Daniel - 1

An Evaluation of Paul's Theology as It Relates to "Anti-Household" Attitudes

Terri Daniel

Marylhurst University, SSC 454: Epistles

Instructor: Dr. Daniel Lioy

17 August, 2013

Daniel - 2

An Evaluation of Paul's Theology as It Relates to "Anti-Household" Attitudes

1. Introduction

Perhaps one of the biggest questions facing the faithful when examining the origins of

Christianity is this… are we following Jesus, or are we following Paul?

As information about Christian history becomes more publicly available through mass

media, we have opportunities to study and compare scriptural passages in ways that were not

possible prior to the internet. As a result, some have discovered that Christianity as we know it

today was clearly shaped by Paul, and as McKnight points out, many "have made a move from

Paul to Jesus" (McKnight). But questions still remain about the exact teachings that are being

followed, and some of Paul's most controversial doctrines have to do with sexuality and the role

of women in the church and in society… a topic which Jesus, to the best of our knowledge, did

not address.

In this paper, we will examine one of the most confusing of Paul's doctrines, which is

referred to by Yale theology professor Dr. Dale Martin as the "anti-household" Pauline

teachings. To understand what this means, we must first look at its opposite… the "household"

teachings that aligned with Jewish and Roman cultural norms that encourage and support

marriage, family life, wine drinking and healthy sexuality. The writings attributed to Paul often

contradict this position, particularly in the Pastoral Epistles and in The Acts of Paul and Thecla,

in which the writer (believed to be someone other than Paul himself) strongly advises celibacy –

even within marriage -- and a solitary life. In these writings, Paul (or the person writing as Paul)

preached "anti-household" ideas that promoted an ascetic lifestyle in which followers were asked

to deny their sexuality and abstain from earthly pleasures related to food, drink and other

Daniel - 3

indulgences.

This paradox is relevant to today's world because sex has become an issue that is

frequently tagged with a Christian identifier. Many Christians today have taken the value of

sexual abstinence to such extremes that fathers give their daughters "purity rings" to seal a bond

of virginity until marriage (Oppenheimer), and many Christian leaders agree with Dr. Archibald

Hart's declaration that "The greatest challenge facing the Christian church in this century lies in

the area of sexuality" (Hart).

The avoidance of sex (other than adultery) is not taught in the Old Testament, and in fact,

sexual encounters were significant events in the stories of many Old Testament heroes. As far as

we know, Jesus never addressed sexuality either, and in fact, he forgave adulterers (John 8:10-

11), even though adultery was punishable by death according to Jewish law. But many of Paul's

teachings did not allow for sexual expression of any kind, and as a result, according to Martin,

for the first 1500 years of the church (prior to the Reformation), celibacy was considered

superior to sex, even within marriage, except for the necessity of procreation. While today's

Christianity places marriage, family and patriotism on a pedestal, many of the documents

attributed to Paul actually attack these ideas in favor of celibacy, asceticism and questioning the

law (Martin, Lecture 20).

My position on this issue is that the many contradictory messages we see in Paul's

teachings (other than those that were added by later writers and editors) are the result of the

ever-changing landscape of Paul's personal theology, which was a work-in-progress that

developed as he moved through his travels and his personal growth as an evangelist. Beginning

as a young man, Paul taught and traveled for 30 years. His exposure to other cultures, combined

with the fine-tuning of his sermons and whatever divine revelation he might have received along

Daniel - 4

the way, could certainly have presented a challenge in terms of identifying absolutes in his

beliefs. The fact that he did not actually know Jesus meant that he would have relied on stories

and legends about Jesus' teachings – which would have been open to interpretation -- in order to

form his personal theology. What that leaves Paul with is an evolving theology that would have

been subject to change as Paul matured as a teacher. In studying of Paul's writings, it is easy to

see that a good deal of what he taught does not appear to come directly from the teachings of

Jesus. This is particularly obvious when examining Paul's anti-household ideas.

2. Overarching Tenets of Paul’s Anti-Household Attitudes

Paul's theology is difficult to analyze because it is so fraught with ambiguity, especially

his stance on the role of women, marriage and sexuality. As Berry states, "Unraveling Paul's

ethical anthropology is not an easy task. While the individual aspects of Paul's thought seem to

be related to one another, the exact nature of these relationships is never clearly defined" (Berry,

2). Even the author of the book of 2 Peter felt that he had to issue a caveat about Paul's teachings

when he said in 3:15-16, "Just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God

gave him… his letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and

unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (Smith, 77).

