First a story. Anthony Norris Groves was one of the great missionaries in the 19th century, a gifted evangelist to the Muslims of Bagdad and father-in-law to George Müller, though he is largely forgotten today. He trained to be a dentist before he became overwhelmed with missionary zeal. Problem was, his wife didn’t want to go. Back in those days, you couldn’t try out missions for a year or two and come back if you didn’t like it. It was all or nothing. Most missionaries died early on the field.
Instead of forcing his wife Mary to go, he was patient with her. He pushed a little and she broke down. Not the time. Then she grew spiritually and the Spirit did the work. He pushed a little more, but the time did not yet come. Finally she burst into tears and committed to give all their possessions away and leave for Bagdad.
When I think of this story, I see how biblical the roles were in marriage. He was the man of the house. He had the final decision. But he loved his wife as Christ did the church. She asked for time until she was ready.
I wonder, how should marriage look today? Should it conform to or counter culture? I hear all the time in our context, this is just the way we do marriage. Is that a valid argument? We’ll try to explore that answer today.
Karni
Brother I think that’s a wonderful story that you gave us of Anthony Norris and a good example of the balance that should take place as both parties, the husband and the wife are trying to obey God in their God-given roles. And as we approach our question today, I’ve heard a lot of people say about certain moral actions, especially marriage, this is how my culture does it. My question is this, is this sufficient for an action to be right and pleasing to God?
Paul
Great question and a common question. I’d answer it this way…
If Sola Scriptura is true (the Bible is the Christian’s sole standard for faith and practice) and consistent (Scripture agrees with Scripture) and if Paul teaches truth about marriage in Eph 5 that is contrary to the cultural norms of his day, then it can and must be concluded that truths about marriage in Eph 5 that are contrary to our modern day must be embraced in exclusion to popular thought. That is, if Paul’s view of marriage in Eph 5 is counter-cultural, then in the spirit of Ac 5:29, Christians also must be willing to act counter to their own culture when it comes to biblical norms on marriage.
That means we have to do two things: know what the Bible says about marriage (first) and then know what our culture believes about marriage and see if it lines up with Scripture. That’s what I’d like to do here today.
Careful not to get caught in the thinking that somehow the Bible is outdated and irrelevant and what we really need to know is modern culture.
Like most of Paul’s epistles, Ephesians is an occasional letter, meaning it was written with specific events or occasions in mind. It was directed to meet certain immediate, pressing needs of the church in Ephesus. Ephesians, therefore, is an immensely practical letter because it deals with real-life problems, in real-life cultures, within the real world, with a real local church, with real sinners converted to Christianity. So it’s very practical and speaks to contemporary needs, at least at the time.
Karni
I hear you brother, and scripture speaks foundationally but when we actually look at our cultures and how they’ve developed over time, isn’t culture neutral in a sense? Can’t we call culture neutral?
Paul
Not at all. Culture is religion externalized. Saying culture is neutral is like saying religion is neutral. If religion is neutral, then you believe in universalism or even worse, that there is no absolute truth.
A popular African proverb says that a dog’s crooked tail cannot be straightened. This means that when a man’s heart is bad, no one can put it right. Christians agree, but would like to finish the sentence by saying “…except Christ.” Only Jesus can straighten a man’s sinful heart. We call this regeneration, justification, and sanctification.
Sin not only affects individuals but cultures too. Every culture is blind in sin until the light of Scripture gives it hope. Some cultures have more light than others. Which brings up the question: What was the culture like that Paul taught? Did his teachings go against the flow or with it? When Paul taught about marriage in his letter to the Ephesians, would it have shocked them, or made them smile and nod?
Karni
I really must thank you for that explanation brother because as I had thought about it before, in all honesty, there was the perspective that you often see in the media that cultures are some sort of independent neutral utopia before they’re visited by external cultures but knowing that man is totally depraved as you’ve expressed and culture is an expression of man and his beliefs, it’s religion externalized, it helps me to understand that cultures are not indeed neutral. So before you take us to the cultures of Paul’s day, take us to the town of Ephesus itself, because that’s the landing spot of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, which is where chapter 5 is contained in the great definition of marriage and the roles of husband and wife. So, please talk to us about that.
Paul
Ephesus was the third largest city in the Roman Empire, perhaps as much as a half million people, not as big as Rome or Alexandria but bigger than most. It had a massive theater where the silversmith Demetrius protested again Paul and his preaching (Acts 19:23-41). This theater could seat 24,000 people, about the size of Dobsie Stadium in Soweto, home of the Swallows, pretty impressive for a couple millennia ago. Ephesus was home to the temple of Artemis (Diana), which was one of the Seven Wonders of the World. It was the largest building in the world at the time,
Due to its commercialism and the temple of Diana, not surprising that Paul visited there during his second missionary journey. He remained for a short time, then left Priscilla and Aquila there before departing (Acts 18:18-21). Also third missionary journey (Acts 19). There for two years, preached the Gospel. Some people repented and burned magic books worth 50,000 day’s wages. On the way to Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost, Paul met with the pastors of Ephesus at Miletus (Acts 20:15-38).
It was diverse. South Africa is called Rainbow Nation because of its vast array of cultures. The first century setting to whom Paul wrote was also very complex and complicated. Christians from all three major cultures—Greek, Roman, and Jewish—would have sensed the different views of marriage among them.
Which culture did Paul favor? Which cultural viewpoint did Paul adopt? Did he embrace holistically any particular cultural viewpoint on marriage, ignore each society all together, or make a mixture of all three?
Don’t think that everyone in Ephesus (any more than in RSA!) had the same view of marriage. He is addressing a church of believers that was at least tri-cultural: Roman, Greek, and Jewish. Yet there was overlap and much distinction.
It would not be unusual for someone in Paul’s day to speak Greek (the language of the Hellenists), Latin (the language of the Romans), and Aramaic (the language of the Jews). This multiple acculturation was evident when one man could wear Greek clothing, own Roman citizenship and worship the Jewish God.
Karni
Wow, brother. I really hadn’t considered before how many similarities there are between Ephesus and our modern day societies when you think of places like a Johannesburg or a New York where there’s a stir-fry of different cultures going on. It kind of got the rainbow nation blood pumping now. Thinking about that with Johannesburg, you can have Zulus, Tsongas, Shonas, Malawians and with New York you could have Americans, Mexicans, Asians… you could even find Texans there. That’s an amalgamation, a stir-fry of different cultures that’s going on. ould you unpack for us what these three cultures looked like and how they viewed marriage?
Paul
Ok, let’s start with Roman culture and how they viewed family, marriage, gender roles and what Scripture says in favor or against those views. And let’s remember why we’re doing this. If we can show what the Roman audience was like that Paul was writing to and if we can show Paul’s marital counsel was contrary to what they believed, then it is an easy step to show that we should be counter cultural today as well.
Regarding marriage in Roman culture, in the early days of the Roman Empire the norm for marriage was “with manus” (literal, with “hand”). Here, the wife would come under the authority of the husband at marriage. Essentially the authority the father used to have over his daughter was now transferred to the husband, as though she was her husband’s daughter. Interesting is that this didn’t happen immediately.
In this form of marriage, full authority was reassigned from the father to the husband only after the wife had lived with the husband for one uninterrupted year. The word “uninterrupted” is crucial, since some women that did not want to enter this form of marriage would avoid it by spending three nights away from her husband each year.
Around the middle of the first century B.C. an ancient woman’s movement resisted this supposedly oppressive form of marriage whereby the most common form of legal marriage became “without manus”. Here, the father retained authority over his daughter and remained her legal guardian from the day of her birth to the day of his death. The husband was not her chief authority. This gave a Roman woman more freedom than she had ever known, especially compared to the Greek women throughout most of their history. Under this kind of marriage, the woman (1) did not belong to her husband or his family.
This reminds me of the feminist movement today that doesn’t want to take the husbands surname, so they keep their maiden name, which is actually the name of the father. So she doesn’t actually escape the patriarchal authority, just moves it back one step. It was similar back in Paul’s day. She tried to stay under her father’s rule, but not her husbands. But she’s still under male authority, just one step back.
There also seemed to be a considerable difference between marriages in the upper class and marriages in the lower class in Roman society. Without manus marriages rose to popularity in part because of property issues. The father wanted to retain property gifted to his daughter should there be a divorce, something lower-class spouses didn’t have to worry about.
Informal lower class were common within and between households and were considered “husband” and “wife.” These allowed women within these informal marriages to flee the relationship whenever she wanted without intrusion by the state. Because the woman would almost always get custody of the children after such a “divorce”, thus the families were often fatherless and the mother became the head of the household, again, very common in our area. Easy in, easy out. Quick to call a couple “nuna” and “nsati” but can leave at any time and women often head of the household.
So, we can see that a wife in Roman society was usually under some kind of subordination. Either she was (1) under the authority of her father or (2) her husband. But due to new legislation at the turn of the century, there was a third option for a female married Roman citizen: she could be legally liberated from both her father and husband. A freeborn woman could obtain the supposedly high honor of independence from her father and husband if (1) she had at least three children or (2) and essentially if her father died.
Karni
That’s fascinating brother and I can see where this is going, because the Romans were thinking one way about marriage and Paul is about to unleash the biblical view on them which was different in some ways, but not completely. It’s fascinating how there is overlap between African culture in the 21st century and Roman culture over 2000 years ago. What were some other differences?
Paul
Well, we just looked at differences regarding authority in marriage. But there are many more facets to marriage. Take polygamy for example.
Polygamy was illegal in Roman society. Great. It should be. It’s legal in South Africa and many other African countries, far more than any other continent. Uganda, for example, has tried for years to pass legislation to outlaw polygamy is it fails each time.
But polygamy was illegal in Roman society. Arranged marriages were common, though appeal, compatibility, trust, and affection were important in the choice. Childbearing was the central goal of Roman marriage but not the only one. Girls usually married in their mid-teens and men in their mid-twenties.
Divorce in early Rome was somewhat rare, could only be initiated by the husband and was only allowed for serious issues like adultery. Unlike Jewish culture, leaving a barren wife was somewhat frowned upon. But as in most cultures, morals about divorce waned and in time divorce became more common. This despite Caesar Augustus making adultery a criminal offense in 18 B.C. with the hopes of promoting legitimate children. Wives were now allowed to initiate the separation. Divorce became rampant and easy to obtain. Since the key to Roman marriage was consent, the key to divorce was also consent.
Karni
Ok, before we wrap this up (at least on the Roman cultural side of things) as to what the Bible actually says about all of these issues, we know that gender roles are so debated in our society today, even among Christians. The world is caught up in what it even means to be male and female and with Christians, we can see what’s been happening with the SBC and throughout Christendom. Where was Roman society on this issue?
Paul
The answer is that marriage must conform to the Scriptures teaching on marriage. If this conforms to our culture as well, great. If not, then we absolutely must be counter cultureal in our approach. “But our culture does it this way…” As a follower of Christ, this doesn’t matter.
Now, does Paul’s teaching on marital roles in Scripture, especially Romans 5, conform to the Roman society of his day? Well, in some forms of Roman marriage (like “with manus”), Eph 5:23 teaches that the husband is the “head of the wife” and leader of the home. A wife is to submit as he submits to Christ. Conformity.
But “without manus” marriages, which were the most common in Paul’s day, matrimony was much different than Paul’s teaching in Eph 5. First, the woman did not submit to her husband as v. 23 says but instead submitted to her father. Second, the father in Roman culture had far more authority over his married children that what Eph 5 stipulates. When Paul (and Moses) tells the husband to leave his parents and cleave to his wife, he is not speaking of a complete break of parental ties but instead is urging an entirely new family unit whereby primary loyalties lie between husband and wife, not children and father.
Thus, when a Roman woman would have first heard Eph 5:24 read (“so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands”), she would immediately have concluded that Paul was urging “with manus” marriages. She could easily procure this by choosing to remain with her husband the whole year, which v. 31 commands her to do.
Karni
Ok, now that we’ve established that as our backdrop, the question then remains and how do we answer that; Should marriage conform to or counter culture?
Paul
Karni the answer is that marriage must conform to the Scriptures teaching on marriage. If this conforms to our culture as well, great. If not, then we absolutely must be counter cultureal in our approach. “But our culture does it this way…” As a follower of Christ, this doesn’t matter.
Now, does Paul’s teaching on marital roles in Scripture, especially Romans 5, conform to the Roman society of his day? Well, in some forms of Roman marriage (like “with manus”), Eph 5:23 teaches that the husband is the “head of the wife” and leader of the home. A wife is to submit as he submits to Christ. Conformity.
But “without manus” marriages, which were the most common in Paul’s day, matrimony was much different than Paul’s teaching in Eph 5. First, the woman did not submit to her husband as v. 23 says but instead submitted to her father. Second, the father in Roman culture had far more authority over his married children that what Eph 5 stipulates. When Paul (and Moses) tells the husband to leave his parents and cleave to his wife, he is not speaking of a complete break of parental ties but instead is urging an entirely new family unit whereby primary loyalties lie between husband and wife, not children and father.
Thus, when a Roman woman would have first heard Eph 5:24 read (“so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands”), she would immediately have concluded that Paul was urging “with manus” marriages. She could easily procure this by choosing to remain with her husband the whole year, which v. 31 commands her to do.
Karni
So at this point, you’re saying, Paul is really being countercultural?
Paul
Yes, yes, yes… and not only on that point.
Another difference is that there were double standards in Roman society but not in Scripture. Men were given a long moral leash but women must be strictly chaste. Per Titus 2, however, Paul says older men are to be self-controlled (v. 2), older women are to be “reverent in behavior” (v. 3), younger women are to “love their husbands” (v. 4), “be self-controlled, pure…and submissive to their own husbands” (v. 5), and younger men are “self-controlled” (v. 6). Again Paul says in 1Co 7 that both spouses are required to give each other conjugal rights (v. 3). The wife has authority over her husband’s body and vice versa (v. 4). The apostle follows his teaching from Titus and Corinthians and carries it over to Ephesians 5. Each husband (v. 33) is to love his wife (singular) and each wife is to love her “own” husband (v. 22).
Paul’s ethos of marriage in Eph 5 is one of permanency and thus in contradiction of the easy divorce rules in Roman society.
Because marriage for most Jews and Christians was not genuine in the state’s eyes, Roman law (which reinforced the patriarchy) would not help Jewish or Christian men.
Now, we haven’t even arrived at Jewish and Greek culture, which we’ll do next time, but let this be the lesson: brothers and sisters, follow Scripture in all things, especially in marriage, even if it doesn’t make sense. Walk by faith. Peter went fishing all night and didn’t catch anything. Jesus says cast on the other side. Peter doubted but obeyed, he followed God’s word and he was blessed.