The Household Rules
The NIV entitles this section “Rules for Christian Households.” Here Paul sets forth a series of reciprocal admonitions that are to govern the relationships between wives and husbands, children and parents, and slaves and masters. This list forms what has come to be known in academic circles as the Haustafeln, a German term meaning a list of rules or duties for members of a household. Similar lists to the one in Colossians are found in Ephesians 5:21–6:9 and 1 Peter 2:18–25, 3:1–7. The Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 2:8–15; 6:1–10; Titus 2:1–10) deal with the same classes of people but in a less structured and unified way.
The appearance of these “household rules” in so many NT epistles indicates that such instruction was necessary in the early church. People needed to know how their new life in Christ affected their personal relationships in the household as well as in the larger body of Christ. The similarity of these exhortations, particularly in Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter, indicates that they were part of a body of traditional material that was developed and passed on in the churches. The instructions on slavery, for example, are much longer and serve a different function in 1 Peter than in Colossians or Ephesians; 1 Peter has no instruction for masters, whereas in Colossians and Ephesians it is an important part of a reciprocal relationship. The fact that wives and slaves are found in all lists indicates a concern that needed particular clarification.
Since it is obvious that other cultures and societies, such as the Jewish, Greek, and Roman, had rules and regulations governing social and personal relationships, there has been considerable conjecture in scholarly circles regarding the source of these Haustafeln in the NT. Some writers are attracted to ideas in Greek philosophy, particularly in the ethics of Stoicism, where there are significant parallels to the NT. Others suppose Jewish influence, drawing attention to ethical patterns and social concerns in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism. A few scholars argue for a distinctly Christian origin, believing that these rules can be traced back to the teachings of Jesus, Paul, and other apostles. There is, however, no easy solution to the question of sources, transmission, and final composition. Suffice it to say that by the time of their appearance in the NT they are regarded as authentic and authoritative instructions.
What does all of this mean as far as Colossians is concerned? First, it would be fair to say that Paul is using a body of traditional material dealing with personal relationships and applying them to the church at Colossae. Second, they must serve a specific function within this letter. As an isolated unit (3:18–4:1) they may simply have a domestic or sociological function. But their location in the epistle is not without significance.
At first glance, this section appears to interrupt Paul’s ideas on worship (3:16, 17)—a theme that is continued in 4:2–4 with an emphasis on prayer and thanksgiving. However, by placing the Haustafeln in the context of worship, Paul wishes to emphasize the need for order in the church, particularly among women and slaves. The primary function of these domestic rules, therefore, is ecclesiological (for the church) rather than merely sociological (for society).
The need for “order” at Colossae, as well as in such congregations as Corinth and Ephesus, has to be seen within the cultural and religious context of the first century. First, there were concerns that arose because of the delay of the return of the Lord. The followers of Jesus expected him to return within their lifetime (Mark 9:1; 13:30, and parallels); Paul, likewise, believed that the coming of the Lord was imminent (1 Cor. 15:51–58). When this did not occur, and problems arose in the church because of it, he offered some correctives (2 Thess. 2:1–12; cf. also 1 Thess. 4:13–5:11). The Second Epistle of Peter may be one of the best documents in the NT cautioning against an expectation of the Lord’s early return. With the Lord, writes Peter, “a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (3:8).
When it was believed that the Lord’s return was imminent, there was no reason to be concerned about rules governing church order. The early church was basically charismatic in nature, that is, it exercised considerable freedom of the Spirit in its life and worship. This provides a backdrop for much of Paul’s concern for the disorder in the Corinthian church, where spiritual gifts were overemphasized and the congregation became fragmented and competitive (1 Cor. 11–14). This manifestation of religious enthusiasm may have been inspired by the prophetic fulfillment of Joel 2:28ff. (cf. Acts 2:17–21) and influenced by pagan cults in which ecstasy and spiritual excesses abounded. At any rate, the church service is not the place for everyone to do as he or she pleases; things need to be done in an orderly manner, and the welfare of the entire body must be considered.
