Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

In Eph. 6:6; Col. 3:22 the KJV translates the Greek word anthrōpareskos as “menpleaser,” a person who seeks to please other people instead of God.

A central concept in both Testaments for understanding the way in which God’s people are to respond to him. God desires obedience from his people, in contrast to mere lip service (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6) or conformity to religious ritual (Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6–8). When Saul disobeyed God by sacrificing some of the spoil from his victory over the Amalekites, Samuel the prophet responded, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).

In the OT, obedience is often expressed in terms of keeping (Heb. shamar [e.g., Exod. 34:11]) or doing (Heb. ’asah [e.g., Lev. 18:4]) God’s commands; other times, obedience is expressed as listening (Heb. shama’) to the voice of God (Exod. 19:5 KJV, NASB), just as a student is obedient by listening to a teacher’s voice (Prov. 5:13 KJV, NASB). When God established the Mosaic covenant with the Israelites, he commanded that they obey the laws set forth in the covenant. If they faithfully obeyed his laws, God would bless them (Deut. 28:1–13); if they were not faithful, he would curse them (Deut. 28:15–68). The subsequent history of Israel sadly chronicles the disobedience of God’s chosen people and the ensuing destruction that they experienced (2 Kings 18:9–12; 2 Chron. 36:11–21), even though God repeatedly warned the people through his prophets that this destruction was coming if they did not turn from their wickedness (e.g., Isa. 1:19–20; Jer. 11:1–8).

In the NT, focus shifts from obedience to the Mosaic law to obedience to Jesus Christ. The Great Commission contains Jesus’ instructions for his own disciples to make disciples, teaching them to “obey” (Gk. tēreō) that which Christ had commanded (Matt. 28:19–20). Jesus’ disciples’ love for him would lead them to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21–24; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6), and the disciples’ obedience, in turn, would cause them to remain in Jesus’ love (John 15:10). Paul instructs children to obey their parents and slaves to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō) their masters in obedience to Christ (Eph. 6:1, 5–6; Col. 3:20, 22).

The NT also discusses Christ’s perfect obedience to God the Father as a quality to imitate (Phil. 2:5–13) and as the basis for salvation (Rom. 5:19). Since it is only “those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13), and all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).

A central concept in both Testaments for understanding the way in which God’s people are to respond to him. God desires obedience from his people, in contrast to mere lip service (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6) or conformity to religious ritual (Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6–8). When Saul disobeyed God by sacrificing some of the spoil from his victory over the Amalekites, Samuel the prophet responded, “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).

In the OT, obedience is often expressed in terms of keeping (Heb. shamar [e.g., Exod. 34:11]) or doing (Heb. ’asah [e.g., Lev. 18:4]) God’s commands; other times, obedience is expressed as listening (Heb. shama’) to the voice of God (Exod. 19:5 KJV, NASB), just as a student is obedient by listening to a teacher’s voice (Prov. 5:13 KJV, NASB). When God established the Mosaic covenant with the Israelites, he commanded that they obey the laws set forth in the covenant. If they faithfully obeyed his laws, God would bless them (Deut. 28:1–13); if they were not faithful, he would curse them (Deut. 28:15–68). The subsequent history of Israel sadly chronicles the disobedience of God’s chosen people and the ensuing destruction that they experienced (2 Kings 18:9–12; 2 Chron. 36:11–21), even though God repeatedly warned the people through his prophets that this destruction was coming if they did not turn from their wickedness (e.g., Isa. 1:19–20; Jer. 11:1–8).

In the NT, focus shifts from obedience to the Mosaic law to obedience to Jesus Christ. The Great Commission contains Jesus’ instructions for his own disciples to make disciples, teaching them to “obey” (Gk. tēreō) that which Christ had commanded (Matt. 28:19–20). Jesus’ disciples’ love for him would lead them to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21–24; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6), and the disciples’ obedience, in turn, would cause them to remain in Jesus’ love (John 15:10). Paul instructs children to obey their parents and slaves to “obey” (Gk. hypakouō) their masters in obedience to Christ (Eph. 6:1, 5–6; Col. 3:20, 22).

The NT also discusses Christ’s perfect obedience to God the Father as a quality to imitate (Phil. 2:5–13) and as the basis for salvation (Rom. 5:19). Since it is only “those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13), and all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Terminology used in the KJV to denote partiality. The NT repeatedly affirms that God is not a respecter of persons; that is, he does not show partiality based on worldly standards or appearances. Peter recognized this when God chose to pour out his Holy Spirit on Gentile believers, not merely Jewish believers (Acts 10:34). God will judge all people, including Christians, with impartiality (Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; 1 Pet. 1:17). Since God is not a respecter of persons, those who serve him should not display partiality (Lev. 19:15; Deut. 16:19; Prov. 28:21; James 2:1, 9).

Closely related to honor and respect and often translating the Hebrew and Greek words for “fear,” reverence is directed primarily toward the sacred or divine, such as God’s sanctuary (Lev. 19:30; 26:2), the temple (Ps. 5:7), God’s name (Rev. 11:18), God himself (Dan. 6:26; Mal. 2:5), and his messengers, the angel of the Lord (Josh. 5:14), and Peter (Acts 10:25). Reverence for God motivates behavior that honors him, such as just governance (Neh. 5:15), mutual submission (Eph. 5:21), purity (2 Cor. 7:1), and obedience (Col. 3:22). It is an attitude of acceptable worship (Heb. 12:28), connected with humility (Jer. 44:10), which may win over unbelievers (1 Pet. 3:2).

Slavery and servanthood were part of everyday life in the ancient world. There were many different kinds of circumstances through which a person might become a slave. Some were coerced into servitude after being captured in war; others were born into slavery; others served as slaves as a sentence for a crime; still others served by personal choice as an apprentice. Slavery was not based on race. Furthermore, there was an enormous range of social and economic classes among slaves, from the brutal life of a galley slave to that of a wealthy servant of a king who might likewise own property and slaves.

In some cases, manumission, or the freeing of slaves, was possible during Roman times. This could be accomplished if the master died or if the master’s will allowed for their freedom, and in some cases slaves could even purchase their own freedom. In the first century AD, there were many such manumitted slaves. Acts 6:9 speaks of a Synagogue of the Freedmen, which probably means that it was made up of former slaves.

Old Testament

There are numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized as following a servant-master model. These included service to the monarchy (2 Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in the temple (1 Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also see extensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:1–11; Lev. 25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concerned with the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelines for their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of six years. On the seventh year, known also as the Year of Jubilee, they were to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent away empty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s “threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slaves also had certain rights that gave them special privileges and protection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, were allowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays (Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their master permanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also, severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death (Exod. 21:20–21).

Some slaves chose freely to stay with their owner. Deuteronomy 15:16–17 speaks of a slave who might say to a master, “I do not want to leave you,” out of love for the master and his family. This commitment was sealed by piercing the earlobe of the slave with an awl. This symbolized a lifelong commitment to the master.

New Testament

Slavery was very common in the first century AD, and there were many different kinds of slaves. For example, slaves might live in an extended household (oikos) in which they were born, or they might choose to sell themselves into this situation (1 Pet. 2:18–25). Although slavery was a significant part of society in the first century AD, we never see Jesus or the apostles encourage slavery. Instead, both Paul and Peter encouraged godly character and obedience for slaves within this system (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1 Tim. 6:1–2; Philemon; 1 Pet. 2:18–21). Likewise, masters were encouraged to be kind and fair to their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Later in the NT, slave trading was condemned by the apostle Paul as contrary to “sound doctrine” and “the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God” (1 Tim. 1:10–11).

Jesus embodied the idea of a servant in word and deed. He fulfilled the role of the “Servant of the Lord,” the Suffering Servant predicted by the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–4; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). He also took on the role of a servant in the Gospels, identifying himself as the Son of Man who came to serve (Mark 10:45) and washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:4–5). Paul says that in the incarnation Jesus took on “the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7).

The special relationship between Jesus and his followers is captured in the servant-master language of the NT Epistles, especially in Paul’s letters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This language focuses not so much on the societal status of these servants as on the allegiance and honor owed to Christ Jesus.

The imagery of slavery is also used metaphorically in the NT in both a negative and a positive manner. In Rom. 6 the apostle Paul discusses how slavery and obedience to former and latter masters is an essential part of the changed Christian life. Prior to knowing Christ, we were “slaves to sin” and obeyed its power (Rom. 6:16–17); after following Christ, we were freed from the power of sin and death and became “slaves to righteousness” (Rom. 6:18) and “slaves of God” (Rom. 6:22).

The quality of being free from deceit or hypocrisy. Sincere actions flow from authentic and apparent motives. Paul likens sincerity to “unleavened bread” (1 Cor. 5:8) and often speaks of sincere love (Rom. 12:9; 2 Cor. 6:6; 8:8). He charges slaves to be sincere in obedience to their masters (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22).

Slavery and servanthood were part of everyday life in the ancient world. There were many different kinds of circumstances through which a person might become a slave. Some were coerced into servitude after being captured in war; others were born into slavery; others served as slaves as a sentence for a crime; still others served by personal choice as an apprentice. Slavery was not based on race. Furthermore, there was an enormous range of social and economic classes among slaves, from the brutal life of a galley slave to that of a wealthy servant of a king who might likewise own property and slaves.