These hard-to-understand teachings must have been particularly baffling to Paul's audiences

when it came to his household vs. anti-household positions, which have more to do with social

and family structures than with theology.

It is important here to understand the word "household" as it is used in this context. In

Martin's analysis, most of the material in the undisputed Pauline epistles allow for marriage and

family life (pro-household), though primarily as an outlet for one's sexual urges and not as a

recommended lifestyle. Paul acknowledges that although he wishes it were otherwise, marriage

Daniel - 5

and sexual activity is necessary (1 Cor: 2-6), but he makes it clear that celibacy is a superior

choice (1 Cor: 7:8 and 7:28). By the time the Pastoral Epistles were written – toward the end of

Paul's ministry – the idea of "household" was applied to the church itself rather than to the

citizens, following a patriarchal structure modeled after a typical family at the time, with men in

the lead, followed women, then children and then slaves (Martin, Lecture 19). Paul (or the

writer) used this household structure as a metaphor for the church, so that the church became the

center of daily life rather than the family, and the passions of sexuality would be redirected into

passion for God (anti-household). As Bristow states, "Paul lifted up the relationship of Christ and

the church as a new model for marriage" (35).

But in developing this symbolic transference, Paul contradicts himself frequently, which

suggests that his theology very likely evolved progressively as he traveled around and was

exposed to new ideas from within the diverse communities he visited. Meeks reminds us that the

cities in which Paul preached were all on a major Roman road or in a major seaport. As great

trading centers, these locales would have been filled with people from a variety of cultures and

religious beliefs, so it is entirely possible that Paul's theology was influenced in some way by this

exposure (Meeks). But while the ongoing process of developing a personal theology may

account for some of the contradictions in Paul's epistles, a more likely explanation is that much

of the anti-household material was not written by Paul at all, but by later writers. However,

Brown suggests that if we try to reconcile Paul's conflicting ideas in an attempt to show that later

documents were written by someone else, we are excluding the possibility that Paul might have

simply changed his mind (437).

Ehrman identifies several passages in the undisputed Pauline documents that strongly

indicate the presence of other writers. One example is 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, in which women

Daniel - 6

are forbidden to teach or speak in church (an idea repeated in1 Timothy 2:11-15, which was

written by a second-generation follower of Paul). This idea is in direct opposition to Paul's

message in 1 Cor: 11:5 where he gives explicit instructions to women about the proper way to

pray and prophesy, and also contradicts his support of a female follower (Thecla) as a teacher

and apostle (Acts of Paul and Thecla, 10). Ehrman points out that the "anti-woman" passages in

1 Cor (verses 34 and 35) appear in a different sequences in various Greek and Latin manuscripts,

and some scholars believe they were margin notes added by scribes, inserted in different places

by different editors. This becomes glaringly apparent if we remove 34 and 35, and see that

without them, the passage actually makes sense and stays in context. The two verses come out of

nowhere and are completely out of context (Ehrman, 2005, 183). In fact, as Martin observes,

some Bible translations actually have these verses in brackets because the editors are unsure of

whether these comments were part of the original letter to Corinthians (Martin, Lecture 19).

In the same way that Ehrman notices the two anomalous lines regarding women in 1 Cor

34 and 35, Smith (69) identifies a similar piece of editing in 2 Cor 6:14–15. Here, in the middle

of an impassioned speech to the Corinthians about the integrity of his mission, Paul changes

direction and admonishes his audience against marriage between people of different faiths,

saying "Do not be yoked with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in

common?" After this apparent insertion by editors, the passage returns to its original topic.

The following chart offers selected examples of Paul's conflicting messages (and the

possible influence of editors) concerning marriage and the role of women in the church:

Daniel - 7

Pro-Household Anti-Household

1 Corinthians: 2-6But since sexual immorality is occurring, each manshould have sexual relations with his own wife, and eachwoman with her own husband. 3 The husband shouldfulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wifeto her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority overher own body but yields it to her husband. In the sameway, the husband does not have authority over his ownbody but yields it to his wife. 5

1 Timothy 4: 1-3But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some willfall away from the faith, paying attention to … men whoforbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foodswhich God has created to be gratefully shared in bythose who believe and know the truth.

Ephesians 5:31: For this reason a man will leave hisfather and mother and be united to his wife, and the twowill become one flesh.

