Skip to main content

The Paterfamilias and Family Faith: The Case of 1 Cor 7:12


It is often argued by those considering mission in the early church that the religion of the paterfamilias defined the family religion. Pearson notes that the chief gods of a home were spirits including the Genius (cf. guardian angel), the Lar Domesticus, and the Penates. The fire hearth was the center of the family cult. Images were made and placed around the hearth. Family prayers and offerings were made here especially by the father, the pater. At mealtimes, the gods were thanked, and portions thrown in the fire for these and other gods. The whole of domestic life revolved around this domestic cult under the leadership of the paterfamilias, the father of the household.[1] This tightknit family religion was broken down to some degree by the time of Christ especially within the context of voluntary associations (Collegia). Yet, some scholars like Pearson see the baptism of whole families in Acts (e.g., Acts 16:14–15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16) as indications of the paterfamilias or materfamilias defining the family religion, hence, whole families converted and were baptized without a full understanding the faith.[2]

Yet, in 1 Cor 7:12–16, Paul posits a situation where there is a Christian man married to an unbelieving woman. This suggests that the social power of the male to impose religious belief on his wife was not followed. Furthermore, the Christian believer is instructed to remain in the marriage to the unbeliever of she is willing to remain in the relationship.

This suggests that the authority of the husband in Paul’s eyes did not include forcing the wife to convert to Christ and be baptized. She must come of her own volition. This supports the idea that conversion was to be voluntary and not coerced. This shows that while religious conversion could be collective, Paul’s vision is for individual decision to convert. This is a marked change from the social context where religion was tied to family and civic structures. We see the idea of individual conversion as central to Paul’s vision. We also this also in Philemon where Onesimus is a slave of Philemon, but until his conversion as a runaway with Paul, was not converted.

It also means that if Paul did consider the husband the head of the wife in an authority sense, it did not extend to enforcing religious adherence. Rather, the wife and we can presume slaves (see above), were to make their own decision to convert not to convert on the basis of the father’s adoption of the Christian faith.

As the passage unfolds, the unbelieving wife is in some sense made holy through the believing husband as are the children. Hence, while there is no compulsion to convert, Paul sees some benefit from being in the home with a Christian parent (the same applies to believing wives). This is likely due to the influence of the Holy Spirit present in the life of the believer. This creates missional possibilities and, in some sense, brings the family of the believer under the protection of God.
While some read 1 Cor 7:16 pessimistically, I read it optimistically. Paul wishes the believing spouse to remain with their unbelieving marriage partner in the hope that they will be saved through their witness and the work of the Holy Spirit.

We also need to take into mind the household codes of Eph 5–6 and Col 3. In Eph 6:4, the paterfamilias is instructed to bring up the children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. So, while the child is not to be coerced into the Christian faith, the child is instructed in it until one presumes the age of being able to make his or her own decision.  

All in all, the sociological assumption that many who converted in the early church did so through their fathers (and less so their mothers) may be true. But here we see that Paul did not want coerced faith through parents or husband to wives and vice versa. He imagined believers sometimes in marital relationships with unbelievers and remaining so even if the spouse does not convert. His hope is that through the believer, the unbelieving spouse will come willingly to Christ. It seems the same applied to slaves. Hence, we should be wary of assuming that in all situations, where there was a husband who believed, it is axiomatic that the rest were Christians. If they followed Paul’s advice, then this would not be the case. Their conversion was to be voluntary and not coerced.  


[1] Brook W. R. Pearson, “Domestic Religion and Practices,” in DNTB 299.
[2] Pearson, “Domestic Religions,” 301.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ten Reasons Why A.J. Miller is NOT Jesus!

Note: Forgive me for the long blog, but this one really got me going! Last Sunday night on TV One's Sunday aired the report A.J. The Messiah. The program was the story of A.J. Miller in Queensland in Australia, who, unlike most of us, genuinely believes that he is Jesus. Miller appears at one level to be a normal Aussie bloke, in his early thirties, longish brown hair, unshaven, good looking, articulate and charismatic. Yet, unlike anyone I know but in the manner of other Messiah-claimants, he says without inhibition, "I am actually Jesus." He claims to remember vividly his former life and death including his experience of crucifixion. The memories supposedly began when he was 2 years old and realised later that he was Jesus around 33. In the program he writes on a white-board, "I am Jesus. Deal with it"—to applause from his congregation. He has disciples, some of whom claim to have been with him 2000 years ago including Mary Magdalene who is his "soul-ma

Tribute to Stuart Lange

For anyone who is interested, I have attached my tribute to Rev Stuart Lange here. He is a legend! It was fun to roast him.... A Tribute to Stuart Lange, No Longer Vice Principal Community of Laidlaw… But still church history lecturer… so not a good bye, but my way of Saying Thanks to you for your years as VP Community… Stuart Lange, not Langey; or Longey; or not langgggg.. but Lange! Or, as I like to put it, S.lang… Slang… for good reason. Stuart Lange, history prof, a man who truly embodies his subject; the quintessential historical prof… Slightly eccentric, crooked smile, hooked and bent nose… you know he has a crook elbow too, took the dog for a walk, hit the chain, smashed the elbow… Of course the dog was unharmed… No Surprise, a lover of animals, each year looking after the animals at the Massey Christmas drive through, donkeys, lamas… etc… Then there is his Einsteinlich hair… kind of a wild man of Southland look… in fact… Stuart Lange A face a cartoonist would die for! The ne

Evangelical Presbyterians’ Statement On Same Sex Marriage

I am involved in a group called Presbyterian Affirm. It is an evangelical group within the NZ Presbyterian Church which seeks to promote the gospel and the renewal of churches. A group of us under the leadership of Stuart Lange have worked to put together a statement on same-sex marriage. Our hope is that the government will not pass the legislation, believing that the legislation is not necessary and strays from God’s ideals for humanity. Here is the recently released statement. I would appreciate your thoughts on it. PRESBYTERIAN GROUP OPPOSES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL Presbyterian AFFIRM, a widely-supported conservative network within the Presbyterian denomination, is speaking out against the Bill which would allow same-sex couples to marry, declaring its views in a “Statement on Marriage” (see below). Presbyterian AFFIRM believes that “marriage is a unique human institution and treasure” which has “always been about the pairing of a man and a woman”, and that re-definin