Chapter 9

Colossians 3:18–4:1

Literary Context

A discussion about the literary context of this section is particularly important because it has often been considered “a self contained unity after which the author returns to the subject he left behind at the outset of the digression.”1 Others even consider this an insertion by a later “interpolator.”2 Such a reading fails, however, to establish the focus of Paul’s discussion of household relationships here and how it fits into Paul’s argument in Colossians.

We must first note the focus of this section. If we can assume that Paul is drawing from the Hellenistic context in his use of this household code,3 his striking departure from these literary conventions indicates his point here. In Hellenistic codes, the male head of the household is its sovereign ruler. Paul also focuses here on the issue of power in his repeated use of the title “Lord” (κύριος, 3:18, 20, 22, 23, 24; 4:1), but he insists that it is actually Christ who is the Lord to whom all should submit (3:24). Instead of conforming to the Hellenistic social ethic, therefore, Paul redirects our attention to the one who is truly the Lord of all.

Because of this affirmation of the lordship of Christ, Paul can further address women (3:18), children (3:20), and slaves (3:22–25), who are members of the household often considered by Hellenistic philosophers not to be worthy of moral exhortation.4 Also in light of Christ’s lordship, Paul can focus on the duties of the male head of the household (3:19, 21; 4:1), an element often missing in Hellenistic household discussions.

Since the lordship of Christ is the focus of this section, its connection with the surrounding sections becomes clear. That lordship is firmly established in the christological hymn of 1:15–20, and it becomes the foundation for Paul’s critique of the Colossian false teachers in 2:8–23. As Paul turns his attention to the behavior of Christians, the exalted status of the risen Christ also becomes his starting point (3:1–4). It is because of the acknowledgment of the power of the risen Christ that believers must take off the old humanity (vv. 5–11) and put on the new (vv. 12–17) as they participate in the community of God’s new creation. Immediately preceding our present section, Paul reaffirms the significance of the lordship of Christ by urging believers to lead a life of worship through acts of thanksgiving (vv. 15–17).

This emphasis on submission to the Lord Jesus is best captured in v. 17, which serves as a transition: “And whatever you do in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” And Col 3:18–4:1 is followed immediately by the note on thanksgiving in 4:2: “Devote yourselves to prayer, being alert in it with thanksgiving.” As thanksgiving points to the acknowledgment of the Creator, the content that is bracketed by these notes on thanksgiving points to concrete ways in which believers can offer thanks to God: through a life that affirms the lordship of Christ.5

Moving beyond the call to refocus one’s life in light of the confession of the lordship of Christ (3:1–4:1), Paul then proceeds to discuss the eschatological mission (4:2–6). This move is also anticipated by the discussion of household relationships, for the next step after affirming the lordship of Christ in one’s household is the proclamation of such news to those outside of the circle of believers. Since Christ is the Lord of all, this confession must be acknowledged by all, even those who have yet to make such a confession.

  1. V. Faithfulness of the Believers (2:6–4:1)
    1. A. Call to Faithfulness (2:6–7)
    2. B. Sufficiency in Christ (2:8–23)
    3. C. Reorientation of Christian Living (3:1–4:1)
      1. 1. Focus on the Risen Christ (3:1–4)
      2. 2. Take off the Old Humanity (3:5–11)
      3. 3. Put on the New Humanity (3:12–17)
      4. 4. Lord of the Household (3:18–4:1)
  2. VI. Eschatological Mission to the World (4:2–6)

Main Idea

Believers’ confession that Jesus is Lord of all must be manifested in their daily lives, especially in the household setting. Husbands, fathers, and masters—considered the heads of the household in Greco-Roman culture—must submit to Jesus as the Lord of all. Wives, children, and slaves—considered subordinate members—must recognize that they are serving the Lord Jesus.

Translation

Structure

Without a connecting conjunction in 3:18, the discussion of household relationships flows directly from the previous call to “do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v. 17). Using imperative clauses, Paul addresses the behavior between three pairs of relationships: wives and husbands, children and fathers, and slaves and masters. All three pairs begin with a call to submit with similar compound verbs (“submit,” ὑποτάσσεσθε, v. 18; “obey,” ὑπακούετε, vv. 20, 22), but in all three, the attention immediately shifts to “the Lord,” explicitly identified as Christ in v. 24. For the corresponding members of the pair, the focus is on their duties to those who are submitting to them (vv. 19, 21; 4:1).

In the first pair, wives are called to “submit” to their husbands (v. 18), and husbands are in turn to “love” their wives (v. 19). The second pair follows the same pattern: children are called to “obey [their] parent”s (v. 20), and “fathers”6 are to be considerate in dealing with them (v. 21).

The third pair also contains these two basic elements: slaves are called to “obey” their masters (v. 22), and the masters are to provide them “justice and equity” (4:1). What deviates from the pattern in the wider Hellenistic world is that the first part moves beyond the mere evocation of “the Lord” in the call for them to be obedient (v. 22e); it also contains a substantial subsection that explains this call to obedience with a clear note that they should do so “to the Lord and not to people” (v. 23). This focus on the Lord culminates in a direct call to “serve the Lord Christ” (v. 24b), an imperative that breaks the strict parallel of the series of the imperatives.

The move of “the Lord Christ” to center stage also transforms the second element of this pair. Unlike the earlier two pairs, where “the Lord” is evoked only in the call directed to the members who are to be obedient, 4:1 directs masters to recognize their own “Master in heaven” (4:1), a title literally rendered as “Lord in heaven” (κύριον ἐν οὐρανῷ). This completes the string of references to κύριος, where these references climax in the contrast between the two “lords”: the master in an earthly household and the true Lord in heaven. With the final appearance of the title “Lord” in this household code, readers realize that this “Lord” is the focus of this entire code, the one who serves as the ultimate authority figure in human relationships.

The substantially lengthier treatment of the third pair demands an explanation. While proposals have been presented,7 our focus should center on this household code and the context in which it is situated. If one finds the redefinition of the Lord in this code as Paul shifts the readers’ attention from the earthly master of the household to the true Lord of all in heaven, it is possible that the definition of “slaves” also undergoes similar transformation under the pen of Paul. This possibility is strengthened by v. 23 (“whatever you do, do it wholeheartedly, as to the Lord and not to people”), an encompassing call that appears to repeat Paul’s earlier call to the believers: “And whatever you do in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v. 17). Paul here calls the believers to submit to their masters as slaves, except now their master is actually the Lord Jesus himself.8 This explains in part the presence of this relatively lengthy treatment on the slaves, and this reading is not unexpected in light of the constant affirmation of the lordship of Christ in this letter.

Having highlighted the significance of the lordship of Christ and the servanthood of all believers, one must not deny the intent of this code to address the concrete household relationships in the first century, relationships that involved real conflicts and struggles. After all, the historical slaves addressed could also assume this dual role as slaves and believers, as Onesimus in the letter to Philemon testifies. Through the emphasis on the significance of the gospel for everyday existence, Paul provides a striking illustration that demonstrates the need for all relationships to be reconsidered in light of this gospel.

