fam'-i-li (mishpachah, bayith; patria):

1. The Foundation

2. Monogamy, the Ideal Relation

3. Equality of the Sexes

4. Polygamy

5. The Commandments and the Family (5th Commandment)

6. The Commandments and the Family (7th Commandment)

7. The Commandments and the Family (10th Commandment)

8. Primitive Monogamic Ideal

9. Reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah

10. The New Testament

11. The Teaching of Jesus

12. The Teaching of Paul

13. Modern Dangers

LITERATURE

1. The Foundation:

The Bible is the world's great teacher of monogamy-the union for life of one man and one woman in marriage as the basis of the family. Whatever may be said about the time of the writing of the books of the Bible, or of parts of them, the testimony of the whole is incontrovertibly to the point that marriage springs from the choice of one man and one woman of each other for a permanent family relation. Over and through the whole of the Bible this ideal is dominant. There may be instances shown here and there of violation of this rule. But such cases are to be regarded as contrary to the underlying principle of marriage-known even at the time of their occurrence to be antagonistic to the principle.

There may be times when moral principle is violated in high places and perhaps over wide reaches in society. The Bible shows that there were such times in the history of man. But it is undeniable that its tone toward such lapses of men and of society is not one of condonation but one of regret and disapproval. The disasters consequent are faithfully set forth. The feeling that finds expression in its whole history is that in such cases there had been violation of the ideal of right in the sex relation. The ideal of monogamic relation is put in the forefront of the history of man.

2. Monogamy, the Ideal Relation:

The race is introduced synthetically as a species in the incoming of life. "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27). But with the first particularization of the relation of the sexes to each other the great charter of monogamy was laid down so clearly that Jesus was content to quote it, when with His limitless ethical scrutiny He explained the marriage relation. "And the man said (when the woman was brought to him), This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:23, 14). It is well to pause and look at the grammatical number of the nouns: "a man," "his wife." The words of the charter hold the sexes to monogamy. The subsequent words make marriage life-lasting. "They twain shall be one flesh." A dualism becomes an individualism. So said Christ: "Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh" (Matthew 19:6 the King James Version). Nothing but death separates a man from his own flesh. Nothing but life-monogamy can find place in the language of this charter.

There is much in the setting of this charter in the account given in Genesis that is suggestive of the fine sentiment which we know has always gone along with love and marriage. That this account should have held the place in history that it has had adds testimony to the fine perception of sentiment and the strong grasp on principle out of which it came.

3. Equality of the Sexes:

Eve, "the mother of all living," comes out as distinctly as Adam on the canvas in the portraiture of the first pair. She is the feminine representative-'ishshah-of the race, as Adam is the masculine-'ish (Genesis 2:23). The personality of Eve is as complete as that of Adam. She is a rational and accountable creature, as Adam is. In primitive intellectual and moral transactions she has share on equality with Adam, and is equally involved in their results. Different physical consequences fall on her for "transgression," because she is "woman," "the mother of all living" (Genesis 3:16). But Adam does not escape retribution for sin, and it may be questioned whether its burden did not fall hardest on him (Genesis 3:18, 19), for motherhood has its joy as well as its pain, in the companionship of new-born child-life; but the wrestler for subsistence from a reluctant earth must bear his hardship alone. It cannot but be that much of the primitive conjugal love survived the fall.

4. Polygamy:

According to the record, monogamy seems long to have survived the departure from Eden. It is not till many generations after that event that we find a case of polygamy-that of Lamech (Genesis 4:19-24). Lamech is said to have had "two wives." The special mention of "two" seems to show that man had not yet wandered far away from monogamy. The indications seem to be that as the race multiplied and went out over the face of the earth they forgot the original kinship and exhibited all manner of barbarities in social relations. Lamech was a polygamist, but he was also a quarrelsome homicide: "I have slain a man for wounding me, and a young man for bruising me" (Genesis 4:23). If such acts and dispositions as are disclosed in the case of Lamech become common, it will certainly not be a long while before the only apt description of the condition of society must be that upon which we come in Gen. 6:5: "And Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Out of such condition will come war and slavery, and polygamy-and come they did. It is a straight road from Genesis 6:5 to "The Koran, tribute or the sword," and the polygamy of Mohammedans.

