Our passage today revolves around two related themes: reputation, and the good news about Jesus Christ. At first glance, you might not think that's Paul's focus. It's going to seem like Paul is talking about how men, and women, and slaves, should live in relation to one another. But ultimately, it's about reputation, and the gospel. I've tried to make it pretty obvious in the translation (by upping the font size in three places). I think you'll see I'm not making this up. But as we read, keep those two ideas in back of your mind. Okay? Let's start by reading through verse 10. It's a big section, and we might struggle to keep it all together. But we have to do so, in order to hear Paul the right way (we need to hear what Paul says about wives and slaves, all at once):
(1) Now, you, speak what is fitting for sound teaching/instruction:
(2) Older men, level-headed/restrained, to be, respectable, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, in
steadfastness;
(3) older women, likewise, in behavior/demeanor [to be] priestly in manner, not bad-mouthing, not to too
much wine having become enslaved, teaching what is good,
(4) in order that they may encourage/advise/urge the young women to love their husbands and to love
their children. ["love their husbands" is focused], [to be] self-controlled, pure/holy, to carry out household
responsibilities (BDAG), [to be] good/noble, being subject to their own husbands,
in order that the word/message of God may not be criticized/reviled.
(6) the young men, likewise, to encourage/advise/urge to be self-controlled in all things;
yourself presenting/offering [to be] an example of good works,
in your teaching/instruction: soundness, gravity/solemnity/dignity;
(8) a sound word/message beyond reproach,
in order that the one from the opposition may be ashamed/uneasy/made to turn,
nothing having bad/evil to say concerning us. ["nothing" is focused];
(9) slaves, to their own masters to be subject in everything,
pleasing/acceptable to be ["pleasing" is focused],
not contradicting/opposing,
(10) not stealing,
but all good "faith"/loyalty demonstrating,
in order that they may adorn the teaching of our
Savior God in everything.
In these verses, Paul addresses four different groups: older men, older women, younger women, and younger men. The Greek word used for "older" here, is used for people 50+, for what it's worth. If you can get a deal on the coffee at McDonald's, you're "older."
Let me just say a few words about older men and women, based on verses 2-3. Older people are supposed to be models of mature, respectable, level-headed behavior. They don't overreact in tough situations. Their wisdom, and their life experience, gives them the ability to keep things in perspective. In theory, at least.
And when older people live this way, they will be in a position to help us younger people. Older people sometimes look at our lives-- our priorities, the way we treat each other, the way our marriages look-- and they know we are making some mistakes. Maybe, the older people made those same mistakes themselves when they were younger. Or maybe, they've watched their own friends struggle with these things. They've seen marriages blow up. They've seen people drink themselves to death. They've seen people give in to the desires of the flesh, and wreck their lives.
When older people live respectable, honorable, lives, they are in a position to help younger people. They can speak into our lives, and encourage us to not going any farther down bad roads. They've removed the plank from their own eyes, and see the world clearly. And so, as a result, they are able to help younger people take the speck out of their eyes, so that we can see what we are doing.
But all of this is only true, if they've taken the plank out first. So Paul says, in verses 2-3, start there.
This brings us to verses 4-5, and what Paul says about young women. Before we talk about what Paul says, we should notice how much space he gives to young women, compared to older people, or young men.
Why?
Imagine that we, as a church, are first century Romans, or Greeks (?), living in Crete. We are surrounded by people who are not like us. We used to be like them, in every way-- socially, religiously, economically. But now we seem radically different, because we follow Jesus as Lord and Savior.
This is most obvious with our religion. We don't have any idols in our houses. We don't go to the neighborhood temples for the potlucks or birthday parties (that's part of what temples used to be used for; see my 1 Corinthians study). All of this makes us seem weird, standoffish, and suspicious.
Another thing that's quite different about us first century Christians is the way we view ourselves, and each other, in Christ. Let's read from James 1:9-10 (NRSV no reason):
9 Let the believer who is lowly boast in being raised up, 10 and the rich in being brought low, because the rich will disappear like a flower in the field. 11 For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the field; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. It is the same way with the rich; in the midst of a busy life, they will wither away.
In Christ, there is a leveling out of all of us. In the world, the rich are high, and lofty, and the poor are low, and humble. But in Christ, the poor are lifted up, and the rich are brought down. We are equals, in Christ.