In some cases, manumission, or the freeing of slaves, was possible during Roman times. This could be accomplished if the master died or if the master’s will allowed for their freedom, and in some cases slaves could even purchase their own freedom. In the first century AD, there were many such manumitted slaves. Acts 6:9 speaks of a Synagogue of the Freedmen, which probably means that it was made up of former slaves.

Old Testament

There are numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized as following a servant-master model. These included service to the monarchy (2 Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in the temple (1 Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also see extensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:1–11; Lev. 25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concerned with the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelines for their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of six years. On the seventh year, known also as the Year of Jubilee, they were to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent away empty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s “threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slaves also had certain rights that gave them special privileges and protection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, were allowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays (Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their master permanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also, severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death (Exod. 21:20–21).

Some slaves chose freely to stay with their owner. Deuteronomy 15:16–17 speaks of a slave who might say to a master, “I do not want to leave you,” out of love for the master and his family. This commitment was sealed by piercing the earlobe of the slave with an awl. This symbolized a lifelong commitment to the master.

New Testament

Slavery was very common in the first century AD, and there were many different kinds of slaves. For example, slaves might live in an extended household (oikos) in which they were born, or they might choose to sell themselves into this situation (1 Pet. 2:18–25). Although slavery was a significant part of society in the first century AD, we never see Jesus or the apostles encourage slavery. Instead, both Paul and Peter encouraged godly character and obedience for slaves within this system (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1 Tim. 6:1–2; Philemon; 1 Pet. 2:18–21). Likewise, masters were encouraged to be kind and fair to their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Later in the NT, slave trading was condemned by the apostle Paul as contrary to “sound doctrine” and “the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God” (1 Tim. 1:10–11).

Jesus embodied the idea of a servant in word and deed. He fulfilled the role of the “Servant of the Lord,” the Suffering Servant predicted by the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–4; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). He also took on the role of a servant in the Gospels, identifying himself as the Son of Man who came to serve (Mark 10:45) and washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:4–5). Paul says that in the incarnation Jesus took on “the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7).

The special relationship between Jesus and his followers is captured in the servant-master language of the NT Epistles, especially in Paul’s letters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This language focuses not so much on the societal status of these servants as on the allegiance and honor owed to Christ Jesus.

The imagery of slavery is also used metaphorically in the NT in both a negative and a positive manner. In Rom. 6 the apostle Paul discusses how slavery and obedience to former and latter masters is an essential part of the changed Christian life. Prior to knowing Christ, we were “slaves to sin” and obeyed its power (Rom. 6:16–17); after following Christ, we were freed from the power of sin and death and became “slaves to righteousness” (Rom. 6:18) and “slaves of God” (Rom. 6:22).

The act of yielding or consenting to the authority of another, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference, compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to. Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the terms are synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliance with directions or guidance, while “submission” describes one’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within a formalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’ relationship to the Father.

Scripture presents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number of specific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept, and as a general portrait of relationships—for example, patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus. Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.

In the OT, the use of the word “submission” (or its derivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function of translator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’s instructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit” is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlying Hebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use forms of “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrew expressions meaning the following: “become a slave to” (Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2 Chron. 30:8); “have a relationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch out hands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and “give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).

In the NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and, often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and the epistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.

1. Dogmatizō appears once: “Why . . . do you submit to rules?” (Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something that has been decreed.

2. Hypeikō appears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience is specifically distinguished from submission.

3. Hypotagē appears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1 Tim. 2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturing toward superiors; in 2 Cor. 9:13, however, it refers to obedience to a decree, in this case confession of the gospel.

4. Hypotassō is by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times in the NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using a form of “submission” (or “to be subject to”). It is used to convey the subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to the seventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s law or righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities (Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13); believers to one another (1 Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1 Cor. 14:34; Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves to masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, and powers to Jesus (1 Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9; James 4:7); younger men to elders (1 Pet. 5:5).

A few additional uses of “submission” in some translations have other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection” (Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and “open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).

Vivid portraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking the specific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen. 12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29); prophets toward God (1 Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3); Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark 14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission to Jesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father (Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father (Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24; 15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1 Cor. 7:3–5; 11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil. 2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Broadly speaking, child abuse refers to physical maltreatment and/or sexual molestation of a child. Often both occur together. In child abuse, legal, moral, and psychological domains are affected. A natural dependence, trust, and frailty define a child, with adulthood typically starting around age eighteen.

Child abuse brings chaos where the Creator blessed with fruitful life (Gen. 1:28; 9:7). Children signify one of God’s richest blessings (Ps. 127:3–6). Pharaoh’s pogrom against the Hebrew children only served to highlight the midwives who “feared God” and chose to foster rather than harm life (Exod. 1:15–22). Orphans lacked parental protection and uniquely came under God’s care as the “helper of fatherless” (Ps. 10:14, 18; cf. James 1:27).

Sadly, one in three girls and one in five boys are sexually abused, 14 percent under the age of six. Most sexual abuse is incest, perpetrated by known providers, often the father. But fathers are exhorted not to even “exasperate” their children (Eph. 6:4; cf. Col. 3:21). For an abused child, their bridging metaphors for God (e.g., “father” and “mother”) can be permanently crushed.

Fortunately, the abused child can find a “spiritual family” in the church (cf. Mark 10:28–30). But woe to those who cause “one of these little ones—those who believe in me” to stumble (Matt. 18:1–6).

Colossians is a letter sent by Paul to a church in Colossae when he was in prison. The letter was Paul’s first direct contact with the church, which may have been started by one of his missionary associates, Epaphras (Col. 1:7). Epaphras was from Colossae (4:12), a city of Asia Minor located in the Lycus Valley, known for its fertile soil and green pastures. Some commentators suggest that Epaphras also started churches in Hierapolis and Laodicea (4:13), neighboring cities in the valley that were situated around the Lycus River about ten miles apart. Colossae was a free city located on the main Roman road that ran from Ephesus and Sardis toward the east, and it was populated by native Phrygians, as well as Greeks, Romans, and Jews. More than likely, the church was founded during Paul’s extended ministry in Ephesus, where persons from the region heard Paul’s gospel and from where Paul sent missionary associates such as Epaphras into the surrounding cities (Acts 19). Tychicus, the letter carrier (Col. 4:7–8), was also one of Paul’s associates from the same region; he decided to accompany Paul to Macedonia after the team left Ephesus (Acts 20:4).

The close association of these churches in Asia Minor and the time frame when the letters were written may explain why Paul’s letter to the Colossians is so similar in content to his letter to the Ephesians. Paul was in prison (probably in Rome) when he sent both of these letters (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10, 18). The instructions regarding Tychicus, the carrier for both letters, are identical, nearly verbatim (Eph. 6:21–22; Col. 4:7–8). The letters share the same outline, following some of the same themes, especially toward the end, where Paul gives instructions regarding the household. An affinity also exists between Colossians and Philemon, a letter sent to the patron of one of the house churches in Colossae. Most of the names mentioned by Paul appear in both letters: Timothy, Onesimus, Archippus, Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (Col. 1:1; 4:9–17; Philem. 1, 10, 23–24). Paul was also in prison, along with Epaphras, at the time he sent his letter to Philemon. All of this indicates that these letters were written about the same time, from the same place, to the same region. Why did Paul send three letters to the same region, especially since letter production was so expensive? Why not send one letter to the entire region (like Galatians), to be read by all the house churches? Obviously, the problems of each church were so different that they required a separate authoritative word from their apostle.

Questionable Practices in Colossae

The Colossians were doing several things that Paul found troublesome, as we learn from Col. 2. They were judging each other for not keeping certain dietary regulations and holy days (2:16). Some were claiming superiority through personal worship experiences that involved visions of angels (2:18). Some subscribed to strict discipline of the human body, punishing themselves through various acts of self-abasement in order to curb fleshly appetites (2:23) and enhance their worship experiences (2:18). It seems that many of them were trying to live by an expanded version of the divine command given in the story of Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (2:21). Paul recognized that all these claims and rules had the “appearance of wisdom” but in reality were nothing more than traditions based on “self-imposed” religion, and that such ascetic practices were useless in denying fleshly appetites (2:22–23). Where did the Colossians get all these strange ideas that led to such bizarre behavior?

Paul described the false teaching as an imprisoning “through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces” in opposition to the teachings of Christ (2:8). Because the Colossian church was made up primarily of Gentile converts (1:27), many interpreters argue that the problems resulted from the meshing of the gospel with local, pagan ways. The Phrygians were known for their fascination with magical rituals, the ability to manipulate the powers (earth, wind, fire, spirits, angels, often referred to as “elementary principles of the world”) for human purposes. Paul’s description of the false teaching as a “hollow and deceptive philosophy” based on the “human tradition” may also reveal the influence of Greek ideas and Roman ways in the church. The Greeks operated with a dualistic worldview of spirit versus flesh, leading some philosophers to argue that punishing the body ensured purity of the soul. Furthermore, the Romans believed that the gods had given them power to rule the world, bringing fertility to the lands of conquered peoples. Worshiping Caesar brought economic rewards to devoted subjects of the empire. In other words, all this talk in the Colossian letter about power and sovereignty, philosophy and self-discipline was Paul’s way of dealing directly with the root of the problem: the syncretism of pagan ways and the gospel according to Paul.

