what he accounts her. If she perceives that her husband's
affection for her is faithful and righteous, she too will be faithful and
righteous towards him. [100] Wherefore a man of sound mind ought not to forget
what honors are proper to his parents or what fittingly belong to his wife and
children; so that rendering to each and all their own, he may obey the law of
men and of gods. For the deprivation we feel most of all is that of the special
honor which is our due; nor will abundant gifts of what belongs to others be
welcome to him who is dispossessed of his own. Now to a wife nothing is of more
value, nothing more rightfully her own, than honored and faithful partnership
with her husband. Wherefore it befits not a man of sound mind to bestow his
person promiscuously, or have random intercourse with women; for otherwise the
base-born will share in the rights of his lawful children, [110] and his wife
will be robbed of her honor due, and shame be attached to his sons.
Aristotle, Economics 3.3
To all these matters, therefore, a man should give heed. And it is
fitting that he should approach his wife in honorable wise, full of
self-restraint and awe; and in his conversation with her, should use only the
words of a right-minded man, suggesting only such acts as are themselves lawful
and honorable; treating her with much self-restraint and trust,1
and passing over any trivial or unintentional errors she has committed. And if
through ignorance she has done wrong, he should advise her of it without
threatening, in a courteous and modest manner. Indifference ‘to her faults’ and
harsh reproof ‘of them’, he must alike avoid. Between a courtesan and her
lover, such tempers are allowed their course; [120] between a free woman and
her lawful spouse there should be a reverent and modest mingling of love and
fear. For of fear there are two kinds. The fear which virtuous and honorable
sons feel towards their fathers, and loyal citizens towards right-minded
rulers, has for its companions reverence and modesty; but the other kind, felt
by slaves for masters and by subjects for despots who treat them with injustice
and wrong, is associated with hostility and hatred.
By choosing the better of all these alternatives a husband should
secure the agreement, loyalty, and devotion of his wife, so that whether he
himself is present or not, there may be no difference in her attitude towards
him, since she realizes that they are alike guardians of the common interests;
and so when he is away she may feel that to her no man is kinder [130] or more
virtuous or more truly hers than her own husband. And ‘a good wife’ will make this manifest
from the beginning by her unfailing regard for the common welfare, novice
though she be in such matters. And if the husband learns first to master
himself, he will thereby become his wife's best guide in all the affairs of
life, and will teach her to follow his example. For Homer pays no honor either
to affection or to fear apart from the shame or modesty that shrinks from evil.
Everywhere he bids affection be coupled with self-control and shame; whilst the
fear he commends is such as Helen owns when she thus addresses Priam:
"Beloved sire of my lord, it is fitting that I fear thee and dread thee
and revere"2;
meaning that her love for him is mingled with fear and modest shame. And again,
Ulysses speaks to Nausicaa in this manner: [140] "Thou, lady, dost fill me
with wonder and with fear."3
For Homer believes that this is the feeling of a ‘good’ husband and wife for
one another, and that if they so feel, it will be well with them both. For none
ever loves or admires or fears in this shamefaced way one of baser character;
but such are the feelings towards one another of nobler souls and those by
nature good; or of the inferior toward those they know to be their betters.
Feeling thus toward Penelope, Ulysses remained faithful to her in his
wanderings; whereas Agamemnon did wrong to his wife for the sake of Chryseis,
declaring in open assembly that a base captive woman, and of alien race
besides, was in no wise inferior to Clytemnestra in womanly excellence.4
[150] This was ill spoken of the mother of his children; nor was his connection
with the other a righteous one. How could it be, when he had but recently
compelled her to be his concubine, and before he had any experience of her
behavior to him? Ulysses on the other hand, when the daughter of Atlas5
besought him to share her bed and board, and promised him immortality and
everlasting happiness, could not bring himself even for the sake of immortality
to betray the kindness and love and loyalty of his wife, deeming immortality
purchased by unrighteousness to be the worst of all punishments.6
For it was only to save his comrades that he yielded his person to Circe; and
in answer to her he even declared that in his eyes nothing could be more lovely
than his native isle, rugged though it were; [160] and prayed that he might
die, if only he might look upon his mortal wife and son.7
So firmly did he keep troth with his wife; and received in return from her the
like loyalty.8
Aristotle, Economics 3.4
Once again, in the words addressed by Ulysses to Nausicaa1
the poet makes clear the great honor in which he holds the virtuous
companionship of man and wife in marriage. There he prays the gods to grant her
a husband and a home; and between herself and her husband, precious unity of
mind; provided that such unity be for righteous ends. For, says he, there is no
greater blessing on earth than when husband and wife rule their home in harmony
of mind and will. Moreover it is evident from this that the unity which the
poet commends [170] is no mutual subservience in each other's vices, but one
