i) PARENTS
In Mark 10:19 and also in 7:9-13 the teaching of Exodus 20:12, Leviticus 19:3 and Deuteronomy 5:16 to ‘honour your father and mother’ which Jews at this time took to mean both parents should be honoured equally was affirmed. This is important in showing that there was a place for the physical family and not just a spiritual one in the Christian church. Jesus also launched a stinging attack on the tradition of corban, or devoting one’s possessions to God that meant your parents could not benefit from your property. Jesus was here attacking the oral law and saying that such things as vows were not always binding, as the rabbi’s said, that if you vowed evil on your parents then this was not binding.
ii) CHILDREN A main part of a woman’s life, both at this time, and for many years later, was childbirth and children. In Mark 9:33-7 and 10:13-16 Jesus’ attitude to children can be seen to be unusual. Many cultures had a slightly negative attitude to children, especially girls, both the Greeks and the Romans exposed children without a thought, although A. Oepke J believes attitudes were changing. Jewish society did value children more highly than pagan societies but they still valued boys more. Children were not put forward as religious models, hence Jesus’ action in saying “whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” was extremely unusual. Jesus identified his mission with children in saying in Mk 9:33-7 that they should receive children “in my name”. This probably meant ‘for my sake’ although grammatically receiving children as Jesus’ representatives was not impossible as WitheringtonJ observes. Jesus showed that he believed children to be of consequence as children, and that not only male children were important, nor only female, but both. However, there are some, for example, Alfred Plummer, who do not think this passage refers to children at all, but to those who are childlike in characterJ however, it does seem more probable that it refers to children. The implication in the saying “whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” could be that the Kingdom of God is involves or is made up of children, not that it is like a child. There is another problem in that this could imply that children and childbearing and rearing roles are good, but could also mean that Jesus worked on behalf of the helpless (i.e. the children).
Overall, in terms of family, had Jesus wanted to stress the spiritual family over the physical, he would probably not have mentioned it at all. It seems that traditional roles and duties were affirmed as long as they did not conflict with the Kingdom of God.
iii) WIDOWS
Another area in which women were involved was as widows, in which, as we have already seen, they were very vulnerable. In Mark 12:38-40 it says, “beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and to have salutations in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at feasts, who devour widow’s houses and for a pretence make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.” This could refer to scribes taking advantage of the kindliness of widows but, more probably, that they were legal managers of widows’ estates and were taking too much money for expenses. Jesus here shows himself the advocate for oppressed widows and in Mk 12:41-44 the widow is seen as a model for discipleship as opposed to the scribes who are impious and who can afford to give huge sums.
iv) VIRGINS
“If any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do as he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better” 1 Cor 7:36-38
There is naturally a question here, why does Paul leave everything to the man’s decision? There may have been many reasons, it could be that the man who has to choose is the father of the virgin trying to decide whether his daughter should marry, this could be borne out by the King James translation above, “giveth her in marriage”. The other possibility, the one borne out by the Revised Standard Version translation (which translates ‘virgin’ as ‘betrothed’) is that there are both male and female virgins who are bound in spiritual marriage wherein the man’s resolve is weakening. In 7:34 Paul writes - “the unmarried woman and the virgin are worried about the Lord’s concerns, that they might be consecrated [or holy] both in body and in spirit”. Antoinette Clark Wine believes that this consecration is not thought possible in marriage by the Corinthians or Paul. He writes that being a virgin is best, but if men cannot restrain their desire then women should marry and be no longer consecrated. Ryder Smith thought that after the resurrection, there would be no sex. As “the sons of this age marry, and are given in marriage; but they that are counted worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage; for neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” (Luke 20:34-6) If people will not die then the physical purpose of marriage is gone. Ryder Smith thought however that the distinction between men and women would survive for variety. There will be no physical sex in heaven, as there is none in God, hence Jesus’ celibacy. Luke wrote that those who were with child when the eschaton came (expected soon) would be in a miserable plight, and as there would be no sex, or physical marriage heaven, Paul and some of the other disciples practised celibacy.
v) DIVORCE
Antoinette Clark Wine points out that there are no gender-specific legal distinctions made between divorce with men and women. In 1 Cor 7:10-11 Paul wrote “let not the wife depart from her husband; but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband”. That this is only directed to women suggests that only they were the problem. However, it means that it was possible for once-married women to remain single in Corinth, even though Paul urges for reconciliation. The passage in 7:14 is also important: “the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy”. Greek children had their father’s religion therefore Paul’s mention that the child of an unbeliever with a believer would be holy would seem to be directed at women. He also significantly mentions in 7:15 that if the unbeliever leaves the marriage then the believer is not ‘enslaved’ and in 7:13 mentions some who have left unbelieving husbands and mentions a ‘sister’ not being enslaved and in 7:15 says “if the unbeliever leaves, let him leave” (my italics). The verb ‘enslaved’ suggests freeing abandoned women rather than just giving men license.
Jesus stresses that women are not objects to be put away at will and stresses both husband and wife must make their partnership secure. It was unusual at the time to speak of a husband committing adultery against his own wife, or, as in Mark 10:12, to suggest a woman could divorce her husband. Jesus emphasised that loyalty and commitment in marriage was the responsibility of both partners.
vi) MARRIAGE
Paul stressed the permanent nature of marriage (e.g. in Romans 7:2) and in 1 Cor 7:1ff. He stressed the dignity of marriage and said that it was part of God’s plan and an expression of the love between Christ and the Church. The Christian home was to become a foundation for Christian living.
1 Thessalonians 4:3-6 “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honour, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God; that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you.”
There is a stress on the value of marriage – Paul is not denigrating the sexual aspects of marriage, but saying that immorality is a bar to sanctification, that a wife is not simply a sex object, as the ‘heathens’ regard her. There is an implication that there had been adultery in the Thessalonian church so Paul was emphasising the sanctity of marriage.
1 Tim 5:14 “So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households and given the enemy no occasion to revile us.”
To avoid widows indulging in idleness or breaking their pledge, they are encouraged to remarry, have children and ‘rule their households’. A motivator is the apostles’ anxiety about reproach from the non-Christian world. There is an emphasis on the value of marriage being as much that of a widow and servant of the Church. The verb ‘to rule’ (oikodespoteo) is used of a wife’s function. Oikodespoteo is used in the New Testament meaning ‘master of the house’. “When wives ‘rule their households’ they are not giving up their submissiveness, but are acting as the female counterpart of their husband, the householder.”J Decision-making is not just left to the husband.
Titus 2:1-6 “But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine. Bid the older men be temperate, serious, sensible, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Bid the older women likewise to be reverent in behaviour, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God not be discredited.”
These are practical instructions to those in the church. Family lives are important and their motive is that God should not be discredited or blasphemed.
~ Overall, “Paul presents us with a picture of marriage that is amazingly egalitarian, particularly in the light of the conditions of the time. He advocated neither a patriarchal nor a matriarchal structure.”J Man is never described as ‘head of the household’; home is not described as the total purpose of women’s lives and both men and women are called upon to fulfil their obligations.