Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-82ts8 Total loading time: 0.407 Render date: 2022-06-30T07:31:26.457Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Is the ekklēsia a Household (of God)? Reassessing the Notion of οἶκος θεοῦ in 1 Tim 3.15*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2014

Korinna Zamfir*
Affiliation:
Babes-Bolyai University, Faculty of Roman Catholic Theology, Iuliu Maniu 5, 400095 Cluj, Romania. email: kori_zamfir@yahoo.com

Abstract

1 Timothy defines the ekklēsia as the οἶκος θεοῦ. This has led to the conclusion that the Pastoral Epistles regard the ekklēsia as an enlarged oikos, where the roles of the officials and the norms regulating the behaviour of its members reproduce the relationships of the patriarchal household. However, οἶκος θεοῦ is not a household properly speaking. Ekklēsia is a term with political connotations, and thus the community acquires a public dimension. In addition, oikos is used metaphorically, for a larger community. In this, the definition reflects the ancient custom of describing larger communities (the cosmos, the polis, or an association) through the metaphor of the oikos. The ekklēsia is therefore a public, quasi-cosmic space, whose laws and structures receive divine legitimation.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

During the research for this paper I was visiting scholar at KU Leuven and a member of the Stellenbosch University New Testament Research Association.

References

1 I read the Pastoral Epistles (henceforth PE) as pseudonymous (forged) epistles, which, in spite of their individual features, belong to a corpus. See Roloff, J., Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKKNT 15; Zürich: Benzinger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988) 2339Google Scholar, 41–6; Oberlinner, L., Die Pastoralbriefe: Kommentar zum ersten Timotheusbrief (HTKNT 11/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1994) xxxiiixxxixGoogle Scholar, xlii–xlvi; Donelson, L. R., Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles (HUT 22; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986)Google Scholar; Frenschkowski, M., ‘Pseudepigraphie und Paulusschule: Gedanken zur Verfasserschaft der Deuteropaulinen’, Das Ende des Paulus: Historische, theologische und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte (ed. Horn, F. W.; BZNW 106; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001) 239–72Google Scholar, at 251, 262; Weiser, A., Der zweite Brief an Timotheus (EKKNT 16.1; Düsseldorf/Zürich: Benzinger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003) 53–4Google Scholar, 56–9, 63; Merz, A., Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe (NTOA 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004) 7286CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 221, 224, 383–4; Marshall, J. W., ‘“I Left You in Crete”: Narrative Deception and Social Hierarchy in the Letter to Titus’, JBL 127 (2008) 781803Google Scholar; Tsuji, M., ‘Persönliche Korrespondenz des Paulus: Zur Strategie der Pastoralbriefe als Pseudepigrapha’, NTS 56 (2010) 253–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Οἶκος θεοῦ appears only in 1 Tim 3.15, but the metaphor is implied elsewhere as well. The house (οἰκία) in 2 Tim 2.20, which hosts different members (vessels), is a metaphor of the community. The representation of the episkopos-presbyteros (and diakonos) as head of household (1 Tim 3.4–5, 12) or, symbolically speaking, as an oikonomos of God (Tit 1.7) implies a similar image of the ekklēsia. Oberlinner, L., Die Pastoralbriefe: Kommentar zum zweiten Timotheusbrief (HThKNT 11.2.2; Freiburg: Herder, 1995) 104Google Scholar; Marshall, I. H., The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 1999) 759Google Scholar, 761; Horrell, D. G., ‘From ἀδελφοί to οἶκος θεοῦ: Social Transformation in Pauline Christianity’, JBL 120 (2001) 293311Google Scholar, at 308. Verner, D. C., The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles (SBL Dissertations 71; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983)Google Scholar esp. 91–111; Roloff, 1 Tim, 213–15; Wagener, U., Die Ordnung des Hauses Gottes: Der Ort von Frauen in der Ekklesiologie und Ethik der Pastoralbriefe (WUNT 2.65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994) 62–5Google Scholar, 113, 235–45; Oberlinner, L., ‘Öffnung zur Welt oder Verrat am Glauben? Hellenismus in den Pastoralbriefen’, Der neue Mensch in Christus: Hellenistische Anthropologie und Ethik im Neuen Testament (ed. Beutler, J.; Freiburg: Herder, 2001) 135–63Google Scholar, at 148–63; id., Gemeindeordnung und rechte Lehre: Zur Fortschreibung der paulinischen Ekklesiologie in den Pastoralbriefen’, ThQ 187 (2007) 295308Google Scholar; id., “Paulus” versus Paulus? Zum Problem des “Paulinismus” der Pastoralbriefe’, Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und Johannes; Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Eckert, J., Schmidl, M., Steichele, H.; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001) 170–99Google Scholar, at 177–86. Horrell, ἀδελϕοί, 295–9, 306–11; id., Disciplining Performance and “Placing” the Church: Widows, Elders and Slaves in the Household of God (1 Tim 5,1–6,2)’, 1 Timothy Reconsidered (ed. Donfried, K. P.; Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 18; Leuven: Peeters, 2008) 109–34Google Scholar, at 132–4; Fatum, L., ‘Christ Domesticated: The Household Theology of the Pastorals as Political Strategy’, The Formation of the Early Church (ed. Ådna, J.; WUNT 1.183; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 175207Google Scholar, at 178–80, 186–94, 196–201; Trebilco, P., ‘What Shall We Call Each Other? i: The Issue of Self-Designation in the Pastoral Epistles’, Tyndale Bulletin 53 (2002) 239–58Google Scholar, at 249–53; Wagner, J., Die Anfänge des Amtes in der Kirche: Presbyter und Episkopen in der frühchristlichen Literatur (Tübingen: Francke, 2011) 175–82Google Scholar.

