M. Macdonald, Topos of Household Management

New Test. Stud. , pp. –.
© Cambridge University Press, 

doi:10.1017/S0028688510000251
Beyond Identification of the Topos of

Household Management: Reading the
Household Codes in Light of Recent
Methodologies and Theoretical Perspectives in
the Study of the New Testament*
M A R GA R ET Y. M AC D O NA LD
Department of Religious Studies, St Francis Xavier University, P.0. Box 5000,
Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada B2G 2W5.
email: [email protected]
From the mid-s to the mid-s New Testament scholars produced

groundbreaking work illustrating that the household code had its origins in dis-
cussions of ‘household management’ among philosophers and moralists from
Aristotle onward. Despite this general consensus, many points of disagreement
remained, especially with respect to the function of the codes in particular
New Testament documents and what the codes reveal about the relationship
of Christians with the wider world. This article revisits some of the initial
debates and traces their influence on subsequent scholarship. The recognition
of the household codes as a type of ‘political’ discourse is of particular interest,
as well as its impact on subsequent feminist, political and postcolonial interpret-
ation. The conclusion suggests five promising directions, closely tied to the study
of early Christian families, for future analysis of the codes leading to a more
complete understanding of household management in a house-church setting.
Keywords: family, ethics, Deutero-Paul, postcolonial, feminist, slaves, children
In his impressive commentary on Colossians, James D. G. Dunn offered the

following remark about the origins of the household code: ‘The debate as to where
this material was derived from has rumbled on for most of the twentieth century,
but should probably now be regarded as settled. The model, insofar as there is
one, was that of οἰκονομία, “household management”’. Here Dunn cites the
* This article is a revised version of the main paper I delivered at the annual meeting of the SNTS
at the University of Vienna, August –, . I am grateful to the editor, John Barclay and the
reviewer for their helpful comments. The research for this article was supported by the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
work of Lührmann, Thraede, Müller and Balch all of which was published from
the mid-s to the mid-s. A survey of commentaries on the Disputed
Paulines and  Peter would quickly reveal the accuracy of Dunn’s statement.
Scholars have generally accepted that the references to the three pairs of relation-
ships found in NT household code material (sometimes lacking one or more pairs
of the relationships or exhorting only one of the partners) represent an appropria-
tion of common themes found in discussions of household management from
classical Greek times to the Roman era which assumed the interdependence of
household and civic welfare (including state, economy and religion). The
purpose of this article is to consider how this scholarly consensus has influenced
our understanding of the significance of the household codes especially since the
mid-s and to suggest some promising avenues for further exploration.
It is important to state at the outset that while the broad issue of origins may be
regarded as settled, the function of the household codes within documents
remains a subject of lively debate, especially in work on women and slavery.
Moreover, one senses differing ideologies of interpretation shaping treatments
of the presence (or absence) of any ‘distinctively Christian’ features of the
codes and, more generally, discussions of the inclusion of traditional material
and conventional ethics. There is an enormous amount at stake in the interpret-
ation of the Haustafeln for NT scholars themselves and their students. Household
codes have also been of great interest to theologians and ethicists who draw upon
the work of biblical scholars and to those who investigate or feel personally
shaped by the legacy of domination which is fundamentally tied to these codes.
A central goal of this article is to explore the variety and sometimes even con-
tradictory positions of interpreters concerning the function of household codes in
 James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to Colossians and to Philemon (NIGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, ) . He cites D. Lürhmann, ‘Wo man nicht mehr Sklave oder Freier ist.
Überlegungen zur Struktur frühchristlicher Gemeinden’, WD  () –; D.
Lürhmann, ‘Neutestamentliche Haustafeln und antike Ökonomie’, NTS  (–) –;
K. Thraede, ‘Zum historischen Hintergrund der “Haustafeln” des NT’, Pietas (B. Kötting FS;
ed. E. Dassmann and K. S. Frank; Münster: Aschendorff, ) –; K. Müller, ‘Die
Haustafel des Kolosserbriefes und das antike Frauenthema. Eine kritische Rückschau auf
alte Ergebnisse’, Die Frau im Urchristentum (ed. G. Dautzenberg et al.; QD ; Freiberg:
Herder, ) –; David L. Balch, Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 
Peter (SBLMS ; Chico: Scholars, ).
 See, for example, Wayne A. Meeks, ‘The “Haustafeln” and American Slavery: A Hermeneutical
Challenge’, Theology and Ethics in Paul and his Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul
Furnish (ed. Eugene H. Lovering Jr. and Jerry Sumney; Nashville: Abingdon, ) –;
J. Albert Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions
(Minneapolis: Fortress, ) –; Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, ‘Emancipative Elements
in Ephesians .-: Why Feminist Scholarship Has (Often) Left them Unmentioned, and
Why They Should be Emphasized’, A Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline Epistles
(ed. Amy-Jill Levine with Miriamme Blickerstaff; London: T&T Clark, ) –.

Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management 
church documents. Ultimately, it will be argued that scholarly impasse can largely
be avoided with the recognition of two central facets of the evidence, both related
to the complexity of actors and voices reflected in NT documents and both emer-
ging from the adoption of new perspectives and methodologies. First, informed by
a thorough knowledge of families in the Roman world, scholars need to recognize
that the identities and circumstances of the recipients of the household codes
were often more complicated than an initial cursory reading of the codes—with
their seemingly clear-cut categories—would suggest. Secondly, on the basis of
feminist, political/empire and, most recently, postcolonial readings of the text,
the household codes are appearing more and more ideologically complex and,
it will be posited here, are best understood as encoding both culturally compliant
and culturally resistant elements.
The article is divided into the following sections: Part  considers the nature of
the scholarly claims concerning the household codes and the household manage-
ment topos especially from the mid-s to the mid-s, highlighting points of
contention and unresolved issues. Part  considers the impact of such work on
feminist interpretation of the s and s, which has in turn strengthened
our appreciation of the ‘political’ implications of the codes, their ideological
dimensions, and significantly advanced our understanding of the codes’ indebt-
edness to conventional ethics. Part  points to recent theoretical perspectives
and methods of interpretation which are moving us forward beyond identification
of the topos to a more nuanced understanding of the manner in which the
Haustafeln reflect engagement between church and society. The use of Empire
as an interpretative grid and postcolonial analysis are especially significant.
Finally, Part  identifies five promising directions, closely tied to the historical
and ideological dimensions of the study of early Christian families, as leading
to a more complete understanding of household management in a house-
church setting.
. Points of Contention and Unresolved Questions
In a comprehensive essay published in , David Balch summarized the

research to date on the form and function of the household codes. While it is
impractical to summarize the essay here, his conclusion referring to the work of
many of the same scholars cited by Dunn reveals points of debate which continue
to surface in current discussions. Like Dunn, Balch spoke of a general consensus
 David L. Balch, ‘Household Codes’, Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament (ed.
David E. Aune; Atlanta: Scholars, ) –. For a more recent survey and discussion of
research on the household codes, see Johannes Woyke, Die Neutestamentlichen Haustafeln:
Ein kritischer und konstruktiver Forschungsüberblick (SBS ; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches
Bibelwerk, ).

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
with respect to the theory of the origin of household codes, but highlighted differ-
ences of opinion that remained in . Here I would like to highlight some of the
most important of these, which, I would suggest, largely remain two decades later.
The first concerns the nature of Jewish and pagan influences and, more particu-
larly, whether household code ethics represent any type of ‘advance’ in relation to
the ethical discourse of writers of the same period. The second is whether the
codes should be viewed as mainly reflecting (with little significant alteration) or
even encouraging the adaption of conventional ethics in contrast to earlier
times in church communities. The question of whether the codes reflect a
change over against earlier patterns in the early Jesus movement and Pauline
Christianity was enormously significant for feminist interpreters of the s
and s. They sought to understand the relationship between the codes and
the partriarchalization of church offices and the attempt to marginalize the leader-
ship of women (to be discussed further in Part ). Finally, whether the household
codes truly represent the church’s apologetic response to Greco-Roman social
and political order remains vigorously debated among scholars. These points of
contention are admittedly interrelated. Nevertheless, there is value in treating
each separately in turn in order to gain a greater appreciation of the historical
issues at stake and to point to promising new directions.
With respect to influences from the contemporary environment, Balch and
others argued against an earlier generation of scholars that the codes were bor-
rowed from the Stoics or Hellenistic Judaism, arguing rather that the codes are
derived from Hellenistic discussions of ‘household management’ that find
classic expression in Aristotle’s Politics I b –, but can also be found in
works from the general era of the NT which refer to the same relationships,
such as Dio Chrysostom’s fragmentary oration on the topic (LCL .-),
Seneca’s discussion concerning the need to address each relationship differently
(Seneca Ep. .-), and Dionysius of Halicarnassus’s encomium of Rome prais-
ing Roman household relationships and emphasizing authority and obedience
(Roman Antiquities ..-.). Balch responds especially to Thraede’s thesis
that the household codes represent a type of middle position between the
vision of patriarchal authority found in the works of some ancient authors, and
more egalitarian visions:
Wer eine mit demokratischem Denken verträgliche Auslegung sozialethischer

Texte des NT erreichen möchte, muss innerhalb des Kanons wählen, aber
selbts die frühen ‘Haustafeln’ stehen für das Vorhaben, ‘Herrschaft Christi’
 Balch, ‘Household Codes’, –.