1 Timothy 2:15 - But women will be saved throughchildbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holinesswith propriety.

Acts of Paul and Thecla 10: Paul replied to her[Thecla], Go and teach the word of the Lord.

Acts of Paul and Thecla 1:Blessed are the bodies and souls of virgins, for they areacceptable to God and shall not lose the reward of theirvirginity, for the word of their Father shall proveeffectual to their salvation in the day of his Son, andthey shall enjoy rest forevermore.

Blessed are they that abandon their secular enjoyments,for they shall be accepted of God.

Blessed are they who have wives as though they hadthem not, for they shall be made angels of God.1

Blessed are they, who for the love of Christ abandon theglories of the world.

Acts of Paul and Thecla 12: There can be no futureresurrection, unless you continue in chastity and do notdefile your flesh.

Acts of Paul and Thecla 12: There can be no futureresurrection, unless you continue in chastity and do notdefile your flesh.

1 Tim 2:12: I permit no woman to teach or to haveauthority over men.

One important contradiction found by many scholars is that the idea of women being

forbidden to preach or speak in church is contrary to not only Paul's support of Thecla as an

apostle and teacher, but also his identification of a woman named "Junia" as an apostle in

Romans 16:7. Because some interpreters did not accept the idea of a female apostle, they argued

that Junia was actually a man, so translated the name into the male form, "Junius." But while

Junia was a common name for a woman in in the ancient world, there is no evidence that the

name Junius was common for men, or that it even existed at all (Ehrman, 2005, 185).

Clearly, Paul was involved in dialogs with both men and women in his travels, and as

described by Antionette Witre, some of those women may have been prophets with "a Gnostic,

1 Martin (Lecture 20) suggests that because angels are genderless (without genitalia), being made into angels impliesbeing immune to sexual impulses.

Daniel - 8

Sophia-based theology as a feminine incarnation of wisdom" (qtd. in Smith, 63). In 1 Cor 12: 1-

11, he acknowledges that the "brothers and sisters" to whom he addressed his comments were

equally capable of certain divine gifts such as healing, prophecy and miraculous powers, and that

all these are the work of one and the same Spirit. He also gives a similar message in Galatians

3:28: "There is neither....Jew nor Greek,...slave nor free,...male nor female, for you are all one in

Christ Jesus." Scholars agree that these words were written by Paul, so here again, it is possible

that later writers and redactors intervened with a specific agenda to exclude women.

If we ignore the arguable policy of excluding women for a moment and interpret the anti-

household codes to mean that if we are truly aligned with spirit, the needs of the flesh are

secondary, then there may be some logic to this stance. It is important to note that the word

"flesh" in some contexts is translated from the Greek "sarx" as referring to the generally sinful

state of human beings, which has the power to present opposition to the Spirit (Bible Gateway).

Berry tells us that Paul saw all humanity as being enslaved by sin (Rom 6:20; 7:14), but despite

his references to sin, Paul does not really define it theologically (Berry, 4). Instead, he identifies

specific behaviors -- such as what we find in Galatians 5:16-23 -- that can distract humanity from

a devoted focus on spirit, including sexual immorality, enmity, jealousy, anger, envy and

drunkenness. He offers in place of these behaviors, the virtues of love, joy, peace, kindness and

self-control. We can interpret this passage to mean that if we live in the heart (spirit), we are

aligned with the divine, but if we are attached to things that serve the ego (flesh), we experience

a sense of separation from the divine. He even goes so far as to identify circumcision as an ego-

based attachment in Gal 6:12-15:

"Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel

you to be circumcised.... Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want

Daniel - 9

you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh… Neither

circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation."

As is so often true with scripture, literal interpretation gets us into trouble. Paul's use of

the phrase "the new creation" apparently caused confusion among his audiences, as some,

according to Brown, might have interpreted this to mean that the former laws were no longer in

effect. This is illustrated in the story of a man wanting to marry his stepfather's widow in 1 Cor

5. Many scholars think that Gentile converts interpreted Paul's comments about freedom to mean

that the old rules of behavior no longer applied (Brown, 518). This presents another source of

confusion about Paul's theology in general, and his household codes in particular.