5. The Commandments and the Family (5th Commandment):

The commandments (Exodus 20:12 Deuteronomy 5:16) are a succinct summary of the supreme moral relations and duties of man. The first four pertain to our relationship to God. The six following concern human relations. Of these six, three have considerations of the family involved in them. Commandments do not come to people ignorant of the subjects to which they relate. A commandment to cover an unknown moral relation is an absurdity. The text of the Fifth Commandment is, "Honor thy father and thy mother." This refers to the relation of children to parents. This commandment could scarcely have arisen when polygamy was a common practice, certainly never from promiscuity. The equality of father and mother is stamped on its face. That idea never could have had strength and solemnity enough, except in a prevailing condition of monogamy, to entitle the command in which it appeared to rank with the important subjects covered by the other commands. Before the gaze of the children to whom this commandment came, the family stood in monogamic honor-the mother a head of the family as well as the father. There is no question about the position of the mother in this commandment. She stands out as clear as Sinai itself. There is no cloud on her majesty. Such honor as goes to the father goes to the mother. She is no chattel, no property, no inferior being, but the mother; no subordinate to the father, but his equal in rank and entitled to equal reverence with him. The commandment would not and could not have so pictured the mother had she been one of the inmates of a harem.

6. The Commandments and the Family (7th Commandment):

The Seventh Commandment (Exodus 20:14 Deuteronomy 5:18) gives the family. It secures the home. It says that whatever children are born to the race shall be born in a home and of the home-shall be family-born. The terms adultery and fornication have now become synonymous. Under the influence of polygamous practices a distinction was made in respect to unlawful sex union as to whether one or both of the parties thereto were married or not, or whether one or both were single. Such distinction will not hold in morals. All or any sex union out of marriage is barred by the family idea. Outside of that all sex union is sin.

While it is true that in the laws of Israel sex sin outside the family relation was treated as a subject by itself, yet when we remember how early in life marriage came in those ancient days, and that betrothal in childhood was deemed as sacred as marriage itself, we see that even then the sweep of the commandment was well-nigh universal and over what a broad range it protected the family. The family is the primal eldest institution of man-the greatest and the holiest. Over this institution this commandment stands sentry. It prevents men from breaking up in complete individual isolation, from reverting to solitary savagery. Think to what a child is born outside of the family relation! Then think of all children being so born, and you have the picture of a low plane of animalism from which all trace of the moral responsibility of fatherhood has disappeared, and where even motherhood will be reduced to simple care during the short period of helpless infancy, to such care as belongs to animal instinct. Put up now the idea that marriage shall be universal and that the children born in marriage shall belong genuinely to it, and you have a new heaven and a new earth ia the sex relations of the race of man.

7. The Commandments and the Family (10th Commandment):

The Tenth Commandment seems almost out of place on the list of the commandments. All the others enjoin specific acts. This tenth seems to be a foregleam of the Savior's method-going to the thoughts and intents of the heart. It is an attempt at regulation in man. It goes beyond outward acts and deals with the spirit. Its purpose seems not regulation of man in society but in himself. So far as it has outward relation it seems to apply primarily to the rights of property. We have at common law the expression, "rights of persons; and rights of things," i.e. to property. But the list of things enumerated in the commandment comprises the things most common to family life: house, servants, animals. One is forbidden not only to take but even to desire such things. They are necessary to family life. In this list of things belonging to a neighbor that a man is forbidden to desire occurs the term "wife." To first thought it may seem strange that she should be listed with property in house and chattels. But it may not be very singular. One of woman's greatest blessings to man is helpfulness. Eve, the mother of all living, came as a helpmeet for Adam. Sarah is mistress of domestic operations. A wife quick of thought, accurate in judgment and deft of hand is usually the key to a man's material prosperity. As such help a man's desire might stray to his neighbor's wife as well as to his cattle. Even on this lower plane she is still a constituent element of the family. Here the thought of sex is scarcely discernible. Covetousness unlimited in the accumulation of property is what comes under ban. To treat of that matter would lead too far astray.

SeeCOVETOUSNESS.

It is well to remember in taking leave of the commandments that half of those pertaining to human relations hold the family plainly in view. This is as it should be. The race is divided equally between male and female, and their relations to each other, we might expect, would call for half of the directions devoted to the whole.

8. Primitive Monogamic Ideal:

The laws against adultery and incest (Leviticus 20 and the like) may seem barbarously severe. Be it so; that fact would show they were carried along by a people tremendously in earnest about the integrity of the family. Beneath pioneer severity is usually a solemn principle. That the children of Israel had a tough grasp on the primitive monogamic ideal is not only apparent in all their history, but it comes out clear in what they held as history before their own began. Mr. Gladstone said the tenth chapter of Genesis is the best document of ancient ethnography known to man. But it is made up on family lines. It is a record of the settlement of heads of families as they went forth on the face of the earth. The common statement for the sons of Noah as they filed out over the lands of which they took possession is, `these are the sons of. after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, in their nations.' Mr. Gladstone called attention to the fact that modern philology verifies this classification of the nations which rests on outgrowth from families.

9. Reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah:

Turning now to a very distant point in history-the return of the Jews from captivity in Babylon-we find in Ezra and Nehemiah the most critical regard for genealogy. The effort to establish "pure blood" was fairly a fanaticism and might even be charged with injustice. Yet this effort was ratified by the people-sufferers in degraded name though many of them must have been. This could never have been done had not the monogamic family idea rested in their hearts as just and right. Nehemiah (13:26) unsparingly condemned the mighty Solomon for his polygamy, and Israel upproved the censure.

10. The New Testament

When we come to the times of the New Testament, contemporaneous polygamy in Jewish society was dead. Wherever New Testament influences have gone, contemporaneous polygamy has ceased to be.

There has been in the United States by Mormonism a belated attempt to revive that crime against the family. But it has had its bad day, and, if it lives at all, it is under the ban of social sentiment and is a crime by law. Consecutive polygamy still exists in nations that are called Christian by the permission of divorce laws. But the tide of Christian sentiment is setting strongly against it, and it takes no special clearness of vision to see that it must go to extinction along with polygamy contemporaneous.

Jesus reaffirmed the original charter of the monogamic family (Matthew 19:1-12 Mark 10:2-12). It is to be noticed that He affirmed the indissolubility of the family not only against the parties thereto but against the power of society.

SeeDIVORCE.

11. The Teaching of Jesus:

At first sight it seems a little strange that Jesus said so little about the family. But as we reflect on the nature of His mission we shall catch the explanation of His silence. He said, "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17), that is, to fill out, to expound and expand. He also said, "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" (Matthew 18:11 the King James Version), and, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:13), that is, to rectify what was wrong. To what was right He gave the right of way-let it go on in its own course. When the law was right, He said, not one jot or tittle of it should fail (Matthew 5:18). With regard to the family, He held the old charter written in the heart of man, before it was burned in brick or committed to manuscript, was right. It was comprehensive, would and ought to stand. So He stood by that, and that sufficed His purpose. Christ did not try to regulate the family so much as to regulate the persons who entered into family life. This may explain why we have no utterance from Him in regard to the conduct and duties of children toward parents. Still stood the ancient statute, "Honor thy father and thy mother." He came not to destroy but to fulfill that. That still indicated the right relation of children to parents. If a child had asked about his relation to his parents, Christ would doubtless have referred him to that commandment, as He did other inquirers about duties to the commandments that cover so large a part of the ethical realm.

12. The Teaching of Paul:

Paul, who particularizes so much in explanation of duties in all relations, scarcely gets beyond the old commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother," when he says, "Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing in the Lord." It has always been well-pleasing in the Lord. To be sure there was new inspiration to obedience from the new revelation of duty which came to them in Christ, but the duty was enforced by the Fifth Commandment, and that was copied from the deeper revelation in the heart of man.

13. Modern Dangers:

In modern society the two great foes of the family are Divorce and Migration. Families no longer live a continuous life together. We have less family life than the old pastoral nomads. They had to keep together for several generations in order to protect their lives and their flocks and herds. So arose the clan, the tribe and the nation. Family influence can be detected through them. Modern Industries are very much localized. We should easily think that families would be under their controlling influence. But they are not; the industries are localized, the workers are becoming rovers. When trouble comes in an industry, a workman's first resort is to try somewhere else. Cheapness of transportation gives him the opportunity he desires. So with a satchel he goes hunting, much as a barbarian roams the forest for game, alone. He may take his family or leave it behind. He may be separated from his family for months or years-possibly abandon it forever. A very common cause of divorce is abandonment of family by its male head.

In fact, those engaged in a great deal of legitimate industry are looking out for a better place quite as much as to develop the capacities of business in their own locations. The signs over places of business are few that carry the same name in town or city for a generation. Moving is perhaps more the order of the day than movement. The families are few that can be found in the same place for a quarter of a century. The wealthy cannot stay in the same house six months at a time. They have a house in the city for the winter and one in the country for the summer, and then forsake both and fly over the sea, perhaps to remain for years-traveling. How can family ties survive under such migratory life? Society supersedes the family.

Even education is subject to this malign influence. At their most impressive age, when they need family influence most around them, children are sent away to prepare for or to enter upon higher courses of education. This fits them for something else than life in the family from which they sprang and they rarely return to it. We may not be able to check this drift, but we ought to see its tendency to degrade the estimate of the value of the family.

LITERATURE.

Wolsey, Divorce, Scribners; Publications of the National Divorce Reform League; Reports State and National, ad rem; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question, chapter iii; Caverno, Divorce, Midland Publishing Co., Madison, Wis.; The Ten Words, Pilgrim Press, Boston.