Exegetical Outline

  1. I. Lord of the Household (3:18–4:1)
    1. A. Between wives and husbands (3:18–19)
      1. 1. Submission of the wives in the Lord (3:18)
      2. 2. Love of the husbands (3:19)
    2. B. Between children and fathers (3:20–21)
      1. 1. Obedience of the children in the Lord (3:20)
      2. 2. Consideration of the fathers (3:21)
    3. C. Between slaves and masters (3:22–4:1)
      1. 1. Obedience of the slaves in the Lord (3:22–25)
        1. a. In sincerity (3:22)
        2. b. Do it to the Lord (3:23–24a)
        3. c. Serve the Lord Christ (3:24b–25)
      2. 2. Fairness of the masters (4:1)

Explanation of the Text

3:18a Wives, submit to your husbands (Αἱ γυναῖκες, ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς ἀνδράσιν). Paul begins this household code by addressing the marital relationship. In Greek, “wives” (αἱ γυναῖκες) translates a nominative plural noun with an article, a construction often used as a vocative.9 The word “wives” can be translated as “women,” but here it clearly refers to “wives”; the same applies to “husbands.”

“Submit” (ὑποτάσσεσθε) is a middle present imperative, signifying that the wives should voluntarily subject themselves to their husbands.10 The exact significance of this call must be delineated carefully. We begin with the meaning of the word “submit”; then we will discuss the historical and literary contexts within which this call is to be understood.

In the NT, as in Greek literature in general, the verb “submit” is consistently used for subordination to an authority figure. It can be used to denote subordination to older people (1 Pet 5:5), one’s parents (Luke 2:51), governing authorities (Rom 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13), leaders of the local church (1 Pet 5:5), the law (Rom 8:7), Christ (Eph 5:24; cf. Phil 3:21), and even God (Heb 12:9; Jas 4:7).11 This does not diminish the dignity and ontological status of wives, however, since Christ himself was subordinated to God, which for Paul became the basis of the submission of wives to their husbands: “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3).12 In Ephesians, Paul further appeals to the submission of the church to Christ as the basis of the wives’ submission to their husbands (Eph 5:23).

Some have pointed to historical and contextual factors in an attempt to understand the function of this call for wives’ submission in the first-century setting: “differences in spouses’ ages (the female was often significantly younger), differences in amount of formal education, differences in opportunities to acquire and hold resources, lack of informational sources within the home, women’s lack of social exposure.”13 Others have suggested that Paul’s note here is in response to the “inordinate freedom and enthusiasm” prompted by his gospel of grace and equality,14 or because “an insubordinate wife was a bad witness for the gospel in a situation where non-Christian husbands expected subordination.”15 These historical factors cannot, however, fully explain Paul’s reference to the submission of Christ to God or the church to Christ as models for the wives’ submission.

More relevant are the theological and literary contexts within which this statement should be understood. Theologically, Gal 3:28, which points to the new people of God as constituting “neither … male [nor] female”—a statement that reappears in a similar form in Col 3:11, though without reference to this particular gender contrastive pair—makes it clear that Paul’s point is not the superiority of one group over another within God’s people. Instead, if we take vv. 18–19 together, these statements point to the unity and mutual accountability as members of the one body of Christ. Clauses and phrases such as “bearing with one another and forgiving one another” (v. 13), “forgive one another” (v. 13), “put on love … the perfect bond” (v. 14), “in one body” (v. 15), “teaching and admonishing one another” (v. 16) in the preceding paragraph confirm the significance of this point. Yet it is perhaps because of his concern for the unity of the body of Christ that Paul discusses the different roles and functions of its members.

Also worth noting is that this call appears within a significant modification of the social convention reflected in Hellenistic household codes. In those codes, the fundamental principle is on the obedience of the subordinate members to the male head of the household.16 In Paul’s code, however, the focus on the lordship of Christ as emphasized in the note that immediately follows (v. 18b), as well as the attention given to the duty of the husband in v. 19, shifts the focus of this code. The power of the husband is critically and substantially relativized. With this code being a reaction to the secular convention, therefore, these qualifications deserve serious considerations. This reading is consistent with the thought of this letter that consistently emphasizes the lordship of Christ.

In our contemporary appropriation of this passage, the central point must be a christocentric one. Consequently, a translation such as CEV’s can be misleading, despite its intention to soften the idea of subjection: “A wife must put her husband first.” Paul’s point for this code is rather: “A wife/child/slave must put the Lord first.”

3:18b As is fitting in the Lord (ὡς ἀνῆκεν ἐν κυρίῳ). Even within the discussion of this first pair of relationships within the household, Paul reminds the believers of the centrality of the lordship of Christ. While it is clear that “the Lord” refers to “the Lord Christ” (v. 24), the way this clause is related to the previous clause is not immediately clear. This clause is often considered to provide the basis for the previous call to submission: “that is what you should do since you are united to the Lord Jesus.”35 But if we note the common function of the comparative particle “as,” it seems best to take the entire phrase as indicating manner,36 with “is fitting” (ἀνῆκεν)37 denoting a sense of propriety.38 The resulting sense is therefore: submit in a manner that is appropriate for those who are in the Lord.39 Understood in this way, this clause points to Christ as the pattern of humility and submission.40

It is also possible to take this clause as limiting the sphere in which the wife is to submit to her husband. She is to submit only insofar as the will of the husband aligns with that of “the Lord.” Again, “the Lord” is the center of one’s attention, as he alone is the criterion through which to determine what is appropriate and acceptable. Therefore, instead of understanding this verse as a call “to conduct their lives in accord with the prevalent social order,”41 it actually suggests that “those structures stand in tension with their existence in Christ.”42

3:19a Husbands, love your wives (Οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας). Unlike Hellenistic codes, which are preoccupied with the rights of the male head of the household, Paul also addresses the duties of the husbands. The order of address itself may be important. Considered to be the heads of the households, the fact that they are addressed after their wives may be an attempt to challenge the assured position of the husbands in the household.43

In Hellenistic discussions of marital relationships, the focus is almost always on the rights of the husbands. According to Aristotle, husbands have the innate right to exercise “marital authority,” since the “male is naturally fitter to command than the female, except where there is some departure from nature” (Aristotle, Pol. 1.1259a-b). Without noting such rights, Paul focuses instead on the duty of the husbands. “Love” is largely absent from Hellenistic and even Jewish discussions of marital relationships. This note on the distinctly Christian virtue of love “highlights the newness of Paul’s vision of marriage.”44 In Colossians, this new vision is based on the creation of a “new humanity” (v. 10). Because this “new humanity” is first loved by God (cf. “beloved,” v. 12), believers can practice the various virtues that culminate in “love, which is the perfect bond” (v. 14). In Ephesians, the call to love is directly linked with Christ’s love for us (Eph 5:2; cf. Col 2:2). This imitation of Christ’s love finds its concrete manifestation in the marital relationship: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25).

In light of this christological model, such love is not to be defined simply in emotional or sexual terms; it is to be defined by the will and action of one who is willing to consider the other as the object of one’s concern.45 This move away from a self-centered life is also consistent with Paul’s earlier call in this letter to flee an idolatrous life that revolves around one’s own needs and desires (v. 5). The move is from idolatry, and true worship therefore is to be lived out in everyday existence as symbolized by the relationships within the household.