 For extensive documentation of the household management tradition and its close association
with guidelines for civil (politeia) responsibilities, see John H. Elliott,  Peter: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB B; New York: Doubleday [Random
House], ) –.

Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management 
gesellschaftskritisch einzusetzen schwerlich zur Verfügung. Besagte Option für

eine verantwortungsvolle μ1σότης zwischen Macht und ‘Gleichheit’ stellt dem
Verfasser des Kolosserbriefes, gemessen an den Anschauungen seiner Zeit,
immerhin auch kein schlechtes Zeugnis aus. Die Nachbarschaft Plutarchs,
wenn auch nicht die des enger zu Antipater gehörenden Musonius, und
der Abstand zu allem, was an unverblümtem Herrschaftsdenken bei Philo
oder im Rahmen römischer ‘Hausgewalt’ möglich war, beschreibt den
Ausgangspunkt der ‘Haustafeln’ vielleicht etwas treffender als das bislang
geschehen ist.
Balch instead finds a syncretistic body of texts among Stoic-Cynic and

Neopythagorean literature. He also questions the assumption that the ideas of
the Hellenistic Jews Philo and Josephus were more repressive than those of
Greek thinkers. Moreover, he demonstrates that the ‘egalitarian’ tendencies
of Plutarch and the Roman Stoics such as Musonius must be seen against other
assertions where these authors seem much more in keeping with traditional
values.
The body of literature reflecting the topos of household management is
complex and diverse; the tendency to view certain authors as repressive and
others as egalitarian is often misleading, misrepresenting the range of evidence.
Recent work on women in the ancient world has continued to showcase this com-
plexity and the dangers of anachronism associated with modern labels such as
‘repressive’ or ‘liberating’. Among much evidence that could be cited are the
points in common between the Pythagorean collection, which generally reflects
‘the conservative male perspective’, and Plutarch, well known for his vision of
marriage as ‘partnership’, with respect to the advice that wives should remain
steadfast with their husbands while tolerating their husbands’ failings in this
regard. Yet, Thraede’s insight of a ‘middle position’ has to a certain extent
found a new voice in contemporary scholarship viewing the household codes
as encoding a type of admixture of traditional and counter-cultural voices—
 Thraede, ‘Zum historischen Hintergrund der “Haustafeln” des NT’, . Balch (‘Household
Codes’, ) represents Thraede’s thesis concerning the household codes as follows: ‘This pos-
ition is expressly anti-egalitarian, but supports a mild, more humanitarian idea of authority,
which means that it is a conservative position between two extremes, a realistic, humane
middle position, a responsible, rational Aristotelian mean (mesotes) between unqualified
patriarchy and equality’.
 Balch, ‘Household Codes’, –.
 See Perictione On Feminine Harmony ; Plutarch Advice to Bride and Groom B. Adding to
the complexity of the Pythagorean evidence is that the collection contains fragments and
whole letters supposedly written by five philosopher women of illustrious background, includ-
ing Perictione, Plato’s mother. So the advice purports to be from woman to woman. There is
substantial debate with respect to dating and whether there is any real influence of women’s
authorship. See Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Y. MacDonald (with Janet Tulloch), A Woman’s
Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, ) –, –.

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
with the result being a complex amalgam at some distance from either revolution-
ary or patriarchal extremes. As will be explored below, the use of imperial ideology
as an interpretive grid, often in conjunction with postcolonial analysis, is leading
to surprising results that call for further exploration.
These newer approaches are also leading to a renewed interest in the house-
hold codes and Jewish sources. This is partly in response to David Verner’s impor-
tant study which, while supporting the theory of the external origins of the general
reciprocal form and household management theme, nevertheless argued in favor
of a specifically Christian schema. Yet, scholars have noted close parallels with
respect to the shape of individual exhortations in wisdom literature and
Hellenistic-Jewish ethical material. While Verner’s insights remain useful in
demonstrating the way the Christian material is introduced in the codes by high-
lighting such features as ‘justification clauses’ that typically include ‘the Lord’, or
‘in the Lord’, Verner’s schema tends to overemphasize the uniqueness of the
Christian exhortations. To name just a few examples, one is struck by the pres-
ence of address, instruction, and motivation in the teachings concerning fathers,
mothers, and children (and their bearing on relations with God) in Sirach .-
or the manner in which Philo seeks to temper the authority of masters in De spe-
cialibus legibus . and his albeit indirect address to both social groups in De
specialibus legibus .-.
In some recent studies it is the interlacing of household code material with
biblical allusions and themes that has led to an appreciation of multiple dimen-
sions of household ethics. The offering (Col .) of the share of the inheritance
promised to Abraham (a concept which, according to Dunn, has eschatological
undertones and spiritual connotations as the promise of eternal life) takes on
new force with the irony of such a gift offered to slaves who under Roman Law
stood outside the realm of inheritance altogether. As we will see, the concept
of inheritance has figured prominently in readings of the Colossian code as a
type of ‘hidden transcript’, innocuous to outsiders, but ultimately undermining
the dominant categories of the slave–master relationship. The identification of
 David C. Verner, The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles (SBLDS ;
Chico: Scholars, ). For a detailed structural and semantic analysis of the codes in
Colossians, Ephesians, and  Peter, see Marlis Gielen, Tradition und Theologie neutestamen-
tlicher Haustafelethik: Ein Beitrag zur Frage einer christlichen Auseinandersetzung mit
gesellschaftlichen Normen (BBB ; Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, ).
 See also Balch, ‘Household Codes’, –.
 See Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, .
 See Balch, ‘Household Codes’, .
 Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, . On inheritance and eschatology
Dunn cites Ps .; Isa .. On the idea of inheriting eternal life, he cites Pss. Sol. .; 
En. .; Sib. Or. frag. , line ; Tes. Job .–.
 See Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, ) . They cite James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of

Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management 
parallels with Jewish sources has instilled caution with respect to claims of a
uniquely Christian ethical stance envisioned by the codes, but at the same time
is leading to a growing appreciation of the complex negotiations required with
respect to group identity in the Roman imperial world which early Christians
shared with Jews. As is typical of discussions of household management in the
Greco-Roman world generally, Eph .- uses familial relationships, in this
case marriage, to address the realities of the broader community. But there are
also elements of resistance to the dominant social order taking the form of the
presentation of the ekklesia as that which is purified and set apart in Eph .–
. These elements of resistance become most obvious in the references to
purity, fidelity, and unity which are grounded in scriptural references and allu-
sions (Eph .- [Ezek .]; Eph . [Lev .]; Eph . [Gen .]) and
demonstrate points of contact with Jewish literature of the period (cf. Josephus
Against Apion .–).
With respect to the second key point of debate noted above, whether the codes
should be viewed as mainly reflecting (with little significant alteration) conven-
tional ethics, it must be said that scholars who have generally accepted that the
basis of the household codes lies in the topos of household management have
increasingly been arguing that parallels are not just a matter of general form
and content, but of quite specific form and content. The range of texts cited,
however, is striking. To offer two contrasting examples: In  Angela
Standhartinger turned her attention to inscriptional evidence, noting the simi-
larities in form between the Colossian household code and the Philadelphian
inscription found on a stele referring to the ethical requirements of a cultic associ-
ation, including interaction between various familial groupings. In ,
J. Albert Harrill compared the Colossian and Ephesian household codes to agri-
cultural handbooks, noting a pattern whereby the subordination of slaves to the
farm master or bailiff is presented as ultimately reflecting the farm master’s sub-
ordination to the paterfamilias (thereby offering the same type of symbolic lord-
ship that provides theological justification in the household codes). But what
Resistance (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ). Walsh and Keesmaat emphasize the
traditions of jubilee.
 For full discussion of conventional and countercultural elements in Eph .-, see Osiek and
MacDonald (with Tulloch), A Woman’s Place, –.
 See David L. Balch, ‘Neopythagorean Moralists and the New Testament Household Codes’,
Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt , no. . () –. Balch offers several
examples from Hellenistic street philosophy, which offer particularly good parallels to the
genre of the Colossian code.
 Angela Standhartinger, ‘The Origin and Intention of the Household Code in the Letter to the
Colossians’, JSNT  () –. For the inscription see SIG ..
 Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament, –.