C. Caverno

RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY

re-la'-shun-ships:

I. CONSANGUINITY

1. In General

2. Parents and Children

3. Brothers and Sisters

4. Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Kinsmen

II. AFFINITY

1. Husband and Wife

2. Father-in-Law, etc.

3. Brother-in-Law, etc.

III. OTHER DOMESTIC RELATIONS

1. Foster-Father

2. Master and Servants

3. Host and Guest

4. The Dependent Stranger

The family or domestic relations of the Bible include

(1) those of consanguinity or blood relationship,

(2) affinity or marriage relationship, and

(3) legal convention.

Those of consanguinity may be divided into lineal and collateral groups; the former are those of parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, and ancestors and descendants in general; the latter are those of brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts in relation to nephews and nieces, cousins of various degrees, including mere tribesmen and even remoter kinsfolk. The relations of affinity include besides that of husband and wife or concubine, the relations among rival wives, and their children, those of father-in-law and mother-in-law in relation to son-in-law and daughter-in-law, and those of brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. The domestic relations based on legal convention are either legal fictions or the results of agreement: among the former we must include those of foster-father or mother and foster-children; among the latter the relations between master and the various classes of servants and slaves held by the ancient Hebrews, those between host and guest, especially where they became covenant brothers, and between the citizen and the stranger who had attached himself to him for his protection.

I. Consanguinity.

1. In General:

Genealogies were carefully kept by the ancient Hebrews (compare those of Genesis, Numbers, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Matthew, Luke), not only because they formed the basis of a man's title to his property (Numbers 27:8-11; exceptional case, Numbers 36:1-12), but also because on one's pedigree depended the right of his family to intermarry with the priestly caste. Descent was traced through the father; a man's closest association was therefore with his father's family, and he was ordinarily referred to as the son of his father, thus Isaac the son of Abraham (Genesis 25:19), Joshua the son of Nun, Caleb the son of Jephunneh (Numbers 14:6). Still there are instances of men named for their mothers (Joab the son of Zeruiah), and a man's relation with his mother's family was fully recognized in the laws forbidding incest. No lineal relatives were permitted to intermarry (Leviticus 18:7, 10). The relations of ancestors and descendants were considered so close that the ordinary terms of relationship between children and parents are used constantly in relation to grandparents and remoter ancestors. The wishes of a great-grandfather are respected long after his death as the wishes of a father (Jeremiah 35:16).

