The Household Codes

of the

Later Pauline Traditions

Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D.

Professor of Biblical Studies & Early Christianity

John Carroll University

Cleveland, Ohio

          Perhaps the most well-known New Testament author is the apostle Paul, a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia (the southern part of modern-day Turkey), on the northern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Twenty-one letters from early Christian authors are assembled in the New Testament, and the majority of these (13) are attributed to Paul. In addition, he is a key character in the canonical Acts of the Apostles, taking center stage for the second half of the book; it is here where we read (three times!) about Paul’s encounter with the Risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. Such extensive treatment in the New Testament often makes it seem as if Paul were the only missionary in the early church, but of course this is not the case. The author of Acts, like other New Testament authors, uses Paul to represent an entire missionary movement. It is easier to follow a story with one key character than one with several minor characters.

          Similarly, nearly half of the canonical letters with Paul’s name on them appear to have been written by Paul’s disciples rather than by the apostle himself. These six letters are divided into two basic categories, the “Deutero-Pauline Epistles” (Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians) and the “Pastoral Epistles” (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). The Deutero-Pauline letters (from a “second Paul”) probably were written between A.D. 70-90 by second-generation leaders in the Pauline churches, while the Pastoral Epistles date to the 90s or later and come from a third-generation ecclesiastical leader.

          Given that Paul thought the end of the age and the glorious coming of Christ would occur in his own lifetime, it is not surprising that his seven letters show virtually no interest in church management or household structures. However, over the course of the next two generations, many Christians grew less and less convinced that the “second coming” was imminent. They began to expect that it would be some time before Jesus returned in glory, and the churches would have to develop stable organizational structures in order to survive and prosper in the interim.

          Hence, most of the letters from the later Pauline traditions include explicit instructions to different members of the traditional Graeco-Roman household (husband, wife, children, and slaves), and provide lists of qualifications and duties for different kinds of church leaders (overseers, deacons, male and female elders, widows and virgins). These lists defining the roles of various members of the household—and, by extension, the church, which is viewed as “the household of God”—are called haustafeln, literally, “house-tables” or, in better English, “household codes.”

The Deutero-Pauline Letters

          The earliest of these letters to include a household code is Colossians. The author begins the letter by discussing the Lordship of Christ, arguing that Christ is Lord of the entire universe, and speaking of the unity of the church, the body of Christ. The subject then shifts abruptly in Col. 3:18, where a household code is introduced. Again, in Col. 4:2, there is a shift of topic, and an apparent return to the subject of Col. 3:1-17. This suggests that the household code of 3:18-4:1 was a unit that existed independently of the letter to the Colossians and, at some point in the history of the letter’s composition, was inserted at this point in the text. This surmise is reinforced by the fact that we find such household codes in contemporaneous Graeco-Roman literature, and they are very consistent with the one in Colossians, both in structure and content (e.g., the early second-century AD Stoic epitomist, Hierocles On Duties 4.25.53, 4.2720, 23; 4.28.21).

          The basic purpose of the Graeco-Roman haustafeln is to outline the duties of different members of the household in relation to each other. Roles typically were outlined in pairs, for example, husband and wife, father and children, master and slaves, patron and clients. In this case, the first half of each pair really is the same individual, the paterfamilias or male head of household, but denoted by the various roles he plays with respect to other members of his household. The second half of each pair refers to different members of his household, characterized by their roles in relation to him. The haustafeln outline the rights of the paterfamilias, and the duties of the subordinate parties in relation to him and the other members of his household. Abiding by these rules is portrayed as proper Graeco-Roman piety.

          Even a cursory review of the household code in Col. 3:18-4:1 demonstrates that it follows this same basic pattern. It lists the three pairs of husband/wife, father/children, master/slave, and outlines the duties of the subordinate parties (3:18, 20, 22-25). One unusual feature of this haustafel is that the superordinate party also is given duties toward his inferiors (3:19, 21, 4:1). The remarks to the paterfamilias are couched more as appeals, as opposed to the demands placed upon the other members of the household. Nevertheless, having anything asked of him at all is a notable change which has led some scholars to describe this as a model of “love-patriarchalism,” patriarchy softened by Christian charity, a sort of noblesse oblige undergirded by shared devotion to the one Pater and Lord of all.