Some interpreters believe that all these peculiar teachings derive not from pagan religions but rather from Judaism. After all, Paul’s references to observing the Sabbath, keeping commandments, and angelic worship point toward a Jewish context. Paul also affirmed that his Gentile converts were “circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands” (2:11), perhaps revealing his concern that Jewish ways were creeping into his Gentile church. He even put the church on notice, identifying those among “the circumcision” (Jews) who were trustworthy ministers of the gospel (he mentions only three, Barnabas, John Mark, and Jesus called Justus [4:10–11]). The implication, of course, was to ignore the rest of “the circumcision.” But if the troublemakers in Colossae were Jewish opponents of Paul, how does one explain all the mystical and ascetic elements of this false teaching? Some argue that the expression “worship of angels” was not an idolatrous practice of venerating angelic beings. Instead, the phrase should be translated “angelic worship,” implying that some Colossians claimed to have been transported to heaven and joined the angels in worship of God. This may have been similar to the experiences of an obscure form of Judaism: Jewish mystics who claimed to preserve esoteric revelations through out-of-body experiences of heavenly visions and auditions (see Paul’s description in 2 Cor. 12:1–7). Furthermore, the strict dietary code and sexual ethic of Jewish law were often interpreted by first-century pagans as promoting an ascetic lifestyle. In other words, Paul was countering a more cryptic branch of Judaism that flourished in a region known for its affinity for the mysterious.

Outline and Content

I. Introduction (1:1–14)

A. Greeting (1:1–2)

B. Thanksgiving (1:3–8)

C. Prayer (1:9–14)

II. The Person and Work of Christ (1:15–23)

III. Paul’s Role in Christ’s Mission to the Gentiles (1:24–2:5)

IV. False Teaching versus the Work of Christ (2:6–23)

V. Instructions on Life in Christ

A. In the church (3:1–17)

B. In the home (3:18–4:1)

VI. Generic Exhortations (4:2–6)

VII. Specific Instructions (4:7–9)

VIII. Final Greetings (4:10–17)

IX. Paul’s Signature (4:18)

Whatever the source of the false teaching referred to in Colossians, Paul attempts to correct the misbehavior of his Gentile converts by building an argument that the work of Christ is all-sufficient. Paul begins the letter by describing the person and work of Christ in cosmic terms (1:15–23). Next he recounts his role in the mission of Christ to bring the riches of the kingdom to Gentiles (1:24–2:5). After reminding the Colossians of their reception of the gospel, Paul juxtaposes the deceptive practices of the false teaching with the evidence of the work of Christ in them (2:6–23). Then he gives a number of instructions on what life in Christ is supposed to look like: in the church (3:1–17) and in the home (3:18–4:1). He concludes the letter with generic exhortations (4:2–6), specific instructions (4:7–9), and greetings (4:10–17). Finally, Paul signs the letter, obviously written by a secretary, with the simple request: “Remember my chains” (4:18)—a curious signature that makes the argument of his letter even more appealing.

The Power and Peace of Christ’s Kingdom

It is ironic that Paul chose to describe the work of Christ in such grandiose terms, picturing him as a mighty ruler over all creation, even while the apostle was in prison—an undeniable sign of Roman sovereignty. In Col. 1, in some of the loftiest language Paul ever used to describe Christ’s kingdom authority, the apostle reminds his converts that the Lord is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (v. 15), an obvious reference to Christ’s deity. Then Paul piles on the attributes, presenting Christ as the creator of all things, even angelic creatures (v. 16), the sustainer of all things (v. 17), the head of the church, the eternal one, the guarantor of the resurrection (v. 18), the fullness of God (v. 19), the reconciler of all things—the one who made peace with the enemies of God through his blood on the cross (vv. 20–22). Despite Paul’s circumstances and what Rome may claim, the apostle holds fast to the irrepressible sovereignty of Christ’s kingdom, displayed by Paul’s perseverance in the midst of suffering and the full assurance that every Colossian believer is “fully mature in Christ” (vv. 22–29). Indeed, all the treasures of Christ’s kingdom—love, knowledge, wisdom, discipline—are to be found in the life of his converts (2:1–5), unless someone “deludes” them into thinking otherwise.

Paul’s rhetorical strategy of extolling the power of Christ’s kingdom makes perfect sense in light of the false teaching that was plaguing the Colossian church. Apparently, the Colossians were persuaded to feel inadequate about their faith, vulnerable to the imposition of legalistic standards that ensured victory over fleshly indulgences. To counter his opponents, Paul unpacks the significance of the incarnation and the cross (2:9–15). Because Christ was God in flesh (in whom “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” [v. 9]), his death on the cross was a cosmic event that defeated all the powers that oppose God. Using military imagery, Paul argues that Christ canceled every debt against humanity when he nailed all “decrees” (even Caesar’s) to the cross. In that singular act of sacrifice, Christ disarmed the foes of God, humiliating them publicly by making a spectacle of them, triumphing over all powers (v. 15)—something that Caesar loved to do after successful military campaigns. Therefore, if Christ’s victory over all powers has been secured through his death, and since he rules as the firstborn of the dead (resurrection) over all creation, and since the Colossians are “fully mature in Christ” (1:28) because of their faith in him, then no pretense of self-abasement or angelic visions can diminish what Christ has done and will continue to do in the lives of Paul’s converts in Colossae. Christ is all they needed to overcome the powers.

In Col. 3, Paul tells how the Colossians draw upon the power of Christ when they “set [their] minds on things above, not on earthly things” (v. 2). The things on the earth are “sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed” (v. 5). Paul believes that his converts died with Christ (“hidden with Christ in God” [v. 3]) and therefore had set aside all these idolatrous practices when they put on the “new self,” being conformed to the image of Christ (vv. 8–10). This renewal will be found in all believers, regardless of ethnicity (v. 11), and will result in peace for all. Indeed, Paul sees the “peace of Christ” as the undeniable evidence of his reign exhibited in the hearts of those who believe (vv. 12–15). And what would that peace look like? Believers will be patient, forgiving one another with hearts full of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and love resulting in unity (vv. 12–14). Their worship of God will be characterized by songs of thankfulness and admonition, receiving the word with wisdom (v. 16). In their homes husbands, wives, and children will model deference and love, and masters and slaves will seek justice and fairness, as if they were serving Christ (3:18–4:1). The Colossians will be devoted to prayer, will treat outsiders fairly, and will be known for always speaking graceful words (4:2–6). In other words, where Caesar’s empire has promoted Roman peace by enforcing Roman law in provinces, cities, and households, Paul believes that the peace of Christ will rule the hearts of his subjects, establishing a kingdom of love and unity, in word and deed, in the home as well as the church. So, in his final greetings, Paul talks about faithful slaves and beloved siblings as sources of encouragement in the ever-expanding work of the kingdom of God (4:7–17), making his simple request, “Remember my chains” (4:18), sound more like an act of defiance than a pitiful plea.

Colossians is a letter sent by Paul to a church in Colossae when he was in prison. The letter was Paul’s first direct contact with the church, which may have been started by one of his missionary associates, Epaphras (Col. 1:7). Epaphras was from Colossae (4:12), a city of Asia Minor located in the Lycus Valley, known for its fertile soil and green pastures. Some commentators suggest that Epaphras also started churches in Hierapolis and Laodicea (4:13), neighboring cities in the valley that were situated around the Lycus River about ten miles apart. Colossae was a free city located on the main Roman road that ran from Ephesus and Sardis toward the east, and it was populated by native Phrygians, as well as Greeks, Romans, and Jews. More than likely, the church was founded during Paul’s extended ministry in Ephesus, where persons from the region heard Paul’s gospel and from where Paul sent missionary associates such as Epaphras into the surrounding cities (Acts 19). Tychicus, the letter carrier (Col. 4:7–8), was also one of Paul’s associates from the same region; he decided to accompany Paul to Macedonia after the team left Ephesus (Acts 20:4).

The close association of these churches in Asia Minor and the time frame when the letters were written may explain why Paul’s letter to the Colossians is so similar in content to his letter to the Ephesians. Paul was in prison (probably in Rome) when he sent both of these letters (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10, 18). The instructions regarding Tychicus, the carrier for both letters, are identical, nearly verbatim (Eph. 6:21–22; Col. 4:7–8). The letters share the same outline, following some of the same themes, especially toward the end, where Paul gives instructions regarding the household. An affinity also exists between Colossians and Philemon, a letter sent to the patron of one of the house churches in Colossae. Most of the names mentioned by Paul appear in both letters: Timothy, Onesimus, Archippus, Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (Col. 1:1; 4:9–17; Philem. 1, 10, 23–24). Paul was also in prison, along with Epaphras, at the time he sent his letter to Philemon. All of this indicates that these letters were written about the same time, from the same place, to the same region. Why did Paul send three letters to the same region, especially since letter production was so expensive? Why not send one letter to the entire region (like Galatians), to be read by all the house churches? Obviously, the problems of each church were so different that they required a separate authoritative word from their apostle.