Paul says the same thing in Galatians 3:23-29 (NRSV no reason):
23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.
In Christ, all the ways we humans divide each other up no longer matter. All of us are God's children. All of us are one in Christ. We are all equals, of equal worth, of equal standing. We are full heirs of God's promises.
Beyond these two things, we have another defining quality. Let's read from Ephesians 5:21 (NRSV no reason):
21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Each of us willingly subjects him or herself to one another. We submit, to one another. So there's a sense in which we are equals in Christ. At the same time, there's a sense in which each of us, as individuals, know that we are below, and under, everyone else.
And this, too, makes us seem suspicious.
In the first century, when Paul is writing to Titus, Rome was a deeply patriarchal society. Men "ruled." The ideal Roman woman was married, with kids, and kept the house running. Inside the walls of the house, the wife ran the show. But, she did so under the husband's authority.
Let me read something from Aristotle (Politics 1.1253b 1-14):
"Again, as between the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject. And the same must also necessarily apply in the case of mankind as a whole; therefore all men that differ as widely as the soul does from the body and the human being from the lower animal (and this is the condition of those whose function is the use of the body and from whom this is the best that is forthcoming) these are by nature slaves, for whom to be governed by this kind of authority [20] is advantageous, inasmuch as it is advantageous to the subject things already mentioned."
Aristotle says that men were made with a different nature-- one of keen intellect, and broad-ranging ability. Women and slaves, on the other hand, were made to serve a lower, simpler role than men. They were made, to be ruled. And so it's only logical for men to rule their wives, and slaves. Women and slaves are a bit like tools in man's toolbox. A wise man will use the tools he has with skill. And he won't pretend that his tools, are his equal.
So that's considered the ideal, standard view of women and slaves. A well-ordered Roman household is one where husbands rule the wives, and the men rule the slaves.
Now, in the first century, there were (at least?) three groups that threatened this patriarchal approach to family
(what follows is from David Balch, Let Wives be Submissive).
The first, was Egyptians. As a rule, Egyptian women were the heads of their homes, and the husbands obeyed them (Balch, pg. 71).
Second, some of the religious groups in the first century were viewed as dangerous, because they promoted the rights of women. [David Balch, pg. 65, mentions the cults of Dionysus and Isis.
And third, interestingly, Jews were viewed as subversive on this as well. First century Jews were criticized, as not being (sufficiently?) patriarchal. Women were apparently viewed as equals, and co-partners. Or at least, that's how Jews were perceived. [Balch, 73: "The Jews, according to Tacitus, reversed all Roman customs, including those with respect to marriage."
----------------------------------------------------------
Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, responds to these criticisms by saying that Jews do, in fact, think women are inferior. But he does so apologetically, in defense of Judaism. Against Apion, II.199. So also Philo, Apology for the Jews, 7.3, 7.5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The groups that threatened Roman patriarchy were widely criticized by Roman leaders, and philosophers. The Roman household-- the family-- was considered to be the bedrock of society. When families are well-ordered, with everyone understanding and doing their roles, the family is strong. They corporately worship the correct, ancestral gods. They raise up the next generation of godly, loyal, Roman citizens. When families are strong, the empire is strong. So when you have households that deviate from the old ways, and encouraging others to join them, they are a threat to the empire itself.
Now, if you were a first century Christian, there is nothing that you could do about who you follow, and serve, and worship. Jesus is your Lord and Savior. That part, is what it is. You are open to criticism on those lines, and you will naturally be viewed with suspicion.
Now, what about women, and slaves?
You know, in Christ, that women and slaves are equals to men. They are of equal status, and worth. They are in no way inferior. God didn't make them, to serve free men. God created men and women, together, in God's image, to rule the world, together (Genesis 1:26-27). Aristotle is wrong.
How, then, should men and women, free and slave, live?
The way that Paul answers this question, is maybe not how we'd answer.
Paul encourages wives and slaves to voluntarily give up their rights, and voluntarily subject themselves/submit to the men-- wives, to their husbands; slaves, to their masters. They don't do this because God made them to be submissive, in a way that men weren't. They don't do this because they are inferior.
--------------------------------------------
I think there's something about the word "submit" that brings emotion into this, and makes it all sound wrong. If we say, "subject ourselves to one another" (Ephesians 5:21), putting ourselves under one another, then the mental block disappears.