With the delay of the Lord’s return, the need for order in the church became more obvious. The teaching ministry that initially belonged to the twelve apostles and to charismatic leaders such as prophets and teachers (cf. Acts) was enlarged to include appropriately appointed leaders like Paul, as well as bishops (episkopos, 1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:7), deacons (diakonos, 1 Tim. 3:8–13), and elders (presbyteros, Titus 1:5), who were to teach and care for the church of God. There needed to be order in the church with respect to what was said (received tradition) and how things were done (proper offices).
The delay of the Lord also raised questions about the relationship of Christians to society. What is God’s will for believers in the world? How are those who are “in the Lord” to walk before those who are not in the body of Christ? These household rules were created as patterns of instruction to answer such questions and to regulate personal relationships within the home, the church, and society. This concern was extended to include instruction regarding relationships to political authorities as well (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Pet. 2:13–17).
A second factor at work in this section centers around the growing sense of freedom of women and slaves during Paul’s time. Unfortunately, more is known about the subjection of women and slaves than about their emancipation. In Jewish culture, for example, women were relegated to a position inferior to that of men. They were denied certain functions in worship; their court in the temple area was outside of the “court of Israel.” According to one rabbinic tradition, Jewish men repeated this blessing every morning. “I thank the Lord that he did not make me a Gentile … a woman … a boor.”
Slaves suffered a similar fate in Greek and Roman society. Much secular literature of that period speaks of slaves in derogatory and demeaning terms. A slave was a living tool and, with the exception of the ability to speak, was considered no better than a beast. Their masters had powers of life and death over them, and they could be abandoned when their usefulness was gone. Many were killed at the slightest provocation.
At the same time, there are many examples of humanitarianism and manumission by slave owners. In some cases, slaves were part of the household and had responsible personal and financial positions. Many of them were treated kindly and honorably. However, the existence of the admonitions to the masters in these codes indicates that this relationship needed to be clarified for Christian slaves and masters.
The emancipation of women was more pronounced in the Gentile than in the Jewish culture, which basically was a patriarchal society. Greek and Roman women had rights and privileges that were denied their Jewish counterparts. Undoubtedly there are exceptions, for one can find conflicting reports in secular literature. Attitudes toward the status and role of women varied at different periods and geographical areas—not unlike today. In worship, however, Gentile women had an advantage over Jewish women. Many of the Greek and Roman deities were female (e.g., Isis and Diana), and most religious cults freely admitted women as participants and leaders.
This kind of religious freedom may have contributed to the problems faced in some of the Gentile churches, such as Corinth. Women—as well as men—who had been converted to Christianity would bring some of their previous religious practices into their new faith. But the ecstasy, glossolalia, prophecy, enthusiasm, and so forth sanctioned in some of the pagan cults was not welcomed in Christianity; it did not produce the kind of reverence and order that was necessary for building up the body of Christ.
This background assists one to place into a proper context other statements by Paul concerning women and worship. Paul’s responses often are drawn from his Jewish background, in which the role of males was still dominant. Thus his attitude toward women is determined by the order of creation (1 Cor. 11:3–8; 1 Tim. 2:13), the sin of Eve (1 Tim. 2:14), and subjection as symbolized by the woman’s covered head (1 Cor. 11:5–8). Women in the church during Paul’s time are instructed to follow these admonitions and not to do anything that will disturb church order or hinder their witness to the world.
Undoubtedly, the most significant note of liberation for women and slaves was sounded in the proclamation of the gospel itself, in which freedom and equality are essential ingredients to new life in Christ. It is in this spirit that Paul writes to the Galatians: “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26–28). In Christ, all racial, religious, cultural, and social barriers have been removed (cf. disc. on 3:11). How were the slaves and the women in Paul’s day to understand and then translate their newly found freedom in Christ into daily life? The household rules are part of the apostolic response to such questions. By including them in his letter to the Colossians, Paul reminds his readers of the need to maintain religious and social order.
