9 of 17 Reasons Why People Read Their Bible & Miss Polygyny
Problem Stated: A Misunderstanding or Failure to Apply Literal Interpretation to Texts: People often err in interpretation of their Bibles by not understanding the importance of literal interpretation, or what is better termed historical grammatical interpretation. By this we mean we must look at the words in their historical context as originally penned and discover what did those words mean to the original audience when penned or spoken by the original author. When we do this consistently from Genesis to Revelation the Bible yields the conclusion that a man may unite with a woman and with another woman as the Lord so leads. These are private familial unions, covenant unions, not marriages. The term marriage is both a mistranslation of the original terms and not the idea the Lord Jesus and his apostles taught. "Marriage" is different than "biblical or covenant unions." If this concept is not understood there will be confusion over terms as the terms used today to describe an entity or legal arrangement between men and women, or even in some cases now homosexual marriages, is not the terms used or penned by the original biblical authors.
The key issue however often revolves around the right understanding of a historical term. Today many use the legalized or statized terms that modern translators have adopted from the European language system that developed from around 600 AD to 1100 AD. Terms like husband, wife, and marriage are early to modern English terms that do not reflect the historical terms and their definitions as we see in the Bible. The historical terms in the Bible were terms that spoke of private cohabitation unions between a man and woman and/or their families. In both biblical law and Roman law at the time of Christ and the apostles the unions of men and women were private in nature and not legal or publicly governed. As one professor of law has said: "It may be confidently said that Roman matrimonial law was fundamentally different from its modern European equivalents, which in recent centuries have been subjected to alien influences, primarily canon law" (Goran Lind, Professor of Law University of Uppsala in Sweden, Common Law Marriage, p. 31). Furthermore, we know as well that Roman Law at the time of the early church was "derived not only from positive law but also from ethical and natural law. This partly non-legal concept of marriage also finds expression in the reality that classical marriage had few legal consequences. Strictly speaking, wedding and divorce did not require the cooperation of any governmental authority or the observance of any formalities. . . . Even divorce was a private act" (p. 33, and p. 53). This historical information is important to properly understand the terms and how to best translate and apply them for today. As Dr. Goran Lind says, these early unions were "highly non-legal in nature" and were "entered into without any official control" (Dr. Goran Lind, Common Law Marriage, p. 36).
But this changed when two figures altered the ideas of the day. Augustine (354-430), who was certainly a scholar and beloved leader with many godly traits and writings, wrote a book where he merged all of the kingdoms of God into one Kingdom with no distinctions. This work, "The City of God," along with the rise of Constantine (285-337) to political power where Christianity as a whole received legal recognition and government support led to the government beginning to take over what used to be private and personal covenant agreements between men and women. Then as the church gained power through Constantine and his subsequent rulers along with Augustine’s new Kingdom of God philosophy "the young Christian church endeavored to more extensively legalize marriage, in contrast to the classical Roman understanding that the state legal systems ought not to encroach upon the family’s autonomy but rather, in principle, stopping at the threshold to the home" (p. 89).
Throughout the 600's to 1100's the Roman Catholic Church developed, gained control of both state and spiritual spheres, and during this time to the Old English developed and with it this era brought about new English terms. In the Middle English Era, 1100-1500, the law courts adopted in 1362 the English language for the court systems. The new terms for love unions or covenant unions had now become "marriages." The old biblical terms of "my man" and "my woman" had become "husband and wife" and these new terms carried new ideas that altered the older terms and the older definitions. By 1611 an English Bible was produced, the King James Version, and this became the dominant English translation that influenced the Puritans and Pilgrims and the developed of the United States and her English language. In the 1700's the United States developed and in 1828 Noah Webster wrote his first dictionary that set the course for modern English language. In the KJV Bible and in Webster's dictionary the biblical terms of a covenant union between a man and his woman and a woman and her man were not accurately reflected and the terms husband, wife, and marriage were substituted as this was the predominate idea of the day.
In the older era before the church and state merged (around 400 to 500 AD) there were no "marriages" as we think of or see "marriages" today. Marriage is a newly created term that carries ideas stemming from canon law that came from the Roman Catholic church and her influence where "marriages" were created and highly legalized and regulated through a government sphere whereas biblical unions were private agreements between men and women and each other and/or their families.