----------------------------------------------
They do this, for the sake of the gospel. Three times in these verses, Paul shows that the gospel is his ultimate concern:
Verse 5, with wives:
in order that the word/message of God may not be criticized/reviled.
Verse 8, with Titus:
in order that the one from the opposition may be ashamed/uneasy/made to turn,
nothing having bad/evil to say concerning us. ["nothing" is focused];
Verse 10, with slaves:
in order that they may adorn the teaching of our Savior God in everything.
Paul's goal in these verses, is to create a church that models the Roman ideals about men, women, and slavery. When wives and slaves submit, they will prove that Christians are, in fact, the best possible Romans. When outsiders look at my first century family, what will they see? They could focus on the different God we worship, and freak out. But they will also see that my wife, is a great Roman wife. She a good housewife, capably fulfilling her household duties. She's a model of purity, and self-control. She genuinely loves me, and our kids. She voluntarily submits to me. My Roman friends know that I married well. They look at my wife (whether I'm a Christian or not), and they say this: "Think what you will of Christian women, but they make great wives."
And my slaves, are great slaves. They work hard. They are respectful. They don't pilfer. My friends say, "Think what you will of Christians-- but they make great slaves."
Paul frames everything, in light of the gospel. We first century Romans need to live in a way that's honorable, and respectable. We need to make it as difficult as possible for non-Christians to criticize us. And when we live as model Roman citizens, we make the gospel look really good. When I tell people about Jesus in the first century, they find themselves thinking about my loving, submissive wife, and my obedient children, and my submissive slaves.
Before we move on, let me point out one another thing. Whose responsibility is it, to make the Christian household, look like the perfect Roman household? Who needs to be addressed, to make this happen?
Notice, Paul doesn't address the husbands here, at all. Paul isn't telling the men to make sure their wives and slaves submit. Paul doesn't sound like Aristotle-- he doesn't tell men to rule their wives, and slaves.
If this is going to work, and the church is going to make the gospel look good, it will be because women and slaves freely surrender their rights, and submit.
Now, I kind of skipped over Paul's instructions to Titus in verse 7. So let's reread that, and I'll say just a little about it:
yourself presenting/offering [as] an example of good works,
in your teaching/instruction: soundness, gravity/solemnity/dignity;
(8) a sound word/message beyond reproach,
in order that the one from the opposition may be ashamed/uneasy/made to turn,
nothing having bad/evil to say concerning us. ["nothing" is focused];
Titus is an outsider. He's like the pastor who moves into a small town from out of state. He's not a North Dakotan. People naturally view him with a certain amount of distrust and suspicion, regardless of who sent him. And Titus has views on things that make him controversial. We saw last week that there is a group of Christians in the church who teach very different things. And part of Titus's job is to push back against this.
When you are teaching controversial truths in a context where you are viewed with suspicion, and hostility, you need to be careful in three different areas. The first is in how you live. Verse 7: Your life needs to be a model of good works.
The second, is in how you teach. You need to teach in a very serious way. You might have a great sense of humor, but you need to curb it. You can't be joking around, and making light of things, when it's a touchy subject.
The third, is in what you teach. The content of your teaching has to be solid. It needs to be obvious you've put the work in. If you throw your sermon together, and you're saying things that are very obviously wrong, and poorly thought out, some people will be able to tell. The group opposed to you, that's pushing back against you, will be able to tell. People who already struggle with you, and don't give you the benefit of the doubt, will be able to tell. But if you get these three things right-- you live a life of good works, you teach seriously, and you teach soundly-- you will make it hard for people to pick apart your sermons on the drive home from church. You might even find that people will change how they think, and live, because of what you taught.
[In contexts less divisive, there's probably more of a place for humor, but you are leaving yourself more open to criticism any time you do so.].
With this, I want to jump to verse 11. Here Paul strengthens his argument (with a "for" statement):
(11) For the-grace-of-God-bringing-salvation-to-all-people has appeared, [everything dashed is the topic; English Bibles chop it up in weird ways]
training us,
in order that, denying ungodliness and worldly desires, self-controlled and righteously and godly we may/would/should live in the present age. ["self-controlled to godly" is focused],
looking forward to the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior-- Jesus
Christ,
who gave himself for us,
(14) in order that he might redeem/rescue us from all unlawlessness,
and that he might purify for himself a chosen/privileged people,
[being] zealous for good works.
