Living in the New Creation: The Household Code in Ephesians as Theological Instruction

Abstract

The epistle to the Ephesians, like other Christian texts, teaches that life in the new creation, although not yet fully manifest, is already powerfully and sufficiently available to the church. However, this epistle uniquely has the predominant description of this new life in terms of entering into the household, or family, of God. Ephesians 1–5 makes this evident in the specific use of family language, the clustering of certain word groups (such as terms associated with wrath and peace), and the connection between promise and inheritance. This paper focuses on the instructions to children and fathers (Eph 6:1–4), showing that the teaching on the church in familial terms as the locus of the new creation is intended to be the basis for the way children and fathers are commanded to live their new life in their families. The description of the church contrasts with that of those outside the church, indicating that Christians are adopted children of God the Father, while those outside are “sons of disobedience” (2:2) and “children of wrath” (2:3). The instructions for children to be obedient and for fathers not to provoke their children to anger are best understood in this context.

1. Introduction

It has been debated whether the household codes in Ephesians (and Colossians) are cultural or counter-cultural. If the former, Paul is encouraging Christians not to stand out from the world that would view them with suspicion (e.g., Lincoln 1990, p. 397; cf. Balch 1988).1 If the latter, these codes are particularly relevant for life in the new creation, as they provide a description of the principles of this new life applied to human relationships (e.g., Gombis 2005; Gorman 2017, p. 604; Hoehner 2002, pp. 720–29).2 While the wife–husband and slave–master relationships are frequently commented on, this paper specifically addresses the second and least commented on household code, that pertaining to children and fathers (6:1–4).

What follows is an analysis of these instructions in their context. It begins with a description of the divisio of Eph 6:1–4. Although the structure is fairly obvious, several points emerge as particularly emphatic in Paul’s discourse, and these suggest an approach to the contextual analysis. Next, the second household code will be examined in light of the other two codes. The assumption is that the rationale for the three sets of instructions stem from the same principles, so that considering the commands to wives and husbands and to slaves and masters will yield more data for understanding the children–father instructions. Finally, what is relevant from the epistle at large is described. It is significant that teachings on fatherhood outside the household codes concern God’s fatherhood. This strongly suggests that the instruction to fathers in 6:4 should be read in light of God’s fatherhood. Similarly, Christians are God’s children, and their life under God’s fatherhood is described both in its duties and in its received benefits in Eph 1–5. Such an analysis reveals that God’s fatherhood is characterized by benevolence and his household by unity.3 It will be argued that, when understood in light of the letter as a whole, the familial terms of Eph 6:1–4 reveal the theological rationale for the instructions.

2. Divisio of Eph 6:1–4

The structure of Ephesians 6:1–4 is not disputed, yet several aspects of the divisio are illuminating. The passage comprises two main parts: (1) the instruction to children and (2) the instruction to fathers. Both sections begin with the vocative address (“children”, “fathers”). The oft-observed and counterintuitive (from a worldly perspective) priority given to the inferior party suggests that Paul is speaking about the father–child relationship as it ought to be in the new life. Further, children must obey their parents “in the Lord” (6:1),4 and fathers are told to raise their children in the instruction “of the Lord” (6:4). These phrases bookend the unit and, as structural features of this passage, can be seen to localize the instructions in the new life in Christ.

From another angle, one might identify a third, central section. In the bipartite schema, the instruction to children outweighs that to fathers in length.5 This situation encourages one to identify the quotation from Exod 20:12/Deut 5:16 as its own unit or subunit. Here it is taken as the central unit, and, as such, it enjoys prominence and is connotated by Paul’s commands and the references to the Lord. While quoting from the decalogue may be expected in this context, his interjection stands out. A divisio would therefore reveal a chiasmus, whose outer elements comprise Paul’s commands and references to the Lord, and whose central element entails the quotation that is interrupted in the middle by Paul’s interjection. Thus:

• Paul’s command to children (6:1)
•   Paul’s quotation of the decalogue, part 1 (6:2a)
•     Paul’s interjection (6:2b)
•   Paul’s quotation of the decalogue, part 2 (6:3)
• Paul’s command to fathers (6:4)6

The interjection reads: “which is the first commandment with a promise”. Notable in this phrase is the reference to the “promise”. Since what follows is the promise as given in the commandment, the audience is primed to be particularly attentive to this concept. In summary, the structure evidences the Christian reversal of societal norms of honor and the importance of the father–child relationship in the “Lord” and in light of the “promise”, which holds central significance. The themes of fatherhood, sonship, and promise thus rise to the surface, and these three concepts will be examined below after a consideration of the other household codes.