that is rightfully allied with wisdom and understanding; for this is the
meaning of the words "rule the house in ‘harmony of’ mind." And he
goes on to say that wherever such a love is found between man and wife, it is a
cause of sore distress to those who hate them and of delight to those that love
them; while the truth of his words is most of all acknowledged by the happy pair.2
For when wife and husband are agreed about the best things in life, of
necessity the friends of each will also be mutually agreed; and the strength
which the pair gain from their unity will make them formidable to their enemies
and helpful to their own. But when discord reigns between them, their friends
too will disagree and become in consequence enfeebled, while the pair
themselves will suffer most of all. [180]
In all these precepts it is clear that the poet is teaching
husband and wife to dissuade one another from whatever is evil and
dishonorable, while unselfishly furthering to the best of their power one
another's honorable and righteous aims. In the first place they will strive to
perform all duty towards their parents, the husband towards those of his wife
no less than towards his own, and she in her turn towards his. Their next
duties are towards their children, their friends, their estate, and their
entire household which they will treat as a common possession; each vying with
the other in the effort to contribute most to the common welfare, and to excel
in virtue and righteousness; laying aside arrogance, and ruling with justice in
a kindly and unassuming spirit. [190] And so at length, when they reach old
age, and are freed from the duty of providing for others and from preoccupation
with the pleasures and desires of youth, they will be able to give answer also
to their children, if question arise whether child or parent3
has contributed more good things to the common household store; and will be
well assured that whatsoever of evil has befallen them is due to fortune, and
whatsoever of good, to their own virtue. One who comes victorious through such
question wins from heaven, as Pindar says,4
his chiefest reward; for "hope, and a soul filled with fair thoughts are
supreme in the manifold mind of mortals" ; and next, from his children the
good fortune of being sustained by them in his old age. And therefore it
behoves us to preserve throughout our lives a righteous attitude towards all
gods and mortal men, to each individually, and to all in common5;
[200] and not least towards our own wives and children and parents.
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics,
1160b[6]
One may find likenesses and so to speak models of
these various forms of constitution in the household. The relationship of
father to sons is regal in type, since a father's first care is for his
children's welfare. This is why Homer styles Zeus ‘father,’ for the ideal of
kingship is paternal government. Among the Persians paternal rule is
tyrannical, for the Persians use their sons as slaves. The relation of master
to slaves is also tyrannic, since in it the master's interest is aimed at. The
autocracy of a master appears to be right, that of the Persian father wrong;
for different subjects should be under different forms of rule. [5] The
relation of husband to wife seems to be in the nature of an aristocracy: the
husband rules in virtue of fitness, and in matters that belong to a man's
sphere; matters suited to a woman he hands over to his wife. When the husband
controls everything, he transforms the relationship into an oligarchy, for he
governs in violation of fitness, and not in virtue of superiority.
[1]
Aristotle, Politics, trans. Benjamin
Jowett (available online: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html).
[2]
Scholarship has David Balch to thank for suggesting the political context of
household codes in antiquity already in 1981 for the 1 Peter: Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code
in 1 Peter, ed. James Crenshaw, SBL Monograph Series, Vol. 26 (Chico, TX:
Scholars Press, 1981).
[3] For
a discussion of various approaches to the form and context of household codes,
see James P. Hering, The Colossian and
Ephesian Haustafeln in Theological
Context: An Analysis of their Origin, Relationship, and Message (New York:
Peter Lang, 2007).
[4] Cicero, De Officiis 54: ‘For since the reproductive instinct is by Nature's gift the
common possession of all living creatures, the first bond of union is that between
husband and wife; the next, that between parents and children; then we find one
home, with everything in common. And this is the foundation of civil
government, the nursery, as it were, of the state. Then follow the bonds
between brothers and sisters, and next those of first and then of second
cousins; and when they can no longer be sheltered under one roof, they go out
into other homes, as into colonies. Then follow between these, in turn,
marriages and connections by marriage, and from these again a new stock of
relations; and from this propagation and after-growth states have their
beginnings. The bonds of common blood hold men fast through good-will and
affection; for it means much to share in common the same family traditions, the
same forms of domestic worship, and the same ancestral tombs.’ (M. Tullius
Cicero. De Officiis. With An English Translation. Walter Miller.
Cambridge. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Mass., London, England. 1913.)
[5] Aristotle. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 18, trans.
by G.C. Armstrong (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William
Heinemann Ltd. 1935).
[6] Aristotle, Nichomachean
Ethics, 1160b. Vol. 19, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1934.
Comments