The Greco-Roman Family and the Use of Talents

1.1. INTRODUCTION

The word talent and its use were ordinary terms spoken by families, as defined by Greco-Roman people. This is well-known by New Testament writers. Therefore, the family must be discussed in this first chapter, so as to clarify its usage and what Jesus teaches on this subject in Matthew 25:14-30.

In the Greco-Roman period around the first century CE, the family, as well as its structure and its system, held great value and importance in society, and in the administrative policy of the whole territory. It was considered the basic unit of the whole society as well as a model or standard for the framework of society and the administration policy of the whole Roman Empire.9 Neither the French word famille nor the English nuclear family (i.e. father, mother, children; cf. Malagasy ankohonana) is a suitable translation for the original word meaning “family” in the Greco-Roman world.10 The translation was given to the following two Greek words: oἶκος and oἶκία (oĩkos / oĩkía , cp. lat. familia / domus).

So, what was the structure and the system like within the Greco-Roman family? That will be discussed in the paragraphs that follow.

1.2. THE FAMILY, ITS STRUCTURE, AND ITS MEMBERS’ INTERACTIONS.

The Greco-Roman family structure in the first century CE was patriarchal, that is to say, each family level was ruled by a father (Gr. πατήρ [ patēr], πατρός [ patrós]; Eng. father, patron)11 as the top and highest authority. Two Greek words have been translated into “family”, namely oἶκος (oĩkos) and oἶκία (oĩkía [Lat. familia, domus]). The word oἶκος ([oĩkos], Eng. family)12 placed all people under the authority of a father (Gr. πατήρ

10

11 BDAG, 2000 ed., s.v. “πατήρ, πατρός”.

12 Ibid., s.v. “oἶκος”.

[ patēr], πατρός [ patrós]; lat. paterfamilias; Eng. father, patron): the sons, the wife and the daughters, the clients or day-workers (Fr. ouvriers, journaliers) who came in the morning and went home in the evening (clients), and the slaves. Other people, such as his parents or in-laws or friends (Gr. φίλος [ phílos])13 etc., who lived in his home, were also counted as family members. But the word oἶκία (oĩkía; Eng. household )14 included all people living under the same roof, together with their property and wealth.15

Therefore, members of a family (oἶκος/οἰκία ; [oĩkos/oĩkía]) were bound not only by blood but also by property and wealth, and their acquisition, management, and use ( οἰκονομία [oikonomía], cf. Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 16:1-13; etc.). The family was like a small business where members were bound (oἶκος/oἶκία ; [oĩkos/oĩkía) by rules and by the acquisition, management, and use of wealth under the will and authority of the father / patron. Thus, a family at that time was a socio-economic organism (cf. οἰκονομία , oikonomía).16

Such were the peculiarities of what was called “family” in the first century CE. The identity of the father / patron and his responsibilities toward such a family are considered next.

1.2.1. THE FATHER AND HIS IDENTITY

As mentioned above, the original Greek word πατήρ ( patēr), πατρός ( patrós) (lat. patris, paterfamilias, Eng. father, patron)17 has the same meaning as the Malagasy word “ray” or “raim-pianakaviana”. He was also called ‘lord’ (gr. κύριος [kúrios], Eng. lord, ruler, the one who commands]18 or οἰκοδεσπότης [oikodespótēs], Eng. master of the house).19 He was at the top of a family structure: he had all the power and property, respect, and honour of the whole oἶκος / oἶκία , and represented the whole family in society. With his power (Lat. potestas), he could exercise his authority in his own way on all those under his control. 20 He was called and acted like a “god” (Gr. θεός [theós]21 and saviour (Gr. σωτήρ [sōtér]), 22 especially the high authorities in the Roman Empire. 23 In the same way as gods were respected, obeyed, and worshiped in society, so were the fathers by the people they ruled (Lat. pietas; Eng. filial piety). 24

13 TDNT, 1964 ed., s.v. “φίλος”.

14 BDAG, 2000 ed., s.v. “oἶκία”.

15 Hellerman, The Ancient Church as Family, 30.

16 Reidar Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers and Sisters. A Study of the Meaning and Function of Christian Siblingship in Paul, in Its Greco-Roman and Jewish Context (Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo Forlag, 1998), 43; see also Michael H. Crosby, House of Disciple: Church, Economic and Justice in Matthew (New York: Orbis Books, 1988), 25-27; Helmut Koester, History, Culture and Religion of the Hellenistic Age (Philadelphia, USA: Fortress Press, 1983), 72.