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
needs to be probed more deeply is why the identification of parallels is leading to

such different conclusions in these valuable studies. For Standhartinger the par-
allels with the inscription illustrate how the code functions to reassure outsiders
that the congregation respects the traditional oikos-model, but the familial ‘in-
group’ receives some counter-cultural messages. For Harrill, the parallels
suggest that the household codes have much in common with traditional slave
management strategies: ‘…the writers/compilers of the Haustafeln select certain
ethical material about elite slaves from wider classical culture, call it the “tra-
ditional” teachings of the church, and use it to bolster the domestic framework
of their nonhousehold authority’.
The difference of opinion here lies not in the extent of the conventionality of
the ethics but in their overall function. In both cases, there seems to be a desire to
identify the ethical stance as either counter-cultural or as thoroughly convention-
al, serving to reinforce the status quo. For Harrill, the appearance of conventional
ethics leaves little doubt as to the overriding agenda in sympathy with the interests
of slaveholders. Standhartinger, on the other hand, reads the conventionality of
ethics largely as an apologetic strategy which has little bearing on the true
ethical stance of the community. As will be illustrated below, however, there is
a need for greater nuance with respect to the function of the codes in community
life to allow for more complexity and even contradiction based on the variety of
actors and perspectives that shaped NT communities and texts.
Ongoing work since the early s suggests that the uniqueness of the ethical
material contained in the codes should not be overplayed. Yet, it remains the case
that no precise parallels have been found in other traditions. The address to sub-
ordinate groups (especially slaves, but I would argue also children, including child
slaves) directly rather than via the paterfamilias is at least unusual. In his study on
ancient slavery and early Christianity Franz Laub called attention to this and the
integrative potential of the codes uniting members into one house-ekklesia in
:
Das Besondere - im modernen Verständnis das besonders Negative - an dieser

Art Sklavenmahnung ist es nicht, dass der Sklave dabei zu Unterordnung und
Willfährigkeit aufgefordert wird. Ähnliches erwartet die Haustafel auch von der
Frau und den Kindern. Das ist zunächts einfach der Alltag des antiken Oikos.
Das Besondere gerade in Hinsicht auf die Sklaven ist es vielmehr, dass hier
zwar der sozialen Schichtung des Oikos entsprechende Gruppen angeredet
werden, die Sklaven eingeschlossen, aber nicht mehr als Oikos-
Gemeindschaft, sondern in der neuen Formierung der ekklesia.
 Standhartinger, ‘The Origin and Intention of the Household Code’, .

 Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament, .
 Franz Laub, Die Begegnung des frühen Christentums mit der Antiken Sklaverei (Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, ) . See also Balch, ‘Household Codes’, ; Wayne A. Meeks,
The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale

Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management 
Yet, as I will discuss further in Part , our appreciation of the integrative function
of the codes has often been hampered by our lack of understanding of the com-
plexities of family life in the Roman world. The house church is at once a place of
family life and a ritual context. The experience of being called out by name as a
member of a familial group in church meetings might resonate with unity-gener-
ating potential while at the same time speak to various levels of experience of
community members who could belong to more than one category—one might
be a mother and slave, a child and parent, a wife and master. What kind of rela-
tional messages might a member, often living out multiple identities, take away
from a church meeting? For example, how can one obey one’s parents in all
things when one’s (perhaps non-believing) master demands the opposite? The
impact of the household codes on community life has been of great interest to
scholars, as will be discussed in the next section, but recent work leads to great
caution with respect to single-dimension assessments of the social location of
community members. Instead, as will be argued here, one should acknowledge
ideologies of domination while at the same time recognizing evidence of overlap-
ping aspects of identity in family life which would have impacted how the codes
were heard by various members.
A final set of unresolved issues emerging from the discussions of the early
s concerns the apologetic function of the codes. While  saw the publi-
cation of Balch’s groundbreaking study on the household code of  Peter, Let
Wives be Submissive, it also saw the publication of an important sociological
study of  Peter by John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless. While Balch
argued for an apologetic function, Elliott viewed the household code as part of
the strategy for encouraging cohesion in the face of external pressures to
conform—offering a home for strangers and aliens (cf.  Pet ., ; .). In sub-
sequent publications, Balch and Elliott continued to refine their positions, chal-
lenging scholars to reflect upon the role of the household code both in
mediating between the church and the world and in offering organizational struc-
tures for community integration.
One of the greatest benefits of the Balch–Elliott debate is that it set the stage for
increasing recognition of varying degrees of apologetic responses across various
University, ) – and –. On reciprocal ethical exhortations and the unusual nature of
the direct address, see also Gielen, Tradition und Theologie neutestamentlicher Haustafelethik,
–, –, , , .
 John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of  Peter (Philadelphia:
Fortress, ).
 See David L. Balch, ‘Hellenization/Acculturation in  Peter’, Perspectives on  Peter (ed.
Charles H. Talbert; Macon, GA: Mercer University, ) –; John H. Elliott., ‘ Peter,
Its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch’, Perspectives on  Peter (ed
Talbert) –; Elliott,  Peter, –.

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
documents. With its explicit reference to relations with nonbelievers within the
code ( Pet .-),  Peter has seemed to some to offer much more obvious
material for an apologetic argument than the other codes. Nevertheless, the
apologetic argument has often shaped interpretation of Colossians as in the
Standhartinger article cited above or in the thesis put forth by Dunn that there
is a double apologetic slant in the code of Colossians, aimed not only at pagan
outsiders but also at Jews. Although I have continued to argue for an apologetic
function for Eph .-., the feminist work of Sarah J. Tanzer is notable for ques-
tioning this theory in light of the author’s sustained attempt to distinguish early
Christian behavior from that of outsiders and for arguing, in fact, that the code
is a later addition to Ephesians. The question of what constitutes ‘apologetic’
underlies these assessments, often closely connected to the extent to which
texts adopt (or return to) conventional patriarchal patterns. Commenting on scho-
larship on  Peter, David Horrell has recently stated that there is a need for per-
spectives that can ‘…enable us to move beyond a somewhat unsatisfactory
categorization of a text as either conformist or resistant’. But before exploring
some of the avenues suggested by Horrell and others that I will propose, it is
important to pay special attention to the impact of Haustafeln scholarship from
the mid-s to the mid-s on feminist interpretation of the s and
s. This feminist interpretation constitutes an important transitional stage in
scholarship on the household codes, advancing our understanding of the ideo-
logical dimensions of the codes, calling attention to the circumstances of wives
and other subordinate members of house-church communities, and laying
much of the groundwork for new perspectives and methods in the study of the
Haustafeln. Real advances in the study of the Haustafeln were made (and are
ongoing) as scholars moved beyond basic discussions of literary structure and his-
torical context to acknowledge the impact of particular social locations—as
reflected in both ancient texts and modern analyses of texts—and the political
and theological implications of interpretation.
. The Codes and Feminist Analysis
Household code discourse was of central interest in the groundbreaking

feminist work of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza published in , In Memory of
 Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, .

 See Sarah H. Tanzer, ‘Ephesians’, Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary (ed. E. S.
Fiorenza; New York: Crossroad, ) –, esp. , –. See also Winsome Munro, ‘Col
III.-IV. and Eph V.-VI.: Evidence of a Late Literary Stratum?’, NTS  () –.
Arguing against the apologetic function of the Ephesian household code, see Daniel K.
Darko, No Longer Living as the Gentiles: Differentiation and Shared Ethical Values in
Ephesians .-. (Library of New Testament Studies ; New York: T&T Clark, ).
 David G. Horrell,  Peter (London: T &T Clark, ) .

Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management 
Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. Fiorenza’s argu-

ment concerning the introduction of patriarchy via the household code was and
continues to be hugely influential in feminist analysis: ‘In taking over the Greco-
Roman ethic of the patriarchal household code, Colossians not only “spiritualizes”
and moralizes the baptismal community understanding expressed in Gal . but
also makes this Greco-Roman household ethic a part of “Christian” social ethic.
However, it is important to keep in mind that such a reinterpretation of the
Christian baptismal vision is late—it did not happen before the last third of the
century’. Citing many of the scholars mentioned above, Fiorenza argued:
‘Western misogynism has its root in the rules for the household as the model of
the state. A feminist theology therefore must not only analyze the anthropological
dualism generated by Western culture and theology, but also uncover its political
roots in the patriarchal household of antiquity’.
In subsequent work, where her use of rhetorical analysis emerges more
plainly, Fiorenza articulates her commitment to political and theological engage-
ment in a manner that sharply reminds us of what is at stake in the interpretation
of the household codes. Fiorenza seeks to ‘…work out a process and method for a
feminist political reading that can empower women who, for whatever reasons,
are still affected by the Bible to read “against the grain” of its patriarchal rheto-
ric’. Household code discourse is patriarchal discourse par excellence.
Fiorenza, however, has sometimes preferred the term kyriarchal/kyriocentric
echoing the double meaning inherent in the Greek term for lord and master
which is so well exploited by the author(s) of Colossians and Ephesians. Such
language underscores ‘…that domination is not simply a matter of patriarchal,
gender-based dualism but of more comprehensive, interlocking, hierarchically
ordered structures of domination, evident in a variety of oppressions, such as
racism, poverty, heterosexism and colonialism’. With this last comment,
Fiorenza anticipates the political and postcolonial readings of recent years and
points the way towards the lines of enquiry that will be discussed subsequently.
One cannot overestimate the impact of Fiorenza’s vision on scholarly con-
clusions concerning the implications of the household codes for the lives of
 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of

Christian Origins (London: SCM, ).
 Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, .
 Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, .
 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation
(Boston: Beacon, ) .
 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Studies (Minneapolis:
Fortress, ) ix.
 Postcolonial scholarship and Empire Studies have offered increasingly important conversation
partners for Fiorenza in recent years. See especially Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Power of
the Word: Scripture and the Rhetoric of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, ).

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
women. Feminist commentators have lamented what has seemed like a retreat
from some of Paul’s most important theological principles. In , commenting
on Ephesians, Elizabeth Johnson expressed the results in very strong terms: ‘The
result for women is thus a retreat from the initial freedom promised them in
Paul’s preaching and a reassertion of conventional patriarchal morality’. One of
Fiorenza’s most influential insights about the nature of the codes, however, is that
they are prescriptive rather than descriptive. In the period of the codes women
were still pushing against the grain, expecting to exercise leadership roles, and
early Christianity was being accused of having a subversive influence on women
and slaves. Indeed, we have a fine example of women’s leadership within
Colossians which includes the only unambiguous reference in the Pauline Epistles
to the independent leadership of a house church by a woman, Nympha (Col .).
Both directly and indirectly, Fiorenza’s insights have continued to shape dis-
cussions from the mid-s to the present, but other scholars have made their
own important contributions. To name a few of the diverse examples: In a 
commentary on Colossians, Mary Rose D’Angelo focused on the symbolism of
the letter, the theological shaping of the symbolism, and the disjuncture
between the household code and certain aspects of the symbolism. According
to D’Angelo, the baptismal imagery of Colossians becomes masked or limited
by household code ethics which ultimately lead to a type of ‘…double conscious-
ness in women and slaves, demanding that they deny their subjected status in the
religious realm while submitting to it in the social world’. The problematic
relationship between household ethics and symbolism is also of primary
concern in Carolyn Osiek’s  essay on Eph .- where she draws on literary
criticism on simile and metaphor to explore the sexual undertones of the text,
which comes close to suggesting that ‘female biology is destiny’.
In some feminist work the focus has been more directly on the audience of the
household codes and the nature of the codes as prescriptive rather than descrip-
tive. In  Turid Karlsen Seim published an insightful essay which drew atten-
tion to the idealized nature of the Ephesians code, suggesting that the audience to
 E. A. Johnson, ‘Ephesians’, The Women’s Bible Commentary (ed. C. A. Newsom and H. R.

Ringe; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, ) .
 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical
Interpretation (Boston: Beacon, ) –. See also Tanzer, ‘Ephesians’, .
 See Margaret Y. MacDonald, ‘Can Nympha Rule this House? The Rhetoric of Domesticity in
Colossians’, Rhetoric and Reality in Early Christianities (ed. Willi Braun; Studies in
Christianity and Judaism ; Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier, ) .
 Mary Rose D’Angelo, ‘Colossians’, Searching the Scriptures (ed. Fiorenza) . She speculates
that the Christ-hymn in Col .- may have originated as a hymn to Sophia with the end
result of the transformation being that ‘the Christ of Colossians is the incarnation of a
divine female persona, but his person hides hers with a male mask’.
 D’Angelo, ‘Colossians’, .
 Carolyn Osiek, ‘The Bride of Christ (Eph .-): A Problematic Wedding’, BTB  () –.

Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management 
which Ephesians was addressed probably included wives whose husbands were
nonbelievers. The subversive presence of women without their partners in
church groups was of major interest to me in my  book on pagan reaction
to early Christian women, where I called the wives of  Pet .- ‘quiet evange-
lists’. More generally, I sought to explore how the stereotypical impressions of
women offered by the first pagan critics might have shaped early Christian house-
hold ethics while women continued to challenge tradition and convention.
Feminist scholarship has not been uniform in its assessments, however, par-
ticularly with respect to the transformation in Pauline thought that occurs from
Paul to Deutero-Paul. Here the work of Lone Fatum has been especially important
for it seriously challenges the optimistic picture of the very beginning of the
Pauline era based on ‘liberating’ understandings of Gal .. In a recent essay
Fatum has described ‘the Pastoral Paul’s’ institutionalization project not in
terms of patriarchalization of the real Paul, but in terms of a shift in theological
justification away from a ‘vertical’, ‘already/not yet’ eschatology to the ‘horizontal’
here and now (at the expense of apocalyptic, asceticism, and charismatic spiri-
tuality). The Pastoral Paul is concerned with the patriarchal household order
of the church and dwells in a world where ‘…social status and personal identity
are regulated by rules and conventions of the emperor and his local representa-
tives ( Tim .-; Tit .-), the publicness of the city, the opinion of others,
and the talk of neighbors’. The vision of household as microcosm of the state
is clearly visible. The result is a depiction of the Pastoral Paul as a political strat-
egist and a defender of masculinity.
Few scholars share Fatum’s pronounced pessimism for recovering the agency
of women and elements of their resistance to the dominant social order. Yet
 T. K. Seim, ‘A Superior Minority: The Problem of Men’s headship in Ephesians ’, Mighty
Minorities? Minorities in Early Christianity—Positions and Strategies: Essays in Honor of
Jacob Jervell on His th Birthday,  May  (ed. D. Hellholm, H. Moxnes, and T. K.
Seim; Oslo/Copenhagen/Stockholm/Boston: Scandanavian University, ) –.
 Margaret Y. MacDonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the
Hysterical Woman (Cambridge: Cambridge University, ) –.
 See, for example, Lone Fatum, ‘Images of God and Glory of Man: Women in the Pauline
Congregations’, Image of God and Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition (ed. K. E.
Borresen; Oslo: Solum ) –; ‘ Thessalonians’, Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist
Commentary (ed. E. S. Fiorenza; New York: Crossroad, ) –.
 Lone Fatum, ‘Christ Domesticated: The Household Theology of the Pastorals as Political
Strategy’, The Formation of the Early Church (ed. Jostein Ådna; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
) . Fatum’s contribution to the study of the Pastorals has been extensively discussed
by Marianne Bjelland Kartzow in Gossip and Gender: Othering of Speech in the Pastoral
Epistles (Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, ) –, –.
 Fatum, ‘Christ Domesticated’, .
 See L. Schottroff, S. Schroer, and M. T. Wacker, Feminist Intepretation: The Bible in Woman’s
Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, ) .