3 Verner, Household, esp. 27–70.

4 Roloff, 1 Tim, 137–8 n. 143. Discussing John 4, Jerome Neyrey claimed that ‘[t]here was no “public” Christian world for males or females. All Christians met in “private” space and adopted the customs appropriate for households and kinship groups’ (The Gospel of John in Cultural and Rhetorical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 145–6Google Scholar). Jorunn Økland also challenged the contrast between the household as private and the ekklēsia as public space (Women in their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary Space (JSNTSup 269; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004)Google Scholar 38, 58, 140–1).

5 Collins, R. F., 1&2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002) 104Google Scholar.

6 MacDonald, M., Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 156–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 171.

7 Young, F. M., The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 K. L. Schmidt, ἐκκλησία, TDNT iii.501–36, at 503, 527–9; Schnelle, U., Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005)Google Scholar 560 (though noting that with the neologism ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ Paul turns to the secular meaning of the term); Dunn, J. D. G., Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making, vol. ii (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 600Google Scholar; Trebilco, P., ‘Why Did the Early Christians Call Themselves ἡ ἐκκλησία?’, NTS 57 (2011) 440–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 444, 446.

9 See below, nn. 14–15.

10 Schrage, W., ‘“Ekklesia” und “Synagoge”: Zum Ursprung des urchristlichen Kirchenbegriffs’, ZThK 60 (1963) 178202Google Scholar, at 202 (although his argument that Hellenists chose it over synagogē because of their criticism of the Law is not convincing). Even Trebilco, who excludes any political connotation in Paul's ecclesiology and in the understanding of Jerusalem Hellenists, admits the political background of the term (‘ἐκκλησία’, 445).

11 Klauck, H.-J., Gemeinde zwischen Haus und Stadt: Kirche bei Paulus (Freiburg: Herder, 1992) 35–6Google Scholar.

12 Peterson, E., ‘Ekklesia: Studien zum altkirchlichen Kirchenbegriff’, Ausgewählte Schriften: Sonderband (ed. Nichtweiß, B. and Weidemann, H.-U.; Würzburg: Echter, 2010) 983Google Scholar, at 15–26; also Schrage, ‘Ekklesia’, 179–88.