3:19b And do not be harsh with them (καὶ μὴ πικραίνεσθε πρὸς αὐτάς). With this negative prohibition, Paul provides a further command for the husbands. The conjunction “and” (καί) has been taken as an epexegetical conjunction, explaining what it means for the husbands to “love” their wives.46 This view, however, may unjustifiably limit the general command to “love” their wives, since loving does not simply denote the lack of harshness. Thus, some consider the conjunction as providing a specific example to illustrate the general command of love: “in particular, do not be harsh with them.”47

On the other hand, if “do not be harsh” reflects a more general inclination and attitude, this general call may indeed serve as a corresponding call to the command to love. In the NT, the verb “be harsh” (πικραίνω)48 is only used in reference to the taste of bitter (Rev 8:11) and sour (Rev 10:9, 10).49 The related noun “bitterness” (πικρία) is, however, used in a variety of contexts where bitterness reflects a general evil and sinful inclination. In Acts 8:23, the “gall of bitterness” is linked with “the bondage of iniquity” (NASB) and points to a general sense of being evil rather than simply a particular violent act. This phrase points further to the anti-idol polemic since it alludes to Deut 28:18, which contains a warning for those who practice idolatry. In Rom 3, those who have “no fear of God” (3:18) are said to be filled with “cursing and bitterness” (3:14). In Eph 4:31, “bitterness” tops the vice lists that symbolizes “every form of malice.” Finally, in Heb 12:15, lack of grace is understood in terms of bitterness.

These four references to bitterness reflect the general sense of wickedness and refusal to worship God.50 Thus, if the love of one’s wife reflects the general, glorious love that Christ has for his people, the bitterness that some may show to their wives will reflect the rejection of that love. Even with the understanding of the verb πικραίνω in the sense of being “angry,”51 this call reminds the readers of the “anger” that tops the vice list in v. 8.

3:20a Children, obey your parents in everything (Τὰ τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν κατὰ πάντα). Paul now addresses the relationship between children and their parents. “Children” (τέκνα) often points to the relational status of a person instead of his or her age. Some have therefore taken this term here to mean “grown children.”52 Nevertheless, in Hellenistic codes, age is a factor. In Aristotle’s paradigmatic discussion of household relationships, for example, “children” are to be subjected to their fathers because of their age and maturity (Pol. 1.1259b), and they are to be well-trained because one day they will “grow up to be partners in the government of the state” (Pol. 1.1260b). Moreover, in the Ephesian household code, the fathers are called to “bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4). This points to these children as being relatively young.

In two ways, this call demands more from these children as compared to the wives. First, the verb “obey” (ὑπακούετε) points to a stronger sense of obedience than the call for the wives to “submit” (ὑποτάσσεσθε).53 Second, this imperative is followed by the all-encompassing phrase “in everything,” which emphasizes the comprehensive scope of their obedience to their fathers. Both of these elements reappear in the following call to slaves to “obey your earthly masters in everything” (v. 22).

In the Ephesians household code, the fifth of the Ten Commandments is explicitly evoked as the basis for this call to obedience: “Honor your father and mother” (Eph 6:2). This may explain the reference to “the parents” (τοῖς γονεῦσιν) here instead of only the “fathers” (οἱ πατέρες), who are addressed in the next verse. This OT background may also help in explaining the phrase “in everything.” In the OT, the call to honor one’s “father and … mother” (Deut 5:16) is related to their duties to “teach them [i.e., the laws] to your children and to their children after them” (Deut 4:9; cf. 6:7).54 In light of the OT teachings and the reference to “the Lord” in the second half of this verse, “in everything” undoubtedly refers to the teachings of parents that are consistent with the law of God. A similar qualification can also be found in Greco-Roman philosophers such as Epictetus, who issues the call to “be obedient in everything” (Diatr. 2.10.7) in reference to the absolute submission to one’s father even though he also affirms that the higher priority is to be given to the “good” (Diatr. 3.3.6).55

3:20b For this is pleasing in the Lord (τοῦτο γὰρ εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν κυρίῳ). As in the call for the wives to submit, Paul refers to “the Lord” in his discussion of the obedience of the children. “Pleasing” means that which is pleasant and acceptable. In both the LXX and the NT, this word is most often used (1) with a simple dative object and (2) in reference to God (e.g., Wis 4:10; Rom 12:1; 14:18; Phil 4:18). In this case, however, the word is followed by a prepositional phrase that appears to point to Christ: “in the Lord” (ἐν κυρίῳ). Several attempts have been made to make sense of this phrase in this context.

(1) In light of the presumably absent dative reference, some have supplied an additional phrase that points to Christ as the object of the pleasing act, with an additional reference to those who are united with him: “for such behavior pleases the Lord and befits those who belong to him.”56

(2) Agreeing with (1) that an additional phrase needs to be inserted, some have insisted that God should be the object of the act of pleasing instead: “well-pleasing (to God) in the Lord (Jesus Christ).”57

(3) Another option considers this a conditional construction, limiting the call to be obedient “in everything”: “provided that the children’s obedience is ἐν κυρίῳ, on a truly Christian level of motive.”58

(4) Finally, the phrase can simply be read in the sense of a dative construction: “for this is well pleasing to the Lord” (NKJV; cf. NAB, NASB), or “for this pleases the Lord” (TNIV, ESV, NIV; cf. NLT, NJB).59

In this context, (4) provides the most likely reading. In light of the direct references to “the Lord” in Paul’s addresses to the wives (v. 18) and to the slaves (v. 22), it seems best to retain “in the Lord” as a reference to the Lord Jesus. That a prepositional phrase is used instead of a simple dative can be explained either by its parallels with v. 18 (“as is fitting in the Lord”) or simply the formulaic nature of this phrase in Paul’s writings.60 Moreover, in some cases, one does find the use of the word “pleasing” with comparable prepositional phrases with essentially the same meaning: “pleasing to [πρός] you [i.e., God]” (Wis 9:10), and “pleasing to [ἐνώπιον] him [i.e., God]” (Heb. 13:21). In this call to the children, this phrase not only justifies Paul’s call for the children to obey their parents, but this use of the christological title also redirects the attention to Jesus, who is the true Lord of all.61

3:21a Fathers, do not provoke your children (Οἱ πατέρες, μὴ ἐρεθίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν). Paul now addresses the responsibilities of the “fathers.” Although “fathers” can refer to both fathers and mothers (cf. Heb 11:23),62 here the use of this term instead of the more general “parents” (see v. 20) may reflect Paul’s intention to address only the “fathers.” This is consistent with the Hellenistic household discussion, where the male head of the household is often addressed (“husbands,” “fathers,” and “masters”). Moreover, the rule of fathers over their children is often emphasized. Aristotle compares fathers to kings who have “royal authority”: “A king ought to be naturally superior to his subjects, and yet of the same stock as they are; and this is the case with the relation of age to youth, and of father to child” (Pol. 1.1259b).