          After following the basic form for the first two categories of husbands/wives (3:18-19) and fathers/children (3:20-21), this household code in Colossians has a significant expansion in the third category of masters/slaves (3:22-4:1). The emphasis upon the way slaves should behave suggests that the weak point of group dynamics was the master-slave relationship. It is typical that, in each pair, the subordinate member of the relationship would receive the most attention. One presumes that there was no need to exhort dominant individuals to use their power; rather, the need was to exhort subordinates to accept their social position as divinely-ordained. However, the attention paid to the duties of the slave is exorbitant in comparison to the other pairs; it takes more than half of the entire code here (5 verses as opposed to 4 for the rest). Thus, it is clear that slaves comprised the main intended audience of this code, since they are the ones who receive the longest series of exhortations and threats.

          The use of the household code in the Deutero-Pauline letters marks a significant shift from Paul’s view of how Christians should relate to one another. For example, whereas Paul had tried to persuade the wealthy householder, Philemon, to accept his slave, Onesimus, as a free brother, equal in the Lord (Phlm 10, 15-17), the author of Colossians commands slaves to obey their human masters (kyrioi kata sarka; literally, their masters “according to the flesh”) as if they themselves were the Lord (kyrios). In the Pauline letters, life kata sarka is negatively contrasted with life “according to the spirit” (kata pneuma). The Christian is to leave behind the life kata sarka, which is a life in conformity with this “present evil age,” and is to live a new life kata pneuma, in conformity with the Spirit of God. For Paul, it is this life kata pneuma that enacts God’s plan for the world, revealing the structures and relations that comprise the “kingdom of God” inaugurated by Jesus Christ.

          The incorporation of the household code is a key point where the author of Colossians has elected to substitute the accepted notions of Graeco-Roman piety for the distinctive teachings of the Christian gospel. By attributing this letter to Paul himself and then using the household code to reverse Paul’s earlier teaching, the author is able to undercut those who use Pauline tradition to support emancipation of slaves upon conversion to Christianity. Someone reading Philemon with Colossians in mind will acknowledge Paul’s acceptance of slavery as a social institution, and will reject the notion that Paul was arguing for the emancipation of Christian slaves in and through their baptism into the “freedom of Christ.” The threatening remark to slaves that “there is no partiality” with Christ (Col 3:28) bears tremendous irony at the end of a passage which precisely specifies the partiality of Christ toward free, male householders, as exemplified in giving them freedom and power over slaves, women, and children. Still, slaves could draw some small consolation in the fact that Christ then is set at the head of the hierarchy, being imaged as a slave-master who has authority over the human slave-masters and who, by implication, will punish negligence and wrongdoing (Col 4:1).

          The next letter where we find a household code is Ephesians 5:22-6:9. The letter itself is likely to be from the same author as Colossians because it is so similar to it, and the same is true of the haustafel. It is a somewhat longer than the code in Colossians, since it includes Christianizing expansions in each of the three traditional pairs (wives/husbands, children/fathers, and slaves/masters) rather than only one. The expansions in the last two sets serve to provide a religious rationale for respectful and obedient subordination to one’s father or master. The first category predominates, which suggests that it is the behavior of wives that is problematic for the author of Ephesians. True, husbands as well as wives are the objects of exhortation to a particular mode of behavior (love of one’s wife as oneself, subjection to and respect of one’s husband), and both husbands and wives are given a religious rationale for their behavior. Still, while the exhortations to husbands tend to soften the impact of the behavioral code, they in no way put the husband on an equal plane with the wife. The subordinate behavior of the wife is commanded of her because subjection to her husband is part of the order of creation, sanctioned by Christ and the Church. The husband is provided a model of loving behavior in the image of Christ, with the hope that he will be persuaded to a mode of behavior which cannot be commanded of him.

          This is another key example of where the later Pauline traditions depart from the teaching of the apostle himself. When Paul speaks of couples who are evangelists with him (e.g., Prisca and Aquila, 1 Cor. 16:3; Rom. 16:19), he controverts Roman tradition by sometimes mentioning the wife first, rather than the husband. When Paul speaks of the duties of a wife toward her husband (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:3–5), it is only after he has spelled out her rights over her husband and has outlined the husband’s duties toward her. This is a direct challenge to the Graeco-Roman mores embodied in the household codes, for which the idea that a husband owed his wife anything was patently absurd. Paul emphasizes the reciprocity of marital relations, whereas the haustafeln emphasize the inequity of husband-wife relationships. Paul had believed that Christians already live in the Spirit of Christ present among them, transforming individuals and their social relations. The author of Ephesians substitutes a doctrine of a spiritualized resurrection and a present life which conforms to the standards of Graeco-Roman piety.