2. Parents and Children:

The father ('abh; pater) was the head of the family (mishpachah) or household (bayith), which was a religious (1 Samuel 20:6, 29 Exodus 12:3 Job 1:5) as well as a social and political unit, consisting usually of a combination of families in the modern sense. As long as polygamy prevailed a family would include at least the several groups of children of the wives and concubines. The Bible represents the Hebrew father as commanding (Genesis 50:16 Jeremiah 35:6 Proverbs 6:20), instructing (Proverbs 1:8; Proverbs 4:1), and rebuking (Genesis 37:10 Numbers 12:14); at the same time, as loving (Genesis 25:28; Genesis 37:4; Genesis 44:20), pitying (Psalm 103:13), and blessing his household (Genesis 27:41), rejoicing over its triumphs (Proverbs 10:1; Proverbs 15:20), or grieving over its misfortunes (Genesis 37:35). The mother, too ('em; meter), naturally displays love and care (Genesis 25:28 Proverbs 4:3 Isaiah 49:15; Isaiah 66:13). To the Hebrew woman childlessness was considered the greatest of misfortunes (1 Samuel 1:10, of Hannah; Genesis 30:23, of Rachel). Children were looked upon as a blessing from God (Psalm 127:3) and the defenders of the home (Psalm 127:4, 5). In early life a child was more directly under the control of the mother than the father; the mother was its first teacher (Proverbs 1:8). Thereafter the father was expected to direct the training of the son (ben; huios, teknon) (Genesis 18:19 Exodus 12:26; Exodus 13:8, 14, 15 Deuteronomy 6:7), while the daughter (bath; thugater) probably remained with the mother until her marriage (Micah 7:6). Both parents are looked upon in the Law as objects of honor (Exodus 20:12 parallel Deuteronomy 5:16 (the Fifth Commandment); Exodus 21:15 Leviticus 20:9 Deuteronomy 27:16 Proverbs 20:20 Ezekiel 22:7; Micah 7:6), obedience (Genesis 28:7 Leviticus 19:3 Deuteronomy 21:18 Proverbs 1:8; Proverbs 30:17) and love (1 Kings 19:20 Proverbs 28:24; Proverbs 30:11). The control of parents was so great as to include the right to sell daughters in marriage, but not, without restrictions, into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11; compare Exodus 22:16 Nehemiah 5:5), and never into a life of shame (Leviticus 19:29); they could chastise children (Deuteronomy 8:5; Deuteronomy 21:18 Proverbs 13:24; compare Ecclesiasticus 30:1-13), and in the early days even exerted the power of life and death over them (Genesis 22 Judges 11:39 Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5 2 Kings 23:10; compare Matthew 15:4). This power, at least for sacrificial purposes, was entirely removed by the Law, and changed, even for punishment, in the case of a stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous and disobedient son to a mere right of complaint to the proper authorities (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), who were to put him to death. Infanticide by exposure, such as was common among other ancient peoples, seems never to have been practiced by the Hebrews. That the children were nevertheless the chattels of the parents seems to be attested from the fact that they could be seized for the debts of the father (2 Kings 4:1). The father could annul the vows of his daughter (Numbers 30:3-5), and damages for wrongs done to her were paid to him, as in English law "for loss of services" (Deuteronomy 22:29). A widowed or divorced daughter could return to her father (Genesis 38:11 Leviticus 22:13 Ruth 1:15). At his death the mother would become the actual, if not the legal, head of the household (2 Kings 8:1-6, the Shunammite woman; Tob 1:8, Tobit's grandmother; compare the position of the mother of Jesus). This was especially true of the queen mother (gebhirah), whose name is usually given in the accounts of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 1:11; 1 Kings 2:19, where a throne at the king's right hand was set for the king's mother; 1 Kings 11:26; 1 Kings 14:21, 31; 15:2, 10, 13; 22:42 2 Kings 8:26; 2 Kings 10:13; 2 Kings 14:2; 2 Kings 15:2, 33; 18:02; 21:1, 19; 22:01; 23:31, 36; 24:8, 12, 15, 18 2 Chronicles 22:2 Jeremiah 13:18; Jeremiah 22:26; see QUEEN MOTHER). While it is true that the position of the widowed mother depended to some extent on the will of her son (1 Kings 2:18), it must be remembered that the sense of filial duty was highly developed among all classes in Palestine (Joshua 2:13, 18; Joshua 6:23 1 Samuel 22:3 2 Samuel 19:37 1 Kings 19:20). The rebellion of children marked the acme of social degeneration (Micah 7:6 Proverbs 30:11); on the other hand the "great day" according to Malachi (4:5 (Hebrew 3:23)) is one of conciliation of parents and children.

3. Brothers and Sisters:

The terms "brother" ('ach; adelphos) and "sister" ('ahoth; adelphe) apply to children of the same father and mother (Genesis 4:2), and also to children of one father (Genesis 20:12) or of one mother (Genesis 43:7 Leviticus 18:9; Leviticus 20:17). The brother as well as the father was the natural protector of the honor of his sister; thus, the sons of Jacob speak of Dinah as "our daughter" (Genesis 34:17). Absalom feels more deeply aggrieved over the crime against Tamar than does David himself (2 Samuel 13:21). The brother's other duties toward a sister were very much like those of a father (Songs 8:8). The Law strictly forbids the intermarriage of brother and sister, whether of the same father and mother or not, whether born at home or born abroad, as a "disgraceful thing" (chesedh, a different word from checedh, "kindness" (Leviticus 18:9, 11; Leviticus 20:17). In earlier times marriage between half-brother and sister was allowable (Genesis 20:12; compare 2 Samuel 13:13). In fact, we are expressly told that the laws against incest were not obeyed by the Egyptians or the Canaanites (Leviticus 18:3; 20:23). Brotherly sentiment was highly developed (Genesis 24:60 Joshua 2:13 Proverbs 17:17; compare Leviticus 25:35 Deuteronomy 15:11; Deuteronomy 25:3); the dwelling of brothers together in unity is considered good and pleasant (Psalm 133:1). Brothers were ever ready to protect or avenge each other (2 Samuel 3:27). Indeed, it is part of the unwritten, common law, recognized though not necessarily approved in the Bible, that the brother or next of kin, the go'el, is expected to avenge a death (Numbers 35:19 Deuteronomy 19:6 Joshua 20:3 2 Samuel 14:11), and no punishment is meted out to prevent such self-help, unless it occurs in a refuge-city. A brother was also expected to ransom a captive or slave (Leviticus 25:48 Psalm 49:7). Half-brothers were of course not so near as brothers of the full blood (compare Joseph and his brothers), and it is not surprising to find the sons of a wife despising and driving out the son of a harlot (Judges 11:1, Jephthah). The words "brother" and "sister" are used frequently of more distant relationships (see below) and figuratively of a friend.

4. Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Kinsmen:

The Hebrew dodh (Leviticus 10:4, "uncles"; Numbers 36:11, "cousins"; 1 Samuel 14:50), coming from a primitive caressing word, possibly indicating "dandle" "fondle" "love" means both "uncle" and "beloved." It is used of the father's and also of the mother's brother, and the corresponding feminine form (dodhah) is used of the father's sister (Exodus 6:20; compare Numbers 26:59) and even of the father's brother's wife (Leviticus 18:14; Leviticus 20:20). Intermarriage between nephew and aunt (i.e. father's sister, mother's sister, or father's brother's wife, or, in general, uncle's wife) was prohibited (Leviticus 18:12, 13, 14; Leviticus 20:19, 20), though nothing is said of intermarriage between uncle and niece nor between cousins (compare Numbers 36:11). On the relations between uncle and nephew compare the Bible accounts of Jacob and Laban, Abraham and Lot, David and Joab, etc. In a more general sense the word dodh is used of kinsmen, Amos 6:10 (where the dodh, "even he that burneth him" (mecarepho, perhaps "maternal uncle"; the Jewish Encyclopedia, under the word "Cremation"), takes charge of a dead body); ben dodh is used of cousin (compare ben 'ahi 'immo, brother of his mother," etc.) and bath dodh of a female cousin. For other relations of this and remoter degrees the word for brother is loosely used (e.g. of nephews, Genesis 13:8; Genesis 14:14, etc.; of tribesmen, Leviticus 21:10; and of more distant relatives, Deuteronomy 2:4, 8; Deuteronomy 23:7).

II. Affinity.

1. Husband and Wife:

The husband ('ish; compare ba`al, Hosea 2:16; aner), though in a sense leaving father and mother for his wife ('ishshah; gune) (Genesis 2:24), under normal conditions remained a member of his father's family. If such passages as Genesis 2:24; Genesis 21:10; Genesis 24:5, 67; 30:03:00; 31:31 Judges 4:17;; 5:24;; 8:19; 9:3, indicate the existence in pre-Biblical times of a matriarchate, the allusions are at least too vague to justify the predication of its persistence in Biblical times. The wife was "taken" by her husband, or "given" by her father or, in the case of a servant, by her master or mistress (Genesis 2:22; Genesis 16:3; Genesis 34:9, 21), and although the contract was between the men (Genesis 29; Genesis 34:16 Exodus 22:16 Deuteronomy 22:29 Ruth 4:10) or the parents (Genesis 21:21; Genesis 24), it is probable that the consent of the girl was usually asked (Genesis 24:58). Love between the young people was given due consideration (as in the case of Samson, Shechem, Jacob and Rachel (Genesis 29:18), David and Michal (1 Samuel 18:20)); at least it developed among married people, so that Hosea could compare the attitude of husband toward wife to that of Yahweh toward Israel. As a matter of legal right, it is probable that throughout the Orient long before the events narrated in the Book of Esther, every man did "bear rule in his own house" (Esther 1:22). In fact a precedent for the Persian decree has been traced as far back as the first human pair (Genesis 3:16). Nevertheless, we find many instances in which the wife seems to take the lead in the affairs of the household, as in the case of Samson's parents (Judges 13:23), of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4), of Jael (Judges 4:18; 5:24), of Achsah (Joshua 15:18 Judges 1:12 f), and in less pleasant matters of Jezebel (1 Kings 18:4; 1 Kings 21), Sapphira (Acts 5:2), and Zeresh (Esther 5:14), who were at least consulted in the affairs of their several households. Abraham is even commanded by the voice of God, "In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice" (Genesis 21:12). That most women were not so fortunate is probably best attested by the fact that at least in the earlier times the best of them had to resort to stratagem to accomplish their purposes (as in the cases of Rebekah (Genesis 27:6), Rachel (Genesis 31:34), Leah (Genesis 30:16) and Abigail (1 Samuel 25:18), and even to get information as to their husband's affairs (Sarah, Genesis 18:10; Rebekah, Genesis 27:5)). Perhaps their humbler sisters in later days accomplished their ends by being so contentious as to attract the notice of two proverb-collectors (Proverbs 21:9; Proverbs 25:24). Though we have no instance of the exercise of the right of life and death over the wife by the husband, and though it is clear that the Hebrew husband had no power of sale (compare Exodus 21:8), it is frequently asserted on the basis of the one-sided divorce doctrine of the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 24:1), and on the basis of analogy with other ancient laws, as well as because the wife is spoken of in conjunction with property (Exodus 20:17) and because the husband exercised the right to annul the wife's vows (Numbers 30:6), that the wife occupied in the ordinary Hebrew home a very subordinate position. It must not be forgotten, however, that the husband owed duties to the wife (Exodus 21:10). It must also be borne in mind that great divergence existed at different times and places, and in different stations of society. Most of our Old Testament evidence pertains to the wealthier classes. The two extremes of the women that are "at ease in Zion" (Isaiah 32:9-20; compare Amos 4:1; 6:1) and the busy "good wife" described in Proverbs 31:10; are hardly exceeded in the most complex society today. The latter probably gives the fairer as well as the more wholesome picture of the functions of the wife in the home, and it is significant that her husband as well as her sons are expected to call her blessed (Proverbs 31:28).