3. Strengths of Paul’s Theology as It Relates to Anti-Household Attitudes

The primary strength of Paul's anti-sex, anti-household views is that these ideas may have

kept people focused on God and on a more harmonious world with an elevated perspective

beyond material concerns. This is a pillar in many faith traditions, and in Paul's time, it supported

the new church by diverting men and women away from household life to devote themselves

more fully to building a religious community.

It is important to look at Paul's anti-household teaching within the context of his personal

theology. He believed that the world as he knew it would soon end (1 Cor 7:31), and that

Christians had to prepare for this by learning to live differently, shifting their attention from the

material and mundane to the kingdom of Heaven. Ellis says, "While Paul does not forbid

marriage or call for divorce (1 Cor: 36-39), he does point out that, given the troubles of the time,

celibacy, for those who have the gift, is a great practical advantage" (90).

If we look at the writings that support women embarking on a spiritual path, particularly

The Acts of Paul and Thecla, we get a sense that the writer was struggling to give women a

Daniel - 10

significant role in this new world and in the new church. According to Aageson (238),

Tertullian's account suggests that Thecla – a young noblewoman who became a devoted apostle

of Paul -- served as an example of the authority of women to teach and baptize. If Thecla is an

example, then the strengths of these teachings are many, since Thecla perfectly fit the anti-

household profile. She rejected marriage, remained a virgin, walked away from her family's

wealth and lived an ascetic life as a follower of Paul. She represented the ability of women to not

only choose their own paths, but to serve as apostles and teachers. But we can see when looking

at the editing that was done later to the epistles, there was considerable the resistance to this idea,

and this may be the reason why The Acts of Paul and Thecla was not included in the canon.

In Paul's defense (or in defense of whomever inserted the phrases about the sublimation

of women), the idea of female inferiority was far from original. In the new world Paul

envisioned, all were equal, but in order to create that world, as Bristow describes, "Paul had to

tear down a number of walls which Greek culture and philosophy had erected between people—

including walls between men and women, husbands and wives" (28). Breaking down those walls

was no easy task, since the cultures that influenced Paul were based in ancient teachings that

included Genesis 3:16 ("Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you"); the

teachings of Aristotle ("The courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in

obeying"); and the declaration of Socrates that women are the weaker sex and that being born a

woman is a divine punishment (Bristow, 29). Steeped in this type of cultural indoctrination, Paul

faced many challenges, as evidenced by the fact that redactors very likely changed his words to

align with the popular thinking of the time.

Thecla exhibited a type independence that would not have been considered fitting for

women in an early Christian worldview. Yet it was apparently acceptable for her to have power

Daniel - 11

and freedom simply based on her wealth and noble status. Vander Stichele and Penner (qtd. in

Bain, 60), observe that in the world of Paul, class and wealth could overrule gender, so women

from the upper class could function in public roles (or in Thecla's case, as an apostle) without

breaking the rules. If Paul truly believed that women should obey their husbands and be quiet in

church, then Thecla challenged those ideas in the extreme. The fact that she was there beside him

as a living example of the ascetic ideal gives strength to his anti-household teachings.

4. Weaknesses of Paul’s Theology as It Relates to Anti-Household Attitudes

In the next section I will discuss two primary weaknesses in Paul's anti-household

position. The first (a) is that neither Jesus nor the Old Testament taught these ideas, and the

second (b) is that Paul himself does not even seem sure about what he is teaching.

4 a. Neither Jesus nor the Old Testament Taught These Ideas

The Jesus of the gospels (canonized and otherwise), loved, accepted and forgave

everybody. Fornicators, adulterers, lepers and others -- who would have been considered unclean

or inappropriate according to Old Testament law -- had a prominent place in the stories of his

ministry. When looking at those stories as literature, it would seem that the writers included

those characters specifically to illustrate that this "new" idea of god, unlike the angry, punitive

Yahweh, loves and accepts humanity unconditionally. But Paul entered the picture with a long

list of conditions, and although he was fervent and passionate in his preaching, there is so much

contradiction in his writings that it seems reasonable to conclude that he was creating and

modifying his theology as he went along. In the process, the actual teachings of Jesus may have

been lost, if Paul even knew of those teachings at all.

In terms of what Jesus taught, Ehrman summarizes the entirety of Jesus' message as

follows (2009, 237):

Daniel - 12

"… In order to enter this kingdom, Jesus told the Jewish crowds, they needed to

do what God had commanded in the Jewish law. Specifically, they needed to carry out

the two greatest commandments of the law: love God with all their hearts (Deut 6:4-6)

and love their neighbors as themselves (Lev 19:18)."