“Provoke” (ἐρεθίζετε) means to “to make resentful, to make someone bitter.”63 As a verb that refers to an act that may create an adverse reaction, it may be related to the teaching in Deut 21:20 concerning the treatment of the “rebellious” (ἐρεθίζει) son.64 In this case, however, the focus is on the duty of the father not to turn his son into such a person. This verse may also be a reaction to the contemporary Jewish tradition that focused on the responsibilities of the children not to “provoke” their parents (Sir 3:16).65 If so, the transposition of this concern to the command on the fathers is striking. Unlike both Hellenistic and Jewish discussions that focus on the power of the fathers, therefore, Paul focuses on the responsibility of fathers in assuring the character of their children.66

3:21b So that they do not lose heart (ἵνα μὴ ἀθυμῶσιν). Grammatically, this is a purpose clause that modifies the previous call to the fathers, but in this context it also provides the basis for the previous call: “do not aggravate your children, or they will become discouraged” (NLT; cf. CEV). This reading is possible especially since the negative purpose clause introduced by “so that … not” (ἵνα μή) often points to a scenario that is to be avoided (cf. Matt 7:1; 17:27; 26:5; Mark 14:38; Luke 16:28; Rom 11:25; 15:20; 1 Cor 4:6; 8:13; 11:32; Eph 2:9).

“Lose heart” refers to the state of becoming “disheartened to the extent of loss of motivation.”67 This verb is often translated as “discouraged” (KJV, ASV, NKJV, HCSB, TNIV, ESV, NIV), but that translation can be misunderstood as pointing simply to one’s emotional state without implications on the actions to be carried out. NLT provides a helpful phrase noted above (“discouraged and quit trying”), although the more archaic “lose heart” (NASB, NRSV, REB, NJB) may function just as well. Paul’s choice of this verb, which appears only here in the NT, may be motivated by the appearance of the related word “rage” (θυμόν)68 in the vice list (v. 8). In warning against provoking the spirit of their children in anger, Paul points to the likely result that their provocation will lead to their state of being dispirited.

3:22a Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything (Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε κατὰ πάντα τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις). In the third section within this household code, Paul addresses the relationship between slaves and masters. This discussion is expected in Hellenistic discussions of household relationships since a “complete household consists of slaves and freemen” (Aristotle, Pol. 1253b). Unlike “wives” and “children,” “slaves” are considered “an animate article of property” (Pol. 1253b). As such, a “slave is not only the slave of his master; he also belongs entirely to him” (Pol. 1254a). As “an animate article of property,” they are considered unable to take part in rational discourse: “The slave is entirely without the faculty of deliberation; the female indeed possesses it, but in a form which remains inconclusive; and if children also possess it, it is only in an immature form” (Pol. 1260a). Although Aristotle’s detailed treatment of slavery in the fourth century BC may not represent the common perception in Paul’s day, these statements do reflect the sentiments among many in the first century AD.69

In light of these statements, we must ask whether Paul’s call for the slaves to “obey your earthly masters in everything” affirms this social institution. We will limit our discussion of Paul’s view of slavery to this section within Colossians. First, the mere fact that Paul is addressing slaves indicates that he considers them to be rational and moral beings who are capable of developing a relationship not only with their masters but also with the Lord Jesus.

Second, the call to obedience is qualified by numerous references to “the Lord” (vv. 22, 23, 24), who is explicitly identified with “Christ” in v. 24. This directly challenges Hellenistic household discussions that consider the male head of the household as the sole authority figure.

Third, not only is the emphasis shifted to “the Lord,” but one also finds here the surprising call to “serve the Lord Christ” (v. 24). This imperative, which breaks the three sets of relationships as found in secular discussions, shifts the focus from the master to the slave.

Fourth, Paul here qualifies the masters as “earthly masters” (τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις; lit., “masters according to the flesh,” cf. KJV, ASV, NKJV), a phrase that limits the realm of authority of these masters. They are masters only “according to human reckoning” (NJB). “Earthly masters” serves as a good translation since it contrasts with “Christ,” who is “seated at the right hand of God” (v. 1). This Christ is explicitly identified as the “Master in heaven” in 4:1, where Paul directly qualifies the authority of these masters.

Finally, the lengthier discussion on the slaves also serves to qualify the call for the slaves to be obedient to their earthly masters. Not only is the lordship of Christ repeatedly noted, but one also finds the surprising portrayal of those slaves who are faithful to the Lord Jesus as heirs who “will receive the reward of inheritance” (v. 24). As ones who by definition are the property of their masters, this striking note redefines the slaves whose primary identities are not to be defined by their earthly masters but by their relationship with Christ.

The comparative length of this section also points to its other functions. Noting the historical context of this letter and its relationship with Philemon, some suggest that this focus on slaves can be explained by the presence of Philemon and Onesimus in the church of Colossae.70 Others suggest that Paul’s audience may have included many slaves, which thus prompts him to address their roles within the household.71

While these historical factors cannot be denied, this extended discussion can also be explained by the development of Paul’s argument in this letter. After focusing on “humility” (v. 12) and “love” (v. 14), Paul issues an all-encompassing call to submit to the Lord Jesus in “whatever you do in word or in deed” (v. 17). As noted in the Structure section, the reappearance of this call in this section addressed to slaves (v. 23) provides a critical clue to its function. Because Paul’s call to slaves is identical to that of believers in general, he essentially identifies believers as those who should act like slaves when they serve “the Lord Christ” (v. 24).72 This discussion, therefore, becomes relevant for all believers, who belong to the household of God. Instead of simply shifting the focus from the earthly masters to the Lord in heaven, Paul also forces believers to obey their Lord as slaves are to obey their earthly masters.

3:22b-e Not merely for eye service as people-pleasers, but with single-mindedness, fearing the Lord (μὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοδουλίᾳ ὡς ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας, φοβούμενοι τὸν κύριον). Paul expands and qualifies this call by emphasizing true obedience together with a reference to “the Lord.” “Eye service” is a compound word consisting of “eye” (ὀφθαλμός) and “servitude/slavery” (δουλεία), referring to “service that is performed only to make an impression in the owner’s presence.”73 This compound word is most appropriate when addressed to “slaves” (οἱ δοῦλοι) in regards to their “servitude” (δουλεία).74

“People-pleasers,” another compound word consisting of “people” and “pleasing,” further explains the meaning of “eye service” as it refers to the acts merely “to curry their favor” (TNIV, NIV). This compound word is also appropriate here as it alludes back to the call for the children to act in a way that is “pleasing in the Lord” (v. 20).75 As children are called to please the Lord, the slaves are called to do the same by not having their actions based on their desire to please other people.

Instead, the slaves are called to serve with “single-mindedness.” As in its cognate adjective “singleness of purpose” (ἁπλούς),76 the noun ἁπλότης, often rendered “sincerity” (NASB, NKJV, TNIV, NIV; cf. GNB, NET) carries this sense of commitment, thus “singleness of heart” (KJV, ASV) and “single-mindedness” (REB).77 Here Paul is calling the slaves to serve with a single purpose, but the object of service is to be the Lord Christ himself, as is made clear in vv. 23–25.

“Fearing the Lord” provides the transition to the next verses that focus on the Lord Christ. In connection with what precedes, the participle “fearing” (φοβούμενοι) can be a circumstantial participle pointing to the basis (“because of your reverent fear of the Lord,” NLT; cf. REB, NJB, GNB). But in light of the following verses, Paul appears not to be primarily supporting his call to serve their earthly masters by the evocation of “the Lord”; rather, he is setting up the contrast between the earthly master and the Lord in heaven. It is best, therefore, to take this participle as expressing manner: “but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord” (TNIV, NIV; cf. CEV).

