Defining "Marriage"...

[Scarecrow]

Throughout history the definition of "Marriage" has frequently included a man with more than one wife. Even when monogamy was instituted by law and/or culture in certain areas it was common for these "monogamous" men to have mistresses, which under different circumstances would have most certainly become their wives as well.

I just came across an interesting book by Edward Westermarck defining marriage in the 1922 edition of The History of Human Marriage on page 26 as:

"MARRIAGE is generally used as a term for a social institution. As such it may be defined as a relation of one or more men to one or more women which is recognized by custom or law and involves certain rights and duties both in the case of the parties entering the union and in the case of the children born of it."

Downloadable at: http://books.google.com/books?id=UigZAA ... &q&f=false

Josephus, late in the first century, states "for it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time." in "The Antiquities of the Jews" volume 17 chapter 1.

"it is" is present tense meaning that it was being currently practiced when Josephus wrote this late in the first century. "the ancient practice" indicates that it was nothing new and had been practiced throughout known history.

Along with other extra biblical evidence that polygyny was commonly practiced how is it that polygyny is thought of as anything but biblical?

Why is it that polygyny is not recognized as marriage based on the fact that it was the custom and part of the culture? Clearly without the interference of other cultures this would still be a common practice today and be considered a cultural norm. Is this not a valid argument for the legalization of polygyny?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Why is it that polygyny is not recognized as marriage based on the fact that it was the custom and part of the culture? Clearly without the interference of other cultures this would still be a common practice today and be considered a cultural norm. Is this not a valid argument for the legalization of polygyny?

Scarecrow,

It has taken me a year or so to finally figure out the answer to this question that you posed about a year ago now. I actually presented a powerpoint on this at the last retreat covering the history of this issue through the biblical era, early English era, and into modern day era.

We know that the Bible must mean today what it meant to the original audience it was written unto. We cannot embrace the idea that we can interpret words in the Bible by our English ideology of the modern era. Thus, newly created terms that developed in the English language cannot automatically be accepted as correct expressions of the original idea unless it matches with the original definition of the original term. When we study Scripture if we discover an English term has changed a meaning of an original biblical term then we can adjust accordingly to move back closer to original terms and thought and practices. To resolve this we can return to the original ideas, terms, and definitions and make a clear distinction between modern state English terms such as marriage, husband, and wife and return to the truer ideas, terms, and definitions of Scripture.

The Greek term syzeugnymi (συζεύγνυμι) is Christ's word for a union (see Matthew 19:6). It means a private joining or private yoking together. As a private union it contrasts the public marriage system that developed later. Also Christ used the term gameō (γαμέω) in Matthew 19:9 to describe what he calls the act of joining together or the act of forming a union. It can mean to meet and fit together, to combine; to unite closely or intimately; to align.

Also, we can return to the two word system of which God's word used to describe the man to woman relationship. In Matthew 1:19 we see the two term word system used where a woman calls her man not a husband (one word) but her man (two words). In the Greek it is ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς (autes aner) and this is in the genitive or possessive form. It thus means her man; owned man. Likewise the two word system in Matthew 5:31 reveals the man spoke of his woman (two words), not his wife (one word). The text is τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ (autou gune) and this is in the genitive or possessive form; It thus means his woman; owned woman.

These biblical terms: union, yoked together, and my man and my woman are better descriptive terms that do not express the same ideas as marriage, husband, and wife that are Romanized statist terms (now often commenced through a licensure system) that were created around the Old English era and placed in legal codes subsequently. Those terms were basically created by the Roman Catholic Church State system from around 1100 to 1300 AD, which was at the height of power for the Roman Catholic Church.

The Judeo-Christian System for Relationships Was This:
-Privately formed
-Guided together by either a close relative or a spiritual leader
-Commenced either through a private oath or through sexual relations or both
-Non-legal in nature
-Numerical number determined by personal parties involved

The Roman Catholic State System for Relationships Was and Is This:
-Formed through an official public sphere
-Authorized by the government
-Commenced through a license or legal formality.
-Legal in nature
-Single system relations
-Dissolution granted only by priest/state/government authority which was all wrapped up in one system

They in the biblical era then practiced polygyny (a man had multiple ladies; not multiple wives when we define wife with its real classical definition; some use the term in a generic sense today that is more of a term to describe close intimate relationship). When Rome developed more power the public legal system developed and the new system with new terms with new definitions with those terms came to fruition.

Noah Webster was an Anglican and he solidified the English language in the early 1800's. As an Anglican he was still heavily immersed in Roman Catholic thought. The KJV version, the Bible of Colonial America, was produced by Anglican Calvinists who were still using the English language system that developed under Roman Catholic auspices. And the legal court systems in Europe in the 1300's adopted all laws in the English language system that was developing.

So the events of the 1300's in the legal court systems, the 1611 KJV Bible, and Webster's dictionary of the 1800's set the tone with the one word system (husband or wife) and the term "marriage," which differs from private unions or private cohabitation covenants in the Lord, became the dominant word of choice and along with it the legal ideas associated with it which included single system relations (mono systems).

So here we are today still Reforming and cleaning up.

 

[Scarecrow]

Thank you for your reply! I hope this will help many who visit this site realize the truths you have exposed.

"So here we are today still Reforming and cleaning up."

And I for one thank you for your continued efforts on the behalf of us all.