What Paul is doing in these verses, is explaining God's master plan for humanity. Jesus voluntarily gave himself for us, why? Jesus didn't just rescue us from sins. He didn't just rescue us from hell. Jesus rescued us from unlawlessness-- from a lifestyle of ungodliness and slavery to the flesh. He rescued us toward a lifestyle of self-control, and righteousness, and godliness.
And what did Jesus create? Jesus purified for himself a chosen people, who are zealous for good works. At the end of each day, when we lie in bed, we decide whether or not it was a good day, based on whether or not we were able to do good to those around us. We think about people we were able to serve, and bless. When we do good works, we are doing what we were created for (so also Ephesians 2:10).
And we do all of this, knowing that God's grace brings salvation to all people. We are a chosen people, but the door is open. God wants to save everyone, and God's desire, is our desire.
So that's why we live sacrificially. That's why wives, in the first century, voluntarily submit to their husbands. That's why slaves, in the first century, voluntarily submit to their masters. That's why teachers keep their sense of humor in check. We shine like lights; we do good to everyone around us. We make the gospel look good.
Verse 15:
(15) These things speak and encourage/exhort/urge and prove with every command (1 Cor. 7:6; 1 Tim. 1:1).
--------------------------
Brill, on "prove":
??????
to give convincing evidence, prove HDT. 2.22.4 THUC. 6.86.1 etc.; p???µ’ ?????e?? to have evidence of the deed connived at AESCHL. Ag. 1351 ? to refute, reject PLAT. Soph..259a DEMOSTH. 28.2 LUC. Nigr. 4 etc. | dialect. refute or demonstrate by reductio ad absurdum ARISTOT. S.E. 170a 24, al. etc. ?
BDAG #2: "to bring a person to the point of recognizing wrongdoing, "convict, convince someone of something."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Paul says to Titus, when you teach, prove that all of this is the better way to live. Persuade Roman wives, that they should give up their rights, and voluntarily submit to their husbands. Persuade slaves, that they should give up their rights, and equality, and voluntarily submit to their masters. Prove to the church that this is the lifestyle that God has called you toward-- one of self-sacrifice, and giving up your rights, and doing good.
--------------------------------------------------
So that's Titus 2. Now, how should we hear Paul's words, not as first century Romans, but as 21st century Americans?
We no longer live in a society where wives are ruled by husbands, or where slaves are ruled by masters. No one, outside of a few fundamentalist Christian groups, really seems to want this. I don't think that Paul, today, would encourage wives to voluntarily submit to their husbands, in order to make their family look like a perfect Roman family, and to make the gospel look good. The Roman ideal for marriage, is not very ideal.
But the question is, should wives still submit to their own husbands? And in a non-Roman culture, how should husbands act toward their wives?
To answer this question, we have to turn to Ephesians 5. Here, Paul presents a more full, complete picture of the ideal Christian marriage. Here, Paul is less worried about making the gospel look good, and more concerned about how husbands and wives should relate to each other. And it's here, that Paul actually addresses the husbands as well (which is a key piece of evidence, showing that his purpose in Titus is different). All of us this doesn't just fall on the wives.
Let's turn to Ephesians 5:21, and start with just that verse (NIV for a reason):
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
This is our starting point, for how we should relate to one another. Each of us voluntarily submits to others. All of us give up our rights. All of us live self-sacrificially. This is true within the church. And, Paul goes on to say, this is how marriage works as well.
Verse 22:
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Wives should voluntarily submit to their husbands in everything. And just so we are clear: this is the wife's free choice. Paul is addressing the wife, not the husband. It's not the husband's job to make his wife submit.
In verse 25, Paul turns to addressing husbands. And here, we should still view everything Paul is about to say, as an unpacking of verse 21. All of us are supposed to submit to one another, subject ourselves to one another, out of reverence for Christ. And this is what it looks like, for husbands to submit to their wives. To subject themselves to her, and put themselves beneath her:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Husbands should look at Christ's example, and live self-sacrificially toward their wives. Being the husband doesn't mean getting your way. It doesn't mean ruling over your wife, and making sure that she submits to you. The Roman ideal, was not ideal. So you can't read the verses addressed to your wives, and make them your verses. YOUR VERSES, tell you to give up everything for her.