3. Eph 6:1–4 in Light of the Other Household Codes

The codes that precede and follow this passage are similarly characterized by κύριος phrases; wives are commanded to submit to husbands “as to the Lord” (5:22), as are slaves to their masters (6:7). They are to relate to the superior in a way consonant with the Christian life. Paul spells this out especially regarding slaves. The Christian mode of being a slave entails singleness of heart (6:5). It has to do, not with externals, but with interior transformation. The non-Christian way of being a slave (6:6) is to perform service in such a way as to be “outwardly correct but which is rendered without dedication and with no sense of inner obligation to the master for the sake of God and of Christ” (Rengstorf 1964).7 While the submission of slaves to masters is a common trope, what is distinctive about Paul’s instructions is the rationale behind it; all are equally slaves to God (6:9), which is the situation in the new creation (Barth 1974, p. 756).8

Similarly, regarding wives, the rationale for the wife’s submission and the husband’s care is clearly provided with reference to Christ and the church. This is especially telling, since the church is described throughout Ephesians as the embodiment of the new creation. The church is mentioned six times in this passage alone, and several times elsewhere at places in Ephesians where the new creation is especially in view. For instance, in Eph 1:22–3, the text reads: “he has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all”. Owens makes three pertinent observations on this passage. First, it introduces the new creation topic in Eph 2 “by portraying Christ as divine warrior […] and inaugurator of the new creation” (Owens 2016, p. 141).9 It will be seen below that Eph 2 is especially important in the interpretation of the household codes. Second, the echo in it of Psalm 8 “suggests that the declaration of Christ’s supremacy over ‘all things’ in v. 22 foreshadows the more extended discussion of new creation in Eph 2:1–22” (Owens 2016, p. 141). Third, he states that it

presents a subtle amalgamation of ecclesiology and Christology by describing the church as the earthly focal point of the divine presence (πλήωμα) and suggesting that Christ is engaged in the process of extending his triumph (πληψρουμένου) throughout the cosmos (τὰ πάντα).

(Owens 2016, p. 141)

Owens argues that Old Testament passages related to the new creation, especially the divine warrior teachings in Isaiah 57 and Psalm 8’s creation imagery, animate Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 1–2. Based on Owens’ analysis of Eph 1–2 on the church vis-à-vis the new creation, one can more firmly read the rationale for the instructions to spouses as being rooted in the new creation theology of the letter.10 This is evidently all the more appropriate given that the use of “head”, “church”, and “body” together in 2:22–3 are highly reminiscent of the instructions for wives and husbands (cf. 5:23: “for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, he is the savior of the body”). The rationale for the instructions to children (i.e., the “promise”) and the (implicit) rationale for those to fathers are therefore also likely rooted in the new life in Christ and not merely in the cultural norms of the day.

4. Eph 6:1–4 in the Epistle at Large

4.1. Fathers

4.1.1. God the Father of Christians in Christ

It can also be argued, from the context of the whole letter, that the instructions to fathers and children are rooted in the new life. The following analysis begins with a consideration of the term “father”. In Ephesians, the distribution of this term is such that the only father mentioned outside of the household codes is God (in Eph 1:1–5:20 and 6:23), while the term refers to human fathers in 5:31 and 6:1, 4. This suggests that what is said of God as father contextualizes the instructions to human fathers; the household instructions to fathers are framed by God being the father of those in the church. This is supported by the corollary teaching in Ephesians, i.e., that Christians are his children (e.g., 5:1). Significantly, Ephesians refers to God as father twice as often than does any other Pauline epistle (Hoehner 2002, p. 107).11 Given the Old Testament concept of God’s fatherhood and Christian/Jewish tradition, this may not come as a shock, but it is a particularly significant aspect of Ephesians and has great relevance for the instructions to children and fathers in Ephesians 6.

