Part Two: The Pseudonymous Pauline Epistles
The Social Setting of the Ministry Part Two: The Pseudonymous Pauline Epistles Colossians and Ephesians Our discussion of the pseudonymous Pauline writings will be divided into two parts. First we will treat Colossians and Ephesians, and then turn to the Pastoral epistles. Our discussion naturally divides in this way because of obvious affinities between Colossians and Ephesians, and because the Pastorals probably belong to a much later date, perhaps as late as the first quarter of the second century. The Pastorals also contain what appear to be more developed institutions of leadership. Our purpose in this section is to review the evidence concerning house-church meetings and leadership in the interim between Paul's death and the documents we have chosen for investigation in subsequent chapters.
The Authorship and Date of Colossians and Ephesians The authorship of Colossians and Ephesians continues to be a topic of debate in contemporary scholarship. We do not propose to defend scholars who argue for pseudonymity,73 but will assume it as the basis for our discussion.74 The cumulative force of the arguments for non-Pauline authorship of Colossians (differences of language and style from the non-contested letters, theological differences, literary dependence on the genuine Pauline corpus75), at least justifies our treatment of it as pseudonymous. And if Colossians was not written by Paul, the probability that Ephesians was written after Colossians76 and contains passages dependent upon it indicates that it too is pseudonymous.77
The dates of Colossians and Ephesians are also difficult to determine. The greetings in Colossians may indicate that it was composed soon after PauPs death, or even toward the end of his life when he was no longer available to the community (Onesimus, for example, is now evidently a freedperson).78 Ephesians is more difficult to locate and date. The omission of the prepositional phrase έν Εφέσψ in several early and important manuscripts has led scholars to treat the epistle as an "encyclical" of Pauline teaching.79 Affinities between Ignatius' epistle to the Ephesians and New Testament Eph. 1:1-19, probably indicate that Ignatius associated the letter with Ephesus, and the ascription by many manuscripts connecting it with this city may indicate that it originated there.80 If Ignatius knew the letter, this indicates that it was written before ca.
113 A.D. Mitton dates it near to 90 A.D.81
The Household Setting of Colossians and Ephesians In Colossians and Ephesians household language and descriptions of the church are linked together. The chief example of this occurs in Eph. 2:19-20, where the writer describes his audience as "members of the household of God" (οικείοι του θεοϋ). Again, in both Colossians and Ephesians a household code appears
The Pauline Epistles
(Col. 3:18-4:1; Eph. 5:21-6:9). The use of these rules as paraenetic devices to order life within the community probably indicates that there were local church cells whose form and identity were closely connected to that of the household.
Recent studies have correctly called into question the view often put forward by scholars that the household rules constitute an independent, self-contained paraenetic unit which had little to do with the particular challenges, norms, and organization of early Christian communities.82
Verner summarizes an emerging consensus concerning the alternative interpretation of these codes as reflecting particular community realities when he writes, "The form of the Haustafeln . . . strongly suggests that they address real, concrete, and in some cases persistent social needs within the church."83 More particularly, MacDonald comments that the Haustafeln in Colossians and Ephesians probably arose out of a close connection between household and church.
The Haustafeln exhibit an interest in household relationships on the one hand, and in the church understood on the model of the household on the other. If a slave is instructed to be subject to his or her master in the Lord, this carries with it certain implications for the slave's behaviour not only in the outside society, but also within the sect. The slave of a believing householder would respect the leadership of the one who places his home at the disposal of the member of the household of God
[I]t is evident from Paul's letters that the household may have acted as an important model for the formation of the ecclesia. Meetings were held in individual house churches and one's position in the household was probably related to the role in community life. In Colossians and Ephesians one discovers signs of the continued articulation of the implications of household-rooted life.84
John Elliott comes to a similar conclusion in his discussion of 1 Peter (a writing roughly contemporary with Ephesians85). The description of the church as a "spiritual household" (οίκος πνευματικός) in 1 Pet. 2:5, together with the appearance of a Haustafel (2:18-3:9) leads him to conclude,
The household formations of the early Christian movement... made the ecclesiological adaptation of this image (i.e. "the household of God") for the Christian community possible. The household formations of the early Christian movement, moreover, made this embracing symbol for the early Christian community sociologically plausible.86
Given the appearance in these writings of Haustafeln and the description of the Ephesian community as a household of God, it is probable that the church and local households were closely related.87
This impression gains more direct support in Col. 4:15, where the church in Nympha's house is greeted. We have already met the formula κατ' οίκον έκκλησία in the genuine Pauline epistles. It is most likely that its appearance here reflects a community arrangement similar to that found at an earlier date.