Solution? 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 unless. 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.
Problem Stated: A Misunderstanding or Failure to Apply Literal Interpretation to Texts: People often err in interpretation of their Bibles by not understanding the importance of literal interpretation, or what is better termed historical grammatical interpretation. By this we mean we must look at the words in their historical context as originally penned and discover what did those words mean to the original audience when penned or spoken by the original author. When we do this consistently from Genesis to Revelation the Bible yields the conclusion that a man may unite with a woman and with another woman as the Lord so leads. These are private familial unions, covenant unions, not marriages. The term marriage is both a mistranslation of the original terms and not the idea the Lord Jesus and his apostles taught. "Marriage" is different than "biblical or covenant unions." If this concept is not understood there will be confusion over terms as the terms used today to describe an entity or legal arrangement between men and women, or even in some cases now homosexual marriages, is not the terms used or penned by the original biblical authors.
The key issue however often revolves around the right understanding of a historical term. Today many use the legalized or statized terms that modern translators have adopted from the European language system that developed from around 600 AD to 1100 AD. Terms like husband, wife, and marriage are early to modern English terms that do not reflect the historical terms and their definitions as we see in the Bible. The historical terms in the Bible were terms that spoke of private cohabitation unions between a man and woman and/or their families. In both biblical law and Roman law at the time of Christ and the apostles the unions of men and women were private in nature and not legal or publicly governed. As one professor of law has said: "It may be confidently said that Roman matrimonial law was fundamentally different from its modern European equivalents, which in recent centuries have been subjected to alien influences, primarily canon law" (Goran Lind, Professor of Law University of Uppsala in Sweden, Common Law Marriage, p. 31). Furthermore, we know as well that Roman Law at the time of the early church was "derived not only from positive law but also from ethical and natural law. This partly non-legal concept of marriage also finds expression in the reality that classical marriage had few legal consequences. Strictly speaking, wedding and divorce did not require the cooperation of any governmental authority or the observance of any formalities. . . . Even divorce was a private act" (p. 33, and p. 53). This historical information is important to properly understand the terms and how to best translate and apply them for today. As Dr. Goran Lind says, these early unions were "highly non-legal in nature" and were "entered into without any official control" (Dr. Goran Lind, Common Law Marriage, p. 36).
But this changed when two figures altered the ideas of the day. Augustine (354-430), who was certainly a scholar and beloved leader with many godly traits and writings, wrote a book where he merged all of the kingdoms of God into one Kingdom with no distinctions. This work, "The City of God," along with the rise of Constantine (285-337) to political power where Christianity as a whole received legal recognition and government support led to the government beginning to take over what used to be private and personal covenant agreements between men and women. Then as the church gained power through Constantine and his subsequent rulers along with Augustine’s new Kingdom of God philosophy "the young Christian church endeavored to more extensively legalize marriage, in contrast to the classical Roman understanding that the state legal systems ought not to encroach upon the family’s autonomy but rather, in principle, stopping at the threshold to the home" (p. 89).
Throughout the 600's to 1100's the Roman Catholic Church developed, gained control of both state and spiritual spheres, and during this time to the Old English developed and with it this era brought about new English terms. In the Middle English Era, 1100-1500, the law courts adopted in 1362 the English language for the court systems. The new terms for love unions or covenant unions had now become "marriages." The old biblical terms of "my man" and "my woman" had become "husband and wife" and these new terms carried new ideas that altered the older terms and the older definitions. By 1611 an English Bible was produced, the King James Version, and this became the dominant English translation that influenced the Puritans and Pilgrims and the developed of the United States and her English language. In the 1700's the United States developed and in 1828 Noah Webster wrote his first dictionary that set the course for modern English language. In the KJV Bible and in Webster's dictionary the biblical terms of a covenant union between a man and his woman and a woman and her man were not accurately reflected and the terms husband, wife, and marriage were substituted as this was the predominate idea of the day.
In the older era before the church and state merged (around 400 to 500 AD) there were no "marriages" as we think of or see "marriages" today. Marriage is a newly created term that carries ideas stemming from canon law that came from the Roman Catholic church and her influence where "marriages" were created and highly legalized and regulated through a government sphere whereas biblical unions were private agreements between men and women and each other and/or their families.
Solution? 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 unless. 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.