It is difficult to estimate the extent to which polygamy and concubinage were practiced in ancient Palestine, but it is clear that the former practice was discouraged even among kings (Deuteronomy 17:17), and the latter, an outgrowth of slavery, was not held in high repute (compare Deuteronomy 21:10-14). The position of a less-favored wife (Deuteronomy 21:15, "hated") was naturally unpleasant, and her relations with other wives of her husband decidedly bitter-they were called each other's tsaroth, literally, "vexers" (the Revised Version (British and American) "rivals," Leviticus 18:18 1 Samuel 1:6, the King James Version "adversary"; compare Ecclesiasticus 37:11)-even when they were sisters (as in the case of Rachel and Leah, Genesis 30:1). Hence, the Law forbade the marrying of two sisters (Leviticus 18:18). On the other hand so strong was the desire of a Hebrew mother for children that the childless wife welcomed the children of a maidservant born to her husband as her own (Genesis 30:1-12, etc.).

2. Father-in-Law, etc.:

In normal Hebrew society, for reasons already explained, the relations of a family with the husband's parents (cham, from chamoth) were closer than those with the wife's parents (chothen, feminine chotheneth; pentheros, penthera. Where under special conditions a man remained with his wife's tribe after marriage, as in the case of Jacob, serving out his mohar, or Moses fleeing from the wrath of the Egyptians, or the sons of Elimelech sojourning in the land of Moab because of the famine in Palestine, his identity with his own tribe was not destroyed, and at the first opportunity the natural impulse was to return to his own country. The bride, on the other hand, leaving her people, would become a member of her husband's family, with all the rights and duties of a daughter (Micah 7:6). Thus Judah can order Tamar burned for violation of the obligations of a widow (Genesis 38:24). No doubt the position of the daughter-in-law varied in the Hebrew home between the extremes of those who vexed their parents-in-law unto-the death (Genesis 26:35; Genesis 27:46; Genesis 28:8) and the one who said to her mother-in-law, "Yahweh do so to me.... if aught but death part thee and me" (Ruth 1:17). Parents-in-law and children-in-law were considered too closely related to intermarry (Leviticus 18:15; Leviticus 20:12, 14).

3. Brother-in-Law, etc.:

A woman's brother acting in loco parentis might perform all the offices of a father-in-law and possibly be called chothen (Genesis 24:50, 55; Genesis 34:11). Naturally, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would be considered too closely related to intermarry (Leviticus 18:16, 18; Leviticus 20:21). Nevertheless the husband's brother (yabham) was expected to marry the childless widow to establish the name of the deceased on his inheritance (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). This custom dated back to Canaanitic practice (Genesis 38:8), and from the connection between marrying the childless widow and the redemption of land may be called a part of the land law of Palestine (Ruth 4:1-12; compare Jeremiah 32:6). In practice the Levirate was probably considered more in the nature of a moral duty than a privilege (Deuteronomy 25:7 Ruth 4:6), and devolved not only on the brother, but on other members of a deceased husband's family in the order of the nearness of their relationship to him (Ruth 3:12). In the Hebrew family brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would form part of the same household. In this relation as in others we find both ideal friendship (David and Jonathan, 1 Samuel 18:3 2 Samuel 1:26) and petty jealousies (in the matter of Moses' wife, Numbers 12:1).

III. Other Domestic Relations.

1. Foster-father:

The Hebrew 'omen, feminine 'omeneth (participle of 'aman), literally, "nourishing," is translated "nursing father" (Numbers 11:12 Isaiah 49:23), nursing mother" (Isaiah 49:23), "nurse" (Ruth 4:16 2 Samuel 4:4), or simply as the equivalent of "bringing up" (2 Kings 10:1, 5 Esther 2:7). In the case of Esther and of Ahab's children, and possibly in the other instances referred to, the relation of foster-parents is suggested. The foster-children under such conditions obeyed the words of the foster-father as the words of a father (Esther 2:20). Michal is spoken of as the mother of Merab's two children (2 Samuel 21:8) because she reared them (Sanhedhrin 19b). Adoption in the Roman sense was, however, hardly to be expected in a polygamous society where the childless father could remarry. Nevertheless, Jacob adopts Manasseh and Ephraim (Genesis 48:5), and thereby makes them the fathers of tribes. According to Josephus, while Abraham was childless he adopted Lot (Ant., I, vii, 1), and the daughter of Pharaoh adopted Moses (Ant., II, ix, 7; compare Exodus 2:10). In New Testament times the notion of adoption was so familiar that Paul uses the word figuratively of conversion (huiothesia, Romans 8:15; Romans 9:4 Galatians 4:5 Ephesians 1:5).