The question of roles of leadership by patronesses, a topic already indirectly addressed in our discussion of the reference to Phoebe in Rom. 16:1-2, presents itself here in a more acute form.88 It is probable that contemporary norms helped to promote the authority of patronesses. Banks comments, concerning the authority ofNympha in the church meeting at her home:
The Social Setting of the Ministry If, as seems most natural, Nympha was a relatively wealthy woman who, like
Gaius at Corinth, acted as host to a local group of believers, it seems unlikely that she, presumably a widow who conducted her family, managed her slaves and welcomed her friends all week, would take an insignificant part in the proceedings in favour of socially inferior male members who were present.
To do that would be socially unacceptable whereas, in the absence of a husband it would be perfectly legitimate, in the eyes of others for her to behave in home and church as her husband would have done if present. Most probably male heads of other households also belonged to this church and had an influential role in its activities but, given her position, Nympha would have functioned alongside them in similar sorts of ways, not in a subordinate capacity. This acts as a reminder that Paul generally talks about the relation of wives to husbands: where no husband is in view, quite different arrangements become possible.89
It seems likely that the link between household and house church continued to exert an influence on community life and church leadership in this period.
The number of house churches in Colossae and Laodicea is difficult to determine, but the possibility of a plurality of household meetings cannot be excluded; the house church associated with Nympha may have been one of many.90 The ascription of the title of church to Nympha's house does not necessarily indicate that the "church" is being given a well-defined and permanent location, or that it refers to the whole Colossian or Laodicean community. At the time of these documents, the church meeting in a patron or patroness's household was probably a relatively informal arrangement.91
Community Leadership The quotation by Banks indicates that in Laodicea and Colossae patrons and patronesses of house churches probably enjoyed positions of leadership. This is consistent, as the quotation cited above from MacDonald states, with the use of household rules to establish hierarchical social arrangements as a basis for community life. The writer of Colossians is not explicit about the nature and functioning of this local leadership, but in Ephesians 4:11, he presents a list of various kinds of leaders. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers probably represent various kinds of leaders who exercise various forms of control in the community or communities represented by this letter. The precise functions of those referred to in this list cannot be reconstructed with any certainty, but it is probable that there were several types of leadership in this period.
Margaret MacDonald presents an intriguing line of argument concerning patterns of leadership at the time when Colossians and Ephesians were written.92
She argues that the death of Paul presented a kind of crisis for the communities represented by these two epistles. Because the churches addressed by these letters probably relied upon the apostle's guidance when faced with problems and divisions within the community, it was necessary to fill the vacuum left by his absence with other forms of guidance. MacDonald puts this forward as an explanation for the use of Paul's name in the composition of these documents; they represent what Paul would have said about contemporary problems. She argues further that several kinds of members were well placed to adopt positions
The Pauline Epistles
of guidance at this time, but the fact that not all seem to have survived into the second century leads her to argue compellingly that these were communities
"in transition."93 She seems only to apply this insight to Ephesians and to the importance of teaching or teachers in the guidance of the community,94 but it is applicable on a more general level. It is probable that after Paul's departure and death his personal retinue helped to guide the local communities.95 The references to Epaphras (Col. 1:7; 4:12-13) and Tychicus (Col. 4:7; Eph. 6:21-22), for example, may either refer to apostolic delegates who continued to guide communities — probably, like Paul, at a distance — or function as legitimating descriptions of other more local individuals in similar roles of guidance.96 There is no evidence that institutions developed to perpetuate the roles of guidance exercised by apostolic delegates and it seems likely that while they fulfilled interim needs, other institutions grew to replace them 97
One of the categories of leaders named in Eph. 4:11 calls for special comment — that of pastor (ποιμένες). Again, it is difficult to come to any firm conclusions concerning the function and nature of this form of leadership, but the term itself provides some clues. In several instances, roughly contemporary
Christian literature associates the roots ποιμενand έπισκοπtogether. The linking of these two terms together may derive from the Septuagint.98
In Acts 20:28, a document which has certain affinities with Ephesians,99 elders are exhorted with images of both shepherding and overseeing. Again, in 1 Peter a similar connection occurs: in 2:25 Christ is presented as έπίσκοπος of the "sheep"; in 5:2 (in some manuscripts) elders are described as overseeing
(έπισκοποΰντες) the sheep. Elders were probably in positions of administration in the Petrine and Lucan communities and given this apparently wide-spread association, it is possible to infer tentatively that the reference to pastors in Eph.
4:11 implies some form of governance.100 Any conclusions concerning the status of these pastors are also tentative. Given the use of household rules to establish norms within this community, it is at least probable that hosts of the community carried out tasks of pastoring and that the reinforcement of hierarchical social arrangements within the community, as a result of the application of this code, promoted the authority of house-church hosts.