Additional Notes
There are many valuable studies on the origin, nature, and teaching of the “household rules” in the NT. In commentaries, see esp. Lohse, pp. 154–57; Schweizer’s excursus, “The Household Rules,” pp. 213–30. Other sources include: P. R. Coleman-Norton, “The Apostle Paul and the Roman Law of Slavery,” in Studies in Roman Economic and Social History, ed. idem (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), pp. 155–77; G. Hinson, “The Christian Household in Colossians 3:18–4:1,” RevExp 70 (1973), pp. 495–506; W. Lillie, “The Pauline Housetables,” ExpT 86 (1975), pp. 179–83; W. Munro, “Col. 3:18–4:1 and Eph. 5:21–6:9: Evidences of a Late Literary Stratum?” NTS 18 (1972), pp. 424–47; K. H. Rengstorf, “doulos,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 261–80; E. Schweizer, “Traditional Ethical Patterns in the Pauline and post-Pauline Letters and Their Development (Lists of vices and house-tables),” pp. 195–209; T. Wiedemann, Greek and Roman Slavery (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981). For a current bibliography on the literature dealing with the household codes, see Cannon, pp. 119–20, n. 2. Cannon’s discussion of these codes and their application to Colossians includes pp. 95–131.
Wife-Husband Relationships
3:18 There are two striking features about the following exhortations: First, according to the acceptable cultural patterns of that day, the first party addressed (wives, children, slaves) is subordinate to the second (husbands, parents, masters); second, in all cases, these are reciprocal admonitions—mutual love and mutual submission are the key elements in these relationships.
Wives are to submit themselves (Greek middle form) to their husbands. Obedience, or submission (hypotassō), is enjoined on the basis that it is the “Christian” thing to do, or as is fitting in the Lord. Either way, it means that Christian wives are to acknowledge what is socially acceptable or “proper” with respect to their husbands. Paul simply states this principle and does not debate the rightness of it or seek to interpret its meaning.
There is nothing in this verse to suggest that subordination is based on a hierarchical relationship, sometimes inferred from other Scriptures (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23). Hypotassō, from which the word taxis (“order,” as in taxonomy) is derived, is a common word to designate a relationship of mutual submission. Nothing harsh or demeaning is implied (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28 and disc. on Eph. 5:21ff.).
3:19 Husbands are to love their wives and not be harsh with them. Love (agapē) and harshness stand in stark contrast to each other. Lest husbands interpret “obedience” incorrectly, Paul reminds them that theirs is a relationship to be governed by the highest of all loves—a love that avoids any bitterness, resentment, or tyranny, because its supreme aim is the well-being of the other person.
Additional Notes
3:19 L. J. Baggott states it well when he writes that “the rule of love is always better than the love of rule” in A New Approach to Colossians (London: Mowbray, 1961), p. 121.
Child-Parent Relationships
3:20 Children are to obey their parents in everything. In everything indicates that this is to be a total obedience, governed, as in 3:18, by the fact that this is the right and acceptable thing to do. It is not known whether Paul had Christian parents in mind or what limits he would have placed on obedience contrary to the law of Christ. Since pleases (euarestos) is used elsewhere in Scripture as “that which is acceptable and pleasing to the Lord” (Rom. 12:1; 14:18; 2 Cor. 5:9; Eph. 5:10), the implication is that a child’s obedience has the same effect.
3:21 The obedience required of children does not give parents the freedom to abuse them. Hence, parents are not to embitter their children, that is, do anything that will provoke or tyrannize them (erethizō). The reason for this is to avoid the negative reaction of discouragement. Harsh and provoking treatment of children merely leads to exasperation and misunderstanding. Parents need to restrain their authority; they should deserve rather than demand obedience. As with wives, the subordinated party (the child) is exhorted to be submissive and respectful; as with husbands, the ruling party (the parent) is admonished to be loving and responsible.
Additional Notes
3:20 According to Hinson, “The strong emphasis upon unqualified obedience of children reflects a Jewish attitude and perhaps indicates a synagogal origin” (“The Christian Household in Colossians 3:18–4:1,” RevExp 70 [1973], p. 499).
