Feel free to listen and subscribe on Spotify and Apple Podcasts as well. 

First a story. A recent BBC piece, which you can watch on Twitter, chronicles the Fulani people of West and North Africa and their practice of sharo, in which Fulani men gather in a sex-crazed group, competitively enduring painful floggings to win money and even village women—some earning as many as three wives. 

“You will become hot among the ladies,” explained one Fulani man. Can we say some cultural practices are better than others? Has our radical egalitarianism so blinded us that we cannot criticize this cultural practice as immoral and bestial? Does Christianity change things? Conform or counter culture?

Karni

Thank you, brother. The example you used really describes a point of discussion we had from last week which was that culture isn’t a-moral but is religion externalised. The question I have now is why is this discussion about culture and marriage and whether it should conform to culture important?

Paul

It’s important because there fewer and fewer churches, pastors and ministries today around the world that are going to be dealing with only one culture. As the world becomes more globalized, cultures become more mixed. Just take the average Bible preaching church in South Africa. On any given Sunday, you’re going to see black and white and every shade in between. You’ll have native Zulu speakers, English, Afrikaans, Chichewa, Shona, Pedi, Tsonga, Venda, Tswana, Sotho, Portuguese etc. So we have to know how to interact with these various cultures. 

Paul understood this. His task in teaching others about their marital roles was not to conform his teaching to one particular culture. His goal was to teach what Scripture says, and what God demands, regardless of what another culture may do. This doesn’t mean we cannot love and follow our culture. A wedding in Zulu culture will obviously look very different than in Mongolian culture. But there are several non-negotiables. What are those? That’s part of what we want to talk about today.

Karni

That’s a helpful primer. As we think about Paul and the various cultures he was dealing with, we spoke about Roman culture last time. So, can you take it to the next one for us now? What was the next culture he dealt with?

Paul

Let’s tackle Greek culture next, which was quite predominant in Paul’s day. Regarding marriage, it was not unusual for the parents to arrange marriage for their children. The woman was bound to marry the man her father had chosen for her. Upon marriage the authority over the wife passed from the father to the husband. Greek wives were expected to obey their husbands. So at this point, pretty similar to what Paul teaches in Ephesians 5. 

Divorce in Hellenistic culture (as Roman culture) was pretty easy to obtain, contra Jewish laws which only allowed the husband to initiate. Plutarch saw some value of love in marriage but encouraged wives not to chastise their drunken husbands that committed adultery. So there was as double standard for purity, women having a much higher standard than the men. Husbands generally was the head of the home.

There were some similarities and differences between Greek culture and Scripture. First, Ephesians 5 recognizes a hierarchical structure in marriage. Husband and wife don’t obey each other. The husband is the head. He’s the leader. If there were cars back then, the husband would be driving and she’d take his last name. 

But Ephesians also acknowledges the equal value of husband and wife. Ephesians addresses the roles of both spouses (not just the wife) and even gives significantly more time to the duties of the husband than the wife. Peter calls the wife a “fellow heir of the grace of Christ” (1Pt 3:7 NASB).

So Scripture does not suppress women as the world pretends. It elevates women in dignity and promotes them to happily enjoy their role as supporter and helper for the husband. 

Second, sex in marriage as a mutual obligation. The common pattern in that culture was for the husband to “take” sex from his wife. The sexual obligation in biblical marriage, however, was for Paul a reciprocal one—both had an obligation to each other. This teaching was a revolutionary idea in Paul’s day.

Karni

I think that’s a good example of what you emphasised last week. That there’s some overlap between ancient culture and modern-day culture. Particularly with Greek women not having as many benefits as scripture would afford. That’s the same in African culture and somewhat other traditional cultures. Please, give us a modern-day example. 

Paul

Well… there was a CNN article a couple years ago talking about how South Africa was considering allowing women to take multiple husbands. South Africa is always on the forefront of the most liberal and progressive policies. SA is all about making things more inclusive so…why not allow polyandry? Equality demands they allow this. And you know, they are right… if that is your standard. 

But the article said everyone was up in an uproar about this because polyandry, contra polygamy, was unAfrican. A man with four wives said he was strongly against this idea but again, on what basis? If the Bible is not our basis, I don’t see how you can allow polygamy and not polyandry. What a clown world we live in today. Paul doesn’t do this. He addresses both and has high standards for both.

Karni

And it makes sense that Paul would counter culture in that way because he understands that what God desires is holy men and women. Please, go on.

Paul

Third, Greek literature gave very little motivation to husbands as to why they were to perform such duties with their wives. Paul, however, accompanies his command to wives to submit to their husbands with a motivation: the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. Moreover, husbands are to love their wives because Christ gave himself for the church). Christ is the basis for loving the wife and submitting to the husband. Christ was the basis for loving the wife, Christ was the basis of loving the husband. Again, this was a counter-cultural idea of what they were used to at that time. 

Karni

That’s a significant contrast between Greek culture and the bible. We see in Ephesians 5, Paul giving motivations. What other cultures does he deal with?

Paul

We dealt with Roman culture, we dealt with Greek culture, Let’s deal with Jewish culture. The Jewish man became the authority of the woman at marriage. He was the head of the home, the breadwinner, and often the educator of the children.

Unlike Roman marriage, the Jews required a husband to divorce his wife if she could not have children after ten years. In light of Genesis 1:28 (“be fruitful and multiply”) Jews believed having children was a duty and obligation. Childbirth was considered the greatest blessing a Jewish woman could have.

Only the husband in Jewish tradition could initiate divorce. Clear Old Testament teachings on marriage (e.g. Pr 5:5-19; Ecc 9:9; Mal 2:14-16) This essentially allowed for easy divorce. This would have been counter to biblical teaching.

On gender roles, Josephus said that a woman should be obedient to her husband because she is inferior to her husband in all things. According to Jewish tradition, some men thanked the Lord every morning that Jehova did not make them a Gentile, God did not make them a slave, and God did not make them a woman. Now it’s good to be a man and if you’re a man, and it’s good to be a woman.

Karni

That’s a beautiful way that scripture and Christianity counters culture; that male and female are both fearfully and wonderfully made and are equal in value before God. More traditional cultures can tend to belittle women. And we have modern and more liberal cultures that make men seem insignificant and unnecessary. Christianity allows both male and female to be thankful in their God-given estates. Please, give us other examples. 

Paul

A couple of other differences. I love how Paul addresses both the man and the woman and I love how he gives three times as much material to the man. So he’s not cheating one side. He isn’t cheating the woman, he doesn’t just hammer the woman. He actually gives three times more material to the man showing that he’s the leader. There are benefits to that but he’ll also have to have a lot of responsibilities. 

Paul’s teaching on the “headship” of the man was countercultural, but not as feminists want to believe. Yes, the wife was to “submit” to the husband because he is her “head”. But in an unexpected twist, this “headship” is full of sacrifice. The husband is to “love” (v. 25) her by seeking the wife’s greatest good. He is to give “himself up for her” (v. 25) by laying down his life if necessary. The husband is to “sanctify” her (v. 26), and “nourish” and “cherish” her (v. 29). This kind of authority was shocking and never been seen before or since” apart from Christ.

Were there areas that Paul spoke of that conformed to culture, that was in agreement with the culture of that day? Absolutely. But there were certainly counter-cultural ideas as well. 

Karni

That’s a remarkable point you bring up boti Paul. That whereas cultures have tended to allow men to dominate women in marriages because of their dominant strength, Paul instructs men and instructs them more than women, he instructs men to do what is best for the wife as Christ does what is best for the church. Having looked at both old and new examples of culture, how can we close it all off?

Paul

Here’s the conclusion, marriage should counter-culture, as Paul often taught the Ephesians, if those ethnic practices are contradictory to Scripture. Contrary to the conclusions of many in the world of egalitarianism and multiculturalism, Christians must not reorientate the Scriptures to one’s particular setting but rather the opposite. The change of time and culture does not allow Christians to spurn the teachings of Scripture. 
Now, there are some similarities in Paul’s household code with Roman, Greek, Jewish culture… and just add onto that Zulu, Pedi, Portuguese, Chinese, Brazilian, American, British culture. Yes! But, much of what the apostle says is radically countercultural—from the nature of submission to the husband to the kind of love for the wife to the role of parents, post-marriage.