Looking forward to this series. While I have been an egalitarian for quite some time (I would call myself a moderate complimentarian in Bible College, many decades ago) doing some digging into first century Roman household codes has significantly impacted the way I preach these passages. Paul is speaking into a strict hierarchy that wasn’t just “the norm”—it was perceived as “for the benefit of society”—and he turns it inside-out! I believe his statement “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church…” was as radically subversive as “kurios christos” was.
If today’s complimentarians focused on that mandate of radical, self-sacrificing love (for wife, children and slaves!), and not on who needs to submit to them, they would sound a lot more like Jesus, and a lot less like the young James and John…
As a person who never pulls apart a cinnamon pull-apart (in my part of the world called a cinnamon roll) and simply takes a bite, I found the choice of cover photo intriguing before I read the article.
Really the photo should have been of monkeybread, which is more interchangeable with cinnamon pull-apart, but alas, Substack’s integrated free stock photos are limited!
I really thought the way it was going to be integrated was that you were going to take a turn and dunk on the tradwife movement, which would have been fine, but this was much more interesting.
I appreciate the non-use of ai to make the cover photo. I've seen too many of those on my feed this morning.
Hey Catherine! I'm surprised (I guess like you) about the pushback that you received on your note! Was it mostly because of the idea that husbands should submit to wives (or men to women)? (Even though Eph. 5 passage at least is already in the context of mutual submission within the Christian community). Was it also related to the fact that marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and his people in the Eph. 5 passage? (I'm toying with idea that comp. and egal. theology also points to different understandings of Christ and his relationship to the church / us).
Any ways, love that you're making this a series. Hope you get good engagement. I would love to hear your perspective about submission is within the Christian context and what it entails and doesn't. (I think that could be an important conversation too). Excited for it! Will keep my eyes opened. :)
So I'd ultimately agree with them, in that Christ's will is not subordinate to the Church's.
But is that the only relevant aspect of submission? Christ elevated the Church's well-being above his own; he sacrificed his life for it. Further, his way of bringing the Church under his will was discipleship, teaching, and prayer, rarely a strict exercise of authority.
The disciples tried to do what Christ wanted, but they weren't micromanaged, and their mistakes were generally met with patient instruction, despite the fact that unlike a man, Christ's directions would always be correct.
That's the kind of thing I meant the other day where people might be arguing against different understandings of what the words mean.
As one of the people that was more vocal on your note, I appreciate your approach to thoroughly covering this topic. I strongly believe that while both egalitarian and complementarian approaches to these verses contain both truth and fallacy. Hierarchy and submission can exist together, and submission can exist in distinct forms. I look forward to the rest of the series and the conversation that will come from it!
You know much more about the historical context than I do - are the "parents and children" being addressed literally parents and minors, or does that include grown children who are part of the household? One of the things I find modern churchgoers often forget is that the head-of-household position they imagine was NOT the role of every adult male, and that many fully grown men and women were part of households in which they did not hold the authority. Do you think the words to children apply to these people? (Genuine question, not argumentative.) I've tried to point out to fellow believers that early Christians were not living in the American nuclear family unit of the 20th century, and I often get blank stares!
In context, it includes grown children, including those who aren’t even still part of the household! (For example, in most Roman marriages, a woman was under the legal control of her father more than her husband.)
I am excited for this series. While my beliefs do not align with this take on gender roles, (within a church context) it is super nice to observe nuance being dealt with in a non-aggressive way. It makes it quite easy to read you work, happy to be on this journey.
I look forward to reading what you come up with. It was relatively easy for me to understand the concept of a letter's having been written to a congregation with issues which needed to be addressed. I don't know why it took me so long to come to a similar interpretation of the Gospels. I think that I got wrapped up in the fringes of the Quest for Jesus. I have far more books on Jesus than I do on the Gospels.
With my roots in the CofC, I have no complaints with your interpretation. Preach on!
You know it's funny my family was also Church of Christ but also our church used instruments so I was baffled to get into adulthood and realize the rest of our "totally not a denomination" was against instruments. Anyway I look forward to this series!
Thank you for your careful work on the household codes. I want to provide some historical and textual context to help understand how Jesus and the earliest Jewish-Christian communities viewed these passages.
Jesus consistently challenges hierarchical structures by rejecting control and promoting mutual relationships. His teachings on authority are clear: “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles dominate over them, and those in high positions exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wants to become prominent among you shall be your servant’” (Matthew 20:24–26). When His disciples try to recreate the Greco-Roman household hierarchy, Jesus flips the script: “The greatest among you must be your servant” (Matthew 23:11).