Questionable Practices in Colossae

The Colossians were doing several things that Paul found troublesome, as we learn from Col. 2. They were judging each other for not keeping certain dietary regulations and holy days (2:16). Some were claiming superiority through personal worship experiences that involved visions of angels (2:18). Some subscribed to strict discipline of the human body, punishing themselves through various acts of self-abasement in order to curb fleshly appetites (2:23) and enhance their worship experiences (2:18). It seems that many of them were trying to live by an expanded version of the divine command given in the story of Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (2:21). Paul recognized that all these claims and rules had the “appearance of wisdom” but in reality were nothing more than traditions based on “self-imposed” religion, and that such ascetic practices were useless in denying fleshly appetites (2:22–23). Where did the Colossians get all these strange ideas that led to such bizarre behavior?

Paul described the false teaching as an imprisoning “through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces” in opposition to the teachings of Christ (2:8). Because the Colossian church was made up primarily of Gentile converts (1:27), many interpreters argue that the problems resulted from the meshing of the gospel with local, pagan ways. The Phrygians were known for their fascination with magical rituals, the ability to manipulate the powers (earth, wind, fire, spirits, angels, often referred to as “elementary principles of the world”) for human purposes. Paul’s description of the false teaching as a “hollow and deceptive philosophy” based on the “human tradition” may also reveal the influence of Greek ideas and Roman ways in the church. The Greeks operated with a dualistic worldview of spirit versus flesh, leading some philosophers to argue that punishing the body ensured purity of the soul. Furthermore, the Romans believed that the gods had given them power to rule the world, bringing fertility to the lands of conquered peoples. Worshiping Caesar brought economic rewards to devoted subjects of the empire. In other words, all this talk in the Colossian letter about power and sovereignty, philosophy and self-discipline was Paul’s way of dealing directly with the root of the problem: the syncretism of pagan ways and the gospel according to Paul.

Some interpreters believe that all these peculiar teachings derive not from pagan religions but rather from Judaism. After all, Paul’s references to observing the Sabbath, keeping commandments, and angelic worship point toward a Jewish context. Paul also affirmed that his Gentile converts were “circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands” (2:11), perhaps revealing his concern that Jewish ways were creeping into his Gentile church. He even put the church on notice, identifying those among “the circumcision” (Jews) who were trustworthy ministers of the gospel (he mentions only three, Barnabas, John Mark, and Jesus called Justus [4:10–11]). The implication, of course, was to ignore the rest of “the circumcision.” But if the troublemakers in Colossae were Jewish opponents of Paul, how does one explain all the mystical and ascetic elements of this false teaching? Some argue that the expression “worship of angels” was not an idolatrous practice of venerating angelic beings. Instead, the phrase should be translated “angelic worship,” implying that some Colossians claimed to have been transported to heaven and joined the angels in worship of God. This may have been similar to the experiences of an obscure form of Judaism: Jewish mystics who claimed to preserve esoteric revelations through out-of-body experiences of heavenly visions and auditions (see Paul’s description in 2 Cor. 12:1–7). Furthermore, the strict dietary code and sexual ethic of Jewish law were often interpreted by first-century pagans as promoting an ascetic lifestyle. In other words, Paul was countering a more cryptic branch of Judaism that flourished in a region known for its affinity for the mysterious.

Outline and Content

I. Introduction (1:1–14)

A. Greeting (1:1–2)

B. Thanksgiving (1:3–8)

C. Prayer (1:9–14)

II. The Person and Work of Christ (1:15–23)

III. Paul’s Role in Christ’s Mission to the Gentiles (1:24–2:5)

IV. False Teaching versus the Work of Christ (2:6–23)

V. Instructions on Life in Christ

A. In the church (3:1–17)

B. In the home (3:18–4:1)

VI. Generic Exhortations (4:2–6)

VII. Specific Instructions (4:7–9)

VIII. Final Greetings (4:10–17)

IX. Paul’s Signature (4:18)

Whatever the source of the false teaching referred to in Colossians, Paul attempts to correct the misbehavior of his Gentile converts by building an argument that the work of Christ is all-sufficient. Paul begins the letter by describing the person and work of Christ in cosmic terms (1:15–23). Next he recounts his role in the mission of Christ to bring the riches of the kingdom to Gentiles (1:24–2:5). After reminding the Colossians of their reception of the gospel, Paul juxtaposes the deceptive practices of the false teaching with the evidence of the work of Christ in them (2:6–23). Then he gives a number of instructions on what life in Christ is supposed to look like: in the church (3:1–17) and in the home (3:18–4:1). He concludes the letter with generic exhortations (4:2–6), specific instructions (4:7–9), and greetings (4:10–17). Finally, Paul signs the letter, obviously written by a secretary, with the simple request: “Remember my chains” (4:18)—a curious signature that makes the argument of his letter even more appealing.

The Power and Peace of Christ’s Kingdom

It is ironic that Paul chose to describe the work of Christ in such grandiose terms, picturing him as a mighty ruler over all creation, even while the apostle was in prison—an undeniable sign of Roman sovereignty. In Col. 1, in some of the loftiest language Paul ever used to describe Christ’s kingdom authority, the apostle reminds his converts that the Lord is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (v. 15), an obvious reference to Christ’s deity. Then Paul piles on the attributes, presenting Christ as the creator of all things, even angelic creatures (v. 16), the sustainer of all things (v. 17), the head of the church, the eternal one, the guarantor of the resurrection (v. 18), the fullness of God (v. 19), the reconciler of all things—the one who made peace with the enemies of God through his blood on the cross (vv. 20–22). Despite Paul’s circumstances and what Rome may claim, the apostle holds fast to the irrepressible sovereignty of Christ’s kingdom, displayed by Paul’s perseverance in the midst of suffering and the full assurance that every Colossian believer is “fully mature in Christ” (vv. 22–29). Indeed, all the treasures of Christ’s kingdom—love, knowledge, wisdom, discipline—are to be found in the life of his converts (2:1–5), unless someone “deludes” them into thinking otherwise.

Paul’s rhetorical strategy of extolling the power of Christ’s kingdom makes perfect sense in light of the false teaching that was plaguing the Colossian church. Apparently, the Colossians were persuaded to feel inadequate about their faith, vulnerable to the imposition of legalistic standards that ensured victory over fleshly indulgences. To counter his opponents, Paul unpacks the significance of the incarnation and the cross (2:9–15). Because Christ was God in flesh (in whom “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” [v. 9]), his death on the cross was a cosmic event that defeated all the powers that oppose God. Using military imagery, Paul argues that Christ canceled every debt against humanity when he nailed all “decrees” (even Caesar’s) to the cross. In that singular act of sacrifice, Christ disarmed the foes of God, humiliating them publicly by making a spectacle of them, triumphing over all powers (v. 15)—something that Caesar loved to do after successful military campaigns. Therefore, if Christ’s victory over all powers has been secured through his death, and since he rules as the firstborn of the dead (resurrection) over all creation, and since the Colossians are “fully mature in Christ” (1:28) because of their faith in him, then no pretense of self-abasement or angelic visions can diminish what Christ has done and will continue to do in the lives of Paul’s converts in Colossae. Christ is all they needed to overcome the powers.

In Col. 3, Paul tells how the Colossians draw upon the power of Christ when they “set [their] minds on things above, not on earthly things” (v. 2). The things on the earth are “sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed” (v. 5). Paul believes that his converts died with Christ (“hidden with Christ in God” [v. 3]) and therefore had set aside all these idolatrous practices when they put on the “new self,” being conformed to the image of Christ (vv. 8–10). This renewal will be found in all believers, regardless of ethnicity (v. 11), and will result in peace for all. Indeed, Paul sees the “peace of Christ” as the undeniable evidence of his reign exhibited in the hearts of those who believe (vv. 12–15). And what would that peace look like? Believers will be patient, forgiving one another with hearts full of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and love resulting in unity (vv. 12–14). Their worship of God will be characterized by songs of thankfulness and admonition, receiving the word with wisdom (v. 16). In their homes husbands, wives, and children will model deference and love, and masters and slaves will seek justice and fairness, as if they were serving Christ (3:18–4:1). The Colossians will be devoted to prayer, will treat outsiders fairly, and will be known for always speaking graceful words (4:2–6). In other words, where Caesar’s empire has promoted Roman peace by enforcing Roman law in provinces, cities, and households, Paul believes that the peace of Christ will rule the hearts of his subjects, establishing a kingdom of love and unity, in word and deed, in the home as well as the church. So, in his final greetings, Paul talks about faithful slaves and beloved siblings as sources of encouragement in the ever-expanding work of the kingdom of God (4:7–17), making his simple request, “Remember my chains” (4:18), sound more like an act of defiance than a pitiful plea.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Although the Bible is dominated by a patriarchal perspective, as one would expect from the ancient Near East, there is also a valuing of women that comes to the surface. Although this falls short of what we would call “gender equality” today, the Bible does make overtures in that direction. Already in the Genesis creation story, men and women are described as the two halves of humanity, who together participate in the mandate to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:26–28). Eve is created from the side of Adam, indicating equality in their very beings (2:21–23).

