Gune
Albrecht Oepke wrote this article for the TDNT, so give him credit where credit is due. My understanding of Greek is rudimentary at best.
Gune, generally from the time of Homer, refers to a) female, as distinct from male, b) wife.
In the Contemporary NT world:
GREECE
Attic (Athenian?) Greeks despised and oppressed women according to their surviving literature - viewing them as having inferior status, fickle, a misfit, having no claim to culture.
Doric (Spartan?) Greeks in Plutarch's literature, endowed women with more freedom and influence, and attributed them with proud and heroic natures.
Generally, the Greek ideal of woman was lofty, both physically and spiritually. "Plato in the Republic makes the demand, revolutionary in the Attic world though common in the Doric, that there should be an equality of women, even in respect of exercise in arms. In fact the capable women, especially in Hellenistic Asia Minor but also in Greece, could occupy a surprisingly independent and influential role even in public life." (Vol 1, pg 778)
Marriage was mostly monogamous but serial divorces could lead to a type of polygamy. Oepke quotes Ps.-Demosth. against Neaira: "We have harlots for our pleasure, concubines for daily physical use, wives to bring up legitimate children and to be faithful stewards in household matters." No legal restrictions existed. Divorces were not uncommon, occurring by consent or unilateral action of either spouse. Apparently, "eleven, even twelve wives, were not uncommon."
ROME
"The husband had only mild superiority which constantly diminished." No seclusion for women as the Attic Greek's did, equality in education was pursued. Marriage was monogamous, like the Greeks excepting intercourse with slaves or harlots, but there was only one mater familias.
Roman women in later times counted years by their husband - eight marriages could be contracted within five autumns. Oepke seems to be saying that the women became more divorce prone, like the Greek men had.
OT WOMEN
Oepke points to various passages alluding to women's status as chattel but balances it with her freedoms. He names the variety of OT women who attained extraordinary influence through their men, as well as Deborah, who led Israel.
JUDAISM
"Woman is openly dispised."(pg781) Rabbinic literature attributed empty-headedness, witchcraft, extravagance in teaching her the Torah, she should not bear witness, instruct the children, pray at the table. In the synagogues, the women's place was behind a screen or in special chambers.
On the good side, the godly wife is praised, she is thought to have greater promise before God than her husband.
Marriage is permissibly polygamous, but the expense and problems made monogamy more practical. "The real evil in the Jewish and the Hellenistic world, together with divorce and prostitution, was successive polygamy...Strict Judaism opposed not only adultery and unnatural licence, but also extramarital intercourse..." The divorce laws were protested against regularly, but never to much effect.
CHRISTIANITY
Two points: man and woman should join in inviolatable monogamous marriage and "the lordship of God radically removes all the differences which separate them" (pg784).
Oepke says Jesus "is the Saviour who gives Himself especially to the lowly and oppressed and calls all without distinction to the freedom of the kingdom of God." (pg 784) In that sense, women are specially singled out, as are other sick and hurting peoples.
"In the early community, there was no doubt as to the full membership of women (Acts 1:14, 12:12). In Paul, practical conservativeness contrasts with theological equality. Later apostolic writings continue Paul's contrasts. Historically, women exercised less and less official functions as time passed.
Okay, that was 13 pages in more than a nutshell. But an interesting background to put behind some of the scriptural references.
If Oepke is accurate, then Matt's post regarding 1 Tim 3:12 would be answered thusly. Gune is wife, not spouse, in both historical literature and other scriptural references. If I remember my Greek correctly, precedence indicates importance. My interlinear notes word order of: Deacons let be of one wife husbands, children well ruling, and their own households. Given Kittel's cultural context lesson, it would suggest that this particular verse is speaking against divorce and successive polygamy. Contextually, Paul's letter to Timothy has a lot more to say about women.
But it's midnight and I'll stop here for now.
Gune, generally from the time of Homer, refers to a) female, as distinct from male, b) wife.
