We often use the term "marriage" while in reality we are talking about something else. At times we use terms loosely without precision. For example, the terms "to marry" can in a loose or non-precise sense mean merely to merge together or to join. We've often heard the phrase: "He is married to his work." By that it is a general non-legal term that means a person is always at work or is seriously devoted to his work. But then there is the precise definition that is a legal term. To marry in the legal sense or in the precise sense of the modern term means to join together under the auspices and permission of the government or agent authorized by the government to perform and grant the people the right to join together.
If we approach the Bible through the rule of literal interpretation, or what is better termed historical grammatical interpretation, and then examine history we find that the legal system of today is not what was in the biblical era. Today the term "marriage" in its proper or precise sense carries the legal ideology. However, in the biblical era there was no such idea as a "marriage." There were private familial unions, covenant unions, love unions, or natural unions but 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, or natural 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.
Of course, keep in mind that some use terms imprecisely and in a general sense and thus some use the term "marriage" but do so in a loose sense that does not reflect the proper term or its heritage. We all do this to some degree with terms in other areas. For example, people will often use the term "Coke" to merely mean a soda. Sometimes people will say things like: "Grab me a coke at the store while you are out." Sometimes they do not mean the precise drink known as Coca Cola but rather they mean some type of soda drink. Likewise, you'll here people say they are "married" but they often mean in the general sense but not in the proper or precise sense of the term. Many people are not married per se but rather joined in a love union or covenant union or natural union without any association to a marriage commenced through a state licensure system.
The key issue for precision 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 brilliant 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 language 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. Instead of keeping the two word system the Church/State system created a new term and classification by rejecting the two term system God used in the word and replaced it with new terms with new definitions. The ideology was not corrected even in the Reformation era as it was mostly focused on the nature of the Bible and the doctrine of salvation. So by 1611 an English Bible was produced, the King James Version along with its its one word system along with the new term marriage, became the dominant English translation that influenced the Puritans and Pilgrims of Colonial America. This continued on into the development 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. Often times the unions of the biblical era were even without ceremony whereas marriages of today are normally by ceremony and conducted through some type of state licensed agent or legal entity granted to give the permission to a couple to join together in a legal union. Marriage is a newly created term that carries ideas stemming from Roman Catholic 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.
We can see this more clearly by examining the original languages of the Bible. The Greek term syzeugnymi (συζεύγνυμι) is Jesus 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 see 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 as a woman calls her man not a husband but her man. There was no one word system for this in the original languages. Our Bibles if truly literal translations would reflect this instead of using the one word system that has become so common in today's legalized or politically correct Bibles. 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 of that era were unions made between men and women and or their families (which can also be their spiritual family) through private non-legal agreements.
One might ask: does it really make a difference today what terms we use? In some cases it does not, especially when talking among those who understand what you mean. It like the person who asks his best friend to grab him a Coke at the store. If the friend knows him well and he knows that the one asking always drinks an R.C. Cola then there is no harm by using non-precise terms.
However, when it comes to translating the bible correctly and the use of terms in the public sphere there is a need to be as clear as possible. Using non-legal terms like union, cohabitation, love union, my man and my woman makes it clear that there is a difference between marriage as a state system versus the private system. Terms like love unions or covenant unions or just a union along with different classifiers like "my man and my woman" instead of the legalized terms husband and wife can go a long way in distinguishing one's biblical faith from the faith of a Romanized system that is a carry over into the modern culture. If one wants to make it unmistakably clear that he or she walks with Christ and not with the Roman system this is a small piece of the theological pie that reveals such a position and intent.
Furthermore, there is no way to mistake a "my man and my woman union" in contrast to a "homosexual marriage," which by strict definition cannot be a true holy union in the eye of God whereas as a man a his woman together can be. Thus, if a person standing alone says he or she is married that term no longer conveys precisely what type of union one is in within this culture. In today's culture a man or woman alone can say "I am married" and it not clearly convey their true lifestyle. However, if a man or woman standing alone uses the two word system of the Bible it is unmistakable that they are heterosexual and not homosexual.
And lastly, using the private system language sends a message about our inalienable rights too. Many today agree and think that the government grants us rights. That is incorrect. Rights like being able to peaceably assemble ourselves to another is not something conferred upon us by the government. It is an innate right given to us as humans by our Creator. Thus, by a return to precise language when dealing with the public sector we can show that we do not accept the ideology that we must have government permission as adults to assemble with another human in a love union. God in his providence grants us as humans the right to join together in a sexual union and if we use the proper or precise terms instead of the state terms from Rome the message is stated in a kind yet clear way by the terms themselves.
If we approach the Bible through the rule of literal interpretation, or what is better termed historical grammatical interpretation, and then examine history we find that the legal system of today is not what was in the biblical era. Today the term "marriage" in its proper or precise sense carries the legal ideology. However, in the biblical era there was no such idea as a "marriage." There were private familial unions, covenant unions, love unions, or natural unions but 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, or natural 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.
Of course, keep in mind that some use terms imprecisely and in a general sense and thus some use the term "marriage" but do so in a loose sense that does not reflect the proper term or its heritage. We all do this to some degree with terms in other areas. For example, people will often use the term "Coke" to merely mean a soda. Sometimes people will say things like: "Grab me a coke at the store while you are out." Sometimes they do not mean the precise drink known as Coca Cola but rather they mean some type of soda drink. Likewise, you'll here people say they are "married" but they often mean in the general sense but not in the proper or precise sense of the term. Many people are not married per se but rather joined in a love union or covenant union or natural union without any association to a marriage commenced through a state licensure system.
The key issue for precision 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 brilliant 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 language 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. Instead of keeping the two word system the Church/State system created a new term and classification by rejecting the two term system God used in the word and replaced it with new terms with new definitions. The ideology was not corrected even in the Reformation era as it was mostly focused on the nature of the Bible and the doctrine of salvation. So by 1611 an English Bible was produced, the King James Version along with its its one word system along with the new term marriage, became the dominant English translation that influenced the Puritans and Pilgrims of Colonial America. This continued on into the development 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. Often times the unions of the biblical era were even without ceremony whereas marriages of today are normally by ceremony and conducted through some type of state licensed agent or legal entity granted to give the permission to a couple to join together in a legal union. Marriage is a newly created term that carries ideas stemming from Roman Catholic 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.
We can see this more clearly by examining the original languages of the Bible. The Greek term syzeugnymi (συζεύγνυμι) is Jesus 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 see 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 as a woman calls her man not a husband but her man. There was no one word system for this in the original languages. Our Bibles if truly literal translations would reflect this instead of using the one word system that has become so common in today's legalized or politically correct Bibles. 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 of that era were unions made between men and women and or their families (which can also be their spiritual family) through private non-legal agreements.
One might ask: does it really make a difference today what terms we use? In some cases it does not, especially when talking among those who understand what you mean. It like the person who asks his best friend to grab him a Coke at the store. If the friend knows him well and he knows that the one asking always drinks an R.C. Cola then there is no harm by using non-precise terms.
However, when it comes to translating the bible correctly and the use of terms in the public sphere there is a need to be as clear as possible. Using non-legal terms like union, cohabitation, love union, my man and my woman makes it clear that there is a difference between marriage as a state system versus the private system. Terms like love unions or covenant unions or just a union along with different classifiers like "my man and my woman" instead of the legalized terms husband and wife can go a long way in distinguishing one's biblical faith from the faith of a Romanized system that is a carry over into the modern culture. If one wants to make it unmistakably clear that he or she walks with Christ and not with the Roman system this is a small piece of the theological pie that reveals such a position and intent.
Furthermore, there is no way to mistake a "my man and my woman union" in contrast to a "homosexual marriage," which by strict definition cannot be a true holy union in the eye of God whereas as a man a his woman together can be. Thus, if a person standing alone says he or she is married that term no longer conveys precisely what type of union one is in within this culture. In today's culture a man or woman alone can say "I am married" and it not clearly convey their true lifestyle. However, if a man or woman standing alone uses the two word system of the Bible it is unmistakable that they are heterosexual and not homosexual.
And lastly, using the private system language sends a message about our inalienable rights too. Many today agree and think that the government grants us rights. That is incorrect. Rights like being able to peaceably assemble ourselves to another is not something conferred upon us by the government. It is an innate right given to us as humans by our Creator. Thus, by a return to precise language when dealing with the public sector we can show that we do not accept the ideology that we must have government permission as adults to assemble with another human in a love union. God in his providence grants us as humans the right to join together in a sexual union and if we use the proper or precise terms instead of the state terms from Rome the message is stated in a kind yet clear way by the terms themselves.