In his own ministry, Jesus includes women in ways that were unusual for his context. In first-century Palestine, learning from spiritual teachers was a privilege reserved exclusively for men. However, in the story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42), Jesus commends Mary for breaking her expected role as a woman in order to follow him and learn at his feet. Martha, however, receives a sharp rebuke for allowing domestic duties to hinder her discipleship. Jesus’ first resurrection appearance is to women in all of the Gospels, even though the testimony of a woman was generally not considered valid in legal matters in first-century Palestine (although rabbinic literature suggests it was considered valid testimony for a woman to confirm a man’s death). Jesus takes particular efforts to elevate the position of women, despite a possible tarnishing of his public image.

The concern for greater gender equality extends into the rest of the NT. Paul says that in Christ all are one regardless of ethnicity, status, or gender (Gal. 3:28). Paul also refers to women as coworkers in the gospel (Rom. 16:3) and as deacons (16:1). Although frequently cited in order to support a hierarchal family structure, the household codes (Eph. 5:21–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; Titus 2:1–10; 1 Pet. 2:18–3:7) are a step toward gender equality in the Greco-Roman culture, since secular household codes usually placed responsibilities on wives, not husbands. That Paul gives responsibilities to husbands is a significant shift toward a mutuality of devotion and obligation.

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

God the Worker

A biblical theology of work starts with God as the creator of all things. In the OT, the verb bara’ (“to create”) is used only with God as subject. The first verb in the Bible (Gen. 1:1), it occurs also in many other texts that describe God accomplishing what only God can do. Other terms such as yatsar (“to form, fashion”) and ’asah (“to make, do”) are used numerous times throughout the OT with either God or humans as subjects.

These three terms reinforce the portrayal of God as worker in Gen. 1–2 (cf. Isa. 45:7). God creates light and darkness; sky and earth; sun, moon, and stars; land and sea; plant and animal life; and humankind—in sum, all that is. He forms the “man” (Heb. ’adam) from the dust of the ground, bringing him to life by breathing into him the breath of life.

Elsewhere in the OT God is said to build, build up, or rebuild/restore (Heb. banah [e.g., Pss. 102:16; 147:2; Jer. 24:6; Amos 9:11]). Interestingly, God takes a rib from the man, which he then makes (lit., “builds into” [Heb. banah + le]) a woman (Gen. 2:22). He founds (Heb. kun) the earth (Isa. 45:18) and stretches out (Heb. natah) the heavens (Zech. 12:1). Further, wisdom is God’s “craftsman” (Heb. ’amon), taking part in the world’s creation (Prov. 8:30). The NT reveals Christ as the one through whom God creates all things (John 1:1–3; Col. 1:16). This brief sketch suggests the range of ways in which God’s work is described.

Human Labor

Ideally, work is performed as service to God (Col. 3:17, 22–24). Work is one way we express the divine image. God’s creation mandate to fill, subdue, and rule the earth implies work (Gen. 1:26–28), and God places the man in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (Gen. 2:15). The importance of work for human dignity as well as survival undergirds the laws of gleaning that make provision for the poor to gather their own food (e.g., Deut. 24:19–22). The expansion of human technologies and occupations (mela’kah [see Exod. 12:16]) reflects that dignity and God’s own diverse workmanship. Job 28 celebrates human industry and achievement while subordinating all to the prevailing value of wisdom, rooted in “the fear of the Lord.” Given the indispensable role of work within the limits of human life, diligence is commended (Eccles. 3:9–10), idleness condemned (Prov. 10:4; 12:24; 21:5; 2 Thess. 3:6–10). Work is essentially God’s good gift to us in creation.

But work now has negative aspects. In response to Adam’s sin, God curses the ground, introducing “painful toil” into the work cycle (Gen. 3:17–19; 5:29). We now eke out our living by hardship, finding frustration instead of bounty—a lifelong reminder that we are made of dust and will return to dust. The book of Ecclesiastes echoes this note of futility and raises sharp questions about the lasting value of human labor (1:2–3, 14; 2:4–11, 17–23; 3:9; 4:4–6; 8:16–17). Sin and death haunt the unfolding occupations in Gen. 4, and the episode of the tower of Babel in Gen. 11 signals God’s judgment on human pretension (cf. James 4:13–16). Excessive toil (workaholism) is a pitfall, not a virtue, for it expresses reliance on self rather than on God, who builds, protects, and gives rest (Ps. 127:1–2). Oppressive, unjust working conditions are cause for lament, and they incur God’s judgment (Exod. 5:6–19; Prov. 14:31; James 5:4–6).

Thus, Israel’s labor policy is to reflect God’s covenant faithfulness, generosity, and concern for the vulnerable. Moses’ law places limits on employers/masters to protect employees, slaves, and foreign workers from exploitation. The primary limit is God’s command that Israel keep the Sabbath holy by a complete cessation of labor (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). This move prioritizes God’s covenant above human labor and sets a rhythm of work and rest. Exodus grounds the Sabbath in God’s rest from his work of creation on the seventh day. Deuteronomy ties it to Israel’s history of slavery in Egypt and deliverance by God; by keeping the Sabbath, Israel shows gratitude to God and guards against replicating Egypt’s oppressive policies.

Exodus 31–32 portrays work in its best and worst lights. The proper interplay of work and rest is seen in chapter 31, which narrates the divinely empowered work on the tabernacle, followed by a strong reminder to keep the Sabbath as a “sign” between God and Israel. In contrast, chapter 32 portrays artisanship put to the worst use, the making of a golden idol. Aaron fashions gold with a tool and makes the calf image, but later he tells Moses, “I threw [their gold jewelry] into the fire, and out came this calf!” (32:24). This remark anticipates the prophets’ later mockery of idol-makers (e.g., Isa. 44:9–20) and raises the issue of personal responsibility for the outcome of one’s labor: Aaron seeks to avoid being implicated in Israel’s idolatry by concealing his own role in the project.

Public labor issues increase in complexity when Israel adopts human kingship and engages in international trade (e.g., 1 Sam. 8; 1 Kings 9:15–23). Babylon deals a decisive blow to Judah’s statehood by deporting leaders and skilled workers. Many of these establish such viable, productive new lives in Babylon that when Cyrus later allows the exiled Judeans to return, they choose to remain.

The NT assumes the legitimacy of work and adopts the OT’s view that within proper limits work is a good gift of God. Jesus, however, has come to do his Father’s “work” (John 5:16–18), which entails calling some people away from their normal occupations to follow him, as well as a new approach to Sabbath observance (Mark 2:21–27; 3:4). These moves signal the urgency and newness of the kingdom of God. Consequently, the apostles are “co-workers in God’s service” (1 Cor. 3:9), and Christians are “God’s handiwork” (Eph. 2:10). In light of the resurrection, we offer to God work (Gk. ergon) and labor (Gk. kopos), not in futility but in hope (1 Cor. 15:58; cf. Rev. 14:13).

Colossians is a letter sent by Paul to a church in Colossae when he was in prison. The letter was Paul’s first direct contact with the church, which may have been started by one of his missionary associates, Epaphras (Col. 1:7). Epaphras was from Colossae (4:12), a city of Asia Minor located in the Lycus Valley, known for its fertile soil and green pastures. Some commentators suggest that Epaphras also started churches in Hierapolis and Laodicea (4:13), neighboring cities in the valley that were situated around the Lycus River about ten miles apart. Colossae was a free city located on the main Roman road that ran from Ephesus and Sardis toward the east, and it was populated by native Phrygians, as well as Greeks, Romans, and Jews. More than likely, the church was founded during Paul’s extended ministry in Ephesus, where persons from the region heard Paul’s gospel and from where Paul sent missionary associates such as Epaphras into the surrounding cities (Acts 19). Tychicus, the letter carrier (Col. 4:7–8), was also one of Paul’s associates from the same region; he decided to accompany Paul to Macedonia after the team left Ephesus (Acts 20:4).

The close association of these churches in Asia Minor and the time frame when the letters were written may explain why Paul’s letter to the Colossians is so similar in content to his letter to the Ephesians. Paul was in prison (probably in Rome) when he sent both of these letters (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10, 18). The instructions regarding Tychicus, the carrier for both letters, are identical, nearly verbatim (Eph. 6:21–22; Col. 4:7–8). The letters share the same outline, following some of the same themes, especially toward the end, where Paul gives instructions regarding the household. An affinity also exists between Colossians and Philemon, a letter sent to the patron of one of the house churches in Colossae. Most of the names mentioned by Paul appear in both letters: Timothy, Onesimus, Archippus, Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (Col. 1:1; 4:9–17; Philem. 1, 10, 23–24). Paul was also in prison, along with Epaphras, at the time he sent his letter to Philemon. All of this indicates that these letters were written about the same time, from the same place, to the same region. Why did Paul send three letters to the same region, especially since letter production was so expensive? Why not send one letter to the entire region (like Galatians), to be read by all the house churches? Obviously, the problems of each church were so different that they required a separate authoritative word from their apostle.