God is referred to as father twice at the outset of this letter (1:2, 3) as Paul introduces the letter and begins the benediction. The phrase “our Father” in 1:2 is especially important, as the attendant pronoun places Paul and the audience in the role of children, clarifying the relationship between the members of the church and God. In 1:3, God is the “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, and, as he is also “our” Father, Jesus’ natural sonship seems to be related to the sonship of Christians. In 1:5, this relationship is summed up by the word “adoption”. Paul thus teaches that God’s fatherhood over Christians derives from their connection to him who is son of God by nature. When connected to Christ, they become children of God through adoption.12

The relevance of this fundamental biblical teaching is that the ubiquitous phrases “in Christ” or “in the Lord” indicate the new life gained through adoption into God’s family or household, where they share derivatively what Jesus has in his divine nature. Thus, Paul refers to God as the father of both Jesus and the audience, but he then clarifies in 1:5 that the audience receives sonship by adoption. Ephesians 2 will make it clearer that Christians do not enjoy this sonship by nature, rather by nature they are “children of wrath” (2:3)—a concept to be discussed below.13 Note the familial terms in which the description of this new life is mediated to the audience.

4.1.2. The Roman Paterfamilias

Before proceeding to the further description of family language in Ephesians, it is appropriate to consider the impact of these terms for gentile Christians living in a Roman context. It has been shown that, while rooted primarily in the Old Testament, these concepts exist in the Roman sphere, which would have influenced how they were understood by Paul’s audience. Roman fathers held absolute authority over their households.14 A paterfamilias was said to have power over the life, death, and freedom of his children, and he could even order the divorce of his adult children (Bartchy 2003, p. 135; Crook 1967, p. 119; Lincoln 1990, p. 399).15 From the time of Augustus, fathers had more authority over their married daughters than their sons-in-law did (Bartchy 2003, p. 136). Joubert (1995, p. 215) states that “[t]he patriafamilias’ lifelong power over his slaves, adopted children and biological children formed the backbone of Roman society”. The paterfamilias then had the legal power to dominate his children as subjects or slaves, even though the authority of the paterfamilias in practice seems to have been mitigated, sometimes by legal action but most often by social pressures that preferred a paterfamilias who was restrained, as well as, of course, by paternal affection (Bartchy 2003, p. 135; Crook 1967, p. 119; Joubert 1995, p. 215).16

Further, the authority of the paterfamilias was like that of the emperor over the empire. The early emperors associated themselves with the virtues of clemency, generosity, and authority and with the founding and saving of the empire by military prowess and the decree of destiny, thus binding subjects to the emperor via pietas (Mengestu 2013, pp. 61–62). Importantly, Mengestu observes that the Romans employed kinship language to shape the way people thought about themselves and their identity as “transnational”, thus serving to strengthen the unity of the empire (Mengestu 2013, pp. 52–53). For example, the Romans used the term “father” in reference to the emperor, the Roman gods, as well as to the empire itself. The Roman populace would have owed obedience primarily to the emperor, who was paterfamilias over the entire empire. The use of “father” for emperor “builds on the understanding of the Empire as a great familia” (Mengestu 2013, p. 55). Joubert (1995, p. 213) agrees: “An assumption underlying first-century institutions was that the Roman empire was one big family with the emperor as the paterfamilias of its inhabitants”.

Therefore, referring to God as father in a Roman context was likely not an innocuous attribution. The paterfamilias was supreme and had the freedom to be quite harsh. In addition, the parallel imperial use of the terms relates to the use of power and the unity of the empire around and under that supremacy. These ideas more or less correspond to ideas of divinity, but do they correspond with Paul’s presentation of God in Ephesians? Given the Roman context, Paul’s statement that God is “our Father” through “adoption” might appear to entail some risk. What kind of paterfamilias is God? And what does this say about the audience?

4.1.3. The Father’s Benevolence

The content of the benediction in Ephesians 1 answers these questions. It may have been jarring to a gentile audience for Paul to describe God as a most loving and gracious father, with the long list of benefits named therein lacking any reference to a military-policed pax. God gives “every spiritual blessing” (1:3), and has also chosen (1:4), loves (1:4), forgives (1:7), and redeems (1:7) his children. Words such as χαριτόω (1:6) and ἐπερίσσευσεν (1:8), as well as the preponderance of πᾶς, indicate the supersufficiency of his gifts.17 God’s gratuity is further reinforced by the double use of εὐδοκία (1:5, 9), indicating that God’s benevolence is unnecessitated and “springs from pure love”.18 Paul advances the audience’s understanding of God’s benevolence in Ephesians 2, where the action of God’s generous deliverance is highlighted. Paul states that, in accordance with his being “rich in mercy” and loving them with a “great love” (2:4), God raised the audience even when they were dead in their sins (2:5), God’s gratuity to them being utterly undeserved (2:8). Paul further emphasizes God’s graciousness through the double use of grace (χάριτι) in this passage, calling to mind χαριτόω in 1:6.