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
many are increasingly hesitant to accept arguments that posit a dramatic shift
from the Paul of the undisputed letters to the Paul of the disputed letters on
household hierarchies and ethics. In fact, it is helpful to think in terms of a trajec-
tory of institutionalization from Paul to Deutero-Paul. Household codes are
essentially familial idealizations that need to be read in relation to complex
family realities. Rather than representing a definitive break with earlier patterns,
the codes appear to actualize or articulate conventional arrangements in house-
church communities that probably were always present in the Pauline churches
alongside challenges to traditional family structures through various forms of
asceticism and the allegiance to church groups of subordinate members of
non-believing households. External pressures were no doubt important factors
in leading to conventional assertions of identity that may sometimes have
served apologetic functions. Moreover, now forming part of the ‘symbolic uni-
verse’ of some communities, the household codes could shape behavior in
certain ways and were available to offer justification for further institutional devel-
opments such as the kind of merger between household ethics and the criteria for
church offices we find in the Pastoral Epistles. But the pace and uniformity of
these social dynamics should not be exaggerated. The fact that Haustafel tra-
ditions are found in works such as Colossians (.) and the letters of Ignatius
where women appear as house-church leaders and patrons (e.g., Smyrn. .;
Pol. .-) suggests that despite their often devastating legacies, in their own
day these texts did not necessarily lead to any immediately dramatic changes in
the lives of women and other subordinate members. As hostesses and benefac-
tors, women may simply have been carrying on with the leadership roles they
knew as pagan and Jewish women: ‘…it is actually very difficult to know if the
women who heard these instructions would have interpreted them as a call to
change their behavior in any way (for example, perhaps relinquishing earlier
ascetic inclinations) or whether the specific ethical recommendations would
sound so familiar as to seem banal, perhaps to be quietly ignored’.
One of the strongest defenders of seeing the Haustafeln as an indication of a
radical difference between the historical Paul and his deutero-Pauline interpreters
has been Neil Elliott, a contributor to the volumes on Paul, empire, and politics
edited by Richard A. Horsley. Referring to close readings of Paul’s references to
slavery by S. Scott Bartchy and Norman Peterson and to work on women’s leader-
ship in the undisputed letters by feminist scholars, Elliott warns against the assim-
ilation of Paul’s message to the ‘pseudo-Pauline Haustafeln’. Referring to his 
volume, Liberating Paul, he argues that ‘…interpretative strategies that assimilate
 See Margaret Y. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches: Institutionalization in the Pauline and
Deutero-Pauline Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University, ).
 Osiek and MacDonald (with Tulloch), A Woman’s Place, .

Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management 
Paul to the pseudo-Paulines, under the guise of describing a “Pauline school” or

“Pauline churches”, misconstrue literary resemblances, an effect of pseudepigra-
phy, as historical continuity’. According to Elliott, ‘the pseudo-Pauline letters
already began to modify Paul to serve the churches’ agenda in the post-apostolic
period, and to an extent to accommodate the word of the cross to the interests of
empire’. Influenced by feminist scholarship in particular, Elliott does admit that
subordinationist language is present in the undisputed letters which closely
resembles the wider Roman culture. But his thesis about the overall force of
an anti-imperial Paul in contrast to his deutero-Pauline interpreters comes
under question when one considers the growing body of literature which carefully
examines the disputed Paulines and finds a complex picture of subordinationist
language and empire-resistant elements that is also typical of Paul’s letters.
Careful studies have demonstrated that such links cannot simply be attributed
to an attempt to mimic or assimilate Paul’s thought, but rather are often rooted
in the unique perspectives of the epistles themselves.
. Recent Perspectives: Reading the Households Codes in light of

Empire and Family
As interest in Paul and Empire has grown over the past decade, scholars are
now producing detailed and nuanced studies of the disputed Paulines using this
interpretative grid and challenging long-held views about the function of the
household codes—especially views about their tendency to reinforce acceptance
of the dominant social order categorically. Harry Maier’s study of Colossians’
appropriation of imperial motifs offers us a case in point. Maier has interpreted
the symbolism and ethics of Colossians in light of the temple complex of
Sebasteion at Aphrodisias dedicated to the Julio-Claudian emperors and
located about  km from Colossae. This sculptural display celebrates the
triumph of the emperors and their families who stand together with Olympian
deities over pacified peoples assimilated in imperial harmony. Among the
Pauline baptismal proclamations of unity, Col . is notable for its reference to
ethnic boundaries which Maier reads in relation to an Empire that ‘celebrated
 Neil Elliott, ‘Paul and the Politics of Empire’, Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium,
Interpretation (ed. Richard A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, ) . See also Liberating
Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, ).
 Elliott here is referring specifically to Paul’s theology of powers which the authors of
Colossians and Ephesians link to the heavenly/spiritual realm but which Paul himself main-
tains as earthly, tied to Jesus’ death, using apocalyptic concepts. See ‘The Anti-Imperial
Message of the Cross’, Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (ed.
Richard A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, ) ; see pp. –.
 Elliott, ‘Paul and the Politics of Empire’, .
 Harry Maier, ‘A Sly Civility: Colossians and Empire’, JSNT  () –.

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
its dominion over subject peoples iconographically’ and proclaimed a ‘trans-

ethnic order’. There are several texts that echo and seemingly subvert imperial
strategies and ideals in Colossians. In addition to Col ., we should consider the
veiled references to the experience of triumphal procession and captivity to
describe the conquering of the powers in Christ (Col .-) and even the
unusual use of the verb in Col . (συλαγωγέω: to plunder, to take as captive,
to carry off as booty)—appearing only here in the NT—referring to the dangers
of being taken captive by philosophy. According to Maier, Colossians offers a
‘hybrid vision’ where the Haustafel plays an important role: ‘It urges believers
gathered in house churches to realize by love what Rome seeks to achieve by
the force of arms, and thereby to be the visible ecclesial manifestation of an
alternative cosmic rule centred finally in an empire-renouncing logic’.
In his analysis Maier is influenced by the postcolonial theories of Homi
Bhabha. Postcolonial Studies has emerged as an increasingly important conver-
sation partner for Biblical Studies. In the words of R. S. Sugirtharajah,
‘Postcolonial studies emerged as a way of engaging with the textual, historical,
and cultural articulations of societies disturbed and transformed by the historical
reality of colonial presence’. Its usefulness for explorations of the place of early
Christianity within the Empire is tied to the dual interests of postcolonial critics in
analyzing ‘…the diverse strategies by which the colonizers constructed images of
the colonized’ and in studying ‘…how the colonized themselves made use of and
went beyond many of those strategies in order to articulate their identity, self-
worth, and empowerment’. It is this latter interest which has been of particular
importance for analysis of the household codes; interpreters have sought to
understand how early church groups opposed elements of the dominant imperial
culture and essentially lived the experience of the colonized and displaced, while
at the same time expressing an ethos in ways that appeared to call upon the
strategies of domination of the imperial order. When examining household
codes, the notions of ‘hybridity and micmicry’ have proven to be especially illu-
minating. Essentially, they become a strategy by which the colonized respond
to imperial rule. According to Homi Bhabha, hybridity is a type of ‘in-between’
 Maier, ‘A Sly Civility’, . Reference to the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias is central to recent
postcolonial reading of Galatians by Davina C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered:
Reimagining Paul’s Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress, ).
 On the use of this term, see Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament, .
 Maier, ‘A Sly Civility’, .
 See Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, ) –.
 R. S. Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford
University, ) . For the influence of postcolonial theory on biblical interpretation, includ-
ing that of Bhabha, see also Stephen D. Moore, Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and
the New Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, ).
 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation, .

Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management 
space: ‘A contingent, borderline experience opens up in-between colonizer and

colonized. This is a space of cultural and interpretive undecidability…’. As will
be discussed in more detail in Part , through the lens of Bhabha’s theories, the
significance and impact of the household codes appear to be culturally
complex, representing a type of inter-cultural exchange between the emerging
early Christian ethos and the values and ethics of the broader society.
Empire/political readings of Pauline literature have also been influenced by
the theories of political scientist, James C. Scott, especially with respect to the
concept of ‘hidden transcript’ (typical of oppressed groups, a way of expressing
their outlook in a way that only insiders will understand). Scott described the
‘social sites’ of ‘hidden transcript’ in a manner that is very suggestive for under-
standing early church communities. Spaces of the least inhibition are those
where the hidden transcript ‘…is voiced in a sequestered social site where the
control, surveillance, and repression of the dominant are least able to reach,
and second, when this sequestered social milieu is composed entirely of close
confidants who share similar experiences of domination’. Among the circum-
stances discussed by Scott is the place of Eph .- in the lives of the slaves of
the US south. He argues that under surveillance of the master or the master’s
representative, public religious ceremony meant that ‘…slaves were expected to
control their gestures, facial expression, voice, and general comportment’. But
outside the surveillance and with the use of devices to prevent sound from carry-
ing ‘… an entirely different atmosphere reigned—one of release from the constant
guardedness of domination, permitting dancing, shouts, clapping, and partici-
pation’. Ephesians .- might have called for ‘…a plea for a sincere official tran-
script from slaves’, but ‘… the offstage Christianity…stressed the themes of
 Bhabha, The Location of Culture, .