13 Berger, K., ‘Volksversammlung und Gemeinde Gottes: Zu den Anfängen der christlichen Verwendung von “ekklesia”’, Tradition und Offenbarung: Studien zum frühen Christentum (ed. Klinghardt, M. and Röhser, G.; Tübingen: Francke, 2006) 173206Google Scholar, at 173–87; H.-U.Weidemann, ‘Ekklesia, Polis und Synagoge: Überlegungen im Anschluss an Erik Peterson’, in Peterson, E., Ekklesia: Studien zum altchristlichen Kirchenbegriff, Ausgewählte Schriften: Sonderband (ed. Nichtweiß, B. and Weidemann, H.-U.; Würzburg: Echter, 2010) 152–95Google Scholar, at 171–3; id., “Paulus an die Ekklesia Gottes, die in Korinth ist”: Der Kirchenbegriff in Petersons Auslegung des ersten Korintherbriefs’, Erik Peterson: Die theologische Präsenz eines Outsiders (ed. Caronello, G.; Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2012) 259–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klinghardt, M., ‘Hellenistisch-römische Staatsidee’, Neues Testament und antike Kultur, vol. iii: Weltauffassung – Kult – Ethos (ed. Zangenberg, J.; Neurkirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011) 143–50Google Scholar, at 148–50. Berger (‘Volksversammlung’, 176–87) and Weidemann (‘Ekklesia’, 179–85) argue that early Christ-believers adopted ekklēsia through the mediation of Hellenistic Judaism.

14 Peterson, ‘Ekklesia’, 17–52 (cf. Heb 11.8–12; 12.22–4; 13.14; Gal 4.26; Phil 3.20; Rev 21.9–22.5); Weidemann, ‘Paulus’, 276 (cf. also 1 Thess 4.17; Rom 11.26; the Johannine corpus, in particular John 14.2–3, 18–20; 2 John 1.5).

15 Peterson, ‘Ekklesia’, 20. On the public dimension, also Weidemann, ‘Paulus’, 269–70, 272, 281.

16 Peterson, ‘Ekklesia’, 20–1; Weidemann, ‘Ekklesia’, 153; id., ‘Paulus’, 267.

17 Peterson, ‘Ekklesia’, 23–4, 40; also Berger, ‘Volksversammlung’, 180–1, 185; Klinghardt, ‘Staatsidee’, 149.

18 Peterson, ‘Ekklesia’, 24–6. On acclamations in the NT: Weidemann, ‘Paulus’, 277–86.

19 Peterson, ‘Ekklesia’, 18–20.

20 Peterson, ‘Ekklesia’, 47, 51.

21 Berger, ‘Volksversammlung’, 179–87; Klinghardt, ‘Staatsidee’, 150.

22 E.g. the early parting of the ways between Jews and Christians (against it: Weidemann, ‘Ekklesia’, 158–64), the too strict application of the features of the profane ekklēsia to the Christian one; the overemphasis of the role of the officials; the view that ekklēsia denoted the assembly, not the group (against it: Berger, ‘Volksversammlung’, 190–1, 198–9; Weidemann, ‘Paulus’, 274–5.)

23 Although he speaks of the baptised and the angels as members of the ‘Bürgerschaft der Himmelsstadt’ (‘Ekklesia’, 47).

24 Sandnes, K. O., ‘Ekklēsia at Corinth: Between Private and Public’, Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke 3–4 (2007) 248–63Google Scholar; id., Equality within Patriarchal Structures: Some New Testament Perspectives on the Christian Fellowship as a Brother- or Sisterhood and a Family’, Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (ed. Moxnes, H.; London: Routledge, 1997) 150–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Women in their Place, 132–7, 152–67.