This picture develops the audience’s idea of God as father by going beyond the mere acknowledgment of the father–son relationship to an understanding of God’s character in the role of father, namely, that he is benevolent and generous.19 Like the paterfamilias in Roman culture, God has complete authority over the members of his house. However, unlike the Roman paterfamilias, who was moved towards generosity and kindness partially by social norms and pressures, God is a good paterfamilias in accordance with his nature. And unlike the Roman emperors, who referred to themselves as generous fathers in order to consolidate their holdings, God’s munificence has no incentive except love, which unifies by internal transformation and maturation.

4.1.4. Unity in God’s Household

The phrase “our Father” thus also relates to the unity of the church. This is implicit in the common adoption shared by the audience into God’s household. It is not explicated, however, until another instance of “father” in 2:18. It occurs at the end of the two sections relating the separation between the audience (i.e., Christians) and those outside of God’s household. In 2:11–22, Paul’s topic is the unity found when Jews and Gentiles are both adopted through Christ into the household of God (2:19), and it appropriately ends with a reference to God the Father as the summit and goal of that unity: “through [Christ] we both have access in one Spirit to the Father” (2:17).

Similarly, yet another instance of the term “father” deals with unity. In Paul’s ‘seven unities’ of Ephesians 4, he climaxes: “one God and Father of us all” (4:6). This section begins with a brief paranesis on the proper behavior of the audience. He teaches that the virtues of humility and forbearance (4:2) are in the service of “maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (4:3). These virtues mirror the benevolence of God as well as the peace and unity that Paul emphasizes as the chief characteristics of the household.20 He then launches into his list highlighting the importance of that peaceful unity. Paul connects the number “one” and “peace” in 2:14, saying that “[Christ] is our peace, who has made us both one (ἓν)”, and this resonates with his teaching on unity (ἑνότητα) in 4:3.21

The particularly pointed reference to God’s fatherhood in 3:14 speaks further to the unity in his household. Paul states that God the Father is he from whom every family is named. The reference to God, as in the previous occurrence, is simply “the Father”, this word standing as the sole descriptor of God in this verse. The families are usually understood in a universal sense; all families of humans and angels have their origin in God (e.g., Barth 1974, p. 97; Gorman 2017, p. 594; Williamson 2009, p. 380). However, this should not be understood universally without qualification. Given both that Eph 1:21 describes Christ as far above all spiritual powers that might “be named” and that naming indicates dominion over that which is named, it may be that the teaching is anticipatory. God certainly has dominion over all races and spirits; however, this will only be manifestly so after the parousia, when the power of all opposition is finally rendered impotent, and partially so before the parousia in the inevitable growth of the church. This considers Eph 1:9–10, in which the dominion of Christ, while definitively present, also has this progressive dimension. Alternatively, the families are those already in the church (MacDonald 2008b, p. 275). In this case, the variant “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, whether or not the genitive phrase is original, is how “Father” should be understood—he is Father of Christians.22 Hoehner’s comments on Eph 1:22 are applicable to 3:13–4: “One must not confuse the issue by saying that the creation and the church are one and the same but rather they are distinct and his relationship to each is different” (Hoehner 2002, p. 289).23 The important point is that, as Gorman (2017, p. 594) observes, the verse implies that God is the “unifier” of those in the church, his household, whether they are already incorporated or will yet be.24 On this verse, Heil (2011, p. 135) intimates its particular relevance to the church:

This cosmic unity can be comprehended by them only as a worshiping community in union with all the holy ones; it is only as united within the church, the body of Christ, the holy temple of the Lord, that believers can comprehend it. And it is this grand comprehension that enables them to experience the great and gracious love of Christ that surpasses all other experiences (3:14–19). Paul then climactically concludes this prayer by leading his Ephesian congregation in an inspiring act of doxological worship.