Questionable Practices in Colossae

The Colossians were doing several things that Paul found troublesome, as we learn from Col. 2. They were judging each other for not keeping certain dietary regulations and holy days (2:16). Some were claiming superiority through personal worship experiences that involved visions of angels (2:18). Some subscribed to strict discipline of the human body, punishing themselves through various acts of self-abasement in order to curb fleshly appetites (2:23) and enhance their worship experiences (2:18). It seems that many of them were trying to live by an expanded version of the divine command given in the story of Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (2:21). Paul recognized that all these claims and rules had the “appearance of wisdom” but in reality were nothing more than traditions based on “self-imposed” religion, and that such ascetic practices were useless in denying fleshly appetites (2:22–23). Where did the Colossians get all these strange ideas that led to such bizarre behavior?

Paul described the false teaching as an imprisoning “through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces” in opposition to the teachings of Christ (2:8). Because the Colossian church was made up primarily of Gentile converts (1:27), many interpreters argue that the problems resulted from the meshing of the gospel with local, pagan ways. The Phrygians were known for their fascination with magical rituals, the ability to manipulate the powers (earth, wind, fire, spirits, angels, often referred to as “elementary principles of the world”) for human purposes. Paul’s description of the false teaching as a “hollow and deceptive philosophy” based on the “human tradition” may also reveal the influence of Greek ideas and Roman ways in the church. The Greeks operated with a dualistic worldview of spirit versus flesh, leading some philosophers to argue that punishing the body ensured purity of the soul. Furthermore, the Romans believed that the gods had given them power to rule the world, bringing fertility to the lands of conquered peoples. Worshiping Caesar brought economic rewards to devoted subjects of the empire. In other words, all this talk in the Colossian letter about power and sovereignty, philosophy and self-discipline was Paul’s way of dealing directly with the root of the problem: the syncretism of pagan ways and the gospel according to Paul.

Some interpreters believe that all these peculiar teachings derive not from pagan religions but rather from Judaism. After all, Paul’s references to observing the Sabbath, keeping commandments, and angelic worship point toward a Jewish context. Paul also affirmed that his Gentile converts were “circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands” (2:11), perhaps revealing his concern that Jewish ways were creeping into his Gentile church. He even put the church on notice, identifying those among “the circumcision” (Jews) who were trustworthy ministers of the gospel (he mentions only three, Barnabas, John Mark, and Jesus called Justus [4:10–11]). The implication, of course, was to ignore the rest of “the circumcision.” But if the troublemakers in Colossae were Jewish opponents of Paul, how does one explain all the mystical and ascetic elements of this false teaching? Some argue that the expression “worship of angels” was not an idolatrous practice of venerating angelic beings. Instead, the phrase should be translated “angelic worship,” implying that some Colossians claimed to have been transported to heaven and joined the angels in worship of God. This may have been similar to the experiences of an obscure form of Judaism: Jewish mystics who claimed to preserve esoteric revelations through out-of-body experiences of heavenly visions and auditions (see Paul’s description in 2 Cor. 12:1–7). Furthermore, the strict dietary code and sexual ethic of Jewish law were often interpreted by first-century pagans as promoting an ascetic lifestyle. In other words, Paul was countering a more cryptic branch of Judaism that flourished in a region known for its affinity for the mysterious.

Outline and Content

I. Introduction (1:1–14)

A. Greeting (1:1–2)

B. Thanksgiving (1:3–8)

C. Prayer (1:9–14)

II. The Person and Work of Christ (1:15–23)

III. Paul’s Role in Christ’s Mission to the Gentiles (1:24–2:5)

IV. False Teaching versus the Work of Christ (2:6–23)

V. Instructions on Life in Christ

A. In the church (3:1–17)

B. In the home (3:18–4:1)

VI. Generic Exhortations (4:2–6)

VII. Specific Instructions (4:7–9)

VIII. Final Greetings (4:10–17)

IX. Paul’s Signature (4:18)

Whatever the source of the false teaching referred to in Colossians, Paul attempts to correct the misbehavior of his Gentile converts by building an argument that the work of Christ is all-sufficient. Paul begins the letter by describing the person and work of Christ in cosmic terms (1:15–23). Next he recounts his role in the mission of Christ to bring the riches of the kingdom to Gentiles (1:24–2:5). After reminding the Colossians of their reception of the gospel, Paul juxtaposes the deceptive practices of the false teaching with the evidence of the work of Christ in them (2:6–23). Then he gives a number of instructions on what life in Christ is supposed to look like: in the church (3:1–17) and in the home (3:18–4:1). He concludes the letter with generic exhortations (4:2–6), specific instructions (4:7–9), and greetings (4:10–17). Finally, Paul signs the letter, obviously written by a secretary, with the simple request: “Remember my chains” (4:18)—a curious signature that makes the argument of his letter even more appealing.

The Power and Peace of Christ’s Kingdom

It is ironic that Paul chose to describe the work of Christ in such grandiose terms, picturing him as a mighty ruler over all creation, even while the apostle was in prison—an undeniable sign of Roman sovereignty. In Col. 1, in some of the loftiest language Paul ever used to describe Christ’s kingdom authority, the apostle reminds his converts that the Lord is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (v. 15), an obvious reference to Christ’s deity. Then Paul piles on the attributes, presenting Christ as the creator of all things, even angelic creatures (v. 16), the sustainer of all things (v. 17), the head of the church, the eternal one, the guarantor of the resurrection (v. 18), the fullness of God (v. 19), the reconciler of all things—the one who made peace with the enemies of God through his blood on the cross (vv. 20–22). Despite Paul’s circumstances and what Rome may claim, the apostle holds fast to the irrepressible sovereignty of Christ’s kingdom, displayed by Paul’s perseverance in the midst of suffering and the full assurance that every Colossian believer is “fully mature in Christ” (vv. 22–29). Indeed, all the treasures of Christ’s kingdom—love, knowledge, wisdom, discipline—are to be found in the life of his converts (2:1–5), unless someone “deludes” them into thinking otherwise.

Paul’s rhetorical strategy of extolling the power of Christ’s kingdom makes perfect sense in light of the false teaching that was plaguing the Colossian church. Apparently, the Colossians were persuaded to feel inadequate about their faith, vulnerable to the imposition of legalistic standards that ensured victory over fleshly indulgences. To counter his opponents, Paul unpacks the significance of the incarnation and the cross (2:9–15). Because Christ was God in flesh (in whom “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” [v. 9]), his death on the cross was a cosmic event that defeated all the powers that oppose God. Using military imagery, Paul argues that Christ canceled every debt against humanity when he nailed all “decrees” (even Caesar’s) to the cross. In that singular act of sacrifice, Christ disarmed the foes of God, humiliating them publicly by making a spectacle of them, triumphing over all powers (v. 15)—something that Caesar loved to do after successful military campaigns. Therefore, if Christ’s victory over all powers has been secured through his death, and since he rules as the firstborn of the dead (resurrection) over all creation, and since the Colossians are “fully mature in Christ” (1:28) because of their faith in him, then no pretense of self-abasement or angelic visions can diminish what Christ has done and will continue to do in the lives of Paul’s converts in Colossae. Christ is all they needed to overcome the powers.

In Col. 3, Paul tells how the Colossians draw upon the power of Christ when they “set [their] minds on things above, not on earthly things” (v. 2). The things on the earth are “sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed” (v. 5). Paul believes that his converts died with Christ (“hidden with Christ in God” [v. 3]) and therefore had set aside all these idolatrous practices when they put on the “new self,” being conformed to the image of Christ (vv. 8–10). This renewal will be found in all believers, regardless of ethnicity (v. 11), and will result in peace for all. Indeed, Paul sees the “peace of Christ” as the undeniable evidence of his reign exhibited in the hearts of those who believe (vv. 12–15). And what would that peace look like? Believers will be patient, forgiving one another with hearts full of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and love resulting in unity (vv. 12–14). Their worship of God will be characterized by songs of thankfulness and admonition, receiving the word with wisdom (v. 16). In their homes husbands, wives, and children will model deference and love, and masters and slaves will seek justice and fairness, as if they were serving Christ (3:18–4:1). The Colossians will be devoted to prayer, will treat outsiders fairly, and will be known for always speaking graceful words (4:2–6). In other words, where Caesar’s empire has promoted Roman peace by enforcing Roman law in provinces, cities, and households, Paul believes that the peace of Christ will rule the hearts of his subjects, establishing a kingdom of love and unity, in word and deed, in the home as well as the church. So, in his final greetings, Paul talks about faithful slaves and beloved siblings as sources of encouragement in the ever-expanding work of the kingdom of God (4:7–17), making his simple request, “Remember my chains” (4:18), sound more like an act of defiance than a pitiful plea.