While the appearance of the title “the Lord” shifts the focus to the true Lord of all, the phrase “fearing the Lord” also evokes the “fear of the Lord” formula in the OT, a formula that applies specifically to God himself (cf. Deut 6:2, 13, 24; 10:12, 20; Josh 24:14; Pss 33:8; 34:9; Prov 24:21; Jer 5:24). The call to fear the Lord and serve him wholeheartedly recalls a similar call in 1 Sam 12:24: “fear the LORD and serve him faithfully with all your heart.” But here in Colossians, this formula is applied to Jesus the Lord.78 This again reaffirms the exalted status of Christ in this letter. In light of the frequent encouragement for the slave owner to instill a sense of fear in the slaves,79 this note on shifting fear to the true Lord acquires added significance.

3:23 Whatever you do, do it wholeheartedly, as to the Lord and not to people (ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε, ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις). This sentence, which continues into v. 24, redefines (1) the masters of the slaves, (2) the believers who are to heed the call here addressed to the slaves, and (3) the slaves themselves.

(1) “Do it wholeheartedly” recalls the previous verse, “obey … with singleness-mindedness.” “Wholeheartedly” (ἐκ ψυχῆς) translates (lit.) “from the soul.” It can be taken to refer to the “motivation for the effort,”80 but in biblical idiom it often indicates the totality of one’s devotion as illustrated by Mark 12:30, a passage that places “heart” and “soul” in parallel: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart [ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας] and with all your soul [ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς] and with all your mind and with all your strength” (cf. Deut 6:5; also Matt 22:37; Luke 10:27). Therefore, this clause is best understood in terms of putting “your whole heart into it” (REB) or even putting “yourselves into it” (NRSV).

Note that Paul is now shifting his attention to the true object of one’s service: “the Lord.” This shift is reinforced by the contrastive pair at the end of v. 23: “as to the Lord and not to people.”81 Through this shift Paul provides yet another striking qualification to the secular ethos, where only the male head of the household is the authoritative figure.

(2) This call not only shifts the focus from the earthly masters to “the Lord,” but through its parallel with v. 17 (“whatever you do in word or in deed”), Paul further identifies believers as those who are to serve this Lord wholeheartedly. As slaves should submit to their masters in all that they do, believers are also to serve their Lord. This identification has already been anticipated by 1:7, where Epaphras, presumably the founder of the Colossian church, is identified as “our beloved fellow slave” and “a faithful servant of Christ.” This identification is repeated in 4:12, where Epaphras is also called “a slave of Christ Jesus.” This present section in the household code provides the rationale for such an identification.

(3) Beyond the redefinition of the master as “the Lord” and the believers as “the slaves,” this sentence also redefines the “slaves.” As the property of their masters, they are but instruments in their hands. For Paul, however, they are heirs who will inherit an inheritance, a point established in v. 24a.

3:24a Since you know that from the Lord you will receive the reward of inheritance (εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπὸ κυρίου ἀπολήμψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας). Paul now provides the basis for the actions required of the slaves. “Since you know” (εἰδότες) takes the participle to be a causal adverbial participle, providing the basis for Paul’s call to the slaves to serve “as to the Lord” wholeheartedly (v. 23). This verb points to the reality about which these Christian slaves have to be reminded.82 In 4:1, Paul uses the same word to remind their masters that they are not the slaves’ real masters.

These slaves are promised to receive “the reward of inheritance,” a phrase where the genitive “of inheritance” is best taken as an epexegetical genitive83 that defines “the reward,” thus: “the inheritance as your reward” (NRSV, ESV; cf. NLT, NET, TNIV, NIV). “The reward” can point to “the just recompense” for the earthly service or even injustice that the slaves endure84 and the positive reward for their faithfulness as they serve the Lord.85

The promise of an inheritance is striking when applied to slaves. Despite possible payments made to the slaves that can be considered as constituting their inheritance,86 legally such funds belonged to the masters. In any case, “inheritance” is technically reserved for those who are the legitimate heirs within the household. Note Rom 8:15–17, where Paul draws a contrast between children, who are able to be “heirs,” and slaves, who are not—a point also noted in Gal 4:7: “So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.” In this case, therefore, the promise of an inheritance for slaves transforms their status to those who are legitimate heirs in the household of God. This transformation again challenges the cultural assumptions of the time and thus relativizes their status as the property of their masters.

As the previous verses draw parallels between the call of the believers (v. 17) and that of the slaves, this note on “inheritance” also identifies the slaves as part of the believers, who have been qualified “to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light” (1:12).87 Just as believers who serve their Lord will be heirs, so too these slaves will participate as full members in the household of God. Though missing the striking contradiction of the portrayal of slaves as heirs, the following translation notes the significance of 1:12 for the reading of this verse: “Remember that the Lord will give you as a reward what he has kept for his people” (GNB).

3:24b Serve the Lord Christ (τῷ κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε). Paul now identifies the true object of one’s service. Most translations take the word “serve” (δουλεύετε) as an indicative verb (“you serve the Lord Christ,” e.g., NRSV), and several arguments are suggested for this reading.88 (1) All the imperatives in this code thus far are used within the reciprocal relationships where the relationship between the male head of the household and the subordinate members is addressed. To introduce an imperative with “the Lord” seems to break this structure. (2) The identification of “the Lord” as “Christ” appears to explain the preceding clause, “from the Lord,” and therefore should be taken as an indicative explanatory clause: “it is the Lord Christ whom you serve.” (3) In Paul, the phrase “the Lord Christ” appears elsewhere only in Rom 16:18, where the identification of “the Lord” appears in the midst of competing claims of lordship. Therefore, this phrase has been taken primarily as one that identifies Christ as the Lord.

However, this verb should be taken as an imperative: “Serve the Lord Christ” (NET; cf. NAB), as supported by a majority of recent commentators.89 (1) The lack of a conjunction in this clause is consistent with other imperatival clauses in this code (vv. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; 4:1).90 (2) Taken as an imperative, this clause parallels the imperative in v. 23, “do it wholeheartedly,” but it also provides development of thought as it now explicitly identifies Christ as the Lord. (3) The “for” (γάρ) clause in v. 25, which provides the basis for this call, supports this imperative reading. (4) This imperative also provides the transition to the direct address to the masters since what is noted here is applicable to both slaves and masters.

The arguments for the indicative reading noted earlier actually highlight the striking aspects of this imperative. (1) As this imperative breaks the pattern of the other reciprocal imperatives of this code, Paul draws attention to this striking redefinition of the lordship of Christ. The mere presence of yet another master in a discussion of household relationships is already noteworthy; in this call, this direct imperative establishes the Lord Christ as the ultimate and final authority of the household. (2) The identification of this “Lord” as “Christ” is also an embedded function of this imperative. The christological implications of the preceding arguments in this letter are now brought to bear in this household. (3) Consistent with the context of Rom 16:18, the identification of this Lord is indeed at stake. Nevertheless, in light of the earlier call to serve their earthly masters, this imperative makes this critical shift clear when Paul now identifies Christ as the true object of their servitude.