Now, when you, the husband, live this way, it's your free choice. When you find yourself disagreeing with your wife, your wife can't look at your verses, and tell you that you need to be self-sacrificial, and give yourself for her like Christ gave himself for the church. She has her verses. You have yours. But each of us needs to subject ourselves to one another.
When we live this way, I think two things will happen. The first, is that we will have better marriages. And second, we will make the gospel look good. Ideally, my friends will look at my wife, and be impressed by how well I married. My wife genuinely loves me, and our kids. She doesn't insist on getting her own way, but lives self-sacrificially. My friends might not be Christians, but they know that Christian women, make the best wives. My single friends are tempted to become Christians, and join the singles group, just so they can get a better wife. My wife makes the gospel look good.
Now, what about me? In the 21st century, if I attempted to rule my wife, I'd make the gospel look bad. No one wants to see women treated as inferior. No one thinks that women were made to be ruled by men. And so our marriage can outwardly look more like a marriage based on Ephesians, than on Titus.
What people want to see, is husbands and wives who genuinely care about each other, who take into account each other's interest, and who don't insist on getting their own way. Neither my wife, nor me, look like a slave. Neither one of us looks like a master. When people see my wife and I interact, they should find themselves thinking that Christians really do offer good news, and point people toward a better way to live toward God, and each other.
Now, there's another elephant in the room here. Let's reread Titus 2:4-5:
(4) in order that they may encourage/advise/urge the young women to love their husbands and to love their children. ["love their husbands" is focused], [to be] self-controlled, pure/holy, to carry out household responsibilities (BDAG), [to be] good/noble, being subject to their own husbands,
in order that the word/message of God may not be criticized/reviled.
The ideal Roman woman, in the first century, spent the vast majority of her time in the home. From what I've read, the only exception, really, was to go worship the gods at their temples.
---------------------------------------
Philo, Special Laws III.169-171, quoted in David Balch, Let Wives be Submissive, 53:
"The women are best suited to the indoor life which never strays from the house, within which the middle door is taken by the maidens as their boundary, and the outer door by those who have reached full womanhood. Organized communities are of two sorts, the greater which we call cities and the small which we call households. Both of these have their governors; the government of the greater is assigned to men, under the name of statesmanship, that of the lesser, known as household management, to women. A woman then, should not be a busybody, meddling with matters outside her household concerns, but should seek a life of seclusion. She should not show herself off like a vagrant in the streets before the eyes of other men, except when she has to go to the temple."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what should we think about Paul's encouragement of wives to be great homemakers, and encourage them to fulfill their household duties? Is a wife's place in the home? Is it a man's world, everywhere else?
If we compare the Roman ideal to the ideal Israelite wife of Proverbs 31, we will notice some startling differences. In the OT, the perfect Israelite wife was strong, and capable, inside the home, and outside the home. She works hard, inside and outside the home. She can buy and sell in the marketplace (Proverbs 31:18, 24). In Genesis, women water the herds, and presumably play in a role in keeping them safe. Ruth picks grain.
The ancient Israelite wife still lives in a way that brings honor to her husband-- everyone at the city gates thinks she's quite the catch-- but she brings that honor, in a very non-Roman way.
That's the kind of wife that a 21st century American man wants. My own wife works hard, inside and outside the home. She buys and sells in the marketplace. Because of the long hours I work, and her crazy schedule, she's the one who often interacts with plumbers, and electricians, and contractors. And I have full confidence in her, that she is perfectly capable of making big financial decisions. When my wife confidently talked about dropping 40K on siding and windows, I didn't freak out. I was proud of my wife, for being a strong, capable woman. I don't need to second guess her, or try to micro-manage her. I certainly don't rule her.
My goal, at least in theory, is to treat my wife with dignity, and respect, and love. She is my full partner in life, and I hopefully treat her that way. And when I do so, to the degree I do so, I make the gospel look good. My wife's non-Christian friends should look at me, and say, "Think what you will of Christian men. But they make great husbands."
All of us, in all areas of our lives, can make the gospel attractive. I kind of skipped over the verses on slaves, but those of us who work in service industries, in particular, are uniquely able to make the gospel attractive. When we serve customers with a good attitude, we shine for Jesus in a way that others really can't.
