Okay yeah my mind is blown. This context is incredible. I keep thinking to myself, “How have I never known this? Do more conservative expresses of Christianity just ignore this stuff because it’s easier to be a textual literalist?”
I think that, in some corners of the church, people just really don’t think it matters; in others, they’re relying on outdated scholarship or just not thinking about it very much.
Sometimes there’s even outright misconceptions spread about the Roman household. In the ESV translation of the Bible, the editors (without citing any evidence) claim that Roman slavery was a seven-year contractual business relationship.
I’ve heard that misconception preached from more than one pulpit and it drives me bonkers. Mixing up pre-Kingdom of Israel indentured servitude (reserved solely for Israelites, btw, not non-Hebrew peoples) for Roman Empire chattel slavery is lazy exegesis at best.
I blame the ESV editors much more than I do individual pastors. Lay people don’t know a lot of history like historians do, so if they hear from a trusted source that “slavery was a business relationship” they’re likely to believe it. Usually when I push back on the idea with pastors I’ve met, they’ve been receptive. Some people out there are just trying to do their best and make mistakes now and then.
The people who know better and still try to spread that lie, on the other hand…
The ESV will always have a special place in my heart, because it was the first translation I used to read the Bible cover to cover. However, it’s not one I now recommend, for that and related reasons.
I think there’s a tendency among some Christians to want to soften the master-slave relationship as referred to in the NT because it makes it the master-slave portions of the household codes easier to deal with, easier to explain away to those who would dismiss the NT barbaric and out of touch with modern culture. But that is also not a good reason to do it. We need to face the hard texts with clear eyes and be honest about them.
That may well be the case. In the two sermons I heard, though, the pastors quoted sections of the OT to support their claims without having actually checked during sermon prep to make sure the context of those OT passages actually said what they thought it did. It did not. One of those passages was one of the Ten Commandments, so not exactly obscure.
With the paterfamilias as the primary legal authority, Paul's decision to address reciprocal pairs rather than simply the household head suggests he's already reframing the household around Genesis 1–3 rather than Roman jurisprudence.
I am reminded of the 2nd century Letter to Diognetus (c. 130 A.D.), which notes that "Christians are neither distinguished are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, not the customs which they observe" and then describes how they are distinguished:
"They marry, as do all; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed...They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives."
Clearly, Paul's admonitions were being taken to heart by the early Christians.
It definitely helps to be exposed to other cultures' practice of family to see the subtleties in Ephesians and Colossians. I certainly saw those passages very differently after working in a West African context where polygamy was not only practiced, but pressure was placed on men with only one wife, and where families could negotiate marriages and divorces without regard for the wishes of man or woman. I have also found it eye-opening to watch films and read books from the older cultures in India and China. There is a Hindi language film 'Hum Saathe Saathe Hain' (1999), which on the surface appears to be fluff with lots of Bollywood song and dance, but what it reveals about traditional societies' family dynamics really placed a lot of the New Testament statements about family in a new light.
The part that was eye open was a wife still being under the authority of her father-and he outranks her husband! It makes sense to me why Paul would admonish submission to the husband. The practice of leaving and cleaving appears to be completely abandoned in this Roman system, and I have a feeling Paul is trying to redirect believers back to the arsenic ideal?
As a note: I read Ephesians 5:22 in the Orthodox Jewish Bible and it ways wives are to be accountable to their husbands, which fits better given the context you described.
This was such a great read! Looking forward to the next installments.
That could definitely be part of it! Although he still encourages offspring to obey their parents...so it's complicated. Something I find interesting about the leave-and-cleave verse in Genesis is that it's the MAN who is explicitly said to leave-and-cleave, even though, in Old Testament culture, it was usually the woman who left her family of origin and went to live with her husband's extended family.
And yes, I was ASTONISHED when I learned about Roman household structure in seminary.
“the leave-and-cleave verse in Genesis is that it's the MAN who is explicitly said to leave-and-cleave, even though, in Old Testament culture, it was usually the woman who left her family of origin and went to live with her husband's extended family.”
Has anyone heard a sermon expounding the misogyny of the custom where the Israelite woman getting married left her family of origin and went to live with her husband’s extended family?
When commentators note in passing that the Ancient Israelites disobeyed God’s precept that the man who married should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, they don’t tease out how the Ancient Israel’s persistent violation of that precept would have advantaged men and disadvantaged women.
I find this facinating. I read a recent article by someone who argued that Paul was largely reinforcing Roman social ideals but kept appealing to created order and design to give his position authority. Its hard to argue with divine authority isn’t it. But most of what he was asking them to do was straight out of 1st century social cultural norms with a few Christian twists added.
So the question has to be - would he have insisted on the same rules if he lived today? Head covering, no jewelry, women not to teach, women to keep silent in church, to be quiet and submissive like ideal roman wives, women to focus on having babies and keeping house?
Or have we fallen for the appeal to design and a literal reading of scripture and got stuck universalising 1st century Roman cultural norms?!
Okay yeah my mind is blown. This context is incredible. I keep thinking to myself, “How have I never known this? Do more conservative expresses of Christianity just ignore this stuff because it’s easier to be a textual literalist?”
I think that, in some corners of the church, people just really don’t think it matters; in others, they’re relying on outdated scholarship or just not thinking about it very much.