2. Master and Servants:

The "family" as the word is used of ancient peoples included dependents. The Hebrew mishpachah is connected with the word shiphchah, "maidservant," as the Latin familia is connected with famulus, "servant." For a discussion of the various classes of servants and slaves, Hebrew and foreign, male and female, see SLAVERY.

3. Host and Guest:

When Lot protested against betraying his visitors to the men of Sodom, forasmuch as they had come under the shadow of his roof, and he even preferred to give his daughters to the mob rather than fail in his duties as a host (Genesis 19:8), he was acting on the ancient principle of guest-friendship (compare Greek xenia), which bound host and guest by sacred ties.

Read Complete Article...

FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

See RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.

2. (n.) The group comprising a husband and wife and their dependent children, constituting a fundamental unit in the organization of society.

3. (v. t.) Those who descend from one common progenitor; a tribe, clan, or race; kindred; house; as, the human family; the family of Abraham; the father of a family.

4. (v. t.) Course of descent; genealogy; line of ancestors; lineage.

5. (v. t.) Honorable descent; noble or respectable stock; as, a man of family.

6. (n.) A group of kindred or closely related individuals; as, a family of languages; a family of States; the chlorine family.

7. (n.) A group of organisms, either animal or vegetable, related by certain points of resemblance in structure or development, more comprehensive than a genus, because it is usually based on fewer or less pronounced points of likeness. In zoology a family is less comprehensive than an order; in botany it is often considered the same thing as an order.

8014. Salmay -- head of a postexilic family
... << 8013, 8014. Salmay. 8015 >>. head of a postexilic family. Transliteration: Salmay
Phonetic Spelling: (sal-mah'-ee) Short Definition: Shalmai. ...
/hebrew/8014.htm - 6k

6336. Puthi -- a family in Judah
... << 6335b, 6336. Puthi. 6337 >>. a family in Judah. Transliteration: Puthi
Phonetic Spelling: (poo-thee') Short Definition: Puthites. ...
/hebrew/6336.htm - 6k

1937. Hodevah -- a Levitical family
... << 1936, 1937. Hodevah or Hodeyah. 1938 >>. a Levitical family. Transliteration:
Hodevah or Hodeyah Phonetic Spelling: (ho-dev-aw') Short Definition: Hodevah. ...
/hebrew/1937.htm - 6k

4812. Merayoth -- descendant of Aaron, also a priestly family
... Merayoth. 4813 >>. descendant of Aaron, also a priestly family. Transliteration:
Merayoth Phonetic Spelling: (mer-aw-yohth') Short Definition: Meraioth. ...
/hebrew/4812.htm - 6k

8126. Shumathi -- a family of Kiriath-jearim
... << 8125, 8126. Shumathi. 8127 >>. a family of Kiriath-jearim. Transliteration: Shumathi
Phonetic Spelling: (shoo-maw-thee') Short Definition: Shumathites. ...
/hebrew/8126.htm - 6k

6380. Pokereth Hatstsebayim -- "bindress of the gazelles," head of ...
Pokereth Hatstsebayim. << 6379, 6380. Pokereth Hatstsebayim. 6381 >>. "bindress
of the gazelles," head of a postexilic family. Transliteration: Pokereth ...
/hebrew/6380.htm - 6k

6727. Tsicha -- an overseer of Nethinim, also an Israelite family
... << 6726, 6727. Tsicha. 6728 >>. an overseer of Nethinim, also an Israelite family.
Transliteration: Tsicha Phonetic Spelling: (tsee-khaw') Short Definition: Ziha ...
/hebrew/6727.htm - 6k

7394. Rekab -- perhaps "band of riders," a Benjamite, also the ...
... perhaps "band of riders," a Benjamite, also the head of a nomadic family.
Transliteration: Rekab Phonetic Spelling: (ray-kawb') Short Definition: Rechab. ...
/hebrew/7394.htm - 6k

3139. Yorah -- an Israelite family
... Yorah. 3140 >>. an Israelite family. Transliteration: Yorah Phonetic Spelling:
(yo-raw') Short Definition: Jorah. ... family NASB Word Usage Jorah (1). Jorah. ...
/hebrew/3139.htm - 6k