17 BDAG, 2000 ed., s.v. “πατήρ”.

18 Ibid., s.v. “κύριος”.

19 Ibid., s.v. “οἰκοδεσπότης”.

20 Stephan J. Joubert, Managing the Household: Paul as Paterfamilias of the Christian Household Group in Corinth, in Philip E. Esler, ed., Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in its Context (London and New York: Routledge, 1995), 213; see also Andrew D. Clarke, First Century Christians in the Greco-Roman World: Serve the Community of the Church. Christian Leaders and Ministers (Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2000), 2.

21 BDAG, 2000 ed., s.v. “θεός”.

22 Ibid., s.v. “σωτήρ”.

23 Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers and Sisters, 43.

Normally, as a “father”, he cared for all the people he had control over, i.e., fed and took care of them, protected them from external enemies. He also rewarded the workers (clients / slaves) who satisfied him (cf. Matt. 25:20-23) but punished or condemned the unfaithful ones and the rebels, evil doers, etc. (cf. Matt. 22:12-13; 25:26-28; Luke 16:2). 25

The truth is that he was the main beneficiary of all the advantages in the family, the latter being but a tool for producing and for multiplying such advantages. The work, the way of life, and the system in the family were meant to protect his power, authority, and honour with regard to the other fathers / patrons in the society he lived in (cf. Luke 6:2026), for the fathers / patrons at that time were competing for fame and honour resulting from the increase of their wealth. 26

In contrast, because of the blood that bound the father / patron and his children, the relationship between them was rather different: the blood which related them ruled and influenced their relationship and their interactions. Sons inherited the father’s property. But that was not the case with the workers (clients) and the slaves: their humanity was not taken into consideration. Instead, their relationship with the father was characterized by exploitation and slavery. 27

So, what about the sons? This will be discussed next.

1.2.2. THE SONS

The son (υἱός , [uiós]), 28 especially the firstborn (Gr. πρωτότοκος [ prōtótokos]), 29 was given a higher status, more rights, and special power, more than all the people under the father / patron’s control. Being closer to the father, the son, and especially the eldest, had more respect, honour, status, and power than the other family members. The sons inherited (Pro.19:14) the father / patron’s properties/property and authority after his death and burial in accordance with society’s customs and the rules of that period (cf. Matt. 21:38; Luke 9:59-60). In general, daughters did not inherit their father’s wealth or property, although that happened sometimes (e.g. Job 42:15). Since the close relationship between the father and the firstborn determined the latter’s status, he could represent the father / patron by assuming his authority and carrying out duties in the father’s absence. The firstborn son was also responsible for dividing the inheritance (cf. Luke 12:13).30

24 Joubert, Managing the Household, 213.

25 David A. deSilva, “Patronage and Reciprocity,” in Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 95-117.

26 deSilva, “Honor and Group Values,” in Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 35-50.

27 deSilva, “Patronage and Reciprocity,” 95-117.

28 BDAG, 2000 ed., s.v. “υἱός”.

29 Ibid., s.v. “πρωτότοκος”.

30 deSilva, “Patronage and Reciprocity”, 95-130.

However, during the father’s lifetime, the sons were among the workers who made the father’s wealth, property, and honour increase. But their status and privileges were superior to the day-workers’ (clients) and the slaves’ (cf. Matt. 21:37; Luke 15:11-32).

It can be said that wives were third in rank in the family structure. What were the wife’s status and rights in a family?

1.2.3. THE WIFE

As a person living under the same roof as her husband, she was also part of the family, but not of the socio-economic organic side of the family. She neither owned, nor had any right to her husband’s wealth and property, except for the few things given by her parents as dowry. That was the reason why widows (Gr. αἱχῆραι) and divorced women were poor in those days.31 For example, they were among the poor people the Christian church took care of in the first century CE (cf. Acts 6:1; 9:39).

The wife was only a means of getting children in the Greco-Roman world and culture. But for Romans particularly, giving a daughter in marriage was for parents a way of increasing their wealth; thus, marrying a daughter was an opportunity for binding two families economically, for them to get more wealth and power.32

As mentioned earlier, clients (free persons working daily for a father / patron) and slaves were also family members. They can be considered as fourth and fifth in rank in the first century CE Greco-Roman family. The next section deals with them.

1.2.4. THE CLIENTS AND THE SLAVES

Since the family was a socio-economic organism, the acquisition, management, and use of wealth and property played an important role. The day-workers (clients, cf. Fr. ouvriers, journaliers) and the slaves (Gr. δοῦλος [doũlos], διάκονος [diákonos], Eng. slave, servant),33 were in charge of these tasks (cf. Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28). How did a person become the client or the slave of a rich father / patron?