3:25 For the wrongdoer will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no partiality (ὁ γὰρ ἀδικῶν κομίσεται ὃ ἠδίκησεν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν προσωπολημψία). Paul now grounds his previous call with this statement that refers to God’s justice. The connection with the previous call to “serve the Lord Christ” (v. 24) is made by the conjunction “for,” which indicates the basis of the call. It is more difficult to pinpoint exactly how this general statement provides that basis. (1) It could point to the reason for serving the Lord because he is a fair and righteous judge, unlike earthly masters, who may not be. (2) Or it can serve as the basis by noting that those who do not serve the Lord are the wrongdoers, and they will face the punishment they deserve. This would motivate slaves or even believers in general to be vigilant in their daily walk. While the former reading fits the immediate context within this code, the latter is consistent with Paul’s call to faithful living in vv. 5–17 and the call to be alert in 4:2.

In any case, either reading is to be preferred over the one that connects this verse with v. 22 or v. 23, seeing this as the basis for serving one’s earthly masters.91 The transitional nature of this section must be recognized as Paul is shifting the focus from the slaves to the masters and providing a section relevant for the believers in general.

This reading also affects our understanding of the identity of “the wrongdoer.” Since this phrase is located within the section that deals with slaves, many argue that behind it are the slaves who may have wronged their masters.92 The use of this verb (ἀδικέω) in reference to the possible wrongdoing of Onesimus in Phlm 18 has also been used in support of this reading.93 Nevertheless, such a reading may assume the perspective of the masters who adopt a stereotypical portrayal of slaves as evil and irresponsible.94 Moreover, Phlm 18 only provides a hypothetical statement and does not refer to specific wrongdoings of Onesimus.95

In light of the note on the harsh treatment of the slaves in texts such as 1 Pet 2:18, some take this verse as “intended to encourage slaves,”96 in that masters must also be responsible for their own wrongdoings.97 But closer to this Colossian household code is Eph 6:8, where this general principle is applied to everyone, whether “slave or free.” It is possible, therefore, that this principle is referring here to both slaves and masters; it then serves to introduce the discussion of the masters in Col 4:1.

In light of our discussion above concerning how believers are to serve their Lord just as slaves serve their masters, it is perhaps best to see this general principle as applicable to believers in general, and the wrongdoers are those who have committed the sins as noted in the vice lists above (3:5, 8–9).98 Unlike Hellenistic household discussions, where the focus is on the power structure of the present realm, Paul provides an eschatological perspective within which everyone must be responsible for their action under the authority of the Lord, who will be “revealed … in glory” at the end of times (v. 4).

The term “partiality” (προσωπολημψία) here consists of two words literally rendered “to receive the face.” This phrase is often used in the LXX meaning “to show partiality” (Lev 19:15; Deut 16:19; Ps 82:2 [LXX 81:2]; Lam 4:16; Mal 2:9; cf. Luke 20:21; Gal 2:6). The compound verb and its cognates are considered among “the earliest definitely Christian words.”99 This word group was used by Paul (Rom 2:11) and by others (Acts 10:34) to refer to the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles, and this usage here may allude back to Col 3:11, where the new humanity is portrayed as one “where there is neither Greek nor Jew.” In Jas 2:9 the term is used in a more general sense for believers not to show favoritism.

4:1a Masters, provide for your slaves justice and equity (Οἱ κύριοι, τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα τοῖς δούλοις παρέχεσθε). In this final exhortation within the household code, Paul addresses earthly masters and reminds them of their duties. “Masters” (οἱ κύριοι), the same word for “Lord” (in the singular) that appears in this code for Christ, no longer evokes an unqualified sense of awe and respect. It is precisely in this climactic verse that Paul makes it clear that these “masters” also have a “Master” in heaven.

Before the final statement that relativizes the power and authority of the male heads of the households, Paul focuses on the historical reality of the master-slave relationship in the first century. After noting the principle of impartiality, Paul draws the implications of such a principle for the behavior of these earthly masters. The phrase “justice and equity” again emphasizes the duties of these authoritative figures rather than their rights. “Justice” in Paul can refer to one’s standing before God; in such contexts, Paul clearly declares that “no one is righteous [just], not even one” (Rom 3:10 [Ps 14:1 LXX 13:1]). When applied to God as an authoritative judge, however, this word denotes “justice” (2 Thess 1:5, 6; 2 Tim 4:8). In a context where the power of the human authoritative figure is concerned, the same applies: masters are called to be just judges who provide justice for those over whom they rule.100

The term “equity” (τὴν ἰσότητα) is more difficult. It can mean either “fairness” when applied to identical treatment as each in their role deserves, or “equality” when applied to the general sense of identical status. In this context, “fairness” is probably the primary meaning intended by Paul.101 (1) In a discussion of how to treat subordinate members, “fairness” seems implied. This sense is consistent with the usage of this term in Greco-Roman discussions on the treatment of slaves.102 (2) Since this is something that the masters are to grant, “fairness” fits this context more. (3) Finally, if 3:25 is to serve as the basis for this call, the urge to avoid wrongdoings fits this call to provide fair treatment to the slaves rather than to provide “equality” that is not expected of even virtuous masters.

Nevertheless, in light of the striking qualifications to the accepted societal norm in this household discussion and in anticipation of the ultimate reference to the “Master in heaven” that follows, it seems that the divine principle of “there is no partiality” that immediately precedes this call should be taken seriously. Moreover, the fact that there is neither “slave nor free” in the new humanity (3:11) encourages the reader to consider the sense of “equality” when confronted with this call. Moreover, the word “just” (τὸ δίκαιον) may evoke the Roman sense of justice where it is said to guarantee “equality” (ἰσότης) between the powerful and the powerless.103 If so, “equality” could well be in the mind of the audience. Yet it should be noted that the implications of this implicit sense are left unsaid, and this term may not be able to bear the weight of the modern conceptions of liberation and egalitarianism.

4:1b Since you know that you also have a Master in heaven (εἰδότες ὅτι καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔχετε κύριον ἐν οὐρανῷ). Syntactically, this clause provides the grounds for the call to “provide for your slaves justice and equity.” In terms of the wider flow of Paul’s argument, however, it represents one of the significant points in Paul’s presentation of Jesus as “the Lord/Master.”104 The qualification of the power of the male head of the household also climaxes here where the term “Lord/Master” (κύριον) is finally used explicitly to qualify those who are considered by many to be “masters” (οἱ κύριοι).

The clause “you also have a Master in heaven” transforms these masters into slaves who are in turn to serve their own master. This new reading of reality allows Paul to call them to fulfill their duties as faithful and considerate husbands, fathers, and masters. The prepositional phrase “in heaven” should not be considered to limit the realm of power of Christ the Lord; it is not meant to divide the realm of reality into the earthly and the heavenly since Christ himself is the instrument through whom all things in heaven and in earth are reconciled to God (1:16, 20).