26 Sandnes, ‘Ekklēsia’, 259–60.

27 Sandnes, ‘Ekklēsia’, 255–7. This argument is perhaps less compelling if one considers the involvement of women in ecclesial life in the lifetime of Paul, but the consideration certainly applies to the PE.

28 Wagner, Anfänge, 178 (בּית יהוה in Hos 8.1; 9.8, 15; Jer 12.7; Zech 9.8). One should note that the LXX has οἶκος κυρίου in Hosea, ‘my house’ in Jeremiah and Zechariah. Wagner refers to Oberlinner, 1 Tim, 155, yet Oberlinner does not really derive the concept from the OT. He only mentions the community as temple of God in the NT and, additionally, that of the house of JHWH in the OT, emphasising that this image allows the author to connect his ecclesiology with the expectation that the episkopos and diakonos would be good managers of both household and community.

29 The latter can be referred to as oikos, but not as oikos of God. This remains true even when Raymond Collins brings together temple and community, noting that the house of God is the place where the people come together (1–2 Tim Tit, 103, 102).

30 BibleWorks search; O. Michel, οἶκος κτλ, TDNT v.119–31 (he omits the Stoic use of oikos from the discussion of the Greek/Hellenistic usage).

31 Michel, οἶκος, 121, 125, 128–9.

32 The imagery is probably implied in Rom 15.20 as well. On οἰκοδομή as ecclesiological metaphor in Paul: Kitzberger, I., Bau der Gemeinde: Das paulinische Wortfeld οἰκοδομή / (ἐπ)οικοδομεῖν (Forschung zur Bibel 53; Würzburg: Echter, 1986)Google Scholar; Spicq, C., Les Épîtres Pastorales, vol. i (Paris: Gabalda, 1969) 104Google Scholar; Collins, 1–2 Tim and Tit, 103.

33 Spicq, Épîtres, 104; Collins, 1–2 Tim Tit, 103; Oberlinner, 1 Tim, 155; Witherington, B., Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity, 2006) 245Google Scholar.

34 Roloff, 1 Tim, 198–9; Oberlinner, 1 Tim, 155, 157; Verner, Household, 109–10; Quinn, J. D. and Wacker, W. C., The First and Second Letter to Timothy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 262Google Scholar; Thiessen, W., Christen in Ephesus: Die historische und theologische Situation in vorpaulinischer und paulinischer Zeit und zur Zeit der Apostelgeschichte und der Pastoralbriefe (Tübingen: Francke, 1995) 267–8Google Scholar.

35 Joachim Gnilka takes the holy ones to be the Christians or the angels (Der Epheserbrief (HTKNT 10.2, Freiburg: Herder, 1971) 153–4Google Scholar); similarly Rudolf Schnackenburg (Der Brief an die Epheser (EKKNT 10; Zürich/Einsiedeln/Cologne: Benzinger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 121–2Google Scholar). Both too easily dismiss a reference to Israel (although Gnilka speaks of the ‘politeia Israels’). To be sure, the emphasis is not on Christians joining Israel as ethnic community, yet Israel remains the community of the elect people of God. Tet-Lim N. Yee takes more seriously into account the Jewish background of Ephesians and its consequences for understanding the Jewish ‘self’ as the chosen people, the people of the covenant (‘covenantal ethnocentrism’), and the description of the Gentiles as the ‘other’ (Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul's Jewish Identity and Ephesians (SNST MS 130; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)Google Scholar). On this reading, the church does not replace Israel, but the peace in Christ overcomes the limits of an ethnocentric understanding, and the new ‘body’ comes to incorporate the Gentiles as well. Thus the ‘holy ones’ with which the Gentiles share citizenship denotes Israel (ibid., esp. 197–8). This understanding does more justice to the rhetoric of Ephesians, and avoids an anachronistic replacement-theory.

