Abstract
Elna Mouton has done extensive research on the household codes in the New Testament against the background of Christian African women’s experiences and their callings. She offers perspectives that may suggest an opposing view from that of the New Testament, namely attitudes toward household life that are more healing and wholesome. This viewpoint includes transcending traditional and/or stereotypically gendered understandings of households and the roles individuals are expected to fulfill. Moreover, it depicts earthly households as God’s household where mutual care and liberation take place—thus not merely a social unit that serves to order the practicalities of day-to-day life. In this chapter, I will provide an overview of Mouton’s work on the household codes, taking as my vantage point her monograph entitled, Reading a New Testament Document Ethically (SBL, 2002), which forms the framework of her ethical readings of the Letter to the Ephesians. Such an approach seeks to articulate the type of overarching hermeneutical ethos she proposes for engaging with the household texts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
DJ Smit, “Reading Rightly? On Hermeneutics of Trust, Hope and Commitment,” in Reading Writing Right. Essays Presented in Honour of Prof Elna Mouton, ed. MJ Nel & J Punt (Stellenbosch: SUN PReSS, 2018), 20.
- 2.
Mouton has also published on 1 Timothy 2:8–15, which falls within the broader scope of household code material in the New Testament (cf. AEJ Mouton & E van Wolde, “New Life from a Pastoral Text of Terror? Gender Perspectives on God and Humanity in 1 Timothy 2,” Scriptura 111, no. 3 (2012): 583–601; AEJ Mouton, “Reading a Pastoral ‘Text of Terror’ in Africa Today? 1 Timothy 2:8–15 as a Context-Specific Appropriation of the Creation Story,” in Men in the Pulpit, Women in the Pew? Addressing Gender Inequality in Africa, ed. HJ Hendricks et al. (Stellenbosch: AFRICAN SUN MeDIA, 2012), 115–128; AEJ Mouton, “Mothering Salvation? Gender and Class in Early Christian Household Discourse,” Neotestamentica 50, no. 1 (2016): 1–8.) These publications are valuable perspectives on a text that has been dubbed a “text of terror” by many feminist interpreters—and Mouton is deeply aware of the life-threatening potential of this text when interpreted in service of patriarchal, hierarchical, and exclusivist practices in faith communities. In a 2012 publication she co-authored, Mouton & Van Wolde state the following: “Because the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 has often contributed to an ethos where not only the prophetic contribution of women, but also their humanity and growth as baptised members of God’s household, has been inhibited or viewed as inferior, its appropriation by later generations puts the integrity of the Christian gospel at stake” (Mouton & Van Wolde, “New Life,” 584).
- 3.
AEJ Mouton, “‘n Eksegeties-Hermeneutiese Verkenning van die en Christoo-kernbelydenis by Paulus na aanleiding van Efesiërs 1:3–14” (MA thesis, University of Port Elizabeth, 1987).
- 4.
AEJ Mouton, “The Communicative Power of the Epistle to the Ephesians,” in Rhetoric, Scripture, and Theology, eds. SE Porter & TH Olbricht (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 280–307.
- 5.
AEJ Mouton, “The Transformative Potential of Ephesians in a Situation of Transition,” Semeia 78 (1997): 121–143.
- 6.
AEJ Mouton, Reading a New Testament Document Ethically (Atlanta, GA: SBL; Leiden: Brill, 2002).
- 7.
Mouton, Reading, 287.
- 8.
Mouton, Reading, 288.
- 9.
AEJ Mouton, “Human Dignity as Expression of God Images? Perspectives from/on 1 Corinthians 14 and Ephesians 5,” Neotestamentica 45, no .2 (2011): 275–295.
- 10.
AEJ Mouton, “Reimagining Ancient Household Ethos? On the Implied Rhetorical Effect of Ephesians 5:21–33,” Neotestamentica 48, no. 1 (2014): 163–185.
- 11.
AEJ Mouton & L Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy to Participatory Freedom? The Transformative Potential of the Ephesians Household Code in View of Changing Gender Roles in Kenyan families,” in Living with Dignity: African Perspectives on Gender Equality, eds. AEJ Mouton et al. (Stellenbosch: AFRICAN SUN MeDIA, 2015), 343–375.
- 12.
The New Testament contains a number of texts which appear to reinforce women’s subordination. Aside from Eph 5:21–33, similar sentiments are found in other household code texts such as Col 3:18–4:1; 1 Tim 2:8–15; 1 Pet 2:11–16; 1 and Tit 2:2–10. Texts such as 1 Cor 11:3 and 1 Cor 14:34–35 also point to a worldview in which women are to submit themselves to men or their husbands, in one way or the other—also in worship settings. Although Mouton has also published on 1 Tim 2:8–15, I choose to focus on her perspectives on Eph 5:21–33 (and further), as this falls within her broader scholarly focus on the Letter to the Ephesians. My choice is also informed by my own experiences with the Ephesian household code—a firm favorite in many Christian faith communities as it is seemingly reciprocal. It is also popular as the selected sermon text at wedding ceremonies for this very reason. Such “well-intentioned” patriarchy, in my opinion, is especially persistent in upholding inequality, as a surface-reading of the text seems to serve an ideal of mutual equality. More critical engagements, however, reveal other—less favorable—insights; the proverbial mass of the iceberg which lies below the surface. Below is the text of Ephesians 5:21–6:9:
21 being subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 for the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendour, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own flesh, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”32 This is a great mystery, but I am speaking about Christ and the church. 33 Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.
6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother”—this is the first commandment with a promise— 3 “so that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.” 4 And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ, 6 not with a slavery performed merely for looks, to please people, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the soul. 7 Render service with enthusiasm, as for the Lord and not for humans, 8 knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are enslaved or free.
9 And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Lord in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.
- 13.
Mouton, “Human Dignity,” 275–295.
- 14.
Mouton, “Human Dignity,” 275.
- 15.
Cf. Mouton, “Human Dignity,” 275–276.
- 16.
Mouton, “Human Dignity,” 276.
- 17.
Mouton, “Human Dignity,” 276.
- 18.
Mouton, “Human Dignity,” 277.
- 19.
Mouton, “Human Dignity,” 283–284.
- 20.
Mouton, “Human Dignity,” 284.
- 21.
Mouton, “Human Dignity,” 288.
- 22.
Mouton, “Human Dignity,” 289.
- 23.
Mouton, “Human Dignity,” 289.
- 24.
Mouton, “Reimagining,” 163–164; 165–166.
- 25.
Cf. Mouton, “Reimagining,” 164.
- 26.
Mouton, “Reimagining,” 164–165.
- 27.
Mouton, “Reimagining,” 166.
- 28.
Mouton, “Reimagining,” 166.
- 29.
Mouton does so with reference to Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroads, 1985), 97–241; Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Studies (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 44–102; and Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Transforming Vision. Explorations in Feminist The*logy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 229–242.
- 30.
Mouton, “Reimagining,” 169–180.
- 31.
Mouton, “Reimagining,” 169.
- 32.
The choice of the word “limitations” follows from her use of the work of Virginia Mollenkott who emphasizes that such subjection is limited to that which takes place “in an utterly non-coercive voluntary manner” (Virginia Mollenkott, “Emancipative Elements in Ephesians 5.21–33: Why Feminist Scholarship Has (Often) Left Them Unmentioned, and Why They Should Be Emphasized,” in A Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline Epistles, ed. Amy-Jill Levine & Marianne Blickenstaff (New York; London: Clark, 2003), 46). The focus is thus on the motivation and foundation for subjection, and the agency of the wife. For contemporary readers this may still fall short; yet within the context of the Ephesian household code and the patriarchal world in which it is situated, such a rhetorical thrust of non-violence and agency was profound.
- 33.
Mouton, “Reimagining,” 178–180.
- 34.
Mouton, “Reimagining,” 180–181.
- 35.
Mouton, “Reimagining,” 181.
- 36.
Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 343–375.
- 37.
Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 344.
- 38.
Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 344.
- 39.
Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 349.
- 40.
Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 349.
- 41.
Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 349–350.
- 42.
Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 350.
- 43.
Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 351–353.
- 44.
Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 353.
- 45.
Cf. Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 362–369.
- 46.
Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 370.
- 47.
Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 370–371.
- 48.
Mouton & Mwaniki, “From Patriarchy,” 371.
- 49.
This she originally said during a visit to a congregation, in reaction to the description of a household by a churchgoer as “everyone who shares the same fridge”. She then made the point that not all people living in South Africa have a fridge and that a fireplace is perhaps more inclusive given the South African reality.
- 50.
Mouton describes the choice for intersectionality as a choice “to experience and account for both the richness and complexity, both admiration (trust, hope) and discomfort in the struggle for gender and cosmic justice” (Mouton, “Mothering Salvation, 8).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Müller van Velden, N.E. (2024). Ethical Readings of Elna Mouton: Exploring Gender, Household Code, and Ethos in New Testament Writings. In: Okyere-Manu, B., Lushombo, L. (eds) African Women’s Liberating Philosophies, Theologies, and Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39133-0_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39133-0_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-39132-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-39133-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)