Instead, this phrase points to two significant aspects. First, it points to the enthronement of Christ noted in 3:1–4.105 As the “Lord/Master in heaven,” Christ is the Lord of all. The submission of the earthly masters is therefore required. Second, as 3:1–4 points also to the final revelation of Christ, who is now “seated at the right hand of God” (3:1), the eschatological aspects reemerge with this phrase (cf. 3:24–25). Since Christ is the final and ultimate judge of all, all who live on this earth must be mindful of this final judgment. This eschatological aspect continues to be the focus of 4:2, where Paul urges his audience to be alert in anticipation of the final consummation of God’s act in history.

Theology in Application

Lord of the Household

To identify this section as a household code may give the false impression that Paul is providing a comprehensive treatment of family relationships. If this were such a treatment, one would expect a discussion of significant topics such as the foundation of marriage (e.g., Eph 5:22–33), faithfulness within marriage (e.g., 1 Cor 6:12–20), divorce and remarriage (e.g., 1 Cor 7:8–11), status and behavior of the widows (e.g., 1 Tim 5:3–16), relationship between believers and unbelievers within the same household (e.g., 1 Cor 7:12–16), training of children in faith (e.g., 1 Tim 5:10; Titus 1:6), conflicts between masters and slaves (e.g., Phlm 16, 18), rules concerning manumission (e.g., Phlm 16), and so on. In this section, however, Paul focuses on the issue of authority within the household, especially the way the authority of Christ the Lord affects the relationships among different members of the household.

This focus on authority may explain the selective treatment of issues within members of the household. Before dealing with the particulars, however, the emphasis on Jesus as the Lord of the household must be noted. In light of the consistent affirmation of the authority of the male head of the household in Hellenistic household discussions, the repeated uses of the title “Lord” (3:18, 20, 22, 23, 24; 4:1) in reference to Christ not only qualifies the secular social conventions, but it challenges the very basis of such structures of authority by noting that this husband/father/master is but a slave to the “Master in heaven” (4:1). In other words, if one were to summarize the central message of this code, it is the confession that affirms “Christ Jesus [as] the Lord” (2:6). This reading not only takes seriously Paul’s modification of common patterns behind Hellenistic household discussions, but it also explains how this section fits into the wider argument in a letter that focuses on the final and ultimate authority and status of Christ.

In light of this reading, the commands to the various members of the household can be understood. The call to submission reminds wives of their role within their families, but their obedience is to be directed to “the Lord” (3:18), and the call for the husbands to love their wives turns their “rights” into their “duties” to care for them (3:19). Children are called to obey their parents (3:20), but the authority of the fathers is qualified not simply because their children are ultimately to submit to their Lord, but also because they have their responsibility under this higher authority (3:21). Finally, since the slave-master relationship centers distinctly on the issue of authority, one finds the call to serve the masters only in anticipation of the call to serve “the Lord Christ” (3:24). This climactic call is coupled with the redefinition of the earthly masters as the slaves of the “Master in heaven” (4:1). Therefore, the often-repeated claim that “Paul had no intention of turning that world upside down”106 is true only when such “turning” is understood primarily as blatantly disruptive acts. Such a statement undermines, however, the powerful challenge this section poses to the social, cultural, and political norms of the day. After all, this section aims at illustrating the preceding call to “do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus” (3:17).

Wives and Husbands

Within the understanding of the focus of this section, we can think of the practical implications for relationships between husband and wives and between children and fathers. Concerning marital relationships, the obvious question is the way the call for wives to submit to their husbands is to be appropriated in the contemporary setting. Several comments are in order, and they should be taken together as one considers Paul’s teachings here. First, the call for submission cannot be denied despite the relativizing of this call in Paul’s qualification of the Hellenistic household discussions. This call is not limited to one context, as is clarified by Paul’s references elsewhere when he affirms the headship of men (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23) in the context where the creation mandate is affirmed (Eph 5:33).

More difficult is the nature of this submission. What is clear is that submission is not to be equated with blind obedience, for wives are called to submit, whereas children and slaves are called to “obey” their fathers and masters “in everything” (vv. 20, 22). That Paul often calls believers to mutual submission (Gal 5:13; Phil 2:3–4), even in contexts where household relationships are discussed (Eph 5:21), further shows this submission of wives as one that is not based on their relative status or ability. In the context of Colossians, the calls to “put on … humility” (3:12), to bear “with one another” (v. 13), to “love,” (v. 14), to be “in one body” (v. 15), and to teach and admonish “one another” all emphasize the importance of this mutuality. The call for the husbands to “love” their wives should, therefore, be considered as contributing to this definition of submission: “true love for one’s wife is not compatible with a husband completely controlling her life.”107 Within the context of love, this submission allows wives to follow their husbands in their attempt to “do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v. 17).

In practical terms, what would such “submission” look like in the modern family? It is not enough to say that wives should yield to their husbands only when the wishes of their husbands conform to the general Christian value system. It is also not to be applied in numerous practical matters when a simple evaluation of technical expertise reveals the relative superiority of the wife’s skill. This can but does not necessarily have to include tasks often associated with women (e.g., cooking, counseling, childrearing), for modern wives have also excelled in other areas not traditionally limited to the female gender (e.g., scientific/technical analysis, theoretical simulation, financial planning). “Submission” instead should be applied to certain life decisions in which morality and technical skills are not in question. These may include cases when the husband is “called” to serve in a particular mission field, or the way he is led to lead the family in daily/weekly devotions. In such cases, the husband has to pray that the Spirit will likewise lead his wife to share in this vision, and they should then prayerfully commit to this common vision.

As to the duty of the husbands, since in the Greco-Roman context “love” is not an expected “duty” for husbands, the distinct understanding of this virtue within Colossians must be noted. Rather than a general expression of benevolence, this love lives out the love of God the Father for his Son (1:13) and is to function as the critical ingredient in God’s act in the creation of a new humanity (2:2; 3:14). As “beloved” (3:12) of God, the faithful participation of believers in the body of Christ testifies to the power of this new creation; “the removal of a husband’s oppressive rule over his wife … is the removal, through love, of the effects of sin on the role relationship.”108 In light of this grand vision, few men can claim to be faithful witnesses to such creative acts of God, as Christian thinkers through the ages readily admit:

It is painful, being a man, to have to assert the privilege, or the burden, which Christianity lays upon my own sex. I am crushingly aware how inadequate most of us are, in our actual and historical individualities, to fill the place prepared for us.109

This awareness of such critical inadequacies only increases our thirst for the fulfillment of God’s redemptive act when his Son returns in glory (cf. 3:4). In the meanwhile, we are all called to humble living while fully recognizing the power of God’s grace.

Finally, in defining the relationship between men and women, isolated statements from a code are often pulled out of their context in discussions of gender roles. Without providing a detailed discussion on this complex issue, it is sufficient to note that Paul’s position must be evaluated within a wider trajectory in redemptive history.110 In the case of the status of women, Paul is clearly rejecting his dominant culture that denies any sense of equality between the two sexes. Paul’s significant qualification of the power and status of the male head of the household and his statement elsewhere that there is neither “male [nor] female” (Gal 3:28) points clearly to a vision where the term “subordination” becomes misleading in characterizing the effect of the gospel of the cross.