Another consideration with regard to these verses has to do with the familial language itself. It was seen above that the Romans employed familial language in reference to the emperor and gods in their efforts to promote unity in the empire. However, Paul usurps this language to point his audience to the true unity in the family where God is Father. In the prescript, the term “father” was used with other terms, such as “grace”, “peace”, “God”, and “Lord”, with reference to God, rather than to the emperor. Mengestu demonstrates that these terms were part of the Roman “imperial ideology” and argues that, in his prescripts, Paul reorients these terms to promote unity among the Christian communities. He summarizes that by using these terms “in connection to their relationship to God and Jesus Christ, the fatherhood and lordship of the emperor and the presentation that he is the source of χάρις and εἰρήνη are immediately relativized if not denied” (Mengestu 2013, p. 174).25 Likewise, in 3:14, Paul “reorients” his audience from the conception of themselves as part of the emperor’s family and toward their belonging to the household of God as a distinctly Christian family united under the true paterfamilias, who is above all other fathers and families.

The above suggests that God is the paterfamilias, and this implies that God has a household or family. It is already indicated in the phrase “our Father” (1:2) in the prescript that Paul and his audience are the children in God’s household. This is explicated further in his teaching on adoption in 1:5.26 The “household” is explicitly mentioned in 2:19, which, while the only occurrence of οἰκεῖος in Ephesians, is tied to a network of concepts related to it, such as the ubiquity of God’s fatherhood in this letter and the description of Christians as children. What follows is a description of children in Ephesians.

4.2. Children

4.2.1. Children in God’s Household

As children in God’s family and therefore beneficiaries of his paternal generosity, it would be expected for Christians to fulfill filial duties. What this means in Ephesians is demonstrated in Paul’s many injunctions throughout the letter. These expectations are summarized in 5:1, where Paul teaches: “be imitators of God, as beloved children”. In fact, Paul is increasingly explicit throughout his letter that God himself is the model for Christians. The letter thus teaches that the audience is on a path toward full imitation of Christ, who is the measure of maturity (4:13). Further, Paul exhorts the audience to “put on the new nature, created in the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (4:24). Paul commands his audience to be gracious to one another “just as God in Christ has graced us” (4:30).27 The Old Testament refrain “be holy for I am holy” (e.g., Lev 20:26) echoes in the background of these passages.

Significantly, the imitatio dei is articulated in familial terms in 5:1. In the following verse, Paul enjoins the audience to walk “in love” (5:2).28 The link between “children” in 5:1 and “walk” in 5:2 is evident in the repetition of the root of “love”; the “beloved” (ἀγαπητά) children should walk “in love” (ἐν ἀγάπῃ). The verb “walk” is used to distinguish between behaviors of insiders and outsiders. Insiders act in imitation of God as children do their fathers.29 A few verses later in 5:8, Paul again uses both the words “children” and “walk”: “walk as children of light”.

This imitation is expected from the fact that, as mentioned above, human families are “named” from God the Father and that the act of naming entails dominion (cf. Eph 3:14–5).30 Further, in the Roman context, the preservation of the name, or reputation, of the paterfamilias necessitated the good behavior of his children (Bakke 2005, pp. 156–57).31 Thus, in a family being named from God the Father, Paul would also have meant that Christians must act in accordance with (i.e., imitate) the church’s paterfamilias, who is God the Father.

4.2.2. Children Outside God’s Household

The behaviors of those outside of God’s household are strikingly contrasted with the expected behaviors of Christians in Ephesians 2. Gorman (2017, p. 589) observes: “The extended description of walking in sin (2:2–3) interrupts the syntax of the sentence, (leading to the partial repetition of 2:1 in 2:5), but it serves to heighten the contrast between humanity’s sin and God’s intervening grace, and between the former and present ‘walk’ of the letter’s recipients”.

Those outside God’s household walk “according to the ruler of the power of the air” (2:2).32 This evil spirit is at work in those that Paul dubs the “sons of disobedience” in the same verse. This is the first use of υἱός in this letter, and it antithetically parallels the positive use of υἱοθεσία in 1:5, setting the “sons of disobedience” against those who belong to “God our Father” through adoption. The familial element (i.e., “sons of”) in this phrase should therefore not be understood merely as indicating a class distinction.33 The sons of disobedience are not sons of God and are therefore outside God’s household. They are subject not to a benevolent Father but to their own diverse passions (2:3) or to the devil (2:2). Thus, they are also called “children of wrath by nature” in 2:3, as they have not joined the household of God, where the Father’s love abounds.34 The phrase “by nature” indicates that outsiders are not merely subject to God’s wrath because of their “heathen lifestyle” (see Schnackenburg 1991, p. 93).35 Rather, Paul’s emphasis is stronger still, namely, that the relationship outsiders have with God is automatically and fundamentally different from that which his children share with him.36 By virtue of their not being adopted, their relationship to God is not familial.37