Riches being in the hands of a few, the majority of ordinary people living around the first century CE looked for a rich person (πατήρ [ patēr], Lat. patris, Eng. patron) to depend on. Such people who came to and were recruited by a father / patron, who contracted to daily work and being productive for him in his properties, were called clients. They were free people who received daily wages from the father / patron, 34 coming to work every morning and going home every evening.35

Slaves were former slaves’ descendants, or prisoners of war, or bought at the marketplace to be used as tools of production. Slaves did not have any right at all in the family or in society, economically or politically. They were generally ranked at the same level as animals and production tools. Yet, they often did the same work or held the same responsibilities as clients in a family but the difference was that clients were free people, i.e., people who had their own families (oἶκος / oἶκία), could go home every day, but were poor. As said earlier, slaves were considered and treated like all other tools of production. They were completely dehumanized.36

Both clients and slaves were given the following names, depending on the work and responsibility, which matched their skills and abilities. It is to be pointed out that some of them were well-trained. Some were called θεράπων (therápōn; Eng. one who renders devoted service, especially as an attendant in a cultic setting, attendant, aide, slave), meaning slave, helper or healer 37 Others were called ἐπιτρόπος (epitrópos): steward or manager of the father’s property (Fr. gestionnaire / administrateur, cf. Matt. 20:8; Luke 8:3).38 There were παιδαγωγός ([ paidagōgós], Eng. one who has responsibility for someone who needs guidance, guardian, leader, guide)39 or παιδευτής ([ paideutēs]), that is: instructor, teacher, educator and guardian of the children in the family during childhood (cf. Gal. 4:2). 40 The οἰκονόμος ([oikonómos], Eng. steward, manager, supervisor)41 were the stewards and managers of the father / patron’s property (cf. Luke 16:1ff). To clarify, οἰκονόμος was the name given to a slave or a free person (client) appointed by the father / patron to supervise all the work; his task included stewardship and use of his patron’s wealth or property in accordance with the latter’s needs and desires. According to Luke 12:42, such responsibility could be entrusted to a well-trained and faithful slave (δοῦλος / διάκονος [doũlos / diákonos], Eng. slave / servant)42 who was given special authority and freedom; he then received a special gift ( χάρις [cháris], Eng. grace, gift)43 for his faithfulness in stewardship and management of his father / patron’s wealth (Luke 12:44; cf. 16:1ff). 44

Clients / slaves with very little skill or ability (apart from their physical strength) were called ἀκολούθος ([akoloúthos]), i.e., followers of their patron, 45 or ἀμφίπολος ([amphípolos]), attendants, 46 or πρόσπολος ([ próspolos]), helpers. 47 They often followed and helped the father / patron in his travel and business or used their physical strength in various tasks in the family.

36 Ibid.

37 BDAG, 2000 ed., s.v. “θεράπων”.

38 Ibid., s.v. “ἐπιτρόπος”.

39 Ibid., s.v. “παιδαγωγός”.

40 Ibid., s.v. “παιδευτής”.

41 Ibid., s.v. “οἰκονόμος”.

42 Ibid., s.v. “δοῦλος / διάκονος”.

43 Ibid., s.v. “χάρις”.

44 deSilva, “Patronage and Reciprocity,” 95-117.

45 BDAG, 2000 ed., s.v. “ἀκολούθος”.

46 Ibid., s.v. “ἀμφίπολος”.

47 Ibid., s.v. “πρόσπολος”.

What were the interactions like between the father / patron and his family members in the running of the family as a socio-economic organism? This is discussed next.

1.3. THE FATHER / PATRON AND HIS CHILDREN.

As perceived in previous sections, Greco-Roman families were patriarchal, i.e., structured in ranks, completely under a father’s control and authority. The father / patron’s rank followed that of the gods worshipped by the families and society. The rank of the sons came next. Families in ancient Greco-Roman times were determined by the relationship between mutual dependence and service to the father / patron. All family members, namely children, wife, slaves, and those who lived with him had to obey and serve him because of his absolute power and authority (lat. patria potestas). But at the same time, they were under his care and protection. 48