If we study the actual sayings of Jesus, we can see that they stay within this framework,

and that they do not include anything about sexual behavior, marriage and the role of women in

"the church," since of course, there was no church, and Jesus by all probability did not intend to

start one. We do not know that he intended to change social or community structures either

(though following his teachings might have done that by default), or alter the way Roman

households were organized. But Paul was quite committed to these changes, and Smith suggests

that the primary challenge for him in terms of sexual roles was that the liberation for all offered

by the gospel would have to include women. In order to bring that liberation to women,

traditional roles would have to be disrupted (64). We cannot say for certain, or even

speculatively, that this type of disruption was Jesus' intention, and therein lies a primary

weakness in Paul's anti-household position.

In trying to determine whether Paul's anti-household ideas were valuable, we have to first

be convinced that they were, in fact, his own ideas. If he was indeed in favor of women as

teachers and marriage as a metaphor for becoming one with God, then these are very positive

doctrines, in which "the bodily life of a marriage becomes an instrument for the glorification of

God" (Byrne, 616). But since we are unsure of exactly what Paul said, wrote or taught, we are

faced with an inability to reconcile these conflicts. De Vos wrote in The Reformed Journal, "One

is left with a choice of two views: either the New Testament prohibitions are culturally

influenced and full equality is the eternal will of God, or the prohibitions are the eternal will of

Daniel - 13

God and this statement of equality is in some way culturally bound or mistaken or mistranslated"

(11). This is a quandary to which there is no obvious solution. In Instone's, review of William

Loader's Sexuality and the Jesus Tradition, he points out that "Paul did not automatically assume

that Jesus' teaching could be applied to all new contexts. By saying 'I say, not the Lord,' (1 Cor

7:12), Paul accepted that Jesus' teaching may not apply in this new circumstance… and he

implied that his own opinion was also an important consideration for determining Christian

ethics independently of the teaching of Jesus…" (Instone, 323).

Further on this topic, N.T. Wright's assessment of Paul's basic theological premise is that

"What the creator/covenant god was supposed to do for Israel at the end of history, this god had

done for Jesus in the middle of history." Wright goes on to say:

"Jesus as an individual, instead of Israel as a whole, had been vindicated, raised

from the dead… in the middle of ongoing 'exilic' history, not at its end. This by itself

would have been enough, I think, to propel a Jewish thinker to the conclusion that Jesus

had somehow borne Israel’s destiny by himself, and was somehow its representative." If

this is true, that what authority did Paul have to make up these new rules? (33).

In terms of whether or not Paul's teachings aligned with those of Jesus, Aslan observes

that Paul's characterization of Jesus as a divine, non-human being who could elevate followers to

a similar status would have been shocking and offensive to Jews at the time (205), but more

importantly, the idea of becoming divine through Jesus has "no basis in any writings about Jesus

that are even remotely contemporary with Paul's, a firm indication that Paul's Christ was likely

his own creation" (206).

4 b. Paul Himself Does Not Even Seem Sure About What He is Teaching

Daniel - 14

As mentioned earlier, Paul's theology was likely a work-in-progress influenced by his

exposure to other cultures and his own evolving ideas. One striking doctrinal conflict between

Jesus and Paul is their positions on divorce. Old Testament law, to which Jesus encouraged

allegiance, makes it very clear that divorce and remarriage is acceptable (Deut 24:1) and in fact,

even mandatory under certain conditions (such as adultery, which was punishable by death). But

Paul takes a strong stand against divorce, except in cases where one partner is a non-believer, in

which case Paul thought it was perfectly fine for a marriage to end if both partners are not

aligned in Christ (1 Cor 7:15).

In Paul's writings, we can see him changing his mind about certain issues right before our

eyes. In one example, he seems unclear about whether it is proper to judge others (despite Jesus'

teaching in Luke 6:37 that says “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and

you will not be condemned"). In 1 Cor 5:9-11 Paul commands the Corinthians to stop associating

with people who are "immoral, greedy, swindlers, or idolaters," and tells them to "not even eat

with such people." In this statement, he is judging all of those outside the new faith as being

unsuitable companions, but in the very next verse (12-13) he says, "What business is it of mine

to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" We can clearly hear him

struggling with this paradox.

