View source for The Household Codes (in 1 Peter)

[[file:ADB_logo_letters.jpg|x20px]]   '''[[Anabaptist Dictionary of the Bible|Home]] [[A]] [[B]] [[C]] [[D]] [[E]] [[F]] [[G]] [[H]] [[I]] [[J]] [[K]] [[L]] [[M]] [[N]] [[O]] [[P]] [[Q]] [[R]] [[S]] [[T]] [[U]] [[V]] [[W]] [[X]] [[Y]] [[Z]] [[Abbreviations]] [[Glossary]]''' 
----
[[file:BCBC_1-2Peter_Jude2.jpg|frame|right|x310px|link=https://www.mennomedia.org/9780836191189/1-and-2-peter-jude/|[https://www.mennomedia.org/9780836191189/1-and-2-peter-jude/''1 & 2 Peter, Jude'', by Erland Waltner and J. Daryl Charles (Believers Church Bible Commentary)]'']]

In his rigorous 1945 commentary on 1 Peter, Selwyn traces what he called the “Code of Subordination” in the NT. In the chart on page 181, I have adapted some of his material, aligning it with nuances of meaning developed above. This topic has received considerable and diverse attention by subsequent scholars. It also shows that while the presence of these codes in 1 Peter is prominent, their use in the NT is much more extensive.
The varied interpretations of the significance of these codes for Christian ethics are most important for us. Goppelt (162–179) gives an extensive discussion on the nature, sources, and uses of these Household Codes (what Luther called Haustafeln). He prefers to call them “Station Codes” (Ständetafeln). They consist of directives given to persons who find themselves in different roles or stations in life, such as slaves and masters, husbands and wives, parents and children, rulers and citizens, older and younger, leaders and learners. Goppelt notes that various types can be identified, some of which are closer in spirit to the Stoic codes, with an emphasis on duty. Others, with an element of grace and voluntarism, reflect more clearly the influence of Jesus and Paul.
Achtemeier observes that the Greco-Roman Household Codes “represent the basic social and economic mode of existence in the ancient world.… Based on the premise that men are more rational, women least rational, children prerational (or immature), and slaves irrational—such codes portrayed the order of authority and submission for each of the classes” (52). A challenge to this order would ultimately be seen as a challenge to the Roman political order. Balch has argued that 1 Peter advises accommodation to this perspective and ideology, but Achtemeier notes that 1 Peter and other NT passages warn against such accommodation (53). Such passages as Galatians 3:28–29 emphasize the new order in Christ. Ephesians 5:21 insists on mutuality in subordinating oneself to another. These emphases run counter to the system represented by the pagan Household Codes.
Christians living in the Greco-Roman world, however, needed to face the same issues of social relationships involved in the Household Codes, since the church was seen as a new house or household. How do pairs handle their relationships, slave and master, wife and husband, parents and children? How do believers relate to rulers?
Schroeder argues that the answers given in the NT point to “another way” than that given by the codes of the pagan world. This new way arises out of believers’ new life in Christ, new freedom in Christ, new ethic of holy love, and new community. Believers want to relate to each other as sisters and brothers in God’s family, and as missionaries witness helpfully to non-Christians, sometimes even in their “old” household. In these “household” relationships, there is also a place for a new kind of “authority and submission.” But it is on the borderline of the faith community with a pagan world that these social relationships become particularly crucial and admittedly difficult. Here the NT seeks to provide counsel by giving illustrations of a Christian nonretaliatory response when abuse occurs. To grasp Peter’s intentions with the Household Codes, this commentary has followed the perspectives of Achtemeier and Schroeder rather than those of Balch.


Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza also notes that while the NT writers do not make a direct critique of either slavery or patriarchy, the image of “a discipleship of equals,” particularly as expressed in Galatians 3:28, remains as a basic ethic (205ff.). That is the goal toward which God moves. The conversion of slaves and wives to Christianity, however, in itself became a challenge to the prevailing social structures. Thus this new faith was sometimes feared to be subversive. Pagans expected that a wife would share the religious faith of her husband. Hence, the very existence of Christian women who had non-Christian husbands was in itself already a threat to the social order. Peter certainly does not tell such wives to adopt the faith of their husbands. Instead, he speaks of attitudes and patterns of speech and behavior that may result in the conversion of husbands to Christian faith.
Characteristic of these codes in the NT, however, is the call to “subordinate yourselves,” which is different from urging people to “obey” (used in 1 Peter only in 3:6). Strikingly, this call to subordination is applied to all persons, not just to slaves or women (Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:13). Over recent decades, the more precise understanding of this imperative to “subordinate yourselves” has changed significantly in scholars’ discussions. Strongly influenced by scholars such as Cranfield, Goppelt, Michaels, Davids, Schroeder, and Achtemeier, we now understand that Peter views believers as “free” in Christ (2:16). Even so, some may occupationally be “household slaves.”
Given the circumstances and their station in life, believers are urged to adopt voluntarily appropriate Christian social attitudes and behaviors, “for the Lord’s sake,” so that both their integrity as followers of Jesus and their missionary witness might not be destroyed. The Stoics emphasized duty as motivation. Wendland (in Goppelt: 170) emphasizes that, on the other hand, the codes in the NT essentially call for an application of “the commandment to love one’s neighbor and brother in the oikos [house] and among the membership of the household.”
Currently, we understand Peter’s call in using the Household Codes to be “to acknowledge authority” or “to respect” or “to defer to,” even as one follows Jesus in a path of nonretaliating and forgiving love. The positive dimension of this is always “doing good” or “doing right,” while trusting God for eschatological vindication and justice. In this discernment process, questions are still relevant: What did Jesus do? What would Jesus do? What is the counsel of fellow believers?
Nonretaliation, however, does not preclude, in appropriate context, criticism of an unjust order or action, or working toward a more just and merciful order in fallen society. On occasion, Jesus confronted hypocrisy and evil in his world with prophetic insight and directness. He calls his followers not to bless an unfair or unjust status quo. Instead, they are to seek a nonretaliating way of allowing God to bring about social transformation. Liberation theologies, including feminist theology (Fiorenza, 1983:260–266), make a significant contribution to our understanding of the present applicability of the Household Codes.
We must not sanction or perpetuate oppressive and abusive relationships, either in employment or family or church or community contexts, by misusing the “submission texts.” On the contrary, we must recognize the particular missionary stance in the context of hostile Hellenistic paganism. We see Peter’s own underlying missionary concern that includes ultimate justice (1:17; 2:23; 4:5, 17; 5:10). Moreover, we need to see that the call to continue in “doing good” and “doing right” includes appropriate action to bring true human freedom (2:16) and true justice, as God intends for all, and the peace which the gospel brings (1:2; 3:11; 5:14; cf. Schertz: 282–284). This is a far cry from servile, passive compliance and moves toward the kind of civil respect and confrontation that God can use to change both individuals and eventually social structures.
We support such a commitment to nonretaliation in responding to oppressive situations while continuing an active practice of confronting and forgiving enemy love, as taught by Peter. It finds expression in the writings of Swartley (1983, 1992, 1996), Schertz, Schroeder (1990), Yoder (1972), Zerbe, and others.

{| border="1" style="text-align: right; color: green; background-color:#ffffcc; float: right" 
|—'''''[[Erland Waltner]]''''' 
|}