Slave-Master Relationships
Since many slaves became Christians, it should not come as a surprise that they are singled out for some specific instructions in the NT (cf. 1 Cor. 7:20–24; Eph. 6:5–8; 1 Tim. 6:1, 2; 1 Pet. 2:18–25). For the majority of them, membership in the church may have been the only time and place they could experience equality and brotherhood. But belonging to Christ did not remove them from the world or lead to their emancipation. Allegiance to the heavenly Lord did not mean freedom from their earthly lords. They, more than anyone else, needed clarification on the relation of their status in Christ to their lot on earth.
A quick reading of the passages directed to slaves reveals that the writers of the NT did not take a negative attitude toward the practice of slavery in the ancient world; nor did they attempt to abolish it. Several factors may lie behind their approach:
First, Christianity was not a revolutionary movement bent on destroying the existing world order. To do so would have been suicidal, for what effect would a small and powerless group of Christians have had upon the might of Rome? Any attempt at revolution would have been met with severe persecution and martyrdom.
One of the clear messages in the Book of Acts is that Christianity has not engaged in treasonous activity and should, therefore, be regarded as a legal religion within the Roman Empire (Acts 25:8). Believers are admonished to obey their rulers and accept the temporal order even though it may be unsatisfactory in many ways (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Pet. 2:13–17).
Second, slavery in the ancient world was a necessary evil, although it was human beings who made the institution evil. Greek and Roman society was made up of masses of individuals without the ability or opportunity to work. The economic, social, and monetary systems that regulate modern society were unknown in the first century. Think of the social chaos that would have resulted from setting free millions of slaves. What would these people do, and how would they be fed? Slavery was a means of maintaining peace and order in the empire; the abolition of this institution would have led to political and economic chaos.
All this does not mean that Christianity merely adapted to its environment without a struggle or any concern for social justice. The ministry and teachings of Jesus (Matt. 25:35–40; Luke 4:18, 19), the life of the early church (Acts 6:1–6; 2 Cor. 8:1–4), and the suffering of Christians (1 Peter, Revelation) prove otherwise. Rather than exercise revolutionary power, Christians proclaimed a transforming power. By their life and message they set a process in motion that eventually culminated in the abolition of slavery, for once slaves and masters regarded themselves as brothers, equally precious in God’s sight, such divisions could not continue.
The approach that the church took toward slavery was determined largely by its theology rather than motivated by its concern for safety. Christians believed that God had chosen them and given them an inheritance; they believed that Christ had brought them freedom and that this would be enjoyed fully when the Lord returned to judge the world and reward the saints. And since they had no mandate from God to overthrow the world, they lived peaceably in the assurance that the last days were near. God had promised them a new Spirit, not a new social order.
As confidence in an imminent return of the Lord waned, the slaves—as did most believers—became restless. They must have wondered when their equality and freedom in Christ would become a social reality. If the Lord was not going to come soon, how much longer were they expected to go on living as slaves? These slaves needed some direction for their lives; they needed a higher motive than maintaining the status quo to explain why they must continue in their lowly position in the social order.
These rules are attempts at guiding slaves and masters on sensitive and significant issues. The fact that Paul includes such a lengthy exhortation in Colossians indicates it was an issue that had to be emphasized to preserve order. He also may have had Philemon and Onesimus in mind, although the specifics of that case are not developed here (cf. Philemon).
What Paul does in this section is to place slavery within the scope of Christ’s lordship—a thought not surprising, considering the development of the preeminence of Christ throughout out the epistle. He who is Lord of the universe is Lord of the church (1:15–20); and that lordship extends to all its members, including the slaves. Under Christ’s lordship, Paul mentions a number of significant changes that have taken place with respect to their status:
3:22 First, slaves have a new attitude. At one time they were motivated by a need for recognition and praise from their master. The unusual word ophthalmodoulia is a compound of ophthalmos (“eye”) and doulos (“service”). As non-Christians, their service was performed to gain human approval.