His words in Matthew 10 explain why the earliest Jewish-Christian communities didn't adopt the hierarchical household model. He warns His followers that the household can become a place of betrayal and spiritual risk: “Now brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved” (Matthew 10:21). “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to turn a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; A person’s enemies will be the members of his household” (Matthew 10:34-36). Jesus is not supporting rebellion. He is making it clear that loyalty to Him disrupts traditional authority structures and challenges inherited beliefs. The household is not the stable moral unit assumed by Roman codes. It's the first place where the cost of discipleship becomes apparent. It is a direct rejection of incorporating Roman paterfamilias authority into Christian relationships. "But Jesus replied to the one who was telling Him and said, ‘Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?’ And extending His hand toward His disciples, He said, ‘Behold: My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother’" (Matthew 12:48-50).
Jesus also warns that His followers will face persecution from courts, synagogues, governors, and kings (Matthew 10:16–20). This is precisely what occurred with the earliest Jewish-Christian communities. The Nazarenes and Ebionites were despised because they insisted on Jesus’ teachings as the only authority. They rejected Paul’s ideas and would not submit to the emerging institutional church that embraced Roman social structures. Their refusal to adopt Roman household hierarchy, their opposition to domination, and their insistence on equality before God put them at odds with both Roman power and later Gentile Christian institutions. Their persecution aligns with what Jesus describes: “You will be hated by all because of My name” (Matthew 10:22).
Jesus states, “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he may become like his teacher, and the slave like his master" (Matthew 10:24–25). This isn't a defense of slavery; rather, it's a leveling of the order. Jesus breaks down hierarchy by making the disciple like the teacher and the slave like the master. He's not upholding Roman social order but tearing it down and warning His followers that they will face slander and persecution for their equal discipleship.
One major issue with treating Paul’s household codes as a unified, timeless model is that they assume the Roman paterfamilias system, a structure that gave the male head of household legal authority to beat wives, children, and slaves. Jesus never endorsed this. His teachings directly undermine it. No Jewish interpreter, ancient or modern, reads the Proverbs on discipline as literal authorization to strike children. The “rod” is a metaphor for guidance, not violence. Modern research confirms what Jewish tradition already understood: physical punishment produces long-term harm, including anger reactivity, emotional dysregulation, and increased aggression. These outcomes contradict Jesus’ warning that anger and contempt are sins that place a person under judgment: “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be answerable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the Gehenna of fire.” (Matthew 5:21–22). The Roman household model normalized practices Jesus explicitly condemned and science finds harmful. This is why the earliest Jewish-Christian communities refused to adopt the paterfamilias structure or treat Paul’s household instructions as universal mandates. The fruit of that system, which includes violence, submission, domination, and fear, stands in direct opposition to Jesus’ ethic. Jesus encouraged His disciples to be like the little children -- He never demanded that His disciples control and coerce children to be obedient to human hierarchy like the Hellenized world.
This is why the earliest Jewish-Christian communities did not view Paul’s household instructions as universal mandates. They evaluated all teaching based on Jesus’ words. They upheld His principles of mutual service, non-domination, and equality before God. They rejected interpretations of Paul that led to oppression. Paul’s household codes were later misused to justify slavery and the subordination of women. These are expected results of teaching not founded on Jesus' words. The Jewish Christians recognized this early on, which is why they adhered to Jesus’ teachings rather than Roman social norms or institutional reinterpretations.
Jesus provides the final key to interpretation: “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). The measure of any teaching is not its stated intention but the results it produces. If an interpretation of the household codes leads to domination, fear, coercion, or silencing the vulnerable, Jesus makes it clear how to assess it.
I had an interpretive idea but I was mixing up authors; I was associating 1 Peter 3 with Pauls' teachings. Still, might they have been thinking the same thing?
Namely, not so much a definitive guide or rule for correct conduct, but an evangelical tactic? Peter says, "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives". The "so that" indicates that, at least for Peter, this may not have been a reflection of an unchanging standard but a way to appeal to a non-believer by exemplary conduct. Not because the husband deserved rulership, but because the wife would be modeling Christ even for one who didn't. This is harsh, though.... but it does fit with extending it to slaves, as Paul does, or to those "paid evil and reviled" as Peter does.
Let me know if that's poorly explained; it's probably not the whole picture.
Personally, I am "complementarian" not because I feel a need to have my wife submit to me, but because I want to submit to the word of God. (Whether I do or not in practice should probably be directed to her)
I appreciate the methodical approach, here. Looking forward to the next installments—particularly the treatment of slaves/masters.
Thank you! Slavery has been my area of academic focus for the last couple of years, so it will definitely not get short-shrifted!
Looking forward to this series. While I have been an egalitarian for quite some time (I would call myself a moderate complimentarian in Bible College, many decades ago) doing some digging into first century Roman household codes has significantly impacted the way I preach these passages. Paul is speaking into a strict hierarchy that wasn’t just “the norm”—it was perceived as “for the benefit of society”—and he turns it inside-out! I believe his statement “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church…” was as radically subversive as “kurios christos” was.
If today’s complimentarians focused on that mandate of radical, self-sacrificing love (for wife, children and slaves!), and not on who needs to submit to them, they would sound a lot more like Jesus, and a lot less like the young James and John…
As a person who never pulls apart a cinnamon pull-apart (in my part of the world called a cinnamon roll) and simply takes a bite, I found the choice of cover photo intriguing before I read the article.
Good article nonetheless.
Really the photo should have been of monkeybread, which is more interchangeable with cinnamon pull-apart, but alas, Substack’s integrated free stock photos are limited!
I really thought the way it was going to be integrated was that you were going to take a turn and dunk on the tradwife movement, which would have been fine, but this was much more interesting.
I appreciate the non-use of ai to make the cover photo. I've seen too many of those on my feed this morning.
I have no quarrel with anyone who makes a good cream-cheese frosted cinnamon roll. 😂
“By no means” 😘 cute
I feel so seen!
Hey Catherine! I'm surprised (I guess like you) about the pushback that you received on your note! Was it mostly because of the idea that husbands should submit to wives (or men to women)? (Even though Eph. 5 passage at least is already in the context of mutual submission within the Christian community). Was it also related to the fact that marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and his people in the Eph. 5 passage? (I'm toying with idea that comp. and egal. theology also points to different understandings of Christ and his relationship to the church / us).
Any ways, love that you're making this a series. Hope you get good engagement. I would love to hear your perspective about submission is within the Christian context and what it entails and doesn't. (I think that could be an important conversation too). Excited for it! Will keep my eyes opened. :)
Yes! Most of the pushback was in the vein of “submission is unidirectional in marriage because Christ doesn’t submit to the church.”
So I'd ultimately agree with them, in that Christ's will is not subordinate to the Church's.
But is that the only relevant aspect of submission? Christ elevated the Church's well-being above his own; he sacrificed his life for it. Further, his way of bringing the Church under his will was discipleship, teaching, and prayer, rarely a strict exercise of authority.
The disciples tried to do what Christ wanted, but they weren't micromanaged, and their mistakes were generally met with patient instruction, despite the fact that unlike a man, Christ's directions would always be correct.
That's the kind of thing I meant the other day where people might be arguing against different understandings of what the words mean.
As one of the people that was more vocal on your note, I appreciate your approach to thoroughly covering this topic. I strongly believe that while both egalitarian and complementarian approaches to these verses contain both truth and fallacy. Hierarchy and submission can exist together, and submission can exist in distinct forms. I look forward to the rest of the series and the conversation that will come from it!
You know much more about the historical context than I do - are the "parents and children" being addressed literally parents and minors, or does that include grown children who are part of the household? One of the things I find modern churchgoers often forget is that the head-of-household position they imagine was NOT the role of every adult male, and that many fully grown men and women were part of households in which they did not hold the authority. Do you think the words to children apply to these people? (Genuine question, not argumentative.) I've tried to point out to fellow believers that early Christians were not living in the American nuclear family unit of the 20th century, and I often get blank stares!
In context, it includes grown children, including those who aren’t even still part of the household! (For example, in most Roman marriages, a woman was under the legal control of her father more than her husband.)
The scary thing is that some of the patriarchy-advocates might like that idea!
Can you not post pics of cinnamon rolls? Some of us are over here choking down our high fiber cereal and trying to be thankful.
I am excited for this series. While my beliefs do not align with this take on gender roles, (within a church context) it is super nice to observe nuance being dealt with in a non-aggressive way. It makes it quite easy to read you work, happy to be on this journey.
I look forward to reading what you come up with. It was relatively easy for me to understand the concept of a letter's having been written to a congregation with issues which needed to be addressed. I don't know why it took me so long to come to a similar interpretation of the Gospels. I think that I got wrapped up in the fringes of the Quest for Jesus. I have far more books on Jesus than I do on the Gospels.
With my roots in the CofC, I have no complaints with your interpretation. Preach on!
You know it's funny my family was also Church of Christ but also our church used instruments so I was baffled to get into adulthood and realize the rest of our "totally not a denomination" was against instruments. Anyway I look forward to this series!
My dad was converted to Christianity by an Instrumental Church of Christ guy!
Thank you for your careful work on the household codes. I want to provide some historical and textual context to help understand how Jesus and the earliest Jewish-Christian communities viewed these passages.
Jesus consistently challenges hierarchical structures by rejecting control and promoting mutual relationships. His teachings on authority are clear: “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles dominate over them, and those in high positions exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wants to become prominent among you shall be your servant’” (Matthew 20:24–26). When His disciples try to recreate the Greco-Roman household hierarchy, Jesus flips the script: “The greatest among you must be your servant” (Matthew 23:11).
His words in Matthew 10 explain why the earliest Jewish-Christian communities didn't adopt the hierarchical household model. He warns His followers that the household can become a place of betrayal and spiritual risk: “Now brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved” (Matthew 10:21). “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to turn a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; A person’s enemies will be the members of his household” (Matthew 10:34-36). Jesus is not supporting rebellion. He is making it clear that loyalty to Him disrupts traditional authority structures and challenges inherited beliefs. The household is not the stable moral unit assumed by Roman codes. It's the first place where the cost of discipleship becomes apparent. It is a direct rejection of incorporating Roman paterfamilias authority into Christian relationships. "But Jesus replied to the one who was telling Him and said, ‘Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?’ And extending His hand toward His disciples, He said, ‘Behold: My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother’" (Matthew 12:48-50).
Jesus also warns that His followers will face persecution from courts, synagogues, governors, and kings (Matthew 10:16–20). This is precisely what occurred with the earliest Jewish-Christian communities. The Nazarenes and Ebionites were despised because they insisted on Jesus’ teachings as the only authority. They rejected Paul’s ideas and would not submit to the emerging institutional church that embraced Roman social structures. Their refusal to adopt Roman household hierarchy, their opposition to domination, and their insistence on equality before God put them at odds with both Roman power and later Gentile Christian institutions. Their persecution aligns with what Jesus describes: “You will be hated by all because of My name” (Matthew 10:22).
Jesus states, “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he may become like his teacher, and the slave like his master" (Matthew 10:24–25). This isn't a defense of slavery; rather, it's a leveling of the order. Jesus breaks down hierarchy by making the disciple like the teacher and the slave like the master. He's not upholding Roman social order but tearing it down and warning His followers that they will face slander and persecution for their equal discipleship.
One major issue with treating Paul’s household codes as a unified, timeless model is that they assume the Roman paterfamilias system, a structure that gave the male head of household legal authority to beat wives, children, and slaves. Jesus never endorsed this. His teachings directly undermine it. No Jewish interpreter, ancient or modern, reads the Proverbs on discipline as literal authorization to strike children. The “rod” is a metaphor for guidance, not violence. Modern research confirms what Jewish tradition already understood: physical punishment produces long-term harm, including anger reactivity, emotional dysregulation, and increased aggression. These outcomes contradict Jesus’ warning that anger and contempt are sins that place a person under judgment: “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be answerable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the Gehenna of fire.” (Matthew 5:21–22). The Roman household model normalized practices Jesus explicitly condemned and science finds harmful. This is why the earliest Jewish-Christian communities refused to adopt the paterfamilias structure or treat Paul’s household instructions as universal mandates. The fruit of that system, which includes violence, submission, domination, and fear, stands in direct opposition to Jesus’ ethic. Jesus encouraged His disciples to be like the little children -- He never demanded that His disciples control and coerce children to be obedient to human hierarchy like the Hellenized world.
This is why the earliest Jewish-Christian communities did not view Paul’s household instructions as universal mandates. They evaluated all teaching based on Jesus’ words. They upheld His principles of mutual service, non-domination, and equality before God. They rejected interpretations of Paul that led to oppression. Paul’s household codes were later misused to justify slavery and the subordination of women. These are expected results of teaching not founded on Jesus' words. The Jewish Christians recognized this early on, which is why they adhered to Jesus’ teachings rather than Roman social norms or institutional reinterpretations.
Jesus provides the final key to interpretation: “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). The measure of any teaching is not its stated intention but the results it produces. If an interpretation of the household codes leads to domination, fear, coercion, or silencing the vulnerable, Jesus makes it clear how to assess it.
Not by its claims.
By its outcomes.
I had an interpretive idea but I was mixing up authors; I was associating 1 Peter 3 with Pauls' teachings. Still, might they have been thinking the same thing?
Namely, not so much a definitive guide or rule for correct conduct, but an evangelical tactic? Peter says, "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives". The "so that" indicates that, at least for Peter, this may not have been a reflection of an unchanging standard but a way to appeal to a non-believer by exemplary conduct. Not because the husband deserved rulership, but because the wife would be modeling Christ even for one who didn't. This is harsh, though.... but it does fit with extending it to slaves, as Paul does, or to those "paid evil and reviled" as Peter does.
Let me know if that's poorly explained; it's probably not the whole picture.
Personally, I am "complementarian" not because I feel a need to have my wife submit to me, but because I want to submit to the word of God. (Whether I do or not in practice should probably be directed to her)