The Pastoral Epistles Authorship, Location and Date There is less debate concerning the pseudonymity of the Pastoral epistles: vocabulary, chronology, theology, degree of organization — all these make authorship by Paul highly unlikely.101
A brief discussion of the location of the community behind the Pastorals is necessary because it is often assumed that they are the product of an Ephesian
Christian community.102 If this is the case, it has great import for our discussion of the evidence for the ministry in the lgnatian corpus, since Ignatius addresses one of his letters to the Ephesians. The evidence for Ephesus as the place of origin, however, is not clear. True, in 1 Tim. 1:3 (cf. 2 Tim. 1:18) the author mentions Ephesus as the place where Timothy is to remain. And a further piece of evidence which scholars adduce for Ephesian provenance is the apparent use of
The Social Setting of the Ministry the Pastorals by Polycarp.103 Some even suggest that Polycarp composed them.104 But this evidence is not enough to establish Ephesian authorship. In Tit. 1:5, the presumed setting is Crete and, assuming that these letters come from the same hand, it is impossible to determine which (if either) place refers to the writer's community. Neither is the second argument, based on Polycarp's probable use of the Pastorals, strong enough to connect them with Ephesus (or Smyrna); borrowing can be (but is not necessarily) an indication of provenance.
In our view the question of location must be left open.
Scholars have dated these epistles from soon after the death of Paul to the mid-second century.105 The later date seems unlikely because of the lack of reference to monepiscopacy in these letters, but the evidence of more formal institutions of leadership suggests that some time has passed since Paul's death.
Most scholars date the Pastorals between 90 and 110.106
The Household Setting of the Pastorals The use of household language to describe the church is more prominent in the Pastorals than in Ephesians and Colossians. In 1 Tim. 3:15 the church is described as the "household of God" (οίκος θεοΰ), and in a manner consonant with this image, the author in 2 Tim. 2:20-21 describes various members of the church as vessels of a great house (μεγάλη oixCa). Again, the author uses household language when he describes the bishop as God's οικονόμος, i.e. his household steward (Tit. 1:7). Finally, as in the two documents discussed above, household rules are used as a means of promoting a certain community ethos (1
Tim. 2:8-15; 6:1-2; Tit. 2:1-10), and on the basis of stylistic similarities Verner argues compellingly that the prescriptions for overseers and deacons (1 Tim.
3:1-13; Tit. l:5f.) are based on elements of a Haustafel}07 As in Colossians and Ephesians, the predominance of this language is best explained by households acting as the setting for the community's house churches.
More direct evidence that households constituted various local house churches is the description of the author's opponents. In 2 Tim. 3:6 "Paul" describes these individuals as those "who make their way into households"
(οικίαι), and in Tit. 1:11 he describes them as upsetting whole households (ολοι οίκοι) by their teaching.108 These references may imply a variety of house-church meetings to which the author's opponents have gained access.
Wealth and Leadership The Pastorals contain more direct evidence of the presence of wealthy Christians than Ephesians and Colossians. In 1 Tim. 2:9 exhortations against the flaunting of material wealth is best interpreted as assuming a degree of material wealth among some female members. The writer is acquainted with members who have allowed the pursuit of wealth to undermine allegiance to the community; in 1 Tim. 6:9-10 he refers to those who have fallen away because of the desire to be rich. Of course, greed is not a vice necessarily reserved for the rich.
It seems likely, however, that this instruction was addressed more precisely to prosperous members. Again, the author's instruction to slaves to please believing slave-owners (1 Tim. 6:2) implies that there were members wealthy enough
The Pauline Epistles
to possess slaves. If the reciprocal duties of slave owners are omitted here, the exhortation to the rich not to place their hope in "uncertain riches," but to be content with doing acts of benevolence (6:17-19), describes a positive ethic of love patriarchalism. This, again, assumes a degree of wealth.
The kinds of community service which the wealthier members could provide are well illustrated by the description of the activities of Onesiphorus in 2 Tim.
1:16 (cf. 4:19), a person otherwise unmentioned in the Pauline corpus. The household of Onesiphorus is presented in a way which suggests that its patron was relatively prosperous: he is congratulated for refreshing Paul (i.e. probably offering him accommodation) and he is in a position to travel and use his journeys in the service (διάκονε tv) of the community. Whether or not this is a contemporary figure, the description of him provides a window through which we can see the kinds of activities the well-to-do were probably expected to perform for the community.
The descriptions of the characteristics expected of local leaders also assume the presence of wealth. The writer prescribes that overseers109 should not be greedy or out for gain (1 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 1:6). The need to include such a warning is best understood if overseers were drawn from the rank of more prosperous members. The argument for the presence of a wealthy stratum gains further support from 1 Tim. 3:1£, where the author uses a "true saying" (πιστός ό λόγος) which describes the task of έπίσκοπος as a καλόν έργον. This saying is probably drawn from Hellenistic municipal life and it is likely that its inclusion here indicates that the position was regarded as "a public service to be undertaken by the comparatively well-to-do."110 The evidence regarding proper characteristics for deacons implies a similar scenario. In 1 Tim. 3:12, the description of the ideal deacon as a man who not only governs his children but also his household well probably indicates that the οίκος included both slaves and children. Verner's statement concerning the wealth of deacons may be applied more generally as true for the profile presented for bishops as well: the author betrays his assumption that prospective church officers will be householders with sufficient means to own household slaves. This fact in itself locates these householders in the higher social strata of the Asian cities.
It is most important to recognize that relatively high social standing does not appear here as a requirement which the author is intent on imposing on would-be office holders, but as a casual assumption that he makes about them. Thus it is not the author's special program or prejudices that are reflected here, but the actual situation in the churches. He apparently accepts this situation without question and pursues his own aims within it.111
A similar assumption lies behind the household rules contained in 1 Timothy and Titus. If one compares the exhortation to slaves in the household rules in Colossians and Ephesians, for example, one finds both slaves and masters mentioned. In the instructions to slaves in 2 Tim. 6:1-2 and Tit 2:9-10, however,
"Paul" is looking "from the top down"; only slaves arc exhorted to be faithful to their master, the reciprocal duties of masters are not mentioned. This may indicate that the writer was part of the upper stratum of the community. Whatever the author's social status, it is evident that he promoted the authority of the well-to-do as an unquestioned norm. Dennis MacDonald calls the overseers,
The Social Setting of the Ministry presbyters, and deacons in these communities "the respectable householders."112 Countryman's conclusion from the rules set out for bishops and deacons in 1 Tim. 3:Iff and Tit. l:5f. reiterates this description. The important thing is that all ranks of ministers are expected to display the virtues appropriate to prosperous householders; they are to be drawn from among the elite of the church.113 He argues further that the profile of the appropriate bishop in these passages is a hospitable paterfamilias who keeps his household affairs under control. 4'When such men were ordained," he writes, "the local elite and the clergy would become identical."114 One may add to the characteristics adduced by Countryman the criterion of being well-thought of by outsiders (1 Tim. 3:7); for a community evidently seeking the approval of the wider society, a good candidate for leadership was a prosperous and civil householder.
In their commentary on the Pastorals Dibelius and Conzelmann argue that the adaptation of Hellenistic household rules to establish norms within the community arose as a result of the delay of the Parousia. The profile of the bishop and the members of the community as "good citizens" belongs to a church whose eschatalogical hope has been replaced with moral codes and a church order, adapted for consolidation in the world.115 They contend that the delay of the Second Coming necessitated a shift in the church's "conceptual structure" from imminent expectation and separation from the world to the re-orienting idea of good citizenship.116 Dibelius and Conzelmann are correct to argue that as time passed ecclesiological institutions developed, but it is unsatisfactory to explain this development wholly by reference to the delay of the Parousia or solely by the application of ideas. A fuller explanation of the institutional development evident in these letters should include the continuing impact of social phenomena, such as the organization of the community in Graeco-Roman households, and the influence of leaders drawn from the upper stratum of the church on the formulation of group symbols and ideals. It is not enough to speak of "the concept of 'good Christian citizenship*... understood in the context of a transformed self-understanding of the church."117 It is also necessary to refer to the social structures or social world which contributed to the community's picture of itself.
There is indirect but good evidence that house-church patrons continued to exercise oversight of the groups which met in their homes. One of the characteristics of a bishop is that he be hospitable (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:8). References to hospitality are often interpreted as descriptions of the reception of travellers. We will discuss this in more detail when we turn to the setting of the Shepherd and 1
Clement. The term φιλόξενος is also used in 1 Pet. 4:9 to describe the reception of local members,118 and this is the implication of the term ξένος in Rom.
16:23. The inclusion of hospitality among the characteristics of a bishop may be interpreted as an indication that overseers invited the community into their homes.119 This virtue probably implied a form of patronage. In 1 Tim. 5:10, the context of the passage indicates that the hospitality of widows was a form of patronage;120 hospitality is included as a "good deed" and elsewhere in the Pastorals (1 Tim. 6:18; Tit. 3:14) the phrase καλόν έργον implies material help.
Further, Abraham Malherbe, Raymond Brown, and Judith Lieu (whose treatments we shall discuss in more detail in our discussion of the setting implied in