A corollary of Paul’s teaching on the unity of the church in Ephesians is that, while unity exists in the church, this unity is brought about by the separation of the elect from the world. Although there is peace and unity in the church, God’s household, there is opposition between the church and the world. This opposition need not be persecutorial. These two spheres are opposed according to their very natures, which are determined in their relationships to God.38 Those inside his household benefit from his generosity and experience his paternal love in the unity of the church. However, those outside not only miss out on these benefits but have a relationship with God characterized by wrath and disobedience, and, as Paul says in the same chapter, alienation (2:12).39 This is the case in spite of the presence of good elements in the world, which are not in the theological purview of Ephesians.

4.3. Summary

Ephesians evidences an intense focus on God’s fatherhood relative to other epistles. This same letter also has developed household codes, whose familial terms in the second set of instructions are used elsewhere in this letter to describe the church as the household of God. It has been noted that use of these terms and others was also a Roman practice, but, while such a practice served political ends, Paul uses them to describe the unity of God’s people in the church, which is an institution that transcends the imperial state. The imperial unity amounts to the military-enforced pax romana under Caesar, while incorporation into the ecclesial unity through adoption in Christ amounts to salvation.

At view in Ephesians is the unity of the church under God in Christ and, importantly, its corollary, the setting apart of those saved from the “rest of mankind” (2:3). This latter group is described in such phrases as “sons of disobedience” and “children of wrath” (2:2, 3). It is argued here that, in light of the special role family language otherwise has in Ephesians, these phrases also are not only category designations (as in, e.g., “sons of the prophets”). Forms of the terms “children”, “disobedience”, and “wrath” all also appear in the second household code. Heil provides this and other lexical evidence to demonstrate that 2:1–10 is the chiastic counterpart in Ephesians to the household codes, indicating a semantic relationship between these sections (Heil 2007, p. 40). The above indicates that the instruction to children in 6:1, while on the surface it may be identical to cultural expectations, is rooted in their very character as Christians, that is, children ultimately of God in the household of God. This is similar to the instructions for slaves, who are commanded to be obedient but whose obedience is the fruit of the devotion one should have for another in the new life in Christ. The same can be said for the submission of wives, whose obedience stems from their correspondence with the church, and whose devotion to Christ therefore animates their devotion to their husbands.

Obedience is required from Christian children primarily by their adoption in Christ rather than by mere societal expectations.40 This is evidenced by there being nothing in Ephesians to suggest that by obedience Christians might ingratiate themselves to their unbelieving neighbors (MacDonald 2008b, p. 337).41 Instead, a radical view of the family as fundamentally referential to God the Father provides a new impetus for obedience in children. Thus Miller (2008, p. 58) states: “Children are to listen to, respect, and obey their parents in a manner that indeed may be compared to the way they revere and obey the Lord. The honor of parents is analogous to the honor of God because it is a derivative of that honor and representative of it”.

For this reason, Paul qualifies his command with “in the Lord” and “for this is right”. Although commentators debate what these phrases mean, they seem to refer to their new nature of being adopted children of God. Arnold (2010, p. 415) states that “[o]bedience is then predicated on and motivated by the budding relationship of these children to the Lord”. Hoehner (2002, p. 786) agrees that the phrase “in the Lord” “does not define the limits of obedience, but rather it shows the spirit in which the obedience is to be accomplished”. Thielmann (2010, p. 397) points to the various “in the Lord” phrases in Paul’s letter and concludes that children must be obedient because they “have been incorporated into Christ by faith (1:13)”.

Thus, while many interpret the second phrase (“for this is right”) to mean that the obedience of children is what would generally be expected, it is better to understand this as indicating what is appropriate in the new life, i.e., in the justified state (Hoehner 2002, p. 787; Lincoln 1990, p. 403; Schnackenburg 1991, p. 261; Thielmann 2010, p. 397). Lindemann sees the phrase as having “einen stärker grundsätzlichen Charakter” than its Colossian counterpart, which states, “for this is pleasing to the Lord” (Lindemann 1985, p. 182). In contrast, Arnold (2010, p. 416) stands out as interpreting this phrase to signify “what the Lord expects”. Likewise, Heil (2007, p. 257) correlates this phrase with “what is fitting” among the holy ones (5:3).