Although the offspring had their special status, they had no right to their father’s wealth and property as long as he lived. He had authority to appoint his successor and his heirs. Yet, generally speaking, he treated his children differently from the slaves when using such authority and power; the relationship between father and children was influenced by the blood which related them. He also had authority to decide whether to take the life of a newborn baby or to let it live. He could sell his children as slaves, send them to prison or even kill them if they did not respect, obey, or honour him. For example, babies born with a handicap were often put to death. 49 However, this was reduced later on when humanity was taken into consideration, especially after the Empire period.50

When the time came for his sons to get married, they had to ask for his opinion because in that society marriage was pre-arranged by the father. Therefore, he could prevent a marriage of one of his children taking place if he chose to. When his daughters got married, they were no longer under his control but under their husbands’. In addition, they could not inherit. Roman offspring could not be freed from their father’s power and authority until he died or lost his Roman citizenship.51

However, such power and authority of the father over his children decreased later on due to the development of education, the application of rules for acceptable behaviour in society, and the exhortation to live according to the gods’ will. During the period of the Roman Republic and Empire, the ideology or philosophy called Concordia became widespread.52 It put the emphasis on affection (lat. pietas) among those related by the same blood. Although children had to respect, obey, and honour their father, “affection for the father” was equally required from them. Thus, the father-children relationship became influenced by affection. Various writers such as Cicero, Seneca, and Plutarch, for example , urged fathers to love their children more than honour and wealth, to take pride in them, to take good care of them so as to give them a decent life and to be proud of them in the future. On the other hand, children were urged to obey and love their parents.53

48 deSilva, “Patronage and Reciprocity”, 95-117.

49 Appian, Rom. Hist. 1.1.2.

50 Koester, History, Culture and Religion of the Hellenistic Age, 72-80; see also Clarke, First Century Christians in the Greco-Roman World, 210.

51 Gaius, Inst. 1.127-28; deSilva, “Patronage and Reciprocity,” 95-117.

52 Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 3.211.

So was the interaction between the father / patron and his children; how was it between the father/ patron and the clients / slaves? This will be considered next.

1.4. THE FATHER / PATRON AND THE CLIENTS / SLAVES

A family being a socio-economic organism meant that clients and slaves with their respective abilities / skills played an important role. As soon as a contract was made between the father / patron and the clients, their first responsibility was to let the neighbours know their position; that was the first favour the father / patron asked of the clients The reason was because the respect and honour due to fathers / patrons as well as the competition between them were of great importance in the culture and community life. The more clients / slaves a father / patron had, the more respect, honour, and socio-economic power he was given. To show respect to such a father / patron, they also had to greet him, bow before him, and honour him every morning.54

The contract between the father / patron and the clients stated that the latter’s responsibility consisted in promoting and protecting the father / patron’s honour, authority, and power. They did so by using their skills and knowledge to acquire more wealth and property for the father / patron and to manage them in accordance with his will and goals (cf. Matt.25:14-30). The contract between the two parties put the clients under the father / patron’s continuous authority, making them entirely dependent on him for their daily needs, such as wages (very low), food, land rented for agriculture, etc. (cf. Luke 18:1-8). These clients (and slaves) who had a contract with the father / patron were to obey and serve him, and to commit themselves to increasing his position, strength, and authority in society. This was one way of showing their gratitude that the father / patron expected.55

Considering that family members in the Greco-Roman world were bound together by the acquisition of common wealth and by the responsibility of its management and use ( οἰκονομία [oikonomía]; Eng. responsibility of management, management of a household ),56 one can say that, in general, the advantages resulting from the relationship between the father / patron and the clients were always in the father’s favour. In contrast, the relation- ship from the clients’ position was characterized by oppression or slavery because the father / patron, as the owner of the property, gained all the advantages. He was given respect and honour and power when the family’s economy grew as a result of the clients ’ and slaves’ work (cf. Luke 6:20-26). The clients (and the slaves) possessed the skills and abilities but received very low wages / very little quantities of food.57As written in Matthew 20:2-13, the usual daily wage in the Greco-Roman world was one denarius, but that was too little to feed their families. Consequently, they were constantly in debt (cf. Matt. 18:1-35; Luke 16:1-8) because their families could not survive on such low wages.58 But the debt system increased the father / patron’s wealth even more (cf. Matt. 25:1-30), as it did the clients ’ poverty and dependence on him.59

53 Hellerman, The Ancient Church as Family, 25; also see deSilva, “Patronage and Reciprocity,” 95-117.

54 deSilva, “Patronage and Reciprocity”, 95-117.