36 On the Hellenistic sympoliteia as an ‘agreement establishing a common citizenship’ between two poleis without their full merger: Chamoux, F., Hellenistic Civilization (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003) 203Google Scholar; Rhodes, P. J., ‘Sympoliteia’, Der Neue Pauly (ed. Cancik, Hubert et al. ; Leiden: Brill, 2011Google Scholar; Brill Online, University of Stellenbosch, available at: http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=dnp_e1126880, accessed 1.10.2011). On citizenship language in the passage: Gnilka, Epheserbrief, 153; Donelson, L. R., Colossians, Ephesians, First and Second Timothy, and Titus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 73–4Google Scholar; Yee, Jews, 191–9.

37 Reger, G., ‘Sympoliteiai in Hellenistic Asia Minor’, The Greco-Roman East: Politics, Culture, Society, (ed. Colvin, S.; Yale Classical Studies 31; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 145–80Google Scholar, at 148.

38 For comparable associations: Yee, Jews, 199.

39 Luz, Ulrich, Der Brief an die Epheser (NTD 8/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998) 112Google Scholar, 146.

40 Rightly so Wagener, Ordnung, 64–5, 236, 240.

41 Amat. 138c. The main point seems to be that σωϕροσύνη and δικαιοσύνη are essential and are both provided by the study of philosophy. The authenticity of the dialogue is debated.

42 Pol. 1.1.2, 1252a. The polis has priority over the oikos, in view of its complete self-sufficiency and because the whole is prior to the parts. The polis is therefore the telos of the oikos (1.1.8–12, 1253a; 2.1.7, 1261b). The exceeding unification of the polis would lead to its disintegration and to the reduction of the polis to a household (2.1.2–4, 1261a).

43 Oec. 1.1.1–4, 15–19, 1343a (assigning priority to the art of governing the household).

44 The oikos is the source (ἀρχή) of the polis, Stob. 2.26, p. 148.5–7 Wachsmuth; see Nagle, B., ‘Aristotle and Arius Didymus on Household and πολις’, RhM 145 (2002) 198223Google Scholar, at 201. On Arius' understanding of the oikos, dropping the Aristotelian criterion of economic autarchy: Nagle, ibid., 207–10, 222; Annas, J., ‘Aristotelian Political Theory in the Hellenistic Period’, Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy. Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium Hellenisticum (ed. Laks, A. and Schofield, M.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 7494CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 89–91.

45 For Stoics: Obbink, D., ‘The Stoic Sage in the Cosmic City’, Topics in Stoic Philosophy (ed. Ierodiakonou, K.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999) 178–95Google Scholar. On the connection between the government of oikos and polis among Neopythagoreans: Balch, D., ‘Neopythagorean Morality and the New Testament Household Codes’, ANRW 26.1, (ed. Haase, W.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992) 380411Google Scholar, at 393–4; also Brown, E., ‘Hellenistic Cosmopolitanism’, A Companion to Ancient Philosophy (ed. Gill, M. L. and Pellegrin, P.; Oxford: Blackwell, 2006) 549–58Google Scholar.

46 Off. 1.17.54.

47 De univ. nat. 45 (Thesleff, H., The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period (Acta Academiae Aboensis, A. 30. i; Ǻbo: Ǻbo Akademi, 1965Google Scholar) 135.20–4; Guthrie, K. S. and Fideler, D., The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library: An Anthology of Ancient Writings which Relate to Pythagoras and Pythagorean Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Phanes, 1987) 209Google Scholar).

48 Thesleff, Pythagorean Texts, 136.26–8; Guthrie, Pythagorean Sourcebook, 210.

49 Thesleff, Pythagorean Texts, 135.23–4; Guthrie, Pythagorean Sourcebook, 209.

50 Okkelos, De univ. nat. 50–1 (Thesleff, Pythagorean Texts, 136.26–137.5; Guthrie, Pythagorean Sourcebook, 210).

51 Spicq, Épîtres, 104; Fiore, B., The Pastoral Epistles (SP 12; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007) 78Google Scholar.

