The Comp Egal Debate: A “purely”historical take on Ephesians 5:22-33

Purely historical exegesis of an ancient text requires great skill and discipline to pull off. With respect to the household codes of Colossians and Ephesians, an author who acquits himself very well is Andrew Lincoln. Some key graphs below the fold:

In taking up the specifics of the household code, Ephesians [5:22-33] is directly dependent on Col 3:18–4: 1, which was, in turn, influenced by a tradition of discussions of household management in Greco-Roman writings, stemming from Aristotle. In such discussions, the three pairs—husband-wife, parent-child, and master-slave—were treated, with, as might be expected, the former member being given the authoritative and the latter the subordinate role. This patriarchal and hierarchical conception of household management was seen as crucial for the stability of society as a whole. Whereas in its adaptation of this discussion Colossians devotes most attention to the master-slave relationship, Ephesians’ unique contribution to early Christian household codes is in its sustained treatment of the husband-wife relationship, which it compares to the relationship between Christ and his Church. Just as earlier in the letter believers’ lives and humanity as a whole are to be viewed from the vantage point of what God has done in Christ, so now the same holds true for the marriage relationship. The analogy between human marriage and Christ’s relationship to his Church, in which the latter provides the archetype for the former, dominates the paraenesis of 5:22–33 with the movement of thought continually shifting between the two relationships before they are brought together in the quotation and interpretation of Gen 2:24 in vv 31, 32. [p. 386]

Lincoln points out that the household codes of the New Testament must be read against the background of other discussion of household management in the ancient world:

This discussion, which treats husband-wife, parent-child, and master-slave relationships, focuses on authority and subordination within these relationships, and relates the topic of the household to the larger topic of the state, can be found as early as the classical Greek philosophers (cf. Plato, Leges 3.690A-D; 6.771E—7.824C; Aristotle, Pol. 1.1253b, 1259a). It is worth noting how Aristotle introduces his discussion of the topic: “Now that it is clear what are the component parts of the state, we have first of all to discuss household management; for every state is composed of households.… The investigation of everything should begin with the smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these three relationships, I mean that of mastership, that of marriage …, and thirdly the progenitive relationship” (Pol. 1.1253b). The continuity of the discussion of household management, retaining its Aristotelian outline down into the later Roman period, is demonstrated by its use, for example, in the Peripatetic Magna Moralia, by Aerius Didymus, Dio Chrysostom, Ariston, Hecaton, Seneca, Hierocles, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and by Neopythagoreans such as Bryson and Callicratidas. Philo and Josephus also adapted Aristotle’s outline of household subordination in their interpretation and praise of Mosaic law (cf. Balch, Wives, 23–62). Josephus could write, “The woman, it [the Law] says, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be obedient, not for her humiliation, but that she may be directed; for God has given authority to the man” (c. Ap. 2.24 § 199), while Philo instructs, “Wives must be in servitude to their husbands, a servitude not imposed by violent ill-treatment but promoting obedience in all things” (Hyp. 7.3). Typical of the content of all these discussions is the notion that the man is intended by nature to rule as husband, father, and master, and that not to adhere to this proper hierarchy is detrimental not only to the household but also to the life of the state. [p. 357]

But Lincoln is careful not to exaggerate the innovative features of the NT codes:

The household codes of Colossians and Ephesians can be seen as part of the process of stabilizing communal relations in the Pauline churches (cf. esp. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches, 102–22). In so doing, they continue the “love-patriarchalism” of the early Pauline movement (cf. G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982] esp. 107). As MacDonald (The Pauline Churches, 102–3) observes, “On the one hand, the rule-like statements reflect a more conservative attitude toward the role of subordinate members of the household; they leave much less room for ambiguity and, consequently, for exceptional activity on the part of certain members. On the other hand, the instructions are not incompatible with Paul’s own teaching about women and slaves (cf. 1 Cor 11:2–16; 1 Cor 14:34–36; 1 Cor 7:20–24; Philem 10–20).” Despite the Christian modifications he provides for conduct within the household, which at times produce tensions with the notion of patriarchal domination (see Comment on v 25), and despite what he has said earlier about the radical contrast between believers and unbelievers, the writer of Ephesians, like the writers of other early Christian household codes, assumes that in this area the basic pattern of Christian conduct will have the same hierarchical structure as that prevailing in society as a whole. [p. 360]

This is only a small taste of the exceptionally thoughtful discussion Andrew Lincoln provides of New Testament household codes, and the one found in Ephesians 5-6 in particular. Lincoln’s commentary is a model of historical exegesis. The comment, of course, is not limited to historical exegesis. Here and there, Lincoln lets his egalitarian colors show. But he does so in a way that does not surreptitiously control the reader’s own exegesis. In short, the commentary will prove helpful to complementarians and egalitarians alike.

Herein ends my series on the comp egal debate. I learned a lot in the process, and I trust others will find it useful.

Bibliography

Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC 42; Dallas: Word, 2002)

Here is a complete list of posts in this series:

• What is the Debate between Complementarians and Egalitarians really about?
• The Comp Egal Debate: Honesty is Such a Lonely Word
• The Comp Egal Debate: What does it mean that “the husband is the head of the wife”?
• The Comp Egal Debate: A Distorted View of Headship
• The Comp Egal Debate: A biblical definition of a wife’s submission to her husband
• The Comp Egal Debate: A “purely” historical take on Ephesians 5:22-33
• Sarah Sumner on the Need for Integrity in the Comp Egal Debate

Comments

[Don]

I see Aristotle as essential to understand the Eph 5:15-6:9 pericope in historical context. I see I need to get Lincoln's book, thanks for the tip.

[JohnFH]

Lincoln's commentary is a treat. You will be blessed by the time you spend with it.

[Truman Show 2]

Lincoln brilliantly noticed that in order for people today to understand these codes in the New Testament we would need to research the ways households were ran in ancient times. In those times owners beat and mistreated slaves and they had no respect for their wives, who were always younger and not treated fairly or even close to “equal.” In Ephesians and Colossians we learn that wives are to be subject to their husbands as well as children to their parents, and slaves to their masters. However, it also tells us that the Husband has to love and treat fairly their wives and slaves. Even though they are “in charge” they are warned not to abuse the hierarchical “role.” I think that it is a beautiful comparison of this relationship in the household with that of Christ and his church. Covering this subject Jay Matthew Barnes shows us that the author of Ephesians is truly trying to show us that beside these codes and “roles” that husband and wife need to put the interest of the other in front of their own to keep a happy household.

[Chariots of Fire 2]

I agree with Lincoln too when he stated that for people to understand the codes in the New Testament that we need to research the way Christian households were run back then and the submissive and authoritative rules. I think today people run their households completely different then they did in the New Testament times. Back then the male was the head of the household and the wives were subject to their husbands. Back then the households were run in the same relationship that Christ had with the church. It is very obvious in Ephesians 5:22-23 that it is comparing the man being the head of the woman and God being the head of the church. Today it is a lot different because there are so many varieties of family relationships now. Sometimes there is a single mother who has to be the head of the household or sometimes there is a grandparent that takes care of the kids. I think authority in the household is definitely necessary, but now days it might just come from someone other than the male figure in the family.

[The Mission 3]

I agree with Lincoln’s thoughts on how we should remember that the people back then did not live like we do today. There can be some misinterpretations today in the Bible because some things are read out of context such as “brothers and sisters”. This does not have to mean that they are biologically related, but through God’s eyes, we are all his children and that is why we are all brothers and sisters. I also like that he brought up how marriage today is supposed to be like God’s relationship with the Church, and yet there are divorces happening because of reasons that are unheard of. We should take a minute and see what the Bible really has to say and what God wants us to do.

[true grit 5]

The one thing I hate is those that take the bible and abuse it towards women. They take the passages that women are obedient and must submit to their husbands. So men take this and use it against their wives and say “see the bible, Gods word tells you to pretty much bow down to me.” Yes wives must submit to their husbands, but husbands need to teach Gods word and respect their wives and love them as husbands love their selves. We as men must be obedient to God so we may learn and teach as he wants us to so that one day we may teach our wives and uphold a Godly household and raise our children in truth. So the household first starts with God and works to the husbands so we may uphold everything God wants our household to look like.