In the Contemporary NT world:
GREECE
Attic (Athenian?) Greeks despised and oppressed women according to their surviving literature - viewing them as having inferior status, fickle, a misfit, having no claim to culture.
Doric (Spartan?) Greeks in Plutarch's literature, endowed women with more freedom and influence, and attributed them with proud and heroic natures.
Generally, the Greek ideal of woman was lofty, both physically and spiritually. "Plato in the Republic makes the demand, revolutionary in the Attic world though common in the Doric, that there should be an equality of women, even in respect of exercise in arms. In fact the capable women, especially in Hellenistic Asia Minor but also in Greece, could occupy a surprisingly independent and influential role even in public life." (Vol 1, pg 778)
Marriage was mostly monogamous but serial divorces could lead to a type of polygamy. Oepke quotes Ps.-Demosth. against Neaira: "We have harlots for our pleasure, concubines for daily physical use, wives to bring up legitimate children and to be faithful stewards in household matters." No legal restrictions existed. Divorces were not uncommon, occurring by consent or unilateral action of either spouse. Apparently, "eleven, even twelve wives, were not uncommon."
ROME
"The husband had only mild superiority which constantly diminished." No seclusion for women as the Attic Greek's did, equality in education was pursued. Marriage was monogamous, like the Greeks excepting intercourse with slaves or harlots, but there was only one mater familias.
Roman women in later times counted years by their husband - eight marriages could be contracted within five autumns. Oepke seems to be saying that the women became more divorce prone, like the Greek men had.
OT WOMEN
Oepke points to various passages alluding to women's status as chattel but balances it with her freedoms. He names the variety of OT women who attained extraordinary influence through their men, as well as Deborah, who led Israel.
JUDAISM
"Woman is openly dispised."(pg781) Rabbinic literature attributed empty-headedness, witchcraft, extravagance in teaching her the Torah, she should not bear witness, instruct the children, pray at the table. In the synagogues, the women's place was behind a screen or in special chambers.
On the good side, the godly wife is praised, she is thought to have greater promise before God than her husband.
Marriage is permissibly polygamous, but the expense and problems made monogamy more practical. "The real evil in the Jewish and the Hellenistic world, together with divorce and prostitution, was successive polygamy...Strict Judaism opposed not only adultery and unnatural licence, but also extramarital intercourse..." The divorce laws were protested against regularly, but never to much effect.
CHRISTIANITY
Two points: man and woman should join in inviolatable monogamous marriage and "the lordship of God radically removes all the differences which separate them" (pg784).
Oepke says Jesus "is the Saviour who gives Himself especially to the lowly and oppressed and calls all without distinction to the freedom of the kingdom of God." (pg 784) In that sense, women are specially singled out, as are other sick and hurting peoples.
"In the early community, there was no doubt as to the full membership of women (Acts 1:14, 12:12). In Paul, practical conservativeness contrasts with theological equality. Later apostolic writings continue Paul's contrasts. Historically, women exercised less and less official functions as time passed.
Okay, that was 13 pages in more than a nutshell. But an interesting background to put behind some of the scriptural references.
If Oepke is accurate, then Matt's post regarding 1 Tim 3:12 would be answered thusly. Gune is wife, not spouse, in both historical literature and other scriptural references. If I remember my Greek correctly, precedence indicates importance. My interlinear notes word order of: Deacons let be of one wife husbands, children well ruling, and their own households. Given Kittel's cultural context lesson, it would suggest that this particular verse is speaking against divorce and successive polygamy. Contextually, Paul's letter to Timothy has a lot more to say about women.
But it's midnight and I'll stop here for now.
posted by Charlotte Wyncoop at 8:05 PM
14 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Is it speaking against divorce and polygamy? As I suggested on Matt's blog, couldn't it just be saying that deacons shouldn't be polygamists because then they'll be too busy to attend to the Lord's work (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7:32-35)? In other words, it's not necessarily condemning polygamy, it's just saying that it's not smart for deacons to have too many wives because of their other responsibilities.