52 Mitchell, M. M., Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (HUT 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991)Google Scholar 101 n. 219: Xenophon, Mem. 4.4.16; Dio Chrysostomus, Or. 38.15; Aelius Aristides, Or. 24.32–3; 26.102.

53 Veyne, P., Le pain et le cirque: sociologie historique d'un pluralisme politique (Paris: Seuil, 1976) 245CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 274; van Bremen, R., ‘Women and Wealth’, Images of Women in Antiquity (ed. Cameron, Averil and Kuhrt, A.; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993), 223–42Google Scholar, at 235–7; eadem, The Limits of Participation: Women and the Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 15; Amsterdam: Gieben, 1996) 101Google Scholar, 164, 168–9.

54 McLean, B. H., An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 bc–ad 337) (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002) 137–41: Caligula (SIG 3 801C)Google Scholar, Vespasian (SEG xxviii.1218), Domitian (SIG 3 821C), Antoninus Pius (SIG 3 849). On Antoninus Pius, see also CIL vi.10234 (the collegium of Aesculapius and Hygeia).

55 Suetonius, Aug. 58. On Augustus' paternal role: Dio Cassius, Hist. 56.9.3; 56.6.1–5 (rebuke as expression of paternal love) (LCL 175, trans. Cary). On Augustus as pater familias and on Rome as his household, see also Severy, B., Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire (New York/London: Routledge, 2003) 153–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Ramsby, T. R. and Severy-Hoven, B., ‘Gender, Sex, and the Domestication of the Empire in Art of the Augustan Age’, Arethusa 40 (2007) 4371CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Aug. 58.1–2 (LCL 31, trans. Rolfe). The senators too are ‘fathers’ of the Senate.

58 With his laws on marriage and procreation Augustus regulated matters pertaining up to that point to the jurisdiction of the pater familias and thereby limited the patria potestas. Vittinghoff, F., ‘Gesellschaft’, Europäische Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte in der römischen Kaiserzeit (ed. Vittinghoff, F. et al. ; Stuttgart: Klett–Cotta, 1990) 161369Google Scholar, at 177.

59 Augustus' speech to Roman men is based on the overlap between paternal and civic roles. Dio Cassius, Hist. 56.9.1–3.

60 Ios. 8.38–39 (LCL 289, trans. Colson, modified, emphases added); also SVF iii.323; Nagle, ‘Aristotle’, 204 n. 14. On the Stoic idea of coherence (sympathy) between the parts of the universe, and its unity: Nagle, ‘Aristotle’, 214 n. 42; Pohlenz, M., Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung (2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978–805)Google Scholari.217–18, and references in ii.108.

61 As Fiore notes, ‘in secular society the household was the image of the state and public officials first had to be trained and become practiced in household management’ (Pastoral Epistles, 78).

62 Sophocles, Ant. 661–2 (LCL 21, trans. Lloyd-Jones).

63 Mem. 3.6 (LCL 168, trans. Marchant and Todd).

64 Tim. 30: ‘the man who has mismanaged his own household will handle the affairs of the city in like manner’ (LCL 106, trans. Adams).

65 2.19; 3.41 (LCL 209, trans. Norlin).

66 10.22.5 (LCL 138, trans. Paton).

67 Conj. praec. 43, Mor. 144C (Plutarch's Advice to the Bride and Groom, and a Consolation to his Wife (ed. Pomeroy, S. B., New York: Oxford University Press) 1999Google Scholar); S. Swain, ‘Plutarch's Moral Program’, Plutarch's Advice to the Bride and Groom, 85–96, at 88–9.

68 Agr. 19.1–2 (LCL 35, trans. Hutton).

69 Clem. 1.9.10 (LCL 214, trans. Basore).

70 Paneg. 83.4 (LCL 59, trans. Radice); Roche, P. A., ‘The Public Image of Trajan's Family’, CPh 97 (2002) 4160Google Scholar, at 49, 60.