Sometimes there’s even outright misconceptions spread about the Roman household. In the ESV translation of the Bible, the editors (without citing any evidence) claim that Roman slavery was a seven-year contractual business relationship.
I’ve heard that misconception preached from more than one pulpit and it drives me bonkers. Mixing up pre-Kingdom of Israel indentured servitude (reserved solely for Israelites, btw, not non-Hebrew peoples) for Roman Empire chattel slavery is lazy exegesis at best.
I blame the ESV editors much more than I do individual pastors. Lay people don’t know a lot of history like historians do, so if they hear from a trusted source that “slavery was a business relationship” they’re likely to believe it. Usually when I push back on the idea with pastors I’ve met, they’ve been receptive. Some people out there are just trying to do their best and make mistakes now and then.
The people who know better and still try to spread that lie, on the other hand…
Iirc, ESV often translates doulos as “bondservant” or “servant,” which drives me crazy.
The ESV will always have a special place in my heart, because it was the first translation I used to read the Bible cover to cover. However, it’s not one I now recommend, for that and related reasons.
Sending you a paper on the history of the “bondservant” translation momentarily!
Since I cannot sent it via the comments section or DM's I'll include the link to the paper here: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jbr-2024-0002/html?srsltid=AfmBOoqSF74xw3OvT4618ztvS6JdDdIJ0fGlH5H8trzIVOoQSSbYTLT5
I think there’s a tendency among some Christians to want to soften the master-slave relationship as referred to in the NT because it makes it the master-slave portions of the household codes easier to deal with, easier to explain away to those who would dismiss the NT barbaric and out of touch with modern culture. But that is also not a good reason to do it. We need to face the hard texts with clear eyes and be honest about them.
You’re speaking my language!
That may well be the case. In the two sermons I heard, though, the pastors quoted sections of the OT to support their claims without having actually checked during sermon prep to make sure the context of those OT passages actually said what they thought it did. It did not. One of those passages was one of the Ten Commandments, so not exactly obscure.
Oh my gosh...
I love this series.
With the paterfamilias as the primary legal authority, Paul's decision to address reciprocal pairs rather than simply the household head suggests he's already reframing the household around Genesis 1–3 rather than Roman jurisprudence.
I am reminded of the 2nd century Letter to Diognetus (c. 130 A.D.), which notes that "Christians are neither distinguished are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, not the customs which they observe" and then describes how they are distinguished:
"They marry, as do all; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed...They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives."
Clearly, Paul's admonitions were being taken to heart by the early Christians.
It definitely helps to be exposed to other cultures' practice of family to see the subtleties in Ephesians and Colossians. I certainly saw those passages very differently after working in a West African context where polygamy was not only practiced, but pressure was placed on men with only one wife, and where families could negotiate marriages and divorces without regard for the wishes of man or woman. I have also found it eye-opening to watch films and read books from the older cultures in India and China. There is a Hindi language film 'Hum Saathe Saathe Hain' (1999), which on the surface appears to be fluff with lots of Bollywood song and dance, but what it reveals about traditional societies' family dynamics really placed a lot of the New Testament statements about family in a new light.
The part that was eye open was a wife still being under the authority of her father-and he outranks her husband! It makes sense to me why Paul would admonish submission to the husband. The practice of leaving and cleaving appears to be completely abandoned in this Roman system, and I have a feeling Paul is trying to redirect believers back to the arsenic ideal?
As a note: I read Ephesians 5:22 in the Orthodox Jewish Bible and it ways wives are to be accountable to their husbands, which fits better given the context you described.
This was such a great read! Looking forward to the next installments.
That could definitely be part of it! Although he still encourages offspring to obey their parents...so it's complicated. Something I find interesting about the leave-and-cleave verse in Genesis is that it's the MAN who is explicitly said to leave-and-cleave, even though, in Old Testament culture, it was usually the woman who left her family of origin and went to live with her husband's extended family.
And yes, I was ASTONISHED when I learned about Roman household structure in seminary.
“the leave-and-cleave verse in Genesis is that it's the MAN who is explicitly said to leave-and-cleave, even though, in Old Testament culture, it was usually the woman who left her family of origin and went to live with her husband's extended family.”
Has anyone heard a sermon expounding the misogyny of the custom where the Israelite woman getting married left her family of origin and went to live with her husband’s extended family?
When commentators note in passing that the Ancient Israelites disobeyed God’s precept that the man who married should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, they don’t tease out how the Ancient Israel’s persistent violation of that precept would have advantaged men and disadvantaged women.
Love the title of the article, Catherine! 😂
Thank you! I was rather proud of that one, not gonna lie.
Great questions!
I find this facinating. I read a recent article by someone who argued that Paul was largely reinforcing Roman social ideals but kept appealing to created order and design to give his position authority. Its hard to argue with divine authority isn’t it. But most of what he was asking them to do was straight out of 1st century social cultural norms with a few Christian twists added.
So the question has to be - would he have insisted on the same rules if he lived today? Head covering, no jewelry, women not to teach, women to keep silent in church, to be quiet and submissive like ideal roman wives, women to focus on having babies and keeping house?
Or have we fallen for the appeal to design and a literal reading of scripture and got stuck universalising 1st century Roman cultural norms?!