As we explored earlier, Paul also seemed unsure of where he stood on the question of

household vs. anti-household behavior codes. We know that many of the anti-household

teachings were likely added by later writers and redactors, so if we separate what we believe to

be Paul's words from those of later writers, we see that Paul does not necessarily insist that all

Christians be celibate, but allows for "the essential goodness of marriage and sex and for those

Daniel - 15

who are called to it, the goodness of celibacy (Ellis, 91). Ellis goes on to say that on this reading,

much support for a claim that Paul takes a dim view of marriage vanishes.

Perhaps the greatest problem in understanding Paul's theology is that his letters are what

Arp calls "one half of a dialog" (58). They were written at a time and in a context that modern

readers cannot fully comprehend, and the confusion in interpreting them is due to the fact that as

half of a dialog, we are hearing the answers, but not the questions. Yet despite hearing only half

of the dialog, we can still see that Paul struggled with some of his own ideas. He preached unity

and inclusion, but there is a "separateness" at the core of Jewish theology that might have

presented a challenge for him when exploring the idea of all being unified in Jesus. If the

populations Paul was addressing were Pagans, many of their beliefs and sacred ceremonies

would have honored sex, fertility and the feminine aspect of the divine. To say that this view is

no longer acceptable would have been shocking to people who had embraced it for centuries, so

Paul may have needed to adapt his ideas for these populations.

5. Conclusion

John Dominic Crossan says, "After Paul's death, followers imagined him in new

situations and had him respond to new problems -- as if in a seamless-- if fictional -- continuity

from past into present and future" (Crossan). The essential question now is, how relevant are

these household codes to Christians today?

Ehrman reminds us that the canon of scripture was a human creation (2009, 227), and

Paul, whose contribution to the canon cannot be discounted, was a human man trying to provide

instructions on how to live according to his interpretation of what Jesus taught. The writers and

editors of the epistles were trying to establish a baseline of theological truth, but as Aageson so

Daniel - 16

astutely states, "No single trajectory or polarity or notion of authority can capture this complexity

by itself (247).

How can we ever know for certain what Jesus actually taught, or more specifically, what

Paul actually knew of what Jesus taught? As McKnight says, "An increasing tension remains

among evangelicals about who gets to set the terms: Jesus or Paul?" (McKnight).

To explore this question, the Gospel of Thomas (abbreviated here as GTh) might reveal

some insight, as some scholars see it as the "first voice" of Christian tradition (Patterson). Here,

in the sayings of Jesus, unfettered by myth or narrative, we may find the truest source of his

actual teachings. He spoke (often in parables and metaphors) about deep metaphysical concepts,

such as how "this heaven and the one above it" would pass away, and the Gnostic idea of being

created as one and then separating into two (11). He told his disciples to explain to followers that

they "came from the light where the light came into being by itself" (50). And when asked by the

disciples about the end of the world, he gave an answer eerily similar to a Zen Koan: "Have you

found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the

beginning is" (18). He also told his disciples that it was not necessary to fast, pray or give to

charity (6 and 14), and when asked if a special diet should be observed, he said, "When you go

into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve

you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you;

rather, it is what comes out of your mouth that will defile you" (14).

As far as we know, Jesus did not utter a word about sexual behavior, whether it is better

to marry or not marry, or if an ascetic life is better than family life. So where might the

disconnect have occurred? Assuming that Paul was familiar with some of the sayings recorded in

Thomas, perhaps he based some of his anti-household teachings on GTh 49: "Jesus said,

Daniel - 17

"Congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the kingdom," and GTh

87: "How miserable is the body that depends on a body, and how miserable is the soul that

depends on these two."

One of issues with which Paul appears to have struggled was the question of circumcision

for Gentile converts. As he evolved his interpretation and understanding of the world Jesus

envisioned, he came to exclude this requirement for Gentiles because they had no obligation to

Jewish law (Brown, 431). It was certainly a conundrum for Paul, because as Brown tells us, in

Paul's time, Judaism was defined on legalistic grounds, and people's righteousness depended on

their observance of the law (578). So releasing the obligation for circumcision would have

contradicted that definition of righteousness. At the same time, the kingdom preached by Jesus

was open to all, simply by virtue of having faith. Despite the conflict, Paul firmly denied the

value of circumcision when he said, "I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised,

Christ will be of no value to you at all" (Galatians 5:2), and he also attempted to cast it in a

symbolic rather than physical light by referring to "circumcision of the heart" (Romans 2:25-29).

Perhaps he was encouraged by this passage in GTh 53: "His disciples said to him, "Is

circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce

children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has

become profitable in every respect."

Does this make a reasonable case for the idea that Paul might have been familiar with the

sayings recorded in Thomas? Because Jesus does not speak against circumcision or in favor of

celibacy (or something like it) anywhere else. Similarly, in Colossians 12, Paul claims that

regulations about what to touch and eat lack any value in teaching how to restrain sensual

indulgence, which echoes Thomas' saying #14.

Daniel - 18

In terms of the specific anti-household codes explored here, since we cannot say for

certain what Paul really believed or intended when sharing this teaching, I offer two primary

conclusions:

1. Paul's theology was a work-in-progress that developed as he expanded his ministry,

and this, along with the contributions of later writers and redactors, accounts for the many

discrepancies and contradictions we find in the household codes.

2. Paul's teachings were not necessarily based on the teachings of Jesus, and in fact, as

Aslan states, Paul offered a completely new set of ideas and doctrines that would have been

"utterly unrecognizable to the person upon whom he claims it is based" (200).

In closing, Chryssavgis reminds us that when studying scripture, we must constantly

remember and explore the "historical context and fundamental reason that determined a particular

reaction or defined a particular response, even if the final result is a rejection thereof " (118).

6. Works Cited

Aageson, James W. "The Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of Paul: A Multiplex Approach to

Authority in Paul's Legacy." Lexington Theological Quarterly 40.4 (2005): 237-48. Print.

This article examines the ways in which Paul's legacy developed in and through the

epistles, and the authors argues that a multi-layered approach is need when attempting to

understanding early Christianity.

Arp, William. "Preaching the Epistles." Journal of Ministry & Theology 17.1 (2013): 57- 78.

Print. This article is designed to teach pastors how to preach the Epistles.

Aslan, Reza. Zealot: The Life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Random House, 2013.

Print. A new book (2013) by a highly-credentialed religious scholar on the historical

Daniel - 19

Jesus. The book's premise is that Jesus was a zealot with a political agenda as well as

a spiritual one.

Bain, Katherine. "Socioeconomic Status in Early Christianity and Thecla's Rejection of

Marriage." Bain proposes that gender must always be considered as a factor is

understanding the socio-economic elements in the setting of any theological research, and

specifically cites The Acts of Paul and Thecla.

Berry, Wade. "Paul, People, and Pointing the Way: Exploring the Relationship between Paul's

Anthropology and His Practice of Leadership." Restoration Quarterly 52.1 (2010):

1-17. Print. This article focuses primarily on Paul's view of sin.

"Bible Gateway." 1 Corinthians 5. Web. 18 Aug. 2013. <http://www.biblegateway.com/>.

This reference is to a footnote about 1 Cor: 5 regarding the translation of the word "flesh"

from Greek.

Bristow, John Temple. "St Paul's Radical Model for Christian Marriage." Impact.20 (1988): 28-

40. Print. Bristow examines Paul's radical new model for marriage by examining

language such as the husband being the "head" of the wife and the couple being "subject

to" one another.

Brown, Raymond Edward. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday,

1997. Print. An exhaustive and brilliant compilation of analyses of the New Testament,

book-by-book.

Byrne, Brendan. "Sinning Against One's Own Body : Paul's Understanding of the Sexual

Relationship in 1 Corinthians 6:18." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45.4 (1983): 608-16.

Print. This article focuses on the passages related to fornication in 1 Cor 6:12-20,

particularly the verbiage in verse 18, which says, "Every sin which a man commits is

Daniel - 20

outside the body; but the man committing fornication sins against his own body." The

author explores the meaning of "body" (soma) as "the whole person" rather than just the

physical form.

Chryssavgis, John. "Epistles of Inclusion: St. Paul's Inspired Attitudes." Religious Studies

Review 37.2 (2011): 118-9. Print. This is a review of a book by W. Graham Monteith,

which focuses on Paul's beliefs about inclusion.

Crossan, John Dominic. "The Search for the Historical Paul: Which Letters Did He Really

Write?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 05 July 2011. Web. 17 Aug. 2013.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-dominic-crossan/apostle-paul-

letters_b_890387.html>. This blog post from Crossan discusses the Pauline vs. Pseudo

Pauline documents, and points out the difference between the "conservative" and the

"radical" Paul that is expressed in the various documents.