The Pastoral Epistles

          The Pastoral Epistles do not have traditional household codes like these previous two letters, but substitute “church orders” which delineate the qualifications, duties, and remuneration of various ministers in the churches. These church orders follow the same basic hierarchical pattern is found in the haustafeln, with ministerial rank transmitted through ordination by the authorities of the Christian church (Paul, Timothy, the elders), whose own position had been validated by prophecy.

          Four key church offices are listed in the church orders of the Pastoral Epistles: diakonoi (“ministers” or “deacons;” 1 Tim 3:8-13), episkopoi (“overseers,” later known as “bishops”), presbyteroi/presbyteras (male and female “presbyters” or “elders;” 1 Tim 5:1-2; 2 Tim 2:2-5), and chêras (“widows;” 1 Tim 5:3-16). All of these groups fall under the leadership of the episkopos, in conjunction with the presbyterion—the council of male (and female?) heads of households (1 Tim 3:1-7; 2 Tim 1:7-9).

          The author of the Pastoral Epistles envisions the episkopos as the paterfamilias of the church, who is to brook no challenge to his authority or to the established status differences (Titus 2:15). This presbyter-president or episkopos “tends the flock,” overseeing the administration of congregational resources, taking care of dependent members of the community, preserving right doctrine, and correcting those who err (1 Tim 17-20; 2 Tim 1:5-6; cf. 1 Pet 5:1-4).

          The episkopos is charged with the enforcement and rationalization of other social status divisions which, far from being repudiated, are now recognized as normative within the Christian community as well as outside it. He should teach the submission of subjects to rulers (1 Tim 2:1-4; Titus 3:1; cf. 1 Pet 2:13-17), slaves to masters (1 Tim 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10; cf. 1 Pet 2:18-25), and wives to husbands (Titus 2:3-5; cf. 1 Pet 3:1-8). To help minimize the impact of inequitable distribution of wealth, he should exhort the rich to be generous and not haughty (1 Tim 6:17-19). While this attitude is a notable improvement to the pattern of “conspicuous consumption” which predominated in the world of imperial Rome, it still provides a stark contrast to the saying of Jesus that “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God” (Mk 10:25 & par.).

          The church orders in the Pastoral Epistles indicate precisely who may be considered for each of these ecclesiastical offices. It is clear that there are both male and female presbyters. There certainly are male deacons, and there either are female deacons as well, or the deacons’ wives have some special role in the church communities. The office of widow is reserved to women, and only men are eligible for the office of episkopos. All of the men to be considered for the offices of overseer and deacon must be aristocrats who live up to the standards of the household codes we already have seen in the Deutero-Pauline letters: they must be married (“husband of one wife”) and must manage their own households well, including keeping their wives and children submissive and respectful. Furthermore, they must not be prone to drink or avarice, and must have a good reputation among non-believers (1 Tim 3:1-13). Conversely, the widow is to be the ideal Roman univira (wife of one husband) who has raised her children well, lives a temperate lifestyle, and is known for her good works of hospitality to other Christians and ministry to the sick and needy.

          The church orders in the Pastoral Epistles make some significant changes to past practices. While the worthy male elders are to receive double pay (1 Tim 5:17-18), this comes at the expense of the “widows” (1 Tim 5:3-16). The number of widows on the church payroll is to be reduced. To be eligible for the office, a woman now must be at least sixty-years-old. [Given that the average life-span for a woman in the first-century Graeco-Roman world was thirty-five years, this criterion alone would have a drastic impact on the number of potential candidates for the office.] Contrary to the rules for the male officials, aristocratic women are prohibited from admission to the order; if a widow has her own source of income, or living relatives to support her, her name is to be stricken from the rolls. [Yet neither is it clear how women of the peasant class would have had the resources to carry out the requisite “good works” to be eligible for the office. If a woman were not of the upper social class, where would she have found the excess disposable income beyond what was necessary to make ends meet from one day to the next?] Those widows who remain on the rolls are to become subject to stringent controls. They are no longer allowed to do catechesis in the home; they are prohibited to catechize men or to speak during worship services (where, presumably, the group is mixed).

