This was an argument I saw made the other day on social media. It’s not a new one -and in fact is one I’ve interacted with in detail before. The argument runs as follows. Conservative Evangelicals rely on the household code that Paul uses in Ephesians 5. However, Paul also includes a code for Slaves and masters which follows the same pattern. Paul is in fact making use of the traditional Greco-Roman household codes. Conservative Evangelicals who take a complementarian position on husbands and wives, must also, logically endorse slavery as legitimate.
The argument that often follows is that whilst the Bible writers didn’t have a problem with slavery in their day and so accommodated it, the Gospel created an ethical trajectory, beginning to subvert slavery as a concept leading to the abolition movement of Wilberforce, Newton and Clarkson. If such a “redemptive movement hermeneutic” could be applied to slavery, it should also be applied to other ethical examples including marriage. I examine that argument here and find it wanting. The abolitionists did not rely on a redemptive-movement hermeneutic and extra evidence from outside Scripture, rather as we will note a little later, The Bible itself sets out why the Atlantic slave trade was wrong.
A further problem we have with the claim that complementarians have “a slavery problem”, is that not only does Paul deal with the question of slaves and masters in the same context but he also deals with parents and children. Now, whilst the rights of wives in relationship to their husbands were significantly reduced in Greco-Roman culture both against contemporary standards and that of Judeo-Christian standards, it is not correct to assume that wives were no different to children in terms of status and authority.
This leads us to recognise that an exegetical misstep has happened in the argument. Paul in Ephesians 5-6 describes how Christians should relate to different people where there are close relational bonds. However, simply because Paul says “Where there is a relationship, this is how you must act”, that Paul is saying that all such relationships are equivalent. Similarly in 1 Peter 2-3 there are instructions again for wives and slaves but also for all citizens in relationship to governing authorities. Note two things here. First that complementarians don’t have a “dictatorship” problem as a result of this, second that again, the relationship of free citizens to the authorities, even in ancient Rome, was not the same as a slave to their master. The point that they are “free citizens” is significant and we will return to that again now.
You, see, the third think we need to look at is what Paul actually teaches about how slaves and masters are to relate to each other. This will not only put to bed the argument that complementarians have a “slavery problem” but it may also help us to think carefully about what true Biblical complementarianism should look like. This will also challenge some of the Patriarchy movement’s arguments. I would argue that both egalitarians and Patriarchialists have not read the slavery passages carefully enough.
First of all, let’s go back to 1 Peter 2. Before Peter instructs slaves on how to relate to their masters, he says this:
16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves.
Notice two things. First of all that from one perspective, we are all slaves, even those of us who society classes as free because we belong to God in Christ. Secondly, we are all free, even the slaves. They along with you and me are being encouraged to see themselves as free from earthly ownership. This makes their relationships to others voluntary. So, they are to use that freedom for good.
Secondly, when we get to Ephesians 6, we read this instruction to slaves:
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
But we also read:
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way.
Masters could not use their power and status to threaten and cajole slaves so that their hold over them is removed. Paul introduces reciprocity into the relationship. WE might even talk in terms of mutual submission. Add in that Paul believes that work should be rewarded and that if not here on earth, then it will be in heaven (v8) or his condemnation of man-stealers who supply the slave trade and I would argue that Paul has argued for abolition of slavery.
The result is that relationships should be transformed. You might either argue that Paul begins to move us towards employment relationships or that he is encouraging masters to properly include those who were slaves as full and integral members of the family. I think there are three clues as to why the latter is best. First, in Luke 15, you have the story of someone who is willing to be a hired servant but is welcomed back as a son. Secondly, you have the instruction to Philemon to welcome back Onesimus as a brother and thirdly, you have the example of Christ who willingly took on the form of a servant but is confirmed as the Father’s beloved, eternally begotten Son.
Now, I mentioned above that there may be challenges for complementarians too. Complementarians are right to argue that headship is a longstanding, transcultural Biblical concept, they are right to argue that Christian marriage should look different to certain aspects of today’s culture. However, sometimes it is possible to miss how radical the message was in Paul’s day, how far it went against that culture too. At times, too much weight has been placed on headship and not enough on the mutual, reciprocal dynamic to submission in all three cases, husbands, parents, masters. This is something that earlier reformed thinkers such as Calvin got but I think has been lost at times in the modern Biblical Manhood and Womanhood movement.
A Christian family should not look like a 21st century western tangle of relationships but nor should it look like a Greco-Roman house-hold.
See also Marriage at Work
Faithroots 