As much as polygamy was abused in ancient society, in some contexts it was a good thing, an institution that ensured compassion and justice for widows and orphans. Since women in Ancient Near Eastern society usually had very little means to provide for themselves apart from their male providers, and since in any society there are usually fewer men than women, polygamy was a means for widowed women and orphaned unmarried daughters to be taken care of. In other words, there usually weren't enough men to go around, so each man had to be responsible for providing for the needs of more than one woman.
Even in today's world there are still polygamist cultures for whom this is the primary motivation for multiple wives. What is unfortunate is that sometimes Christian missionaries show up in these cultures and immediately require men to give up their extra wives when they convert, in which case these women are left with no one to take care of them and often become destitute or prostitutes.
Anyhow, I'm not recommending polygamy across the board ;) - I'm just suggesting that in some cultures and contexts it plays a useful social role and perhaps that's why the Bible never explicitly and unilaterally condemns it.
Actually, the successive polygamy I was referring to in Oepke's comments seems to refer to serial divorce and remarriage, not long term polygamy.
Oepke sounds like he's saying Roman rule allowed only one mater familias, but did allow for divorce and remarriage. Did the Roman's impose their laws of this nature on conquered lands? If so, then Paul's comments would have been spoken in the context of these existing laws - polygamy may not have been an issue...
I don't know if Rome imposed these customs on other lands or not. I'd have to do more research, but my guess is "no" since we have evidence in the gospels that the Jews were still practicing long term polygamy (c.f. Matthew 22:24). I've also read that Herod had multiple wives. One website that I found said that Jews who were also official Roman citizens (like Paul) had to follow the laws of Rome and could not practice polygamy but Jews who were "resident aliens" in the Empire could still be polygamous. In Paul's day most of the Jews in the empire would not have been citizens and it's probably a safe bet that at least a few of them still followed traditional Jewish customs. Thus it would still make sense for Paul to recommend monogamy to them if they wanted to be deacons.
my brain is dead... but I liked what you said here and what it implies about us gals... :)
"In that sense, women are specially singled out, as are other sick and hurting peoples."
What do you think Julie, did you see my comment on Matt's post?
My personal feeling is that would be an interesting study...
okay a few thoughts generally (vaguely) related to this subject... I was reading yesterday about the history of New Testement interpretation and it got me thinking about what the purpose of this discussion is.
I think I get caught up often in trying to determine what was going on historically in the NT church so that I can claim it as a norm for today. but when I take a step back I realize that I generally don't agree with that sort of approach to the bible. I don't think that the NT church was the pure and unadulturated form of being a christian and that we just have to uncover all the facts about it in order to be the real christians we are supposed to be. I see faith and god's purposes in this world as being fluid rather than static.
But that does not mean that the attempt to discover how things were in the NT (as much as that can actually be done) is not a worthwhile attempt. I fully acknowledge that our views of the NT (especially in regards to women) are heavily influenced by our culture. We are looking at the bible through the lenses of years and years of male dominance - there are a lot of agendas that are at stake in the discussion. There see to be many present christians who are literally afraid to even address the topic thoughfully(just look at the knee-jerk reaction to the Da Vinci Code..). I think we have gotten it wrong about women in the early churh and that needs to be made known, but I don't see then that we should necessarily copy whatever we determine what it was that was going on.
I personally prefer the concept of trajectory. If through history God was asking his people to give more love and freedom to oppressed groups (women, slaves, gentiles, children...), and if in different ages his people were pushing what was the norm for their culture, we need to look at where the general approach was pointing and follow that trajectory to where it leads. It took centuries for people to finally grasp the revolutionary things that Paul wrote about releasing slaves and treating them as equals. And it was the christians who led the abolitionist cause because it was fulfilling the plans God had. No one today says that its okay for some to read the bible and think that black people are lesser or cant serve god as well as whites, but that was the norm amoung christians at one point. perhaps someday people in the church will be just as scandalized to hear people talking about women being lesser and not being able to serve as well as men...
I like that term you chose - trajectory. Some thoughts -
In viewing the historical context of Paul's letter to Timothy, I'm trying to see through Paul's lenses. While his specific instructions might not apply (ie.headcoverings or holy kiss), his principle should. When the principle/trajectory intersects with our post-modern time, we have to rely on God to clarify for us exactly how the principle manifests in practice.
That said, back to Paul's lenses:
1) The church at Ephesus was composed of Jews and Greeks (see Acts 19), so Paul's letter to Timothy was written to a mixed audience.
2)What I found agrees with your comments, Roman citizens had to abide by roman law, however Jewish citizens could avail themselves of whichever law they chose. Thus, in the matter of marriage, a citizen would have been restricted to monogamy, but allow divorce. A Jew would be allowed monogamy, polygamy, and divorce.
So I can't really think why Paul, a Hellenistic Jew who studied under Gamaliel, would speak against polygamists - given his cultural heritage. Your answer Mike seems the only likely suggestion so far.
However, regarding divorce, it would make sense perhaps to not have a divorcee administrating the provision for the widows and poor if one of those poor could be a former wife. Just a conjecture.
Maybe tomorrow I should look up the role of deacons and what it entailed...
So a practical question about the divorce thing... would this mean that a pastor can't have ever been divorced? What if his ex-wife (or her ex-husband) were in the congregation he or she was pastoring? I'm sure that's a problem that has occurred more than once in recent times.
What if a person was divorced before they became a Christian and then they converted and went into the pastorate? What if they divorced as a pastor but their ex is not in their current church - is it still a problem?
I don't know... certainly divorce is a bad thing, and less than God's ideal. But does being divorced automatically exclude one from any future leadership or service within the church? What are your thoughts?
Now that I understand the background a little better, the practical side is all up at arms...
Okay, I just googled "divorce rate christians" and just got an eye-full. This is scary.
I had heard, and Matt reminded me that the Christian and non-Christian communities have the same divorce rate...however, it would seem that isn't quite true.
Being a "born again" Christian, apparently helps your likelihood of a divorce.
Variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups:
Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate) % who have been divorced
Non-denominational (small conservative groups; independents) 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%
Variation in divorce rates by religion:
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%
Okay, so from a practical standpoint (quoting from the Barna study:
"Based on interviews with a nationally representative sample of 3614 adults, the Barna survey focused on the three-quarters of adults 18 years of age or older who have been married at least once...Among all adults 18 and older, three out of four (73%) have been married and half (51%) are currently married. (That does not include the 3% who are presently separated from their marriage partner.) Among those who have been married, more than one out of every three (35%) have also been divorced. One out of every five adults (18%) who has ever been divorced has been divorced multiple times. That represents 7% of all Americans who have been married.
The average age at which people first dissolve their initial marriage tends to be in the early thirties. Among people in their mid-fifties or older, the median age of their first divorce was 34. Among Baby Boomers, millions more of whom are expected to get a divorce within the coming decade, the median age of the first divorce is currently 31. The Barna Group expects the average age of a first divorce among Boomers to be similar to that of the preceding generations by 2015, as the aging members of that generation sustain divorces later in life.
The research revealed that Boomers continue to push the limits regarding the prevalence of divorce. Whereas just one-third (33%) of the married adults from the preceding two generations had experienced a divorce, almost half of all married Boomers (46%) have already undergone a marital split. This means Boomers are virtually certain to become the first generation for which a majority experienced a divorce.
It appears that the generation following the Boomers will reach similar heights, since more than one-quarter of the married Baby Busters (27%) have already undergone a divorce, despite the fact that the youngest one-fifth of that generation has not even reached the average age of a first marriage.
From a practical standpoint, if you exclude everyone who has had a divorce, where are you going to get your leaders? If you aren't a leader, aren't you then a follower? If you exclude them from all leadership (and exclude all the women), that suggests you have less than 32.5% doing any of the leadership. Wait, let's continue our thread here. The leaders are supposed to have wives and children. Okay, US census says 50% of households are married. So that's 16% doing the leadership...oh yeah, kids...69.6% okay, so to qualify as a deacon, as stated, men, married, one wife, children - roughly 11.2% can be leaders.
Is there really any surprise that women, unmarried and childless adults feel left out, if we follow this bible verse to the letter? Maybe this is why we have so many problems filling leadership roles.
The divorce statistics are what really scare me however. These suggest to me that "christianity" as a religion is working somehow against God's plan for permanent marriage. I think we really need to look at this question as a church.
Oops, sorry the Barna quote ends and I start writing again with the new paragraph beginning "From a practical standpoint..."
Is it possible that the higher divorce rates among Christians is because Christians tend to emphasize marriage and saving sex for marriage so much, so more young Christians end up getting married too soon or to the wrong person because of this social pressure? Non-Christian couples on the other hand, aren't even bothering with marriage in the first place; they're just co-habitating. So when things don't work out and they break up it doesn't add to the divorce rates. Maybe for a real comparison we should look not at divorce rates but at "relationship failure" rates?
How do you get married to the wrong person? Somewhere I saw that cultures where arranged marriages are the rule divorce is not so prevalent - maybe because there's a stigma against divorce or maybe because they don't expect to "fall in love" and then divorce because they've "fallen out of love."
I guess I hold marriage up to a high standard. My mother made the marriage work with my father despite bankruptsy, her family treating her like a pariah, and my dad's infidelity. I think my dad cared for her, but I know he also commented at one time to me "who else would have me?"
I do believe what Paul says does apply to marriage - a wife serving her husband (which I don't do well) and a husband sacrificing himself for his wife. Jesus taught that Moses granted divorce as a concession to the people, it was not God's intent. I believe that we are intended for permanent long term relationships that support and enhance the qualities and gifts that God gave us. I'm not sure there is a "right" person, so much as making the best of whatever situation you are in - whether you are struggling or delighting in it.
I don't think the pre-marriage relationship failure rates have much to do with the issue, I think that they would be a symptom of the same problem exhibited by the divorce statistics. I would hypothesize the same root cause results in both issues.
If the Way of Christ is really a better way to live, then we should see better results than living without Christ. I would suggest that what Christians are teaching about marriage, and doing about marriage is not better, and somehow worse in fact. I think this is a completely different discussion than "gune," so I'm going to start it as its own heading.
What do you think about divorce and leadership issues?
You said:
" How do you get married to the wrong person?"
I think I just meant that sometimes Christians rush into marriage because of social expectations with someone who they aren't really well suited for and who they might not marry if they had more maturity or a longer period of dating/courtship. I came very close at some points to marrying my high school girlfriend, though she would not have been a good match for me at all and that would have been a very poor decision. And I know plenty of other people who are or have been on the verge of getting married to someone who I personally think is not at all right for them, or whose relationship is not at all healthy enough to make marriage a good idea.
Of course I believe that once one has committed to marriage, no matter how bad the decision to get married may have been, you have to do your best with it and do whatever you can to make it a good marriage. After you are married the person you are married to is by definition the "right" person, but I was talking about the decision before you get married. At that stage of the game there are plenty of "wrong" people.
"I don't think the pre-marriage relationship failure rates have much to do with the issue, I think that they would be a symptom of the same problem exhibited by the divorce statistics. I would hypothesize the same root cause results in both issues."
I think we're saying the same thing, I'm just not expressing myself very clearly. Julie explains what I meant pretty well in her comment on your newest post.
What do you think about divorce and leadership issues?
I don't really know, though, as on most issues, I tend to err on the side of grace.
Post a Comment
<< Home