71 West, M. L., ‘Towards Monotheism’, Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (ed. Athanassiadi, P. and Frede, M.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999) 2040Google Scholar, at 22; Berger, ‘Volksversammlung’, 175. Lucian speaks of the assembly of the gods (largely Zeus' family) with political terms such as ekklēsia, boulē, agora and similar: J.Tr. 5–6 (Zeus summons the gods in the ekklēsia; Hermes proclaims their assembly in the council of Zeus); Deor. Conc. 1 with 14–15 (the ekklēsia of the gods is convened and ends with a proclamation styled after the decrees of the polis) (LCL 54, 162, trans. Harmon).

72 Poland, F., Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig: Teubner, 1909) 459–63Google Scholar; Sokolowski, F., Lois sacrées de l'Asie Mineure (Paris: Boccard, 1955) 55Google Scholar; Michel (οἶκος, 128) also notes that the term may refer to religious societies, yet thinks that 1 Tim 3.15 ‘suggests primarily the spiritual structure’. See also Dibelius, M. and Conzelmann, H., The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) 49Google Scholar.

73 P. A. Harland, ‘Familial Dimensions of Group Identity’: (i): “Brothers” (ἀδελϕοί) in Associations of the Greek East’, JBL 124 (2005) 491513Google Scholar; (ii): “Mothers” and “Fathers” in Associations and Synagogues of the Greek World’, JSJ 38 (2007) 5779Google Scholar. See also the statute of the collegium of Aesculapius and Hygeia (CIL vi.10234: Salvia Marcellina as mater collegii, Aelius Zeno as pater collegii); the Philadelphian association in the oikos of Dionysios (SIG 3 985; Barton, S. C. and Horsley, G. H. R., ‘A Hellenistic Cult Group and the New Testament Churches’, JAC 24 (1981) 741)Google Scholar.

74 In two inscriptions from Athens (112–110 bce), J. Vélissaropoulos, Les nauclères grecs: recherches sur les institutions maritimes en Grèce et et dans l'Orient hellénisé (Hautes Études du Monde Gréco-Romain 9; Genève: Droz, 1980) 105–6Google Scholar, quoting Robert, L., ‘Deux decrets d'une association à Athènes’, ArchEph (1969) 714Google Scholar. See also IG 12.8, 230 (Samothrace) = PH [The Packard Humanities Institute, Searchable Greek Inscriptions, available at: http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions] 79417 (οἶκος θεοῖς μεγάλοις); Inschr. v. Magnesia 94, ll. 3, 6; and the οἶκος θεῖος in an inscription dedicated to the Olympian gods, IGBulg 4, 2214 = PH 170315 (Pautalia (Kyustendil)-Shatrovo, Bulgaria).

75 Chrysippus, referred to by Philodemus, PHerc. 1428, col. 7.12–8.13 (Obbink, ‘Stoic Sage’, 184–5); also SVF ii.527 (σύστημα); Philodemus, De pietate 4, cf. SVF ii.636 (συνπολειτευόμενον θεοῖς καὶ ἀνθρώποις, ruled by Zeus); Cicero, Leg. 1.7.22 (cf. SVF iii.339); Fin. 3.19.64 (‘the universe is governed by divine will; it is a city [urbs] or state [civitas] of which both men and gods are members’; LCL 40, trans. Rackham); Seneca, Cons. Marc. 18.2 (‘a city … shared by gods and men – a city that embraces the universe’; LCL 254, trans. Basore).

76 Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.1.12 p. 25.3 Wachsmuth (cf. SVF i.537); trans. Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N., The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. i: Translations of the Principal Sources, with Philosophical Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 326–7Google Scholar.

77 Nat. D. 2.154 (LCL 268, trans. Rackham, modified). See the discussion in Schofield, M., The Stoic Idea of the City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) 65–6Google Scholar.

78 Rep. 1.19 (1.13 in the English translation, Zetzel, J. E. G., ed., On the Commonwealth. On the Laws (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)Google Scholar); cf. SVF iii.338: domus.