[Breaker Morant 2]

I completely agree with what True Grit 5 has said. The sad fact of history is that women were always considered the fragile, weak sex that had to be protected by men. This is not always the case, because there are some matriarchal societies in which the women are in power, but the majority of the world lives in a patriarchal society, leading to the oppression of women. Even with the strides that have occurred for equality, woman are still portrayed to be the innocent, obedient ones that cook, clean and take care of the kids. I do not like the way that the Bible phrases a lot of their statements, because according to the Bible, women must be obedient, and men only need to "treat women right". I also don't like the way the Bible talks about children. Yes, they are supposed to obey the parents, but they also must learn and grow on their own time and make their own mistakes to grow. God has the plan for everyone in his hands, so we should live life the way he wants, but more equally all around.

[Pulp Fiction 6]

I really enjoy the Ephesians, especially 5:31, because it shows that people who become husband and wife are not just with each other, but they in a sense become one with each other. I think if more people would follow these specific passages that there would be less marital problems in the world. If, as stated, we love our spouse as ourselves, and just like we were all told when we were little, treat others the way you would like to be treated, then the world would be a much better place filled with healthier relationships.

[True Grit 2]

I agree with Pulp Fiction 6. If everyone was not always in a competition with one another for the best house, car, or clothes, people would be home more to appreciate their significant other. In a lot of relationships these days one person needs to be “in control.” This simply means one person wants to decide another’s life for them. There is no balance and just as the Bible says, you have no authority over yourself, but of your husband or wife and vice versa. More balance and communication is the key to a good relationship.

[True Grit 4]

I think a big problem with relationships currently is not having a sense of togetherness between the couple. All too often it seems like a man & woman get married just to get married. There is no love or actual affection, just wanting to have something that's attractive to you or in some cases helps you make gains financially or socially. I think if more people took bible readings to heart, much like Ephesians 5:25-32, we might see more marriages work out.

[Dead Man Walking 6]

In my opinion, a successful and healthy marriage needs to have a commitment between two partners. This means neither of husband or wife has a bigger role than another. Both of them should share and talk to make decisions together whether it is small or serious one. By doing that over and over for years, they will understand and be trustful to each other more. I know sometimes not every decision get through easily because everyone has their own idea and belief. But if decisions are made out together, it would be stronger and better. In my country, people tend to hold the idea which the husband is a head of the whole family. He the one who go to works outside and makes money while the wife has to stay home and take care of children. I think nowadays, people should be equal, so the society would be more balance.

[Praying with Lior 3]

As with many verses in the Bible, people sometimes put a twist on their meaning to have them fit their situations. One such verse commonly taken out of context is Eph 5:22 which states “wives submit yourselves to your own husbands…” The literal sense may have been that there be one partner in authority and one as a subordinate, but it does not mean for wives to bow down to their husbands and do exactly what they say. In biblical times there may have been no question as to who was to be obeyed, but today we need to look at it from another viewpoint. It is to mean that we do have authority on behalf of another, be it a husband over a wife, parent over a child, or master over slave. Hierarchy is necessary in one form or another in life to keep order and provide a chain of command.

[Dead Man Walking 2]

This is a very interesting take on how women are seen in the early times. How there was thought to be 3 basic relationships. The relationship between husband-wife, parent-child, and master-slave. Then described as the first part being dominant over the second part. Seems to me that the only one of those that seems to be followed to the max today is the parent-child relationship. We still follow that and it even states in the law that parents must take care of their children and have control over them. As far as the master-slave scenario, in American culture, we have abandoned that and slavery no longer exists. It does however still exist in some cultures. As far as the husband-wife situation, for the most part and what I've seen in my life, that stereotype doesn't exist anymore. Women are often leaders in households now days. There is an increasing number of stay at home fathers and women are the primary source of income. Men do not have as much control as they did in the old days over the household as they do now.

[True Grit 1]

I agree with Dead Man Walking 6 that the husband and the wife should commit and take things easy with each other. I think the husband and wife has no big role or each other. From what I think is best is to let the man and the woman to help each other so that their marriage will go smoothly. For example in my culture the guy or the husband they are notice as the most important person. As the wife they are not that important but has the name of as his wife. I think it is best for both of them to be equal and be able to things together so that their relationship will be good.