10 of 17 Reasons Why People Read Their Bible & Miss Polygyny
Problem Stated: Eisegesis (inserting alternative words or definitions into a text): Eisegesis is the opposite of exegesis. This error occurs when a person reading his or her Bible adds a new word to the text or redefines the original meaning of the words with modern definitions that do not convey the original thought of the biblical writer. This issue is often done when a person reads into the text his or her own bias. For example, In Revelation 3:15-16 the Bible says that Jesus would rather us be hot or cold but not lukewarm. People reading this with a modern ideology being inserted back into the original text often come to the conclusion that the Lord wants people to be on fire or totally devoted to him or else be totally cold and in opposition to him. They interpret cold and hot in a modern sense instead of doing careful research to discover what those terms meant by the original author in the original context. Thus, by doing so those who insert the modern idea back into the text they arrive at a flawed position that actually makes Jesus out to be a Lord who advocates for people to be against him. It makes Jesus Christ, the God-Man who is perfect, holy, and sinless actually a being who takes pleasure in someone being cold and in opposition to him. But that is not the meaning of that text. If we do exegesis, which is the art of determining and drawing out the original meaning of the author in the actual historical and cultural context, with this text in Revelation we discover that the actual believers in Laodicea lived in an area where they did not have cold water. They actually had to pipe water in from the neighboring city of Colosse. Thus, when the water arrived it was often lukewarm and thus full of parasites and bacteria. To kill this bacteria and any parasites in the water the people had to boil their water to purify it. Thus, by context the idea of cold water meant something valuable and refreshing. Also by context we know hot water was valued as well because it was safe from purification. Thus, the Lord's instruction here was for the believers to be purified from sin and either hot or on fire for the Lord or for them to be cold and thus refreshing and encouraging to others by their value to them. Nowhere in this text was Jesus instructing people to be hot, for him, or either cold, and thus against him. He was instructing them not to be lukewarm, which in their context meant a deadly form of water that had no value in and of itself.
This issue of Eisegesis occurs when people read their Bibles in regard to love and unions between men and women. People often read back into the text modern Western ideas about legal marriages and thus that ideology clouds their thinking as they read and interpret the text. The error also even occurs in the work of translating the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into the modern English language. Modern terms like "marriage," "husband," and "wife" are used and these terms were created and given new definitions around the 1100's which differed from the original biblical terms penned by the original biblical authors. In the biblical era love unions or covenant unions were private relational agreements that were non-legal in nature. Even in classical Roman law we see that love unions between men and women were very different than they are today in legal systems. In classical Roman law love unions between a man and woman were highly non-legal in nature and were commenced through private sexual relations and/or through private oaths between the individuals or along with their families guidance. There was no legal license or state official to govern, sanction, or establish the union. And certainly there were no "homosexual marriages" which is becoming more and more common today. Thus, when people translate the original Bible into modern English they are sometimes guilty of eisegesis, the act of taking modern ideas, terms, and definitions and placing those into the Bible as the meaning. This leads to the idea of the monogamy only doctrine as well because the modern Roman state created "marriage" systems was created in that mindset. The creators of the term "marriage" developed that term when the Church and State were all under one umbrella. Thus, what was once a private union that was non-legal in nature became a public government matter through the Roman Catholic influence and those terms carried over into modern English when the European laws and culture migrated to the soils of Colonial America. By the time the English language was solidified in the early 1800's just after the United States of America was born the Romanized terms were still the terms being used which were modern terms with new definitions attached to them.
Solution? Some of what I mentioned in the prior section applies here as well when dealing with eisegesis. Though repetitive I'll restate some of that again for the purpose of emphasis. First we must embrace a consistent rule for interpretation of the Bible. We must dedicate ourselves to the fundamental rule that a term in 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. That does not mean the English translations are bad or to be ignored. That is not the solution. But when we study Scripture if we discover an English term has changed a meaning of an original biblical term then we need to adjust accordingly. That leads to the second point. 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. A private union. 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 a woman calls her man not a husband but her man. 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 his woman, not his wife. 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 that were created around the Old English era and placed in legal codes subsequently. A return to literal interpretation with an understanding of the original terms clears up a lot of the confusion about what the Bible says about a man and woman's relationship. Biblical Families were unions made between men and women and or their families (which can also be their spiritual family) through private non-legal agreements. Applying a literal or plain methodology to biblical interpretation leads to a better understanding of how unions developed in the biblical era. And third, we must recognize that the idea of polygyny (a man with multiple ladies) is not the same as plural marriage (men and women with state created and endorsed licensed relationships which is illegal). Throughout the entire history of the biblical era men and women formed their unions through private cohabitation and/or oaths. In the OT era the fathers of the family or the older family members led their younger family members into unions with others. In the NT either physical fathers or physical family or elders, spiritual fathers of the church, led younger people into their unions. These were private, contractual, consensual type unions for adults that were commenced not through a state system but through private systems. Reading the Bible in that light will illuminate much and dispel much of the confusion that exists when the Bible is read through a modern Western legal mentality.
