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.