To understand the persons and events of the NT, it is important to have at least a cursory understanding of Roman law. Rome held absolute power over its people and vassals from the time of its foundation (c. 750 BC) until the collapse of its empire (c. AD 500); thus, its understanding of law had influence on both philosophical and pragmatic levels. Roman law was remarkable for the detailed yet succinct way cases were treated. Roman law was primarily private law in character; that is, it was law focused on relationships between people. Fathers of families were significant figures in Roman law and custom. They held great power over their wives, children, and slaves. Precedent also played an important role in Roman law, with ritualized legal formulas and style being the key components. Generally speaking, parties determined the outcome between themselves with the help of an arbitrator. Only when such arbitration was unsuccessful, or at the end of arbitration when contractual steps had to be taken, was a jurist/judge brought in. Public trials were more a case of oratory and debate than legal wrangling and procedure.

Roman citizenship. Much of Roman law and activity was dependent on the status of the participants. Roman citizenship itself carried with it a privileged status in terms of law, property, and governance. Citizenship and the rights related to it also varied, depending on the class of the person. The native peoples who lived in territories conquered by Rome, citizens of Roman client states, and Roman allies could be given a limited form of Roman citizenship such as the Latin Right, which permitted land ownership, marriage rights, and certain rights in matters of punishment and detainment. Women’s rights varied over time; however, women were never accorded all the rights of citizens, since they could not vote or hold office. They could, however, own property. Slaves were considered property and had only certain very limited rights as granted by statute. They could essentially be treated in any fashion considered appropriate by their owners. Despite this, a freed slave was granted a form of Roman citizenship. All slaves freed by Roman owners automatically received a limited Roman citizenship. The law of the magistrates as applied to foreigners focused on three areas of interest: trade law, finding a way to apply Roman law to foreign societies, and the procurator’s own sense of fair play and justice.

Paul was a Roman citizen from birth (Acts 22:28), though given his lineage, this citizenship would have been similar to that of the Latin Right. He took advantage of his citizenship at numerous points during his missionary travels by limiting punishment and by an appeal to Caesar (Acts 22:24–29; 25:10–12). There is little information about how people were able to document their citizenship, though undoubtedly some sort of official document would have served such a purpose.

Household and family. As noted above, the father of a household had almost absolute power in that sphere. In relation to this, Paul and Peter’s instructions to the various churches about household relationships stand in stark contrast to the culture within which they were expressed (see Eph. 5:21; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 2:18–3:7). Like Jews, Romans viewed the family as the core element of their society. What occurred in the family was an expression of the core values of the society. For the church to have granted the freedom it did to women and others (Gal. 3:28) would have been difficult for many in the culture to accept. Furthermore, Paul in several places seems to call for restraint in Christian expression of freedom so as not to cause ill repute for the Christian community.

History and hierarchy. Concerning Roman jurisprudence, the system went through many phases of development over the periods of the republic and the empire. During the period of the republic (753–31 BC), the civil law was the primary focus of development. Roman law, like other ancient systems, originally adopted the principle of personality: laws of the state applied only to its citizens. Foreigners had no rights in their courts unless protected by a treaty. Gradually, a more generalized legal code developed in Rome that was applied to everyone, and by the time of the empire, such perspectives of law were well established. This may explain the different treatment received by Paul (and others) in relationship to whether they were known to be citizens.

Procurators and prefects were governors appointed by Rome over Judea after the removal of Archelaus in AD 6 and over all of Palestine at the death of Herod Agrippa. Governors such as Pontius Pilate were the highest power in their province, but they answered to the legate, who could replace them, and ultimately to Caesar, who could overrule them. They had to give their assent to lower local courts before a sentence involving death could be carried out. Because of the lower standing that noncitizens held, the governor often was quick to sacrifice them in order to maintain peace and avoid disturbances. Pilate’s treatment of Jesus seems to fall into such a category.

In general, disputes between members of the same subject state were settled by that state’s own courts according to its own law, whereas disputes between provincials of different states or between provincials and Romans were resolved by the governor’s court applying these principles.

Religion. Since Rome had no centralized cult, the Romans would not execute someone simply on religious grounds. Instead, there needed to be a perception of political revolt, and the charges had to be specific (Matt. 27:12; John 18:29). Because Roman law and trial were more a matter of oratory and reason than legal maneuvering and loopholes, it is not surprising that both Pilate and Felix allowed such leeway in the questioning of Jesus and Paul (John 18; Acts 24).

The act of yielding or consenting to the authority of another, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference, compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to. Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the terms are synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliance with directions or guidance, while “submission” describes one’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within a formalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’ relationship to the Father.

Scripture presents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number of specific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept, and as a general portrait of relationships—for example, patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus. Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.

In the OT, the use of the word “submission” (or its derivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function of translator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’s instructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit” is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlying Hebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use forms of “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrew expressions meaning the following: “become a slave to” (Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2 Chron. 30:8); “have a relationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch out hands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and “give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).

In the NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and, often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and the epistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.

1. Dogmatizō appears once: “Why . . . do you submit to rules?” (Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something that has been decreed.

2. Hypeikō appears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience is specifically distinguished from submission.

3. Hypotagē appears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1 Tim. 2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturing toward superiors; in 2 Cor. 9:13, however, it refers to obedience to a decree, in this case confession of the gospel.

4. Hypotassō is by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times in the NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using a form of “submission” (or “to be subject to”). It is used to convey the subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to the seventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s law or righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities (Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13); believers to one another (1 Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1 Cor. 14:34; Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves to masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, and powers to Jesus (1 Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9; James 4:7); younger men to elders (1 Pet. 5:5).

A few additional uses of “submission” in some translations have other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection” (Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and “open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).

Vivid portraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking the specific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen. 12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29); prophets toward God (1 Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3); Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark 14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission to Jesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father (Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father (Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24; 15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1 Cor. 7:3–5; 11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil. 2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).

God the Worker

A biblical theology of work starts with God as the creator of all things. In the OT, the verb bara’ (“to create”) is used only with God as subject. The first verb in the Bible (Gen. 1:1), it occurs also in many other texts that describe God accomplishing what only God can do. Other terms such as yatsar (“to form, fashion”) and ’asah (“to make, do”) are used numerous times throughout the OT with either God or humans as subjects.

These three terms reinforce the portrayal of God as worker in Gen. 1–2 (cf. Isa. 45:7). God creates light and darkness; sky and earth; sun, moon, and stars; land and sea; plant and animal life; and humankind—in sum, all that is. He forms the “man” (Heb. ’adam) from the dust of the ground, bringing him to life by breathing into him the breath of life.

Elsewhere in the OT God is said to build, build up, or rebuild/restore (Heb. banah [e.g., Pss. 102:16; 147:2; Jer. 24:6; Amos 9:11]). Interestingly, God takes a rib from the man, which he then makes (lit., “builds into” [Heb. banah + le]) a woman (Gen. 2:22). He founds (Heb. kun) the earth (Isa. 45:18) and stretches out (Heb. natah) the heavens (Zech. 12:1). Further, wisdom is God’s “craftsman” (Heb. ’amon), taking part in the world’s creation (Prov. 8:30). The NT reveals Christ as the one through whom God creates all things (John 1:1–3; Col. 1:16). This brief sketch suggests the range of ways in which God’s work is described.

Human Labor

Ideally, work is performed as service to God (Col. 3:17, 22–24). Work is one way we express the divine image. God’s creation mandate to fill, subdue, and rule the earth implies work (Gen. 1:26–28), and God places the man in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (Gen. 2:15). The importance of work for human dignity as well as survival undergirds the laws of gleaning that make provision for the poor to gather their own food (e.g., Deut. 24:19–22). The expansion of human technologies and occupations (mela’kah [see Exod. 12:16]) reflects that dignity and God’s own diverse workmanship. Job 28 celebrates human industry and achievement while subordinating all to the prevailing value of wisdom, rooted in “the fear of the Lord.” Given the indispensable role of work within the limits of human life, diligence is commended (Eccles. 3:9–10), idleness condemned (Prov. 10:4; 12:24; 21:5; 2 Thess. 3:6–10). Work is essentially God’s good gift to us in creation.

But work now has negative aspects. In response to Adam’s sin, God curses the ground, introducing “painful toil” into the work cycle (Gen. 3:17–19; 5:29). We now eke out our living by hardship, finding frustration instead of bounty—a lifelong reminder that we are made of dust and will return to dust. The book of Ecclesiastes echoes this note of futility and raises sharp questions about the lasting value of human labor (1:2–3, 14; 2:4–11, 17–23; 3:9; 4:4–6; 8:16–17). Sin and death haunt the unfolding occupations in Gen. 4, and the episode of the tower of Babel in Gen. 11 signals God’s judgment on human pretension (cf. James 4:13–16). Excessive toil (workaholism) is a pitfall, not a virtue, for it expresses reliance on self rather than on God, who builds, protects, and gives rest (Ps. 127:1–2). Oppressive, unjust working conditions are cause for lament, and they incur God’s judgment (Exod. 5:6–19; Prov. 14:31; James 5:4–6).

Thus, Israel’s labor policy is to reflect God’s covenant faithfulness, generosity, and concern for the vulnerable. Moses’ law places limits on employers/masters to protect employees, slaves, and foreign workers from exploitation. The primary limit is God’s command that Israel keep the Sabbath holy by a complete cessation of labor (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). This move prioritizes God’s covenant above human labor and sets a rhythm of work and rest. Exodus grounds the Sabbath in God’s rest from his work of creation on the seventh day. Deuteronomy ties it to Israel’s history of slavery in Egypt and deliverance by God; by keeping the Sabbath, Israel shows gratitude to God and guards against replicating Egypt’s oppressive policies.