What arises from Paul’s discussion is a governing analogy, wherein the Christian household is a microcosm of the church. Children stand analogously to their fathers as Christians do to God (children:fathers::Christians:God). Therefore, the obedience of Christians to God forms the basis of Paul’s instruction to children in 6:1. Christians live under God’s fatherly rule and benevolence in a household characterized by peace and unity. On the other hand, outside the household of God, there is only wrath.

The governing analogy also relates human fathers to God the Father, and this can assist in the understanding of the prohibition against fathers provoking their children to anger (παροργίζω). The relationship between children and fathers in the Christian household should be characterized by peace and unity, because these are the marks of the relationship between Christians and God the Father. Should fathers act in such a way as to alienate their children from acceptance of the faith, they are pushing them out of the realm of peace and into that of “anger”, or “wrath”—they become akin to outsiders, or “children of wrath” (τέκνα ὀργῆς). Therefore, it is not enough to describe the anger mentioned in 6:4 as “the irritation caused by nagging and demeaning fathers in the context of everyday life [that] may in turn cause children to become angry” (Hoehner 2002, p. 796). Paul has something much deeper in mind, namely, that the behavior of fathers should draw upon how God the Father treats his own children, that is, with unsurpassing benevolence and generosity. Provoking children to anger changes their orientation to their fathers and may result in their becoming outsiders themselves. One might understand 6:4 as, “do not provoke your children into wrath”—into a state of enmity with their families and with God. Commentaries often understand the command as deterring fathers from discouraging their children, and this works as well. Children discouraged from living their new life through their obedience to their parents become disobedient. In the church generally, Paul teaches that “the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (5:6). Fathers can be guilty of violating Paul’s command if they so treat their children and run their households in a way that does not facilitate their children’s ultimate obedience to God the Father.

Further, Paul specifically excludes wrath and anger from the church in 4:31, which teaches: “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice”. He is speaking to the church generally, but this also provides the window through which παροργίζω can be understood. Fathers are to govern their households to promote peace and unity by excluding these vices. Instead, fathers are to nurture their children so that their families resemble the church, which is a united family living in peace and growing into the full measure of Christ, in whom they now subsist and by whom they have God as their Father. The way that human fathers may be “imitators of God, as beloved children”, is, by the transformative grace available to them in Christ, to treat their children with the benevolent generosity showered on them by God the Father.

Regarding children, obedience is directed first to God and then, by extension, to Christian fathers, and again, no mention is made here of obligations to obey the State (neither is this excluded, but it does not operate in the analogy in Ephesians). Paul forges a new identity for his audience, using familial terms that have for their reference God and his relationship with them. Paul draws new purpose for obedience from the governing analogy between children and Christians and human fathers and God the Father. This reorientation produces expectations that often correspond with societal norms but are really rooted in the ontological situation of the audience as members of the household of God.

4.4. Promise

It was observed in the divisio above that the promise holds a prominent position in the second household instruction. Paul’s interjection functions as an expansion on the promise in the commandment, thus highlighting it. The nature of the promise, though, is debated.42 The promise associated with the commandment is long life in the land. Its Old Testament context would indicate the material inheritance of the land—meaning that the motivation for obeying the commandment is to avoid exile. Failing to obtain this promise is failing to attain the promise given to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land. The question is whether Paul is referring to the material blessing of inheritance of the land or to the spiritual blessings of the new life in Christ. Given the emphasis on this promise as described by the divisio of Eph 6:1–4, it cannot be that Paul is only generally pointing to the attachment of a reward to the commandment. Since Paul’s commands to children and fathers appear to pertain to life in the new creation when interpreted in light of his use of familial terms elsewhere, an examination of the teaching on promise in Ephesians will indicate that the promise is primarily spiritual.43

First, it is necessary to acknowledge the association of ‘promise’ with ‘inheritance’. This is evident in light of the promises to Abraham, as it is in Ephesians 1. In 1:13, Paul refers to the “Holy Spirit of promise” and, in the next verse, the Spirit is qualified as the guarantee of inheritance. Those who obtain the inheritance are those who have the Holy Spirit, i.e., Christians. The likeness in terminology in the phrases “Father of glory” (1:17)44 and “inheritance of glory” (1:18) further locates the promise/inheritance among those in the household of God.45 With such a clement Father as he is described to be in the benediction, one would expect a generous inheritance.46 It is not clear whether the latter phrase should be “inheritance of his glory” or “his glory of inheritance”, but, whether it refers to the inheritance that the saints receive or to the saints themselves being received by God, as MacDonald (2008b, p. 218) states, “in the end, it also amounts to a description of salvation”.47 Further, the inheritance is second in a list including hope and power, and thus the “inheritance of glory” is not likely referring merely to material blessings.48 Rather, the promised inheritance is realized in the indwelling Holy Spirit but not manifestly until either physical death or the parousia.49 The point, though, is that only Christians, as adopted children in God’s household, receive this promise. Thus, Paul teaches that all Christians are “fellow heirs” and sharers in the promise (3:6). Bruce (1977, p. 429) states:

The Holy Spirit is called in Ephesians “the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:3). This does not mean, as the RSV and NEB render it, that he is “the promised Holy Spirit (true though that is, as witness Acts 1: 4 f.; 2: 33); the context rather indicates that to those whom he indwells the Holy Spirit is himself the promise of resurrection life and all the heritage of glory associated with it.

He continues by connecting Paul’s teaching here with his teaching in Romans 8:15, where he speaks about the “Spirit of adoption”. Christians participate in the new life even now—indeed they are “seated in heavenly places” (1:3; 2:6)—and they do so through the indwelling Holy Spirit. The glory of this life remains hidden, yet the current participation in the new life, made possible only by the Holy Spirit, will ultimately lead to the manifestation of that life’s glory.

All the above, then, is suggestive of Paul’s meaning in Eph 6:3. In instructing children, Paul has the basis of the Abrahamic promise to use as a frame, yet he develops what he means by promise in its association with inheritance and the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 1–5. Paul means that in living the new life in Christ according to their station, children will persevere in it and enter into its glory later. This is reinforced in that, just as Paul describes outsiders in terms of disobedience and wrath, he significantly also does so in such terms as “strangers to the covenants of promise” (2:12). Paul is explicit that outsiders have no “inheritance in the kingdom” (5:5).

5. Conclusions

The arguments over whether the household codes promote the cultural status quo or teach living in the new creation is primarily a matter, not of effects, but of rationale. The reason Paul instructs the various groups the way that he does has to do with the new life in Christ. The antecedents of these instructions are found not primarily in the Greco-Roman culture (except by way of form) but in the ecclesial reality described in Ephesians 1–5. Since any one can be adopted into this mystery and be transformed by their incorporation into Christ, one can live the new life in whatever state he or she occupies, whether as wife or husband, child or father, slave or master. Despite what society says about the rights, duties, and privileges of those in either the inferior or superior position, precisely because of one’s adoption in Christ, these ordinary roles can be performed with a heart purified and animated by the Spirit. In the case of children and fathers, the obedience of the one and the clemency of the other are based on the obedience of Christians in the household of God, who is the benevolent Father. As adopted children in Christ, Christians have access to the spiritual inheritance, which Paul recalls to Christian children to incentivize obedience. Children are reminded that their obedience has not only earthly advantages but is their way to live in the new life now and thus share in it eternally hereafter.

Nevertheless, the case can also be made regarding effects. This is more obvious in the instructions to superiors, who are encouraged toward meekness, love, and sacrifice, despite their societal advantages. In the case of fathers, this means that the power they have over the life and death of their children, their ability to disown them, and the freedom they have in Roman Asia to micromanage their lives, is refused to them when they are in Christ. Rather, they rule with a clemency that would not reasonably alienate their children from their primary relationship with God in Christ. As Gorman states:

The household code, then, is not an attempt to impose pagan, patriarchal values onto an otherwise Christian value system. Rather, it is an attempt to apply the notion of mutual submission, of mutual cruciformity or Christlike love, to an inherently patriarchal structure, recognizing the Christian household as an alter-culture (Gorman 2017, p. 604).50

Gombis similarly describes the household codes, referring to them as “A Manifesto for the New Humanity” (Gombis 2005, p. 319).51 The present study has argued the same. The divisio of the least commented on code reveals not only the importance of the parties involved but also the theme of promise, while the contextual analyses reveal lexical and conceptual aspects that tie these instructions to the ecclesiological dimension of the new life described throughout Ephesians. What Paul commands is unity and peace in Christian families and behaviors facilitative of that peace, which extends not only to the family members but to the relationship between God and each member. In fact, Paul instructs fathers as guardians of their children’s faith—a faith that is, importantly, partially dependent on their relationship with their Christian fathers. Paul sets up as the basis of unity, as well as of behavior that maintains that unity, God himself.