Children and Parents

To the modern audience, Paul’s discussion of the relationship between children and their parents111 is more palatable than his discussions of either slaves or women. Here, in distinction from Hellenistic household discussions one finds a similar trajectory that emphasizes the father’s duties, although Paul’s teaching is clearly consistent with the OT teaching that affirms both the obedience of the children to their parents (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16) and the responsibility of their fathers to teach them the ways of the Lord (e.g., Exod 10:2; Deut 4:9). This background paves the way for Paul’s emphasis here because in the OT, the ultimate focus of the call for the children to obey their parents and for the fathers to be responsible for their children’s upbringing is on the significance of the passing on of the divine teachings and commandments. Young children are those who “do not yet know good from bad” (Deut 1:39), and fathers are to teach them “to obey carefully all the words of this law” (32:46). In this household code, the calls to the children and the fathers likewise ultimately point to “the Lord” as the ultimate object of concern.

The family should also be the context where daily struggles are to be instruments in the cultivation of lives that lead to the obedience to the ultimate Lord of all. Parents are the ones who can transform daily household activities into liturgical practices that allow members of the household to follow Paul’s call: “whatever you do in word and in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus.”112 This is the overarching theme of a significant study that examines factors that lead adults back to their childhood faith:

Effective religious socialization comes about through embedded practices; that is, through specific, deliberate religious activities that are firmly intertwined with the daily habits of family routines, of eating and sleeping, of having conversations, of adorning the spaces in which people live, of celebrating the holidays, and of being part of a community. Compared with these practices, the formal teachings of religious leaders often pale in significance.113

As parents who confess Christ as our Lord, the call for our children to be obedient to us highlights the responsibility we have for the wider household of God.

Equally important in the OT tradition is the use of the father-son relationship in depicting God’s love for his people: “As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him” (Ps 103:13). As God has compassion even on those among his children who rebelled against him (Isa 1:2), Paul urges the fathers to imitate their Lord in not being harsh to their children. The fathers are called to reenact God’s gracious love for his people in a way that is consistent with their identity as members of the new humanity.

It is in this discussion of the call to reenact God’s gracious love that the issue of child abuse can be addressed. While the children are to “obey” their parents, fathers (and mothers) are called not to “provoke” their children. This clearly qualifies the “power” of the fathers in their dealings with their children. Moreover, as Paul repeatedly notes, Jesus is the true “Lord” of the household. Fathers are therefore also responsible to this final authority. More importantly, as we discuss the imitation of the fatherly love of God, we are also reminded of the positive motivations for fathers to model the gracious love of God the Father. It is ultimately the identification of these fathers with the death and resurrection of Christ that allows us to serve as instruments of God’s grace for those placed under our responsibility.

Slaves and Masters

With the relationship between slaves and masters, the issue of Paul’s view of slavery as reflected in this household code must be dealt with first, especially because the church is often accused of silence on this issue, an accusation often repeated in reasons to reject the gospel: “The churches, as everyone knows, opposed the abolition of slavery as long as they dared.”114 Whether churches throughout history have been faithful to the NT teachings is beyond the scope of this discussion, but it is misleading to assert that Paul is silent on this issue.

As noted above, this household code challenges the underlying principle of the institution of slavery by relativizing the power and authority of earthly masters. They are but slaves of the “Master in heaven” (4:1), and “the Lord” is explicitly identified as “Christ” (3:24). Moreover, to consider slaves as heirs of an “inheritance” (3:24) affirms their spiritual status as children in “the kingdom of [God’s] beloved Son” (1:13). On the basis of this status, the note on God as an impartial God (3:25) and the call for the earthly masters to provide “justice and equity” for their slaves (4:1) become understandable. Though without an explicit note on the equality between slaves and masters, this code clearly points toward this direction. This code should be read in light of the preceding description of the “new humanity” as one where the distinction between “slave” and “free” is to be eradicated (3:11).

Beyond the immediate context of this code, the relevance of Philemon is also worth noting. Written to the same area by Paul during the same Roman imprisonment, the Colossian household code should be read in light of Paul’s call in his letter to Philemon for him to receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (Phlm 16). Moreover, Paul demonstrates the primary significance to reconsider the status of Onesimus within the household of God by first calling him his “child” (Phlm 10). This redefinition of the status of this slave is consistent with the trajectory one finds throughout Colossians.

Before moving beyond this question of Paul’s view of slavery, contemporary readers need to be reminded of the differences between slavery in Greco-Roman society and the more recent American experience of this institution. Historians have repeatedly emphasized that “the history of ancient slavery can only be a history of Graeco-Roman society,” and the same can be said concerning its modern counterpart.115 Without providing even a brief survey of slavery in Graeco-Roman times,116 a cautionary note should at least be sounded when we consider the isolated statements on slavery found in Paul’s writings.

The message embedded in Paul’s discussion of the role of the slaves here is easily overshadowed by the perceived need to defend his position on the ancient institution of slavery. For ministers of the gospel, however, it is incumbent on us to unleash the power of this message. As noted above, one of the main functions of Paul’s relatively lengthy discussion of the slaves here is to draw a parallel between the behavior of slaves and that of all believers. This is best seen in 3:23, where Paul’s call for the slaves (“whatever you do, do it wholeheartedly, as to the Lord and not to people”) repeats the earlier call in 3:17 to believers in general (“whatever you do in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus”). Shifting from the status of the slaves to the behavior of believers, Paul urges the latter to take on this self-understanding by submitting to the Lord in absolute obedience.

This reading is confirmed by Paul’s reference to the founder of the Colossian church, Epaphras, as “the slave of Christ Jesus” (4:12). This appellation is rooted in the fundamental redemptive act of God through Christ, who delivers his people from the bondage of sin (Rom 6:20; 7:14; 8:21) and of the elemental spirits (Gal 4:3; Eph 2:2). In response, believers are called to be slaves of Christ and righteousness:

Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Rom 6:16; cf. Rom 6:18; 14:18)

This call to be “slaves … to obedience” is based on the prior act of Christ, who “emptied himself, by taking on the form of a slave” (Phil 2:7, pers. trans.). This humbling act culminates in his “becoming obedient to death” (2:8). It is in light of this imagery that the life and death of Christ become the model of obedient servitude for believers (cf. Rom 14:8–12; 2 Cor 5:14–21).117 The references to participation in the death and resurrection of Christ in Colossians (Col 2:11–13, 20–23; 3:1–4) form the basis for this further call to be his slaves.

To appreciate what it means to be a slave to Christ, Aristotle’s definition of slaves in reference to their function and status may be helpful:

First, that “anybody who by his nature is not his own man, but another’s, is by his nature a slave”; secondly, that “anybody who, being a man, is an article of property, is another’s man”; and thirdly, that “an article of property is an instrument intended for the purpose of action and separable from its possessor.” (Pol. 1.1254a)

Since believers are called “do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus” (3:17), we are likewise called to be his slaves; those who belong to him and are instruments for his glory and honor. Pastors who wish to develop this point further may consider using musical instruments as an illustration of our role as the slaves of Christ. As an instrument is useless without being played, we are useless unless we become Christ’s instrument; as the instrument brings glory to its master, our only goal is to bring glory to our Master. Moreover, as instruments we do not have our own “will” since we are called to be an extension of the “will” of our Master.