Exodus 31–32 portrays work in its best and worst lights. The proper interplay of work and rest is seen in chapter 31, which narrates the divinely empowered work on the tabernacle, followed by a strong reminder to keep the Sabbath as a “sign” between God and Israel. In contrast, chapter 32 portrays artisanship put to the worst use, the making of a golden idol. Aaron fashions gold with a tool and makes the calf image, but later he tells Moses, “I threw [their gold jewelry] into the fire, and out came this calf!” (32:24). This remark anticipates the prophets’ later mockery of idol-makers (e.g., Isa. 44:9–20) and raises the issue of personal responsibility for the outcome of one’s labor: Aaron seeks to avoid being implicated in Israel’s idolatry by concealing his own role in the project.

Public labor issues increase in complexity when Israel adopts human kingship and engages in international trade (e.g., 1 Sam. 8; 1 Kings 9:15–23). Babylon deals a decisive blow to Judah’s statehood by deporting leaders and skilled workers. Many of these establish such viable, productive new lives in Babylon that when Cyrus later allows the exiled Judeans to return, they choose to remain.

The NT assumes the legitimacy of work and adopts the OT’s view that within proper limits work is a good gift of God. Jesus, however, has come to do his Father’s “work” (John 5:16–18), which entails calling some people away from their normal occupations to follow him, as well as a new approach to Sabbath observance (Mark 2:21–27; 3:4). These moves signal the urgency and newness of the kingdom of God. Consequently, the apostles are “co-workers in God’s service” (1 Cor. 3:9), and Christians are “God’s handiwork” (Eph. 2:10). In light of the resurrection, we offer to God work (Gk. ergon) and labor (Gk. kopos), not in futility but in hope (1 Cor. 15:58; cf. Rev. 14:13).

Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engaged in raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustrial lifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority of families resided in rural areas and villages.

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage was not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather, marriage was between two families. Family members and kin therefore took precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments, authority within families and communities was determined by rank among kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because it overthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Roman tradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family and community relationships.

Patriarchal Structures

A patrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and every household belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan in which kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, the fathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clan groups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman world maintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.

Family discipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honor of the father depended on his ability to keep every family member under his authority (1 Tim. 3:4). Other male members of the family assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen. 34).

Aristotelian Household Codes

Not only was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but also the later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted the biblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosm of society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding household management, seeking to influence society for the greater good. This advice was presented in oral and written discourses known as “household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes, written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Such codes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the male head of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves. The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’s household codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has the rule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in a woman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the case of slaves, it is completely absent.”

The Aristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT texts that, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 3:1–7). All these texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given to the congregations seems to have been of contextual missional value for the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family living for all times in all contexts.

Marriage and Divorce

Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

In Jewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. This state of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of the man’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yet their union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved only through death or divorce.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Children, Parenting, and Education

Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Abortion commonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had to be encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1 Tim. 2:15).

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Early education took place in the home. Jewish education was centered around the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’s responsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7), especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence of Hellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls, however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys were educated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and oral law. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Roman education was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primary schools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in some cases girls were allowed to attend school as well.

Family as an Analogy

The relationship between Israel and God. Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The prophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspring of a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayed as a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife as rebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by the infidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). The familial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle for proclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law and cultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similar picture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. One interpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves an eschatological tradition of family disruption with a future restoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Worship of God is a critical dimension of both Testaments. One might argue that it is the very goal for which Israel and the church were formed.

Terminology

Our understanding of worship is informed by the terms, practices, exhortations, and warnings of Scripture. The worship vocabulary in both Testaments provides insight into the personal dispositions and posture associated with worship focused on the person of God. The first set of biblical terms concerns the posture of the worshiper. The Hebrew terminology communicates the idea of bowing down and falling prostrate before the sovereign and worthy God (Ps. 95:6; 1 Chron. 29:20). NT words bear a similar idea of humble acknowledgment of God’s authority with a reverent prostrate position (Matt. 28:9; Rev. 5:14).

The second set of worship terms concerns service. In the OT, the worship of God includes the idea of serving with a view to bringing honor to him (Exod. 3:12; Mal. 3:14, 18). In the NT, worship bears the nuance of serving in the sense of carrying out religious duties (Heb. 12:28). This set of terminology has a priestly connotation to it. The OT priests and the NT believers (1 Pet. 2:5) serve God with their individual lives and their routines of life as acceptable offerings.

The final set of terms describes the attitude or disposition of worship. This word group includes terms such as “fear,” “awe,” and “dread,” which initially seem out of place in the context of worship. However, the terminology serves to inculcate an attitude of genuine respect. Yahweh is the awesome God, who is to be feared (Exod. 3:6; 15:11). Israel is to love and trust who God is and what God says in promise or in warning. The fear that one is to have for God involves a respect for him, a reverence for his divine worth (Col. 3:22; Rev. 11:18).

God as the Object of Worship

The worship terminology sets the focus of worship. The living God is the sole object of worship. He delights in the satisfying joy that his children find in him. The nature of worship is not about servant entertainment or passive observation; it is an active acknowledgment of God’s worth in a variety of humble ways.

A genuine selfless focus on the person and work of God brings about a humble response that affects one’s posture, generates works of service, and stirs up a healthy attitude of fear and respect. Knowledge of God is the foundational element in worship. God is worshiped for who he is and what he does. He is the Eternal One (Ps. 90:1; 1 Tim. 1:17), unique in every way (Isa. 44:8); he is God alone (Deut. 6:4). He is distinguished by his self-existence, the self-reliant quality of his life (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 32:30). The psalmist calls God’s people to shout joyfully to their good, loving, eternal, and faithful Creator (Ps. 100).

God is worshiped as the Creator of all life. This magnificent creative work of God, declared in the opening of Genesis, is a critical focus in worship (Ps. 95:6; Rom. 1:25; Rev. 4:11). Along with this is the companion declaration that God is the redeemer. The redemptive work of God is celebrated in the Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18) and in the Song of the Redeemed (Rev. 14:3).

Worship is also associated with the royal aspects of God’s character. It was the desire of the magi to find Jesus the king and worship him (Matt. 2:1–2). The final scenes of history will be characterized by humble submission to and worship of the King of kings (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16; cf. Rev. 15:3–4). The psalms often draw the reader’s attention to God’s royal character as a basis for worship (Pss. 45:11; 98:6).

Finally, God is worshiped as the Lord of his covenant relationship with the nation of Israel. This covenant theme and metaphor summarize the varied aspects of God’s character and his relationship with Israel. The God who brought Israel into a covenant relationship is to be sincerely and exclusively worshiped (2 Kings 17:35, 38; cf. Deut. 31:20). These confessional statements about the character of God are a glorious weight that moves believers to prostrate themselves, to have an attitude of awe and respect, and to obediently serve.

The Form of Worship

Although the form of worship looks different in each Testament, the essential elements of worship are constant. In the OT, the priests primarily led the worship of God. In addition, the duties of the king (Deut. 17:18–20) and of the prophet (18:14–22) had worship implications and responsibilities. Ideally, these three administrators were to work together to ensure a healthy quality of covenant life for the nation. Worship in both Testaments has both corporate and individual aspects.

OT worship was organized around sacred places such as designated locations (Gen. 3:8; 12:7), the tabernacle (Exod. 29:42), and the temple (1 Kings 8; cf. Rev. 21–22). In addition, there were sacred times in the calendar of Israel for celebration of the appointed feasts (Lev. 23). The three main feasts in Israel’s calendar are Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Tabernacles (Deut. 16:16; cf. Exod. 34:23). The sacred actions of worship for the nation involved burnt offerings, meal or tribute offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings (Lev. 1–5).

The regulation and routine of OT worship never were intended to be merely dutiful. The routine of worship was to manifest a love for God and for the covenant community (Deut. 6:1–5; Mal. 2:10). The prophets often challenged Israel to have a heart for God and at times called upon them to consider the emptiness of their worship routine (Isa. 1:11). The heart of worship was nurtured in psalms of praise and lament and in the call to remember God (Pss. 42; 77:11).

The form of NT worship is not distinguished with the same externals as in the OT. However, similar core beliefs underlie the form and practice of NT worship. The distinguishing feature in this new era is the final and sufficient work of Christ (Heb. 9–10). As with previous revelation, worship is not anthropocentric; it is joyfully Christocentric, based on the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1–5). Christ and his work replace the OT temple. Jesus is the greater temple that has come (Matt. 12:6). Sacrifice is no longer limited to any particular geographic location, but instead involves the offering of oneself (Rom. 12:1–2) along with the presentation of spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (1 Pet. 2:4–5). NT worship is regulated by the Spirit and truth (John 4:20–24). This type of worship is distinguished by the word of God, the Spirit, preaching, prayer, Spirit-filled service, and mutual edification. NT worship also includes the regular celebration of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42–47) within the context of the local church.