De Vos, Karen Helder. "The Place of Women: A Look at the Biblical Evidence." Reformed

Journal 22.3 (1972): 7-12. Print In this article, De Vos analyzes the equality (or lack

thereof) of women in the bible, with the hope that theologians will carefully study the

texts, taking fully into account the cultural conditions of the day and their own prejudices.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New

York: Harper San Francisco, 2005. Print. This book presents a truthful and radical look at

how the bible was written, and by whom, from the perspective of a former fundamentalist

who is now one of the world's leading New Testament scholars.

Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and

Why We Don't Know about Them). New York: HarperOne, 2009. Print. This was

Ehrman's follow up to Misquoting Jesus. In this book Ehrman shines a spotlight on

contradictions throughout the NT scriptures.

Daniel - 21

Ellis, J. E. "Controlled Burn: The Romantic Note in 1 Corinthians 7." Perspectives in Religious

Studies 29.1 (2002): 89-98. Print. This is an excellent "alternative" view of Paul's

position on sex and marriage, aligning those views with influences from ancient Greek

romantic/erotic novels.

Hart, Archibald. "The Christian Man's Battle with His Sexuality." Editorial. Ministry Today

July 2002: n. pag. The Christian Man's Battle with His Sexuality. Web. 18 July 2013.

<https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2002/07/the-christian-mans-battle-with-his-

sexuality.html>. The author, a Dean Emeritus at Fuller Theological Seminary, advises

Christian men -- especially pastors -- on how to combat their sexual urges.

Instone-Brewer, David. "Attitudes To Sexuality In The Teachings Of Christ." Expository Times

117.8 (2006): 322-324. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. Web. 21 July 2013.

This is a review of William Loader's book, Sexuality and the Jesus Tradition, in which

the author points out that He points out that Jesus is not shown to reject the

passions of lust and anger,

Martin, Dale. Lecture 19. The "Household" Paul: The Pastorals. Yale Open University, New

Haven, Connecticut. 7 July 2013. YouTube, 02 Sept. 2009. Web. 08 July 2013.

http://www.dnatube.com/video/23133/Lec-19--The-Household. This material is from the

online Yale class, Introduction to the New Testament, which I listened to over a period of

several weeks.

Martin, Dale. Lecture 20. The "Anti-household" Paul: Thecla." Lecture. Introduction to New

Testament (RLST 152). Yale Open University, New Haven, CT. 10 July 2013. 02 Sept.

2009. Web. 10 July 2013. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htuls07h3CA>. This material is

from the same online Yale class, Introduction to the New Testament, mentioned above.

Daniel - 22

Meeks, Wayne A., L. Michael White, and Holland Lee Hendrix. "Paul's Mission and

Letters." PBS. PBS, Apr. 1998. Web. 08 July 2013.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/missions.html>. This is a

commentary based on interviews with several scholars in response to the PBS

documentary, From Jesus to Christ.

McKnight, Scott. "Christianity Today." Christianity Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 July 2013.

<http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/december/9.25.html>. In this article,

McKnight examines the question of whether Jesus and Paul preached two different

doctrines about the kingdom of heaven vs. acts of faith.

Oppenheimer, Mark. "Purity Balls’ Get Attention, but Might Not Be All They Claim." New

York Times 20 July 2012: n. pag. Web. 18 July 2013.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/purity-balls-local-tradition-or-national-

trend.html?_r=0>. This New York Times article points out that Purity Balls are not as

popular or prominent as many have been led to believe.

Patterson, Stephen, and Marvin Meyer. "The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- Translations and

Resources." The Gnostic Society Library, n.d. Web. 12 Aug. 2013.

<http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html>. This is a translation of the Gospel of

Thomas from the Nag Hammadhi collection. Some orthodox views hold that this was

written in the late-second or third century, but scholars largely reject that view in favor

of seeing it as the "first voice" of the Christian tradition.

Smith, Dennis Edwin. Chalice Introduction to the New Testament. St. Louis, MO:

Chalice, 2004. Print. An excellent overview of the content and organization of the New

Testament.

Daniel - 23

Wright, N.T., Hay M. David, and Elizabeth Johnson. Pauline Theology, Volume III.

Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Print. This section (pp. 30-67) was reproduced online at

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf. In the section, Wright

analyzes Paul's letter to the Romans through a strictly theological lens based on the

worldview of the Jews at the time.