As believers, however, their labor is to spring inwardly from the heart rather than from outward considerations. They are to realize that their work ultimately is directed toward Christ, not individuals. “Fear” (phobeomai), or reverence for the Lord, becomes the motivating principle that enables slaves to perform their daily tasks.
3:23 Second, slaves have a new center of reference. This is implied already in the last phrase of verse 22, which the thoughts of verse 23 amplify somewhat. Paul wants them to understand that, in spite of their position, they are serving Christ and not men. As a result of their relationship to Christ, they have been freed from viewing work as an obligation and performing it methodically and unenthusiastically for human approval. Thus Paul states that they are to work heartily, as though they were working for the Lord, not for men.
3:24 Third, they have a new reward. Once again, Paul reminds them of their new center of reference—It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Undoubtedly there is an allusion here to wages—or rather the lack of them—and the resentment that may have been generated between slaves and masters. In monetary terms, slaves were poor and had little opportunity of receiving an inheritance or improving their lot. Ultimately, their compensation had to come from the Lord.
The reward is the same one referred to in 1:12 with respect to the believer’s inheritance. This, however, is not something that the slave earns as a result of faithful service, because the believer’s inheritance is a gift of God. The slave’s motivation is not material gain but “seeking the things that are above,” which, in this case, is service to Christ and the reward that he gives.
3:25 The point of reference in this verse is not clear; does anyone who does wrong refer to the slave or to the slave owner? Since the masters are not addressed formally until the next verse (4:1), it would be easy to assume that they are not the intended target of this rebuke. But given the context of the preceding verse, with its teaching on reward, could it be that the wrongdoer is the master who has failed to compensate his slave adequately? Paul advised the slaves, therefore, to remember that God ultimately will judge all wrongdoing (Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.) If this verse is taken as a reference to masters, then it forms a beautiful link with 4:1, where the ideas of fairness and justice are raised.
There is a sense in which this verse can apply to the slave as well. They have been exhorted to obey in all things (3:22), to work heartily and sincerely (3:22, 23), and to maintain an eternal perspective (3:24). Could Paul mean that any slave who falls short of that ideal will be judged as a wrongdoer? Slaves who do their work faithfully will be rewarded by God; slaves who fail in their responsibility can expect God’s judgment. God does not show favor to slaves just because of their low estate.
4:1 Again, Paul does not demand the abolition of slavery. Christian slave owners are not required to terminate a culturally acceptable practice just because they have become Christians. Nevertheless, Christian masters are different people because of their relationship with the Lord. They, too, have a new center of reference and so are called upon to demonstrate fairness and justice toward those who serve them; they too have a Master in heaven.
Here the principle of reciprocity is at work: The same transforming power that enables a slave to perceive and to perform his or her tasks differently is at work in the master who no longer treats the slave as a tool but regards him or her as a person, even as a “brother in the Lord” (Philem. 16). When such a relationship exists between master and slave, there will be no problem of disorder in the church.
Additional Notes
Other helpful insights on slavery can be found in the sources listed in the note in § 18. See disc. and bibliography on Eph. 6:5–9.
3:22 “Fear should certainly not be thought of as the opposite of trust; this is shown by the fact that in Ps. 33(32):18, for example, it is equated with hoping for God’s grace. What fear really means is a way of living which is afraid of nothing except of losing this one Lord, in the same way that a person who is in love fears nothing so much as losing the affection of the beloved” (Schweizer, p. 225).
3:25 It is interesting to note that the phrase there is no favoritism clearly is applied to masters in Ephesians 6:9, a point in favor of applying it to masters in Colossians as well, unless the author of Ephesians was trying to make a different point. But given the context of Colossians and the need for “order” in all things, it makes sense to see 3:25 as a reference to the slaves. Obedience is the governing principle in the Haustafeln, and here it applies to the slaves. Schweizer suggests that “perhaps the question of who is being addressed is deliberately left open because what is said is valid for everyone” (p. 227).