Problem Stated: Eisegesis (inserting alternative words or definitions into a text): Eisegesis is the opposite of exegesis. This error occurs when a person reading his or her Bible adds a new word to the text or redefines the original meaning of the words with modern definitions that do not convey the original thought of the biblical writer. This issue is often done when a person reads into the text his or her own bias. For example, In Revelation 3:15-16 the Bible says that Jesus would rather us be hot or cold but not lukewarm. People reading this with a modern ideology being inserted back into the original text often come to the conclusion that the Lord wants people to be on fire or totally devoted to him or else be totally cold and in opposition to him. They interpret cold and hot in a modern sense instead of doing careful research to discover what those terms meant by the original author in the original context. Thus, by doing so those who insert the modern idea back into the text they arrive at a flawed position that actually makes Jesus out to be a Lord who advocates for people to be against him. It makes Jesus Christ, the God-Man who is perfect, holy, and sinless actually a being who takes pleasure in someone being cold and in opposition to him. But that is not the meaning of that text. If we do exegesis, which is the art of determining and drawing out the original meaning of the author in the actual historical and cultural context, with this text in Revelation we discover that the actual believers in Laodicea lived in an area where they did not have cold water. They actually had to pipe water in from the neighboring city of Colosse. Thus, when the water arrived it was often lukewarm and thus full of parasites and bacteria. To kill this bacteria and any parasites in the water the people had to boil their water to purify it. Thus, by context the idea of cold water meant something valuable and refreshing. Also by context we know hot water was valued as well because it was safe from purification. Thus, the Lord's instruction here was for the believers to be purified from sin and either hot or on fire for the Lord or for them to be cold and thus refreshing and encouraging to others by their value to them. Nowhere in this text was Jesus instructing people to be hot, for him, or either cold, and thus against him. He was instructing them not to be lukewarm, which in their context meant a deadly form of water that had no value in and of itself.
This issue of Eisegesis occurs when people read their Bibles in regard to love and unions between men and women. People often read back into the text modern Western ideas about legal marriages and thus that ideology clouds their thinking as they read and interpret the text. The error also even occurs in the work of translating the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into the modern English language. Modern terms like "marriage," "husband," and "wife" are used and these terms were created and given new definitions around the 1100's which differed from the original biblical terms penned by the original biblical authors. In the biblical era love unions or covenant unions were private relational agreements that were non-legal in nature. Even in classical Roman law we see that love unions between men and women were very different than they are today in legal systems. In classical Roman law love unions between a man and woman were highly non-legal in nature and were commenced through private sexual relations and/or through private oaths between the individuals or along with their families guidance. There was no legal license or state official to govern, sanction, or establish the union. And certainly there were no "homosexual marriages" which is becoming more and more common today. Thus, when people translate the original Bible into modern English they are sometimes guilty of eisegesis, the act of taking modern ideas, terms, and definitions and placing those into the Bible as the meaning. This leads to the idea of the monogamy only doctrine as well because the modern Roman state created "marriage" systems was created in that mindset. The creators of the term "marriage" developed that term when the Church and State were all under one umbrella. Thus, what was once a private union that was non-legal in nature became a public government matter through the Roman Catholic influence and those terms carried over into modern English when the European laws and culture migrated to the soils of Colonial America. By the time the English language was solidified in the early 1800's just after the United States of America was born the Romanized terms were still the terms being used which were modern terms with new definitions attached to them.
Solution? Some of what I mentioned in the prior section applies here as well when dealing with eisegesis. Though repetitive I'll restate some of that again for the purpose of emphasis. First we must embrace a consistent rule for interpretation of the Bible. We must dedicate ourselves to the fundamental rule that a term in 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. That does not mean the English translations are bad or to be ignored. That is not the solution. But when we study Scripture if we discover an English term has changed a meaning of an original biblical term then we need to adjust accordingly. That leads to the second point. 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. A private union. 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 a woman calls her man not a husband but her man. 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 his woman, not his wife. 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 that were created around the Old English era and placed in legal codes subsequently. A return to literal interpretation with an understanding of the original terms clears up a lot of the confusion about what the Bible says about a man and woman's relationship. Biblical Families were unions made between men and women and or their families (which can also be their spiritual family) through private non-legal agreements. Applying a literal or plain methodology to biblical interpretation leads to a better understanding of how unions developed in the biblical era. And third, we must recognize that the idea of polygyny (a man with multiple ladies) is not the same as plural marriage (men and women with state created and endorsed licensed relationships which is illegal). Throughout the entire history of the biblical era men and women formed their unions through private cohabitation and/or oaths. In the OT era the fathers of the family or the older family members led their younger family members into unions with others. In the NT either physical fathers or physical family or elders, spiritual fathers of the church, led younger people into their unions. These were private, contractual, consensual type unions for adults that were commenced not through a state system but through private systems. Reading the Bible in that light will illuminate much and dispel much of the confusion that exists when the Bible is read through a modern Western legal mentality.