 It is important to acknowledge that countercultural or resistant elements of the household
codes have also been recognized by scholars before and independent of the appeal to political
and postcolonial theories. See, for example, Angela Standhinger, Studien zur
Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des Kolosserbriefs (NovTSup ; Leiden: Brill, );
‘The Origin and Intention of the Household Code in the Letter to the Colossians’; ‘The
Epistle to the Congregation in Colossae and the Invention of the Household Code’, A
Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline Epistles (ed. Amy-Jill Levine with Miriamme
Blickerstaff; London: T&T Clark, ) –; Mollenkott, ‘Emancipative Elements in
Ephesians .–’, –. For some of these scholars, it is not a matter of ‘either /or’, but
of ambiguity and even contradiction in a given text. See especially J. Barclay, ‘Ordinary but
Different: Colossians and Hidden Moral Identity’, ABR  () –.
 See Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance. On the influence of Scott’s work more gen-
erally on the study of Paul see Richard A. Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of
Resistance: Applying the work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Semeia Studies ;
Atlanta, GA: SBL ).
 Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, .

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
deliverance, and redemption, Moses and the Promised Land, the Egyptian
captivity, and emancipation’.
In his  commentary on Colossians, Jerry Sumney employs Scott’s concept
of ‘hidden transcript’ to read Colossians within a Roman setting and believes the
concept has direct implications for how we should understand the household
codes: ‘The tension between what the code seems to require and what
Colossians proclaims about the cosmos and believers’ place in Christ, as well as
some statements within the code itself…indicate that something other than the
usual straightforward reading is in order’. According to Sumney, if indeed
Colossians employs a hidden transcript, there is less incongruence between the
letter’s proclamation and its ethics than is often thought and the promise that
slaves are to receive ‘inheritance’ in Col . has definitive social repercussions:
‘Giving slaves the status of heirs, Colossians signals a reorientation of the structure
of society… At this juncture, others might not treat them with the dignity appro-
priate to their identity; but this is temporary. The promise of recompense—indeed
of an astonishing reward—assures slaves that God will not allow their current
treatment to be the final word’.
Postcolonial and political theories have also been applied to household code
traditions in  Peter. David Horrell refers to the work of both James C. Scott and
Homi Bhabha concluding that their theories help us see ‘…how a writer like the
author of  Peter is not being simply conformist, or accommodating the church
to the world, even if he does take a less radical, anti-Roman stance than, say,
the author of Revelation’. While to the best of my knowledge, postcolonial the-
ories have yet to be applied to the household code of Ephesians, there is a growing
awareness of the value of using imperial ideology as an interpretative grid for the
 Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, .

 Jerry L. Sumney, Colossians: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: John Knox, ) .
 Sumney, Colossians, . Here Sumney cites Müller, ‘Die Haustafel des Kolosserbriefes’, –
. Although in general I am somewhat less confident of Colossians’ internal consistency than is
Sumney, I have argued that the author of Colossians does present a fundamental bestowal of
honor on slaves. See Margaret Y. MacDonald, ‘Slavery, Sexuality, and House Churches: A
Reassessment of Colossians .–. in Light of New Research on the Roman Family’, NTS
 () –, see esp. .
 Horrell,  Peter, . On the application of Scott’s perspective to the study of  Peter, see also
Warren Carter, ‘Going All the Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives and Slaves in
 Pet .–.’, A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles (ed. Amy Jill Levine and Maria
Mayo Robbins; London/New York: T&T Clark, ) –. On the use of postcolonial theory
for the study of  Peter more generally, see David G. Horrell, ‘Between Conformity and
Resistance: Beyond the Balch–Elliott Debate Towards a Postcolonial Reading of  Peter’,
Reading  Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter (ed.
Robert L. Webb and Betsy Bauman-Martin; LNTS; London/New York: T&T Clark, )
–. On feminist postcolonial analysis of  Peter, see Fiorenza, The Power of the Word,
–.

Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management 
work; we find notions of citizenship and membership in the household of God

(Eph .) and remembrances of dislocation (Eph .–), not unlike the
social dynamics of  Peter. By means of a comparison of Ephesians to apologetic
texts like Josephus, Against Apion, one might explore inter-textual links between
Eph .– as representing the macro-vision of heavenly citizenship and Eph
.– as representing the micro-vision of household holiness and loyalty.
The Haustafel material in the Pastoral Epistles is far less revealing of elements
of resistance. Yet, we should not forget the usefulness of the ‘hidden transcript’
concept for shedding light on the perspectives and activities of the opponents
who surface in NT texts sometimes as counter-voices to the dominant reinforce-
ment of household hierarchies. In her  monograph, Gossip and Gender:
Othering of Speech in the Pastoral Epistles, Marianne Bjelland Kartzow has
drawn attention to Scott’s inclusion of gossip as one of the means by which
power may be critiqued behind a veil of anonymity. This carries interesting
implications for the labeling of the young widows of  Tim . as gossipers by
the author who seeks to quell their problematic behavior by encouraging mar-
riage. But even the dominant voice with respect to women and gender in the
Pastoral Epistles sometimes sounds surprising notes. Given the overall impor-
tance of teaching, and the prohibition against women teaching in  Tim ., it
is striking to find the recognized word for teacher (διδάσκαλος; cf.  Tim .)
applied to the older women who must teach (καλοδιδάσκαλος) younger
women the duties of household management (Tit .–). This is unquestionably
a strategy of social control, but the terminology does indicate a valuing of instruc-
tion on par with other types of instruction received from male teachers on
other subjects in a house-church setting. Noting that ‘self-control’ is an ideal
for men and women alike in the Pastorals, Gail Corrington Streete states that
for women it is to be exercised in ‘…supporting a disciplined household, in
which the woman as elder sets the example for other members of the household
who are to lead a disciplined life that subjects the unruly individual will to that of a
spiritual “father”, “master”, and “head of the household”’. Competing voices
 On imperial ideology and Ephesians, see especially Eberhard Faust, Pax Christi et Pax
Caesaris: Religionsgeschichtliche, traditionsgeschichtliche und sozialgeschichtliche Studien
zum Epheserbrief (NTOA ; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, ); Carmen Bernabé
Ubieta, ‘“Neither Xenoi nor paroikoi, sympolitai and oikeioi tou theou” (Eph .): Pauline
Christian Communities: Defining a New Territoriality,’ Social-Scientific Models for
Interpreting the Bible (ed. John J. Pilch; Leiden: Brill, ) –; Margaret Y. MacDonald,
‘The Politics of Identity in Ephesians’, JSNT  () –.
 See MacDonald, ‘The Politics of Identity in Ephesians’. See also Osiek and MacDonald (with
Tulloch), A Woman’s Place, –.
 Kartzow, Gossip and Gender, .
 See Osiek and MacDonald (with Tulloch), A Woman’s Place, .
 Gail Corrington Streete, ‘Askesis in the Pastoral Epistles’, Asceticism and the New Testament
(ed. Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush; New York: Routledge, ) .

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
have long been recognized with respect to doctrines and ethics, but it may be
helpful to study NT documents with an eye for competing and/or overlapping
hidden transcripts.
. Promising New Directions: The Convergence of Family, Ideology,

and Empire
Building upon the discussion of recent perspectives in Part  and taking

into consideration current approaches to the study of families in the Roman
world, I have identified five promising directions for future analysis of the
Haustafeln; these may address some of the unresolved questions and help
move us beyond the various and even contradictory positions of scholars con-
cerning the function of the codes in early church documents.
() Recognizing the household codes as familial ideology that has a complex
relationship to the lives of real people. As noted above, feminist scholars long
ago observed that the relationship between the household codes and commu-
nity life is prescriptive rather than descriptive. But this insight gains further
weight when one draws upon the reflections of historians of the family in the
ancient world on the relationship between ideology and reality. Noting the
fundamental polarity of male outdoor/female indoor work and ideals of
female domesticity over centuries and a variety of genres of literature, Richard
P. Saller has observed:
…these works should be treated not as sociological observation of behavioral

patterns but as expressions of (adult male) moral ideals. Having acknowledged
as much, I would also argue that these representations of women are not
merely arbitrary fictions, unconnected with their lives. Rather, there is a sub-
stantive, as well as methodological, issue here: that is, to what extent did the
ideology have practical effects, limiting women’s ownership and labor partici-
pation? The brief answer is that few, precious, relevant corpora of documents
point to strong asymmetries of gender in accord with the ideology.
Historians of the Roman family offer useful analysis that can help us to address
the substantive and methodological issue specifically with respect to the house-
hold codes. For example, in her study of motherhood in the Roman world,
Suzanne Dixon has pointed to a series of informal conventions concerning
women’s roles in the overseeing of the proper running of households, supervising
the affairs of children, management of household business in the absence of
 Richard P. Saller, ‘Household and Gender’, The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-
Roman World (ed. Walter Scheidel, Ian Morris, and Richard Saller; Cambridge: Cambridge
University, ) .

Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management 
husbands, care of guests, etc., that functioned in conjunction with formal

expressions of the authority of the male head of the household. This means
that recipients of the household codes may well have assumed that wives and
mothers were granted powers in managing households that were simply taken
for granted as associated by convention with the traditional model of family
life. Such observations may lessen the discontinuity between gender pronounce-
ments contained within the codes and evidence for women’s leadership in the
Pauline churches.
While an understanding of the household codes as familial ideologies can call
into question simplistic readings of the codes as conventional discourse, it can
also strengthen our understanding of conventional elements of the codes. It is
only in very recent years that scholars have begun to discuss the association of
the codes with concepts of ownership of slave bodies and strategies of slave man-
agement within the context of family life, including sexuality. Jennifer Glancy’s
interpretation of Pauline ethics in light of common societal expectations concern-
ing the sexual use of slaves is particularly thought-provoking. Doubting that any
expectation of restraint can be read into the exhortation that masters are to
treat slaves ‘justly and fairly’ (Col .), she views the Colossian Haustafel as pro-
moting ‘…the interests of slaveholders, not of slaves’. Glancy’s study raises valu-
able questions about what the audiences of the household codes would have
heard in the explicit directives for slaves to obey masters in the Lord. When it
comes to sexual behavior we must acknowledge the conventional expectations
concerning familial behavior and the exercise of authority. Yet, more work
needs to be done in assessing the relationship between such expectations and
the symbolic reversals of power inherent in baptismal proclamations, promises
of inheritance to slaves, and language of collaboration with Paul which involves
being a ‘fellow-slave’. A greater appreciation of the interrelationship between
the realia of family life and ideology is central to a more complex understanding
of household management in a house-church setting.
() Reading the household codes as ideologies of masculinity. As already
suggested by Saller’s observations cited above, traditional ethical texts like the
household codes call for analysis as ideologies of masculinity. The issue of mascu-
line authority is especially important when seeking to understand the importance
 Suzanne Dixon, The Roman Mother (London: Croom Helm, ) , –, . See also Osiek
and MacDonald (with Tulloch), A Woman’s Place, –, –; Geoffrey S. Nathan, The
Family in Late Antiquity: The Rise of Christianity and the Endurance of a Tradition
(London: Routledge, ) , .
 See Jennifer A. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, )
. On the household codes and strategies of slave management, it is also valuable to con-
sider the scholarship of J. Albert Harrill cited above.
 See my more detailed response to both Glancy and Harrill in ‘Slavery, Sexuality and House
Churches’.

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
of ‘image’ in the household codes and may help us get beyond the impasse in NT
scholarship between those who view the codes as largely shaped by a desire to
lessen tension during interactions with outsiders and those who focus mainly
on their ability to encourage internal cohesion. Emphasis on ideologies of mascu-
linity can draw our attention to the household codes’ reinforcement of paternity,
male control of household dependents, and male control of women’s sexual
experience (Eph .-), but perhaps most importantly, to the close connection
between household norms and expectations, and the articulation of male leader-
ship structures—the Haustafel material in the Pastorals obviously comes to mind.
The study of masculinity is an increasingly important area of NT research and J.
Albert Harrill’s research on the household codes and agricultural handbooks cited
in Part  is in keeping with this work. But more research needs to be done on the
household codes as prime assertions and defenses of masculinity; further inves-
tigation is required of how they operate in conjunction with other rhetorical fea-
tures of the texts to bolster authority and communicate a broad variety of
messages. Studies on the imperial context of the NT offer a natural conversation
partner as notions of civic rule are closely tied to the dominion of the
paterfamilias.
Moreover, we should not neglect the value of exploring the references to mar-
riage and families in ideological discourse among pagans, Jews, and Christians—
in both narrative and artistic forms—to uncover powerful cultural codes linking
household behavior with broader social and religious expectations. For
example, Eph .– needs to be assessed in light of the pervasive presence of
Roman imperial marriage values and depictions of harmonious unions.
Despite its explicitly inward focus on marriages between believers as a reflection
of the relationship between Christ and the church, the text should be considered
against the background of celebrations of marital concord clearly intended as
vehicles of social comment and/or political propaganda within society more
broadly and reflecting the most sentimental ideals of the Roman family.
Ultimately, such celebrations reinforce male dominion while concurrently con-
veying messages about the stability and honour of the household within the
broader imperial society. Examinations of the Haustafeln in terms of familial
ideologies and ideologies of masculinity offer a new way of approaching the
long-debated question of how this ethical discourse reflects interaction between
church and society and establishes the boundaries of identity.
 See, for example, Stephen D. Moore, New Testament Masculinities (Semeia Studies ; Atlanta,
GA: Society of Biblical Literature, ); Osiek and MacDonald (with Tulloch), A Woman’s
Place, –, citing Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in
Roman Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University, ).
 Osiek and MacDonald (with Tulloch), A Woman’s Place, –. See Suzanne Dixon, ‘The
Sentimental Ideal of the Roman Family’, Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome
(ed. Beryl Rawson; Oxford: Clarendon, ) –.

Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management 
() Moving beyond a literal reading of the audiences of the household codes.
There has been a tendency in NT scholarship to treat the audiences of the house-
hold codes as simply reflecting the small number of clear-cut categories that were
typically part of household management discourse. Yet, it is much more likely that
the audiences represented a diverse group of people living in complex family cir-
cumstances. Dale Martin’s study of inscriptional evidence, for example, is particu-
larly helpful in reminding us of the overlapping categories of identity that could
shape the lives of slaves. Commentators often separate the treatment of slaves
from treatment of marriage in the codes, but can sharp lines really be drawn
given the use of marital terminology in slave inscriptions? Slaves sometimes
formed marital alliances across households and could be slave owners them-
selves, bailiffs, and parents. In addition, the role of parents in relation to children
is rarely considered with respect to the situation of slaves. Slaves and freeborn
children were frequently cared for by the same slave caregivers and lived in the
same spaces on a daily basis. Sometimes slave children were adopted as
pseudo-siblings of freeborn children. All of such overlapping categories of iden-
tity and diverse experiences need to be considered when one examines the impact
of the household codes in church communities.
Beyond an internal focus on the shape of family relations, the interaction
between the believing and non-believing worlds, and the transgression of limits
and violation of norms also should be considered with respect to family life and
their bearing on the household codes. Despite the evidence of mixed marriage
and of the slaves of nonbelievers being part of church groups, it is surprising to
find scholars who continue to view the codes as exclusively inter-believing direc-
tives; in the case of Colossians at least, the text does not plainly state that all the
members belonging to the various pairs are Christians. Idealizations of life in the
Lord should not be taken literally to mean that every spouse, child, or slave
addressed will have a believing partner, parent, or master. Such considerations
should help remind us of the complex familial circumstances of church
members and need to be kept in mind in assessments of the role of the codes
in relations between Christians and the wider world.
() The new interdisciplinary interest in children and childhood. With a few
notable exceptions, the household codes have not been examined with a focus
on children or the parent–child relationship to any great extent. Yet, there
 See Dale B. Martin, ‘Slave Families and Slaves in Families’, Early Christian Families in Context:
An Interdisciplinary Dialogue (ed. David L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
) –. See also MacDonald, ‘Slavery, Sexuality and House Churches’, –.
 For inscriptional evidence see Beryl Rawson, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy (Oxford:
Oxford University, ) –.
 Notable exceptions include: Peter Müller, In der Mitte der Gemeinde: Kinder im Neuen
Testament (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) –; Peter Balla, The Child–

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
have been great advances especially in the study of children in the Roman world
in recent years and a growing body of literature on children in early Christianity.
This new work might expand our understanding of the critical tension between
the audience hearing the household codes and the directives in two significant
and related ways. First, although there is plenty of counter-evidence in the oppo-
site direction, there is inscriptional evidence to suggest that some slave children
were raised with the expectation that they would one day share in the promise
of the free children of the family. Should such material evidence of boundary-
crossing influence our interpretation of the promise of inheritance delivered to
slaves in Col . or even of the warning to slave owners that they are themselves,
in an important sense, slaves, subject to the same Lord—called in Eph ., the
Father from whom every family (πατριά) in heaven and on earth is named?
Secondly, reading texts through the ‘lens’ of children and childhood may bring
to our attention heretofore neglected aspects of the Haustafel material such as
the considerable interest in the education/socialization of children in a house-
church setting that begins with Eph . (cf.  Clem ., ; Did .; Pol. Phil. .).
The theme of children and education as it surfaces in household code dis-
course is one which has the potential to challenge our perception of house-
church assemblies. Of the various ‘models from the environment’ which have
been compared to Pauline Christianity, the philosophical school has been ident-
ified as shedding light on the emphasis on instruction and exhortation in the
Pauline churches. But we have paid little attention to the house church as a
locus for children’s education. The education of children at home especially in
the early years, and particularly for girls and slaves, was the preferred choice of
many and sometimes involved the hiring of tutors for a few children of the neigh-
borhood. The direct address to children in the household codes may originate
from the school atmosphere of certain house-church meetings. Moreover, we
Parent Relationship in the New Testament and its Environment (WUNT ; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, ) –; See also now Margaret Y. MacDonald, ‘A Place of Belonging:
Perspectives on Children from Colossians and Ephesians’, The Child in the Bible (ed.
Marcia J. Bunge; Grand Rapids, MI: Eeerdmans, ) –.
 See R. Aasgaard, ‘Children in Antiquity and Early Christianity: Research History and Central
Issues’, Familia (Salamanca, Spain)  () –. For very recent studies, see Bunge,
ed., The Child in the Bible; Cornelia B. Horn and John W. Martens, ‘Let the little children
come to me’: Childhood and Children in Early Christianity (Washington: The Catholic
University of America, ).
 See n. .
 See Meeks, The First Urban Christians, –.
 The question of whether a child should be educated at home or sent out to school was debated
in antiquity, especially in relation to the effect of the choice on the child’s morality. See for
example, Quintilian The Orator’s Education .. For further discussion see Osiek and
MacDonald (with Tulloch), A Woman’s Place, –.

Beyond Identification of the Topos of Household Management 
cannot rule out the possibility that some children in the audience were recruited
from neighborhood children who were otherwise abandoned or neglected.
Certainly, Celsus accused the early Christians of encouraging the recruitment of
unruly, rebellious, and inadequately supervised children—challenging the auth-
ority of legitimate fathers and school masters (Origen Against Celsus .). This
polemical critique finds support in various aspects of the Jesus tradition which
might be used to sanction a rejection of the traditions of one’s elders (e.g., Matt
.). We need to think carefully about the possible identities of the children
addressed in the household codes, as potentially members of believing families,
children of mixed marriage with one parent as a believer, neglected children
who made their way into meetings without parents, or slave children. How
would such children have heard the household codes depending on their circum-
stances? How many parents were actually pseudo-parents in the Lord? If the
household codes represent an apologetic stance in relation to society as scholars
have often suggested, then the time has come to examine this need for apologetic
not only in relation to wives and adult slaves, but also in relation to children.
() Postcolonial analysis. Especially in dialogue with feminist interpretation
and the study of early Christian families, there is still much to be learned from
the use of postcolonial analysis. This is especially the case with respect to the
role of the household codes in relation to the broader symbolic, rhetorical, and
ethical dimensions of a given work. While postcolonial analysis is sometimes
used to build an argument that Colossians is largely a ‘resistant’ document,
most commentators have drawn upon theories to highlight a complex relation-
ship between conformity and resistance. The notion of ‘hybridity’ discussed
in Part  has much to add to our understanding of the household codes of
Colossians and Ephesians as we seek to untangle the complex interaction
between the developing early Christian ethos and the dominant social order.
Language of triumphal procession (Col .-) is the language of the colonizer,
but it is claimed by early Christian insiders and given new meaning. It is also left to
stand in a certain amount of critical tension in relation to the language of subor-
dination (Col .-.), which at once is shared between the colonizer and the
colonized and in its own way bears the marks of hybridity.
Postcolonial analysis may, in fact, offer a new way for us to approach the ques-
tion of the apologetic function of the codes. The Haustafeln surface in early
Christian literature at the time when early church groups are drawing attention
from their neighbours, beginning to be subject to rumours and slander. As mani-
festations of the ethical stance of believers, they were almost certainly shaped by
‘moments of panic’ when slaves, women, and children are discovered as non-
 See, for example, Walsh and Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed.

 See, for example, Horrell,  Peter, ; Maier, ‘A Sly Civility’.

 MARGARET Y. MACDONALD
compliant with respect to figures of authority, despite the projections of obedi-

ence revealed by the codes. Household codes offer insight into what Bhabha
calls ‘borderline experience’: ‘The margin of hybridity, where cultural differences
“contingently” and conflictually touch, becomes the moment of panic which
reveals the borderline experience’. As is revealed especially by Colossians and
Ephesians which introduce the household code into Pauline literature for the
first time, dislocation and displacement came to be celebrated within early
church circles as present heavenly citizenship and heavenly enthronement, at
the same time as the apologetic voice was emerging with respect to lifestyle
and ethics. Such apparently contradictory tendencies have often been noted by
scholars, but have yet to be fully understood; postcolonial analysis may offer a
promising way forward in investigation of the relationship between certain
ethical stances and what NT scholars have come to label ‘realized eschatology’.
The identification of the topos of household management by scholars working
from the mid-s to the mid-s on the household codes called us to probe
the literature and social history of Greco-Roman society. These scholars also
introduced us to the political implications of the codes that carried enormous
implications especially for feminist interpretation of the s and s. It is
striking that now, over twenty years later, their work continues to provide the
foundation for postcolonial analysis of the household codes and the basis for
reading the ideological assertions of the codes in relation to our ever-expanding
knowledge of early Christian families. Built upon a firm foundation of past scho-
larship, the use of new methodologies and theoretical approaches is helping us
to realize that household codes were heard by family members facing complex
challenges and are themselves ideologically complex (neither purely culturally
compliant, nor purely culturally resistant) expressions of the challenge of being
the ekklesia in the Roman imperial world.
 Bhabha, The Location of Culture, .

M. Macdonald, Topos of Household Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M. Macdonald, Topos of Household Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

M. Macdonald, Topos of Household Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Test. Stud. , pp. –.

© Cambridge University Press, 

Beyond Identification of the Topos of

From the mid-s to the mid-s New Testament scholars produced

In his impressive commentary on Colossians, James D. G. Dunn offered the

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

. Points of Contention and Unresolved Questions

In a comprehensive essay published in , David Balch summarized the

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

Wer eine mit demokratischem Denken verträgliche Auslegung sozialethischer

 Balch, ‘Household Codes’, –.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

gesellschaftskritisch einzusetzen schwerlich zur Verfügung. Besagte Option für

Balch instead finds a syncretistic body of texts among Stoic-Cynic and

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

needs to be probed more deeply is why the identification of parallels is leading to

Das Besondere - im modernen Verständnis das besonders Negative - an dieser

 Standhartinger, ‘The Origin and Intention of the Household Code’, .

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

. The Codes and Feminist Analysis

Household code discourse was of central interest in the groundbreaking

 Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, .

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. Fiorenza’s argu-

 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

 E. A. Johnson, ‘Ephesians’, The Women’s Bible Commentary (ed. C. A. Newsom and H. R.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

Paul to the pseudo-Paulines, under the guise of describing a “Pauline school” or

. Recent Perspectives: Reading the Households Codes in light of

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

its dominion over subject peoples iconographically’ and proclaimed a ‘trans-

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

space: ‘A contingent, borderline experience opens up in-between colonizer and

 Bhabha, The Location of Culture, .

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

 Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, .

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

work; we find notions of citizenship and membership in the household of God

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

. Promising New Directions: The Convergence of Family, Ideology,

Building upon the discussion of recent perspectives in Part  and taking

…these works should be treated not as sociological observation of behavioral

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

husbands, care of guests, etc., that functioned in conjunction with formal

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

 See, for example, Walsh and Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104

compliant with respect to figures of authority, despite the projections of obedi-

 Bhabha, The Location of Culture, .

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Mar 2011 IP address: 216.236.244.104