Now, before we close, let me say a few things about Titus 2:11-14. When you think about God's grace-- about his kindness, and favor-- don't restrict that to the moment of salvation. God's grace freed us, as a church, from slavery to Sin, and freed us, as a church, to a lifestyle of godlinesss, and holiness, and righteousness. Jesus made us into a holy, clean people, who live rightly, and who are zealous for good works. We go through life looking for chances to serve people. And we go through life, understanding that God's grace isn't just for us-- it's for everyone around us. So live in a way that makes the gospel look good. Be great husbands, and wives. Be great employees. And offer God's grace to everyone.
Translation:
(1) Now, you, speak what is fitting for sound teaching/instruction:
(2) Older men, level-headed/restrained, to be, respectable, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, in steadfastness;
(3) older women, likewise, in behavior/demeanor [to be] priestly in manner, not bad- mouthing, not to too much wine having become enslaved, teaching what is good,
(4) in order that they may encourage/advise/urge the young women to love their husbands and to love their children. ["love their husbands" is focused], [to be] self- controlled, pure/holy, to carry out household responsibilities (BDAG), [to be] good/noble, being subject to their own husbands,
in order that the word/message of God may not be criticized/reviled.
(6) the young men, likewise, to encourage/advise/urge to be self-controlled in all things;
yourself presenting/offering [to be] an example of good works,
in your teaching/instruction: soundness, gravity/solemnity/dignity;
(8) a sound word/message beyond reproach,
in order that the one from the opposition may be ashamed/uneasy/made to turn,
nothing having bad/evil to say concerning us. ["nothing" is focused];
(9) slaves, to their own masters to be subject in everything,
pleasing/acceptable to be ["pleasing" is focused],
not contradicting/opposing,
(10) not stealing,
but all good "faith"/loyalty demonstrating,
in order that they may adorn the teaching of our Savior God in everything.
(11) For the-grace-of-God-bringing-salvation-to-all-people has appeared,
training us,
in order that, denying ungodliness and worldly desires, self-controlled and righteously and godly we may/would/should live in the present age. ["self-controlled to godly" is focused],
looking forward to the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior-- Jesus Christ,
who gave himself for us,
in order that he might redeem/rescue us from all unlawlessness,
and that he might purify for himself a chosen/privileged people, [being] zealous for good works.
(15) These things speak and encourage/exhort/urge and prove with every command.
----------------------------------------------
Brill, on "prove":
??????
to give convincing evidence, prove HDT. 2.22.4 THUC. 6.86.1 etc.; p???µ’ ?????e?? to have evidence of the deed connived at AESCHL. Ag. 1351 ? to refute, reject PLAT. Soph..259a DEMOSTH. 28.2 LUC. Nigr. 4 etc. | dialect. refute or demonstrate by reductio ad absurdum ARISTOT. S.E. 170a 24, al. etc. ?
BDAG #2: "to bring a person to the point of recognizing wrongdoing, "convict, convince someone of something."
-------------------------------------------------
Aristotle on masters and slaves, Politics 1.1253b 1-14:
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D1253b
Household management falls into departments corresponding to the parts of which the household in its turn is composed; and the household in its perfect form consists of slaves and freemen. The investigation of everything should begin with its smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these three relationships, I mean that of mastership, that of marriage (there is no exact term denoting the relation uniting wife and husband), and thirdly the progenitive relationship (this too has not been designated by a special name). Let us then accept these three relationships that we have mentioned. There is also a department which some people consider the same as household management and others the most important part of it, and the true position of which we shall have to consider: I mean what is called the art of getting wealth.15 Let us begin by discussing the relation of master and slave, in order to observe the facts that have a bearing on practical utility, and also in the hope that we may be able to obtain something better than the notions at present entertained, with a view to a theoretic knowledge of the subject. For some thinkers hold the function of the master to be a definite science, and moreover think that household management, mastership, statesmanship and monarchy are the same thing, [20] as we said at the beginning of the treatise; others however maintain that for one man to be another man’s master is contrary to nature, because it is only convention that makes the one a slave and the other a freeman and there is no difference between them by nature, and that therefore it is unjust, for it is based on force. Since therefore property is a part of a household and the art of acquiring property a part of household management (for without the necessaries even life, as well as the good life, is impossible), and since, just as for the particular arts it would be necessary for the proper tools to be forthcoming if their work is to be accomplished, so also the manager of a household must have his tools, and of tools some are lifeless and others living (for example, for a helmsman the rudder is a lifeless tool and the look-out man a live tool—for an assistant in the arts belongs to the class of