79 Arius Didymus in Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 15.15 (PG 21.1344; trans. Gifford, E. H., Preparation for the Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903)Google Scholar).

80 Opif. 1.142 (LCL 226, trans. Colson and Whitaker, modified).

81 Pos. 5 (LCL 227, trans. Colson and Whitaker).

82 Som. 1.185 (LCL 275, trans. Colson and Whitaker).

83 ‘… this universe is but a single state (πόλις) … all things are full of friends, first gods, and then also men, who by nature have been made of one household (πρὸς ἀλλήλους) with one another’ (Philo, Diss. 3.24.10–11; Epictetus (LCL 218, trans. Oldfather)). Zeus is the father of humans and king of the citizens of the cosmic polis: Diss. 3.24.16.18.

84 Or. 36.30–6, here 36 (LCL 358, trans. Cohoon, modified). The rule of Zeus corresponds to the ideal, monarchic government of the polis. Much earlier Plato refers to the abode (οἴκησις) of Zeus on Mount Olympus as the ἀκρόπολις (Prt. 321d), bringing together the concept of the private and public sphere (LCL 165, trans. Lamb).

85 Pohlenz, Stoa 1, 137. Seneca, Ep. 120.12: the virtuous men as cives universi; cf. also Ep. 28.4 (LCL 75, 77, trans. Gummere).

86 On the terminology used for the public/private opposition and their meanings: Neyrey, J. H., ‘Teaching You in Public and from House to House’ (Acts 20.20): Unpacking a Cultural Stereotype', JSNT 26 (2003) 69102Google Scholar, at 75–85. I consider here meanings 2 (δημόσιος / ἴδιος, i.e. political sphere vs household) and 3 (ξυνός/ ἴδιος; civic affairs, political or not, vs male, non-political intercourse).

87 Fiore, B., ‘Household Rules at Ephesus: Good News, Bad News, No News’, Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. Fitzgerald, J. T., Olbricht, T. H., White, L. M.; NovTSup 110; Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005) 589607Google Scholar, at 601–2.

88 Wagener, Ordnung, 75–76; Merz, Selbstauslegung, 294.

89 Modest women keep silent. With very few exceptions, women speaking in public are depicted in derogatory terms (Valerius Maximus 8.3.praef. (LCL 493, trans. Shackleton Bailey); Plutarch, Comp. Lyc. Num. 3.6 (LCL 46, trans. B. Perrin)).

90 Tiwald, M., ‘Die vielfältigen Entwicklungslinien kirchlichen Amtes im Corpus Paulinum und ihre Relevanz für heutige Theologie’, Neutestamentliche Ämtermodelle im Kontext (ed. Schmeller, T., Ebner, M., Hoppe, R.; QD 239, Freiburg: Herder, 2010) 101–28Google Scholar, at 121 (‘Leitung durch Engagement’).

91 Roloff, 1 Tim, 170, 177–9.

92 Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 50–1, 158–60; Oberlinner, ‘Gemeindeordnung’, 306.

93 McClure, L., Spoken Like a Woman: Speech and Gender in Athenian Drama (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999) 1922Google Scholar; Raaflaub, K. A., ‘Aristocracy and Freedom of Speech in the Greco-Roman World’, in Free Speech in Classical Antiquity (ed. Sluiter, I. and Rosen, R. M.; Mnemosyne Supplement 254; Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004) 4161CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 41–59.

94 An issue extensively discussed by Donelson, Pseudepigraphy, 133–54.

4
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Is the ekklēsia a Household (of God)? Reassessing the Notion of οἶκος θεοῦ in 1 Tim 3.15*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Is the ekklēsia a Household (of God)? Reassessing the Notion of οἶκος θεοῦ in 1 Tim 3.15*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Is the ekklēsia a Household (of God)? Reassessing the Notion of οἶκος θεοῦ in 1 Tim 3.15*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *