L,WOMEN

lVES
Marriage and Women's Ministry
in the Letters of Paul

CRAIG S. KEENER
Copyn'gh t © 1992 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.
P. O. Box 3473
Peabody, Massachusetts, 01961-3473
All rights reserved .
Printed in the United States of Amenca

Second Printing - Apri/1993

ISBN 0-943575-96-6
Ac
Al
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data In

Keener, Craig S., 1960-

L
Paul, women & wives: marriage and women's ministry in the
letters of Paul / Craig S. Keener. 2.
p. em. 3.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-943575-96-6
1. Women in the Bible. 2. Women in Christianity-Biblical
4.
teaching. 3. Marriage-Biblical teaching. 4. Bible. N.T.
Epistles of Paul-Theology. 5. Women in Christianity-His-
5
tory-Early church, ca. 30-600. 1. Title. II. Title: Paul,
women, and wives. 6
BS2655~W5K44 1992
.8S c20 92-26515
elP
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments v
Abbreviations vii
Introduction 1

Part 1: The Roles of Women in the Church 17

1. Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 19
2. Questions about Questions-l Corinthians 14:34-35 70
3. Learning in Silence-l Timothy 2:9-15 101

Part 2: Women)s Roles in the Family 133

4. Why Paul Told Wives to Submit-The Social Situation of
Ephesians 5:18-33 139
5. Mutual Submission in Ephesians 5:18-33 157
6. A Model for Interpreting Wives' Submission: Slaves in
Ephesians 6:5-9 184
7. Closing Words 225
Appendix A: Women's Ministry Elsewhere in Paul 237
Appendix B: Mysteries, Music, Women, and Wine-Ephesians
5:18-21 and the Threat of Subversive Religions 258
Bibliography 281
Index of Names 321
Index ofAncient Sources 329
 PIJHI, Wi"""" and Wipes
20 Id herefore approve of women
d that he WOU ( valid view is presented in Galatians 3:28, "'in Christ there is ...
~~~uJ~d~3n . .
lC'lching in church. will address only 1 COflnthla~s 11, exam-
In this chapter I . and each of Paul s arguments
f head coverings B Because it seemed to Paul (conditioned as he was by his Jewish
jnjng [he: natur: o. women ought to wear them. ecause some
an
for why the Connthi. this assage are difficult for modern readers
ofPaw's argum~n[S I~ n \\~I necessarily be involved at times. But
£oU~w, ~e dJSCfUhiS~1O gument are not difficult to grasp.
basIC pOlats 0 S ar
RPRETATIONS OF I CORINTHIANS Il:2-I6
The following survey of views is not exhaustive, but .it is
resenrnrive afme different sorts ofposirions that other wnters
e taken concerning this passage. I ..
Some deal with this troublesome passage by exclslOg It
rieely, claiming that a later writer inserted it into Pau~'s lettcr.
one major academic journal, a scholar atgued that thiS passage
an interpolation (an insertion);3 another scholar responded,
o it's not"·4 and still another scholar tesponded, "Oh yes, it
S'Those who feel that the passage is an insertion argue that it
ot consistent with the way Paul thinks elsewhere, a thesis that
ore than a little questionable. But even if the text stood in
'on with what Paul writes elsewhere, we must remember that
not uncommon for ancient writers to write things that
crimes srood in tensioo with each other; modern writers do the
thing, espedally when they address different issues. 6 And the
basis for removing this passage is impossibly weak. 7
Other scholars accept the passage as authentic but ask
Its instruction is specific to that culture or universal in its
~t least one scholar does suggest that Christian women
.atill cover their heads in church today, 8 and I admire his
on the matter, even though r disagree with him. Less
th~ugh surely ~ore popular, is the view that a head
was SIDIply the anCIent culrural manifestation of a wife's
tp ber hQlJ'.aqd; ~e head. co~erings ~re no longer
~y objectIOn to this approach is:
n was not also culturall
ecting the standards of his
accept his teaching here as
Pill! was merely a child
!lw his eternalIy
HeRd Coveri"BS UI 1 Corj,uhltlllS 11:2-16 21
neither male nor fcmalc."lO Perhaps morc sympathetic to the Paul
of 1 Corinthians 11 is the related vicw of Morna Hooker:
upbringing) that the only way ofavoiding scandal in the particular
social conditions of first-century Corinth 'was for women to wear
something on their heads in public, women continued to be
expected to wcar hats in church for almost 1900 years thereafter.
Could there have been a greater distortion of the spirit of Paul,
who insisted that religion was not a mattcr of law, than to turn
him into a grcat lawgivcr?l1
One increasingly common view is that Paul is refuting a
.
Coriuthia1J view that women in the congregation should cover
their heads, and is arguing that the women should resist this
2 requiremcnt. 12 But this view strains our sense that Paul could write.
e1early; although Paul sometimes cites Corinthian views beroto
qualifying and correcting them, the whole tenor of this passage is
that he does indeed want the Corinthian women to cover their heads.
A related and more likely position is that while Paul ac-
knowledges these women's authority over their own heads (11 :10),
he calls on them to submit to the head coverings so as not to cause
offense.13 This position has in its favor the entire preceding context
of surrendering one's own "rights" (the same term Paul uses in
II:IO for "authority") to avoid causing others to lose faith in
Christ.14 Since I Corinthians 8 and 10 address various issues taised
by the practice offood offered to idols, with Paul using himself as
an example of sacrificing one's own rights in chapttr 9, this makes
the most sense of the passage in the context. In the rest of the
chapter Paul returns to a discussion of eating, although .there he
states his case far more forcefully than he does regardmg head
coverings, because the next issue is less morally ambiguous (con-
teast II :2, 17).15 .
What then do we make of Paul's arguments 10 II :2--16/1
will argue later in this chapter that Paul's arguments here (as ofte.n
elsewhere) are meant to persuade his readers in terms of the logIC
of their own culture. Paul was a masterful missiona~,~d ~e was
skilled enough in debate to understand ~e ConnthianS ~
views, and to probe the Corinthian.s .for con~stency
untllllF-d
persuade them to change their pOSloons.. T~s d~ not
his logic is the same sort of logic a Chrtsoan p

PaId, WlIlI/e"l arid \Vives
. r ul1lcntS here becn an absolute,
y, !-fad anyone of 11I'f a;'ul could h.ve ,etded for one
oos, universal pr760 As Gordon Fcc notes, Paul I.tcrc
t Instcad of fo~r. I and cus tont " rather than t~l~lltnght
"shamc, propnc.t)thiS is a cultural issuc, not a hfc·and-
ons or commands. d ' 5 ppcr 17
Iter" like lhe abu,e of the Lor ' u . prcs~ncc even ~fa man who is a member ~fthe family.' "26 Under
'S FIllAD COVERINGS IN ANTIQUITY
k of head coverings, we arc normally spcakit~g
en we spca d on,.n's h:tir instcn.d of a face-veil.
wi that covcre :l w • .• ..'
,orne of our e"dene<, espeCIally ftOOl the eastern Med-
, may suggest the usc of fucc-vcils such :lS now. 3rc III
traditional Middle E:lstcrn societies, most of o~r c~~d~nce
a covering that concealed only the hair from VIeW, SlIlee
one kimt of head covering, we subsume eVidence for
dcr our discussion below on head coverings in general.
me scholars have argued that neither a veil nor a shawl
'cw in this passage, but rather hair put up high on one's
tead of being let down, For example, James Hurley sug-
t the accepted custom of wearing one's hair up in church
g violated by controversial women who were letting their
own.19 He cites I Timothy 2:9 (which addresses wealthier
who arc showing ofT their faddish hairstyles in church) to
20
that women in 'Pauline congregations did not wear vcils.
might cite the same passage to show why Paul lVIII/ted them
their heads-tO avoid sho,ving ofT their fashionable hair-
In .hurdl! Hurley's position is problematic, as Fcc points
ran ·uncovercd" head simply means "having her hair down,"
~;the man's not covering his head in v. 7 ... the opposite of
1 Irls thus clear that head covcrings Ilot merely long hair
lnvl~. " ,
don of our discussion of rhe cllstom of head
tart with the possibly related qucstion
me ASpects ofGreck cultlll'c.
in public nm'
men ill mallY
as" m n in
HCfld COI/trinos I" 1 Cormtl';fl1lJ 11:2-16 23
fourth century BeE Athens could not go to the market and were
not t~ be seen by men who were not their relatives.24 The orators
cspc~lally attcst ~~e separation of male and female spheres of life in
~lasslc~1 Athens, :lnd "one speaker in court seeks to im ress the
Juryd with
. the respect.bili'"
t ~J of his fumily b Y saymg
' th at Ph'IS sIster
.
an nieces arc so well brought up that they arc embarrassed in the:
claSSical Atheman law, a wife who needlessly entered the public
sphere pla.ccd her honor as a faithful wife in grave danger,21
Th.ls Ideal seems to have continued to some degree in
conserV3tlVe pa~ts of the Greek-speaking Mediterranean world,
thro~gh the penod directly before the spread of Christianity. Thus
~larnage contracts from first or second century BCE Egypt could
Include the demand that the wife not leave the home without he
b d' ., 28 ' r
h us an s permiSSion. Even tn a later period, it could be thought
scandalous t~ force a man to bring his wife before the public
contrary to hIS WIShes, especially if he wished to keep otllers from
gazing on her beauty,29
Thus in. ancient romances, a beautiful virgin might never
have appeared m public before meeting her lover, so that her lover
was, the, first to be~old her,30, A,,~sdom work, probably Jewish,
adVISes ItS readers: Guard a Vlrgm m firmly locked rooms, and do
not let her be seen before the house until her wedding day."31
Roman women were, however, much less secluded, 301·
though some moralists ideally wished them to be more secluded
than they were. It was reported tllat in an earlier period a husband
might have divorced his wife for going into public unveiled or
disciplined his wife or daughter for conversing publicly with'an-
other man.32 Writing in Greek in the Roman period, Plutateh
extols the modesty of the virtuous woman who, when a man
praised the bcaut)' of her suddenly exposed arm, retorted that its
bcauty was notme",lt for the public. Plutarch ~oes on to explain
that a woman's talk should also be kept private within the home,3a
For him, "keeping at home a.nd keeping silencc~ arc joint ASpects
of a "Mc's virtue; he "ought to do hcr talking either to her
husband or through her hu band."34 He further rccommendsthlt
"a virtuous \\10m. n ought to be most visible in her husband
p. ny, and to St\1y in tlle hou.e and hide herself when he
llut while writers upheld this truditional sed
a. .In idNI.Jo it h:l.d ne"er been more than an ld
supp e thn all Ie"el. of ict)' he ritencd
 PIIU/, Women, Imd WIves
that this was the case), and
themselves were: ~v.c:U a\::~~ instead exaggerate public
·t.rs like the saoos ( ts r was far from the moral-
'nly suggest that rca It)'
'ty) ccrtaJ . prostlt~tcs for thelf ~asters, were likewise forbidden to veil them-
in their own ?m~. . c were expected [0 go to the
. h women 10 I alestm G k east they followed the
. vns of the ree J . h
acc,38 but 10 t~\. I sian 39 Philo, a prominent tWIS
U
oms of relative sec d I ' that it is best for women to
first·cenrury Egypt, ec ares their household con-
, id matters apart firom
ors, to 3\~ I d'd'o In 4 Maccabees, a document
d to remal~ sec IU e. 'ht ous mother of marryrs reminds
utside pa!esone, t ,e og e
ren that she had been a pure virgin who had not ~~~e
~er father's house,"u Even in Jewish .Palestlne, hoW.C\C~,
esty was .xp.ct.d in public; according to laws later set
J.wish legal scholars, "a husband was ~ompelled to
's wife ifsh. appeared in public in torn "~~thmg or bathed
with men as was the Roman custom.
roughou; most afthe first-century e~pirc, women gen-
• not r.quired to remain at hom., but It does appear that
more restrict.d in their public activities than their hus-
ere, and that this was often due to the fear that they would
att:(active to other men. Some ancient writers, especially
eachers, used the same rationale to get women to cover
,as we shall see shortly. First, however, we must ioves-
ral other suggestions about ancient practices that might
Paul to suggest that women in Corinth cover their heads.
or PaBtm Prophetesses?
Why would the Corinthian Christian women's uncovered
.have caused offense? One recurrent suggestion is tbat an
head was the traditional garb of prostitutes.'3
• Dr... could indeed sometimes indicate that a woman was a
te,~e.m~raUy disreputa~le ~embers ?fhigh society
......... dIiJ kind of apparel: typICally, bngbt colours a
-:--:- pan 0{ their legs, diapbanous f.lbrics and a to~a
cloak. Ebborate hairdressing and make-
1lItl1t,Ql3lic'' 0 for the better-class whores. -«
_ -m.~ distinguishing wives
~ fi"om die Near East
-.; to go out widJ their
Head Coverings in 1 Ccrinthillnl 11:2-16
heads uncovered, b~t if a prostitute were caught with a veil on she
would be flogged With staves fifty tim.s and have pitch poured over
her h~ad. Female ~lavcs, who, as in other cultures, often served as
selves. If a man veiled a woman, he thereby made her his wif•.••
But these rules are from far to the east of Paul's cultural world and
from well over a thousand years before him (i.e., the rw'elfth
century BCE).
The idea of prostitutes going unveiled may have continu.d
in the eastern Mediterranean, since the practice is assumed by an
anonymous third-century rabbi,'7 who argues that Judah had
trouble believing that Tamar was a harlot because her face was
covered 4s But, as we shall note below, head coverings typified
married women in general in Jewish Palestine, so that an uncov.
ered head could indicate a virgin seeking a husband as easily as it
could connote a prostitute. The rabbi no doubt thought Tamar's
head covering problematic only because it would have normally
identified her as a married woman in his culture. 49
Others, noting that the issue in the context is how women
pray and prophesy, have suggested instead that Paul may have been
thinking of the "uncovered and dishevelled heads" of pagan pro-
phetesses. 50 As we shall see below, in most Greek religious activities
women uncovered their heads, and this may be significant. But it
is doubtful that Paul or the Corinthians would have thought
specifically about pagan prophetesses' hairstyles; such prophet-
esses, like the Pythoness, mantic priestess ofApollo, were generally
secluded from public view. SI Even if one were to compare the
Christian prophetesses to their pagan counterparts (Paul was not
necessarily above this; cf. 1 Cor. 12:3), it is unlikely that hairstyle
would have been one of the first comparisons to have come to mind .
Disheveled hair may have also characterized female demons
in popular Jewish conceptions,S2 but again our evidence is too
slight and too late to draw any conclusions about what might bave
been the standard view among Corinthian Christians on this matter.
Moumi1lB or Shame?
Covering one's head was sometimes associated with IJI(IJIDI.-
ing;S3 the practice was a sWldard sign of grief, for both ~
women.s, Plutarch says that it is a Roman custom for
women to dress in white robes and white head
 1111" WiFes
""J,lI'-' . ht is said to cover her head. 56
27

jnS at bet phS f covering one's head fOt said that she had,compromis~dher own self-respect, but noted that
_.n weep
a ~«)u_ b xrs also sp
eak a .
h ad coveMg to at of a
th thiS was her chOICe; the man s penalty ncve.rtheless stood.66
. JeWis tc man's e . aJ We need not suppose that all Palestinian Jewish women
d rnparc a wo . ning custom IS not to·
• ~7 an ~dence for this ~ourthe funeral procession it- cared to be ~odest by these Pharisaic standards, but it is unlikely
51 Tbe el'l . durtng that the Phansees JDvented the CUStom themselves. Modesry was
. bi oUS, bowever, . heads, while daughters would
un»" gu Id cover thelf d .59 no doubt a major purpose of the head covering in Palestinian
an sons wou d bair unboun . JudaIsm and JD all the cultures we sh.lI consider below. Those who
.tbllluncovered beads an . ',S not the strongest argument
fthepra wcc . h' wished to save their beaury for their husbands probably viewed this
The alIIbiguiry a d for our passage. Smce t IS CUStom modesry as a form of chastiry,
seeing it as backgr°w;,ndcrs, it must not be In VICW in
y applied to both g I ives different instrucn~ns to the Veili1Jg CIIStOlllS ,wd Geography
. tbians II, wbere Pau g be implying that he Wishes men
He cannot . h VeiJing customs varied geographically.67 Veiling seems to
d the wo meo . . ourning, but WIS es women to
d prophcsl' ",thout m have prevailed in parts of the eastern Mediterranean, in places like
yan .I
when they do It. I d nses ofshame and dishonor could Syria, Arabia, and southern Asia Minor (modern Turkey), includ-
. the re ate se . ing Paul's home ciry ofTarsus. 68 There is much more evidence for
Then a~, b headed seems to be a sIgn of social
the veiling of women in these regions than many scholars have
.cw. Walking about 60 d be might "cover h'lmseIf"- h'd
are h'
1 e IS
bili'" for a man, an · t h · 62 traditionally recognized. 69
" b 61 It seems that C1 er covenng Or
. moved to s arne. . f Evidence for this custom in Greek life, however, is sparse;
_ 3 one's bead could be used as a s~gn 0 reverence.or the standard citation from Aristophanes is half a millennium ear-
awe. In~ Maccabees 4:U head covenngs may symbohze lier, ,,~th little later C\~dence to support it.7° The issue of head
• . when the king subjugated the Jews, he made them coverings, especially veils, could thus have divided Corinthian
• heads. But this passage may simply mean that he forced Christians between native Greeks and easrern immigrants to Cor-
adopt certain Greek manners of dr~:. , inth; the problem ,,~tb this solution is that it assumes a much larger
Jewish teachers '-''P1ained Palesnman JewIsh women s eastern immigrant population in the church than we would expect
. gs in rlris manner: from the demography of Corinth. (The solution becomes less
problematic if many oftbe immigrants to Corintb were Palestinian
WIly docs ."ODWI rover her head and man not cO\'er his head? A Jews, or, as is also possible, a substantial number of the Corinthian
To .1I>t m.· this be compared: To a woman who Christians were drawn from the ranks of the non-Greeks from tbe
bmclfand bcausc: she disgraced herself, she is ashamed
east who had settled there.)
ial1lc: pma><.< of people. In the same ""rEve disgraced herself
The Palestinian Jewish custom is much easier to documwt
MdOlll<dhttcbugbtm to CO\~ thili heads.64
than the Greek custom. Male head covering CUStoms like tbe
. It is IIIlIitdy that most Palestinian Jews viewed the head yarmulke are fur too late to be of relevance here 71 but the covering
~ ~ a SJlIIb<iI of ,",omen's In<mi/iation, but at the least a of women seems to have been standard, long before Jewish reach.-
. . .; : :was a n=wry sign ofpublic modesty for all Pales- ers had to find biblical proof to make it a requirement. 72
It is possible that this Jewish custom of \'ciling married
.... ~ who could affurd it. One SlOry tc:.lls of a
women was also followed in some Jewish communities outside
. . . . . . tbat she could not afford a head covaiog, so
~~ her ~ before going to speak with Palestine: one Jewish ten from Egypt mourns women who were
"carried away unveiled,"73 But the meaning of this ten is DOt
• A Jewish teacher in the late first
entirely dC:U=, and though it is likely that Egyptian Jews ~
a;::b:lIDCovaiog a woman's head in the
f.uniliar \vith the custom of veils or other kinds of bead
1IIIcovcred her own head, Rabbi Alciba
-_...-
 d \VII"!
Paul, n'Oh'UIl/ nll
28 I .nd Men. th ), we e.nnot
low on r h'lI 0 1 .nd• Josep llCIl
I Id Il3ve. ncccssan
.•
wall
lee p, 29 e.b most JewISh WOI ,
( nth
ir cerrolln that ,as Con .
1SS1UI1~e3d Co\'c:rings as far a'~~ of evidence for wom~n wearing
Ir/Otfl We therefore h.ve' v, I)' for little that sheds hght on the
. . uin' burs o . I e ' I'
CO'lering5 In an.t1 q ~llut head coverings In t lC arlllt lIan
of [he conflIct abo th . ue only in the context ofchurch
Since Pau I• ddresses JeI ISSuggestS a practice ' tI '
lat reqUIres
p, (noth'Ing 'nI I Cor, d IIs day long), ' b I I Ii I
11 may e 1e p u to
's heads to be: covert .a s in ancient religious contexts,74
e the use of head eovenng
c••ering' in Religi./l, c."rexts , .
c:neral, Greek women were C,xpcctc.d to part.lclpatc 10
,In,lth their heads uncovered. Thelt rcl~t1ve seclUSIon to the
p h d'd not include their seclUSIOn from pubhc reh-
Despere I 'b h
'fe, Ofcourse, Greek men were also to worshIp are, eaded.
Iy inscription pro"des rules for those about to be 1Il~t1ate~
Greek mystery cult: "Women are not to "~~ve their hair
up and men must enter with bared heads.
In ~ontraSt, Roman women had to cover their heads when
g sacrifices'?' The CUSlom was old enough by Plutarch's
have elicited a variel)' of contradictory explanations,77 and
raJ exceptions7' merely serve to prove the rule that Roman
worshiped with heads covered. This docs not apply to all
'gious functions,79 but it does contrast significantly with
Greek practice, But again, Roman men would also pull
their head at sacrifices,
was a Roman "colony" in Greece during this pc-
zens conducted husiness in both Greek and Latin.
rences hetween traditional Roman and traditional Greek
ay have caused tensions in the worship in the house
t is unlikely, however, that this is the main reason for
__:,men wearing head coverings in worship because
.....lUIct
• should
lana . have' amen over th e metl wearing
' head
~ . non would provide no reason for why Paul
IDSlIUctions to the men but entirel)' different
'f/Omen.
thettadilionalmale excuse that a man's
5:2&), but many other people in
Head Coverings ill J Cor;ntlJitHJS 11:2-16 29
his d~y .did; that excuse \~as used even more commonly in antiquity
'I y
d.lal.) ~[ IS today. Indeed, til our culture, saturated with the: commer·
C1al~zlllg of the human body, we might have little sympathy for our
anCIent counterparts, who could be moved to lust at the si ht of
bare arms. so g
. vVhar was true of ~ncovcrcd parts of the body in gener3.1 was
csp~clally true of the h,ur. Thus cutting off a woman's hair would
spOil a~1 her beauty, c.ven if she were Venus hcrsdf,81 and a young
man given t~ lust Imgl.lt go dO,wn the street staring at women's
head and hair, rehearsmg the Images in his mind when he gOt
h0l11c. 82 It was, onc such man thought, the beauty of the head that
mattercd most, and aftcr noting this he went on to praise a
,
woman's hair. 83
Loosening a woman's hair could reveal her beauty and
subject her to male lust in both Greek" and Jewish tradition.'s
Early Roman women were divorced for not wearing veils precisely
because their action laid them open to the suspicion that they were
looking for another man,
A jewish woman who ventured into public with her hair
down and exposed to view, or who otherwise could be accused of
flirtatious behavior, could be divorced 'vith no financial support
from her marriage contract,86 A woman uncovering her head could
be described as nearing the final stage in seducing a man.'7 JC\vish
teachers permitted loosing a woman's hair only in the case of an
adulterous woman, who was publicly shamed by exposure to the
sight of men;88 but even in this case they warned that it should not
be done with women whose hair was extremely beautiful, lest the
young priests be moved to lust.'9
The most noble and desirable woman to an Egyptian jewish
man seems to have been one whose very appearance was virgin and
unstained by the eyes ofother men; in an Egyptian Jewish romance
novel, the ideal virgin Asenath seems to have worn a veil as a virgin
to keep men from gazing on her.9o She even wore a bride's veil
when she went before Joseph, perhaps as a sign of newfound
modesty.91 Probably a more reliable index of Egyptian Jewish
sentiment is the writing of Philo, the well-to-do Jewish philoso-
pher from Alexandria, who "says that if a woman keeps even her
hair uncovered, it is a sign that she is not modest. »92
It is not hard to understand how the practice oheillD&and
not veiling related to expectations concerning cenain
tions. In older GreeJc society, the Spartans were said to
 '}Ipil4i'""......·c, &J .-~
31
1 rcason: -"oen SOlDe-
- _
~~(or~:r::public places UD\'cilcd,
_ dJ1 ~ ..,01. tb""b~ wd. -Bcausc me girls haxe to
..,..ood.1JIDdI u:i\cd, ba'''' to keq> thO'iC: "'no
- - ..,d tbc: ~ """"%'
is from Iong before our
r ",.; _~ this ~ raDonak for ",-by married
• _ _ to I""'"idc tbc gJDP •• wberea< single women did \\nen we discuss 1 TImothy 2:9-10 in d>2prer 3 we shall
"......... . __AtbarbeaU>, . th· Ii examine the desire ofupJ>CT-e\ass women to shav.' offtha:. fubion-
h«"cCO''''- , crested in prorecnng err!>O tary
to do so_ M<o --':" '?tes. and married women who ....ent able hairstyles as well as other impressi"e am\". ~toralists saw :rch
bcaUtyof tbcit".'" . ed could be considered Un- ostentation as a problem in high !>Deiety, ~d Paul ,;e.,ed its
. ..nb dJrir beads unco' cr cheaper imitation as a problem in the church. For Paul, church .......
Of .scducri"e. -ell-to-do women thougbt such nor meant to be a fashion show for women or for men, especially
It is probable !bat .some '" I n'diculous especially if the" when some of those ~1es could strike "less fashionable" members
- blic a p p a s e ' . of the congregation as willfully seductive!' But Paul does not
• on mar pu edi can world where head coverings
fmc M terran regulate anyone's garb outside the church, lea\ing that to the
pan> a ••~.-v But to other observers, these
considered nec~ rnnoted an lO"taoon discretion of the person and the meaning their clothing styles will
. .'
to Iust. Th e
, UDGO"ered beads co I h bear among the company they keep.99
S Corinmian church may rhus have been a c as of This background for 1 Corinthians 11 :2-16 makes good
rite . mod""'" and Paul wants the more hber-
nlues concetDltlg -'J> th . sense, but it still remains for us to examine how Paul develops his
n15 within the cburch [0 case eno.ugh ~bout elf more argument to persuade women members of the congre!>-'tion to
've colleagues not [0 offend them to this dramaoe way. cover up. In ancient debate, one might give arguments for a
position that were different from the reasons one held to the
"j/i.t in Corinth? position oneself. Paul has to address the issue of women's head
coverings in Corinth \vith the arguments that would mOSt readily
y many ehurcbes avoid social conflicts by keeping
persuade his ancient readers.
different backgrounds in different churches. What-
y think of that practice today, churches in Paul's day did
at option. Believers bad to meet in homes large enough PAUL'S ARGUMENTS: FAMILY, CREATION,
odate them, and that meant meeting in the homes NATURE, AND CUSTOM
-do members. Since most members in the Corinthian
\\Pl:re not well-to·do,9' people from very different social In 11 :3-1 6 Paul sets forth four main arguments. In this
would be brought togetber. Many of the other issues context, he could have simply said, "Do not cause your brother or
~thians revolve around this clash between the socially sister to stumble," but as in the case of food offered to idols, he
iuCh,'5 ("the str~ng") and the socially weak members of the instead presents a variety of supporting arguments to make a
...... Ie ran~ the ISSue of head coverings may be one further convincing case for all his readers.
"......p 0 thiJ problem. Not all of Paul's arguments make sense to us today on a first
~womcn in Greeo·Roman statues and other artwork reading, but that is because Paul is trying to persuade the Corin-
thian women to wear head coverings, not women today. Had he
have uncovered heads, because most of the
been writing a letter to liS he would have dealt with entirely
to commission such works were well-to-
different issues and reasoned a different way. It is easy for m~
concerned with current fashion than
Western readers to assume that cultures elsewhere think"
~tatioD of modesty. As historian we are impatient with other cultures' logic. Paul aD
_~lI;,I,;,; __ ~~~~_....ll_
 ndW'Pes
Htfld Coveri"DSitll Cori"t1Jinm 11:2-16 33
pa lll, WO lff'''' a •
point across to his
h'
cd about gct(l~est~~n readers with argu. translation naturally influenced Jewish and Christian writers like
is cO~CC(~essing modern I Paul employs a t~anscul_ Philo 106 or the church fathers. IO ? The question is whether tins
With HOP k tIanscul[ur~1 y. transcultural pomt, and figurative usc of the term "head" is common enough that we
would woc he is rn aklOg a Suggested above, is not should ~1ttomat!ca.lly read it into the present passage, and the
meot only When• gs as we have ~nswer ,IS "that It. IS no.t. Indeed., as Fec points out, the only
argo d co"enn ,
C...,.ring of ~ea authOrity mentIOned In the ennre passage is the woman's own
fwose poJOlS. (ll :10), and 1l:1l-12 "explicitly qualify vv. 8-9 so that they will
o . ons 11"3-6 not be understood" hierarchically.I08 The woman is not the man's
d'] Corintllll .
,.,band aJ the Hea . yO analogies: an analogy subordinate in this passage; she is his "glory" (or "reputation,"
'ovohfes (\ fi' "honor," "splendor"), the one who brings him shame or h0l1or. 109
• gumeot hae 1 fher hody) and her guranve
PauJ s ar h d (part a
'fc's litcral ea 'fi 'a! h
berween her am C1 ead
Other possible nuances of the term "head" exist) such as
eo a WI d an analogy h . ) "the honored pan.» "'Head" is sometimes contrasted with "'tail"
(b cr husband). an • head covering (her 3lt. in the Old Testament because the head, as the most prominent parr
• (a veil) and her narwul~' first argument about head cov·
g ",""p Pa of the body (and the parr that on men was normaUy unco,'ered)
Before we can 0 '- d hiss play on the ward "h ead . "100 was the most honored part. lIO Paul seems to imply in the next
, wc must uodcrs l3O 00 a play on words may sound chapter that those parts of the body which need to be covered are
ough an argumcnt ~ .ent readers it would have made more honored, the covering representing the special attention and
. to us roda!'. ~ m:j anOand he knew the most effective
honor given to them (12:22--24), but there is no indication that
'01 Paul lenc\\' his au _L~ce, their behavior. So Paul initiates
. thom to L»4',ge , b d he has the discussion of 1l:2-16 in view as he writes thi5, More
lD com'lOce d"" . both the part of the woman soy likely, in 11:2--16 he is speaking of the natural honor accruing to
the word"bea . It IS h b d
on . . ' dispute and the woman's us an . the head, and suggesting that the wife by virtue of the creation
(lJ,=g • IS 10the rset, ,
we arc Caeed with a pro blem . When order owes her husband reverence. Husbands recdve glory or
But ngh~aodo~c ~head" of the wife (as Christ is, the shame from their ",-ive5, just as Christ receives glory or shame from
~:.man,and GGd "fChris:),102 w hat does he .mean: To the behavior of men. III
of~gJo<iayn"rmallymeans to be 10 charge, But if Paul means this argument in this waj' (which n.e may),
1Z 1!bt nr !!he pheaie would hay<c n.ormally be.en uUn he s.cems to be making an argummt Wt he wouid nOt wish ro
cIar? enforce unj"ersally, Cannot "",mun in me chur<:h also bring re-
. ~_of"kadniu:are, tilougb lWt unblown. proach or honor on dl.e c.au~ (}f Chriu (d. I TIm. S:13-15)? If
GIld. e ~ GrtlO\ 1cJiro;o.s do oat ~ lim P..ul is referring ro me husband', bonor_1tkh in ;ome some we
.. . lk mx: d«wnctt wed. Cbtis· .nan argue, he ~ n.uur" ofhU argument cannot csWld 'cry
:sq;>I~1iIlIL, IlDt Grtd u:anJbrion of tb<: Old Car ber"nd dJ<: particul.ar app6a1ioo be wioba tn dra~ from it.
-.1kfWl""",-qrl ' - "'bead'" ,ii)~' (dared to Othu \Cbol.ar tu.., arf9lOd &bat *bc:ad~ mcam "-.ra:."au
:_. . . .IlI_ it • " it:rouJd lDWI .0\ number tJf ~ have wmpikd references to m»_ of dle
tenD "laud" in . ,au a _ .midi OUUB in Paul' - .
,,
!==~=~;~~;:-J~ "'11 onm .. ~ ocba Gr«t
rH in dJc
- U ~.II~nm·~"'""bead"
•n ~ wm:aa. wbn-e P tuIn ..
anai"""
KII:K
_ . cd ero.

('!,~~I"''''1kIi=:l;'~""""'""lcadalca
.' . ba odIad un
..-oJdf,
(11' uTbconh-objtcrionwimap:<' had. tDWa
!xu KCm W be dJ<: • • God D dJc _cc:
w

of 0IriIt,
Greek word "'" • objuDon if die tnt r~ ro • M*U . . .
F.uJ1a from trbom be procadcd U . i~».
bel 6' IfdJc inam<Ition D' new. then I ~ ~ ill
 p",.4 w",IlIP', tJIIJ Wiv($ Head Cavtri"B$ in 1 Cori"tlJians 11:2-16
35
. t is rhe source of Adam,
o ut· C hnS unless Paul plainly argues for the husb d'
iJczikian points . Ii7 his wife. an s transcultural rule over
<0, as B d God ofChrISr. hotlv disputed. Evangelical
of£"o, an' "source" has becmn me~ning for "head" is not . Whate~er. particular nuances Paul may have wished to call
.....c mc:tJll Og es that t s II' l' to hIS readers mmds, he uses a wordplay to facilitare his point· the
'" Grudcm argo . I of "head" usua y Imp lOS
WaynC honea use
whereas thc melaP as however, been senous y chal-
. I woman who bnngs dishonor on her head is bringing dish~nor
.' 118 His argument h, 119 Gordon Fee observes that upo~ her husban?, and rhus upon the Christian family. That is
nt}'· other CyangeI'IeaI scholars.
". ancient Greek I'tterature are Paul s POInt m thIS context, not that her display of independence
bY f "head IO m removmg the culturally significant head covering would bring
forty-ninC uses a reproach on any husband in any culture.
horica!, and ofth cse :. th New Testament, which is the
" }n 11:5 Paul !ndicates how seriously a woman dishonors her
p (1) Twelvc ..pp~ ~oaod~us musr nor be included in the
head by wors~lpmg. with it uncovered. He makes an analogy
undcr cooSldctaOO fthem do mean "source").
between her praYIng Without a head covering and her praying with
t (espcciallY since so;e a the Greek translations of the Old
her ~ead shaved; whether she is without her specific cultural
(2) Eighteen are om nt a very small percentage of e.xcep-
covering or her natural, God-given covering, humiliation is in-
<ot, where thC Yre;:::'laro rs usually beor over backward to volved. Paul is using here the ancient debating principle ofreductio
to thc rule that th e
I ' "head" in this way. . ad absurdum: reducing the position of his opponents to the
tranS anag f th rcmaining nineteen Instances the sense absurd. If they want to bare their heads so badly, why don't they
(3) In most 0 c
. " tbar Grodcm finds is disputable. bare them altogether by removing their hair, thus exposing rhem·
(4) FIDally, philo clearly does use "h ea d" to mean "
onry over "
source selves to public shame?
Unlike the act of "'lCovering his head, a Greek man's shav·
• es. th "h d" i"g his head could represent mourning,12l a response to great
fte concludes that Grudem has shown at ea can
mean "leader" although even in these cases it need not catastrophe like shipwreck, or it could be associated with illness or
thorit)' over.' 'But in Fee's view, Grudem has failed to recovery from it. l22 Priests of Isis were said to shave off all their
question the meaning "source" or to show that "head" hair, so this aCt could imply the shame that cerrain pagan cuitie
a term of authority.'20 associations bore in Greco-Roman antiquity.123
t "head" sometimes means "authority," sometimes means Shaving the head could also imply the disgrace of the loss
, honoJ, or respect" in oilier ways, and probably of womanly attractiveness; by ancient standards, it would deprive
means "source" does nOt teU US which possible meaning women of beauty and make them look like boYS.'24 A Roman
in our tnt. Contelt is the key to determining how a satirist complains that a Roman matron ov<::rly concerned witJh her
hair ought to have it shaved off wirh a razor. US The ultimate
ttrm is being used in a given passage, and the context
example of the shame involved in shaving one's head is that it is
iidiata OOIbing abour the husband's "authority." But for
the final stage of desperation to which Saran reduGeS Job's wife in
ilk f1f aIpIIIICnt, In us anu.me that "head" here means
a Jewish story about Job's trials. 126
~: 1WbidI 1 bdievc Grudan bas shown is a possible
Some have suggested that raul's argument at dW point
--. If Pad is llling "bead" here in the sense of
appeals to something more t1IwJ the ~naaJ slum<:: of a sbavco
IiIIIply mean !bat the hll5band was the oDt
• ora the wife in lbat culture, without
hcad.Perh.aps, as some scholars b2ve aIgUc:d. P.auI CJIIPOI'Cf
removal ofsymbolic gender disrinaions;127 .an UlJCDft'.mf
*
bead_
........ arc to ruIc O\'er their wives in all short hair b2ve precise!)' this point in COIDlDOO' bods R&¢ •
• 1 Per. 2~li); be might b2ve expre:ssc.d disr<::gard for cusrom.ary maW of geoda ida![jN •• n U'
~ ia 1rboIc culrore busbafids Wayne Meeks pUlS it, P.auI messes cquiva1cnt tisJa-
wiftI. Thus the debaJC both parties in nnrriag<:: (1 Cor. 7:2-4), but"
scttie the jS$IIl'
 '" WiJl(J
I l'~"'('" ill Nettd Cove"mJjI in J CorinthiAnJ J1:2-J6
37
~. df
, rile dress of male ao .. emale
16 differences III in intentional oPP~~;,tJon to I-or the man did not Come: from the woman, but the: woman from
____ rd (or 5C:l~ ~,,~\., been d set role feversal, but it the man; for the man wu not created through the WOman but
~."JZ9 rlus ~t CflCOurasc , own terms here: gender rather the woman through the man. Therefore the wom~n it
poP ".9" cuJ~h "nse ,imply 00 ,ts "against oature" (Rom. oblJgat~ to have: authority O\'<:r her head on account of the
_.>c ,oou",· d d bY Paul as angcl~. Ncvcrthclcs" in the Lord. neither U: the woman apart from
.- reg>' C the man, or the man apart from the woman, for ju~t as the woman
gc was 22'5).''' 'og gcnder reversal here was uk.~n out Of, the man, man comci into the world through
" al work. The woman'~
drCS
27; c(. Dcul. -;t Paul is ad woman, but all <hlDgs are [really ultimarety) from God (11:7-12).
rtn.cr1ler or .. ms 10 bc
.... corral jssuc see ghl disgrace not only on hor
u In short, Paul says, because woman was taken from man
11JOr< '•• viJJS her head bro b"-d The idea that a wife
-'_g ors... her h US ~. '
u~ hcad, but aJso 00 er behavior'32 or by reveahng his
• ~he re~eets ma~ 's im~ge~ and therefore she ought to cover tha;
~magc II~owor~hJp lest It dIStract obser-vers from attention to God's
ihaD" her husband bY h. I world. Even though Plutarch
den Image. It 15 not that Paul is unaware that woman and man
'" '3Scoaunon io the an the enrnple if he expects his
" dh1s tosel . together make up God's image. lr is impossible that he had not
...., the husban doubt conSCIOUS 0 fth· e Idea read the explicit statement to that effect in Genesis 1:27,141 and
....
Ii« boo O(2 j, bl ' '" he "... nO
bl bcha"or could bnng . reproac h On he speaks e1sewher~ of all believers being conformed to that image
"'00II', dishoo ora e VI·'W is rdlected by an accus..
r- I" Tb coaun on • Ul Christ (1 Cor. 1:>:49; Rom. 8:29;2 Cor. 3:18). Itscems ratherro
family· " e til 'married daughter was profligate be another reminder that the way the 'l-ife dresses will in that culture
..._
, ,."v no ted tbat S po S
disgrace to him.
. "'36 Th
. us some
a affeCl whether honor or shame comes ro her husband. It is far more
cd "thaI she "d"" th so'pulation that the wife ..'aid gracious to sal' that than to sUte, "Women are too beautiful and will
asindu e e . .
ge ,ootf2 137 M ralists could instst that \\~ves please distract the eyes of undisciplined men during the worship services,"
. her husband. , 0 " . all ' ..
. nI husbands;l3S if mvcs were not :OCI. ) r~nnng ... although that mal' have been part of the problem in Corinth.
dxir "'. . b bands" they would bnng dIshonor to How could women as ""men's glory'" (or "'honor," "splen~
~ 1\'( to melf us "
dor") distract men from the worship ofGod during church sen'cesl
old.-139
poinl of Paul's opening arguments ..bout the head Nthough the follo'l'ng analogy is probably a linle more extreme
caUs us as belicvers to give up personal nghts fOt ~e sake than the Corinthian problem, it mal' con"ey the general point. We
g our &milies. Although hi~ specific addressees In Cor· might imagine a laid· back church roday where the women entered
womeo rhe principle he aroculates could be applIed to wearing bathing suits, prepared for the baptismal sen'ce in the
. If ou~ dressing a certain way in public will cause ocean after morning worship. If the men lusted, the women would
10 our spouse, we ought nona do it. Paul is clearly less
be right 10 sal' that rhe men should take responsibility for their own
"ith the particular apparel worn in a given culture than acrions; bur our of concern for their brothers in Clmst, the WOmen
could a"oid the problem by simply wearing something less re eal·
its effects.
ing than bathing suits to church. The same principle would apply,
of course, for men who wished to asset[ their proper right to wear
bathing suits to church; a bathing suit mal' not be intrinsically
sinful, but one should do cvet)'thing possible to ",'oid causing
one's fellow Chrisrian to stumble from the way of Christ. Many
ancient men had a lower tolerance level for exposed skin than we
do today because they saw much less of it. Apparently just seeing
a woman's hair was enough to disturb them.
obtil!2led not 10 cover his head since he is the image Despite the potential seriousness ofthis problem, boweve~,
God [hi$ ultimate head and s~urce, 11:3]; but Ihe Paul is not ordering these well-to·do women to change thell'
ofman [hcrdirect head and source, 11:3].
 ntl ,ViPt!
Head UJveri"B$ in I Corinthians 11:2-16
f.M~ n1rPf'IJ, 8 39
uad e them to choose to do
156
husband. His readers would have e "at
. e is ttying to persan,s right to choose what she they knew the Scriptures well cno ~PCC1 Iy followed tus case if
wardro~, bthari ris ~c: wornrD use her rig~t to dress how applY" ng them. He uses "'gl " h ug to fe.cognize how he was
ory ere to mean VlrtUall th .
I emphasIZes he is askiJ1S her h husband, Just as he called
(v. 10); yetther than sha~e er their own rightS for the a: "image" (1 Cor. 15:43,49), adapein the Y :~ething
likeness" ofGenesis I :26 to read "image';d glO~~~ un;f.~~s~
~aul ofo~s c~
Is [0 haDar. ra hiJll sdf, to give up
er>. iDdudJOS ,,1 '
' g a woman s aut h ' to Here agam, relates to some of the ideas ).
Although some anCient Jewish traditions repeat the biblical ~~~~
ch 8-10). onty
othe'" ( sn'esees Paul as aflirlml~nlO Some translations and
., [everyorear on ber head ,n'f' 'poke ' ofche woman's being that both men and women are created in God's image,158 others
1,0
what to \\ or as I It'fS the head covenng
• could ded::-re that \~hilc man was made in God's likeness woman
interPret the te' merely was made In ~an's Im~ge.159 The Greek writer Plutarch'similarl
c.omparcs a Wife to a mirror: a good wife will reflect her husband'~
cato"'oe's authoriry,143 or as a're not natu.ral ways to read
someo
. d her disDlry;
"'I
. but these '
think that an Arama,c term for head bkeness well, but a bad wife will rdlect it poorly,160
text here. "s Othe~ "auth ori ty,"H6 but not only would " V;:,hen Paul later ,notes (11:15) that a woman's long hait is
g is here misrrans late wn Aramaic,H7 the supposed play on a glar). [0 h.er, .lllS POint would also make sense to his readers; 3-
rinthians not have kno . • ~maic. 148 The only normal way woman 111 annqUity could prize her long and beautiful hair. 161 In
does not at tually work In dru· 't that the woman h as " au thanti'
.
contrast~ an adulteress, who had ignore.d God's honor or glory by
1._ 'sroeea I .
the Greek pw.Stl . ven optional for her to recognize her unfaIthfulness to her husband, herself receivcd dishonor when
note
erownhea. d ""9Itts d ~teit,1>O
nsuo
- the poestS dISheveled her hair.'62 Much of Paul's argumtnt here
. sh "ought" to emo .
thont)'; e affirm that the woman has authonty over her revolves a~ound w?rdplays about "glory" and "image."
Paul not only s alifies his argument concerning man , :rhls much IS nOt hard to grasp; what is more problematic
wi, hut he even qu Paul explicitly says that woman bemg . IS Paul s statement that the woman has authority on her head "on
?/Oman's so.urce· the whole stofj" even though it was the account of the angels." What couid this obscure phrase mean?
m mao IS nO t ) .,
of the story he needed to state t~ make hIS POl~t, ~e
t the Corinthian Christians to mISunderstand hl.m.1>1 Becallse of the Angels: 1 Corinthiam 11:10
that woman and man are mutually dependent m the
Several explanations have been proposed for the obscure
~ g the same language that other early Jewish writers
phrase "because of the angels." We shall examine tlle most com-
make the same point. 1S3 Women and men are each
monly proposed explanations of tlle phtase,163 One is that the
m the other in some sense, and the ultimate source or
angels of holiness are present for the worship of the community,
this God. as III some other early Jewish texts;164 on this interpretation, the
'. clarification of his point about man being woman's problem is that the worshiping angels will be offended by the
en from Gen. 2) may reflect the creation story in breach of propriety involved in a woman's uncovering her head,165
•Woman and man are together said to represent God's Since it was only a breach of propriety in that culture, Paul need
). There is some evidence that the Corinthian Chris' not be implying that these angels are culture-bound or squeamish;
&ave separated the two accounts of human creation in tllis view could mean that they are simply offended by the symbolic
I and 2,154 as did some other Jewish thinkers of thc disrespect shown to the women's husbands.
Paol apparently appeals to their understanding of Gen- Then again, if thc issue in the congregation is that some
~:s~es their view of that passage by reading it in men would be tempted to lust after these women who were
showing off their fancy hairstyles, another traditional interpreta-
ofwomen as men's glory would not have been tOO tion may be more likely. It had become a very common belief that
(cidelS to h~ve grasped; in some Jewish uadi- many angels had fallen into sin long ago by lusting after beautiful
brOUght public "glory" to her
 PjJl1~ Willi"'''' •• ~ ........u .. ~'J7'1p·," J lAnnrl1l411$11:2-J6
41
be saying: "By leaving your hair
. paul would nil' men, but also angels :"ould have been a transcultural, enduring argument for all women
On rhis VieW, inciting nor 0 ) In all cultures to :vcar head coverings. This does not seem to fit the
en· bUc vieW, yOU are . r way the rest of hIS argument goes.
to p~ . this view as ludicrous lfarn OUr
t,,,1 e readers dismiss. line how such an argument Another major possibility remains: Paul speaks ofthe an cis
Bc:foreso~re we ought to eX~~n31 rcaders in Corinth. 167 who . run the structures of the world system . Alth aug h some have
g
erspeCO\ ) pI's angI . ~bJected that Paul nowhere speaks of hostile angcls,'79 this objec-
ern P peared to aU . replete with stones of gods
d bave ap cultures IS . non Ignores some of the evidence. Some scholars have pointed out
-"ology io many tS of the other (or sometImes
ent m)'''' . real cons or .' . that these may be the angels of the created order \Ve see .
sses chaSlng mo f God" haVIng lOtercourse WIth
odd e 16S The "sons 0 .' d f: 1.Connt"Ians
. h' 3'80 and Romans 8:38 connects hostile angcls
6:.' In
e) gender. . 6 ',S likewISe 'nterprete as aueo WIth the rulers" In the heavens.
. GenesIS 169 I
ughters of men 1/1 women in most ear y Jewish Terms like "rulers and authorities" normally meant simply
. ·th human 4 171 J d 1
Is cop~laong.\\'1 abl'reflectcdin2 Peter 2: ' . u e.6,72 political powers in the world (e.g., Rom. 13:1).181 But many
000,.1'0 ThIS IS pro b l II so it may be a vahd Chnstian groups 111 the anCIent world believed that there were also spiritual
3
1 Peter· 3'19_20'7. 6as we , powers, such as the gods of various nations, influencing the course
reraoon of GeneS!S tho angels the "Watchers" (as they are of those na.tions.'82 In Jewish thought, those spiritual powers l83
.' 'd that ese ,
Thus It IS SOl h bserved the earth, lost their heavenl)' were angelic authoritIeS appointed by GOd;'84 in some Jewish
d in 1 Enocil) w ~740 One tradition of uncertain date puts it sources, they had become malevolent powers and would be judged
due to illiot sex. b f'
e .., dueed the Watchers by the eaury a theIr at the end of the age.'85 While this way of looking at the world
way: ..omen se became com~on only in postbiblical Jewish sources,186 it was
ned heads and faces, and the Watchers,
already establIshed as early as the book of Daniel chapter 10,187
filled with desire for them, perpetrated the act in their ~inds. and we may be certain that both Paul and his readers were familiar
Then they were tranSformed into. human males, and while the with the idea.
women were cohabiting with thelf husbands they appeared to How would this meaning fit 1 Corinthians 11: 101 It would
them. Since the women's minds were filled with lust for these function in a manner quite similar to the statement in 6:3 tbat
pparitioos. me)' gave birth to giants. For the Watchers were
175 Christians will judge angels; if they will judge angels, they
disclosed to mem as beiog as high as the heavens.
should be able to arbitrate disputes among themselves. The argu-
Jewish people believed that evil spirits still occasionally ment of 11: 10, in the context of the preceding verses, would be
after women,J76 in the most extreme stories even killing that Christ is head of the husbands; husbands are heads of their
en's suitors to keep the women for themseives. l77 Such ideas wives; Christ and his church together are destined to be above the
a1JQ be reflected in the common view that demons could prineipalities and powers, or angcls of the nations, which are over
uce. m the rest of the world. Paul's rhetorical question, UDo you not
know?" (6:3), probably implies that they should indeed have
d The main ~roblem with the "lusting angels" view is what it
known that the "saintS," those set apart for God by faith in Christ,
seell! to Imply on a wider scale. If angels lusted after
would judge angels; hence they could have grasped his brief clause
tha cn'sh"C'th
til au m ann ,Paul would have had to have supposed
"because of the angels." If, as we believe, Paul also wrote Col-
wIlt ~ could lust after women's hair anywhere in the world
ossians, the dual picture of Christ as head, both ofthe chureh (Col.
ere It wu
IlIUDbIio bI not covere. d P h
er aps he thought 'Just a
this was 1:18) and of the created order of spiritual powers (2:10; cf.
g ock for angels gathered for worship but the view that 1:15-17), would indicate that such images are not foreign to
angels were always 10. d 'falling becaUSe 0 f
anger of his thought.
PArII~n WOOlen would make his argument a Htde On this reading of 1 Corinthians 11:10, Paul menli
~~01 would surely have made much more angels to sbow where these women stand. Although they.
tliIgs than a mere phrase, because this
 lid W;I,(J
f{Ju4 U'I1,ne1l• a Head COl'tri,J9J i" 1 CArinl/Jinlis 11:2-16 43
. subrn ituOg to their husbands'
head COVCI1ng: (theY have author~ty ?ver their really arc,198 often through our natural cndowmcnts199
to weor a fth e gospel,)e < ct thar rhey wIll Judge the the nature of the world around us. or through
c the sake: 0 h authonl),
rfo '11 dge angeI
. r Ul la , dS
s some ay. urdy .Usua,lly writers used these c:xamples from nature to advocate
r
,beads; sO ~~scsa)rjng, "y?U WI b~~[ your head apparel now." ~ speCific ~nd of moral bchavior,200 or simply exhorted livin
. ThuS PaU nsible cho,ees a sal. s that it reads "beeause In. general .In accord~ncc with naturc. 201 For instance, the Stoi~
n ",ake::;'~akncss ofrh ls ~:o~;u know about your future thmk.cr Eplcrcrus po~nts out that if one has a cold, nature supplied
The",. as "because of wh l ncise and therefore difficult us With hands ;~2 wipe Our nose rather than just to sniff in the
angels • Butsuch a cO . fh mucOUS all day. In the same way, Plutarch reasons that nature
to those angels. not be uncharactenstlc 0 1m Or of teaches mothers to nurse their own babies by pro\1ding th th
n Paul's porr would aI and It may make more sense abiliry to produce milk. 203 em e
non h in gener , h" "
t Jewish reae cfS f the angels present at wors Ip, Or Many gender distinctions were also considered part of na-
~uppl)<ing "because ~ While I would not propose that this ture~ rath;r than a matter of mere social convention. 204 Thus, ont
..<' of lusting angels. fir Paul's usage elsewhere better
~ . H seems to ofCicero s examples ofa natural way to categorize types of humans
is beyond dIspute, vs proposed above. is male and female. 2os More significantly, EpictelUs can speak of
either of the other VlCI ultimately reaches about the an- hair as a mark of gender distinction: ~Can anything be more useless
Whatever concluSIOn ~nedetail the meaning of the phrase than the hairs on a chin? "Vell, what then? Has not n3.turc. used eVtn
t spell out In )
Paul does no. ent It is therefore proper for us these in the most suitable way possible? Has she not by these means
.' t his maIO argum . tho -
It IS no _ t ar ents. Paul's arguments to IS pomt distinguished between the male and the fcmalc?"206
ove to his nex . gumretation of the Genesis narrative, but Beards were quite out of fashion in the Roman world of
presu pposed an mterpways of thinking that were standard in Paul's day, and he was therefore not likely to impose them on his
a1 arguments express readers as a mark of gender distinction; but perhaps he would have
k culture. agreed with Epictetus' basic point: "' e ought to preserve the signs
ppeal to the Natural Order: 1 Corinthians 11:14 which God has given; we ought not to throw them away; we ought
not, so far as in us lies, to confuse the sexes which have been
Judge this matter for yourselves: it is fitting for a woman to pray distinguished in tllis fashion."207 In the same way, some in antiq-
to God with her head uncovered? Doesn't even nature itself teach uiry saw gender rcversal 208 and homosexual behavior209 as being
J'Ou that ifa man has long hair, it brings him dishonor, 188 whereas «against nature" (Rom. 1:26-27).
ifa woman has long hair, it brings her glory?189 For her long hair It was not sexist or sexually exploitive to wish to preserve
191
is given to her l90 as a natural covering. gender distinctions; they were already matters of natural endow-
ment, and to keep them explicit was entirely in accordance with
Paul's appeal to nature was a standard Greco- Roman argu-
nature. Thus F. F. Bruce mal' well be right when he suggestS that
used especially by Stoics, 192 but also by Epicureans, 193 other
195 Paul's appeal to nature here is an appeal to the fact that women's
phers,t94 and, for that matter, just about everyone c1se.
hair /laturally grows longer than men's.210
son of reasoning has become more or less discredited today; Other scholars suggest that by "namre" Paul refers to
on~ says any longer, "If people were meant to fly they would cultural custom. 211 Although "nature" might occasionally mean
~ WIngs"• But 't was a very common sort of argument
• I. ' in Paul's custom,212 the term is normally used to mean exactly the opposite
Y, O.ur quesnon IS, What did Paul and other ancien t wri ters mean ofcustom: that which is innate in the order of things, which cannot
by thCIl' appeal to nature?
be acquired. 213 But it cannot be denied that the Greco-Roman
D1C111 by the ter writers meant b"
Sometimes y nature" pretty much what we ClrstOIll at this time was for men to have shorter hair than
.~ fum today: the created order. 196 They could speak of women.214 The fact that Paul must have been aware of the exccp-
wC COSQlOS
rce or order c
197
iii
on.tro . ng and arranging natura
I tions to this custom would indicate that he speaks in a gcnerti
, Nature IS saId to teach us the way things
 I n~III(1J, ""a WII'es
I1 Hctld COI'cringl i" 1 Con'mhJflnl 11:2-16
}'II , • I O(l11S in his day.2IS Th 45
I ClCt:l n, . C
44 Ie (Of USll~ s~us listS "a Wise n~~1~6 a pnCSt, a do not let locks grow on (his) head. Do not braid (his) crown
cp~b S' ,Arfcnudo . crformanccS,. nor the cross knots at the top of his head. Long hair is not fit
ofw.h~[ \lMlou, d for srage P n long half as a sign of
for ~oys. bur for vo~uptuous womc:n."131 Although certain ex.
a"pU~Jl: a rUlc~:~ may h~ve i:~;in for the traditions of ccpr.l~n.s ~~~rc pcrmlftc? in the Bible for long hair, such as the
proph , a feW cases show thel f d Olen like the heroes of~ ...
c
Nazlf1rc~,. a later rabbi could argue that the long hair was to set
1n I or to Sparran ' f -.
rt Vcrsa , 217 Ancient d )'ke statues 0 some Greek the Naztrtte apart from normal society, making him repulsive: and
dcr . . cl0115.
SCD el'disonc ) ' an
' tOr J h
G ck hlS . -arlie< Sparea, per aps as an uncomforrablc,233
~d . d in rc .119 lilt:·
cr penD . hair long. d varrioe character. Spartan Whether Paul's argument is that women by virtue of ere.
C
218 wore: melt , dUry·center 'd dressed like mcn. 220 I arion have longer hair than men, or that the social norms of his day
• f Sparta' . ,hort an n
eSSion 0 cd their halc C 'belc were said to have long demand WQlllCn'S hair to be longer under normal circumstances
often croPc~taciC priest' of Ilted their long hair may have docs nor in the end need to be decided. In either cas¢, Paul would
'd rthcc at mascua ,
~I ~)'C(' the)' were SO' 122 Long hair Olay a so lave been
I I seem to be making an argument that addresses symbolic gender
3 ~D fgender reversal. .... s 223 Conversely, a woman distinctions, and requiring men and women to recognize those
a SIgn 0 /antonn~ . f diffcrences between them,
, d ,tit 11I,...rl' or ~\ d disguise hersel as a man,22.
SIC" her halr "f h ""he .to'ssar), gen d er reversa Is. Thus
I , e
. From natural gendc:r differences, he can easily argue that
t cut k wcU to unm: CC clothing styles ought to reflect those differenees.H ' Women in
everyone tOO Corinth should thus cover their heads, and men should nOI, to
tetuS charges,
a wontan?-A Olan.-Vcry well t~cn, adorn as identil)' their differences. This is a case of distinguishing the two,
Art- )ou a mJ~ oC Wontan is born smoorh ~nd d3.m~' b}' ~a~re howcvcr, not of ranking one over the other.
an
a man, not a \~om i~ \'cr haic)' she is a prodigy, and IS exhlblted
r~IJ, :ll1d ,fshe od~·' Bllt for a mall IlOttO be hair)' is the Palll's Appfal ro Clk"O"': 1 Cori1ltiJia1ls 11:16
. the pr IgIC, " •
i[Rom~among ifbynature he' has no hair he IS a prodigy) but if
5:ll1le thlOg, and d " I:. 't Ollt of himself, what shall we make of Although Paul's appe,,\ to "nature" in 11:14 m"y not be "'1
. outan puc Sl .
he CIIts It _'I h'bit him and what notice shall We pOSt' appe"i to custom, II: 16 certainly is. It is not. n appeal to universu\
him? Whert sh;,u 'flw~ e~,: to the audience, "a man who wishes t~ practice, but onl, au "ppe,11 to the pr.letke of those who "e<)\1IIt"
1\vill sho\\ au, \\ e .
16 tollS
01\ the maner of church "'tire, the dlllfehes of ,od.235 They are
be' ;1 \vt:ml11n rJther than a man.
the ones who count, of c()urse, be ansI;' they nrc the ones whos
" .t ' remarks verge on the crude when he suggests b"l"wior best supportS Paul's argument to !!oct the well-to-do
"prce(u
one \ ho \\~shes to look like a woman b)' p 1ue.k'
'ltlg 1'1'
liS lalCS Corinthi"n wives to ,'over their heads in church nud n"oid di islon
"make a clean sweep of the whole matter," chopping olT among the hristians in orinth.
of his masculine hairiness, so he may be a full woman Thi was a standard wa)' for .\11 andent 1\1' 'er or sp eeh
I half and hnlf,m That the context of his remarks mal' writer to argue" case;2.," for inslnuee, 1 o.:r,ltcs "ppenls to c tnmon
that the object of EpictelUS' ridicule is from orinth may knowledge when he writes what ~thc myths relate "nd all men
more than passing interest. 227 belicve" ;bolll ZeuS,237 cventhough <:Ic"riy tllere Were .: ptic:ms
Some pbilosophcrs apparently advocated obliterating marks to ~all mcn" of which even Isocmte must ha,'e kno"~1 in his dn .
distinetions,128 but most philosophers who wore thdr Theon, the writer of "n importallt rhetorical h"ndbook, notes that
IoD~ro~bll'did so only as a sign oftheir simple, extrasocicral one can refute an argumcnt if it i contrary to the common a co~nt
.' EptCterus was not the only philosopher to ridicule an or vicw; thc burden of proof was strongly on an One oPPosl~g
tell' attired" man. 130 csl'ablished Cllstom or view. 238 This practice is no I comm n III
The g(I\eraJ custom accords also with Diaspora Je\\~sh rabbinic texts, although the standard there WIIS determined spccil:
y toward transvestism in hairstyles: "If a child is a boy ically by rabbinic rradition. 239
 _lid nlj,tJ
FiI~~ f1:'''''''' HUla GO"Ptrmgs In J (ArimhJ/HII 11.2-16
47
dent world ac~~gJly aCCCpttd
,rs in the all from custom. . Although it might be Interpreted as sc.xually enticing in OUT Culture. Beyond
phIlOSOPh ol1,dnwrt "of these thinkers, called this,. \:c .must ~cc:p In mind that Paul's purpose was to make
5o~cl1tJ1Cll[ ctccpt disciples of3~, ie pOSition illustrates th Chnstlamty 3:'allablc to morc people, to increase its cultural appeal
Jbct~g ,w~r~hlan chu~,hl (c~cn[ thought. Paul, Wh~ to the maJonty of those who would be interested in it. If our
Conn In an -' rJ
P d to custOm n proclaJmmg lC truth Of churches' dress codes turn people away from the church rather
e "re eccpred e"st om is able
og,3 h's side art
J to appeal to it. than bring them in, we have failed to catch Paul's motives or his
message.
r finds it 00 I
I, here Finally, and most significantly for this book, we should notc
that tlothi"B In this passage suggests wives' subordination. The
only indICatOr that could be taken to mean that is the statement
usroN es to pers"ade readers in. a given
that man IS woman's "head,'" but ""head" in those days was capable
mCDlS onc US '0\\ n reaSons for articulating
e argub<: the same as. onlel~'_16 arc different from his of a variety of meanings, and nothing in this text indicates that it
aynor sJO'- d' means subordination. As many scholars have been pointing out in
: Paw's argomentsa e. Probably he was eahng with
the past few years, if we want this passage to teach subordina.tion,
.,iOng thIS pas g he was in 1110st of the rest of
or " hhas . we have to read subordination into the passage. The only dear
·sion in the e ure, h must come up WIth Supporting affirmations here, besides that men and women arc different and
·,ns. Buras e1sewhe;.e, h~S readers. Although we do not should not conceal that fact, is the equality and mutual dependence
that would w?rk or seultural argument in favor of of men and women.
at he waS making ,3 ({3~ church, we can notice some
s
caring head eo:enng ~ent. one should not bring reo
. ·n hIS argu... . NOTES
tal pomts I ., pan the Christian gospel; one should
' famiyorU .' '.
on one s b lie gender disuncoons by plOneenng 1. For a listing of major divergent views On 22 differcnt points of
to destr° YsyIn ~owd respect custom and do one's best interpretation in this passage, scc S. D. HuH, &lExcgctical Difficultics in
thing styes;I one s 241 the 'Hard Passages,' .,. in Gretchen G. Hull, Equal to tne: Wome-u MId Men
~using someone to stumble. ill tbe Chl/reh mid Home (Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1987), pp. 252-57.
Y did Paul try to persuade the uncovered women to 2. G. W. Trompf. "'On Attitudes Toward Women in Paul and
I rather than trying to persuade the covered women to Pmllinist Literature: 1 Corinthians 11 :3-16 and lts Context," CEQ 42
One reason may have been that he agreed w,th Some of (2, April 1980): 196-215 (regarding I Cor. 14:33-35 in the same way).
3. W. O. Walker, Jr., "I Corinthian, 11:2-16 and Paul's Views
abjections to showing off one's fashions in church. Regarding Women," JRL 94 (I, March 1975): 94-110. He sees three
~son may be that, in that society, these women's separate non· Pauline fragn"lents here.
rwould distract men from the worship of God, perhaps 4. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "The Non-Pauline Character of
ythat bathing suits would distract many of us in church 1 Corinthians 11:2-161" JBL95 (4, Dec. 1976): 615-21. He pohm out
that denying that the text is Pauline may save face for Paul, but it does
uJ never questioned the well-m-do women's right to dress not do justice to the textual evidence (p. 621).
pleased-indeed, he affirmed it-but he asked them to 5. I..,mar Cope,"1 Cor 1l:2-16: One Step Further," JBL97 (3,
that oght for the sake of those in the church who would Sept. 1978): 435-36. .
very hard time undetstanding it. 6. "Tensions" need not be contradictions; they can be scmanuc
I ~opc that this chapter will not be used by anyone to
differences rather than contradictions on the: level of meaning.
7. Neither the Nestle-Aland nor the UBS text notes any texts
~e ngJd dress codes in churches today. If we really under· omitting it, and B. M. Metzger's textual commcnta.ry (A Tex'."a! C?",-
the chaptcr and wh at . .
lt commumcates about the nght 0
. f Inwtary 0" tbe Greek New Tuta"''''t, 2d cd. [New York: United Blbl.e
women to drcss as th
to ak nJy fo
I .
ey pease, lt seems that it would be Societies, 1975], pp. 561-62) has no discuss.ion of the "p~oblem:" It IS
not, indeed, a textual problem, but a question of remO\'Ulg a dIfficult
and e:~ modesty. None of us should dress extra''il· passage. This is the more so if E. Schiissler Fiorenza, In Me",ory of Her
those who have little, or in a manner that
 lI"d \VI"el
fl1#
~ ,,"'HI'' '• H Wendland). is COrr Head Co)'cri»gs HI 1 Cori,lt/,iBns 11:2-16
49
22 6 (foll~\\fJ.n~und Paul's commcnts C:q
ssro3 , 1~!.;1 all jll~I:~~~ ~~ corrc.:ct, although 11: 1~~ protests, "'1 pra~st: you no~" (cf. Diogenes 17, to Antalcides l C 'IE
.yor,t. era 14'34- [his 111;1) ction on foods. 110-11 n. pOSSibly rcflcctlllg an ancient epistolary emphasis on ~ . p, PPci
cNe~l:J_l~andrshJp ~; preccdlllS ~cl'2_16: An Interpretation'" blal~~ [h~t could even define c~na.in typcs ofletters (5. K. StOwc~:lS~~er
tbtt \\0. ~orint.hj3J1S· . I Wrttmg ttl Greco·Romlln A"tlq"lty, LEe 5 [Philadclph' . W '.
1986]. pp. 77-90). la. estmlOster,
. W,1Jtk'97S}: 46-57 . tics 3l1d Wolllen 111 the Church," 18. Ramsay MacMullen, "Women in Public in the Ro E
'537. J;tn. 1c "'Herrneneu pin:," Hiltoria 29 (1980): 210, n. 4. man rn-
e R. Osborn 337-52. . of Palll in Terms of the Prese"
19. j. R: Hu~lcYl "Did Paul Rcquire Veils or the: Silence of
'. D'" 1977):, 17/C TtndJ/Il~13) pp. 214-15; so also A. w.' ,,yamen? ': Consldcr:mon of~ ~or. 11 :2-16 and I Cor. 14:33b-36,'" WfJ
20 ( 'w. M· 1U00~)S,oughton. ~ II ('PllIl.dclphia: Westminst•. 35 (2, WlIl(cr 19~3): 200, cltmg no sources. (Cr. Fiorenza, Memory, p.
10. '"odd" ~ Sr ,n' .r S· P ,r,
lLDndon: n I Aeeord;'!iJ to1l' first EplJrle oJ awt IJ.!11 to the 239, n. 67, follOWing Hurley, who docs cite J. P. V. D. Balsdon "Women
1/JC GOfP'] Hcnng, "d P ]. Allcock (London: EpWOrth in Imperial Rom~.'" HT 10. [1, Jan. 1960]: 24-31; but Balslon clearly
, 'po 48. cr. Ae~~. Heathcote an . 1
shows that the plied-up hairstyle dates to the end of the first and early
t1Ii,,"~ tfilns. . p. ul (New York: Oxford Univc second century. not before [PI'. 24-25, and only the pictures on PI'. 24-
,p.103. Hook", A pre[nce ro n " r· and 2!)). On 1' .. 197, Hurley argues that the only verse mentioning a
11.,11.& • ilin ofEqualiry: I Conntl".ns 11:2_ shawl IS v. 15, which actually says that long hair is given itlStead of a shawl.
980 /,P' SilOCOl ,k", Unv' /3 (11:2-9 vs. 11:10-16); AI. But F.ee, J Cori~thia~JJ, p. 496, points out that v. 15 speaks oflong hair,
J2. T· P('2 April 1987): 60- 'h' Th, Contradictions ofCoiffi"n not pllcd-up hatr, winch would not support Hurley's thesis either.
BTBPI 7, . rh,Chur, . 8 6 · d · 'A •
lonWo""n m 1fl'20 (1984): 69- ; I em, uthority 20. Hurley, "'Veils," p. 200. '
rt," h"~ns 11.2-16," jS, .' Reading ors" I'.ul," DS", 12 (1 21. Fcc, J Corimhia1JS~ p. 496. He offers a more thorough refu-
Clot I '"Ii n':lrd a Femlnlsr 1
tation on PI'· 528-29, espectally to the view that tong hair is gi\'en
"H"d. 0 1 7 16) . "'instead" ofa shawl; he addresses the parallels citcd by others in sufficient
. 5-9 (11:4-7 vs. 1 : -'H;irstylcs, He.d·covcnngs, and St. Paul:
'13. C. L. ThoOlPSO\. BA 51 (2, June 1988): 112. detail on pp. 506-7.
"froOl Rom.n Conn' , 67-68 rightl)'cites 10:23, 31; 11:1. 22 ..Men also might not appear in public for certain reasons, e.g.,
14-. Gundry, J~o",en, i~' difTcrc~dation in the church, allowing grief (Chanton ehner. 2.1.1), but these were temporary and not direcdy
IS. It d"ls \I,th s'" ically inf,rior in til< world to bear th, relatcd
to the pervasive restrictions on women.
who Jrt socially or cconom 23. The matter was probably not as universal as some have
• '- • [US in the church. . thought; see W. Den Boer, Private Morality in Greece and Ronle: Some
nn;nor sra . h t they were ad honllnc:m arguments, sec also Histori,al Aspect!, MBCBS (Leiden: Brill, 1979), p. 251.
16. F~,th~ ~~~~ t 'to All Men': Diversity in Unity and Other 24. S. B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women
Brocc,. AI.. u.~ty nnd Dipcrnty i" Nell' Testa",e"t 77uoloBY: i/J Classical A/Jtiqllity (New York: Schocken, 1975), p. 72; d. p. 170;
. T~~~on':rGmE 'l.dd ed. R. A. Gudich (Gra. nd Rnpids: Ecrd· Boer, Morality, pp. 243-44.
,.nonoro, . . , ." S . lEI'
1978),p. 95; R:.N. Longenecker, N"" ~e!t~""": o"a . t'lCS/or 25. John Gould, "1-1w, Custom and Myth: Aspects of the Social
\(Grand Rapids: Budmans, 1984), p~ 81, Idem, Authon.ty, Hler· I'osition of Women in Classical Athens," IHS 100 (1980): 47. There
Le.d,rship Parterns in the Bible, 111 WomCII, A,,:!Jor.ry & th, wcrc, ofcourse, significant exceptions, e.g., in the theater; see H. P. Foley,
Ye'" Mickelsen (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVars,ty, 1986), p. "The Conception of\¥omcn in Athenian Drnma," in ReflectionsofWomt1J
argumen" were common in Aristotle (see W. A. Meeks, TIIC i" A"riqllity, cd. H. P. Foley (New York: Gordon & Breach Science Pub.,
Ii o[the Fint Christian!, LEG 6 [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), p. 161. The exception in the theater may be related to thestatuS
po 19, cited below). Explanations based on (ancient) logic were attained by certain mythiC women; cr. Dorothy Willner, "'The Oedipus
_on in ",bbinic exegetical material; they appear in the Talmud Complex, Antigone, and Electra: The Woman as Hero and Victim,"
Wee limes thenum""r ofexplanations from Scripture, ten times AmAuth 84 (1, March 1982): 58-78.
fi'om the Tosefi2, and eighteen times those from the Mishnah (A. 26. K. J. Dover, "Classical Greek Attitudes to Sexual Behavior,"
AftI)'·Peck, in Tnlmatl o[ISTne~ vol. 6: Terumot, cd. Jacob eusner, in Womm i" the A"ciCllr World: The Arerh,,,,, Paper!, ed. John Peradotto
tul. (0Jiag0: University of Chicago 1988J P 37) and J. P. Sullivan, SSCS (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York,
17 Gord . '. ,. .
(GIaDd~. ;:: Fee, The Fmt Epsstle to the Corillthiam, N1CNT 1984), p. 145. if h
27. D. C. Verner, 77Jt Household o[God: The Sorial World 0 t e
die &ct lhat huJ dmans, 1987), p. 530..This may also be reflected in
dlcsc may wdI nO!~ J7 th.'m for keepmg traditions in v. 2 (though
Postoral Epistlet, SBLDS 71 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983), p. 31.
28. Verner, Household, p. 38.
Po SOOJ, 'WIlm.s ~ .U t/h~tr ""ha~or with head coverings; see ibid., 29. Chariton Chaer. 5.4.10.
. , tntroduang the Lord's Supper issue, h'
 WO/ll(II,afld U'11'(S
I Head COl'eri"Dsin 1 CorintlJiiHlS 1l:2-J6 51
flil llI
milady los. & As. 2:1-6 (.
4-6' d. 51 II)
ClJae;' 1,1. • . 49. I am th~s in a~rccmell[ with Fce, 1 CorinthiatlS) p. Sil, n.
Chafl[on 581 Greek verSion, p. Ill). 80, who notes that there IS, no contemporary evidence" to support the
30 _I 1)2/5-16 (Or~~b!JC.' p. 209; cr. a~so P. E. Harr<1I view that short or shaved h.ur (or lack of head coverings) would indicate
JOIl1' "WoJ1len ,n Clntr&/J (AuStin, Tex. R. B. SWeet' prosticutcs: Indeed, m. Kd. 2~:16 could ~uggcst that prostitutes wore
32. ill rIJt f~r70_12) , head covenngs, toO (the meanmg of 28:9 IS less dear).
,.,,1 R 2.9.2;" . eD
TJf"'" 3JlVal.~. ~31 Mor.]42 j eL)
50 E.g., F. F. Bruce,.1 "lid 2 Corinthians, NeBe (Grand Rapids:
Ecrdmans. 1980). p. lOS; Id.cm,. "'AU Things." pp. 94-95; Fiorenza,
196 ), ~3. Plu l. :;;;,32: Mor. 142~[)~ In Bride 30. Mor. 142C (LCl)
7 Memo~y, p. 227: Fcc, .1CorUlthm'~l,. ~p. 507-8, provides ncarly the
34. rJu~BriJl9, J,for.139{~u rake from them gold.;mbroidc(ed opposite suggestion, as Just one: POSSlblht)' among others: the prophet in
35 Plu II ost women, Ify d pearls, stay Indoors. cr. Artcrn the Isis cult wore a head covering (according to one fresco from Pompeii),
ggetu tbJt mklc:t51 purple', an . so Christian male: prophets were to avoid this pr3ctice. But 1 think this is
bQcdcu, an as unlikd)t here as Bruce's proposal.
, k' tluence. 51. h is truc that ecstatlc dance in the more frenzied cults (cited
r J.B. r rlups under Gtee I~ThC Role of Women in Roman Elegy.
S:,
~. e.g.,}· .P.. HaJ!c:~, Wornul I1IllJe Allcient World, p. 245.. in Fiorenza alongside the prophetic clements) was more nuuraHy and
easily conducted with heads uncovered, but we have no evidence ofsuch
ntcpCul tural FeminIsm. robably remained ,~doors most of the <by
38 Even here, they P tic' see Martin Goodman, State 4ntl
activity in the Connthlan church.
52. Tw. Sol. 13:1. OTP I :974, n. a, compares the Gr«k M<dusa
all their "duries~ ~'e~.D°7~~_2i2J
d
QCPHS (Totowa, N.).: Row. and the artwork of demons on Aramaic incantation bowls.
"' RD,'lIm GRMee,
&AJl>nbdd, J983)'h P·lr
39. Verner, House 0 ,Pp
.
. 46047, citing <specially Philo Speci.1
53. In Athen. Deipn. 12.523b, clo«!)' cropped hair is a ociared
with mourning. It is possible that this custom was extended to those who
\..'ere Sick (Petr. Sat. 101).
3.169-171; F/R';":e~:i U ..J3.l69-175 (conveniently availabl< in 54. The woman Callirhoc in Chariton Chaer. 8.1.7; perhaps also
40.5<' Philo ~,. I{Rf~S MorrotlS, MOllo"ies [Philad<lphia' 1.3.6. Her husband Chacreas also covers his head for mourning (3.3.14).
. Kraemer, MlleniJlIJ,.J 'J'" •
This work is a novel, but the customs it assumes mllst have been authentic
ess, 1988J, p. 29). for the narrative to have been intelligible to the original readers.
41 4 Mace. 18:1'>-7. ". . .
42: 5. 5am.;, "Hom' and Fa~y, m jPFC, p. 762, cltlOg l. K«:l. 55. Piut. R. Q, 26, Mor. 270D (kekryph%ns).
m.J(e1.7:6;cf.b. Git.90ab;p. Gil. 9, SOd. S.. J. R. Wegner, Chand 56. Chariton Cbaer. 1.11.2.
01 Th, SraINs of Womm ill tlse Muhllah (New York: Oxfold 57. See p. M. K. 3:5, §20.
ily 1988), pp. 18,40,145-67. 58. Sec Ab. R. Nathan 1 A.
43: Long<.<a." Ethics, p. 80; Richard and J?ycc BoJdrey, Chal/' 59. Plur. R. Q, 14, Mor. 267A. Petro Sal. III reports this as a
.. Ftnlloistl P••/'s Vie.. ofWomtll (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), p. standard custom in the Greek cast, in Ephesus, as well.
Boldlt)' cil< E. A. Leonard, "St. Paul on the Status ofWom<n," 60. Pctr. Sat. 57.
(1950): 319, but Leonard cit<S L. Odaporte on a Mesopotamian 61. EplCt. Disc. 1.11.27; sec also m. Sor. 9: 15.
UifC ftc removed in place and time from Paul's Corinth!
62. See 1 En. 14:24, where Enoch covers his face ilnd trembles as
jl~",,,,, p. 65, cites "Many picrures 011 vases and wine jars from he approaches God. (1 have at this point followed Knibb's translation;\5
eec" showing prostitutes llwith short hair and without headdress against Isaacs',)
63. For uncovering the head, in awe before a lOng, sec R. Bcre·
d"~but it is not clear that the evidence she cites would still hold
Paul's day. chiah's parable in Pes. R.1b K.1h. 9:5. This evidence Is late.
M. Ab. R. Narhan 9. §25 B (trans. Saldarini, p. 83). Sec similarly
«. J. F G~~r, IVome. ill Romo. Law & Society (Bloomington,
Gen. R.1b. 17:8.
; ' : ' UOl~e"IlY, 1986), p. 251, citing Mart. Epig. 10.52; Ju v• 65 Ab. R Nathan 17 A. )ohanan bcn Z..kkai lived in th< first
.' Ul noting (p. 252) thaI prostitutes were not forced to dress
century, but thiS tradition could, of course, be later.
45. Middle Assyri La 66. Ab. R. Nathan 3 A.
A,§40). an IVS, trans. T.]. Meek, in ANET. p. 183 67. Cf. e.g., the Chakedonians, whose men customa.rily co~cred
one side ofthcir fae< when meeting outsid<rs, in Plut. G. Q, 49, Mor. ~02E.
46. Ibid. (Tabl., A, §4J).
68. Thomp on, "Hairstyles," p. J 13, citing Dio Chr)',. 33d (1"
47. I am supposin th
bccauscR.Joh g at the rnbbi was no later than the thild TRrsic) Dis(oflrse for Tarsus, and paintings elsew~ere. . "
~ anan, a t!urd'cennlty rabbi, se<Il'S to build on this 69. Sec <specially MacMullen, "Women," Pubhe, pp.209-10,
Gcu. Rab. 85:8. with notes.
 Hr.lt.i c.rrn't4J 1.111 J Ceruuouuu 11:2-10 53

SO. Test. los. 9:5~ Chariton Chan:. 6..4.:.5, imagining CallirhiX

drcs.coed ~s J huntre._~ hlo.e ~-\rttnu
I. '\I'uL .\la..... 2.8. Cf. similuly Ikut. 2l:U-H. todttamiDc
u-hewer one s aru-.aroon 1S rdltcd mcm: to lust ()(" 10\'t-
S~ .\pul. ~\ln..... 2. _
,3 .\puL -11=_. _. -9.
g.; h;anta» c:.c.n:. l.l';.l~ she had a.Y\-aa! it bttk iD 13.11.
S« :he lJo-.rmng,s Oil the: ~ DOte •
So M. N:-t. -:6 r<furing to Ib< ':em ..mich •• both d>r
IDVraf:e ..- on::na ~ me ~~. she broasht with her man:ia.£c ~
R. Mr..! ~-ond o:.n:~- IS szid :0 w"r ~ lb.u me rtq".ri:ul
a ::::n.= :0 \fu.-occc ~ 2 .. ::e- 1br '':as dezJ:tr ~ CJIbcr IDC:D.
~=- iUb 9:12 . .
- •.-\:> R.~ 1~S35!1.
Secb _9a;;> I::;.~_'=>.
11.2! R. L<C.:=c:.. =-tr 1CC<l<>C . ~ Pc>.
.2. &.:c-"C"... -
drc ~.- !,':.3:>,. '" (cl.P .....,., ... ad!
t±---rl=, Cf.,'= EU!>.I :20.
90. Joo. & .-\>. 15:1-2.
'00
91. & &.18:6
92. S=ud BcIl=. PlrJ..... rlNo..l r..:n.:"",." bunpr-
,aw... of BibllUl fA", ill Rd<In_ '" drtr P.Lmi... ~ liS') n
(C~ I-'..uvz::': L:m.cntty.19-¥I"p. 230.
93 CIuriIl .2, in sstarr~ MM'. 13K (LC"L , .
9~. Sec "PCci= P '. rbcwric.l! • ia 1 Coc 1:26. ~
..-ere, f-""",ever. bcucr off~· dtm eX P • ad>a .......
commurntlC-. (2 Cor. 8; 1-3 r. Cori:ah .. a .-boIe " " : l rcLzuordJ p<QI9CI"
om url>an ccnret" by ma.:m oulJdud>.
95. Sec e.g., O. 8. M2r1in., SlAy,ry a' tnrti."., Tht ~,.,,,,""
.gay,ry i.. Paul"" Chrinla ..l" (,'.,.. lbv",: fa U • crtity, 199ft;
(upeei.>lly on 1 0><. 91; Gcrd Tbciotioen. Th, 5«1..1 fml"8 If I'aull",
0".",la""7, c.d and tram. J""n H Sdrlia (1'Itiladdphia: f.,.Il<4<l, l!}IlZ,.
'J6. TbtffllJ""D, "H<limyla: p. 1l2.
97. "i«e MacMullen, ·WOOlClI in Publ~~ pp. 217-\11; d. aNI
C.d,~nnc KtI>cgcr, "Thc Aprnrlc Vaul and the Crw,..QmnJrt Its,,(
W.nnen: IP.T~ ao (I, M:ueh 191!7" 37.
'JH. FOf ,n>unee. ehe adulfCrc" w!lnIc!Tad Uu"",.tred itIb.ri<x-
9a .. >aId Ul have plaired hcr Iulf (rff ehe: ..kc o(!!II: adulurcr. Ah!Iml&JI
th,. i. a Later !CU, It It eon,inene wleh ()l\lcr cvldence ciud Jbt"c, under
rlote' Ill-I),;.
'Jl). , n. may I2kc a. an .umple the !'.(flcan eribe wlltte: m~
ad", (m,w ",lnl w"men w ,,,,,er rhc,r bruou; CHlIr laur dUllhq' lurn
that ",,,,,,,d br,a'l\ In rhal.flclCty matircd adultcrcHCt.a.nd matthcyhad
damJgA;d the WlIn," lOr the'" w(,men by rffl'cing th"" lt1 WflfM"! W t1u<
>eyle (,r We,rern cuhurc, wflCre Inrc br,..r. wtlIlld be fC'lucuvc and
immodetl. Nl,nc r,r th, men in I'aul'. day WOfC de. to church; allr drelt
mUll accommlJdatc the j»rticular cultUre wc addrm. It thould al.., be
no!"cd that I'aul i, I2l1dng here abour cau>iog KY"e tplrilU~1 ,,(rcA", of
 Htfl.d eo,tri"gl in 1 Cori"thian1 11:2-16 55

Epbesiam,2 vols., AB 34 [G'Uden City~ N.Y.: Doubleda..' 19741 1~187

but noting [p: 191] t?at Paul sp~ of the head. not'dte bni~): it ~
where f.cason LS established as ~ pilot in Pluto Pliu. Q 9.1. Mor. 100S.\;
"the chief n::cmbcr afthe: body (because on top?) in Quint. 11.3.68 lcf.
the head-tail contraSt c,,'en m the OT and in 1 En. 103:11. etc.).
107. Sc:e R. A. Tucker. -Response." in \Vamm, Authority &- tbe
Bib/<, 1'1'.111-17.
108. Fee, 1 Corinthians,. p. :;02.
109. Ibid., 1'1'.503-4.
110. Deut. 28:13, H; ls:L 9:14--15;:>!so lub. 1:16.
Ill. See especially W. L Licfcld., --Women. Submissioo . Minis·
~. in 1 Corimhiaos.- in W.1IU1S, AMrlIorit:r <\- dK Biok, \'P. 139--40, aod
<he d:n. he cites. Hcrm:m Riddabos, Pul: AJ< 0.:1"" of Ho Dotw/ogr,
0=:>. J. R. de Win (Gnod Rap'do: Ecrdmtns.. 19 5 1'.' 3. 5«:s <he
idea of -n:prcscntloon'" as most ~ropriar.~ hC're.
112. E.g•• Bruo:., 1Ir< M=p of'" X... T"",...,., Gnod
Rapids: Eerdmans.. 19 ll. 1'. 3 : idem, • ~ - 1'. 9'; lctIu
ScmzOOl :md N;mcy Hardc:sty,. • Wrn Mr.a::" Be \Vh..""O.. TeL:. W
19H , 1'. 50: Robin ~ 4l'2al aod the _~ W
Ji'..AR40 (3. ScFt. 19T2):_M. ., c.." M
of ht_u in the P.1ulinc EpistIcs." _11-15,
cited mottsubscqucot~C£ F.B.. _T,...,....._
·....
of <he' ChcrdL" in s.-.Aia ia ~
M....-bny, 1<J;;6 l'l'- fh-'.. .
n". E.~ c. c.~.'
:e'.- .\ppCn<fu: " . H.l:II.. LfSU"
'1.."C
her ~ 1iOI" die d::rd;
.-'~ d>c -'''". It. W.
Tratitioo' .
Fnuci>ro 1bocoIogiaI
~tbmc"·"''''''_'­
..md>-..ames
IH. B &,ui-Ja
...u.... m...-. I'f.oa "' O"m" -.i F U)' Gr.md
1986 • • I' -0_. tt~ca <:>idcDcc" ~ d.
"/Upllld£?" !'P' 105-.'l Epb. 4.1·~ Col. 2;19). ~'c . .
pung dw: aJk&cd diifercDco bet!o'<'CD d>c usage .. •
1 Cor. 12 mel Rom. J 2 on d>c one hmd :mol m ~-
CoIouUm on the oma M bca> u>ed to aJ'!UC ~~ d>c r..-
mthoDhip af the baa; Iml 0Ibc1 ..nu:rs of Paul', ~. ~ J-i/bOdF
mel ~. Wlluologica! lmagt:' inlacbanp:ably· Sec A- \ an ......... 111'
A "rbennary '!Eph,,,u., • TSup 39 LciclcD: Brill. 1974 i, pp.115-'JJ
(U\'OnDg .uthcnnat!'). One could pr~ that Paul DICS •
im.g<ry or hlUb:md ""d wife bcaUK of_UK oftbis ~ ChriIl
church (or me =cnc, since husband and wife m Gcn. 1:24-
become ·one floh").
115. E.s-, Fee., 1 cm"thiIull, 1'1" SOH.
116 Ibid., p. 505.
 Head Covering, ,n ) Corinthian' 11:2-16 57
'" 131,; Epi:l. Disc. 1.16.10 and our discussion of Paul's argument
?n ~ature (11.14) ~dow may bolster the argument that Paul h.u this
In mInd ~ere. The b~hef of some COntc~lporary American churches that
Deut. 22.5 ~recJudcs women ,fron; wcanng pana is not very sound~ that
text .refers either ,La tntnsvc.sUSm 10 general or to ancient Ncar Eauc:rn
magIcal uansvestlsm. For examples of the latter see "Talc of Aqha "
uans. H. ~'. GinsbcrS t in A NET, p. 155 (though ~f. the intcrprc:w1ont~f
P. C. Craigie, Ugartl and the Old Testament {Grand IUpido' Eerd
19831~ p. 60); H!ttite "'RituaJ Against Impoteocct" trans. A~ GOCt':e7i~
AN~l! ~p. 349-00; cC. H. A.Hoffner, Jr., "Symbols Cor Masculinity ~nd
femmlnlty: Their UK In Ancu:nr Near Eastern Symp:unetic MagIC B.iw-
als; jJlL S5 (3, Sept. 1966): 326-34; C. H. Gordon The CAmm.n
Baekground of Greek and fUbrtJP Civiliza,i.n, (New 'Yonr.: N""""
1965), p. 168; J. C. Moyer, "Hittite .nd Lsnellte Cui"" Pr>etlca:;'
~J.celCd ~mpariwn," in Strtpture In (Ant"," /I. More Em." 611 the
Comparaltve Method, <:d. W. W. HalJo et aI. (Winona lA.:, Ind.. Eil<II'
brauns, 1983), pp. 27-29. (Kinul umsve.u.m i..."metimc.o UOQCi.aIcd
with the "",scnion trVlCC ill tnditiotW religions U>Cby; d lUymond
PrillCe, "rndiseJlOU. Yoruln P.y<blwy; JJI M.8Jt. f.llh (? 1*./"'8:
.~tudiel in Pmniti" Psyth,atr, T.".."
cd. An K.acv { .; Y<>rir.: Nee
J964],p. ]()9.) Furrhcr,anacmmenw",ewlullllSldcmt>bocrvc<o""p;
comidcr dre_•• and _ men w!ID compIau1 web}' abuur """"",,',
wearing mJIU wnuJd lWt ...._ women'. J'U1I.' (.mpltl"ll • rw'S'l'U<'"
rJut wom.cn·. pan~ 21'C: rcaJJ,.. w~', dodtillJ, tJOl mtrIf'J.
132.50' daughter. tlumdno (pr~) ~... I.
42:11-
133.Ab. R..:uhJn 14,f35 8;Ab. Mslutt7 A
J34. l'Iul. Bride 17, AI"" 1WC.
135. )12". £pig. 2,56 ..tribasa wronJldoillg to - _ .....
ill 'lfder 10 rcpro:ach dlc hu..tnnd. III 4 Mou. 'J;2 '*~Id <lid
ohaming OJIC" ancCSlOf' by dqnttinl Crom d"'1 ..._ . OtIc'. m-
or dl>gl'aa: .(Cca. tlte honor '" dbg\1cc of <me'. (,mily r" tnbc; c( §Om
£mOl mr. 14.142.1.1 L
'13(\.010&- Lacrt. Ul'IJ 2.11 4. SttIpoi...... lOhlvcrqlicd.· No
JIl()(e than I am 2n """..... to hcr:
l1<",uIIg """"Cml<lrW ~.
137. Verner, H""Ith./tl, p. 33, citing ..crmd/C..... cemury IlQ
Egyptiall rontr..".
138. V,...MeliJoa to K1C2feu (in M.llted>e• .&Jim.,ion, P·lI.Jl·
139. Verller, H.useb.l4, p. 65.
14Q. W. H. Lcohe, "'The Concept ofWonmt indlc PaulincCoFptll
JJI Light or dlc Social and ~1il!'OU' :F.1I¥ironlllCJlt o( the f,'"
CcnM'J""
(Ph.D. dlu." orthw'''em Cniveuity, 1976). pp.l07-8' ·SUlCCthc pi
oC ,"orolup i. to glorifY God, wOllJ2O nad. to be ""'<r<:d dori"ll woabIp
in order to hide JlUJI'S (huJlUJIity's) glary." BilczikWl, RoIu, p•• 1.~
"humanity tWlCC re<ogrUud." BoIdccy. Ch.. ,mnll•••p. 37, appioprilldr
compares M<»cs' veil in 2 Cor. 3. G. W. ~8bt III, "1'bt:
cr.
Ten.ment Teaching on the RDIc ~tionshtp or ~ ~
Special ~Cerencc to the T=bing/Ruling FuJlCllOlllID die
JETS 18 (2, Spring 1975): 86. One of the first writm to
 PaJl4 Womtll, Rllti Wi,'lI Head COI'criJlBSin 1 Cori"tlJians 11:2-16 59
58 c:r head: An Examination of I Cor.
"Aurhorit}' on h 16 . 148. E.g., C~>nzclmann, 1 Cori"tlJians, p. 188; Fcc, 1 Cor;"tl,i.
js Itt. D. Hooker, A riI1964): 415:- lJiatU, p. 152, who thll1ks that am, p. 520. Cf. Gunther Schwarz, '" ExOflSiAlI eellei" epi t- kt pi /-
.xr.1 0 /' NTS l03~~;( Moffatt! 1 cort~~ the exclusion of Gen. 1:27 here. (1 Koril.1thcr 11:10),'" Z~W70 (3-4, 1979): 249, who provid~s a. b~~t=:
141. AS bb's stressed Gen. 2 cs that God created Eve from suggestion on the AramaiC. although we reject the idea that Aramaic is
J,like most ra b~jin Gen. Rab. 18:2 ~:~'OUld be modest. Sometimes used here.
:thUd·cen:~):7Ad,m's body so ~:~:r; Ab. It. Nath,n 9, §25 B, speaks 149. Cf. .e.g., Test. Reub. 5:1: women do not have authority "'over
,'Cre~ ~d rcad the accounts tog because woman comes from man a man, emplo}'mg the same construction. This view is now accepted by
OJ

~~~V3YS seeking his miss!nfc ~:~aphrodi[e in[crpre[a~~n of Gcn~ many commentatorS J e.g.) Bruce. 1 a"d 2 CorimlJitw,s p. 106' Longe-
necker. Ethics, p. 82; Hurley, "Veils,'" p. 208; Liefeld, "'\Vomen,:' p. 145.
clllS presupposes ~c ra~:~~ 2. But cf. especially the [radmon attrib_
This insight was noticed as early as the 1600s Oohn Lightfoot, A
well as presupposm8 Akiba's diSCUSSIOn, pr,obablY,ca.d)' second
Commentary 0" the New Testamentfrom rile Talmud ntld Hebraicn 4 vals.
fa R. Ishmael ,and R. ether were crcated m G?d S Image and
taS vaman nor woman without man, nor [Oxford: Oxford Uni~ersity,1859],4:236-37) and is noted by Ramsay
ury: man and ,",oman 'rb
(above). but has been mcreasmgly J.ccepted since Morna Hooker's uticle
css, so "nc~thcr m: w;,Je&%~:fI~l' (Gen. Rab. 22:~., crans. 1: 181; the ("Authority," pp. 410-16). Commentators differ on whether the author-
ofthe.m \~,thou, e to thi,d.century It. Simi" In Gen. Rab. 8:9). ity is over her head (as I and some others have taken it), authority to pray
uadioon IS artnbu~e d creacion (E. E. Urbach, 77le Sages: 17Jeir publici}' (e.g., Hooker, "'Authority," p. 415, arguing that women in
context seem.~ '20 d elr~ \'ols. [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979], 1:227- Judaism could nor pray or prophesy; Liefdd, "Women," pp. 14:5-46), or
IllHmd BtI,eJ~ e' J
olh" 1Corinrhillm, p. 153). .
142' As noted also by others, e.g., Liefeld,
ow. »
omen,. PP: 145-
authority over the angels mentioned in the text (Hurley, "'Veils." p. 208).
150. T. R. Schreiner, "Head Coverings. Prophecies, and the
Scan~oni and Hardesty, Meant to Be, p. 66. Fcc, 1 CormtJUa7lS, p. Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16," in Ma"hood and WOJnAnhood, p. 135.
s~ggCS[$ that "aurnorityJJ is their own term, and that they have been rightly points to the language of obligation here, but wrongly supposes
. g their "rights." .. that this justifies translating "'authority O\'er" as "authority on."
143. E.g., Molhtt, 1 Corinthillm, p. 1,3. . 151. He could have easily been misunderstood by Greek speaking
4

144. W"~li,ms PII.lllnd W"","',p. 64. Cf. the headdress 10 W. M.
y, Luie the p~sician lind Other Stt,dies in the History of Religion
don: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908), pp. 175-76.
145. See especially W. M. Ramsay, l1JC Cities of St. Pa"l: l1JCir
..,... his lift lI.d17Jo.ght(London: Hoddet & Stoughton, 1907),
3, who notes that the former idea is such unnatural Greek that no
have thought afit but for their presupposition on how to read
e.
. E.g., Boldrey, Chll.pillist, pp. 38-39, following Gerhard
lim proposed it.
•The preseMbon ofArunaie in 1 Cor. 16:22 is often attrib·
rsicalll5C (e.g., j. A. T. Robinson, Twelve N,w Testa",ellt
1/34 [Lo~don: S~M, 1962], pp. 154-57; idem,]e",s alld
Ued. [Phd.delphi.:. Westminster, 1979], pp. 26-27; Oscar
~II' Wonbip, trans. A. S. Todd and J. B. Torrance
~er, 1~53],p.13;jdem,The Christologyofthe Nm
2: ~u~e and C. Hall [Philadelphia: Westminster,
a..
M1' g~ n. Christology of Etlrly Jewish
J.pp.121-22; G. E. Ladd,
: Eerdmans, 1974], p.
Religious History
ough it need not be
D. Cul1rnann) have
. Christians in
~c.
Jews, had he not qualified his statement. Philo, for instance, uses the
temporal priority of man's creation to argue that men take precedence in
other ways (Special unv, 2.25, §124).
152. Roger Nicole, "Biblical Authority & Feminist Aspirations,"
in Wome,J., Authority & the Bible, p. 45; Fee, 1 Cori,JtlJi/J.tIJ, p. 523; ef.
Gundry, Women, p. 69.
153. 1 Esd. 4:14-17, 22, especially 4:17, upon which Paul's
language hete is ptobably dependent. Cf. Gen. Rab. 22:2, cit~d above,
and 8:9. josef Kilrzinget, "Frau und Mann naeh \ Kor 11,\ II.," BZ 22
(2, 1978): 270-75 (followed by Fiorenza, M,,"ory, p. 229), te.ds the
Greek of 1 Cor. 11~11 as "difTerent from" rather than "apart from,"
seeing this as an affirmation of equality; but the point may be the same
either way.
154. This would be a natural way for Greeks to read the text. The
idea that women and men have different kinds of glory goes back to
Aristotle, who cites Sophocles to prove tbat a woman's glory, but not a
man's, is silence (quoted in M. R. Lefkowitz and M. B. Fant, ~'~'s
Life i" Greece & Rome [Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins UIliVedll)',
1982], p. 64, §86). .. p __
155. See the extensive discussion of PhIlo Itt B. A. eanoo, •.,.
P"eumtlrikos-Psyehiko, Terminology in 1 Cori,nbilJns, SBIDS 12-
soula, Mont.: Scholars, 1973). _ ....
156. 1 Esd. 4:17. Cf. Sent. SextUS 237. an ~'1
"Aself-eonrrolled wife is her husband's glory" (~
idea in the Latin j <Wish epitaph in Adolf D .
 "/luI, U'I1lt1(1l,alll{ W,peJ
60 . . Baker, 1978), p.. 448.The famili'l
rint, Grand RaPJdS~dcd to ot~cr rclatlonslllp~: Sir: 3: 1,1.
~f EAd(rep d" honor also ext' t Nflptln/ Imagery (Lcldcn. Bnll
JbarinSing!Ofyor Bl:re)'. NelV rtstl1m~;i1J1IJia11J, p. 183" This usage of
157. ~~: Cotlzdman~, ~~L..,<X and conr~nued In Grcck·spcak_
191J), p. 22. fl (bn" began 10 I n 1 Coymtlnam, p. 187).
-tJO!Y" for <ire C:~~II)' Philo (con~ ma~b 22:2. E\'c is more apt to
JlJd~.~P' . Moses 29: 1,°; ~~'Ja[er ~ources; cf. Tab. 8:6.
.J=,8Pos~(' fight in e:ar~:.thmay be because: she was from Adam.
Ifs~. Sib. Or. 1:23,33: a J~s ofthdr parents (Gen. 5:3; 4 Mace.
n ofcours<, beaT the un g ts against adul[ery (Ps-Phocyl. 178; t
. Ps.PhiJo 50:7)1T\\'hiC~ ~~[e~haps Wisd. 4:6; cf. ~e Gr~co· Rom~
.8:6; Pes. R2b~' 1 . : t.7; pythagorean ~eatlsc, thud-second
QwitO n O.Gtr....:l 1.2'd Fant "~mt1lJJ Life, p. 104, §l07; in
ICE, in Lc~O\:tz~t. Pol. i.1.13. 1262.a). A fo.urth.century
Dic group mamag, 'w g second-centur}' rradiuo n , SaId ~hat Evc's
purportedly. COdD\C)th igning beauties of each generation," such
was "'uansnutte fO c: re ..
(Gen. Rab. 40:5, tranS. 1:.29).
160. Plut. Bn., 14, MoT. 139F.
161 Amm. OnaT. U8.
16; SiI"r< Num. 11.2.3; Nom. Rab. 9:33; cf. also joseph Bon-
hi;"'.i.. J."ism in rb, rime ofJesus Clmst (New York: Hol[,
~ & \V"mston 1964),p. 61; David Daube. The New Testament and
oi'l."ism (New York: Arno, 1973), p. 301. The greateSt "glory"
bring honor [0 God (Ep. Arist. 234; cf. ~24) ..
163. Other possibilities, such as a link WIth proposed angelic
ofpropheCJ'in 14:32 (on the idea in 14:32, cf. E. E. Ellis, "Christ
Spirir in 1 Corinthians,~ in Chrf.n. nnd Spirit ;11 th~ Nen' Testlwu"f.:
Us in If.n••, of c. F. D. Mo.I" cd. Barnabas LlOdars and S. S.
ey (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973J, pp. 275-76; J take
15 referring to human spirits, which seems to me the only sound
read ir in eonrc-n, would take us wo far afield).
-164. 1Q a 2.8-9 (A. Dupont·Sommer, 77" M"" WritinlJs/rom
ttam, G. Vermes [Gloucester, Mass.: Pe[cr Smith, 1973]
SO also the armies in holy II'UC (IQM 7.4-6; 12.7-9). cf.
, an asuolo8ical physiognom)', cited b)' P. Ncxander on 3
1:250, The prohibition of ph)"ical abnormali[ies in OT
~ded by other sacerdotal Customs in antiquit)' 'IS well
a,~.r. 28~C;. the Doric inscription in Grant, ReI(qiolls, p.
... QII angehc hturgy was a common concept roo in Jewish
.. b 'd Y . . ..ncoIn, Porodu( Noll'' alld, Not Trl,
entedbATr:
Pl~c:,C.mbridge Univers!t)', 1981), p. 112.
10!"~ le~lUtc of Qumlin Angelololl), and rhe
~IIU (.l,oct. 1957): 48-58; repro in idem,
- .. nn.llUllt, 2d d., Sill II 5
." 181 CK (with a 1966 poswrirl
cI to raul: HTR 51 (I,
\I m \lchl, "M~gi< ur
Dr Mirada of !tIIIS, cd.
Head Coverings tn 1 CArinr/Jin,u 11;2-16
61
David Wenham and Craig Blomberg, GP 6 {Shc:ffi ld· SO
126; Bruce, 1 and 2 CorimhianJ, p. 106' R. P Spl'~tl' J n T, 19~6),.p.
CorrespolldetJce (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing' 1;~6) Je ~~"nth~4"
the view t~at th~se are lusting angels. This vicw 'actually P'rcd~~~t
Qumran dlscovcncs (d.. Ro?crrson and Plummer, 1 Cor;,,,h)a,, 233~
perhaps Moffan, 1.CormtJJJans, p. 153). S, p. •
166. cr. WI~hdm Bo~t,. Kyrios OJrUtor{Nash\illc.: Abingdon
1970), p. 2S?; ~enng,.l ConntlJtans, pp. 106-7 (\\ith the qUalificatio~
wat ~e Con~thlans m.tgh~ not have known thcS(: id~; but given their
pervasiveness In carl)' Jud3Jsm and Christianity, 1 would guess that th
did know of them). cy
167. Thc ~rgument of Fee, 1 Corinrhians, p. 521, that lusting
angels would reqUire face and. not m~rd}' head co\rcrings. would falter if,
as we have a~gucd above, han was LtsClf a standard object of lust, and
uncovered han could be Interpreted as signifying immodC5ty or a promis-
cuoUS invitation to look lustingly_
168. E.g., Sib. Or. 3:39G-91; W. F. Ono, Dionynu: Mrrhon' C.lr
(Bloomington, Ind.; Indim3. University, 1965), p. 65; \V. K: C. Guthrie,
Orpheus atld Greek Religion: A 5ru'J oftbe Orphie Mo",....., 2d cd. ( ew
York: Norton, 1966), p. 27. justin 1 ApoL 5 inrcrpre.. these as demons;
cf. 1 En. 19:1. The fallen angels of Gen. 6 sounded enough like the 1>11
of the Titans in Greek. mythology for Diaspora Judaism to exploit the
connection (Sib. Or. 1;307-23; 2:231); on the use of the term "T.utuus"
(see below) in 2 Pet. 2:4 in this connection, sec R. ]. B:lUckham, Julie,
2 Per«, WBC 50 (Waco, To.: Word, 19 3), p. 249; cf. J. N. D. Kell)',
A Com",etJr"ry 011 r1Jr Episr/es of PetfT iJnI~ Judt (~print. Gn.nd Rotp.
ids: Baker, 1981), p. 331 (b)' noW -full)" ae<limatized III Hellenistic
judaism").
169. In carl lc\\;sh and Christim te.XtS, only the rJ.bbis seem 10
have played down this interpretation, .llthough some seem Ul h3\C known
the tradition (bar. in b. Yoma 67\>: Pes. Rab. 3~:2); in lu tin Din' 79,
Trypho, ad\'ocating .\ rabbinic position, holds Justin' \llcw of rantn
angels to be "bh\sphemol1s" (pcrhul'S Juslin's cXaBSCl":!.Hon). Sec P. .
Alexander, '~1'he Tnrgl1mim and Earl}' B:(t lesis of '$ ns uf O~' i~
Gencsis 6," JJS 23 (1, 1972): 60-71 (s,",dng \ Ich 1\. Simeon b n loh "
mid-second c~ntllr)' CS); d. ~\. Delcor, "Lc n'ythe de la chllte de nge
et de l'originc des B ants cnmmt: expli.c"tion dl1 m~l dl\ns l nu~ndC:1 dan
l'al'Clcalyptlqu e juh'e. HiSloire de$ mditluns," 1t1·1Il190 (\, 1976): 3-53
(OT. I.XX, .md r.\hbini 1ext dem ·tholQp.i7--c, in Olltr3$t w othtr hteri·
lUre); R. Co. ewm.n, "·n, nden.· .~e.i"lf Oen..l. 6:2, 4" (;'1'/5
(\, Sprillj\ 1984): 13-36. In some ",bblnlc ,r.dltl[)n male olld female
dcmvns wcrr de....· endcd from cX\l\ll ~ a <'t\rll;l dam (Pes lltb h,
5:3;28.r.56:10 11.llg~e'lSth I d.m' si~atT<elCdth ,nlltl m'l'
<0 I~\l); Ihn,iel\' lhot S ..Il re\>dk,1 In Ad.nl 5 thnd ·S·, \. dll1ll •
13:1_16:4),trralcdhelt>W under F.v ',Ie ptl<ln, I pre rved I
.he Qur"Il ( "'" 2,3~); Oil .bbl sUll!Ie.ted Ih.,.>'1\ plri •
"ab Oll the rk ( , n.Rab. 31.}3).'rhe ""II Ollhe n
h' m.lIY"r ,h. "bh, (, h' many l<>d )'l cuhcmerlld
.n iell' heroc> ( ,1\" .en. Rail, 26;5 l: Inr brief \Ill
 PJ~ 1l~ ;I'; nitd
is ;JHsi the 0'" God. LEe 1
62 sc<!L ~l. GrW t •. Go F. Gardner. undtTSbip onti
.,.;q.:itfin g~~uer, 1986), p. 61'/974), p. ;<.<i,~ ~d ~h< UC<tpt
,. biJ.. \\CSU!U":-- London: Dent? 1J" ·O"S pp. /4-/6.
c.Jt"'" p",...I'~~isWJ in GrWt,.::,e o~.nilicancll' unorthodox
u4,
,SiI":J" Gi•• §16 ('" Gob, §1; 1 En. 6:2: 19:1;
170. Pbilo~the U.ch••g,o",nes;:!cf Jude 6); 5:1; 7:21; 2 Bar.
..gds!~ b 4:22 (on "po~u[C , ~bh' CD 2.18; G<n. Apo<.
~:1""1'~~ 6:3; 2 En· 18:>-?il~~ of God' T<Xt trom Qumran
1::1; T~~\~r. "The AraJOa:clo 369-70; Gaster, ScnpN,resJ pp.
I!-CBQ 27 [4. ()ct. ~96::lc~ts in Gcza Vermes, _TIlt Dead SeQ
'-The Epochs ofT...e ~'penguin, 1981), pp. 2,9, 267;H: A.
(En liJI 2d cd. (:-leW Yo .-. PhilosoPhy in Jndo mn, Chnmnn'
,lSu. ;olln'JltionsofR'iJB~OuJ ()JInbridgc: Harvard Uni\'crsity,
11
']s14"" 2 vol5., 4th revoLieii, Method M,d A/tssag' of Jewish
1:384-85; D; ;dclR~:~ IVesaninster, 1964), pp. 249ft.; Jo~<ph
,,~OTL(Pbil p I (N ,York: Menorah, 1979), p. '67;
t, From Jesus to PtJ~ . C\\ upon the Enoch Myth." JSOT 15
t Barker, "Some ReuCCDons
: 7-29. of2 Pet. 2:4-7 probobll' «fleets Sir. 16:7-8:
171. The l3Oguo.ge or Lot'S cit)' (ef. :Usa T<st. 1 aph. 3:4-5 for
(
dno~sparethe.8'3O.'tso I En. 10:4-6; ef. 10:12-13; 16:1; 22:4;
nceoon), p~b:~ £ CD 2.19' using 2 Kgs. 25:7); 10:7-9; Sib.
;84:4,J~bir2 'Petc;'; opponcn'cs claimed mystic revelations as
tO~~ ~ei~ views, promethean motifs of fallen angcl~ as scc~et-r~­
in 1 Enoch rna)' be: significant; d ..P. D. Hanson) !-ebelhon to
,Azazd,3OdEubemerisrieHeroesm I Enoch 6-11, .JBL96 (2,
7): 226; G. W. E. Nickdsburg, "Apoc:uypllC Ml'th In I Enoch
JBL96 (3, Sept. 1977): 405.
172. E.g., Kelly, Pe"" p. 257; E. M. Sidcbottom, James, JIlde,
CBC (Grand Rapids: Eetdmans, 1982), p. 86; James Moffatt,
Epm/u;!am"" Pere" and Judas, MNTC (Gardcn City, N.Y.:
oran,1928), p. 232; Bo Reicke, 77lt Epistles ofJames, Pete"
37 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964), p. 199; Martin
P.leni.,.n J."ism and r1le New Testam"'t, GNS 4 (Wil·
• Midlael Glazier, 1983), p. 68; Wesley Carr, AIIBels alld
(Cambridge, Cambridge University, 1981), p. 132. The
_uallyth<same as in 2 Peter, which mal' apply Jud<'s
tpe<i6c problem.
g0£3:19 as a proclamation of triumph over the
); "spidlS" is Dever used to rcfer to the d<ceased in
on (\l$UaIly nor in oth« texts eith« [e.g.,
then: ar.e exc<ptions, e.g., I En. 22:3,
Praebce: Two Examples," in Ne..
".iI
Priluipks Methods, cd. I. H.
), pp. 264-78; Ladd, Theology,
. Herdmans, 1978), p. 38;
Iipisrk of St. Peter, 2d ed.
est Best, 1 Peter, NCBC
63
(GrJ.nd R:J.pid~; Ecrdm:m5." .1982), pp. 142-43; most thorou hi- •
D.lltOn. ?,"s. s Proc.l/U~4tJO" .ro .tbr piritr A Shll'-, of I Ptr;' 3~is~.J·
.-\nBlb 2.3 (Rome. Pontifical Blbh~ Ins~rute, 1965); idem, "'The Int~~
rrC:~:1~I~n of 1 P~cr 3.• 1? .m.~ 4.6: Ltght trom 2 reter." B;~60 l4~ 1979 •
:>4,-::l:l; Idem, Chnst s \ tctory OYct' the Ik..il ,lnd th E'1 .).:
BiTod.1 (1.8.~ .1~65): 1195-12~O~ ide?" "Proclarm.tio C~ris~~ sp~~~~
fuc[;1: IOqwStUO 10 textum ex Pnma EplStob. S. Petn 3 18-46 .. \fM~
42 l5. ~964): 22,.540 (1 TA 9:372) (with too mu~ e~phasis on;:
Enoch typology -though Rendcl H:rnis \\ ent so f.tr 'U to emend h
l.ext, followed in Moffatt. Epistles, p. l·U). The:- conn«tion b<:twttn ~~
tallen angels and the flood .(due to their proximity in Gen 6) .\.ppcm
often tn the texts \~e have cited :lbovc, e.g.• lub. 7:21; Test. N,lph. 3:5.
Others hold that thiS refers to Chnst's pra.ching throu~h N~h in 03.h ~
d3) (l. S. Feinber~, "'I Petcr 3: 18-20, Ancient MYthology, a~d th~
IntermedIate Stat<, !VI] 48 (2, Fall 1986}: 303-36; \Va n< Grode""
"Chnst Preachmg Through Noah: 1 Pettr 3: 19-20 10 the Ught of
DOt~i~ant The~cs in JeWish Literatur~,"1J 7 (2, F:1.Il1986): 3-3\),or
Christ s preach10g to the dead before. hiS resurrection (C. E. R. Crunfidd
"The lntc~retation. of 1 Petcr iiL19 and iv.6," E.\"pT 69 [12, 19581~
369-72; R~lcke, EpJSt~es, p. 109, sees these ntJd the fullen .Ingels arGen.
6!), b~t.thls sc:ms to Ignore: the clear chi3smu~ in 3:16-4:4, pllof'3.HeHng
the SPlnts of ..,: 19 and the heavenly rulen ot 3:22 (4t6 functions as a
conclusion rccalling 3:18, not 3:19). Descents to the underworld are
frequent in ancient Near Eastern and Greek texts, llnd some later Jewish
and Christian apocal)'pses (e.g., Vision of Ezf'3.).
174. I En. 16:2; 2 Bar. 56:14 (th< reason for and rime of
expulsion is quite different in Rc\·. 12:4); cf. 1 En. 69:28. Ps- PhHo 60:3
(most 1\\55) Call use the Greek language ofTartarus as the rightful abode
of demons; cf. Test. Sol. 6:3; for people, Sib. Or. 1:101 (. Gehenna,
1:103); 2:291, 302 (irnot a Christian interpolation).
175. T<st. Reub. 5:6 (OTP 1:784). This mal' bc modeled on the
basically magical fertility practice of Gen. 30:37-43, which God seems to
have blessed only because it was Jacob (31:8-13).1 am not as persuaded
as some that the bulk of the Testaments or the Twelve Patrjarcht. is
pre.Christian with only Christian interpolations, but 1 cite t'his passage
because it is representative of data appearing in other telCt.'i •
176. Test. Sol. ch. 4, perhaps 5:3. T<XII:12-13 in C. D. Isbell,
Corpus of the Aramaic Inca-nta:jolJ Bowls, SBLDS 17 (Missoula, Monr.:
Scholars, 1975), p. 18, speaks of demons "who appear.,. to men in the
likeness of women and to women in the likeness of men," According to
I En. 106:5-6 and Gen. Apoc. 2.15-16 (first thought a "Lamech
Apocalypse"), L3mcch initiaUy thought that Noah was descended from
angels because he was so extraordinary (r3bbinic tradition transfers most
extraordinary birth mat«ial to Moses). Apocryphal rabbinic ,tories, such
as Satan disguised as a woman t<mpting R. Akiba, may be relam1 tollUllh
traditions.
177. Tab. 6:14.
178. Test. Sol. 2:4; Ab. R. Nathan 37 A:, Gcn;
cf. Jub. 10:5; Apoc. Abt. 14:6 (first-second cen~
 He,"1 U,1'cr1I1!Jf;1I 1 CoriPltmsuII1l.2_J6
65
G1Jomcirm, J.!erkllbllh M.rsticism, "lid TII""Jldi, Ii 1Ul~ .
Je\\ish Theological S~mina.rr. 1965), p. 33. r ttum (New York:
184. Me"- Shiro 2:112ff.; b. Ber. 161>-17>; YOID2 77 .
32:3; Pes. Rab. 17:4; 3 En. 29:1; 30:1-2. a; Exod.lUb.
185. Jub. !5:21-32; 35:17; 49:2---4; IQ~{ 17.7-8 ~. •
rulenlup dented an:'0~g_me. gods~ and l=d m>oog oll ~ ~
2.0\·cffiS both muses). 1/_,:)-6, 14_1.,;-16 ods O\.~ -
~i1 spinl> being ~~~): 15.13-14 (";m,j >pint> .n.:..~
gods.; Test. Sol. 6.4, 8.10. sa: P. J. KDbekl:i. -~!eIcblz.ocld< a:>d
dur=: Th.e HaYer;!!' PriDec Lip" md me PriDc.e <JC Dasbao iD ~
'>!
Q = Li~e Ph.D. '?"~ F<>: l: . . 1'17 . P 123.
The b= r-.bbts oIi= Goscribcd lb<ir tpe<ilic boAiin- _-ad bad
3 En. 26:12, S'dTe Dcut. 315.2.1; Gcn. . 77:.3. :.31~ ..
rlW- Edom oIi= JU>Od foe- J; Ewd. am.21 -. La-. Ka 2L
DeuL lW>. 1:22-23; Soog • 2;1. J3; 11:4. JI,."II p'. _ ,
Pes. Rab IW1. 4:9; 27:2; ~ • ;14. fl
186. 1 En. 4();9 - ,.;m • box. 61<1.
raaco=s from me w.a- ; 2 fa. 20;1 "'-'", • -r;
Lcri 3' ; T.... Job W;2; Asc. ha.. 1:.3; 2:2 ... bl _Ddo~~_
o-.riRimiz.cd/; 3 Bv. 12:.3;io culr G.oooc:au,..<\poe I' '.
H,-pmusa. ~ tbe ".-<000•• &yio c.odd be ~ •
of miliury W1k, ~ MicbxI .. A:claiouaq.ol c.£-, rae..
JlIJr.
!.). J. Y. Lee, "1n<ctpr~me IJcr.o<xX , ......... P:•..;.,-- .....-.~
Xnr 12 (I, 1970y. £4-<i'J,' .... clem.. dIac 1Dm'm..
~ mdiDoo, bet ocbcn Ii.- ~ ~ .......c
Benoit, "P:m1inc ~ ..1 d~. lldInDw""do< Door
n:uion< ~ tbe Hao-cnIy P_en _ ..... CJnPl ~ biI
.-kc«d'ing U> Pm!,W R.SB l O. 1 1-1.' be ...... doe
lm~ but did . - dc2I with t - m ~ bea_ coil. Can, Jt¥II,
p. 40, 'I........... whether ..., ~ me P'SC it deulrl"e P tbc
batpooaibilitybcingin 1 En.61;If>-fr_dsc . rmdcaofEt>odl,<bc
datc ofwhich i.1 vnccnnn.
187. cr. c. c. C=gllUrU>. '11K Ep#J<rrll~ M,rrm'" ...,,,,.I"6 oU
e-ten; CB. ITS 8 (Lund; Glccrup. 19771. P1'.157~1~CuIlmann, Su...
p. 68. For ,11.UX ofDcnteronom). '" -u. APH"/Jptie, pp. 2-H-4'J.
h. S. Peake. "CoI"",i.".,• in The Ex,...,""
Gred T<I/o""'~ td. W 1L
NieoU (GFllnd Rapids. Ecrdm• .,.. 1979l,l:479; C. H. Dod 1M!l<;u
" •• lIn Gr...... (London; Hodder &: Stoughton, 93'), pj>. 1S-19
188. Li'.• art " • dJ5honor to him •.• gIory.o her"; llu.. ..,.,gllt
a morc idiomatic rendc::nng.. 1t might be even mOfC ,dWmatJ(.
u-asul>te ai, ""uld emtnsnss hun," but It is unhkely tha' ~ I0Il&'
En""
10

h.ired men back 'hen were cmbarnsscd b) .heir long IWr, ~

wore it as a badge: of honor, -tmbari.aN- ~ a manu of UJIIII'C.
pcrspccme of "dishonor'" IS from .he sundpotn,ofGrcco-..... 1lICIC'J'
in the nme of Pau!; sec below. cIIeWIIaK
189. P.ul pl2}'S on "glory" in conuast to ~; .
,,",-ell (15:43; 2 Cor. 6:8); In 1 Cor. 15:43,.~~
u.sc of tile same phr:ue not long before this '" his
190. P.ul·s -di"me p:usi"e" no doubt
 pall
l, W",,,(IJ, and Wivts
for cO\'cring. in fact, usually denotes
d used here h w long half was pubhcly WOrn
191. The ".or , commonly 0
~d'uP h". r "hl Ch ",as,.. 112
"Hairstyle>. p. 7 1 88-89. 148-49; e.g.• EplCr. Dite
T!>ornpseo., Diog. u."'. L:"~ ·L;'''1. 30 11; M.rc. Aur. Med. 1.9.1'
192.;;" 5.8. 2,5; 7.J9·:J ~. 12; 4 1,5,9; ctc. On~ can virtually
2
;Scn. )2 16 17; 3.1,2. • • "random and find It throughOUt
2.9 JI, • • __ ><or5<o'"
'pJgesofEptf,..l.O.~-
(D' I 713 I) .
58-59. Seneca,. til. ' . ' tncs to
If;. Meeis, World~ ~P~ Epicutean postllons on thIS .m'"~r.
iz< th' Stoic and onsu:,O Onc finds it ofren enough In AriStotle
19~. Meeks, lVorld, Pi-9 '1 2521>--52a; 7.15.11, 133?a}, who abo
fIf. L1.4, 1252b; J.1 · b' others with whom he dISagrees (1'01.
r arguments rna dc Y
]253b). h' Hymn 10 (admittedly a hymn to physi., nOt an
195. E.g.• Orp d~OO-301; 13.239; 14.31. 321; Hor. Poet. 108,
nt}; In:,. ~r. ~7: 2 111; 3.35-36; 5.102; 6.93; 1~.I 2-14. 1 have
. l.l.L:l~aldim~crion here between the scmantl.c ranges of the
~ ~ u.nn n.tur.; the senses arc roughly equIvalent, and the
fh!ril. gc varies from onc author (0 another. The one
JClII2lI;~Which thoroughly ,ubordinated nature. to Culture·
cuswrn (th,Sk<ptic.s;cf. Scst. Emp. Our. Pyrr. 3.220) IS addressed
"196
""nEg. Varro/A,./Ang.5.5.31 (" a
argument. l l ' d'IVI'd e d'IOto.'y
••",ralS
-iLCLi);Scn. Cltm. 1.9.1-2£ EpicL mse. L1~.4 (on anirnaJ.s);
... St4i&. 14; Ltg. 1.5.16, 1.8.2, (the human mlOd): ruse. DlSp.
I (nawre provcsthesoul"immortaliry). Some ofEpictClus' narure
of"'imal practiceHhow thar one did not have to be biologically
EO convince rnO$( bearers, who would not have known the
",)'Way (e.g.. Ditt. 4.11.1-2).
197. Coc. Not. Dear. 2.32.81; Offt'. 1.33.120; R, Publ. 3.28.40;
J.J7;Mare.AUJ Mrd.2.17; Diogenes 25, to Hippon (CynEp,
,. For a more deWlcd esplanation, emphasizing the rdeolog-
of nalUre. sec Gilbert Murray. Th' S,oi, Philosoplsy ( ew
'f, 1915), pp. 37-40; and especially A. A. Long, H'lI",i"i'
Bpi&l""ns, Sceptics (New York; Scribner's, 1974), p.
pcralJr. pp. 147-78).
..... Oiogenes 21. to Amynandcr (Gy.Ep, pp. 114-15).
as-. 11M,. •• Herenn. 3.22.35.
Jl.t.,Sen. Di<l1. 6.7.3; 8.5.2; 9.2.11. Nearly all the examples
~cbon. Contrast perhaps Hor. Sar. 1.3.113-17.
•Zcno m D"'I!. Ucrt. Lim 7.1.87; Cicero Tus,. Disp·
LU7: 1.2.34; 1.4.14. 29; 1.6.15.20; 1.12.17, 19:
15; 6.1.1; 1.13.1; 8.5.1, 8. Marc. Aur. },fed.
"'of~the~<can be no evil" (LCL). For
;J;: be Identified with God (Ben. 4.7.1;
Naluni Law and Stoicism" in ProbWofJ
Uaiw:niryofLondon, 1971), p. 233.
HeRd COJlerirlB/ln J \ArinrhinfIJ J /:2-16
67
204. This is self·cvidcntly true even though .
I like the wnter of Crates 28, to Hipparchia (C E 'Orne phl105Ophcrs,
argue that "Wo~cn arc not by nature (ep~:n~'~~~ 78;9), coul~
Because "nature could also mean "passion '" ~ 1n men.
nature (probably Ach. Tat. eli:. 1.11.3 (thi~ :uWxr::cCl~lon of.hu~.an
stead]; Test. Reub 3:3; contrast Diogcncs 47, to lenD {cdll~y m~
. 178-79 D. 1 CA>r. II :14 could mean:the pa..ion rhat max.. I:.," .~~ ~ci
women aur.actlve wa_rn~ you not 10 show off hair In church.lut ~;IJ
mterpretatlon. req~lre, a narrow reading of "nature:' which i. n
demanded or Implied by the Context. Ol
205. C1e. Inoenl. 1.24.34-35.
206. EpIC!. DItt. 1.16.10 (leI.).
207. IbId., 1.16.14 ILCL).
208. ErfcmlOate mcn make themioetvn .....ork" dun ~urt ma4t
them,. according to l?1~genQ the: Cynic In Dlog. Lac".U"J 6 2 6S The
S~eptlc Sextus EmplflCU) notc) that th~ tJ the prC'VJilins "'P,nlOn, but
CltCS the example of the Ama.u.mJ to PTOYe that the. opinion 1) "(it
univcr..lly held (Out.1'yrr. 3.217).
f 209. Espe;iaJly Jewish WnteD who confronted It '" the 01 pont
Ten. Naph. 3;4-,; P.·Phocyl. 190. Cf tlu: fragment "fMu..,.,,,.. Rum.
in P. W. Van Der Horst, "MUJOnhu RufUJ and tnc lilT," 'NopT 16 f4, Oct_
1974); 309. Attem. On,ir. 1.80 arguatlm for 1<.bian mler""".... bul
possibly means that it i. difficult to accomplish; lu: dQQ nut believe thar
such dreams are inau.spicio~ in all CUGS. A number of &om"3n write",
like Paul and all ancient Jewish "'usces. dId nor look r",,,rably on
homosexual practices, but our discussion hc:rc i} only how thaI. rebte. to
the issue of "'naWtc."
210. Bruc<. I."d 2 Corinthi•• ~ pp. 107-8
21 J. Meeks, Urbon Chrini4nl, p. 125, noung thot "Pa,,1 wu IIJ)~
the first or the: last mOr2liSl to connate the f'A,'o." cr. IUmuYt Cititl of
Palll, pp. 202, 204-5. 233. who thinks that Paul as,ume, the on"n..1
custom common to Tanus bU[ unu,su.al in Ccrin{h~
212. The idea might be arguable from &Jut. Ad He",nn. 3.3.4;
Cic. 0!Ji'. 3.6.30. en. Dial. 5.27.3 might have been helpful, e1<cpt he
does not usc the term I4 natu.ra."
213. Cic. (".",t. 1.1.2; Or."''' 2.21.89; RlteI.•d Herenn. 3.7.14,
3.16.28; Sen. Dial. 9.15.6; Epiet. Dis,. J.l 1.5 with 1.10.6•
214. M. Cary and T. J. Haarhoff, Lif' .nd Though' i. lh' Gmi
.nd Rom•• World, 4th ed. (London: Methuen, 1946). p. 99; Thompson.
"Hairstyle,: p. 104. Grown women's hair was generally long (Ibid., p.
112); among the weU·to-dO, it "'.... normally done up In coi/fures (<;uY
and HaarhofT. Life, p. 99) (which were not counted as ~ CO'Ct1DP
themsclves, sec above). a:
215. So also Robertson and pl,umtner, J (ArilsdsUJlII, p. 236: •
C. R. HaUpi'e's essay. ·Social Hair" (1969). as st11tlftl2IiZcd bydM: _ _
in Re"dcr in Comp.r"ri•• Religion: JbI Anrh...,.J.,.-
W. A. Lcssa and E. Z. Vogt. 4th ed. (.'ew York: HaJ1lCI'
~
p. 99, which argues that long hair on men ~
outside societal norms.
 p."J, nit.-rll. • 11.' H'irf.1 69
26); cf. 1.30 (bcard). Long
239. E.g., b. Taan. 30b (loatl); p. R.. H 4'6 §1
Dodr. 1.IS ~tr>o~,; ~em. . §3d. . . , (local); Boz. 3:6,
116.. ArtC~d be a good SJ~/155; 3.204, d3Jms that. Plato rt~ 240. Malherbe, ExJJortQtion, p. 33. The point is th
in 1 drc.lll1I.."'O EmP- ()JIt. 1':""'- . but .-\Ostippus and, lfl Sextus' from one culture to another (e.g., Sen.. Emp. Out Pyrr. ~ CUStom \'trics
!l7. SCX'. • femi0ioe do thcs, 241. Sec especially Liefcld, "Women," pp. i46-i ..198).
lJlCfl's ~\'C~:~~rcd it. 104.
'to points in G: ~e:Ua, "'VOlle ct soumission? E.ss.i d'intc ~~~:e helpful
the 1'<IS',os, 1'-",0, 'HairS~i~,- ~CharilIUS 6 io Plut. SSp.rt., Mor. to.:ttS paubmcns concernants Ie statur de: l'hommcrp dIn de deux
liS. ~()!ll1UJ<~ 1.9.26, 10 1>, HoHnn. 30 (1985): 3-20 (I knowthisartideonlvthroucght
. :~: cmm
c;."
"'n fo30:300).
219. ,....st. 37-38.
"0 pometOl', Goij$S, P~nlse Prophet 13.
iii: Lucian A/<XJI·"'" We 3.217 speaks ofCybcle's approval nf
'22 Sat. EmP, (hit. Ij'T. ring Amazoman sex rc\tcrsals.
.. ~ . edi3td" attCf nO .
J< lJloo iIJlIJl "0 ma)' implv thIS.
223. Petro s<'. 63, ~;, Hcnng,) Corin,hi",", p. 110, notes that
214 Apul. Ma...·/· . uld pass (and acmill)' dId pass) as
w~ lets his hair grOW ,,"0
ale.". . " 1 17-28 (LCL). He is not, of course, speaking
225. Epler. Du<- o:'b d but ptcsumably the beard or (maybe
the (OP of one sea,
on ) the rest of the body.
226. Epier. Dis'. 3.1.31.
227. Epict. Dis~ 3.1.34. .
228 Zeno in Diog. Laert. Lives 7.1.33. . .
229: Epimenides in Diog. Lacrt. Lives 1.1 O~; Eplcurus. to Epict.
.23.21 (beard); Cynics (Malhetbe, Ex/Jor'~t1o", p. 35), philoso·
gcoeral (Epicr. Dis~ 4.8.12; Artem. (),mr. 1.30 (beards]; Pluto
MOT. 352C [beards J). .
230. E.g., Diogencs the Cynic,.in ~iog. Lacrt. L,ves 6:2.46 (LCL),
anded that his interlocutor hft hIS robe to prove hrs gender.
23l.Ps.Phocyl. 210-12 (OTP2:581). OTP2:581, n. b: "A man's
long hair was often considered as a sign of effemination, e.g.
S ,.Leg.3.37."
2. Num. 6; e.g., Sifre Num. 25.
Num. Rab. 10:10. Conversely, certain kinds of hair trimming
ted with paganism; sec Goodman, Stat, fwd Satiety, p. 49.
Mollitt, 1 Corin,"ian" p. 154, "nature being regarded as
t norm even for such attire."
D, World, p. 19, observes rhat Aristotle's ad hominem
to "'~ommon experience, where 'common' means 'com-
WlWlgAtheni.n citizens.' "Fcc, 1 Coril/thi""', p. 530,
• ere appeals to the practice of other churches (4:17;
ansscem to be acting as if they were independent from
(d'. 14:33).
1.5.72; 3.4.12 ("uetores pluri"'o!); cf. 5.11.36-37.
tors could also be used to extract principles
<»'12).
).
. Mus. Ruf. fro 12 (On sexual
154), who concludes his atgu'
 4
Why Paul Told Wives to Submit-
The Social Situation of
Ephesians 5:18-33

Because Ephesians 5:18-6:9 is the longest passage in the

c:w Testament addressing household roles, and because most
cl ments ofthc: other passages are found here, we have devoted the
econd half of the book to an in-depth analysis of this passage. l
The pre ent chapter introduces the general social setting and issues
that we will onfront in our examination of the passage itselfin the
follO\\'ing chapter.
The question that this chapter on social setting addresses is,
Why does Paul, who calls for mutual submission, deal more explic-
itlywith the submission of wives than with that of husbands? The
answer this chapter proposes is, in short, "Because he was smart."
His social statements are among the most progressive of his day,
but if he wanted the gospel to gain a strong hearing in the
Greco-Roman world, he needed to temper his radicalism with
prudent sensitivity to his culture. Assuming that Paul wrote thi
1 tter while imprisoned in Rome, we can well understand ho
ensitive he might have become to such issues.
 140
PRill, WOlllm, nml W;vr...r
oppositiolJ to For~iglJ ClJlts
The recognized guardians of traditional Roman
, b th values
ariswcrauc men, were uneasy a out c "new" I" '
Roman ~lglons
IT m the east that seemed to challenge standard values i"k
h:norable man's sober guidance of his family.2 luvena!'s o~.e .the
. fl f ft· J ,t CIted
complaint about the In. UX 0 orelgn cu ture and superstition
reflects the feeling~ of many we~-to-do R?man n~en: "The SYrian
Orontes has long SIOCe;, pour~d IntO.thc Tlbe~, bnnging with it its
lingo and its manners, and Its musIc and religions. 3
Xenophobi~, or aver.sian to foreignc.rs and foreign ways, Was
not limited to ancIent socIety. In the Uruted States of the .
teenth and twentieth centuries, the nonconformity of each":e.
wave ofimmigration to U.S. societal standards has been viewed ~w
established groups as a threat to social stability, no mattet hO\~
loudly we may have simultaneously praised the virtues ofpluralism.
This should make it easier for us to understand the uneasiness
of the conservative aristocracy when they were confronted with
groups that not onl}' seemed to hold "antisocial" beliefs, but began
converting Romans to those beliefS. 4
Roman mistrust of eastern cults is reflected in Roman
literature. For instance, Apuleius writes of rogues who follow the
"Syrian goddess"5 but turn out to be guilty of temple robbery.'
Especially significant, however, is his association of such cults \vith
sexual perversity,7 an accusation that also turns up in other texts:
for instance, Petronius riclicules the sexual abnormalities of wor·
shipers of Priapus.B
~ough Roman policy tolerated foreign religions on their
own ~ $Olne religions were viewed as too disruptive for Rome
itsdfJ' valued seriousness and duty, and emotionalistic
their very identity as respectable Romans. Only
behavior became sufficiently tamed or Roman-
Uld it be officially permitted in Rome. Rom,,?
y restricted from the cult ofCybele unnl
e., within a decade or two before Paul
call Ephesians.
11 gained in populanty
me only shortly before
mi",,," in Rome
il.cath.1' Perhaps
~
•
71le Soci/d Sitll4tlon ofEpluSI'rms5:18-33
141
and Romans. viewed them as socially inferior, Egyptian religion
took some ~mc to catch on in Greco·Roman cities.IS But rarely
WOUld. any City have offered worshipers of these cults as hostile a
reccp~on as Rome, where all secret meetings were suspect and where
me ISIS cult was ~crsccute:d .as late as the early first century CB.16
~1 .potcnnally qucsoonable foreign religions came under
the suspiCIOn of upper-class Roman conservatives, who did not
a1way~ bother. to get ~eir ~c~sations straight. It "'~ easy for
enemlcs of vano~s foreign religIOns to get IDem mixed up. Indeed,
some people believed that Jews worshiped Dionysus, and associ-
ated Judaism ,,"ith Dionysiac rcvclry.17 Since Roman authorities
would easily have viewed Christians as a special form ofTews in this
pcriod,18 their attitude toward Judaism te:Us us much about the:ir
attitude toward Christians as wdl. 19
In the eyes of the Roman elite, both Isis,worshipers and
Jews in Rome represented a foreign superstition of the: SOrt that
could subvert the: morals ofvirtuous Roman women. Earlier in the.
first centur}', scandals arose in regard to both religions that brought
about persecution against both. The events are linked by those
who report the:m,20 and are linked by 3 certain important siJnilar.
it}': a male represenrative of the offending teligion took advantage
of a good Roman woman.
Josephus, a Jewish historian writing at the end of the tim
century, describes scandals that asose in relation both to the cult
oflsis and to Judaism. A priest ofIsis helped a deceiver to ful611
his adulterous designs on a virtuous Roman woman, and when the
story got out, the authorities were enraged: the emperor banished
the deeeiver,21 crucified the priests, and destroyed the temple of
Isis. Although there is no e\1dence that all the priests were guilty,
or that such bebavior characterized the entire cult of Isis.22 the
religion a a whole suffered a great setback from the seandai.21
losephus likewise tells us of a Jewish man who, Prctendlns
to teach the law, tricked a wealthy woman into' ~
for the temple that he actually kept for himself. J
to point out that this man was no proper rep
of the Jewish community, but that thiJ Act •
. of the Jewish community from the anti-J
by the incident. The responto of
banish the entire Jewish co
Nor did this
uodern
 PRNI, lVOmm, ami Wivu
142
_" crecvl' 26
I' about u,e se . and subversiveness ofthe Jewish reI'Iglo
.
n
p 31~ drus devotes eonsiderabI: spac~ t? slanders againS! it.27 '
and ad' 28
and other foretgn rehglOns were viewed .
Ju 3 1 s m . ,,~th
.' b the Roman elite preosely because they were "~nnin
hostility Ynverrs in Rome. The most virulent anti-Jewish an I.g
so many co "9 J' h . h ac""
derived from Alexandna,- but eWls ng ts were proteCted bv
Ie al precedent there and In most of ~e Roman Empire.3o I~
R~me itself, however, the success of J e,,~sh ~roselytism seems to
have threatened the traditional Roman ~~blishment.31 It Would
not be long before the success of Chns~a~ evangelism Would
eate a similar threat, but the Roman Chrisnans, once they were
~sringuished from other !ews,32 wo~d quickly b~c.ome an objeer
ofmore outright persecunon; they still had no pohncalJy powerful
patrons. 53 • othcr socicties in the ancient Mediterranean. But papyri from
Judaism seems to have appealed espeoally to women-who
did not have to contemplate the pain of circumcision at their
conversion-and their willingness to conver! seems to have irri-
tated Roman men, who expected their wives to follow their Own
beliefs. The turning of a wife from her husband's religion was
viewed as an especially subversive ploy on the parr of foreign
religions. Plutarch emphasizes the import:lDce of the ,,~fe's Wor-
shiping her husband's gods;
A wife ought not to make friends on ber own, but to enjoy het
husband's friel)ds in common with him. The gods are the fi[S[ and
most important friends. Wherefore it is becoming for a wife to
worship and to kitow only the gods that her husband believes in,
and to shut the front door tight upon all queer rituals and
oudandish supemilions. For with no god do stealthy and secret
rite$ performed by a woman lind any favour.
34
71Je Social SitlllJtion of EpherilUls 5:18-33
143
WOlllm and Upward Mobility
The gains of women in ancient societ)' had introduced new
tensions into Greco- Roman life in general and probably into some
marriages as well, due to the greater flexibilit}~ of possible role
expectations now available. This mcant that religions that were
thought to ignore traditional roles for women would be viewed as
threatening by the conservative male establishmcnt.
~tany scholars have commented on thc gains in women's
sociaJ status during the Roman imperial pcriod. To say that women
in later periods had more freedom than they had had in classical
Athens is not to say vcry much; even if their poor status in classical
Athens has becn exaggeratcd, it was worse than wc find it in most
Egypt do indicare that women's status gradually improved over
timc,36 especially in the Roman period.a7
Roman laws in the New Testament period provided more
independence for women than earlier laws had;' although the
motives behind this stemmed from the advantage it would give the
legislators, to whom the result of women's independence was a
completely incidental matter. 39 Some women, such as the empteSf
Livia,4o became extremely powerful socially, and though ~ch
women may have been exceptions, their example could eneO
other women to advance as much as their gender, social cl
espeeially ceonomic status permitted. .
Not only politically and legally, but also phiJosop
women had received a gteater hearing; even in very cons
cireles, they were sometimes recognized to have moral and I
lectual potential. 4 }
Retiscancc co Social Change
The perceived lin" between the growing social •
and the religions from the eastern Mediterr3l)ean M
ered many members of the Roman elite, who sou
the Status quo and longed for more ttaditio
own power base was more secure." The jd
upper class Was that of a "benevolent p
on behalf of those under hint, bllt
rank and social staM .,
he wielded tI!
 PIIIII, lVomet., ami WivtS
144
Thus the Senate passed laws to ensute that traditio
. fi r social classes were not transgressed' for ex n.1
es
boundan f ~stocratic f.unilies were not to engag~ in no a~Ple,
me,?bers ~ssions.44 The Roman upper dass also tried to n to . ans
cranc prOle . h . I d p rOteq
its special prerogatives .agamst t C socia a .van~cment of freed~
men." The actual practice was, of course, quite ~ferent from the
aristocratic ideal; as we have already observed,. SOCIal mObility Was
occurring in the first c~ntury, to the consternation ofthe elite, who
stood to lose most by It. .
Maintaining the sys~em as It was had long been emphasized
by ideologists ofthe state:. Preserve the pr~sent.ord~r, and do not
desire any change, knoWIng that revolunons inevItably destroy
states and Jay waste the homes of the people."46 Thus it w
commonly believed that earlier Roman society had had mu~
"higher" morals, induding much more severe discipline of Un.
submissive wives. This idea became an important feature in Stoic
and Augustan propaganda for proper aristocratic marriages.47
The increasing mobility of women drew fire from satirists
like Petronius,·8 Martial, and especially luvena!, satiriSts being
among the first who were prone to criticize socia! trends. Juvenal
complains that marriage might lead a man to suicide, since women
were always wrangling and asking for more presents; a male bed.
fellow, he mocks, would be better than these women. 49 They love
,iolence, delighting in their strength like men, while wishing to
remain female for its superior joys.SO The wife who lords it over
her husband thus becomes a f.uniliar object of his satire:
"CruciIY that slave!" says the wife. "But what crime worthy of
dadJ bas he ~" asb the husband; "where are the
~ •• Gift: bim a hearing at least; no dday can be tOO
isatstake!" "What, you numskull? You call
has done no wrong, you say? Be it so;
d; let my will be ,'oucher fur
it over her husband. 51
The Sq,ial Situation ofEphesians 5:18-33
145
. So severe does the criticism seem to have become: that one:
woter laughs:
You do nOt know ... how women dread satire. Lawyers may
retreat and scholars may not utter a syllable before the flood f
wom~~s \~'ords. ~hc rhetorician may be dumb and the herald ~a.;.
stop his cnes; sanre alone can put a limit to their mad.n~ though
it be Peuonius' Albucia who is hOL53
Nor was such criticism an entirely new phenomenon.54
Cato the Elder is quoted as complaining, "All mankind rules its
women, and we rule all mankind, but our 'vom(n rule us."ss
Cicero charged that a man who could not deny his wili: anything
was not a free man but the lowliest of slaves.S6 But the aristocratic
discomfort was increasing bl' Paul's day, and this means that the
antifeminist rhetoric of Roman aristocratic males was app:uendy
getting hotter as well.
This dissatisfaction of men "ith freedoms they felt wen:
increasingly being given to their "ives led to marital conftiets. In
modem society, wives are ofren more disappointed than husbands
bl' the failure of marriages to conform to a romantic ideal; but in
imperial Rome, husbands may have been the ones most dissatislied
by a failure of spousal role expectations, because their wi1l'cs
to emulate the legendary, submissive, domestic maUODS
Different writer.; responded to this situation .
For example, in )uvenal's ~, bitttr misogyn mel
an earlier, pure day~ in PlutlrCh's~ an attempt to su
values under the old and so to preserve the esseotil1
the old values by making certain minimal concessiOllllD
and, in the case of Xenophon of Ephesus, easy
Dew spirit of egaliwianism.
But those who did challenge the old tradi •
opposing standard aristocratic opinion and -risked
political subversion."sl
The family was held to be the basic unit
was built.,59 and ever since Aristotle political
lined the proper family rdatiODSbips D
society as a wbole}50 This oudine
format for defining proper faliIlIJ.
Groups accusedo£wi
thus SOlD
 146
alues by producing their own lists, Or "ho h
tional Rom~n vthos;normally used in their day. use old
codes," fjwng
HOUSEHOLD CODES
Aristotle introduced three pair~ ?f relationships into the
household codes: the head of the fan.uly s relationship with wife
children, and slaves, in each case defmmg the nature of the father';
rule.62 As he puts it, "household management falls into depan_
ments corresponding to the parts of whICh the household ... is
composed .. _the primary and smallest parts of the household are
aster and slave, husband and wife, father and ehildren_"63 Thi
:::reefold format was preserved by Aristotle's philosophical followe s
and adopted by some other wnters . llMG'lven the relatively small
as we.
percentage of families actually owning slaves in Roman antiquity
we may suspeC! that those who wrote such household codes had
primarily other well-to-dO people in mind as their readership.6S
It was typical for ancient writers to think of families in these
general terms of rank and duty; "family" was defined more by
relationships of subordination than by blood relationshi p66 The
man in charge ofthe household was often even compared to a king,
since the family was viewed as a microcosm of society.67
It was important that propagandists for "suspicious sects"
like Judaism and the cult ofIsis emphasize their profamily orien-
tation. They often did so, occasionally resorting specifically to
three-part household codes. Thus, for example, an Isis aretalogy
(a writing that celebrated a god's deeds or virtues), probably
direoted towud the average kind of family that did not have slaves,
emphame,lproptr child-parent and husband-wife relationships.68
'se natural for Greek-speaking Jewish writers to
ways to act in various relationships.69 To the
ed to demonstrate their lack ofsubversiveness
I:heir usc of household codes became all the
J! they could demonstrate the "orthodox"
• PJilleticts~ they would have answered a
!?>' owerful members of the
follows the three-part
daism against Apion,
TI" Soti~1 SjtJjtJt;on of Ephtn'lI1lS 5:18-33 147
society wh~ did not ~eek ~o. radically overturn Roman social Struc~
tur~s.74 Given Jesus aCt1Vlsm in Jewish Palestine, this apparent
retlccnc~ ~f Paul to challenge many of the structures of his day is
disappomtIng to some modern readers; but the rest of the Roman
world required a different strategy for change than Jewish Palestine
had. And, as we shall see, Paul's ethics were more revolutionary in
function than the~ ma~ app~ar on the surfucc.7 5 Indeed, it may
have been the soctally hberatlng aspects of c.rly Christianity that
made it mOSt vulnerable to the charges of subversion Christians
ultimately would encounter despite Paul's precautions.76
CONCLUSION
ts
By adhering to certain societal srand.rds, the early Chris-
tians could perhaps hope to distinguish themselves from traditional
objects of Roman slander, "undignified'" eastern Mediterranea.n
religions, including such mysteries as the cult of Dionysus.?'
This is not to suggest that Ephesians 5:18-6:9 is to be read
as a direct defense of Christianity to Roman readership in the way
th.t Josephus' tr.ct A,gainst Apion defends Judaism against the
charges of its opponents. After all, this letter was no doubt sent to
Asia, not to Rome; further, it was addressed to Christians, not to
the opponents of Christianity.7 8 But by encouraging Christiana to
live in a way that would silence some of the n<edless obje~
raised against the faith, as he had done in his previous Ie
Paul w.s contributing to a cultural defense of Christian!
would hopefully gain it a better hearing in Roman society.
he had written to the Romans, he had eneour.ged their suppo
civil authorities; now th.t he himself was in Rome, the issUCI
would contribute to • lifestyle defense ofChristianity h~d no d
become even clearer to him.
There is thus reason to think that Paul, awaiting
Rome, would have been contemplating strategies to a
powerbrokers in Rome whose decisions could set
policies toward Christians elsewhere in the empire.
codes may represent a long-range response to b
rural objections to the gospel. 80 ~!!essing til
would be important for evang
Roman world and for resisting
for wives to affirIII too mu
marriage. This Ittl
 148
h alienated any other groupS from the gospel; to my k
ave a one was going around criticizing women for be' nowl·
ed ge, n tng too
submissive. . '
But we are still left ~th a questlO~. Let us say that Paul
asized the wife's submiSSIOn because It was an essent' I
erop h W uld h h ' la part
of her witness in that culture., O. e ave Ignored her personal
needs in favor of the churc~ s wItness? Would he have left "sub.
mission" undefined and ambIguous, so that she could theoretically
be subordinated even.more than most R~man women were in his
day? Would he have Ignored the ~o~pel s equ~l demand for the
husband's servanthood and submISSIon? A bnef examination of
Ephesians 5:21-31 w?uld suggest that he does not; he places her
submission squarely '-? the :?ntext of mu~al submission, and
qualifies her husb.and s p~slOon o~ authomy as one of lOving
service. To this pOInt we will teturn In the next chapter.
NOTES
1. This approach of conc.enrrating o.n. the more detailed passage
is also followed by scholars holdmg the posltlon we are challenging; see
G. W. Knight ill, "Husbands and Wives as Analogues of Christ and the
Ohureh: Ephesians 5:21-33 and Colossians 3:18-19," in Manhood and
Womanhood, p. 165.
2. The most complete rreatment of opposition to foreign cults
with which I am familiar is D. L. Balch, Let Wives be Submissive: TIle
Domestie Cod. in I Feter, SBLMS 26 (Ohico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981), pp.
65...s0 (eh. 5, "Greco-Roman Criticism of Eastern Religions"); see also
1'» lIl8.
Silt. 3.62. Although Juyenal refers to Eastern religions ~s
resting that Syrian Antioch, a major sending church 10
• ion (Acts 13:1-3; 14:26-28), was situated on the
II, "The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature," in JPFC,
citing Tacitus, Seneca, and Juvena1; cf. Meeks, ~orld, p.
• g distrust of Roman aristocrats toward foreign dc·
CllcraJ,O. e.g., Meeks, World, p. 25. Thc Roman
be exarnJ/led in Claudius' response to the
and paraphrased by Tacitus (see
themselves. The Phryg-
eJ but 9.9-10 $CClIl
• p.\Ie daiJnS to be her
TIlt Social Situat,o,l of EplJeJi4ns 5:18-33 149
8: Perc. Silt. 16-26, includin~ male prostitutes, aphrodisiacs, and
the marriage of a seven-y~ar.old girl. Pctfonius does not feel equaU
perturbed about men chasmg boys. Y
9. cr. Cic. Leg. 2.10.25, whosc ideal laws exclude "the worshi
of private gods, wh~ther new or ~licn" as disruptive to Roman religiO~
(LCL). The necesslty of preserVIng Roman religious custom is often
heard, e.g., RlJet. ad Heretm. 3.3.4.
10. Granr, God" p. 33.
11. No doubt made a mystery only under Greek influence.
12. For its popularity, see H. C. Kee, Miracle i" the Early Chris·
'iM' World (New Haven: Yale University, 1983), pp. 105-45.
13. In the 40s, under Caligula: see Fran~oise Dunand '"'Les
Mystcres Egyptiens," in Mystires et Sy"cretismes, EHR 2 (Paris: Ubrairic
Orientalistc Paul Geuthncr, 1975), p. 38; Cary and Haarhoff, Life) p.
343. It existcd in Rome, with its own temple, from the first century BCE
(Grant, Gods) p. 34), but the scandal in the rcign of Tiberi us had been a
major setback (scc p. 141 below).
14. He)'ob, Isis) pp. 26-27. They increased again under the
Anronines (ibid., pp. 28-33).
15. Sce Grant, Society, p. 60. Of course, Greeks had long touted
thei' own cultural supcriority (cf. Plato Rep. 5.470C; Diog. Laett. Li."
I, §33; 6.1.1, 10.117; Lucian Dem. 40; Diogenes 28 to the Greeb
[CYIIEp, pp. 124-25J; contraSt Anacharsis to Solon 2.1-2 [CynBp, pp.
38-39 J), classifying othcr peoples as "barbarians" (Plato La.,,9.870AB;
Crat. 409DE, 421D; Aleib. book 2, 141C; Isoe. P.n. 108, Or."; Helen
67-68, Or. 10; Nie./Cyp. 50, Or. 3.37; Dio Ch,ys. 1st Disc. on Kiyship
14; 12,h Olymp. Disc. 27-28; 31st Disc. 20; 32d Disc. 35; 36,h Disc...a;
Diog. Laett. Li." 6.1.2; Athen. Deipn. 11.461b; Plut. Eum. 16.3; A"et.
10.3; Tim. 28.2; Bride 21, Mor. 141A; Scxt. Emp. 0",.
Pyrr. 3,267;
Anaif/It 'he E'hicists 1.15; Srrabo Geog. 13.1.1; 15.3.23; 16.2.38; Chari·
ton Chaer. 6.7.12). Other peoples did not all rakc kindly to this (10'. A".
Ap. 1.3, §§15-18; 1.11, §58; Sib. Or. 3:171, 732; 4:70; ef. <It:l)\,
although some accepted the typical Greek division of huma.nity into
"Greeks" and "barbarians" as simply a standard m.y of speaking 0'
peoples (Rom. 1:14; <;Cic. In.ent. 1.24.35; probably Olfi'· 3.26.99;
Dial. 5.2.1; los. A.!J. Ap. 1.22, §20 1; 2.39, §282; War 5.l.3. §t7;
1.3.9, §107; 15.5.3, §136; 18.1.5, §20; Philo On D."Hnke"nmlll
the CherHbi.. 91; On Abraham 267; On Joseph 30; Lifeo!M
71se DecaIogHe 153; SpeciallA"J 2.44, 165; 4.120; B.."
Frr:e 94; On the Contemplati.. Life 21; 48; BmblJSl1 II Gil
Tatian I, 21, 29). Although JeW! were normally eo
Greeks (Srrabo Geoa. 16.2.38: los. W.r 1.prcalll
Philo Specitd LIJ.,J 2.165; 1 Cor. 10:32), cd
sometimes protested that they were culQllllll
16. l:Ieyob, lJ/J, p. 36. lkU
higher in the period of the
Beha.iDrin AJseientRmJre(Q!m
Judaism narurally dcsp'
wrobably Iatc Jint ~
 p(lJJ/~ Womm, fmd Willes
150
" - .484' OTP 1:404) may be an allusion to th .
wrerched goddess (~:cd (~other composite goddess figures ofanc .trlPle_
goddC:SS tradition;~r4.6.1-2, Mar. 671G-6~2C, e.g., 6.2, Mar. ~i~ity.
17. Pfl~tbe;nacles is associated' Ith DIOnysus) and 672A (s alDE
(the Fea.s[ 0 Ja 0 So
the Sabbath).. till has them mixed up in the second century i p
l~d LuC~cno~nized Christianity's Jewish roots well into th~ :~e9.
11. out5~oe~:ubt to the em~ar~assment of many of the Jewish lead~d
cenwryi-. Wilken, "The C?h~st..ns as th~ Romans (and Greeks) Sa~
(ef. R.•. lewisiJ and Glms.,,," Self-Defimtt01l, ed. E. P. Sanders et I
J~~f.' [~~iladclphia: Fortress, 1980-82],.1:1 19-2?). a.,
. 19. The sorts of charges Clle~ agamst. J':I dalSm (ef. Tae. Hlse.5.
A.!1 Ap 2) came [0 be leveled agamst Chnstlans (ef. the ass's head' '
~s. H'". '5.4' and Tert. Apol. 16.1-4). They came to be aecus~~
es~cial;y of atheism (for rejecting the gods, .Athenag. Plea 3; Justin I
Apol. 6; probably Marc. ~ur. Med. 3.16.1), ~eest (probably based On
brother.sister love 10 Chnst; Ath~nag. PI", 3, Theoph. 3.4; Ten. Apol.
2 - 20' 4.11' 7.1' cf. the story In B. J. Bamberger, Proselytism 111 tbe
"i i~;'"jlt Pe:lod [New York: KTAV, 1968], p. 235), infunticide and
cannibalism (based on a literalistic mi~nderstanding of the Lord's Sup.
per, Arbenag. Plea 3; Theoph. 3.15; Min. Fel. Oc•. 9.5; Tert. Apol. 2.5,
20; 4.1 1; 7.1); several ofthese charges recur in later Jewish sources (B. L.
Visrozky, "Overturning the Lamp," lIS 38 [1, SP.ring 1987]: 72-80).
Cannibalism (Otto,Dlo1lysus,p.1l3; DlOg. Laert. L,pcs7.1.121, 7.7.188)
and child sacrifice (Tert. Apol. 9.2) may not have disgusted some marginal
groups, but were generally among the greatest conceivable vulgarities,
and figures such as Orpheus (Guthrie, Orpheus, p. 40) and Isis (Grant,
Religi01ts, p. 132) took credit for abolishing them.
20. Tacitus, who does not supply all the derails provided in
JosephU5, nevertheless links die two events, and it almost sounds as if
boih the Egyptian and the lewish communities wete expelled by TIberius
at tile same time (.Au. 2.85). The ronteltt is sexual offenses of upper· class
MlIIIell,butTaciIaI_oaIYlDbe I'CpOrling discussions in the Senate.
P~~lIulea"'partofdH: Boman province of Syria, Jews and
~ (possibJrthis explains 1m'. SM. 8.160).
~ be «<ri"e4 a l.esser punishment,
. . , thaD the priests. Class distinctions ...ere
Iep disaimiDarioo; e.g., CaIli.stntus in D~tst
f168, po lOS).
. . . un- ca.iIrUas, 1'. 25.
'fl1e &cinl Situation o!EphcMns 5;18-33
151
26. Ibid., 14.IO(l.-101.
27. Tac. Hist. book 5.
." , 28. cr. C. Sal~s, "Le, rnondc: greco-ramain du le'r sieclc: une
SOCIete IOterculturcIJe1" SlIppl,.."" 156 (1986): 15-28 (NTA 31:85).
29. ~ce.Stcrn, Literature,'" p. 1118. For anti·Judaism in Greco-
Roman a~'ltlqwlY, sec e.g., CPJ. 1:24-25; 2:36-55, §153; 3:119-21,
§520; Philo Fln,,"s I; 47; 85; SIb. Or. 3.271-72; Quint. 3.7.21; HOt.
Sal. 1.5.100-101; juv. Sar. 14.96-106; Persius S.t. 5.179-84; S. j. D.
Cohen, From the lt1accabees to tbe MislmalJ, LEe 7 (Philadelphia: West-
minster, 1987), pp. 46-49; j. C. Meagher, "As the Twig Was Bent:
Antisemitism in Greco- Roman and Earliest Christian Times . . in A"t;~
Semitir1n "tid the FOlltldationsofChrinianityJ cd. A. T. Davies (New York:
Paulist, 1979), pp. 1-26; J. L. Daniel. "'Anti·Semitism in the Hellenistic-
Roman Period," JBL 98 (1, March 1979): 45~5; E. R. Goodenough
Jewish Symbols i" the Greco-RolnR" Period, 13 vols. (New York: Pantheon:
1953-68),12:54. cverthelcss, Judaism was popular, as <lllested in the
numbers of proselytes and God·fearers (J. G. G.ger, 17" Origins of
A"ri-Semitinn [New York: Oxford University, 1983], pp. 67-88; Cohen,
Mnccabees, pp. 49-58), though this only exacerbated the hostility ofother
outsiders (Gager, A"ti-Semitism, pp. 59-61; cr. E. M. Smallwood, 1'bt
Jews Under Romn" Rille, SJLA 20 [!..eiden: Brill, 19761, pp. 203-5).
30. Cf. e.g., jos. A1It. 16.6.2, §§162~5; 19.5.2, §§280-B5. The
status of rdiglo liclcais often affirmed for Jud.ism (e.g., Meyer lU:inhold,
Dlaspom [Sarasota: S.muel Stevens, 1983], p. 74.; Selwyn, Pern; p. 51),
though it may not be strictly ac:curatc-, since Judai.sm functioned at a
toileglum ratber than a rdiglo (Parkes, Omf1ltl, p. 8; ef. Koester, bnrI-
dllctl01l, 1:365). Josephus' e"idence points not toward a rei;";' JId8.
status per se, but toward the use of prceed.enr.s .nd .ppeili (Tessa ~
~Was There a Roman Charter for rhe Jews?· JRS 74 (1984]: 101
Precedent was important in Roman law (Augustus' po..... en are cited
suppOrt of those of Vespasian in a law uf 69-70 E., in elL 6.9.
Empire, ed. Sherk, pp. 124-2.5, §82), and Luke secllU to appeal
man)' legal p,ec.edent> as poisible in elmbllshing the w'ep'tabillq
Christianit)' in the book of Aas.
31. Ii« espoaally me tb.,.,. ofGaga,.A1Jti-s-;m., ~
that the main cause of anliJnlbr tDIl-ard judaililll in IlDu>c _ •
laIit)· among otb<>.. in Il:ome. j ...iJ,h prosdrtUm does .....
&.''Or~ble IJght m our &oman IlllIlnlD: HoJ:. JWu L...141 _
WJ1PIing in Molly \\"I1in:a1a, J_a" ~ ~
CCWjCW 6 I~ CamI:Jri.d5c Vaiwnizy, 19M
PDta, e-jIIa, pp. 2.i-16. <>faux, t k ~
~of1D4oism_ ..,1Ic
~ ol...-......SalIbodo.
GorP:.
7k _ _
AIrIi-~ P. 58; Soul . .,
I(,...~
I.adaa= . . . 19751. a9-l
... ...
-'tdscK" ..
n. 1oiI -
~(JIII~4J.A1.l..¥
 152
SOb 'Hine Oracles were placed in the distant past (H
be olle re3S0 n the~'b) //ine Propbecy in C/fJSsical A1ltiqrtity [Nc\ y' W.
Parke, Sibyls "";J I J ) Although early Christians like Luke (, v O~k:
8 h
Rou.tl~dg~" ~~~o th~'his~ory of Israel in Luke·Acrs) and. JuStin (1 ~ ties
Chns U3n1 () d the antiquity argument, Roman magistrates did pol.
~). 3Ppcal~[ r~~ognition in their C ? s c . . nOt
initially:; We refer [0 the ~eronta~ persecution of 64 GE, in Rome
db' TacitUs and Chrisnan tradmon (Tac. .Ann. 15.44; Tert. Ap l
~ep~r~~e:' Eeet Hift 2.25.79-80). T~e. obJ:;ctlons of G. Fau, "L'a~:
Jh:~ticite du rextC de Tacite sur lcs Chrctlcns, Call1ers du Cercle Ernest.
~","n 19 (72, 1972): 19-24 (NTA 16:~1!) 31" un~~nable;:f. Mattingly,
Chn'stia"jty, pp. 31-32; A. GiovanmnI, .T~Clte) 1 mccndlUm Neronis'
et les cbretiens," RePlle des Etlld:s AIIB"stll/lt1J"" 30 (1-2, 1984): 3-23
(NTA 29:307); M. J. Harns, Rc:fere~c.es to J'7 us In Early Classical
Authors," pp. 343-68 in TIle ]ems Trad,t,o,z OutsIde the New TestAment,
cd. David Wenham, GP 5 (Sheffield: ]SOT, 1984), pp. 348-50.
34. Plut. Bride 19, Mor. HOD (LCL). For an example of Plu.
tarch's objections to fo~cign supcr~titions, cf. Pluto SlIpersr. 2, Mor.
16MB (he includcs JudaIsm a;; s.uch In SIIperst. 8, Mor. 169C).
35. Meeks, Urban Chnstla1JS, p. 25; cf. J. E. Stambaugh and D. L.
Balch, 171< New Testament ill Its Social E".ironmt1Jt, LEC 2 (Philadelphia:
Wcsnninster, 1986), pp. 123-24. Pomeroy, Goddesses, p. 206, notcs "the
Romans' use of religious sanctions to promote socially desirable behav·
ior," referring to the cults of Fortuna; for the Romans, religion should
cstllblish, not challenge, the social fabric.
36. Examples from the hellenisric period may be found in W. W.
Tarn, Hellenistic Cipilisation, 3d rev. ed. (New York: New American
Library, 1974), pp. 99-100. Verner, Household, pp. 64-67, acknowledgcs
improvements but notes that in hellenistic Egypt the same social restric·
tions obtained aD wives; they were "expected to be domestic, socially
retiring, chaste, and submissive to their husbands, n lest they shame the
household.
37. S. B. Pomeroy, "Women in Roman Egypt: A preliminary study
based on papyri," in R.j1eaionsofWOllltll In Ant;'l"lry, cd. H. P. Foley
(New Yoa: Gordon and B~ch Science Pub., 1981), pp. 303-22;
Yeroer, HoIIIeIHtU, Pp.6&i Meeks, UrblJn Chr;stllJ1JS, pp. 23-24.
Some women-both respecrcd and
• "Women," pp. 24-31.
pp. 90-95, although rhe casc:
1:237-38.
TIJt Sotinl Situation ofEplJ~inns5:1B-33
153
~4. E"g., the inscrip~on cited in E,npirt) cd. Sherk, §35
61.-6~, In which no senator ~ descendant was allowed on stage, he~~;
re)ectmg l~wer;c1ass o~cupat1o~s (19 CE; one may Contrast the socially
"inappropriate behaVIOr tn w~ltch Nero engages a generation later).
45. MacMullen, RelatlonsJ p. 105.
46. !soc. Nie./Cyp. 55, Or. 3.38 (LCL). For the moralists' unitary
view of SOCiety,. see Malherbe, Exhortation, p. 88, and the excerpt from
Hiero~lcs h~ .clte~ on pp. 10~-104: Meeks, World, p. 21, shows how
Creon s posItion tn Soph~c1~ Antigone 663-77, from classical Athens,
reflects the fear of women s disobedience disrupting the civic order.
47, Pomeroy, Goddesses, p. 154; on Stoics. see especially ibid., PI
230, See Val. Max. Mem, Deeds 6.3.9, first century CE (in Lefkowitz and
Fant, Womu!)s I:ife, p. 176~, on an e~rly Roman who cudgeled his wife to
death for dnnking some wme. Vale nus Maximus need not be approving
of beating one's v.ife to death, but he is appealing to the Oihigher"
standards of earlier Rome concerning wifely submission,
48. He ridicules particularly Trimalchio's wife Fortunau., who
conrrols her husband's money (Perr. SlIt. 37).
49. Juv. SlIt. 4.30-37 (although ]uvenal also mocks male bedfellows).
50. juv. Sat. 4.111-12; 6.24CHi7. The "joys" arc probably sexual
pleasures, as Teiresias the seer testified in the older Greek story. The
violence no doubt refers to bickering savagely with her husband in bed,
to which he refers in 6.268-85. This is, he complains, aU due to the influx
ofluxury in recent rimes; the hard-working, humble wives of old Latium
were chaste (6.286-305).
51. juv. Sat. 6.219-24; he goes on to norc that .he liso changes
husbands frequently. In 6.474-85, he again chatgcs that mltnloa will
abuse the slaves unless the husbands are there to ensure their ~
52. juv. Sat. 6.434-56.
53. In Petr. fro 6 (LCL).
54. Gould, "Law, Custom and Myth," p, 57, suggetll.
men of ancient Athens appear to have been uncomfontble with:
potential for their own undoing as reflected in the myths.
55. Cato the Elder 3. in Plut. SRDm., MDr. 198D (
cou.rse, this fits Plutarch's own view, but this is not nccessari1t
to dispute the likelihood that he depends on prior rndition.
56. Cic. Par. Stu;e. 36.
57. Rawson, MFamily." pp. 26-27.
58. Verner, HOlUthoU, p. 81.
59. Stambaugh and Balch. ~p.
60. Po.- his IinkiDs of bouIeIIaId .codcI
poJIa.lbe_
~
(chf·)
_ - - . _ Adst.1W. book l,
1 I o a I d d d ~
~

154
"1 covers PI3ronic matcrial and Stobac: .
Balch, ",j~ pro 2~"d~penden[ writers; pp. 33-49, the I4tOpoS~) Pp.
33-4 AJ1.st0tdlanan '1-59 the: same in eclectic Stoics hcnlO.t~e
'mpe~
9
J1C!iod; and p~ tens: Orner kinds ofsocial rclatio'ns coe~~$t1C
T"''5' aDd Neop~~~o:c's body, [0 the divine, and to ~thcr people: (~arbe
consttUaed, c.g.,b "C can say without doubt that lists of social d .c.
,\Ur. Md. S.27); utn"(Epiet. E.,heir. 30). For the household eod~"t>
were" /'"'~~~10S.J_2; 3.IS.1-4 (D. L. Balch, "Household Cod~:~
Scn= sa Liter..." and the Nno Testament, pp. 27-28); but th
in Grea-R,D"'.IJ" ofrhe non-Peripatetic examples appears to he HicrOCI c:
most conV1~~rte Exhortation, p. 85). For a treatment of previa t.s
{sec iDh~.c ~ern~, Household, pp. 16-22; Ba1ch~ Wives, pp. 1-20; ide:::
~~' ~ 47-50. Some commentators, "?tlOg that the Stoic and
ec:::~;IS (c.g., in Eduard Lohse, Co!osSlans and .Philemo'J, t:rans.
W.lliam Il pochlmann and Robert j. ~rns, Hetmene.. [Philadelphia:
Fortt'" 1971), pp. 154-57; Kelly, Peeer, pp. 107-8) were not particu·
larly c1O:C, and writing before the viewS ofBalch, LUhrmann, ~nd Thracdc
on the Perip21edc rOOts of the suucture b~ca.me gcne~lIy disseminated,
thought that this was a spontaneous .Chrisnan form In the NT (C. L.
Mitton, Ep/mia.s, NCSC [Gr~nd IUplds.: Eerd~ans, 1981), p. 194, is a
noublc example, ef. P. T. O'Snen, Colomarn, PhIlemon, WBC 44 [Waco,
Tex.: Wotd, 1982), pp. 215-26; G. E. Cannon.' Th~ Use 01 Traditional
MattrialJ in Colo"ians [Macon, Ga.: Mercer Uruverslty, 1983], pp. 111-
21. Leonhard Goppe/c, Tbtologyolfhe New Ttstr<",ent, trans. john E. A1.up,
2 vol5. [Grand R:tpids: Ectdmans, 1981-82), 2:169-70, regards ic as a Stoic
form but with roots in the Jesus uadition's affirmation of civil authority).
62. Slaves, like wives and children, were commonly considered
partofthc household, sec IUwson, "Family," pp. 7-8, in judaism, cf. OP]
1<249-50, §135 (second century BCB); p. Ter. 8:1, Safrai, "Home," p.
750.lc also included "freedmen, hired laborers, and other e1ienes" (Aunc,
Enpim,mtnt, pp. 59-60); cf. m. Ab. 1:5, where a pre·Christian Jewish
tcacber is said co exhort his hearers to "let the poor be sons of your
house," i.e., be (functionaL) dependents.
63. Arise. Pol. 1.2.1, 1253b (LCL). The three pairs also appear in
Arisl. P,I.l.2,". 11.5Sb; 1,5.3-4, 1259b; 3.4.4, 1278b.
~ II ~COdu," p. 27. Even Artettl. Ollcir. 1.24 defi~es as
an, ~wife, children, and slaves." lnteresnngly,
ly classifies as dependents or as those inca·
~slaves. and minors" (e.g., m. Suk. 2:8, p.
as deaf mutes and imbeciles arc
117-18, sees this as generallY
1IIce the Cynics, complecely
er(Meeks, World, p. 55).
d Aristotle's penchant
Thc SociAl SitJl.tum of EplJWUS 5:18-33 155
composed of ~ouseholds (Pol. 1.2.1, 1253b), but disagreed with those
who thought lU go\·crnment the same as that of the city·stat ( PL
1.1.2, 1252a). .., e e.g., •
68. In Grant, Re/igitms, pp. 131-33, especially p. 132. This text
is from second century CE Asia, probably copying an earlier one
from Egypt.
69. E.g., Sir. 7:18-28.
70. Apologetic concerns could also be reflected in Palestinian
Jewish community laws; d., c.g., Sifre Deut. 344.3.2.
71. Malherbe, Aspe&ts, p. 51; cf. Meeks, Urbtul Cbrisria.ns~ p. 106.
72. los. A.!J. Ap. 2.201-17, sec especially the commen.. in Balch,
"Codes," pp.. 28-~9. This is true despite the fact that Josephus is often
partly defendl?g himself (cf. Clemens Th.oma, "'Die Weltanschauung des
Josephus FlavIUS. Dargcstdlt anhand seIDer Schilderung des jOdisc.hen
Aufstandes gegen Rom [66-73 n. Chr.],· Kniros 11 [1,1969]: 39-52).
On the importance of apologetic in Greek-speaking Judaism, cf. c.g.,
C. R. Holladay, l1JeioJ AtI" i" H&lluJisti& ]uJRinn, SBLDS 40 (Missoula
Mont.: Scholars, 1977), passim. W"hilc: agreement has not been rcached
on whether many of our Greck- Jewish documents were meant to convert
Greeks to Judaism, or Jews to a greater level ofhelleniution (e.g., Victor
Tcheriko\'er, "'The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas," HTR Sil2, April
1958]: 60, 83; I think this much less likely, especially for AristC3S, whose
readers would not have understood it had they not already had Greek
education), or just as genera.! propaganda showing that Jews were respect-
able citizens of Greek cities like Alexandria, 1 believe that it is fair to look
for apologetic clements in most of this literature.
73. Besides those familiar to us from Colossians, Ephesians,
I Peter, and possibly I Timothy, sec Did. 4; Ign. A"tio,h. 9-10 (probably
pseudonymous).
74. On 1 Pecer. sec Balch, Wives, pp. 81-116. Also Aune, BIIw
rO'Jment, p. 196, and others, foUo\\~ng Balch.
75. Cf. Meeks, World, pp. 128-29 (on I Thcss.loniana).
76. Sec Balch, Wives, pp. 90-92, for data ftom ancient mo
that would strengthen this contenti.on.
77. C. L. Rogers, jr., "The Dionysian Background ofJ:\phCJ'
5:18," BibSa, 136 (543, July 1979): 257, suggestS tha~ che admonitlo
of wifely submission in 5:22 is anti-Dionysiac. We acknowledge aposalb
connection with Dionysus, but the polemic is more likely to
Christians from Roman perceptions of that cult than agalnauny 1
that cult was likely to have been malting into firat·een cb
78. One might also aslt, if the usc ofthe HlI
codes, in Bph. 5 is apologetic, why he does D
astrological eonnotations to his language In Bph. 1
lOme conservative Romans (like the later
astro1ollel$. But there wu widClpreada
even pan of state eults; and
standard fartJJl
156
79. E.g., Rom. 12:17; 1 Cor. 6:6; 10:32; 14:23-25' 2
J Tbess. 4:12. ' Cor. 8:2:
80. C£. <he simil~ ~gument _o~ Alan Padgett, "The P. .
DonaIe for Submi"ion: Blblieal Fen~J1l1Sm and the hint< Cla-: hne Ra·
2:1-JO; EQ59 (l.. Jan.19~): 39-~2; Johnson, "RC$pons<:,~in %litu..
5
ANJbPril7(; me Brble, p- 1~7_ ·"'eo,
Mutual Submission in
Ephesians 5:1&-33

In dK b.<t chzp<a: ..-c g,.- dtu· _ - . lOr mQcm:

Cbrisrians no< to be ,ic..-ai as 0IJda:mining Ibc abies dtu W'Ctt
bD\ding Roman socicq' roytba:. They cocld p> bc!ood tbooc
ethio--2S we uguc in this dI:ap<a din tbcv did-bm lOr Ibc sal:c
of thrir ..imcss and tbcir ~ P:rnl ~m 0Jri0tiaD cdIia
in rams tb2.r ..-auld best CDlIlIIllJIIian to thdr Ibc axnl
supaiorit)' of~'_
PaulllD<kntood 11K p2I1iaJbr...tucsof on<iau.~'"
enough to ~ bov; best to Unpaa it.. Thooc...-bo d>ouP _
2boutmorali,,-intbatcuhurecalk:d0ll.muUJoba·2Dd~
to gm-em me;,. honorably. PauI-*is lhc numc.co ;,r-obc:cIi<aa!'
and "ruling,~ but be does DOt mind alling on "';"'<$ to suhaIil_
husbands to 10\.." bcausc this ..os bc1Nrior that sbonId iaIIclat
chara=rize all Christians. Paul docs all thildJrn md aa- III
obey; we shall exa~ the cmonations to than in lhc foIIoeiIIs
chapter.
for all the social <1omc:n~mism in Paul s,.-urds, thac isJU
a sub..",sivcness he dares not pia}' down. AU bclic\'CtS 'IIUC eqaI
bcfure God in Christ, regardless of race, social swus, or ~
cr.
(Eph. 2:11-22; 4:4-6; Gal. 3:28; I Cnr.12:13).1n1bis
we shall argue that, despitr Paul's atWDP' m rdaIc to
,,,",ucs in Greco-Roman culn=, his ..uds difti:r fiOIIl
precisely ..'here Paul believed those vaIncs fCIl
of God.
Intcrestingl)', whm Paul calls 011
sians 5:22 he presents this as a •
sion ofall bdicvas to one aJlCIChU
form of household c:odcS
 Paul, ~Vl)men. IUJd Wipes
158

wife's submission in general Christian submissio h .\lIl/'Hd Submission irl Epbui4ns 5:18-33
meaning of tbose codes. Yes, the wife ShOllid s:i,
~ qU,lifics th
159

band; but the husband, following Christ's exam Iml[ to her hus~ thing," this would no doubt have struck a resonant chord both in
.
ciaJ service r
cor hi S Wile,
'r
al bsu"
so must P e of
mit lumselft h' self· .
. sacnfi. Jewish rcaders who knew of God's providence in the Bib\c6 and in
is even more explicit than that d,e wife should 10 ~s WIfe. This
0
man)' Gentile rcaders influenced by common counsels of the time
even as he loves her (cf. 5:2, 25). ve er hUSb,nd (0 be satisfied with God's or Fate's dccrccs. 7 In one list of virrues

In ~is ch~pter '~c will examine several features of t
under conSideranon. Fltst, the text addresses the he text
q uestion of how believers
., S
arc able to live a subm,,:,oSt pr.,ctic.1
ISSlve hfe· b
depending on the Spirit. <cond, to understand what P I ' Y
by the wife's submission we must consider how and why a~ means
expected to submit in antiquity, so we will examineWlves were
. . d' f,' th women's
inferior starus m soclCty.an In enor au. ority in the home. Third
w~ \~1I10?~ at how anCIent rc:aders might have read wives' 'sub:
mISSion," if It ~verc. not place~ In rhe context of mutual submission
Fourth, we will bnefly examme the call for husbands to love rh .'
wives and the role models of Christ and his church. Finally, we \~~
investigate the nature of mutual submission in this passage and
consider the relevance of the nearesr ancient parallels to this ide•.
for instance, Epictetus declares that the wise man wilt be "free'
serene, happy ... giving thanks for all things to God, under n~
circumstances finding fault 'with anything that has happened, nor
blaming."8
But another expression of being filled with the Spirit affects
one's relationships with others, particulart)· in the home. Those
who arc fiHed with the Spirit will also be I4 submitting to one
another out of regard for Christ" (v. 21), and this mutual submis-
sion will be expressed in specific family relationships in t.he house-
hold (5:22-6:9).
This means that Christians cannot complain that whnt God
asks in the following passage is too difficult for rhc:m bcc:luSC of
their own background or emotional makeup. The power of the
Spirit is sufficient in believers' lives to enable them to fullill God's
will in interpersonal relationships.

THE SPIRIT AND SUBMISSION: EPHESIANS 5:18-21

Sometimes 5:21 is translated as if it begins a new section
only incidentally related to the preceding section: "Submit to one
another." 1 But it is more likely that the Greek phrase "submitting
to one another" retains here its usual force in the context of the
parallel p\lrases that precede it: a subordinate participial clause
dependent on the preceding imperative. 2 In other words, the
submission of 5:21, like the worship of5:19-20, flows from bemg
filled with God's Spirit (v. 1&).3 . preceding chaprer.
Those who arc filled with the Spirit, as opposed to ~~I~g
> show their inspiration by the Spmt 10
er* and worshiping God (5:19-20,l.
ews the charismatic, corporate worshIp
onnative part ofearly Christianity, not JUst
ttl that he was powerless to change (l Cor.
et leads believers to w~lShip
ovcr the tJlllvetsC
caJJlC. WlIC!'
WOMEN'S INFERIOR STATUS IN l'I:OME AND SOCmTY
vVhcn Paul calls on wives to submit) his words, even taken
in dldr strongest possible scnse, do not call wives to further
subjugation. At their strongest, his words merely fail to challen
the prevailing structures of authority in society. perhaps beet.
challenging authOrity structures was not his purpose in this Ie
and would have accomplished little in his situation cltcept
increase the persecution of Christians, as we suggested in
But before we can ask whether Paul meant submission
way his contemporaries meant it, we must ask exactly how
K
contemporaries did mean it, and ask whar the Koonnal ro
women were in his day. We shall6rst examine the pen!
women in and around Paul's day, and then turD ro the
what wives' submission meant for most andeot_
 160
. \lCCnaean Greece,10 but ~c:ir sta~s had declined signifi_
labor Ul M.c . of Plato and Aristotle, at least in Athen 12
candy by the Dm~ seclusion thete has been exaggerated it se:'
AJrhough w~~e.n :nd(','en presence: was not valued in d.i~cussi rns
us
dlat weir opUllOO 13 Their position seems to ha"e impro"ed in °th
oral matlers. . - -' I e
on 01 'cs before the sp=d ofChnso:uury,. at east wh~rc We have
~lU/1 H This was not least true ID ~Ja, the proVUlce whcre
""dCOCC· ..L E hesians was senL'"
Paul's letter to me P
. b"~ Paurs da\f
Bor ('\en ." . men fdt that women "''''r-
many .. ...
. "eaka than mcn.. 1D Among those ,~ho eJ:p~csscd such
~l rominen[ philosophers and moralists_ Earlier pbiloso-
''IC\I<S "ut ~cdirc.d "ith a pra,'er of gratimdc that they "'e« nor
pba> ~'Ue 17 and a CCDtuJ1; ~ec Paul a Stoic emperor COUld
born omen, f 11-
differenri2te a ,,-omen's soul from that 0 a~. ~de fdt
that ';tUIC .'as diffa'ent for w~ and men; Just as It was !be
.~ of lhc master to command WISely, and of the slave to oller
diligtndy so the different DablCes of men and women required
lhcm tD ~~ virtue in different _ys.19
lbc evidence is lIOt always dar-cut: it is nor aU "for" or
'" •me" women.~ ~ ~ J'luW'cb is a asc in point. He:
1P' char women can aaJUI"' . S'UtlKS,
. 21 -_.. he .....'-c ..L. ' - - -.....
al.. y ' - we ...... _,
oJIoooo
of sirtDom women rhrougbout bitwry.n But when Plutarch atgIIO
dm.omcnshould Icam pbiIoJopby from dteir hu.sbaOOJ, it is in pan
~ be bclin'o thu iftcft to thcmsek'es, apan from men, women
will produce only mr patIioas and fooIUh"",.23
Swic pbiIotopIKrs IikesvUc declare that women are capable
of the _ \'inuea at JJIC11. u But this Wa$ all tOo often a theory
lIOtll*lSbrcdiatopnaicc.25Jn theory, a man and a~om~ could
lie _ virtues, but the different d,spO'1001U of
Cilher characteristics Were thought to lead them
in diffuCllt ways.26 While equality w~ good
pbi1osophm who advocated such a t~eO~
bJer.ardlic:al roles in borne and socrety.
~ ~ ~~C:Qt aver Aristotle, who had
t from that of women,
anding, whereas
161
out mistrust of \\foments mor.U character in JC\vish t:e.Xts is ofttn
stronger than what \\~ find in the phitosophc.rs..l9 inc~ the e
Jewish texts wefe written by mc.n and for m~n, WomeD -arc usuall"
\ricwod only in tcn:ns o~ their .rel-a.tionship to mc.o, Oft~D as obj~
of sexual tempranon In ethical .dmonitiOIlJ" and as \.\"\,cs and
d.ughters in \\isdom Uld la.... 30
There is a striking prcpond.eS'allcc ofwlut would appear to
US as ncgari\'c C\'aluadons of v"omc.o in earl}" )~ish litcnm£'C. An
earl,' JC"isb teacher wbose ,,"od wa, undoubtedl" l<nm>n to Paul
ad\'ised men not to sit among women, beausc ~iI COtnei from
them like .. moth c:mcrging from cloches. !l. man', eJ'iI, rhb tachcr
went on to complain, is bcua dun .. ,,"'OID2O'S good, for brillp
onll' sbame and reproach." Thc some tad>er wuns oi Ihc bud·
ships ofbeing married lJ) an eJu """"" dcodopmg .. thtmc thai
also appeatS in PrO'·abi.>2
The earI)' Jeorish teacba l1illd said 10 ba e ...\Ociued
women .ith sorceria,U and «>me Ia.ta nbbis eJ<paDded on dUo
ouggesrioo.U A still Iarcr ra.bbi poinB .... t tha the lmua.1 Jcucr
of Satan'. name fim appears io the Bibk at the uca.tioa of be.
and dca"os from this the conchuioo that .no ..... created .
woman. n WomCll are oaid. 10 a Ddspora Jnnsb 18
do rbeir best to trick men into falJiOS'" a1Iy,~ aad lIDIidMIr
sucb document declato [hal out of tUtY tlwusa.nd pcapk
dcslruction, only one woman had as many sood dec4a
dee<h.J1
Thae • ere: otha sigm of. woman'. IOfcrior IOCiII
in earl)' Judaism. One is thc ofi -oud pny<:r of a. JuefaJJ:»
A man mlUl fUl,C chrc:c bencdlclt.........cry day.•~
1'hou. 0 Lord .. 1..110 did 001 make me • pntilc ••
(isnoramlU). . lor1' _nco A FJIIIc_ ScripIqIl!
All tbe nations atC nodUnS before him.•.• A
doa not feat sin" 1m Abot 2:5). A ~
obIIpted (10 perform aU] the ~
ThiJ prayer '!WI probably noI ill lIIIll
CCIItUry, but it rdlcca a garaaBy
raIity; it not oaIy the
~··_Il~""ll!!!I
I'C8ClcIed m
 tO~
Although Pales~an Jewish women had sOme
tm.r their contempor:mes lacked under Greek and R freedom,
rabbinic law also suggests women's generallv infen' oman law, ..
, .5 Th th , O t SOCIa! '
in Palestinian Judaism, at e woman was acqu' d Starus
~"6 ' Ire as \ '6
the legal analogy of proper" IS not P,,,,:ticularly significa '": o~
jusr reflects the customary way of descnbmg the husb ' nt, thIS
sive sexual rights to his wife under law" and does n and s e.cIu_
,
the wife was Vlewed h h b ' Otmeanth
_ ' by er us and as Impersonal prOperty'8 at
More significant, however, was ,her legal responsibili '
obey her husband and surrender to him any income she ~ to
receive,<9 A second-century law also appears to place h' gbt
, Ii" th a Igh.,
Priority on a man s .,e or property , an on a WOman's ' and a hi ghtr
riority on protecnng a woman s sexual purity than th
P " Iy on women or offer them nO a
man,so Laws th at re fl ect poslOve
tecrionSI do not change this indication that the husband P~o~
superior social Staros and power,
Old Testament rules about a woman's menstrual "unclean_
ness" were developed and extended by later Jewish legal authori-
ties, which came to restrict the interaction of women and strict
male observers of such rulings, 52 But from an earlier period,
respectable Jewish men in Palestine avoided social Contact with
women for much less ceremonial reasons. It was argued thn on,
should not sit among women;s. indeed, sitting near another's wife
could lead to desitinS her and thus to destruction,5<
A pre-C/uistian Jerusalem teacher and those who com,
mented on IWn 2Ce reported to have said: "~d do, not mul,tiply
, ..nth a woman' th"" said this concermng one 5 own Wlfe-
goSSip wo • -, f"
how much the more concerning the wife 0 one 5 compamon.
The end rault of indulging in chatter with a woman, ~e Sa~es
h~.5$ One rabbinic interpretation of this saYIng
to the danger of being seduced; annther
was that it meant that trusting a wo~an
• 56 Even conversing with a relative pUb~;
ropriate for a scholar, since onlookers ITIIpert
_ a relative and could (presu~ablY):laIC!
S7lnd~" 10 important was thiS matt , sa
~ __"In 'rb women.
God~lfavoidedD,.,--g~ a wolllJll's
~men.59 andtb'J
Mutual Sub".imon in Ephe.sUlns 5:18-33 163
cion of women's testimony as part of God's law, baxd in the: moral
inferiority inherent in their gender:
Put not trust in a single 'witness, but let there be three or at the
least twO, whose cvidence shall be accredited by their past lives.
From women let no evidence be accepted, because: of the le"ity
2nd temerity of their sex; neither let sLaves bear witness. because
afthe baseness of their sou1.60
Many Jewish writers thought of women as unstable: and
overly talkarive. 61 This is at least as true: in most Jewish writings
from outside Palestine as it is in Palcstine.6 J: Philo, our most
f productive example of a Jewish writer outside: Palestine, indicates
as a matter of common knowledge that women arc ~cndowcd by
nature with little sense,"63 and generally associatc:,s them with
a sense-knowledge, the opposite of masculine rationality,64 The Sen-
tences of the Syriac Menander warn a man-c.spcciaUy one seeking
a prospective wife-to avoid the talkative woman.65 ]ewisb women
may have been somewhat better off in the Roman province of
Asia,66 but the evidence adduced for this indicates only that more
women gained prominence there than in Palestine. The same
evidence demonstrates that such upwardly mobile women re-
mained in the minority even there.
For whatever reason-it may have often been economic67-
male children also were often preferred to female children Il1
Jewish Palestine. 68 (This attitude was, however, srrongerelsewbcrc
in the Mediterranean world. For instance, a Greek dream ha,ndf
book predicts that a dream about male children is a favorable
" omen, but a dream about female children augurs bad luck.)69 'I'1'df
is not to imply that daughrers were less loved than SCIU, but it ~
reinforce the picture of their generally inferior soeial statuS ill-
antiquity.
The picture is not wholly negative, of eoune.70 AAde
literary texts, it seems that Jewish women oUlSlde PaIaI:iJIc;:
possibly within paJealine u well) rook part publidy h\
their communities.71 In Palestine women were DOt CQ
home and could work in local .bops.n aDd
required to allow blJ wik relalive ticedDJIl
thcr. the hubuIit wata1.waylto
'1'hatdlfti. .~
 M,m,"l SubmiJ:Sion i" Ephes£ans 5:18-33
164 165
' . c: who foHows his wife's counsel will descend into
R,ab also saId. H Papa objected to Abaye: BU~ people say, If your feminine ~irrue) it is, not unna~u.ral that the men thought this
GelJm na . ... R. d down and hear her whlsper!-There is no self-co~SClO~S?ess.an LI1nate femInme ~ait, despite the exceptions,
c
c:
wife is shOft, ben fi 5 [0 general matters; the other to house.
difficulCY: the on re rsion : the onc refers to religious matters
ffiUrs. Anotllee v . 7S '
and tlus antiCipation perpetuated their expectations of women's
normal unsuitability for societal Ic::adership roles.
hold a lar questions. The submission of wives was standard in ancient culture.
roe other to seell
Roman law gave mcn binding authority over their wives and
int is not to argue that men did not care about
unmarried daughters. 86 Early Roman aristocrats were said to have
Our po th they nearly always regarded them as suited
women, but rather latders by virtue of their disposition.'" Some believed that women themselves preferred submission to their
£, II wers not e a , . f th . husbands over freedom. 87 Marriage contracts from first and second
to be a a h ; this disposition was an mn."te part a e~r ge~der; century BCE Egypt stipulate specificaUy that the wife must be
Wrltcrs felt t a em to have entertamed the question tither submissive to her husband. 88
'ters do not se .' d .
most wn vast majority of male wnters Vlewe .women as SOCially Philosophers had long extolled this virtue. Centuries before
way. B~t the ften i noring those women wh.o VIolated the stereo- the New Testament period, Aristorle argued that the man was by
subordmate, o. ~ noring them as exceptions to the rule. nature superior to rile woman and fit to rule her. 59 Plato described
type, or someomcs 0
a woman's virtue as taking care of the home and being obedient
to her husband. 9o In the Roman period, a Stoic writer thanb the
HE MEANING OF WIFELY SUBMISSION gods for an "obedient" wife. 91 A Cynic mOtJIIH, pretending to
T I the feminine ideal in antiquity, in light of give womanly advice to women, demands that doing whatever her
~hat t len. was of women's eharacter? And what would husband wants must be the rule by which the virluous woman IIvea
these dltTerent. v~ews have meant in the light of this ideal? Tradi. her Iife. 92
womanly submlss!on poruayed the feminioe ideal as supportive I.t appears in other writel1i as simply the expeeled norm
. aJ Roman wnters .. h
non . 77 Ro inscriptions similarly md,eate t at women of ancient society. Artemidorus in hi8 dream handbook auumo,
and subserVient. man . d I that wives, like children ..\d sl.ves, "obey" their men,93 and In
. II honored foJ' their roles as mothers, wlves~ or. aug I'
were usua y h the sometimes made odler eontnbutlons to Apuleius' novel, Psyche promised to obey her unseen hu.band....
te.r~, eV::pdlOugfthe mYale ideal of women's submissioll was that As usual, the writings of Plutarch shed IIghr on andell
society. art 0 Id .d "hy" moral thinking concerning the iasue at hand. Pltnarch In.l.tI 4)
they be meck, quiet, and apparen~ly what we wou . eo~sl er s n ti\e wife's full submission in soclaJ and religious mottersi she I. to
and ".clf.conldous" in the presence of m~n. ThiS did n.o~ me~'9 shore her husband's friends, rarher than to l1lake her own, and thUI
thattwomanwou!dJ1cvcr be valued or praised fo~ her WIS 0 m.' she should also aeecpl his godJi and rellgionY' It ia proper for.
~omanJy ideal incl'uded a qUiet and rce 1uslve
man ro rule hi, wife, and 0 mon who fill\cd to do .0 wo11ld cOIllC
;el$:mcnts were, for normal women, at best under Plutareh'a critlcism.9•
The few e"lant Jewish writm from the fir'l century
lea t equally in iatent. The lewi.h "hUolOphcr Philo
the masculine r11les the femloine,97 and deacrlbCl elm
duty to her hu.band in the language of alive
attributes to "the Law" the view that the
her hu.band: "The woman, aays the law.,ll
the man. Let ber accordiAgly ~.
tion, but that .he may
to the OWl.""

166
ewish writers seem to have shared thi~ vi~w.l00 A
Most J k dmonishes a man not to let his WIfe ha ve
pre_Christian w?r a ' le he Iives. 'OI The ideal wife in this work
. vcr him W hI h th IS
.uthont)' o. d odest,I02 chaste, in a orne at the husband
'
silent, rcs~~7 ~e work, God disciplined Adam with death fo
rulcs wel!.' hi n o"e who should have been subject to him 'In:
.. to SWW,
Iistenl~~ The later rabbis al;o recognized the husband's authority
stead. d 10:1
ver his wife as srandar. .' 'b
o In orber words, subIIllttUlg to on.e s hus and and other
malerdatives was part and p~rcel of~hat It meant to be a "good"
woman in ancient society. Thl~ may"glVe us s~me sy.mp.athy for the
rardY told perspective of the bad w~men 10 ant;tqwty, many of
whom may h3\'e simply been nor.mal WlVes srruggllOg to deal with
insensitive husbands. Some ma:na~es may have been nearly equal,
with husbands and wives wor!?"g 10 ~e market tog~ther; but the
ideal modd propagated in ancient socle~ was that WIVes should be
submissive and obeclicn!, often even slaVls~ly s.o..
Paul urges submission, but by placlOg It m thc context of
mutual submission (see above), hc defincs it quitc differently than
most of his culture clid, even at the risk of raising the charge of
subversion be bad worked so carefully to avoid. Paul does not call
on wives to take charge of their husbands, but calls on husbands
to love rbeir wives in such a raclica1 way that husbands become their
wives' servanu, too.
HUSBANDS' LOVE FOR. THEIll WIVES
'That husbands and wives normally loved each other is, of
course,~afClrcgQl1cconclusion; whatever else love might
ha" it 'Would naturally have been used
onsbip between busbands and wive~.
cated by widows or widowers to th~lr
'.to thiS affection among all soml
.Mutual Suhm;l1ion in Ephtli,uII5:J8-33
167
Nevertheless, the responsibility f th h
wife is not explicitly stressed as much '1
. . ..
° e. USb\;nd to love hi.
n anCient Itcrature th
wlfe's rcsponslbllny to submit to him thou h thols . as c
because it was generally assumed. Th~ hou gh ld may 10 part be:
.
tnsrructe
d th h se 0 codes normall
e ead of the household how t " I " " Y
his wife, rather than how to love her. 0 ru e or govern"
Paul is certainly among the minority of ancient writers in
~hat he d.evotes more space to the exhortation of husbands to love
10 Ephes,lans 5 th~n to that of wives to submit. In our culture his
exhortanon to WIVes ~o submit stands out more strongly; i~ his
culture, th~ exhonanon to husbands to love, rather than the
normal adVice to rule the home) would have stood Out more
st:o~gly. Fu~th,er, Paul does not address the husband's role in the
Wife s. s~b~)ssl?n; .he does not urge the husband to inculcate
submiSSIOn In Ills ~V1fe. Paul's only instructions to the husband are
to serve her as Christ served the church, and, since husband and wifi:
arc "one flesh" (Gen. 2:24), to love her as he would his own body.
ROLE MODELS: CHRIST AND THE CHURCH
Like any good ancient teacher, Paul was ready to C1~
authoritative role models to demonstrate how submission ancU
were to be expressed. Not settling for any secondary challl
Paul chooses for each the most authoritative models availabl
him: Christ as the lover and the church as submitter. Christli
~he example of love for the whole church (Eph. 5:1); the ch
IS naturally enough not cited as the role model for its own sub
sion in 5:21, but the parallelism is clear enough: all are to ub
as pan of the church, and all are to love as Christ did.
Husbandly love and wifely submission in this con
become examples of those more general virtues, rather
ments that love is only the husband's role, and lubm' ,
wife's. Indeed, Christ's love is explicitly defined '
terms of self-sacrificial service, not in
(5:25-27). Of course, authoritarian leade
Wets with the teaching and exaJJIPle of.
Gospels. to thOle who ad~
ftethardtay
11w
 16Il
II vgnizC 3 ",ud'> more nanu-a1 s.oun:e for Paal',
",os::,dIofz!I ~ and his readers acccp~cd the Old T <stamem
iaJ:J!C- ~a B'<>w and /inl1Id there plen~: of ~am~[e> of a certain
as G<Jd. orord. ~: Go<f'.cov=r relanonsm? WIth Israel is often
""s:JCIC'f ~ rcms.1l3 This, iImtge connnued to be used bv
__......-.I m dies<- tl< • thus also need to render to their wives.'"
puw-,-- [ . PauYs rime and later.
J~ peop eh"'. _d and wife became "one fle>h~ (Gen. 2:24)
•Jl15ras
s chUTch is his body, and t h ' . 'd him ue One spirit'
os<- JOtDe to
~~ I Cor. 6:17). m The emphasis here is not on hie<a<chy
with him ( spiritual and sexual unity.IIO We have dealt with
but ?n on~ess'of~headship" in chapter 1, but whatevrr Paul Or
paul
m s meanmg -_. P aul ddin es It
_-'"'ID genc:r.u,
ay have meant by "ho:au . by
his
a er5 m ...-;,;cally as "Savio~ (Eph. 5:23). The wife recog.
aoage here '1"-- f b .. his
. her husband as ~head" in terms 0 5U ID1tong to authority
~;2-23), but me husband recognizes ~ headship in terms of
loving and serving his wife (5:28-30). The lIDageofhead and body
h e is meant to emphasize especially that the hll5band and wife
s~uld see themselves as one and work together with a common
pl1ljlOse and goal (5:31).
Many household codes were addressed as instructions only
to the male householder,n7 but Paul addresses his instructions to
each member of the household. He wants wives to do their put
and husbands to do their part-not to use his letter to enforce the
other person's part. Although Paulll5C5 the most socially accept·
able language of,his day to present his case, his point is that both
partners must seek to serve one another because of Christ's reign
in their lives. It is likely that their roles will be different, according
with their own background and cultural leadership rnodels that
develop diffi:r.e.al uw. and preferences along gender lines. But
Paul~:JIO ~etiol1J on tr3l16cultural role differences here,
dtJaning or who works outside the home, He
nage relationJhip in terms ofmutual service.
I~
rmJecs Paul'.exhoctanon quite weak bymricnt <lards..
context in which Panl places his ahcrtation su.: li6 ,Bnt tbe
. . . f qna cs. It much
more: It IS an expressIon 0 the kind of snbmission all en' .
render to one another, the kind thar Christian hllSbands':"'"
onId
It is cJ~ ~[the: submission ofverse 22 cannot be other
than ~e SUbp~s.sl~n of verse 21 fro'm the: simple fact that the:
word su~m1tnng does Dot eVeD appear in the Greek: text of
ve~~ 22: It has to be borrowed from verse 21. I, is perfectIv
lcgJomatc to read verse 22, ~\Vives, submitting to your hw'-
bands,'" as long as we understand that we must take verse 22 as
an example 0.£ verse 21's mnmal submission. Indeed, one com-
menrator p~>lnts Out thaT verse 22 might be translated, "for
examplc:, WIVes to your husbands," and this is no doubt its
force.l2° \Vives should submit '0 their husbands because ehri .
tians should submit to one: another. S
Paul's ugument hen:: is both powerful and weU crafted. If
wives submit to their hll5bands, Roman moralists and others could
nor claim that Christianity sub"erred pagan morals. But if the
hll5band ~o submits~ and hll5band and wife act as equals before
God, Paul IS demanding something more than Roman moraJisl:s
typically demanded, not less.
Further, Paul enjoins thar submission must be done out i;If
"the feu of Christ" (5:21 ).121 Someone who keeps in
he or she has a Lord in heaven is not likely to lord it over 0
but to take more wiUingly his or her place as a servant-w!i
the world views them as master or servant (6:7-9).
Would Paul's readers have caught the idea thar he was
to quality what he said about wives' submission! Since IOm~
writers in Paui's day also qualified such expressions, we mil
that they would have. For instance, the Stoic writer
assigns the hll5band the public duties and the wife tho
duties, but he is not willing to separate these rolel CO
As mentioned above, many Stoia maintained both wo
equality and the propriety of their sociaI.ubordina
In a marriage relationJhip, Plutarch
and wife act in barmoniOllt COllJCtlll
Olean by Olutul tQbDJiMio
luuband'. 1 •
..
~dwith
 PlJul, Womt7t, ana WIPer
170
terms of the wife's duty to ,:,~ey her husband, and that the hUsb
should rule her with senslUVlty: and
So it is with women also; if they subordinate thcm.~l
vc to tb~jr
hu,bands the)' arc: commended, but if they Want to h vcs
they cut ; sorrier figure than the subjects of their c: control.,
canuol ought [0 be: exercised by the man over the wo;troJ. And
h
the owner has control of a piece of property, but u an nOt as
controlS the body, by entering into her feelings and bein t k~ lOul
'l1 . . d • bl g Indio
her through good WJ ••• It JS C$lra c to ~ovcrn a w"fi
the same time to delight and gratify herY' I c, and at
This is one ofthe most "progressive" social models in Paul'
day" and is similar
. to the one Paul advocates . . for his read ers,s
although Paul, unlikc Plutarch, does not expliCItly call thc wives to
obedience (5:21-22).
But does Paul mean by mutual submission exactly what
Plutarch means by his instructions? In this case, he would then
have to mean that wives should always submit, and husbands
should submit only in the sense that they lovingly look out for their
wives' interests. If this is wbat Paul intends, we might even be led to
think that Paul means the wife's submission in the complete and total
sense in which Plutarch means it. Paul would then be saying that
all Christians should submit to one anothe~, but they should submit
in different ways, as detailed in /tis list of duties in 5:22-6:9.
But while others speak of wives, slaves, and children sub·
mitting differently,128 they do not speak in terms of everyon,
submitting: rate indeed is the ancient writer who would, with Paul,
call1Jit people, including the male heads of h0useholds, to submit
to one another-other writers certainly would not have had them
share the saroe verb as Paul does in 5:2l-22. Other writers may
have qualified:trll • onal gender roles, but no one we know of
aul did. 129
toad Paul as making a much more
both because of what Paul says
J • es SO
not say, He subordinates W1V
'ty so strongly, that it is ~~cult to
~wral subordinaoon .
gdwral issue for the ~e~
_....en: at nee value 111
""'" d~
Mutual Submiuilm in EplJtsu.ns 5:18-?J
171
shou~d ~oderatcly conform to the general social ideal without
fighting "I[. AJ[h~u~h he npLicitly defines the wife's submisJion
only as respect (~:33), he emphasizes this duty from the wife
mar.c ~an from .~c husband to relate to the CUlture in which
Ch~s~ans wc:re hvmg out their \\irness. But wouJd Paul expca
Christian worn.en tod~y to conform to the forms of submi.s5ion that
were standard In Paul s day? Or would he expect Christian submis-
sion, both for the hu.sban~ and the wife, to take a different form?
Interpreters who differ on this matter may read the Arne:
cultural. background and interpret Paul's words to his own
culture In the same way_ Bur whether we bcli~c that the nature of
mutual submission will Ix different in our cuJrore than it was then
depends ~n part on how well we know ancient culture. It is unlikely
that a WIfe today cD,#ld perform the duties ancient cultures ex-
pected of wives and still submit to husbands in our culture Who
would most likely find the cultural differences impossibly fr~strat.
ing. It would not be possible for wives to submit in all other
cultures in exactly the same way Paul was suggesting wives submit
in his day.
Whether we believe that mutual submis ion must be prac-
ticed in the same form today as it was back then also depends in
part on a different question: how we get from the "then" to the
"now" in biblical intcrprellltion. The question is not whether to
apply and obey Paul's words, but rather how to apply and obey
them in a new setting. 130
Those of us who both study the Bible in tlle light of its
culture and preach it to congregations face this question every lime
we preach, trying to apply the principles of the Bible in the W&y
most relevant to oUr listeners. When we preach narrative, we 1001:
for the moral of vhe story and apply it, and we do the same when
we read what Paul addressed to various situations in his chlll'd)cs.
I am convinced that, in many cases except for the issue ofw
submission, we simply unconsciously assume that thil
way to read the Bible. But when it comes to an iss
submission, where a cultwally informed r
challenge our cburclt traditions, we ue Sl,1!1
Bible on these terms.
One issue ofdebate ill.
that is no longer II. ma~
BCQusc I czpect
~oDist$ that"
 Pa"I, Women, atld W;pt,t
172 M"tII,,1 SJlbmission in EplJtsilinJ 5:18-33
173
read the Bible's teachings abo~t slavery can be very instructive ~
hoW we read the Bible's teachl~gs about women. This is especia~r imperatival participle on rabbinic H b
Patti a"d Rabbinic Jltdnism, 4th ed e ;e~v hal3.~h (sec W. D. Davies
the case since Paul goes on. III the very context we have bee;' 329, following Daube) but it is d"ffi [ lhdadd p hl3: Fortress 1980] ,
discussing to address slav~s ~n much the ~ame man net that he
l
would have been famili';'" with such a ~~
t to suppos~
that Pa~l's reade~
to Greek usages. m except as It had come to rdate
bas addressed wives. To thIS ISsue we turn In the next chapter of
2. Cf. J. P. Sampl<y 'A.d ,h T1
this book. SNTSMS 16 (Cambridge: c'ambrid c eUn~o ~all Bec;cm,.e One Flesh,'
although I do not share Robinson's ~ ea.llverslty: 1.97.1), pp. 114-16,
3. cr. e.g., the imperative (~p to p~tnStlC htcnturc here.
CONCLUSION conuols the infinitives in l7:22b-25 prayer) 10 Ps. Sol. 17:22a th:lt
As has often been pointed out, Ephesians 5:22-33 adv . .4. Reciprocal usc: of the rdle~ve. Pi.l" .
yen li~c those 10 the Pnlms
cates mutual submission. The only explicit definition of the wir.~ could mclude exhortation' Tobit's wei
even a call to rcpentanc~ for Israel [[~~.rraYfr m Tob. 13:6 include.s
submission in the text is that she respect her husband, and thoue ~ antiphonal singing among the Thcrape 1 0 ~~. reports male· female
Paul probably has more in mind than this, his call to sUbmissi~ could educate one :lOothcr as some: G u~. a 109 Wlt~ one another
whil< engaging in philosophy (sec ~:~ h <hough.' JeWISh people did
was oot at all radical. Paul defines the busband's submission t
much greater derail, however, and defines it in terms of Cbrist~ r
Greek and lAti" Authors on Jews tJnd J d p. rastus, In Men:Jhc:m Stem,
Academy of Sciences and Humanities 9;~431 v~.ls. [Jeruulcm: Israel
sdf-sacrificial service on behalf of tbe church. Paul's language 5. cr. Mitton, Ephesians, • i90-9 ,.10). .
seemS to go considerably beyond his culture in this respect. (nness in v. 18 suggests to J ~ . 1. The COntrast WIth drunk·
Ephesian" 2d cd. (London: Ja"';cs CI~blO;~~4)SI P~I/IIJ Epi"l. II JW
Some ancient writers did believe that husbands should
context is not public worsh.ip but a eo e, 't'
22, that the JOew
nurture their ,vives as persons of equal worth, yet wives should public pagan fcasts in the C;cck citic:sm~u~n: ea thar took the place of
obey their husbands. Their language concerning mutuality is not private religious meals rather than public hcrc~ a~n;I~~a~~o~~ be with
the communal meal scems [0 have been part of the ath rI Y fa rittianlty
t~an distin~, .~on~e;'IWO~bJP
nearly as strong as Paul's, but for the sake of argument, we now
raise the possibility that Paul was not as radical as he appears, and ra,hcr a meeting (I Cor. 11-14). Prar.e
from belOg filled With ,he Spiri, of unde",anding in 51, 39'6 to
that be meant by wifely submission exactly what they meant. 6. Cf. Jub. 16:31; 1 En. 108:10. I' is m,de explicit b' JOIe
Yet if we indeed read the husband-wife part of this house- ~;~ r';!'earedly emphas!ze! terms used in <he G,eek world ~or "
hold code in this way, we must also read the master-slave part of h ce, thoug~ expressmg them as manifestadoll.!l of God'. will, ra
the househlilld code in the same way. In the following chapter, I t a? das forces 10 <hemsdves ,s in much Greco· Rom,n thought of·on
perlO . UBI
hope to show the pa:rallels between the twO issues, since Paul caUs 7M' Epict. Disc. 1.6.1, 14.16; Sen. Dial. 7.154 161-3'9104<
on slaves o~ their masters, nO less plainly than he calls on wives 1141 • .; ":Ire. Aur. Med. 6.16. 'I • ,. ~ t
. 1 also hope to demonstrate that Paul "d 8. Epic<. Dis,. 4.7.9; as long as the wise man leel "good· and
e most progressive elements of his a vantage· as residing In his moral purpose and not In elrlllUllltaDCCI.
h 9. For a much more thorough and nuanced treatment thaII_
e mandated the continuance of the
ave space for hCt~, see S.widlcr, W....., pp. 7-25.
• (the head of the Roman household) 10. I.-C. B.lhgme.Ct and J. A. Turner, "The Sodo
r all cultures. o~ women in Mycenaean Greece: A brief IUl'Yey tiolD
Unear B tablets,· in R'fk'liDns Dj' llII..... III All
f 11. Gould, "Law," p. 43, obfcrvcuba.t
o a perpetual minor (whicb fig I01IIC
she wu defined by law ".. aImoIt
1l'CJII!ClI" roIca have both poai
_>.
ceptIOIIiD ~. U7.ojl
wlIo tbat
 liT

killed his pregnant wife in 3?gcr (Diog. Lacer. Lives 1 9
said of Nero in the imperial period, and the whot: 4), bUt thi '
Pcriander as willing to treat human life chc:lply, whc~1 narrative ;~: also
12. For Sparta, contrast Gorgo 5, in Pluto Ss l~~:nale Or fe~~}'s
and anonym~us 22, SSpartw., Mor. 242B; and, c1os~r t:-' Mar, 240E'
question, ArISt. Pol. 2.6.7, 1269b (AriStotle thinks ti,e S the period"
control while the men were away was bad). partan wOIlle I~
13. Sec ;Banks, Community, p. 159. n,
14. Verner, Household, pp. 35-39. Early Roma I
been much more positive than Greek law; sec Frank ~w sterns to ha,\,
r
15. See Kraabel J ~Judaismt p. 44. The textu~l var~~~~ p· 22-23~
may well suggest that thiS .was a circular. letter, but that OUr tc n Eph.l:l
Ephesus and no other City as a particular destinatio n XIS Include
Ephesus was at least the major center in the region o~U~~tSts tlqt
cu;culation. . e Ittttr's
16. E:g., !uv. Sat. 6, passim (e.g., 6.242-43). This view ICe
be assumed m dIrect narraoves as \~ell, c.g., the easily misled
Chariton Chatr. 1.4.1;-2,. though thIS may best apply to lower-CI~ IJI
m: s ~o
slave women; or the wife LO Ab. R. Nathan 3 A who is less generous ~
her husband.
17. See the references to Thales, Socrates, and/or Plato in 1.0
necker Ethics, p. 70; Meeks, "Androgyne," pp. 167-68. nge·
, 18. Marc. Aur. Med. 5.11. The implication seems to be that it;'
inferior like that of a child, youth, tyrant, or animal.
'19. Anst. Pol. 1.5.3-11, 1259b-1260b. He argues against Plato',
omayal of women's equality in the ideal society (Pol: 2.2:15, 1264b);
~f course, l'lato himself elsewhere regarded women as IOfenor by nature
(Meeks "AndJ:ogyne," p. 170).
20 Thil iI pointed out especially by the analysis of Boer, Mar.lily,
243-46 (evidence that women were badly treated), 246-5J (evidence
PP't they were not -so badly treated), 251-56 (Boer's intermediate ~UM­
~ ) f. ,.lIy hil pOint on p. 269 that there was great vananon
POInt~; c • cape<...... ' .d
p"'. to another .
10 the same peno .
even uom Olle .......
Mutlllll SlIbmission Ephr.sI/t1l1 5:18-33
UI 175
26. Marilyn .B: Arthur, "Cla~sicsn (rtvicw essay), Sig,1S 2 (2,
) 976): 402, summarlzmg C. E. Mannmg, "'Seneca and the Stoics on the
Equality of the Sexes," M1IemoSYlJe 26 (2, 19~3): 170-77.
27. Meeks, World, PP: 60-6~. Lefkowltz and Fant, Women)s Lift,
p. 104, §l07. quot~ a trc~t1SC attnbutcd to second/third celltury BCE
pythagorcans tha[dlffcrcntl3.~cs external roles (in which women arc to be
domestic and husbands pubhc). and internal qualities of virtue. Balch,
"Codes," p. 31) speaks of the Roman Stoics as "'egalitarian in thtory but
Aris[Otc:lian in practice." Because the same could narur311y be said of
Paul's 3rgumcnt in Eph. 5:21-22. where he mO\'ts from the principle of
murual submission into the household codes, we h:1vt indudtd :1 discus-
sion of master-slave roles, which is a.lso parr of this section, in chapter 6
to force modern interpreters to be consistent in their position on wives
and on slaves. \Ve offer tWO possible answers to tIllS objection: first.
whereas much of tht Stoics' published teachings wert: meant to be widely
disseminated, Paw's epistolary teaching is morc occ:1sional in nature and
hence less likely to address questions of universality; second, "either
source seems to have considcrtd itselftht origin;J.tor of household codes,
instead adopting codes that already existed; we cannOt therefore ass\)me
the users' opinion of these codes' univers.·ll c.haracu:r except when they
tie them into men's and women's "namre"; most thinkers probably did
not consider the difference between their culture and other cultures'
situations in this regard.
28. MS!. Pol. 3.2.10, 1277b.
29. Joachim Jeremias. ]ermakm in tbe Ti,nc ofJesus. trans. F. H.
and C. H. Cave (Philadelphia: Fomess, 1969), pp. 359-76, provide. a
detailed study of the sodaJ position of women in rabbinic litcntute,
a1[hough he overpl.ys <he negative elemen[s. l[ may be th.[ [he already
substantial negative clementS came to predominnc: more in the later
literature, jun as one finds morc misogyny in the: church fllthen than in
the earliest Christian literature (cf. Swidter, ~VlJme", paiSim); othc.f$ hold...
t.he opposite position (Withering[on, Womtll, p. 10, sugges" that tbc
positive: clements developed later, since: many of our positive mte:mcntl
are also I..e; d. J.cob Neusner, Judoism i" rhe B'0,,,,,1"9 o!Chrlnla"i"

r.
21 Plut. Bride 48, Mor. 145C. [Philadelphi.: P'm",,", 1984), PlJ. 59-60). Women were prophm, queens.
7-1,' Phil:. J!,;1J,e,., of Women, Mor. 242,£....263C. etc. in the OT, and remained important in Ha,monean rimd and in.

U ..£: Di-/6.16.1~ dtJJ

• "I'M 48 ;.l< r. l45DE.
1'l.
'Is true eveo though they ar~~
SevellJter. Plwl and Sent,:,~n""li
synagogue art; but the E.senes, the n",.century priClthood, and tbt
rahbls r"serve su:h rolet and most nghu for men (Jaeub Neusnct. 'lk
Tosefto: Tra"stoltll from she Heln-ew Third Di"si... Halh/III I ew
7 3)
(6. .'
(J
. t that ~oec> • "y-: ICfAV, 1979), p. ~).
. ':::'J;J'~ ~:~~~~:;i~;'}9)D::~~.t(.titl7.
28 to HJpparch~ (Cyn,Ep,
pp. -lSa:.s4),d<lIUJldl~
30. In pam "fthe LJCl and I'fCudcpilltllPha: '" SwidIct.
PlJ. 29-55; in rabbmK IJl~r3lure, pp. 126-30. 90r di£fcrcm
~y ludaiJm, fCc pp. 56-82; SwidlerfiNlsthc mw.
IU~Ilu:rbe, £x/1ortIJtllm, pp~ principlt !hat ~ -
;nu V"- -r _ .. n but 00 " ...
Of IJICtI at '" w"..- ._. than wO\llCn.
chat IJICtI fboul4 be leIS m~.. 1,3 idelll "NUl'~
• _n
I have arrempted r.o be II 6ir to die MlUtu..
bIIt my rClUtch aJao M1J1Atf thc
for WlHmn in Ic:wiIII wisdom ICldlIiCIlIf,
.... ~. __..~ Url1lJn emltill,.l. !:.
..- - . ~ced- an ~y-:-;' .do tbe~1J
.Ji""
;calinJ"~ -...bat mitipred ill prIIClice•
• IUIId of MANns ~ JO
Tlte IpialrUM 170 17z.-73). a1lboUr.i.# sil*t IaclaIiDf JlbmIIoa ill Greco-
».~ (ibid.. "". ~w diouJIst It ....
~ 0,. I " ' y -
 .• ·"~l.IC!

~ct1~ct the surrounding cuirurc

J~gmenr on early Jewish tra : .Our point hert
nons in their proper context dUlon, but simply' howc\'er . Mllt""/ Submissiofl i,l Ephesians 5:18-33 177
31. Sir. 42:12-14 . to place P~~I~Ot to p,>\
created a "legal hybrid~" .rather than an intermedi:uc category between
32. Sir. 25:12, 16-26 Th . "dillolli.
refers to an evil. husband Or t~ mecP?tnt. is no daUb
person and property (Ibl?" pp. !-8). M:an was thus the legal norm.
woman the :momalous dcnvatton, In t~e Mlshna.h; cr. idem, "Tragelaphos
open to the aVailability of good . vII wife, but l'r t true Wheth Revisited: The Anomaly of Woman l.n t?C Mishnah," JUdllistll 37 (2,
and 26:1-4,13-18, forming an i~~;v~ than Sirach (c;;,trbs apP<aneronr Spring 1988): 160-72; Neusner, Begmmng. p. 32. The husband's role
33. See m. Ab 2'7 Cf UStoatoundtheb Oughcr Si Illot, can be compared [0 the Roman pater familias (Wegner, Chattel, pp. "3-4).
Apuleius' Me'''",.....h,,;<s " . the wife of LUCius~dhWifeOf26~'57:19, 48. In other words, the rabbis could perpetuate and develop older
-·r· Osr' . -11) legal categories, bU:t such categories, ~e a.genderwbasc:d language, do not
3 4. See b. Ber. 53a; Pes. llb. In book 3 . render their users anherentl)' more sexist If the mentlUlB placed on them
35. Gen. Rab. 17'6 attrib ' cf. Moore, Jud.' or
rury teacher. . , uted to a third· Or po'fflf, 2:137. is not sexist.
36 'I: S$lb'yroUGh 49. Sec ffi. Ket. 6:1; Z. W. Falk, "Jewish Private Law," in JPFC,
. . est. Reub. 5:1-5; 6:1; cf. the E ' -q,. pp.516-17.
10 4:9. gyPttm woman On 50. See m. Hor. 3:7; cf. t. B. M. 2:32.
37. Test.-Abr. 9 B. Rec. A did not J""ph 51. Women's status was in some regards higher than that of
but ndtber did it record, as lOB does, t~;':;'~ thatrhis .soul Was f, Gentiles or slaves (m. Naz. 9:1), and women, with minors and slaves,
could sa)' the blessings on behalf of the male householder ifhe could not
a woman who murder~d her daughter. m to • WIcked SOUl ~ (p. R. H. 3:10, referring back to the Tos~fta)..A girl was recognized to
38. E.g., B~nSJrVen, J"d"ism, pp. 100 134. reach maturity before a boy, on natural bIOlogical grounds (cf. Wegner,
Ne.. Tut"",e.., E,lInro..",erst, trans. John E. St~1 Ed~ loh.!<,
(N n. Chattel, pp. 36-37, who associates this with personhood).
1976), p. 150; Bartb, E2hesi,ms, 2:655-56. Y ashvIIle:AbingdOll, 52. E.g., t. Shabo 1:14; cr. p. Hag. 2:6, §2. See especially Wegner,
39. Lare secondlearly third century CEo an .ttrib .' Chattel, pp. 162-65; Swidler, Women, pp. 130-39.
would lower tbe date more generall)' to the ~cond ~ro~ ro R. M", 53. Sir. 42: 12.
century. 0 the "Clllld 54. Sir. 9:9.
55. Sec m. Ab. 1:5 (my translation).
40. See t. Ret. 6:18 (trans. Neusner, 1:40). 56. Ab. R. Nathan 14, §35 B, gives both interpretations; the
. 41. ~os.t of the filmily and ~vi1 law in the Mishnah is nor . second interpretation cites Samson as an example, and this interpretation
cifically Phansatc and tbus may denve from a wider body of '''';:h is on the whole more likely, since one's own wife would not have been
custom, as Sanders, Jesus to Mish..lIh, p. 14, points out (againsrNeUSllCr) mentioned in the first case. This is true even though other texts cite the
42-. See Longenecker, Ethics, p. 70; Meeks, "Androgyne: pp' fear of seduction as a danger.
57. See b. Ber. 43b, bar.
167-68, cited above. 58. Sec p. Sot. 7:1, §2; Gen. Rob. 48:20, 63:7, trying \0 minimize
43. Cf. Fiorenza, Memory, p. 217. the biblical "exceptions." Cf. Swidier, Women, pp. 123-25, who also
44. Verner, 'Household, p. 45, although he notcs tbar ~r:ek and discusses the issue of men's conversation with women in Judaism.
B,Qman laws also permitted certain rights not given under tabbmlC Ilw. 59. Sifr. VDDeho. pq. 7.45.1.1. They would use women when
45. Fiorenza, Me",ory, p. 116, rightly appeals to ~e por~ya1 of they had to, and regarded them as capable of giving u;uthful witness
Judiili for a differeJlt model; but Judith belongs ro an ~arhet penod, an<! (Wegn.er, Ch.ttel, pp. 120-23), but women normally would not testify;
th rabbinic restrictions probably carry forward the bas,~ mal: cbau\1DIllD cf. Neusner, Tosefta: Nosh;"" p. xi.1t is rcmpting to read Luke 24:11 (cf.
e • . firs Judaism as exemplified tn Pbilo and Mark 16:11) in this light; even though it is not specifically srated that the
that pred~ed~_,;:~n:1a1estine)Josephus. Both manyofoor male disciples disbelieved the women disciples on account of their gender~
(mote relcvarrr .or .. ~~.- . f rabbinic law (and ,,"til this could have augmented their perception that the women spoe
' - - codices of Roman law and our coUecoonsth°. of raul inuoduc' "nonsense." A child was also unable to bear legal wimess (t. Sanh. 9:11).
....... •_:/; tly later than e ttme , .
die pbbinak itself) ate. S1";:-~ this discussion. We are bere assuJ1lll!& 60. Jos. Ant. 4.8.15, §219 (LCL).
~ COlDPlicaOOns lOtO. diverse sourccssupp"'" 61. See b. Shabo 33b (Ta.ruuitic attribution but
. .~oflUufticientco~ona1!tyam~g St2[US, even tbo~ later); Gen. R2b. 45:5; 80:5•
........"" of women'~ ~enor.sOC! nsiderably amooS'l"'- 62. Most Diaspora writeR in Greek aRU
:;;;;;-Of that infcnonty vanes co 8ueneed by Greek chauvinism. We know that
customs in the Diaspora wac sbapcd by
:dlIiL _--w.dIIIId attemd Palestinian Jewishones (c£. Starn
~m. Kid-l::l. wornan-rcp-- ... po 50, following :Ill anicIe by Tcberil:over
CinllUI, shows that a
laiL-- but IS a ~
:_.~ (pp.2D-34, 4O-70~J~
~,1O-9~1l+-1O.111).lD
MJltutd Sub",unotJ iN Epbesions 5:18-33
179

... 32' W L KnoX St Paul alld tbe CJml'clJ of
O.Q,iversiry, 1.92~\t b;idg~ University, 1939), p. 183, n. 1, p.
• s (~~br~dge: ~n~4-55; H. R. Willoughb)l) Pagan l"it;atiou
Cj~II"~tI:"f~hica 0,192 9 ), p. 136; C. A. P. Ruck, "Solving
Unlvecs1t) 0 ,,' ..fi Road to Ele"Jis (New York: Harcourt
ian. Myster~) In ;~ 40. But while the bjeros Bamos was :I.
pavich, 197. ~ pp. [ cl~ar whether it was expressed ritually in
I:
k at D~:reh 'S/;ionysus (Burkert, Religion, pp. 108-9; ef.
ts OU(~:t/ eta SOl' Koester bltrod1ICtio1J, 1:177, 193; GUnther
:-::::: ;~~Js~n a;,dtbe p;gan M!steri.es [Edillbu~gh: Oli~'er ~
7) 73); and there is no cert3m e:dencc for Its practice In
,p.
tions (Meeks, "Androgyne, p.206).
congre~ h Ephesi",", 2:669-70 (the differences hc lists on
~. IEd~'~o~r:e~ard 35 significant). .,
2 After summarizing data on the sacre~ .marrIage 10 t~lC. m}:s-
il4-16), S. Angus, 711< MysterrReI.g.o,,, fwd Clmstlall.ty
it: Scribner's, 1928), p. 116, nores thar Eph. 5 ge,;, the ,mage
OT picture of God and Israel, not from the mystenes. Cf. also
besi."', 2:741~2. . tio", p. 111).
3. Sampley, 01le Flesh, pp. 34-45, se~s Ezek. 16:8ff: as a major
E h. 5. The image of Israel's marnage to Torah IS later and
.!d so need not be appealed to here (Num. Rab. 2:25; 12:4;
5:10). ., k d M'I' 99 2 2
4. Sifte Deut. 43.16.1; Sifra Shemlll' Me. e· ,u,m ..
99.2.5); Gen. Rab. 52:5; Exod. Rab. 15:31; 19:7; ~:4; Deut.
; 3:10, 12; Lam. Rab. 3:1, §1, 20, §7; Pes. Rab Kah. 12:11;
5; 22:5; Pes. Rab Kah. Sup. 6:5; Pes. Rab. 21:15; 31:3, 10;
:3 (many of these references occur in parables). The Song of
was often allegorized to apply to Israel (Slfte Deur. 1.11.1;
• 2:37; Song Rab. 5:L6, §6; Pes. Rab Kah. 5:6; 22:5; Pes. Rab
cs. Rab. 5:5; 7:7; 15:6-15; 33:10; 35:1; 36:2), although
before we come to the rabbinic texts (W. W. Fields,
I fewish Interpretation of the Song of Songs," GT] 1
1-31). Goodenough, Symbols, 8:17-20, argu~s for
r God in pre·Christian Jewish mysticism, but wh,le he
I> goes too far with toO little of it; cf. also idem, A1I
i]1Ikeus, 2d ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), p. 143.
d wed the analogy of marriage in less detailed form
onship between Christ and his church before !Rom.
and other Christian writers continued to use It after
2Clcm.14.
$canzani and Hardl>sty, Mtllnf fa Be, p. 30.
•Dt tl/lColIssillm, mns. Andrew
4; Balch, ~Codes,"
rem moral texts
's an absolute
e than that wives
IJndcmann,
Stellung
MlltlUll S"bmissio" ill EphesiMl! 5:18-33
l83
der Kinder in der Spathellcnistischen Gescllschaft und im •
tUm" WD 17 [1983]: 77-104), although adult childr Urchrlsten·
incl~dcd in the ~dmonition (sc~ Safrai~ Io4Homc and Fa~~~ a~e no doubt
Jewish exhortation to adult C?l~~ren; In Roman life, cr. 6ix~~ 7~~~:~;
pp. 211-12), and the responslbL~lty of children is part of anci<:l~t h :
hold codes (Malherbc, E.~JJortatJ(mJ p. 90). ousc
118.. Barth, E~he.si(uu, 2:709-10, distinguishing between the
active and nllddle/passlve uses.
119. Sample}', C?"e. ~lesh, p. 117; also most Current Christio.n
egalitarian authors; cf. Bllezlkian, Roles, pp. 153-73; HuH, Equal tD Serve
pp. 202-3~ Gu?~ry, Womu" p. 71; Thom~son, Io4Respol\se,n p. 92;
J
Boldrc}', ClJnul'J1u.st, p. 53; Longenecker, Erl1lcs, p. 79.
120. Barth, EplJesja"s, 2:610.
121. The Io4fear of God," central in biblical wisdom literature
remained imponant in later Jewish ethical admonition; e.g., Sir. 1: ll-30:
25:10-11; 31:13-15; Tob. 4:21; 4 Macc..15:8; Ep. An". 95, 159, 189:
200; S}'r.. Men. Stilt. 9-10; Sl'r. Mm. Ep.r. 2, 9, etc.; ffi. Ab. 1:3; p. B.
M. 2:5, §2; cf. Tesr. Lev, 13:1; Test. los. 10:6; 11:1; Test. Benj. 3:4. For
the idea in hcllcnistic literature, cf. Pythag. Stilt. 27 (Malhc:rbc, ExlJort"·
122. Malherbe, E.~lJortatjotl, pp. 97-98, citing Hicroclcs, On
Duties, Household MtUJtlgeme1Jt 4.28.21, which he quotes on pp. 98-99 .
123. See especially Balch, Wipes, pp. 143-49 (Appendix 5, "Ro·
man Stoics and Plutarch on Equalit)' betw«n Husband and Wife").
124. Plut. Brjde 11, Mar. 139CD. Peace between a husband and
wife is emphasized also in b. Bul. 141a; b. Shabo 1I6a (attribured to R.
Ishmael); Test. Sol. 18:15 (where the source of domestic disharmon)' is
a demon).
125. Plut. Bride 29, Mar. 142A ("joking relationships" are distin·
guished from more respectful "avoidance relationships" in many cul..
tures). The ideal of ""mutual respect and affection" was more widesprc~d,
of course, and appears in Greek literature as early as Homer (Sto Marilyn
B. Arthur, "Early Greece: The Origins of the Western Attitude Toward
Women," in Wome" ill the A,,,je"t World, p. 15).
126. Plut. Bride, Mar. 144CD.
127. Pluto Bride 33, Mar. 142£ (LCL). The language of the wik
as the husband's "body" (some of which I have omitted ~o~ t~e sake of
space) is strikingly similar to Paul's, although Paul's expliCIt citation of
Gen. 2:24 makes it clear that this is his source for the concept.
128. Arist. Pol. 1254b3-1277b25, 1313b33-39, 1335a8-17
(Lefkowitz and Fant, Womt1/'s Life, p. 64, §86). Cf. Meeks, W~",p. 3
citing Atist. N. E. 5.3.6. When Artem. Oneir. 1.8 speaks ~f"yiel
or "submitting to" women, he refers specifically to tnto
nothing more.
129. Ep. Atist. 257 does, but not in the conlqt.
codes, which would apply the admonition to ho
130. So also Johnston, ~Authority and In
41; cr. tanley Gundry's response that J~
much subjectivity here.

Model for Interpreting Wives'
ubmission-Slaves in
phesians 6:5-9
I'. admonitions w wives are similar to his admonition.s
and slava, although wives, unlike children and slaves,
summoned to "nbe.dienee.'" Modern writers who argue
, charge to wives to submit to their ~usba.nds "as to
binding in .11 cultures must come to gnps With the fact
even more plainly tells slaves to "obey" their masters "as
d Christ" (6:5). Ifone is binding in a.1I cultures, so is the
interpret the whole passage eonsistently, therefore, we
Ithat what we grant roday concerning slaves (that Paul's
bmil i. not a transcultural approval of the masrer's
l: Mu.r grant concerning wives (that a call to submit is
ral approval of the hushand's aurhority). The
subordination of each were roughly the same in
codcs,a and a brief examination of the relevant
.ages will shuw that they arc roughly the same
• 1 not to suggest that many wives today
II level of oppression slaves experienced; it is
at we u e the .ame principles of interpretation
18~
Bur e~~minin~ all three of the><: mooeu of submission
reveals the c.nncal POint; Paul advises his readen in die renin in
wbich they bved; he does not make their >CUing valid for all n~t:5
He employ. the sund:ud household codes of hi. world., but m.:..;
are not the s~d:ud codes o~ o~ world. Hi> principles are iUll>'
ttated by. thelt co~cre~e appbenon in dlis letter, but need to be
applied dlfferentl~ In dlffere~t cultures and .ilUanoM. In short, we
mu>! always su~mlt to those In auth?rity in Christian love, but Paul
in no way reqwres the same authonty .trlJeture. for all cultures.
cHANGING SOCIETY OR CHANGING HOUSBHOLDS?
Before examining Paul's views on c1uldren and shves, we
must ask why Paul .ddresscs only the treatment of laves chddren
or wives in the household, and not the in.tJlUtions of siavery and
pattiarchal authority over child and wife, in a broader societal way.
The only logical answer i thOl Paul simply had no reuon
to addr"s the broader societal question In a letter of in tructions
to a local church. Paul was not in a po,ition to change the social
structures of hi. day; no one else was arguing for the abolition of
slavery, including the very few who, like I'aul, apparently ronsid·
ered enslaving people immoral.
The ancient world was not a modern democracy in which
people of all classes could dissent and proteNt without anticipating
violent suppression. In recenr times, Gandhi and Manin Luther
King, Jr., aecompJi.sbed reforms by nonviolent proten, but the
same tactic did not work so well in Beijing's Tiananmcn Square,
and it has failed to work in many cultures, parricularly those with
less respect for human life than our own." Reformers who wished
to accomplish the emancipation ()f all slaves in l\oman antiquity
could Imvc sought to do so only by starting a bloody war they were
certain to lose or by converting tbe rest of tbe empire to their
belief,~ in a God before whom all persons were equal•.
Paul, a pastor and a missionary, was out to change the
by starting where he realiStically and reasonably could: by
ing Christianity and demanding th.t aU Chri.dallllovc
one another as themselves. Whether he con.idercd
of Christians being able ro radically aller even basi
truetures is uncertain; they were a smaU
his day with no visible way to affel:t
solely by the aristocracy. The radil:iIl
 PIIII!, Wqmm, 11111/ WivtJ
WQ uJtimately be realized in a new ki~d of society aft~r, the
Lord but if Paul ever cons.dered that Chnst.ans
a f the , . th' Id
someday wield enough power III .s present ,;or, ~o
all sodetaJ injustice, he had no rcason to mention It In
to congregations struggling with issues closer at hand. The
e. he did write, however, were among th~ ~ost progressive
of his time, and he certainly wanted Chnstlans to w?rk for
in the ways they had available to them-by transformlllg the
ships among and around t~em, . ' , .
A writer to a small but growlllg ChtlStlan commu/llty III the
tury cannot properly be faulted for not advocating a wholly
tical course in his letters, and to read him as if he wrote to
in our modern situation is to read him with an incredibly
enrric historical naIvete, Such naiVete may characterize the
ddish literary critics and some of the most radical feminists,
s a tragedy when Christians tead Paul in this same thought-
y, It is especially tragic when Christians who read the Bible
insensitive manner hurt other people by means of their
etation, keeping them down and "in their place," as racist
es in the United States and South Africa have had a history
g,
But because Paul's letters do not overtly recommend vio-
olution does not mean that Paul did not care abour the
s confronting his readers in their daily lives, Slavery was
yea, and the insensitivity of authoritarian heads of
painful to wives and childrcn; thcse were issues
tor had to address. Paul addresses thcse issues not
cdiatc overthrow ofexisting structures,
• act within thosc structures in a vcry
around them was acting,7 Although
Io.nt ovenhrow of these structures, the
foracdn within them-mutual submis-
the moral right of struc-
187
But this argument is not as COnsistent as it migh ,
propOl1c,nts, , , t appear to .t>
, ~ltst~ Paul expliCitly bases Wives' submissi
subm.ss. on III 5:~1-22, and defines submission in t~rn on mutual
rather than obed,,:nce. When he tells slaves to obe ms?f respect
as they would Chnst, he turns this around b II' Ytheir masters
. )'ca Ingon m
"do the same thmgs for them" (6:9), even thou h h' asters to
might well have balked at taking him literally B g th IS first readers
'ld " ' ut e analogy w'th
parents an d c.h ren IS lacking at precisely this . h' I
' thelt
parents to I00 k out ,or " children is the cloPOlllt;h IS eall On
reciprocal submission between parents and child;est e comes to
Second, the situation Paul addresses comepn'l h'
Id d ' I. h ' e s 1m to use
househo, ~o es III w uc WIVes, children, and slaves are called to
be su bmISSlv,:. He d,oes nOt tell us which of these instructions
m.ght be ~arrlC,d ou~ III all cUlture~, because that is not the issue he
is addresslllg 1Il thIS te~t., But It is noteworthy that the Old
Testament law clearly enlollled the submission of children under
penalty of dcath, whereas the same was in no way true for wives
or slaves. 8
Third, it may also be pointed out that the common charac-
teristics shared by wives, childten, and slaves in antiqull¥ )
they were in positions of inferior power; (2) they were
economic dependents; (3) they were considered less
able in the matters in which the household head ruled.
of these assumptions can be challenged for women in
but the)' remain to a much greater extent true of mill
younger and less mature the child, the less independCll»
can safely be,
Unlike women and slaves, children were rea
to eventual maturity and eeonomic independence;10
nation was more like a temporary apprenticeship
servitude, and thus it ideally functions today. Un'
slaves, children were not considered to be ofa perm
nature. Roman male children were alwaYIi espec
parents, but becoming old enough to cntCI'
a position of practical independencc) in
obedience were less than they had
home. Further, many adult clJildl'<
~ho often passed away early in
SlOn to parents was a •
 Paul. lVometl. (Jtld Wivtt
189
adult child than from a younger one; .indcc~l' Aristotle's house· The Old Testament picture ofIsraelite slave
an d ad specitica11y addressed o1l/Y mmors. most slaves worked as household emplo ~ suggests that
)oJ c R:~an \\;ves, however, remained subjc~[ to th~ir husbands' labored alongside their masters.l2 The Iyees or,. If field hands,
control as long as their husbands remaJned altve, much as . th aner Pomt h l' tI .
common WIth e way slaves were treated' th . as It e In
did. As we pointed out in the last chapter, many men felt United States. Israelite slavery also did not a~n ~ his.tory of the
women were by nature less rational than men, and thus men ideology to pc:rpc:tuate itself characteristic of ~r.:'e e ~d of racist
wom~n in a state of social dependency, as if they were icas. Still, a slgnificant portion of the foUowin 'X
m the Amer·
.ua1 minors. But Paul nowhere: paints the wife's or slave's Israelite ptactice ofslavery permined by the BibleS,,~~ about ~e
ion in these "natur.tl" terms. Ought we to Suppose thar to most of us. 13 troubling
who in our culture ace usually as educated as men (and Slaves coul~ be treated as less valuable than a SOn Or daUgh-
mere so), should be treated as permanent minors, while ter (&00. 2I :31-,,2), pethaps because, from a commercial stand
ror our male children to become independent? point, ~ey were a more replaceable commodity. Ii Among the ~
The proper parallel for interpreting the wifi: text is not that demanding ~roper treatment of s1a\'cs is One thar today we find
who. attain more freedom as they-grow older, but that qwre troubling:
..110- remained o.nder the direct alldlority of the head of And if a .man strikes his nnk oc female sb", ,.;ttl a rod aDd
until his death. If Paul readies the permanenr dies ar 1m band, he sbaJl be I'tuIishcd. If, hu..'C"<tr. be .um.cs"-
or wlV",,> ,,-e In accept mar
he a1so reaches the day oc tWO, no \=~ be • lOr he .. las '
1OO1!dina.ti<>n of \-.:s.. (E.~od. 21:20-21 ••-\Sa.).. P<'JPCn!
Examining this ~\tt aI~
picrure oflsrndirc :l\-ay. ~
CESSIO T
the sla\" "p~~ - rna
'S in dl" rc.tt:
t1) ~ ~
""
i1;- ~w.!i<li<:d'b! dlot liQ
umQlit,_
 Paul, Women, ""d Wives
Exodus 21:7-11, a [emale slave who becomes a
0:17). In . d functionally as his wife; thc law rcquires
bine IS rrcatc . "I
coneu c. • I (vcn if she is a prisoner of war, as In Deut.
ear her lalf y c
4) ZI I . 'fi
.. I 'ons about escaped slaves arc a so slgm ICant
sraelite rcgu aU , I
thou h one who found his neighbor s stolen or. ost prop.
g 't or hold onto it for his fellow Israehte (Exod.
to restore 1
•
S' Deut. 22:14), and although other aDCI~~t Near Eastern
lied this requirement to lost slaves as well, the Bible does
ption slaves iD this list of lost property. Slaves were people,
aI beings, who could leave in a way that other property
ot. Israelite law iD fact required. escaped slaves to 2~e gwen
(Deut. 23:15-16), just like foreigners 10 the land. Some·
o believed that slavery was a concession to h~ma.n weak·
ut that God's ideal demaDded that we work agamst It, could
ly use such a passage to justify helping slaves escape to
m. Harriet Tubman and others associated with the Under·
d J!.ajlroad in the history of our own country were well
the spirit orrsraelite law.
But we still cannot get around the fact that this law calls the
prol1e~ty." The owner is disciplined-presumably beaten-if
she in striking the slave causes the slave's death. But there is
jlgainst striking the slave per se, just as there is no law against
'~iplining ODe's children. Whether the slave had eD'
e semivoluDtarily, aDd so chose to put his or her life
olunteers for the Israelite army, Dent. 20:5-9), or
lave had been taken as a prisoner of war in lieu of
death, what the text does not say is more trou bling
• The point of the text is surely that the slave must
y. and that the master can be legaUy pUDished if
ed; but this text still does not offer enough
e slave. The principLe it states has to be extended
Qient to cover all that is not stated.
slave was [0 be treated rightly and released after
e(Exod.21:1-3j Lev. 25:34-43; Deut. 15:12;
'ven WO: OIlS to get on his own fect eCO'
ction for the slave trans·
a temporary period of
ne's life (Lev. 25:39-
a temporary appren-
master and servant.
A ModeJ fIJI' Intcrprtti"9 WillCS'SlIbmilll
oll
191
Hcr~, h?wever, we run into other difficulties
married while 10 slavery (Exod. 21 :4) he w Id . Ifa malt slave
'1" k , o u need to re ' .
slavery vo untan y to eep his family (21:5-6) 26 . mam In
disconcerting that an individual's family bond : It IS nOt so
'd I" h s might take pr(cc-
dence over I eo. JUStlCC; w at bothers us is th t h I
to choose between family and freedom. T~e t e s ave is forced
. fi d I master Olav h
Permitted a ree s ave to .buy his family's fr C<dom later ,ave
uld h ave; but thIS possibility is not req . db' and
P robably wo
'
Whl C
1 thi S
all owance may havc seemed fa'
Ulre y law
th .
'd r. h Ir to e slave
owner wl~o pat or t. e ~ale slave's wife when he bought her, it is
fair only If the slave IS vle\~ed as property rather than as a person
of value equal to that of his or her owner. History is repkte with
cxa?,ples of slaves and master~ who loved each other, where bonds
of ~ntJmacy developed wlthm the roles already established by
sOCIety; yet nearly all of.us w~uld today agree that the vety nature
of a slave/master rela.u0ns~lp was always far from God's ideal
purpose. We have to. hve WIth all kinds of inequity and injustice
today, but we also believe that it is God's will for us to work against
that injustice.
Another weakness of Moses' "indentured servant" laws Was
that they applied only to Israelites. Israelite slaves had to be freed
in the seventh year, or when the Jubilee year arrived; but this did
not apply to foreign slaves (Lev. 25:4446). Then again, one need.
not read the texts about foreign slaves as harshly as they could. be
read. What if this forcign slave converted and became an Israelite
a situation later Jewish illterpreters of the law were forced to
address?27 And what happens when the principle behind one law
is extended in such a way as to infringe upon another law (for
instance, a slave as person in his or her own right versus a s1ave.u
property, a dependent of the owner)? But slave owners, like
people, act in tlleir own economic interests and would pro
take advantage of any opportunity afforded them in the If
Interpreting and Applying Biblical Slave Law
The spirit ofsome of the laws noted above5C
with that of some of the other laws. This is no d
~aws in any society, since they must deal with
IS a human being, but also with the econO
is being treated as property. While Is
treat their slaves benevolendy, and

this was the way the institution 14'' :' generally
hifWrY ouggdt5 that ..'t $till .. k whether ,lavery In even it.
. d' Urael we m~
praau:e In .. dver God', ideal purpose.
IID'riJdat form W God' Jaw, were concessions to human weakness,
Some of ted' Mark 10:5; Matt. 19:8).28 One can sec this,
.1-" elear~y 'thea . (t'ltution of citie' of refuge (Deue. 19:1-14),
CUJl1ple In e In' h I
rso~ killed another person accideneally, t e sayer was not
:;intentional murder and should not be put to d 7ath. But
, h culture a relative of the dead person mIght seek
InGodtat Vl'ded the slayer a place of tefuge, Ideally, the
fl' h'
;31 slayerprashould have been able to ~ema," ,
sa e '" 15 OWn
at best, the avengers of blood mIght .serve as a good
nt to negligence, but God did. not ,.nstltute ~~em-God
cd instead a merciful way of coping WIth. them.. .
The law is clearly dealing with less than Ideal SItuations. It
e institution of slavery for granted, and neVer rules o.n t~e
'on itself, merely on the most huma~e ways to prac~ce ~t.
its principles of humanity ~ou~d u~tlmately ~derm.,"e Its
practice, that is easier seen In ~dslght than '? the time of
itself. We have here a case in whIch God permIts a measure
tice 50 that at least some measure ofjustice and mercy could
ired. But that slavery was not God's permanent intent we
rn from our equality as human beings created in God's
just as God's original purpose for marriage shows that a
d and wife are to be one and that divorce was just a later
ion in Mosaic law (Matt. 19:1-9).30
Indeed, certain principles in the law itself would militate
if extended to their logical conclusions. As those
foreigners in the land of Egypt, Israelites were
d and .hospitable to foreigners in their own land
likewise to give justice to the poor (Exod.
yexrcnsion, we could arguc that becaus.e
in Egypt, they were also to respect thelt
also f.l.vor above their masters if they
e not to oppress hired servants (Deut.
dJa~,had been slaves in Egypt, they
nt. 24:17-18). Not only
ere actively to provide
re to treat well and
because they had
.,t prindple that, if
193
extended like the Olher principle., in the law, could eventually
and the ..me treatment for all ,Iave.,. The law IV
dolO d with economic justice thar it considered with~-Id~' 10 "",.
cernc . I""~ 'ng a poor
,nan's wag~ for even one Dlght aform ~f robbery (Lcv.19:13); ..,
an abolitionISt preacher charged In 183~:
If it wu a sin against ':lod,for one under the MO$a1c economy Co
retain the wages of a hired servant for the .space of one rughl 0 ly
how mu~h more guilty must one be now, under the gos~i
dispensation, who compels a man to work during his whole lire
time, and pays him nothing for his hirc?32
When Jesus healed the sick and proclaimed release to the
oppressed, hc was demonstrating the ideal purpose. of God, which
the law had been able to address only halfway because of its
allowanccs for the fallen structures of this world order around Wi.
Unbiblical Uses of the Bible in American Race-Slavery
Nevertheless, white slave owners in the United States Wied
biblical texts about slavery and created a heretical interpretation of
the Bible to support racism, to justify their own cconomic advan-
tages. They valued the concessions addressing a certain culture
above the principles that caIJ Christians to advocate justice and
mercy. Abolitionists, to the coorrary, began with the princil1les of
Seripture that showed how those concessions Should be repealed
by love and by the ethics of God's kingdom in Christ. a3 They
demanded that slave owners explain how loving one's neighbor as
oneself(Lev. 19:18; cf. Mark 12:31) was compatible with violenny
withholding a slave's Iiberty.34 Abolitionists also pointed oUt that
kidnaping (Exod. 21:16; I Tim. 1 :19), and thus holding as prop-
erty those who had been violently abducted, merited a deatll.
sentence under biblicallaw. 3s
Yet even many Christian abolitionists in the United Sta",
balked at full integration, usually due to fear of alienating so~ety
by being roo radical for their day; after all, they were a!r~adY goigJ
against the grain of their culture.36 Only a few were wlIIinJ
a stand for full equality. When black and whirc a
together for the 1838 convention of the P
Anti·Slavery Society, their meeting hall was b
by rioters protesting that whites and blacb
~e same building. Not only the mayor
I5ts pleaded with their female collea

lnstead, these women met together again the next
mcct scpa:a[c~y. h following statement:
moming, ISSUing t e
ksolvcd ,
0:
. d'ce a ainst color is the very spi~t slavery, s~nful in
That pr..:)u .1 d Ig . 't and is the fire which IS consummg the
thos~ who Ul u ge 1.~.,1 ~f the free people of color.
happlDCSS an d cnergl ......
. . th fore the dU[y of abolitionists to identify them-
That It ~rh ~re op'pressed Americans, by sitting with them in
$elves w~ t ~e by appearing with them in our streets ... by
p!a.c~ 0 ~vors t Prheir homes and encouraging them to visit us,
37
V1S1~n~ thcm a:s we do our white fellow citizens.
recelvmg em
We may be glad today that these women chose to su.bmit to
ther than to men in this case. Yet the t~u~ they articulated
diffi wt for many conservative Chnsnans to live out a
s and ~ half later; even after segre~ation was legally abol-
the cost in societal pressure remaIns toO great for many
ans to cross the boundaries our history has created. May
t us repentance.
is all tOO easy for us to look back on the abuse ofScripture
slave owners in the past and say, "It is good no one abuses
e like that today." Unfortunately, we are probably ignoring
ant parts of the Bible in dealing with the history of slavery
nited States. In the wake ofrace-slavery and the continuing
of racism (originally advanced as its ideological justifica-
e Bible gives some clear and uncomfortable guidance to
ti9n as a whole, regardless of how many of its citizens
. ectly from slave owners.
1Uble speaks of corporate 38 and trans generational re-
n to the tenth generation (e.g., Deut. 23:3-8), and
rotited economically by enslaving anotller people
'cans) or from talUng ~eir land by force (Native
and if rh.e descendants of thc profiting people had
r education and vocational opportunities for a num-
·ons than those they had oppressed, we cannot
justice is done by simply saying now, "Let bygones
It:; noted evangelical leader John Perkins points out,
1'6p o£ American blacks today has its roots in
n which followed emancipa'
e ninth inning the team which
A Model for Interpreting Willes'SubmiJrio'l
195
is tra~ling 20 to 2 discovers that the winnin tc:
chc:ltIng all along. The leading team admit; ",;m has been
cheating, but wc'lI play fait now Let's ' (5) we were
gamc." . go out and finish the
Now, it's good that the te~m is going to quit cheatin bu .
th~score 20 to 2 th~ ~rat~ing team still has the: feel~~g ~~:~
gomg to lose. When InJusnce has bcen done cst hI' h' . Y
means something more than "'playing fair fr~m n~wlSo~~~ Justice
In America today, one .g~oup has the capital, the other has the
~abor and the broken SPI~t. •.. Economic opportunity in capitll.
Ism depends on ownership of capital.... The oppressed amon
us know.all too well that the oppressive: forces which created thc~
poverty an the first place keep them trapped in it. 39
Scripture demands restitution, as costly as that will be.
Slavery and its attendant and continuing sin, racism, arc terrible
evils that were practiced in this country in terrible ways that God's
law never allowed.
Many readers would protest that economic, corporate res-
titution on a ?ationallevel would bankrupt the economy, and many
would question how the resources should be distributed; such
protestations might be right. But there is no reason why we cannot
take restitution seriously as a Christian church in ways that the
needs themselves demand. If we value people more than posses-
sions, we can forsake our personal economic objectives and move
into the areas of need across this country, making our skiUs and
incomes available to those who need them. Many of the horrors of
drugs and violcncc that now plague our cities are the ditect result
of ghettoes spawned by economic discrimination southern bfacks
faced when they migrated to northern cities in our century. Many
of these problems werc intensified through the psychological dam-
age of racism, including forced suppression and denial of beautiful
aspects of one culmre by another culture.
It is easy to say that we are against slavery today, because
slavery is now more than unpopular in our culture. But the
consequences of the abnse of biblical texts by some a cenrury aDd
a half ago still haunt the United States today, and even 1I01I)~
biblical principles of justice are as ignored by our gen
were by many preceding generations. Is it possible
interpret Scripture as selectively as those wbo
suPpOrt slavery against the abolitionists1
 A Model for blterprcthlg Wives J SubmiSsion
209

'ences, >-Tothing here supports the subordinau' on of wo

J~
), they e than what was used to support the subordinati men any
ters of Jl1~ those who appeal lo~dl~ to. the several texts tha~~f sla~es,
rs and an d women's subordmauon Ignore quite a C h ey thInk
deman .' lew ot er texts th
pture and subordinanon to slave masters, kings (1 Pet 2. at
r
e that
dem
~.~
. htl
Tl"night rig Y pOl
'nts ou: t "The prmclple
b th
. . is not th . th.13, 17) '
U ~m~
od of be JV":ngs and.'
governors, ut at• Christians must su b' mit to the
thods ""an instItutIon of government m whatever form or sh .
hu..· and whoever t h e CIVI "1 th ..
au onnes may be "Afte
ape It may
take ,,' . ' r a, Peter
II 1
'13 says to submlt to every human mstitution" before 't
2. . 156 D ' . 1 says to
ubmit to the king. esplte KnIght's wish to contend th t th
s f '
submission 0 wIves IS . diff, fi a th e
·erent rom this. submission' precise!ye
same metho d0f appii canon must be gIven to Ephesians 5:22-
which prefaces the submission of wives with "submit to 0
. il th .. b ne
another." Other CIV au ormes esides the king are mentioned in
1 Peter precisely because there were other civil authorities besides
the king, and if we ignore the historical context of Scripture we
disrespect its own claims about itself and end up with a I;t of
"useless" texts left over-such as Paul's and Peter's claims that they
were writing letters to specific audiences.

CONCLUSION
Wives were to submit in a Christian way to those in author-
ity over them in that culture, but neither the authority structures
nor the expressions of submission are the same in all cultures.
Although we respect governments and those in authority, we do
not try to reinstitute the monarchy so we can obey New Testament
demands that we submit to the king; nor would we reinstitute
slavery so slaves can submit to their masters. Neither should we
reinstitute old authority roles in marriage and thereby ignore the
d.a ofauthority structures now standard in our culture, In a time
ttion between old and new authority structures, we must
Ctures most in harmony with the principles of God's
d given the fact that Paul was one of the ,most
'ters in his day, I think that there is no question
stand today.
~ stay home ,cg

210
'Cd to use thar education in the workplae ,
all0"
sho. utd the'
. ' sbeof submission vary from euIture to culture, ande.
jrnpfiea Uon ti,e of Americ.lll S would demand change in the
JIlost conse~~ it is required by some cultures.
of~b~~:e: thar the Cbristi~ .wo~nen's movement
Ag:ull, of the Christian abolinorust movement be
in tbe context . ' el diff' - same strUctures. In the same ways as people did in the Greco-
both approached Scripture m an ennr Y erent \Val'
they b 'ed to take every commandment they could ;.
wotn
. those th' wn generation. Many read ers today' VIew only
ding on elf a B'bl b' di
chronologically later parts of the I e as m ng; but even
ts the" must concede that some matters are
ODS th e Iate r par ,
ationally conditioned (e.g., 2 TIm. 4.13, we wou.l~n t think to
J ' . ' •
e Paul'S cloak to him now!) or cult~raIly condinoned (bead
verings). Almost no one will try to duphcate the exact conditions
the ancient world so that the commandments c~ be fulftlled in
recisely the same way as wben they were first gIVen. Yet many
.evers today unconsciously regard as commandments only those
ints that their traditions teU them to "keep.»
1 am arguing that, if we arc genuinely to respect the author·
ty of Scripture, we must know what all of it addresses in its own
. torical context. That means that we must understand how to
pplyall ofits message to different cultural situations, and we must
understand the difference between what God has us put up
n less than ideal circumstances and the ideal for which we
d strive if we have the opportunity.
The church has often simply sided with the most conservative
• pal social position rather than exploring the intention of
1I Matlin Luther King, Jr., pointed out to some of his
clergy in a lotter he wrote from the Birmingham jail:
porary church is often a weak, ineffectual voice with
sound. It is so often the areh·supporter of the sratuS
being disturbed by the presence of the church, the
of the ayerage community is consoled by I~i
t IUId often voeal sanction of things as they are.
test tragedies of history is when God's holy
blic sitllltiOD. is uncritically applied to .n~
rhc larger tenor of Scriprurr· ~t
d to serve an unjuSt
dIeD is brougbt into
2U
Paul is addressing the authority structures of his da
Y
andating the same authority structures for all periods P u1 ' not
m b' th· .adoes
callan uS to su rrut t? ose In .authority, though he qualifies that
authority b~ summornn~tJ:>ose m authority to respect those under
them as theIr eq~als. This. IS hardly. the same as giving unqualified
license to those l~ authont}' or saYIng that we must submit to the
Roman world, SImply because that was the culture in which P uI
happened to dictate his letter. a
The earliest church was powerless to abolish slavery and to
invert the social structures of its daYl except by treating one
another as equals and serving one another in their own homes. But
the radical conception of self·sacrificial ser"ice was the seed that
was bound to lead to abolitionism and other protests against
human oppression. Through much of history, the true church's
voice has been muzzled 1 as society's powerbrokcrs came to run the
church; but the voice of our Lord, who came to serve and lay dnwn
his life for many, has never been and never will he silenced. May he
speak to our hearts and our societies today.
NOTES
1. Bileziki.n, Roles, p. 171. I Pet. 3:6 notes thar S.",h obeyed
Abraham, but this hardly mcans that the reverse was not true: Gen. 21:12
says that God told Abraham to go ahead .nd obey S.roh, which he
apparently would have done initi.lly had her wish been less difficult (cf.
16:2). Peter emphasizes the wife's submission for the same rt3S0n Paul
does, but nowhere excludes reciprocal obedience in the sense of listening
to one another and supporting one another's \\~shcs where they do not
conflict with obedience to God.
2. This has been pointed out by others, c.g., Jewett, Man, pp.
138-41,144,148; Giles, Woman, p. 43. See .)so.CI.ric~ J: Martin, "The
Fj....tnfel" (Household Codes) in African Amentan B,bhea1.lnrerp"'lI·
non: 'Free Sla"es' and 'Subordinate Women,'" pp. 20ll-31.m
Road We Trod: Afrien" Americnn Biblical Interpr"";o., cd. Cain ~
$I"','"
Felder (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). Unfortunarely 1 diJe09Cred
book only aner completing tbe writing stage of the p.~1 wo$.
3. Arist. Pol. 1.2.12, 1254b, on women; .1 IS •
brought into the context of Aristotle's discuSSion on 1Ia'fa1o
4. Giles's comparison between the boleS IiIItd li:lr
sion and slaves' submission in the NT shows wtthcllld)C'
fur each (Wo"'...., pp. 44-46).
5. Even today, economic raeW iD~
senerationaUy in a way that gender

- 21 disadY3l1t'ages ofwomen progenitors affCct both
COJf1OIIlicorc:duC;:~Dthn[S). If someone's parents, ~dparenrs, and
aa:ak: and fi:mak:D[S were denied educational opporruru.oes and were: Un-
...,...~. sociav Uut exduded them, this pcrson OUy be
able ~10 ~:~:~d e:du~rional ~d~';lJlt~ges ~at will require mOre:
SDI'IIDS :'ercom e . But gender prejudice .15 roll sc:nOU5 enough to affect
JfOIt tv bas f women through \<anOUS sorts ofabuse, harassmerlt
.,~:: in c~ areas of employment, 3l1d, unfortunately, dis:
non in much of the church. . .
6 r do mainWn that non\-;o!cnt prot~t IS ~ppropnat~. but we mUSt
. ; that manyrdom often accomparues I~ 3l1~ d~ade on which
nt God calls each of us to lay down ?ur ~\'C:S' Ln Vlew o~ the great
nunyrs in our world t"'!"y. One bod bIblical perspccove on the
article "-Nonviolence 10 the Face of Oppresston: A Perspective
:':!ner orJamcs • ESA Ad.ocace 12 (3, April 1991): 14-15.
C 7 Cf. D. M. P;rk. "'The Structure of Authority in Marriage: An
• ation of Hupotasroand Xephalein Ephesians 5:21-33,' EQ59 (2,
1987): 123-24.
8 Deut. 21:18-21. On slaves in the OT, see below.
9~ This is noC to say that they were necessarily less educated:
hold slaves were often teachers or physicians. But aristocratic ide·
portrayed low-born and slave-born people as unfit for proper
tity roles. Greek women were usually much younger (often more
,. deeade) than their husbands.
10. Arist. Pol. 1.5.12, 1260b. Arist. N. E. 8.12.2-3, 1161b, sa),
cots love children from birch, but that children learn to love
only as they grow to understand. Wives and slaves were to be:
in different ways from one another, of course; Aristotle observed
arbarians failed to distinguish the two only because barbarians were
beentlaved themselves (Pol. 1.1.5-6, 1252b; Aristotle exemplified
inteUcccuaJ imperialism 3l1d the best ancient: equ.ivalent: of
avery ideology). Cf. Sex<. Emp. Out. Pyrr. 3.211: children
(doN"'i) of their 12thers until attaining maturity, when they
freedpersons.
• L Pol. 1.5.12, 1260b. The diffetence between what was
by minor children and what was owed by adult children is
MiJhnah and Tosefta (sec Boaz Cohen, Jewi,h and Roma.
'1/I,,,Ii.e Stud-y, 2 vols. [New York: Jewish Theological
661. 1:174, for references).
is frequent in narrative passages, many of the proverbs,
g. 6:11. 27; Provo 17:2; 30:10).
COmparison ofdiffercOl Iises (those in Exodus and Deutero'
ere relevant. in Leviticus) indicate that we probably do not
ve laws that Wete used in ancient Israel. We do not know
___developed into a fuU-scaIe legal code, deba~ng ramifi·
ofthesc laws, until the rabbinic period, although
fq(' carlier. We may use the common
no doubt more accuroce
atant sources for ancient
213
£3,stern laws (see l • M. Sanu., Exp/orin
• 3I" _
~ocken, 1986 J, PP: 168-70; John Bright, A
[Philadelphia: WesOllloster, 1981), p. 59).
Jim::::;!;""
•
York;
ul, 3d cd.
14.50 also e.g.• Laws ofEshnl1OOa §§22-24. One .
class &sanctions .(o.th~r than sian and fre.c), which .'C:}:e~t
class-oriented 50C1~t1es la\\:s (Code of Hammunbi S§102-'3. rum 1D
law codes), are obliterated. Ii:! th~ law ,!fMoses. A nation of&~~~
had litde need of class disnncoons smce they had had little time :
devdop memo
15. I~deed. under S?m~ other ~ci~nt Near Eastern ltws, a ma.st.tt
-could kill his o\v~ slave WIth .Impunlty SlDce he was considered to be a
pIece of property (Yamauchi, Sronts fHld Scripruns, p. 52 foil .
Moshe Greenberg, "'Some PosruJates of Biblical Crill'limJ ~w" ~
reiJezke/ Kallfmann Jubilee ~oluml; cd_ Menahem Hann [J;ru~em:
Magnes, 1960], pp. 0-28, which I was not able to obtain).
16. Though cf. M. Stern, "Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priest.
hood and Other Classcs,' in ]pFG, p. 629, wbo thinks Exod. 21:20
requires the owner's execution; this was also the opinion of some nine:-
teenth-century U.S. a?olitionist preachers. e.g.• L. R. Sunde:r1;md (The'
Tertifflo"y of God A,gal1lrt Sla.ery [Boston: Webster & Southard 1.835)
p. 22). Later Jewish law did mandate capital punishment for ~ne wh~
killed a Gentile slave (Bonsir\'en, Judaism, p. 148). Roman law charged
a master in this position with murder ani)' ifhc intem{ed to kill the slave.;,
see Cohen, La,,,, p. 4.
17. The lex taliO'1liswas standard legal practice in the ancient Ncar
East and was executed by the court. not by individuals seeking pasonal
vengeance; e.g., Code of Hammumbi §§196--205 (ineluding in Ibis
context. as in Matt. 5:38-39, the insulting blow to the face); cr. Laws of
Eshnunna §24; but these laws generally require monetary payment rather
than lex talionis (§§42-43; likewise Hittite Laws §§ 1.7-8, trans. Goetze
in ANET, p. 189).
18. In the law collection of Hammurabi, ifone st:rUck another,
one needed to pay for the physician (cf. also Hittite Laws §1.10. in
ANEJ: p. 189); if the other person died but this was not th~ striketts
intention, he was not punished except for che fine (Code ofHammurabi
§§206--7; the fine is less if the one killed is of/ower socieral rank, §208).
This is analogous to the Israelite code, which must address the sarJ.1e.lc~
categories of the period. The Laws ofEshnunna also list fines for lfiJunes
inflicted in a scuffle (§§44-47).
. 19. W. F. Albright, "The Antiquity of Mosaic Law," i~ The Blbie
III Its Literary Miliell, cd. Vincent L. Tollers and John R. M.. e~ (Gr:an
=
d
Rapids: Eerdmaos, 1979), pp. 148-55, thinks that tbe law was e'btcdtd::
Its present form around the sixth or seventh cen~ury ~CE., but
laws [hemselves date to the patriatcha1 period. HIS daang ofan", ~
ancient Near Eastern law codcs to 2100--1100 BCE suggests.
Exod. 21-23 in the Mosaic period (The Bibli,al peri,lI frI!t'
Ezra [New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pp. 17-18; do
pp. 101-5; cf. Moshe Weinfeld, "Deuteronomy-The
the Inquiry," fBL 86 [3, Sept. 1967]: 249-62, "'bl!
 . nluch olda), E,-mgdiCll scholus t:u,
jp. JosiJb's ~ '\-:-tin~ of lXurerotlomr than OlOSt OEh~
_--, 'for a much arl\~alWt fucm used in the fin.l1 rcd.lction of the
~ t>osc<I on the co . , 0..;"'" and Old Testa",,,,, [Chi"" .
boOk- (K. A- !Citchen• A~~.,. idem 11N Bible ill Irs lVorld (Dowugo.·
I.....-~\Y' 19~J,.pr·I~71J. 7si", 1\1. G. Kline,_T",ary of'bc G..~
pr.
Gro'~IU~ JDrtr"\.~ll;rdm;UlS.1963]. espe".-ta11y p. 4~; for S31l1ple treal'.-
D¥[Gr2l1d l\.1p,ds. 'ods cf. ANET, pp. 199-:206. and d. espccial1~
forIOS ~1J1 V2I1o~c:~c:nh.JI. "'CO\-c:03Dt Forms to Israelite Traditions,:'
. . . . . II1 G. E. '8--60)
,,"17 [.,Sep[. 195~J:' 3tte" anim:lls and the land as well, as Christian
An?,
20 for . ~~ ~3PpilY point out.. ..
cnuhsrs mtg f H3lDIDUrabi §170: If a free aozen ever calls
21. Cf~o~eb~ a sI3\'(' "his children," th.er arc counted as such.
:m
;h~:S not. we slave mow~r d the children she bore him 3.re
. freed upon his death (Ibid., §171).
a~~l.ws ofEshnunna §50 charges an of!icial wh.o fails to return
sla~'~ or other property in ~~vc:n days .Wlth stcalmg. In th~ law
. f Hamrnurabi a free ClOzen or anstocrat who helps a slave
?n ~ cd with a ::'piml ofrense (§15, contextually linked ",im
•IS c ~g person §14' cf. Exnd. 21:16; Deu[. 24:7); so also "im
P~~gh:r~~s any fugitiv~ slave (<;:nde of Hammurabi §~6) or ~ceps
r her in his home instead of trymg to return the slave u~mediately
e owner (§§17-19). Kidnaping, ofcourse, ~arrants de3th 10 any case
d. 21:16; Deu[. 24:7; Code of Hammurabl §14).. , "
23. "'Wherever he or she wants to dw~lI In your Clt1CS could mean
this is a foreign slave 1 but the fact remams that ~o laws mandate the
n of an escaped slave, and the only text addrcssmg escaped slavcs at
quir", [hat dley be given refuge.
24. This W3S na[ur3l1y :lIso pointed out by abolitionist preachers
Sunderland, $Iavery, p. 22. . .
J, Same othor ancient Ncar Easter,n laws provided for the frecmg
• ose labor had paid for their price 3[ leas[ twice over (ef. Deut.
e ofLipi[.Ishtar §14. Sunderland, SIIWery, p. 28, used Deu[.
dvocate economic restitution for slaves in his own day as a
ostice,
In this te:n the drilting of a hole in the car may not have been
what those who wish to wear earrings undergo
e (by way of contrast) a severe judgment in
urabi for a slave who denies that his master
Off(§282).
-l7.
ion of this point in my And Marri", A7Iot/Jer,
1,2 report the institution of the monarchy as another
wbhes,
like this may be the accidental killing of a
Jl\d caused the loss of property, rath~t
JIId causes a miscarriage, he IS
tiPaally JdIling the fetuS>
h~ J~th \,)fth~ child WJ.S not. his i.M.mtrfE:tod., 2 .
"n'''t,[ orpose abortion [nd.>~' would still >.rgue fuc the ~~_3). Manyo(
' t-
l1.:! Q
Uh pOlOtin£. out that the spcci.fi~ contat of ow: ,~of
(h~ld:~ltS~ not int~~tion: th~ same:- as. '"ith the sb,vc ~~~
J" dJJd issue of disl.:'USSlOO m :ma.ent Ncar E<utan l~ ~ . "'"'as a
;~d.l!h' cnde of H~lUr.lbi §§209, 211,213 (lines l;'icd <>:""'- cf.
:~o killC'd fct~~es ~~ by warnOl of~t socict~ ~~~
Hltu t < La.\\~ §§1.1t-18m ~NET, p. 190). ~Ut in th< Code urRun,
OlurJbi . It th('_ \~ om~ .d'..cs.. mste:1~ o~hcr stnker .bdng exC\.\1tcl. as in
Israelitel:1W lExod. _1:2~). her stnka s daughter 15 cXt\..-uted (§.210- b
It l:t only:1 finc if~c deccascd was ~flo~\cr rank, §211, and asmaHc: fi:~
suU for a slave, §_14; cf. E.~od. ~1.29-.;)_). Moses S«ms to ha\'C' 3. bightr
\1CW of the ~epcndent woman s worth md of personal mponsiblli ".
Middle Assynan Laws (c. tWcLfr? century BCE) imposed :l stricter pcnal~
for ~usi.ng an?thc.c fr~c p~~on s dau~h~cr to h~\'e.3. miSC'arr1age, stricter
rct if it IS onc s WIfe (I.e., his own wife s ~tus 1$ killed), and strictest of
311 if the other had no son [0 be a m:lle hell (de3th) (§§....21 5ll-52
AllET, pp. 181, 184-85); this law ~stinguisha these e\"c~ts from~:
abortion caused b)' the mother herseH, the pcna.lty for which was imJ».le·
men[ on s",kes (§A.53, ANET, p. 185).
30. Abolitionist preachers like Sunderland also argued that OT
slavery was a co.nc~~sion, on the analogy of cities of refuge, I(:\'iratc
marriagc, cxccuung Idolaters, and polygamy (Slavery, pp. 10-11), as I
learned after completing my own study.
31. Albright~ YtJ/J1velJ, p. 181, asserts that the Mosaic law ~is the
most humanitarian of all known bodies of law before recent times'"
comparing favorably with other an.cient Near Eastern collections, espe-
cialty in defense of the. poor.
32. Sunderland, Slavery, p. 24.
33. E.g., comparing the oppression of Israel in Egyp[ (ibid., pp.
12-17), subsequent biblical examples (pp. 29-37), God's favor for the
oppressed in Psalms (pp. 37-43), the prophets' denunciations ofcomp3r'
able oppression (pp. 50-70), Jesus' reaching on showing metcy, luving
enemies, etc. (pp. 70-79); Sunderl3nd virtually promised God's judgment
on [he United States (pp. 36-37), which I believe came in the Civil War.
34. Ibid., p. 24.
35. Ibid., pp. 23, 27-28,90-91.
36. Hardesty, Wow.", p. 118.
37. Sterling, Sisters, p. ll5.
38. This was also understood elsewhere in the ancienl Ncar East.
Wi[h Deu[. 21:1-9, cf. Code ofHammurabi §§23-24; Daniel's curse ~n
Qiru'mayim in the Ugaritie T:lIe of Aqha[ (ANEY, p. 15.4); sec Hirote
re~ulations in J. C. Moyer, "The Concept of Ritual Punty Among the
Hi[tltes" (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1969), p. 120. alif' RqtI
39. John Perkins, With Inni" For All (Ventura, C th" of
1982), p. 169. AME Bishop Henry McNeal Turner around .e rom
the century proposed that the white church'" could make resuw
SUpporting black missionary efforts (G. S. Wilm~re. BIIJdt
Blact RRdicalism, 2d cd. [Maryknoll, N.Y.: OrbLS, 19831.

,_which is more difficult-is by comparing oth
40. Another \\'3.) d s and trying [0 sec where Israel's laws dOff. Cr
ancient, N~2r Eastern I~\'~~ s~,ccessful, but while the. similarities an~o~r.
This ~l tn som~ ~::ated cultural ma~rix, ther~ arc, differences among afl
.c:arcgones rc:flc:c~ d a great vanery of situational factors mUSt b
the Jegal collections, an
taken int~ a~~u;~, includes sins ::hat would be almost univ.crsal!y agreed
4 b~ sinful in evangelical clrcl~s. The most n?tablc exception is the
.yro hibition ofintcrcoursc dunng mcnstr~lat10n,t~ough perhaps it
ty pro be xccprio n; the "menstrual taboo appears 111 many Cultur
~~. Cr~ode ofHammurabi .§195 (~NET, p. 175): "If a SOn he:;
.s r.ther, they shall cut off hIS hand. .
3 MacMullen Relatioll', p. 103, suggesung that one·third to
. v have bee; slaves or ex-slaves. M. 1. Finley, A,Jcie1Jt S/a'Per
II':,; Ideology (New York: Viking, 1980), p. 80, suggests aroun~
d simil" to the percentage in the U.S. South in 1860 (cf. also
; Ancient Ecollomy [Berkeley: University of <:alifornia, 1973], p.
"mates are imprecise; Ladd, TIlea/oBY, p. 529, cites an estimate that
uwumbered free people in Italy; but according to Cary and
ff, LJle, p. 130, free people oumumbcred slaves even in urbanized
or would these: statistics have been constant, even could we guess
bers more closely; Mattingly, Christianity, p. 13; Koester, IntTo-
1:331, think that slave numbers had probably declined somewhat
Mer period (though they were a small percentage in earlv
Verner, Ho,<sehold, pp. 41-42). ]. B. Lightfoot, Saillt Paul;,
,. the Colomans and to Philemon [reprint, Grand Rapids: Zon·
1959], pp. 32(}"'21, claims that in "democratic" Athens there
bably three: times as many slaves as citizens, and three: times as
vcs as the whole frec population, mostly employed in the fiehu,
orf.actoric:s.
44. Verner, Hounhold, p. 63, from Galen's reporr.
Verner, Household, p. 60, foUowing M. I. Finler. He also gives
wries.
• ~c. 31; Eustathius Parllplmm of Diollyr'<s Periegetts,
«i Milft1ffl 2.253.8-10, in Empire, cd. Sherk, p. 37.
Gnat, "The Economic Background of the ew Testa·
~... •Ime N.... Testament lind Its Eschatology: 1.
. ' ~ cd. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge:
,1964), p. 104; W. W. Buckland, TIlt Roman lAY
• Cambridge University, 1908), pp. 1-21, 397;
1:59.
SlDery, pp. 401If.
pp. 420fT. For \"';oos sources of sla''CS, see ibid.,
, S. S.1Iancby; MALLON CHREsA1: Fim-(ftNl'!
. 11/ I CAriIultUIM 7·21 SBLDS 11 (~hs-
1973),pp. 45-50; Francis Lrall, si...es,
CitiURS, SolIS
1984), pp. 29-35.
pp.397ff.
S1-82..
217
51. R. H. Barrow, Slavery in the Ro,nan E,n .
rn & Noble, 1968)? p. 97; Stambaugh and Balch pm (New York:
~~ Finley,
es
Slavery, passim, sees the relation as essenti~ITnVtron~'Je~t, p.
Id;nll EcO'Wmy, pp. 73-74,79. Ysymblonc; d .
52. See Barrow, ?lav~r!, pp. 65-97; Giuseppe l'ucci "p
t trade In the ~oman P~f1od, m Trade in. the Anc;mt Econ~". otteryand
Garnsey, Keith Hopkins, and ~. ~ Whittaker (Berketey: U~i~:' .Peter
California, 1983), p. 116. I am.Inclined to think tharthe numbe rmy of
rural areas may be overesomated, given Our strong d r ~f slaves
I:asant or bondsmen labo~ the.re (cf. Finley, Slavery, p. ;;). ata or free
p 53. ~o~~e.gr;at diverSity ofspeciatization in the wealth es
see Trcggian, LIVia, pp. 48-77. Y tates,
54. Petro Sat. 37-38 .
55. Sec the Greek stele from Lycia, 43-48 eE, in Empire, ed
Sherk, pp. 90-91, §4~; at Ie'.'gth, sec Barrow, Siapery, pp. 130-50. .
56. For the WIde yancey of occupations open to female ser
in wealthy households, sec Susan Treggiari, "'Jobs for Women," AJ~t~
(1976): 76-104.
57. Cary and Haarhoff, Life, p. 130.
58. Mart. Epig. 1.84:1-5; Pomcr~y, Goddesm, pp. 191-95. Women
slaves have been used as. WIves, co~cubmes, and sexual objects in most
cultures where slavery eXISted, e.g" 10 some cultures in precolonial Africa'
cf. J. K. Henn, "'Women in the Rural Economy," in African Women South
oftlie Sahara, cd. M. J. ~ay and Sharon Stichtet (New York: Longman,
1984), pp. 5-6. The raCISt Ideology of slavery that generated opposition
to interracial relationships in the United States made staves' sexual
treatment less public in this country than in some other cultures.
59. Mast. Epig. 9.6.7; 9.8; Apul. Metlln•. 7.9;Ab. R. alhan g A;
Do"cr, "Attitudes," pp. 147-48; Pomeroy, GoddtSStJ, pp. 14Q-41, 192;
Gardner, Women, p. 132.
60. Cary and Haashoff, Lift, p. 130; especially Martin, SI...""
pp. 11-15; on managerial slaves, pp. 15-22. For asutvel' ofdifferent us<s
of slaves in the empice, sec Barrow, Slavery, pp. 22-150.
61. Sec Martin, Sla.try, pp. 3ll-42, 49; E,.pi,., <d. heck, p. 238,
§178; d. Meeks, UrbarJ Cmnians, p. 20; Boct, Moralit·J, pp. 83,223.
This is ofcoutS<: especiaUr true ofslaves of the emperors (Marrin, SI.,ery,
p. 7; Pomeroy, Goddesses, p. 196), although altogether the)' could ha,,,,
made up only a small pc.rcentlge of the sI"'e population. Slaves in the
U.. South had some possibilities of advancement "ithin sl,,·cr)· (Fogel
and Engerman, Cross, p. 149), but because sla,,,,r)' was racially based they
could ne\1:r mo"c beyond a certain point, in contnSt to anorot sll\'C$
who far more often achiC'·ed lTcedom.
62. Cf. Petro Sa••, e.g., 38.
. 63. MacMullen, Relations, p. lB. Of coune, ~ "'"
st;ill ill·regarded socially by many, including the I"~ JC\\ish e1irc (e
Num. Rab. 6:1· for a fuIlcr discussion sec Icrcmtas, J(1'flIIlk8, pp.
334-..3 7 ) . ' ,
64. Finley, Economy, p. 107.
65. Ibid., p. 108.

'{tta . 8.15; C. L. Lee, "Social Unrest and Primi.
m ,I \\'3. ,l rhe U.S. South (Fogel and Eng~rman C unuSslon W;'IS much
66. Cf: ~eu~, J The CaMcOmbs and tbe Co./ossell"" cd. Stephen
rive ChriSD301t}. InO'Rourke (Valky Forg~, .Pa.. Judson, 1971), Pp.
Benko -and John .J.. Pakstine werc dom esuC , sec Goodman l Stifte lind
I27-3l. MOSf sla~ es I~re orf ofslaves in Germany sounds more like serfs
~et1l p. 37. TaCiru s ,.,: 25), although some slaves were used to c1ea.n
than RD~anslav:J~~ were drowned (Germ. 40).
St
sacr<d tbin~ '::s [nsf. 1.9 (Empire, ed. Sherk, p. 236, §~ 78A), .lists this
.67: .ata1 distinction" among people. It \~ras considered tnappro.
as the pnnop f bl birth to be slaves (ChantOn Cbaer. 1.11.3).
pIdre for th~~: JZ;/ book I, 135C; Cic. A:ad. 2.47.144;.los. An..
68. . b Men. 43b--44a; Moore, J"da,.sm, 2: 137. This pertains
• .8.I~, ~~;,ch offenses as f.lJsc speech (Chanton Cbaer. 2.10.7; 6.5.5'
~} 107 [even under torrore, 10.10]; MacMullen, Reliltioll '
~6f:'"~~ t~masters (Sen. Dial. 2.11.3), laziness (Sir. 33:24-30' b~
9:J: gossip (Lucian L"c~"IA.ss §5), immorality (m. Sot. 1;6):
JI.
ce (Acb. Tat. Clte.7.10.,).
69. Svr. Men. Sen'. 15~7. _ sof[ of mtellccrual elitism that charactcnzes some modem unh'e:rsities
70. chariton Chaer. 1.10.7;.2.1.,,2.3, 3.10; Test. Jos. 11:2-3.
71. Philo Rewards lind pU1JIshments 137; F:pery Good M.a~ ~ Frtt
Philo's views ofslavery laws and parallels wIth later rabbuuc Ideas l
'n Pbilo, pp. 89-103.
72: Mist. Pol.l.l.4, 1252a; 1.2.10, ~254a.
73. Ibid., 1.2.12, 1254b. The equal,,)' of unequals, he claimed,
t juS! (3.5.8-9, 1280a).
74. Sec m. Git. 1:6; Buckland, SlaPery, pp. 10-38; Gardner
, pp. 209-13; John G. wger, "Religion and Social Class in th~
Roman Empire," in Ca'acombs, p. 1I0; Lyall, Siapes, pp. 35-37.
Ber. 16b, bu., R. Eliezer (early second century): One does nOI
a funeral oration over a slave, but nears his death as if the owner
tanyothee prope,ty. Under Roman law, all a householdc,'s slaves
edpeopJe (men, women, and child,en) would be executed if one
killed him (Tac.llnn. 14.42, although the following context makes
how many people opposed this injustice; cf. 13.32; Apul. Metarn.
1AMode considers tbem humans, though different by nature than
(PoL 1.5.3, 1259b), but ajso argues that they are property,
ofanimal. 11.2.8-14, 1254ab}; they are live tools (1.2.3-
).
ackland, st.P"" pp. 73-130; Barrow, Slavery, pp. 151-72-
lbcmJdvCtOWO property; see Apul. Meta",. 10.13; p. Ycb.
adI.og odIcr slaves'}; Stern, "Aspects," p. 628; Mattln,
, E"'M"'1, p. 64; Buckland, Slavery, pp. 131-
of the peeuliu", in Jewish and Roman law, sec
~78. Slaves could be disfigured by bcatings, bu,
(Ach. Tat. Clit. 5.17.8-9; Mart. Epig. 2.64; 8.23;
<Ihc examples in Carcopino, Life, p. 57; Cary and
Slaves usually did not worry about slavery pe' sc
and work toward manumission (freedom) when
A Modelfor Jlltrrpreri''lr \\Iil,ts' Sttbmimol1
219
" )ossiblc; sec Rartchy, Slm1tl'Y, pp. 67-72. Man ' .
r.\rc~ 1;\ l1landafed mercy tow:ud slaves: they ~\'er:OSSl p. 150). Essenc
1~,l~~(~~S (CD 12.10-.11). nOt to be sold to
(j 77. Mart. Ep•.!J. 3.2\; Sen. Ep. L"eil. 47'4 Th I
ho had been well. crear.ed appears also in Test. Abr. 1~ ;~'3.h.)' of slaves
\\ 78. In JeWIsh clrcks, p. Tcr. 8:1; Safrn.i "Ho d ~
750. probably CPJ 1:249-50, §\35 (second ~entur;~~~ E~am'ly~'
P' Gr~Co- Roman households, Sec Rawson "Family" 7-/)1>9; In
~~;;J;{rl p. 16; Meeks, Urbn.". Cbrist~'Js) p. 30; Aune,' E~~iro"~t~~xon,
I
59-60; Stowers, Letter li~tJlJB, p. ~l. Dependents Seem to h3.\'C:- tJ!~
. IIcd ·sons of your house (m. Ab. 1:5).
" 79. Anst. N. E. 8.\1.6-7, 116Ib; E. E. 7.9.2, 124lb
80. Arist. Pol. 3.5.10, 1280a. .
81. Ibid., 1.2.7-S, 1254a; 1.2.14-15, 125~b (e'Cn in soul)
82. Ibid., 1.5.6, 1260a (LCL). .
83. Ibid., 1.1.4, 1252b; 1..2. 18, 1255a; 3.9.3, 1285a. This was
not, of course, based C:>~ skin tone; It was ~robably marc analogous to the:
except that many m~dern professors recoil at the suggestion of thei;
racism or ethnocentrism, though all too oftcn still looking down on
"primitive" ~'iewpoints that c.o?-flict wi~ their dying strains of anti-
supcrnaturahsm, be they traditional African tribal religions Islam or
orthodox Christianity. Aristotle's point was moot by Paul's day of CO~rK'
the Romans h3~ recruited plenty of Greek slaves in the first ce~tury BeE:
84. QUInt. 1.3.13-14 (who protestS that it is not suitable for
children, against the common practice). For a long list of examples of
cruelties, sec Barrow, Slapery, pp. 30-31; once onc person Il owns'"
another, tyranny is a common result. Fogel and Engerman, Cross, pp.
145-46, argue that its occurrenCe on U.S. plantations has been exagger·
ated; but the slave narr.Ltive5 provide ample evidence for its practice and
the suITenng it caused on countless estates.
85. Quint. 1.3.13-14 (citing it as the ,egula, practice, of which
he disapproves); Si,. 30:1; Pes. Rab Kah. 15:4; Ahika, 81.3, 82.4. Such
instructions are qualified in Ps·Phocyl. 150; Quint. 1.3.13-14; 2.4.10.
86. Pome,oy, GodderseI, p. 194, notes the la'ge numbe, of my..
even of imperial slaves who died between the ages of 20 and 25. The,e
were, or
course, exceptions, e.g., Hieron in IGRR 1.417 (Empire, ~d.
Sherk, p. 230, §173Y), and it is probable that the ages of those who died
young figu,e more commonly on funerary inscriptions. Fogel 'nd Eng~,·
ma.n, Crosr, p. 154, argue that 40% of U.S. slaves died befo'e age 1.9, w~lle
pomtmg out thaI the mortality rate fa, young whites wa' alia qUlle h~gh.
87. Rhet. ad Heren". 2.7.10; Tac. A"". 3.67, 14.60; ,hant?n
Chaer. 1.5.1; ApuJ. Meta",. 3.8, 10.28; cf. Justin. Digtlt48.18.l (EmplYt,
cd. he'k, pp. 236-37, §178); Pc>. Rab Kah. 15:7; Alan Watson, "Rom.n
Sla~e Law and Romanilt Ideology," l'boen,JC 37 (1, Spring 1983): 53-65.
QUInt. 5.4.1 (p,obably following Arnt. RlJet. l.! 5.26, 1376b) reporu
~he e'istence of both views (ro'ture yields trulh 0' fal.ificatioO). <OOVcD
.endy used in COurt acco'ding 10 whieh side is belOg argued.

· ( sense, onl)' Roman cit!zcns could COI1t'rac
88. In the S.((lC~c{sce data in Illy A"d Marrus Another, p. 59, nnt
"JepJ" Roman m3rn3g~ :lrital statuS of slaves was more problema' .
63-65 on p. 169), bU~iti:C:, because masters had rhe legal ri~ht to SP~li~
than tb.a~ ofother ~~~c sale of onc or both spouses and the children, and
up fanuhes cluoug d between households.
JOD1ctimes SI3",~~;~~:cC:;d~~ 9.23 (Lcfkowi[~ and ~am)~,!,om~"J~Life, p.
a,
89.1u50 d
'193)i c: Womm pp. 213-18, Rawson, family, P.24.
r ncr. 193- M;rtin, Slavery, PI'· 2-3 {citing evidence tha;
y,~: c:~d~'xist ~vcn when shl.Vcs b.e1ong~~ to different house:_
~ Id b separated from their families :lOd sold young'
Slaves COUyear~oJd Sidonia" girl in CPJ 1:119-20, §l, Or th,'
the s<Ven- .' '73 <490
fear-old Phrygian girl," CPJ 3. " .
90 Dixon, Mother, pp. 17-18... . .
91: Finley, Slavery, p. 76. T~ls IS a. high esnmate; Fogel and
au, Croll, pp. 5, 49-50, place It considerably lower.
92. Finley, Slarery, 1'.80.
-93. Ibid., PI" 73-74.
94. Ibid., PI" 18-19.
95. Diog. Lam. Lires 10.118.
96 Ibid., 10.1.9.
97: Ps·Plut. Ed"e., Mor. 7DE (in ~alhcrbe, ExlJortMion, p. 31).
98. Pliny Ep. 2.6.3-4, to Tumu. AVllus.
99. Heraclitus 9, to Hcrmodorus (CynEp, PI'· 212-13).
100. Ibid.
101. Epier. Dile. 1.13.2. Thor many people viewed slaves as in
..n,e equals before the gods (Finley, £&.,lOmy, p. 62) did not,
r,generally lead to their b~tter treatment, and certainly not [0 the
catmont Paul command, '" Eph. 6:9.
IOZ, Bpi". Di". 1.13,4.
108, co Sen. Ep. Llleii.47.4-5,I3; Clem. 1.16.1.
on. Bp.1.,lIeli. 47.18-19.
IbId" 4'V.IO. Clem, 1.18.1 makeHthe principle",fequily alHI
m.n fear uf remli.tlon, rhe proper Ihnirs for rhe m.srcr',
,1.Yea, cr, Seyenll'cr, I'nll/ MIl! Selleon, pp. 185-92, who
eraat Ihe mo,iYes or Seneen a"d II.,,!'
en. Bp, Lllofl. 47,) I. Likewise, ."Mher roie, Hlerodes 0"
t"nnll",.. 4,27,20 (Malhel'h., I~,/),Irtnl/QII, p, 94), su~·
UlCr .hauld rhink "flww 110 wlluld Wntll 1'0 be trealCd Irhe
I rcYtried ,,"Ihhml,
n, Btn. 7,4,4,
Willi m W II" "Sene s 0/1 Sinvery," J>R 90 (300, July
••
1)101_ Ucn. LlI'u7,1.23 (1.(:1.).
Ir 7:20-21 i Ihe qucatlon, of coun., I. wherher I'hl. rdtfJ
live. In the n,enth yc r or wh Ihrr Ir' • ~encul
JlOItd b t 1I,IIUte I w prtlyldcll lhr rll. uhl
alit It Iply r fer It> rrw.rdlll~ .nr
SIll" 161\-67 ("I"'¥< Ih<
A Mode/for 1'lurpret,,,.!J Wipes'Sllbmiuioll
221
, US servant"; in the. context of the: bad slave 15
lfld.usr~~iblJ, pp. 191-94, cites Akiba's view 011 hum'a';;' ~S). Finkel"
stem, Ill. Sir. 10:25. cqua ttyfonlavcl.
112. The term could be: ~k.cn in a variety of ways· lead '
113. Sir. 33::0-31 (my t~anslation; the c:num~f3tio~t~I~, et~.
(f< 1l texts). The as yourself" IS the same as in Lev 19'18 anes In
r
dl e "1I4. E.g., Ps-Phoeyl. 223-27, especially 227l;ccept i
ora WiSe: slave). . t \1: counsel
115. Jcre~llIas, JerJJJa/~"'J p. 316, and Bonsirvcn~ J"dninn,
147-48, cite b. Kid~20a, bar.: Wh~cver pur~hases a Jc::wish slave: actu~~·.
urchases a mas,rer. For the unc:nVla~le SOCial position of Gentile slav~
fn the latcr Jewish ~ourccs, sec J.ereml:lS, ]erJlSflIe.n, pp. 345-51; Good.
man, State. and SOCIety, p. 38, thmks that most slaves in Jewish Palestine
\\'crc: Gentiles. .
116. Lohse, E"vJro1lment, p. 213. ~f. Banchy, Slnvtry, pp. 63-
67 who argues that slavery was regarded In the Roman Empire as "
dispensable social institution" (p. 67). an
,n 117. E.g., ILS ~50~,. fro.m Rome, in E,npire, ed. Sherk, p. 229,
§173. AJthough the racial InJusnce for slavery used in the United States
usually prevented this from happening, it oecasionaUy occurred even here
(ef. the example in A. ). Raboteau, Slave Religion [Oxrord: Oxford
Unlversiry, 1978), p. 141).
118. Martin, Slavery, p. 42.
119. cr. Lightfoot, Cololna"l, p. 323. Slave revolts did occur in
antiquity, but they were localized and never sufficient to eh311enge the
institution as a whole, or people's ideas abollt the institution. Indeed, the
threat of potential revolt could lead to greater repression: cr. tlte partaos'
treatment of their Helots, who outnumbered them (Arist. 1'01. 2.6.2,
1269a, reporl:S their attempted insurrections, like the 5crfclass ofThcssaly).
120. Finley, Sla,,1'y, 1'.114.
121. Ibid., pp. 114-15.
122. under1:md, Sla'f1erYJ p. 26; similarly, he advocated subnlis·
,Inn to masters bll' demnnded rhat 'lavery be ab"li.hed a, qui kly a.
pnsslblc (p. SA). Of courSe Turn~r, BrQwn, Vesey, {'rOSNer, and other
Ic:adcrs of ~Iavc in$urrccriollS equ:llly believed thnt God WI'IS wIt'll them
:\Ild had even dire ted them to lead 1'heir revolts.
t 23. Finley, SIn l.erYJ p. 9, recognizes five slave so~ie,iell in history,
rwo (e1n"ical Greece and 11'.ly) heing in nn'iqullY; he ,ug~e'I'lp. 67)
Ihn! 'Iovery os n maj"r 'ynem origlnaled ill Ih. Greeo·Roman wnrld, R.
A, p, "gUI\, ., ~r"blem, In Ihe Theory or layory .,,\d 510ve Sotlely,' S,S"
411 (I, Sprll1l1 1976): 3-27, espe Illlly pp. 21-22, 'ee",nly Grecn Rnman
~ntlqnll)' oi • 81av Nt' iely, bill lhis mny 1\0 Ion In<,
12n, Sec l,Ilo\hrroUl, Colosslnlll, IIp, ~2(, 27, , . I
12fi, K. S, I,nlflur lie, A HI"ory O}'Ilir il>Iponslo/J 01'('/lnSI'4" ~
6 yul•. (l,r,ln,1 Roi,I"" Z"nde'vlln, 1970), 1:262 63, Itlllg el". 1.1 Y
AI'II \, Con \, 4.9; 1 Clem. 56.
126. 1.I1l11\enc ker, P"IJ/a, 1'1'. 6~ M,
127, A. W.I\ullpr. hI "AlIillUle'OI\SllyeryAm:f.th
p Ih".," in NI1I' r>!/IIrtlllolI; /11 N.,,- 1nt"IIItnr NIsi,. ,.81
 Mcrri1I C. Tcnn~" (Gnnd lUpid.: Zonden4Q. 197{
and • . <ike is p>roeularly .ppuent m the .\lU>ndri",
161-/ . The prqu _.
. Sb~rry, pp. 113---4-9.10? tor «~nO_mt.: r:ltb~ t:h.a.a
12J~in the dcdinc of 5h.~·~- tn luc :moqWty.
ecker. Edrics. p. 6~.
U'-~u. Rdigil"- pp. 103-16, "~2-!~. p...un: m.,..
J3Ddu.t roO\"Cftcd sla\~ ~,-c:.re mClf -Chrisnm masters'spirituiJ
sboOId thus be fr=j..
.En~ro:.f
the Oltholic bi=rchy through John Locke--<lefcndcr
ouural libc:rty-s.la\·~· was an acccp.(cd insOtutioc.
an. Cress, pp. 30-31), ~~ e\"<o ~,·~U ~to the 1800.
. ~ti.ws considered Chrisnan abolinomsm an t.nretn.
t African sb.\-c5 ~'crc ~r import~d to Euro~ £:om Mu.slUn
tb3 sb\"CS arc still qwctly held 10 some IsJ:muc and other
'" 'SJa~'=" Sal'nPed [M.y 4, 1992): 30-39) cannOt keep
'. "ms th,m wondering why.so £?an?" who ..professed ChriSt
did Dot come to grip. with the unpucaDon. o~ the gospel. John
ented that Islamic sJa\'U')° W3S more humamran:m than what
in tUkgcdlyChristian lands (Su~derland, S/a.e~, p. 91). Yet
., rodav also interpret the Scriptures according to com"t_
mdican ~ther than according to their spirit.
32. ~ch, ""Codes."" p. 33, fo~owing Franz..Laub, Die Bt'glgltUNj
CJtriswrwms mir tier anriZen SklD.ere.. SB 107 (Sruttgm:
os Bibclwerk, 1982); Balch, Wi.... pp. 54, 97.
33. Acting from the righr moti~"'" is .rn:ssed often in Je"Uh
wrim:n in Greek: e.g., Ep. Ari.t. 270; P•. Sol. 4:10. P,ul's
-singleness of hea.rt" a1.0. ap~: Wisd. 1;1; cf.•Iso Test.
1; TI:S'. Benj. 6:5-7; Test. SID1. 4:,,; Test. 1.<:Vl 13:1; Test. Iss.
4el.6; 5:1, 8: 6:1; 7:7; Test. Asher 6:1 (if the ext3l1t Te.t3ments
on Paul her<).
dubnd, SID.cry, p. II.
the reward forserving God as Master, cf. Tob. 4:14. and
Jl:Wish tcacher Antigonu. of Socho ill Dl. Ab. 1:3.
• Gen. 16:9, where God'••ngl:! teU. Hagar to .ubmit tn
thority, but also 16:1(}-13, where this .ngd watches o\~r
bu.
J!I.1IIeiI. 47: It.
Laub, ~1IJnrci, p. 99, on "00 re.peet of persnns."
PtL 1.2.3, 1253b.
and Hurhoff, Lift, p_ 133. .
aDd Engmnan, Cru, ",pe:ttedly chalknge this as-
m Ihe United Sates, arguing that slaves wa<: much
tIIOI'eefficient than free labor.
Glatt Rdigion," p.ll0, who sees Col. 4:1 as the
to mutas to treat their slaves t3irlv.
~miPt be a rc2SOn.bk in.isr~ce tb.t
• C1anDe aDd DlCIDey to God's ser" 'e,~
• put .w.!' their te!C'1SI
.....rs to 5J' rimc~ top buyi~~ lug~ h~~«c... to pour •
~ .!cs \\'h3{ they_need (0 the on~ Into mts:gonsoc~in~the ~\,
""I('\"C'.1 g.ood ,d.C'.l. and 1 h3.~~ prc~.:hcd i.t: Ut I doub.t mr-1~l5....
I t'd~unon or JuJgmcnl "1.U shuC' up -.s:- oftbc dlurdt . ~
:i
~l~ i~ these rcnns. \'·c h~,~ ~ caJ ui~ ~ tIk ~J~ cnou.: to
~ttcCC' It 15 before ~\.·c em .me It tt1rth~ UlltsobcdK:n« to God '.
tSSU~ ho,\\·C-\'C-c. lik: r.a~~ (the )cwish·Gentik· c P.lu} ~i'ukd to
~lJ.\:c ,1I\y c..-otnproJUlSC. In his ~mds on the dUln:h. bo......uSC' tht dur~
;-:t cr of (he gospd_ J.S \\cil as trs spn:::ld and crcdibilit}. '\\--C:rt ..L.~m
Jt sr.1J.c• _
I-H. :.t:un~u~ :mJ B.akh, &0...
.lristOCrJ.ric perspc U\"C 10
•
."'t.
pp. ~ lB. '. the
Chanton. aMI:?"-.5~ wbert .l Nn.l\\'"2.\- sU.\'t'
15 IJenritl.ll:'tlc by the e.xtrJ.\"'agant manna In \'htdt he thro\\ ~nJ
mone~·. 145. Lohse. Pbilr",o..", pp. 1 7: 196. Anaent lite:nturc: ...) )U)d
JCV,a :1 CUD3\\''J.Y s13n~ J.S hJ.n~g J. h.ard nmc Ih.""C1ltr<lting. hc-c-1US( oftus
fcJ.r ofbcinc. arrested or mcenng his master (Epiet. om.. 1..29.59 63
146:- The iUeg:ility of harboring an '>p<d wve i, futh.' da..';'
mentcd in Barro\\". lRrrr.v. p. 54~ see also Finlcy_ SLlury. r 1\ f-
147. Pliny Ep. 9.21; ef. Lohse, Pltiu-n. p. 1%; R. l' ~l.nin,
C.1"';a,1l and Pbi/tmun. NCBC (Gr.IDd Rapids.: Eetdm,,,,- 19 1\, p.
146. Cf. also the material on s1J.\·e refuse in a-Brien. ""u-.,._ p_ 29
Interestingly, one uadition rc.ports that Diog:enc:s the Cyni.: hold J. sl.l\'t,
but he refused to pursue him when he C'Sl.'"a~ (Di g. uen. Lira
6.2.55).
148. Marrin_ Pbilt",on, p. 1-1:7, points om that PJ.ul d n)t
mention Philc.mon~s right to be angry. in contnSt to rhn I'S plCl to
Sabinianus. The contmst of Lightfoot, Phil~.4Jn. p. 318. b} t mu..:h
cmpha..lOis on P'3.urs lad. of rhctorkal polish in the kner. thi ntnst ,,-,th
Plinr's letter of reI.: mmendaoon rnJ.y be due to Plin~"s highcr C'duC.1n
or to the different social Ic\'(1 of the intended rC''J.ders t moK motn \\;tn
any contrast of ethics per se:.
149. Martin, Pbile,nun, p. 166. The possible pity on Onmm .
name: in Y. 20, citing his new usefulness lcf. \'. Il}. does not ruiht~tc
a~nst this intcrpretJ.tion; slaves \\ re sometimes freed for scr\;«$ ren-
deted CbMitoo batT.3.8.1-2}. Qme l.,er Jewish <tacit"" tuled thot
an CS\."":.l.pcd sla\'e who returned \\~ to fCt'J.1U hi or her ~cJom \p.... ·t.
-l:4-t §1l. but this was not true in RommLJ.\\.
150. Cf. Brut<. P"../, p. 406. . '
151. The reciprocal oblig'ltions prevent Paul trom ~g os
n~c«lr :l client dependent on Philemon-s mcr~y; Pht.l~ must ro.."'O@..
mzc that he him eli 0" ~ P.ul his 0\'\"11 sm,tion Whleb "nh mort
tIun anything P.uI uld !u"e >SI::ed in retum raul the torataI
I~gu.,ge of pumership in v. 1 (Meeks. Uriu_~.JIS, P .~, a. ]oIua
DIg, Y"" Ttstu'eJU Hospiti>1i."J, aBT 1 (PlUb<!e4>bi'· Fonft:SI.
1985J, p. 9).
152. His uterary form here m'l' be tlut of an ad_Ik(~'"
debt (Dcissmann, Light, pp. 331-32;a. O·Brien. ~p
sucit 'cknowledgments of debt ould be: used in the rccipnlCII
arg un
and"
not sc
althOl

them l
equal
same
capat
their
incre;
This
than
way i