tools), so also an article of property is a tool for the purpose of life, and property generally is a collection of tools, and a slave is a live article of property. And every assistant is as it were a tool that serves for several tools; for if every tool could perform its own work when ordered, or by seeing what to do in advance, like the statues of Daedalus in the story, or the tripods of Hephaestus which the poet says ‘enter self-moved the company divine,’18—if thus shuttles wove and quills played harps of themselves, master-craftsmen would have no need of assistants and masters no need of slaves. [1254a][1] Now the tools mentioned are instruments of production, whereas an article of property is an instrument of action; for from a shuttle we get something else beside the mere use of the shuttle, but from a garment or a bed we get only their use. And also inasmuch as there is a difference in kind between production and action, and both need tools, it follows that those tools also must possess the same difference. But life is doing things, not making things; hence the slave is an assistant in the class of instruments of action. And the term ‘article of property’ is used in the same way as the term ‘part’: a thing that is a part is not only a part of another thing but absolutely belongs to another thing, and so also does an article of property. Hence whereas the master is merely the slave’s master and does not belong to the slave, the slave is not merely the slave of the master but wholly belongs to the master. These considerations therefore make clear the nature of the slave and his essential quality: one who is a human being belonging by nature not to himself but to another is by nature a slave, and a person is a human being belonging to another if being a man he is an article of property, and an article of property is an instrument for action separable from its owner. But we must next consider whether or not anyone exists who is by nature of this character, and whether it is advantageous and just for anyone to be a slave, or whether on the contrary all slavery is against nature. [20] And it is not difficult either to discern the answer by theory or to learn it empirically. Authority and subordination are conditions not only inevitable but also expedient; in some cases things are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or to be ruled. And there are many varieties both of rulers and of subjects (and the higher the type of the subjects, the loftier is the nature of the authority exercised over them, for example to control a human being is a higher thing than to tame a wild beast; for the higher the type of the parties to the performance of a function, the higher is the function, and when one party rules and another is ruled, there is a function performed between them)—because in every composite thing, where a plurality of parts, whether continuous or discrete, is combined to make a single common whole, there is always found a ruling and a subject factor, and this characteristic of living things is present in them as an outcome of the whole of nature, since even in things that do not partake of life there is a ruling principle, as in the case of a musical scale.
Aristotle on men and women:
Again, as between the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject. And the same must also necessarily apply in the case of mankind as a whole; therefore all men that differ as widely as the soul does from the body and the human being from the lower animal (and this is the condition of those whose function is the use of the body and from whom this is the best that is forthcoming) these are by nature slaves, for whom to be governed by this kind of authority [20] is advantageous, inasmuch as it is advantageous to the subject things already mentioned. For he is by nature a slave who is capable of belonging to another (and that is why he does so belong), and who participates in reason so far as to apprehend it but not to possess it; for the animals other than man are subservient not to reason, by apprehending it, but to feelings. And also the usefulness of slaves diverges little from that of animals; bodily service for the necessities of life is forthcoming from both, from slaves and from domestic animals alike. The intention of nature therefore is to make the bodies also of freemen and of slaves different—the latter strong for necessary service, the former erect and unserviceable for such occupations, but serviceable for a life of citizenship (and that again divides into the employments of war and those of peace); but as a matter of fact often the very opposite comes about—some persons have the bodies of free men and others the souls; since this is certainly clear, that if persons were born as distinguished only in body as are the statues of the gods, everyone would say that those who were inferior deserved to be these men’s slaves. And if this is true in the case of the body, there is far juster reason for this rule being laid down in the case of the soul; but beauty of soul is not so easy to see as beauty of body. [1255a][1] It is manifest therefore that there are cases of people of whom some are freemen and the others slaves by nature, and for these slavery is an institution both expedient and just. But at the same time it is not difficult to see that those who assert the opposite are also right in a manner. The fact is that the terms ‘slavery’ and ‘slave’ are ambiguous; for there is also such a thing as a slave or a man that is in slavery by law, for the law is a sort of agreement under which the things conquered in war are said to belong to their conquerors.