          In this way and others, the Pastoral Epistles give evidence of a continuing development of the gender role definitions outlined in Colossians and Ephesians. Whereas the author(s) of the earlier Deutero-Pauline letters provided only vague theological justifications for the gender roles defined in the haustafeln, primarily appealing to the audiences’ notions of what is socially-acceptable (what is “fitting”), the author of the Pastoral Epistles attempts to make a stronger theological case for female subordination. This third-generation Paulinist asserts that women should be subordinated to men because “Eve sinned first;” while men should pray aloud in the Christian gatherings (1 Tim 2:8), women (as the daughters of Eve) must be silenced and controlled by their husbands (1 Tim 2:9-15).

          Paul’s view of relations within the church went against the grain of contemporary Graeco-Roman social structures, including those of the patriarchal household (see, e.g., Gal. 3:26-29). In contrast, the author of the Pastoral Epistles chose the model of the patriarchal household for his vision of the church, “the household of God,” and actively engaged in reforms of community relationships which would bring them into line with the patriarchal, Graeco-Roman social system. Central among these is the consolidation of power in the hands of a few, hierarchically-organized, aristocratic, male leaders.

The Significance and Impact of the Haustafeln

          The development of the household codes in the later Pauline traditions functions as a barometer of the social-acceptability of Christianity in the last few decades of the first and early part of the second century AD. With the increasing number of wealthy (especially male) converts, the churches began to shape their organization and teachings to better fit with the normative, patriarchal Graeco-Roman social structures. Consolidation of power in the hands of the paterfamilias was one step along the way to consolidation of patriarchal, hierarchical structures in the churches.

          The household was the building block of Roman Imperial society, and Christians either could challenge that social fact—as Jesus had when he redefined his family not as those who were related to him by blood but by their obedience to the word of God (Mk 3:32-35 & par.)—or they could accept the status quo and build upon it. The household codes and church orders of the later Pauline traditions show the gradual encroachment of the latter option as the dominant model for Christians. While it was never the only option available to Christians, by the end of the second Christian century, this hierarchical, patriarchal model of ecclesiology and church polity seems clearly to have begun to be the most widespread choice among the churches.

          This was not an arbitrary decision on the part of early Christians. For decades, pagan critics had been alleging that the movement deliberately sought to exclude educated persons, while choosing to convert “only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children” (Origen Against Celsus, 3.44; ANF IV: 988, trans. Frederick Crombie). Tatian (AD 110-172), one of the second-century Christian apologists, recalls that the Greeks who write against Christianity “. . . say that we talk nonsense among women and boys, among maidens and old women . . .” (Tatian Address to the Greeks 33; ANF II:159, trans. J. E. Ryland). In addition, a key criticism was that Christian teachers incited members of households to repudiate the authority of their paterfamilias (Origen Against Celsus, 3.55; ANF IV: 997). Perhaps the most effective way to rebuff such criticisms was to adopt the patriarchal organizational model which was ubiquitous in pagan culture, reinforcing the authority of the Christian paterfamilias and elevating aristocratic men to the most visible and outspoken positions of leadership. Such a choice would ensure the survival of the nascent churches in the face of severe challenges and threats from outsiders.

          At the turn of the first Christian century, new church structures, offices, and ideologies were developed to enable Christianity to cope with the specific pressures and needs of the time. Other choices could have been made—some would argue, should have been made. Did these new structures undercut the patterns of Christian life intended by Jesus? Did they sacrifice essential elements of the gospel in order to minimize their confrontation with an antagonistic culture? The authors of the later Pauline letters thought not; according to their best lights, these compromises were not only acceptable but necessary. To them, it looked like a choice between compromise and extinction.

          The Church of the twenty-first century faces different challenges. For us, religious pluralism poses more of a threat than persecution. A “circle the wagons” strategy like that used by the later Paulinists is not practicable for this particular kind of challenge. In every age, the Church must read “the signs of the times” and grow and adapt to meet the peculiar challenges that face Christians of that time. As the Church struggles to read “the signs of our times,” and to grow and adapt to meet the challenges that face Christians in our own day, we can take heart that this is no more than our forbears were required to do.

................................................................NOTES