55 Ibid.

56 BDAG, 2000 ed., s.v. “οἰκονομία”.

A family being a socio-economic organism in the Greco-Roman world, faithfulness and mutual trust (πίστις [ pistis]; Eng. faith, trust, fidelity, faithfulness, loyalty)60 held an important place, especially in the father / patron– clients and slaves relationship. The father / patron expected to find these qualities in the character, behaviour, and work of all those under his authority, especially of the clients and the slaves, to ensure the accomplishment of their duties and responsibilities, the success of their business, and the promotion of his power and honour. The clients declared in their contract with the father / patron that they would be faithful in these matters. Such faithfulness expected by the father / patron from the clients and slaves will be explained later on.

In their contract, faithfulness was required not only from the clients but also from the father / patron. For the latter, it involved keeping all his promises, especially those made to the clients at the time of contracting. The father / patron’s faithfulness led the people under his control to follow suit.61

Mutual trust strengthened the bond and the relationship between the two parties. The unfaithfulness of one party could result in the breaking of the bond and the contract. Faithful clients / slaves made the father / patron happy and he often rewarded them (cf. χάρις [cháris] see below), whereas unfaithful ones made him angry so that he even expelled them from the family (cf. Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 16:1-13).62

57 deSilva, “Patronage and Reciprocity”, 95-117.

58 In the Jewish society, such debts were cancelled in the jubilee year/ Sabbath. See Lev. 25:1ff.; cf. Lk. 4:18-19.

59 deSilva, “Patronage and Reciprocity,” 95-117.

60 BDAG, 2000 ed., s.v. “πίστις”.

61 deSilva, “Patronage and Reciprocity,” 95-117.

62 deSilva, 95-117.

Rewards ( χάρις [cháris]) given by the father / patron to his servants for their satisfactory work and faithfulness have been introduced above. More about this in the next section.

1.6. GIFTS / REWARDS AND THE PATRONAGE-CLIENTAGE SYSTEM

The word χάρις [cháris], Eng. grace, gratitude, gift, etc., 63 was important in the bond, the interaction, and the relationship between the father / patron and the children / clients / slaves It had three meanings. Firstly, it expressed the father / patron’s feeling which compelled him to give something to or to reward the clients / slaves. Theoretically, he did so, not to seek anything in return for himself but for the good of those who received the gift (compare with free-gift), but practically, it was to motivate the receivers to be more productive. Secondly, χάρις (cháris) was the name of the various gifts or rewards given by the father / patron to the children / clients / slaves because he was happy and satisfied with their work (e.g., Matt. 25:1430; also read 2 Cor. 8:19). Thirdly, χάρις (cháris) was the expression of the clients ’ gratitude toward the father / patron for his attitude toward them and the rewards given. Thus, for Greco-Romans, χάρις (cháris) was not totally free but indirectly required something in return.64 These three meanings of χάρις (cháris) could not be separated in the bond between the father / patron and the clients / slaves. The two parties’ reputation and relationship were spoilt if the father / patron did not have the qualities required of him, i.e., one who is merciful, rewards, does not seek advantages for himself. He was a model father / patron in society if he had such qualities. In the same way, their relationship was broken if the clients / the slaves did not have the qualities expected of them, i.e., to express their gratitude for their father / patron’s kindness. It was at the same time a way of showing their faithfulness to the father / patron. Another evidence of their gratitude the latter required or expected was to protect his honour and reputation. Clients / slaves who did not show their gratitude were often people under his anger or condemnation. To sum up, χάρις (cháris) bound the father / patron and the clients / slaves but separated them if not felt nor given by one or the other.65

1.7. CONCLUSION

The Greco-Roman family, which was the basic unit of society at that time, had the characteristic and nature of a socio-economic organism. Its members were bound either by the same blood or by common acquisition and management of wealth. The father / patron held all authority, honour, and wealth in the family. He was also the head which controlled the acquisition, management, and use of all the family’s property / wealth. The sons were the heirs, the day-workers (clients) and the slaves the executors of the acquisition of property and the management according to their abilities and skills, and in accordance with the father / patron’s will.

Due to the importance of competition among the fathers / patrons in the society of that time, the clients / slaves were required and expected by the father / patron to fulfil the great responsibility of improving upon the family’s property / wealth, because his power and honour increased accordingly. Therefore, it was important for the father / patron that they had various abilities to be used with faithfulness. He rewarded those who satisfied him. Some slaves even became free in those days.66

Much has been said above about the family, its identity, and its members’ dependence on one another in the Greco-Roman society. What about families in the Kingdom of Heaven? This will be developed in the next chapter, based on the exegesis of Matthew 25:14-30.

CHAPTER TWO: