Family
Family
1. The idea of family is represented in the NT by , , and .-(a) is used in Luk 2:4 for lineage, descendants (of David); in Act 3:25 (in plural) for races of mankind; and in Eph 3:15, where there is a play on words between and its derivative : the Father, from whom all fatherhood (Revised Version text: every family, Authorized Version wrongly: the whole family) in heaven and earth is named. Though family is here the literal translation, yet, since the English word family is not derived from father, the above paraphrase suggested by J. Armitage Robinson (Com. in loc.), who here follows the Syriac and the Latin Vulgate, is best, and overcomes the difficulty presented to the English reader by the existence of families in heaven, in opposition to Mat 22:30. Fatherhood, in a real sense, there must be in heaven, and it is named from God the Father. Thackeray, indeed, suggests (The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, 1900, p. 148f.) that orders of angels are meant, and he quotes a Rabbinical phrase, His family the angels; but families (plural) of angels are not mentioned, and the suggestion is hardly necessary. Another way out of the difficulty is seen in the v.l. [Note: .l. varia lectio, variant reading.] (= ), i.e. tribe, but this is an obvious gloss which spoils the sense. Cf. in Heb 7:4. Abraham the father of the whole family of faith (Westcott); the word is used of David and of the sons of Jacob in Act 2:29; Act 7:8.
(b) , besides being used for house in the sense of a structure, represents (like domus) familia, the family in its widest sense (See also Home). It is used (1) for all living under one roof-father, mother, near relations, and dependents-frequently in the NT: Act 7:10 (Pharaoh), Act 10:2 and Act 11:14 (Cornelius), Act 16:31 (Philippian jailer: so Act 16:34 with all his house, here only in NT), Act 18:8 (Crispus), 1Co 1:6 (Stephanas), 1Ti 3:4 f. (the bishop), 1Ti 5:4 (the widow), 2Ti 1:16; 2Ti 4:19 (Onesiphorus, who apparently was dead, and whose household is nevertheless named after him: see below, 2 (d)), Heb 11:7 (Noah), and, in plural, 1Ti 3:12 (deacons), Tit 1:11 (Christians generally); (2) for descendants, Luk 1:27; Luk 2:4; (3) for Gods family, the house of God (see below, 3).
(c) is similarly used for a household in Php 4:22 (Caesar), Mat 10:13; Mat 12:25, Joh 4:53 (the Capernaum royal officer), 1Co 16:15 (Stephanas); and therefore for possessions in the phrase widows houses, Mar 12:40, Luk 20:47, and inferior Manuscripts of Mat 23:14.
2. Members of the family
(a) Father.-The father, if alive, is the head of the family (paterfamilias), and exercises authority over all its members.* [Note: Ramsay points out (Galatians, 1899, p. 343) that pater has a wider sense than our father; he was the chief, the lord, the master, the leader.] He is the master or goodman of the house (), Mat 24:43, Mar 14:14 (in Luk 22:11 ), and the lord () of the household (), Mat 24:45. That in some sense he is the priest of his own family appears from Heb 10:21, where the spiritual family, the house of God, has our Lord as a great priest over it (see below, 3). The subordination or the family to the father is a favourite subject with St. Paul, who, though the Apostle of liberty, carefully guards against anarchy. His liberty is that of the Latin collect: Dens cui servire regnare est (paraphrased: O God whoso service is perfect freedom). He lays down the general principle of subordination for all Christians in Eph 5:21 (cf. Rom 13:1, 1Co 15:28, and 1Pe 5:5), and then applies it to Christian families. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is Bead of the Church; husbands must love and honour their wives, for they are one flesh, and wives must be in subjection to their husbands and reverence them (Eph 5:22-25; Eph 5:28-33, Col 3:18 f., Tit 2:4 f.; cf. 1Pe 3:1-7), For children and dependents see below, and for the relation of husband and wife, see Marriage.
(b) Mother.-On the other hand, the position of the mother in the family is a very important one; to this day in Muhammadan countries, where the women are mere in the background than among the Oriental Christians (for even there Christianity has greatly raised the position of women), the influence of the mother is immense. We find many traces of this in the NT, In 1Ti 5:14 even young mothers are said to rule the household (). In 1Pe 3:1 the heathen husband is gained by the influence of the wife. The household at Lystra in which Timothy was brought up was profoundly influenced by the unfeigned faith of his mother and grandmother, Eunice and Lois (2Ti 1:5; cf. 2Ti 3:15), and the influence of the former over her Greek husband (Act 16:1) may have been in St. Peters mind. In Mat 20:20 the mother of the sons of Zebedee (a curious phrase) is put forward to make petition for her children. Further, if the mother was a widow, she, rather than one of the sons, seems, at least in some cases, to have been the head of the household. Thus we read of the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, not of the house of Mark (Act 12:12); and of the house of Lydia. (Act 16:15), who was probably a widow, trading between Philippi and Thyatira, a city famous for dyeing, with a gild of dyers evidenced by inscriptions (the supposition that Lydia was the true yokefellow of Php 4:3 rests on no solid basis). It was Lydia who entertained St. Paul and his companions, not her sons or brothers. A similar case is perhaps that of Chloe; she seems to have been a widow whose household (they of Chloe, 1Co 1:11) traded between Ephesus and Corinth. Other prominent women in the apostolic writings are Damaris (Act 17:34), whom Ramsay thinks not to have been of noble birth, as the regulations at Athens with regard to the seclusion of women were more strict than in some other places, and a well-born lady would hardly have been likely there to come to hear St. Paul preach (St. Paul the Traveller, 1895, p. 252); Phbe, a deaconess who had been a, succourer of many (Rom 16:1 f.); Euodia and Syntyche, who were prominent church workers at Philippi (Php 4:2 f.), It has often been noticed that the position of mothers of families was especially strong in Macedonia and in Asia Minor, and particularly in the less civilized parts of the latter. Of this there are some traces in the NT. Thus the influential women at Pisidian Antioch, the devout women of honourable estate, are, with the chief men () of the city, urged by the Jews to arouse fooling against St. Paul and Barnabas (Act 13:50), and the chief women are specially mentioned at Thessalonica (Act 17:4) and Bera (Act 17:12). There are even instances (not in the NT) of women holding public offices, and of descent being reckoned through the mother (see further J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians, 1903 ed., p. 55f.; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, 1893, pp. 67, 160-2). It is curious that Codex Bezae (D) waters down the references to noteworthy women: e.g. in Act 17:34 it omits Damaris; it seems to reflect a dislike to the prominence of women which is found in Christian circles in the 2nd century.
(c) Children.-The duty of obedience to parents is insisted on by St. Paul in Eph 6:1-4, Col 3:20 f., where the two-edged injunction of the Fifth Commandment is referred to as involving duties of parents to children as well as of children to Parents. The relation of the younger to the elder in the family must have been greatly simplified by the spread of monogamy in the OT (see Marriage), and in Christian times there would have been very few complications in this respect. Yet it was often the case, as it still is in Eastern lands, that several families in the narrower sense made up a family in the wider sense, and lived under one roof: thus a son would ordinarily bring his bride to his fathers house, as Tobias brought Sarah to that of Tobit, so that his parents became her parents, and the Fifth Commandment applied to her relationship with them (To 10:9-12). So we note in Mat 10:35 f., Luk 12:52 f. that the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law are of one family or household ( Mt., in one house Lk.). The brethren of our Lord (whatever their exact relationship to Jesus) appear during His ministry to have formed one household with Mary (Joh 2:12, Mat 12:46 f.; Mat 13:55 f., Mar 6:3; Joseph was probably dead), notwithstanding that they themselves, or some of them, were married (1Co 9:5). It is because of this custom that (thn, bridegroom) and (kallh, bride) and their equivalents in cognate languages represent the relationship of a married man and woman to all their near relations by affinity. In the case of a composite family of this nature, the father still retained some authority over his married sons.
(d) Slaves and dependents.-These formed a large portion of the more important families; the dependents would be chiefly freedmen. On the other hand, it appears that hired servants were not reckoned as part of the family (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 461). Among the Israelites the slaves were comparatively few, while in Greek and Roman families they were extremely numerous. In Athens the slaves were reckoned as numbering four times the free citizens, and elsewhere the proportion was even greater. Some Roman landowners had ten or twenty thousand slaves, or more (Lightfoot, Colossians, 1900 ed., p. 317ff.). These slaves were entirely at their masters disposal, and under a bad master their condition must have been terrible (see Lightfoot, p. 319, for details). Yet their inclusion in the family somewhat mitigated the rigours of slavery even among the heathen in NT times; and this mitigation was much greater in Christian households. The Church accepted existing institutions, and did not proclaim a revolutionary slave-war, which would only have produced untold misery; but it set to work gradually to ameliorate the condition of slaves. On the one hand, slaves are enjoined by St. Paul to obey and be honest to their masters, whether Christian or not, as in Eph 6:5-8, Col 3:22 ff. (where the great detail was doubtless suggested by the Onesimus incident), 1Ti 6:1 f., Tit 2:9 f.; cf. 1Pe 2:18 f. These exhortations were probably intended to take away any misapprehension that might have arisen from such passages as Gal 3:28, 1Co 7:21 f., which assert that in Christ there is neither bond nor free. Christianity did not at once liberate slaves, and St. Paul does not claim Onesimus freedom, though he indirectly suggests it (Phm 1:13 f.). On the contrary, it taught those under the yoke to render true service. At the same time, St. Paul points out that the Fifth Commandment lays a duty on masters as well as on slaves (Eph 6:9, where the double duty is referred to just after the application of this Commandment to fathers as well as to children). The Christian head of the house must provide for his own household, or be worse than an unbeliever (1Ti 5:8). By Christianity musters and slaves become brethren (1Ti 6:2). In Philom 18 Onesimus is said to be no longer a slave, but more than a slave, a brother beloved. We cannot doubt that we have here a reminiscence of Such words of our Lord, orally handed down, as no longer slaves but friends (Joh 15:15; cf. Heb 2:11 not ashamed to call them brethren). It was owing to the good example set a Christian slaves to their heathen masters that Christianity, which at first took root in the lower social circles of society (1Co 1:26), spread rapidly upwards.
The domestic servants of the family are called they of the house-, Act 10:7; or 1Ti 5:8 (cf. Eph 2:19 fig.); or , Mat 10:25; Mat 10:36 (this includes near relations); or the household, , Mat 24:45 Revised Version (= , Luk 12:42). They included in their number, in the case of great families, many who would now be of the professional classes, but who then wore upper slaves, such as stewards or agents, librarians, doctors, surgeons, oculists, tutors, etc. (for a long list, see Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 172). Thus in the NT we find (1) the steward, , Luk 12:42 (cf. Mat 24:45); such were the unjust steward of the parable (Luk 16:1 ff.; the word is used for to be a steward in v. 2), and the stewards of 1Co 4:2, Gal 4:2. The steward of a child was the guardian of his property (Ramsay, Gal. p. 392). Metaphorically is used of Christian ministers (1Co 4:1; of bishops, 1Ti 1:17), of Christians generally (1Pe 4:10)-the idea is doubtless taken from our Lords words about the wise slave whom his lord had set over his household to give them their food in due season (Mat 24:45), (2) The guardian of a child, , was concerned with his education (Gal 4:2); perhaps this is the same as the following. (3) The pedagogue or tutor (, Gal 3:24 f, 1Co 4:15) was a slave deputed to take the child to school (not a teacher or schoolmaster as the Authorized Version ); this: was a Greek institution adopted by the Romans, for in education Greece led the way, (4) The physician (, Col 4:14) was also regarded as an tipper slave. It has been pointed out by Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 316) that a prisoner of distinction, such as St. Paul undoubtedly was (ib. p. 310 f.), would be allowed slaves, but not friends or relations, to accompany him, and that St. Luke, who (as the pronoun we shows) accompanied him on his voyage to Italy, as also did Aristarchus (Act 27:2; Col 4:10), must have done so in the capacity of a slave, taking this office on himself in order to follow his master.
Under this head we may notice four households mentioned in the NT: the household of Caesar ( ), Php 4:22; they of Aristobulus, Rom 16:10; they of Narcissus, Rom 16:11; and they of Chloe, 1Co 1:11. For the last see above (b); but the first three households wore probably all part of the Imperial family at Rome, That Caesars household does not necessarily or even probably mean near relations of the Emperor is shown by Light-foot (Philippians, p. 171ff.); the meaning seems to be the slaves and freedmen of Caesar. Lightfoot with much ingenuity and probability identifies several of the names mentioned in Romans 16 with the household. The curious phrases in Rom 16:10 f. are probably due to the fact that Aristebulus and Narcissus wore dead (for their identification with well-known characters see Lightfoot, and Sanday. Headlam, Romans 5 [International Critical Commentary , 1902], p. 425), and that their households were absorbed in that of Caesar, but still retained their old names, They of Aristobulus1 would be equivalent to Aristobuliani, and they of Narcissus to Narcissiani. (If the view that Romans 16 is not a real part of the Epistle be correct, this argument fails; but its verisimilitude is some ground for rejecting that view.)
3. The Christian Church as a family.-In the NT the word house () is used figuratively of the Christian community, as in Heb 3:2; Heb 3:6 (Christians successors to the house [of God] in the Old Covenant), Heb 10:21 (see above, 2 (a)), 1Ti 3:15 (where is explicitly defined as the Church of the living God; the phrase follows the instructions as to the homes of bishops and deacons; see Home), 1Pe 2:5 (a spiritual house), 1Pe 4:17. The metaphor is further elaborated in Eph 2:20-22 where the foundation, corner-stone, and each several stone that is laid (such is the best paraphrase of ) together result in a holy temple, of which Christians are stones, builded together for a habitation of God.
The conception is based on the Fatherhood of God and on our position as His children. It is carried out by various analogous metaphors. The Church is the Bride of Christ-this is the outcome of Eph 5:22 f.; cf. Rev 19:7; Rev 21:2; Rev 21:9; Rev 22:17 -and He is the Bridegroom, Mat 9:15; Mat 22:2 ff; Mat 25:6, Mar 2:19, Joh 3:29, 2Co 11:2; Christians are the , members, of the household, of the faith. Gal 6:10; Christ is their brother. Heb 2:11 f.; the Church is a brotherhood, 1Pe 2:17, filled with brotherly love (), Rom 12:10, 1Th 4:9, Heb 13:1, 2Pe 1:7; cf. 1Jn 5:1. The most usual designation of Christians among themselves is the brethren (Acts, passim); even heretics are false brethren, 2Co 11:26, Gal 2:4. A brother, brethren, denote Christians as opposed to unbelievers in Phm 1:16, 1Ti 6:2; and so in 1Co 9:5 a sister, a wife means a Christian wife (the apostle may have a Christian wife; cf. 1Co 7:39 only in the Lord); in 1Co 7:15 the brother or the sister means the Christian spouse of an unbeliever (cf. 1Co 7:14 and 1Co 5:11); in Rom 16:23 Revised Version (Quartus the brother) the definite article seems to distinguish this Christian from some unbelieving Quartus. Cf. also 2Co 8:18 (the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches: but some translate his brother-i.e. the brother of Titus, and interpret the phrase as applying to St. Luke) 2Co 8:22 f., Phm 1:7, Rom 16:1, Jam 2:15, 2Jn 1:13, and 1Th 4:6, where see Milligans note.
In this connexion also we may note the symbolical use of words denoting family relationships. The Israelites of old were the fathers (Rom 15:8), just as early Christian writers are called by us. Abraham is father of spiritual descendants, believing Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom 4:11 ff., Rom 4:16 f., Gal 3:7; in Act 7:2, Rom 4:1, and probably in Jam 2:21, physical descent is referred to). The teacher is father of his disciples (1Th 2:11), though sometimes he calls himself brother (Rev 1:19, I John your brother; cf. Act 15:23 Revised Version , elder brethren). Also father is used of any old man (1Ti 5:1); in this verse (unlike 1Ti 5:17) cannot refer to a presbyter. So mother is used of any old woman in 1Ti 5:2; younger men and women are brothers and sisters (1Ti 5:1 f.). Jerusalem is called our mother in Gal 4:26, just as Babylon in Rev 17:5 is called the mother of the harlots. In Rom 16:13 mother is a term of attention (Rufus and his mother and mine). Similarly the expressions without father, without mother, in Heb 7:3 must be taken figuratively. Melchizedeks parentage is not recorded in Holy Scripture: he is not connected with any known line: his life has no recorded beginning or close (B. F. Westcott, Hebrews, 1889, p. 172). Disciples, likewise, are called sons or children of their master, as in 1Pe 5:13 (Mark), Gal 4:19 (the Galatians), 1Ti 1:2, 2Ti 1:2; 2Ti 2:1 and Php 2:22 (Timothy), 1Co 4:14 f. (the Corinthians), Phm 1:10 (Onesimus), 1Jn 2:1 etc., 3Jn 1:4.
4. The Christian family as a church.-We often read in the NT of families or households becoming Christian as a body; e.g. those of Cornelius (Act 10:2; Act 11:14), Lydia (Act 16:15 : the first in St. Pauls history), the Jailer at Philippi (Act 16:31-33), Crispus (Act 18:7). So in Joh 4:53 it is recorded that the kings officer () at Capernaum believed and his whole house, Hence, in the absence of public churches, which persecution made impossible till a later date, a family became a centre of Christian worship, in which not only the household itself but also the Christian neighbours assembled. Thus, probably the house of Lydia was the beginning from which the Church at Philippi developed; those of Stephanas, whose family was the firstfruits of Achaia (1Co 1:16; 1Co 16:15 ), Titus Justus (Act 18:7), Crispus (Act 18:8 ), and Gains (Rom 16:23) perhaps became centres of worship at Corinth. Such, again, was Philemons house at Colossae (Phm 1:2); probably Apphia was his wife, and possibly Archippus his son (Phm 1:2, Col 4:17). Archippus was clearly a church official; he had received the ministry () in the Lord, and was in some way connected with Philemon; we are led to think of him as bishop of the Church at Colossae, or, less probably, with Lightfoot, of the neighbouring Church at Laodicea (so Apost. Const, vii. 46, which makes Philemon bishop of Colossae; but it is more likely that Philemon was a layman). At Laodicea we read of Nymphas or Nympha (Col 4:15; the gender is uncertain), and the church that is in their house (Revised Version )-i.e. probably all who met to worship there are regarded as one family. Lightfoot thinks (Colossians, p. 241) that there wore perhaps more than one such church at Laodicea, as there certainly were in Rome (see below).
In Jerusalem such a private house was at first used for the Eucharist (Act 2:46; , at home, as opposed to in the Temple), and so doubtless at Troas (Act 20:7), For preaching to outsiders, the apostles made use of the synagogues (Act 17:1 f.: as his custom was), or the Temple at Jerusalem, or the school of Tyrannus at Ephesus, which was probably open to all (Act 19:9), or other public places; but for the instruction of the faithful the Christians gathered in a private house (Act 5:42 every day in the Temple and at home; cf. Act 20:20); in Jerusalem probably in that of Mary the mother of John Mark (Act 12:12), for her family was certainly such a centre of worship. As St. James the Lords brother was not present in the house where the people were assembled to pray for St. Peter Act 12:17), it has been suggested that there were more than one such in Jerusalem; but this is uncertain. At Caesarea we are tempted to think of Philips household as such a centre (Act 21:8); at Cenchreae of that of Phbe the deaconess (Rom 16:1). For Ephesus we have mention of Aquila and Prisca (or Priscilla), and the church that is in their house-their family formed a Christian community (1Co 16:19). Here we have a remarkable feature, for about a year later we find these two workers credited with another church in Rome (Rom 16:3-5), and this has been adduced as disproving the integrity of Romans as regards the last chapter. But it is not an improbable supposition that they gathered the Christians together in their own household wherever they were; and as Sanday-Headlam remark (op. cit. p. 418f.), they were, like many Jews of the day, great travellers. We read of Aquila in Pontus, then of him and his wife in Rome a.d. 52, when they were expelled from the capital with their fellow-countrymen (Act 18:1 f.); then we read of them at Corinth, where they met St. Paul (Act 18:1 f.), and of their going with him to Ephesus (Act 18:18 f.), where they remained. some time. Thence, probably, the old decree of expulsion having become obsolete, they returned to Rome, between the writing of 1 Cor. and Rom., and the church in their house in Rome was then founded. Its site has been identified with that of the old church of St. Prisca on the Aventine, and this is quite possible, though there is no evidence of importance to support the identification. Hort suggests (Prolegomena to Romans and Ephesians, 1895, p. 12ft.) that Prisca was a Roman lady of distinction, superior in birth to her husband; and this would lend probability to the supposition that their home was a centre of Christian worship; but Sanday-Headlam think that they were both freed members of a great Roman family.
There are traces of other centres of worship in Rome. In Romans 16 both Rom 16:4 and Rom 16:14 and Rom 16:15 indicate communities or families of Christians at Rome in addition to that of Aquila and Prisca in Rom 16:5. In Rom 16:14 only men are mentioned, and yet they form a community; cf. the brethren that are with them. In Rom 16:5 Philologus and Julia were probably husband and wife; Nereus and his sister, and also Olympas, would be near relations, living with them, lint hardly their children, for it would not be likely that Philologus’ daughter should be referred to here as the sister of Nereus. This household seems to have been a large Christian centre; all the saints that are with them are mentioned. The multiplying of centres in one; city at a time when persecution was present or imminent may be illustrated by the account of the trial of Justin Martyr before the prefect in Rome (T. Ruinart, Acta Prim. Mart.2, 1713, p. 59). Justin tells the prefect that the Christians in the city do not all assemble at one place, for the God of the Christians is not circumscribed in place, but, being invisible, fills heaven and earth, and everywhere is adored by the faithful and His glory praised. Justin is pressed to say where he and his disciples assemble, and he replies that hitherto he has lived in the house of one Martin. The Acts may probably be said at least to contain the traditions current in the 3rd cent, as to Justins death (see Smiths DCB [Note: CB Dict. of Christian Biography.] iii. [1882] 562).
Another Christian family in Rome has left o, relic of its house as a centre of worship in the church of San Clemente. This now consists of three structures, one above the other; the highest, now level with the ground, is. mediaeval, but contains the Byzantine furniture (ambones, rails, etc); the middle one is of the 4th cent. (?) and used to contain this furniture; while underneath is the old house, now inaccessible through the invasion of water. This last building, there is little reason to doubt, was the meeting-place of the Christians of the let cent., and though now far beneath the surface, was once level with the ground. Local tradition makes it the house of St. Clement the Bishop, and it is highly probable that he worshipped in it; but it is not unlikely, as Lightfoot suggests, that it was the house of Flavius Clemens the Consul, whom tradition declares to have been buried in it, and who was perhaps patron to his namesake the Bishop (Lightfoot, Apostolic Father, pt. i.: Clement, 1890, vol. i. p. 91ff.). The Consul was a near relative of the Emperor Domitian, and was put to death by him, perhaps because he was a Christian; at least his wife Domitilla was a believer (ib. p. 53), and it is quite probable that their household became a Christian .
A further illustration of the family as a Christian community is furnished by the Church of SS. Giovanni e Paolo, in Rome. The present church is built above the house of the martyrs so named, who perished, according to tradition, in the reign of Julian the Apostate. The house was probably used at that time for worship.
On the other hand, Rom 16:18 does not refer to a number of, Ephesus. St. Paul here speaks on behalf of the whole of the communities of Christians which he had evangelized, or perhaps of all throughout the world, as in Rom 16:4, 1Co 7:17. It should be noticed that the word is not used for a church building till a much later date.
In two places we read of private prayers at fixed hours in houses: Act 10:9 (Peter at the sixth hour, on the flat roof: see House) and Act 10:3 f, Act 10:30 (Cornelius keeping the ninth hour of prayer in his house). But these were private prayers, not family worship. Before public daily worship became generally customary, in the 4th cent. after the cessation of persecution, these and other hours of prayer, taken over from the Jews, were frequently observed by Christians, apparently in their families. See the present writers Ancient Church Orders, 1910, p. 59ff.
Literature.-This is given in the course of the article , but Special reference is due to the Prolegomena to J. B. Lightfoots Colossians and Philemon (1900 ed.) and Philippians (1903 ed.). For other aspects of the subject see article on Family by W. H. Bennett in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) and E. G. Romanes in Hastings Single-vol. Dictionary of the Bible (these both deal almost exclusively with the OT); by C. T. Dimont in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels (especially for the teaching of our Lord in the Gospels) and J. Strahan in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Family, Biblical and Christian, dealing chiefly with the OT). There are several articles on the Family in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics from the point of view of other nations of the world.
A. J. Maclean.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
family
(Latin: familia, household)
The basic society of husband, wife, and children; by extension used for all of the same kin. Man’s nature and God’s appointment (Genesis 1 and 3) make family life normal and necessary. Man and woman are complementary, and enjoy life in its fulness only by combining their physical, spiritual, moral, social, and economic capacities. The family ordinarily is for the procreation and proper rearing of children, thus perpetuating the human race. The perfect example of family life is the Holy Family . Attacks on family life, in its permanence (divorce), its purpose (birth control), its solidarity (recreation, work, and other interests inconsistent with home life), are sure methods, in logic and in practise, of injuring both Church and State.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Family
A term derived from the Latin, famulus, servant, and familia, household servants, or the household (cf. Oscan famel, servant). In the classical Roman period the familia rarely included the parents or the children. Its English derivative was frequently used in former times to describe all the persons of the domestic circle, parents, children, and servants. Present usage, however, excludes servants, and restricts the word family to that fundamental social group formed by the more or less permanent union of one man with one woman, or of one or more men with one or more women, and their children. If the heads of the group comprise only one man and one woman we have the monogamous family, as distinguished from those domestic societies which live in conditions of polygamy, polyandry, or promiscuity.
Certain anthropological writers of the last half of the nineteenth century, as Bachofen (Das Mutterrecht, Stuttgart, 1861), Morgan (Ancient Society, London, 1877), Mc’Lennan (The Patriarchal Theory, London, 1885), Lang (Custom and Myth, London, 1885), and Lubbock (The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man, London, 1889), created and developed the theory that the original form of the family was one in which all the women of a group, horde, or tribe, belonged promiscuously to all the men of the community. Following the lead of Engels (The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, tr. from the German, Chicago, 1902), many Socialist writers have adopted this theory as quite in harmony with their materialistic interpretation of history. The chief considerations advanced in its favour are: the assumption that in primitive times all property was common, and that this condition naturally led to community of women; certain historical statements by ancient writers like Strabo, Herodotus, and Pliny; the practice of promiscuity, at a comparatively late date, by some uncivilized peoples, such as the Indians of California and a few aboriginal tribes of India; the system of tracing descent and kinship through the mother, which prevailed among some primitive people; and certain abnormal customs of ancient races, such as religious prostitution, the so-called jus primæ noctis, the lending of wives to visitors, cohabitation of the sexes before marriage, etc.
At no time has this theory obtained general acceptance, even among non-Christian writers, and it is absolutely rejected by some of the best authorities of today, e.g. Westermarck (The History of Human Marriage, London, 1901) and Letourneau (The Evolution of Marriage, tr. from the French, New York, 1888). In reply to the arguments just stated, Westermarck and others point out that the hypothesis of primitive communism has by no means been proved, at least in its extreme form; that common property in goods does not necessarily lead to community of wives, since family and marriage relations are subject to other motives as well as to those of a purely economic character; that the testimonies of classical historians in the matter are inconclusive, vague, and fragmentary, and refer to only a few instances; that the modern cases of promiscuity are isolated and exceptional, and may be attributed to degeneracy rather than to primitive survivals; that the practice of tracing kinship through the mother finds ample explanation in other facts besides the assumed uncertainty of paternity, and that it was never universal; that the abnormal sexual relations cited above are more obviously, as well as more satisfactorily, explained by other circumstances, religious, political, and social, than by the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity; and, finally, that evolution, which, superficially viewed, seems to support this hypothesis, is in reality against it, inasmuch as the unions between the male and the female of many of the higher species of animals exhibit a degree of stability and exclusiveness which bears some resemblance to that of the monogamous family.
The utmost concession which Letourneau will make to the theory under discussion is that “promiscuity may have been adopted by certain small groups, more probably by certain associations or brotherhoods” (op. cit., p. 44). Westermarck does not hesitate to say: “The hypothesis of promiscuity, instead of belonging, as Professor Giraud-Teulon thinks, to the class of hypotheses which are scientifically permissible has no real foundation, and is essentially unscientific” (op. cit., p. 133). The theory that the original form of the family was either polygamy or polyandry is even less worthy of credence or consideration. In the main, the verdict of scientific writers is in harmony with the Scriptural doctrine concerning the origin and the normal form of the family: “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). “Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6). From the beginning, therefore, the family supposed the union of one man with one woman.
While monogamy was the prevailing form of the family before Christ, it was limited in various degrees among many peoples by the practice of polygamy. This practice was on the whole more common among the Semitic races than among the Aryans. It was more frequent among the Jews, the Egyptians, and the Medes, than among the people of India, the Greeks, or the Romans. It existed to a greater extent among the uncivilized races, although some of these were free from it. Moreover, even those nations which practised polygamy, whether civilized or uncivilized, usually restricted it to a small minority of the population, as the kings, the chiefs, the nobles, and the rich. Polyandry was likewise practised, but with considerably less frequency. According to Westermarck, monogamy was by far the most common form of marriage “among the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct knowledge” (op. cit., p. 459). On the other hand, divorce was in vogue among practically all peoples, and to a much greater extent than polygamy.
The ease with which husband and wife could dissolve their union constitutes one of the greatest blots upon the civilization of classic Rome. Generally speaking, the position of woman was very low among all the nations, civilized and uncivilized, before the coming of Christ. Among the barbarians she very frequently became a wife through capture or purchase; among even the most advanced peoples the wife was generally her husband’s property, his chattel, his labourer. Nowhere was the husband bound by the same law of marital fidelity as the wife, and in very few places was he compelled to concede to her equal rights in the matter of divorce. Infanticide was practically universal, and the patria potestas of the Roman father gave him the right of life and death over even his grown-up children. In a word, the weaker members of the family were everywhere inadequately protected against the stronger.
THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY
Christ not only restored the family to its original type as something holy, permanent, and monogamous, but raised the contract from which it springs to the dignity of a sacrament, and thus placed the family itself upon the plane of the supernatural. The family is holy inasmuch as it is to co-operate with God by procreating children who are destined to be the adopted children of God, and by instructing them for His kingdom. The union between husband and wife is to last until death (Matthew 19:6 sq.; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11; 1 Corinthians 7:10; see MARRIAGE, DIVORCE). That this is the highest form of the conjugal union, and the best arrangement for the welfare both of the family and of society, will appear to anyone who compares dispassionately the moral and material effects with those flowing from the practice of divorce. Although divorce has obtained to a greater or less extent among the majority of peoples from the beginning until now, “there is abundant evidence that marriage has, upon the whole, become more durable in proportion as the human race has risen to higher degrees of cultivation” (Westermarck, op. cit., p. 535).
While the attempts that have been made to show that divorce is in every case forbidden by the moral law of nature have not been convincing on their own merits, to say nothing of certain facts of Old Testament history, the absolute indissolubility of marriage is nevertheless the ideal to which the natural law points, and consequently is to be expected in an order that is supernatural. In the family, as re-established by Christ, there is likewise no such thing as polygamy (see the references already given in this paragraph, and POLYGAMY). This condition, too, is in accord with nature’s ideal. Polygamy is not, indeed, condemned in every instance by the natural law, but it is generally inconsistent with the reasonable welfare of the wife and children, and the proper moral development of the husband. Because of these qualities of permanence and unity, the Christian family implies a real and definite equality of husband and wife. They have equal rights in the matter of the primary conjugal relation, equal claims upon mutual fidelity, and equal obligations to make this fidelity real. They are equally guilty when they violate these obligations, and equally deserving of pardon when they repent.
The wife is neither the slave nor the property of her husband, but his consort and companion. The Christian family is supernatural, inasmuch as it originates in a sacrament. Through the sacrament of matrimony husband and wife obtain an increase of sanctifying grace, and a claim upon those actual graces which are necessary to the proper fulfilment of all the duties of family life, and the relations between husband and wife, parents and children, are supernaturalized and sanctified. The end and the ideal of the Christian family are likewise supernatural, namely, the salvation of parents and children, and the union between Christ and His Church. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it”, says St. Paul (Ephesians 5:25). And the intimacy of the marital union, the identification, almost, of husband and wife, is seen in the injunction: “So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself” (Ephesians 5:28).
From these general facts of the Christian family, the particular relations existing among its members can be readily deduced. Since the average man and woman are not normally complete as individuals, but are rather the two complementary parts of one social organism, in which their material, moral, and spiritual needs receive mutual satisfaction, a primary requisite of their union is mutual love. This includes not merely the love of the senses, which is essentially selfish, not necessarily that sentimental love which anthropologists call romantic, but above all that rational love or affection, which springs from an appreciation of qualities of mind and heart, and which impels each to seek the welfare of the other. As the intimate and long association of husband and wife necessarily bring to the surface their less noble and lovable qualities, and as the rearing of children involves great trials, the need of disinterested love, the ability to sacrifice self, is obviously grave.
The obligations of mutual fidelity have been sufficiently stated above. The particular functions of husband and wife in the family are determined by their different natures, and by their relation to the primary end of the family, namely, the procreation of children. Being the provider of the family, and the superior of the wife both in physical strength and in those mental and moral qualities which are appropriate to the exercise of authority, the husband is naturally the family’s head, even “the head of the wife”, in the language of St. Paul. This does not mean that the wife is the husband’s slave, his servant, or his subject. She is his equal, both as a human being and as member of the conjugal society, save only that when a disagreement arises in matters pertaining to domestic government, she is, as a rule, to yield. To claim for her completely equal authority with the husband is to treat woman as man’s equal in a matter in which nature has made them unequal. On the other hand the care and management of the details of the household belong naturally to the wife, because she is better fitted for these tasks than the husband.
Since the primary end of the family is the procreation of children, the husband or wife who shirks this duty from any but spiritual or moral motives reduces the family to an unnatural and unchristian level. This is emphatically true when the absence of offspring has been effected by any of the artificial and immoral devices so much in vogue at present. When the conjugal union has been blessed with children, both parents are charged, according to their respective functions, with the duty of sustaining and educating those undeveloped members of the family. Their moral and religious formation is for the most part the work of the mother, while the task of providing for their physical and intellectual wants falls chiefly upon the father. The extent to which the different wants of the children are to be supplied will vary with the ability and resources of the parents. Finally, the children are bound, generally speaking, to render to the parents implicit love, reverence, and obedience, until they have reached their majority, and love, reverence, and a reasonable degree of support and obedience afterward.
The most important external relations of the family are, of course, those existing between it and the State. According to the Christian conception, the family, rather than the individual, is the social unit and the basis of civil society. To say that the family is the social unit is not to imply that it is the end to which the individual is a means; for the welfare of the individual is the end both of the family and of the State, as well as of every other social organization. The meaning is that the State is formally concerned with the family as such, and not merely with the individual. This distinction is of great practical importance; for where the State ignores or neglects the family, keeping in view only the welfare of the individual, the result is a strong tendency towards the disintegration of the former. The family is the basis of civil society, inasmuch as the greater majority of persons ought to spend practically all their lives in its circle, either as subjects or as heads. Only in the family can the individual be properly reared, educated, and given that formation of character which will make him a good man and a good citizen.
Inasmuch as the average man will not put forth his full productive energies except under the stimulus of its responsibilities, the family is indispensable from the purely economic viewpoint. Now the family cannot rightly discharge its functions unless the parents have full control over the rearing and education of the children, subject only to such State supervision as is needed to prevent grave neglect of their welfare. Hence it follows that, generally speaking, and with due allowance for particular conditions, the State exceeds its authority when it provides for the material wants of the child, removes him from parental influence, or specifies the school that he must attend. As a consequence of these concepts and ideals, the Christian family in history has proved itself immeasurably superior to the non-Christian family. It has exhibited greater fidelity between husband and wife, greater reverence for the parents by the children, greater protection of the weaker members by the stronger, and in general a more thorough recognition of the dignity and rights of all within its circle. Its chief glory is undoubtedly its effect upon the position of woman. Notwithstanding the disabilities–for the most part with regard to property, education, and a practically recognized double standard of morals–under which the Christian woman has suffered, she has attained to a height of dignity, respect, and authority for which we shall look in vain in the conjugal society outside of Christianity. The chief factor in this improvement has been the Christian teaching on chastity, conjugal equality, the sacredness of motherhood, and the supernatural end of the family, together with the Christian model and ideal of family life, the Holy Family at Nazareth.
The contention of some writers that the Church’s teaching and practice concerning virginity and celibacy, make for the degradation and deterioration of the family, not only springs from a false and perverse view of these practices, but contradicts the facts of history. Although she has always held virginity in higher honour than marriage, the Church has never sanctioned the extreme view, attributed to some ascetical writers, that marriage is a mere concession to the flesh, a sort of tolerated carnal indulgence. In her eyes the marriage rite has ever been a sacrament, the married state a holy state, the family a Divine institution, and family life the normal condition for the great majority of mankind. Indeed, her teaching on virginity, and the spectacle of thousands of her sons and daughters exemplifying that teaching, have in every age constituted a most effective exaltation of chastity in general, and therefore of chastity within as well as without the family. Teaching and example have combined to convince the wedded, not less than the unwedded, that purity and restraint are at once desirable and practically possible. Today, as always, it is precisely in those communities where virginity is most honoured that the ideal of the family is highest, and its relations purest.
DANGERS FOR THE FAMILY
Among these are the exaltation of the individual by the State at the expense of the family, which has been going on since the Reformation (cf. the Rev. Dr. Thwing, in Bliss, “Encyclopedia of Social Reform”), and the modern facility of divorce (see DIVORCE), which may be traced to the same source. The greatest offender in the latter respect is the United States, but the tendency seems to be towards easier methods in most of the other countries in which divorce is allowed. Legal authorization and popular approval of the dissolution of the marriage bond, not only breaks up existing families, but encourages rash marriages, and produces a laxer view of the obligation of conjugal fidelity. Another danger is the deliberate limitation of the number of children in a family. This practice tempts parents to overlook the chief end of the family, and to regard their union as a mere means of mutual gratification. Furthermore, it leads to a lessening of the capacity of self-sacrifice in all the members of the family. Closely connected with these two evils of divorce and artificial restriction of births, is the general laxity of opinion with regard to sexual immorality. Among its causes are the diminished influence of religion, the absence of religious and moral training in the schools, and the seemingly feebler emphasis laid upon the heinousness of the sin of unchastity by those whose moral training has not been under Catholic auspices. Its chief effects are disinclination to marry, marital infidelity, and the contraction of diseases which produce domestic unhappiness and sterile families.
The idle and frivolous lives of the women, both wives and daughters, in many wealthy families is also a menace. In the position which they hold, the mode of life which they lead, and the ideals which they cherish, many of these women remind us somewhat of the hetæræ of classical Athens. For they enjoy great freedom, and exercise great influence over the husband and father, and their chief function seems to be to entertain him, to enhance his social prestige, to minister to his vanity, to dress well, and to reign as social queens. They have emancipated themselves from any serious self-sacrifice on behalf of the husband or the family, while the husband has likewise declared his independence of any strict construction of the duty of conjugal fidelity. The bond between them is not sufficiently moral and spiritual, and is excessively sensual, social, and aesthetic. And the evil example of this conception of family life extends far beyond those who are able to put it into practice. Still another danger is the decline of family authority among all classes, the diminished obedience and respect imposed upon and exhibited by children. Its consequences are imperfect discipline in the family, defective moral character in the children, and manifold unhappiness among all.
Finally, there is the danger, physical and moral, threatening the family owing to the widespread and steadily increasing presence of women in industry. In 1900 the number of females sixteen years of age and over engaged in gainful occupations in the United States, was 4,833,630, which was more than double the number so occupied in 1880, and which constituted 20 per cent of the whole number of females above sixteen years in the country, whereas the number at work in 1880 formed only 16 percent of the same division of the female population. In the cities of America two women out of every seven are bread-winners (see Special Report of the U.S. Census, “Women at Work”). This condition implies an increased proportion of married women at work as wage earners, an increased proportion of women who are less capable physically of undertaking the burdens of family life, a smaller proportion of marriages, an increase in the proportion of women who, owing to a delusive idea of independence, are disinclined to marry, and a weakening of family bonds and domestic authority. “In 1890, 1 married woman in 22 was a bread-winner; in 1900, 1 in 18” (ibid.). Perhaps the most striking evil result of married women in industry is the high death-rate among infants. For infants under one year the rate in 1900 over the whole United States, was 165 per 1000, but it was 305 in Fall River, where the proportion of married women at work is greatest. As the supreme causes of all these dangers to the family are the decay of religion and the growth of materialistic views of life, so the future of the family will depend upon the extent to which these forces can be checked. And experience seems to show that there can be no permanent middle ground between the materialistic ideal of divorce, so easy that the marital union will be terminable at the will of the parties, and the Catholic ideal of marriage absolutely indissoluble.
———————————–
In addition to the authorities cited in the text, the following deserve particular mention: DEVAS, Studies in Family Life (London, 1886); RICHE, The Family, tr. SADLIER (New York, 1896); COULANGES, The Ancient City, tr. SMALL (Boston, 1901); BOSANQUET, The Family (London, 1906); THWING, The Family (Boston, 1887); BLISS, Encyclopedia of Social Reform (New York, 1907); ST CKL In Kirchenlexikon; La grande encyclop dia; PERRONE, De Matrimonio Christiano (Li ge, 1862); Westermarck’s work contains a very large bibliography on the anthropological and sociological aspects of the subject. HOWARD, History of Matrimonial Institutions (Chicago, 1904).
JOHN A. RYAN Transcribed by Bobie Jo M. Bilz
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VCopyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Family
The idea of the family (v), in Greece, was that of the nucleus of society, or of the state. “Aristotle speaks of it as the foundation of the state and, quotes Hesiod to the effect that the original family consisted of the wife and the laboring ox, which held, as he says, to the poor the position of the slave (Polit. 1:1). The complete Greek family, then, consisted of the man, and his wife, and his slave; the two latter, Aristotle says, never having been confounded in the same class by the Greeks, as by the barbarians (Ib.). In this form, the family was recognized as the model of the monarchy, the earliest, as well as the simplest, form of government. When, by the birth and growth of children, and the death of the father, the original family is broken up into several, the heads of which stand to each other in a co-ordinate rather than a strictly subordinate position, we have in these the prototypes of the more advanced forms of government. Each brother, by becoming the head of a separate family, becomes a member of an aristocracy, or the embodiment of a portion of the sovereign power, as it exists in the separate elements of which a constitutional or a democratic government is composed. But at Rome the idea of the family was still more closely entwined with that of life in the state, and the natural power of the father was taken as the basis not only of the whole political, but of the whole social organization of the people. Among the Romans, as with the Greeks, the family included the slave as well as the wife, and ultimately the children, a fact which, indeed, is indicated by the etymology of the word, which belongs to the same root as famulus, a slave. In its widest sense, the famalia included even the in-animate possessions of the citizen, who, as the head of a house, was his own master (sui juris); and Gaius (2:102) uses it as synonymous with patrimonium. In general, however, it was confined to persons the wife, children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, if such there were, and slaves of a full-blown Roman citizen. Sometimes, too, it signified all those who had sprung from a common stock, and would have been members of the family, and under the potestas of a common ancestor, had he been alive. In this sense, of course, the slaves belonging to the different members of the family were not included in it. It was a family, in short, in the sense in which we speak of ‘the royal family,’ etc., with this difference, that it was possible for an individual to quit it, and to pass into another by adoption. Sometimes, again, the word was used with reference to slaves exclusively, and, analogically, to a sect of philosophers, or a body of gladiators.” See Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.
The Christian family, on the contrary, is a communion resting as an ethico- religious foundation, and forming the closest of all human relationships. It is a copy of the highest and most perfect union, that of the Church with Christ its head. Christianity, considered as the true (ideal) family, wherein Christ’s power begets, through the Word and the Spirit, children of faith unto God, who mutually aid each other with their several spiritual gifts, is imaged in the natural family; imperfectly, indeed, since the life of the Christian family is yet a life in the flesh (Gal 2:20); yet truly, because its bond of union is spiritual, being the spirit of Christ. The basis of the Christian family is Christian marriage, or monogamy, the exclusive union of one man to one woman. The deepest ground of this union, and its true aim, without which Christian marriage and family are impossible, is the consciousness of unity in Christ, or in the love of God in Christ, the source of individual sympathy, as well as of brotherly and universal love. Marriage has, in common with Christian friendship, the bond of tender sentiments; but the former is an exclusive bond between two persons of different sexes, whose personality is complemented, so to speak, by each other. It is therefore a lifelong relation, while friendship may be only temporary. SEE MARRIAGE.
Two persons thus joined in marriage lay the foundation of a Christian family; indeed, they constitute a family, though yet incomplete and undeveloped. It awaits its completion in the birth of children. In proportion, however, as the married couple live in a state of holiness, so are the natural desires for issue and their gratification made subservient to the divinely ordered end of the marriage, and accompanied by a sense of dependence on the will and biessingof God. And in order duly to attain this higher end of the family, it is necessary that, keeping the merely carnal passions subordinate, both husband and wife should endeavor to subserve each other’s moral and spiritual completeness; and also that they should, when children are born, faithfully help each other in training them properly, by the combination of their particular dispositions, the father’s sternness being tempered with the mother’s gentleness, and the mother’s tenderness energized by the father’s authority. The children should see the unity between the father and the mother, in their unity of aim, though manifested according to their different dispositions. Early baptism should be followed by careful religious training. In this the mother has a certain priority, inasmuch as, aside from giving her children birth, she is also first in giving them the bodily and spiritual care they require. Yet even in this early period she derives assistance from the husband, who, as the head of the family, counsels, strengthens, and assists her. In after years their relative shares in the education of the children become more equalized, the sons coming, however, more under the influence of the father, while the daughters remain more under the mother’s.
Those who wish theirs to be a real Christian family must from the first inculcate on their children (aside from the habit of absolute, unquestioning obedience to the parental authority as divinely instituted) the true ground of obedience, as laid in obedience to God, springing from love to God. “The order in which the love of the child graduates is from the stage of instinctive love to moral affection; and from this to the love of its heavenly Parent. Desirous as the parents may be to lead its affections up at once to the Creator, the previous stages of the path must first be passed through. For a while the maternal care is the only Providence it knows; and the father’s experience is to it a world of grand enterprise, and of power unlimited. In vain it strives to climb the height of his knowledge his virtual omniscience; nor can it conceive of a diviner guarantee than his promise. To see its parents bend in worship, and to hear them speak with holy awe of their Father in heaven, is itself solemn and suggestive as a ladder set up from earth to heaven. The wise discipline, too, which leads the parent kindly to repress its selfish desires, and constantly to aim at its moral welfare, invariably begets in return the highest order of filial love and confidence; evincing the power of the child to discriminate between instinctive and moral affection, and preparing it to embrace that heavenly Parent of whom the earthly is but an imperfect representation. And let the parents remark that, from the moment they begin to point their child to God as all object of reverence and love, they are pursuing the certain course for augmenting its moral affection for themselves; while its intelligent love for them is a valuable means and a pledge for its ascending to the love of God” (Harris, Patriarchy, or the Family, page 352). This divine liberty, based on fear and love, far from diminishing the respectful love of the children for their parents, will exalt and purify it, and bring it to its highest degree of perfection; it will make it become part of their religion, and whenever a collision may occur between the parental wishes and the will of God, it will lead the children, while obeying the latter, to cherish all possible reverence and respect for the former. By this personal development of their spiritual life the sons and daughters will become friends to their parents; a higher kind of trust; such as is felt in one’s equals, is thus reached, without diminishing the respect which is the, duty of the child and the right of the parents. This is the true graduation of the Christian family life, in which the elder children become helps to the parents for the education of the younger, while at the same time they become more thoroughly fitted to fulfill their own duties as heads of families in after life. Where the blessing of children has been denied, it can in some measure, though not completely, find a substitute in the adoption of orphans or other children, and then the duties towards these are the same as towards one’s own.
The Christian family includes also what heathen Rome called the family in a subordinate sense the servants. Their position, wherever the principles of Christian humanity prevail, is not one of slavery, but is a free moral relation, entered into by the consent of both parties, and giving each peculiar rights and duties. The Christian, penetrated with the spirit of his Master, will not lose sight of the fact that this spirit inclined Him much more to serve others than to have them serve Him, and he will not be satisfied by rewarding his servants with wages only, but with all the spiritual blessings of which the family is the proper sphere. They should take part in the family worship, and even an active part, as in reading, singing, praying. The more they come to take part in the life of the family, in its interests, its joys, its griefs, and receive from it the sympathy and help they require, either for the body or the mind, the more does the general family lead a really Christian life.
The entire life of the Christian family is a continuous act of worship in the more extended sense of the word, and must gradually become more and more so, since all its actions are done in the name of Christ and for the glory of God. This thoroughly Christian conduct is, however, sustained and strengthened by the family worship in the proper sense, in which the family, as such, seeks for strength in the Word and in the Spirit of God. The more perfectly this family worship is organized, the more will it resemble public worship, consisting, like it, in the reading and exounding of Scripture, singing, and prayer. The eader in the religious exercises of the family should be the father, as priestly head of the house. This, however, is not to exclude the co-operation of the mother, children, and other members of the family their participation, on the contrary, adds much to theinterest of the service, and makes it an admirable supplement to public worship, as in the family the feeling of trust in each other and of self-dependence add much: to liberty in prayer. This constitutes the true hearth of the family, the center around which all meet again, from whence they derive light and warmth, and whose genial influences will be felt through life. From the bosom of such a family the spirit of Christianity goes out with its healthful influence into the Church, the school, the state, and even the whole world.
See generally the writers on moral philosophy and Christian ethics, and especially Herzog, Real-Encyklopddie 4:318; Rothe, Theolog. Ethik, in, 605; Schaff,. Apostolical Age, 111; Harris, Patriarchy, or the Family (Lond. 1855, 8vo); Anderson, Genius and Design of the Domestic Constitution (Edinb. 1826, 8vo); Thiersch, Ueber christliches Familienleben (4th ed. Frankf. 1859; translated into several languages).
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
FAMILY
According to Gods plan for human life, people do not exist in isolation but as part of a vast society, and they are fitted for their part in that society by being brought up in families (Eph 3:14-15; 1Ti 3:4). Stability, love and cooperation in the family will help produce similar qualities in society as a whole. (Concerning illustrations of the family in relation to Israel or the church see CHURCH; FATHER.)
Parents and children
With his ordering of human life, God has put it into the nature of people to exercise and accept authority. He has, for example, given parents authority over their children, and children naturally recognize that authority (Gen 22:7-8; Exo 20:12; Luk 2:51).
The Bible warns parents against misusing their authority or treating their children unjustly. It also teaches children that they must respect and obey their parents (Eph 6:1-4; Col 3:20-21). This does not mean that the family is intended to function in an atmosphere of harsh authority. On the contrary it will function best where there is an atmosphere of self-sacrificing love (Tit 2:4; cf. 2Co 6:11-13; Eph 5:25).
Parents who love their children will fulfil their duty to instruct and discipline them. They will not be able to do this, however, if they are ill-instructed or ill-disciplined themselves (Deu 11:18-19; 2Sa 7:14-15; Pro 1:8; Pro 13:1; Pro 13:24; Pro 19:18; Pro 29:17; Eph 6:4; 1Ti 3:2-5; 1Ti 5:14; Heb 12:7-11; see CHASTISEMENT). They must encourage open communication between themselves and their children (Deu 6:20-25; Jos 4:21-24). If parents act responsibly towards their children, they can expect to produce children who act responsibly (Pro 10:1; Pro 10:5; Pro 22:6; 2Ti 1:5). The training that produces this responsibility begins in the childrens infancy, is carried out primarily in the home, and is based on the Word of God (Deu 6:6-9; 2Ti 3:14-15).
The teaching that parents give their children must be supported by the example of right conduct in the parents lives (Rom 2:21-24; 1Th 2:10-12). Parents must practise and teach self-sacrifice for the sake of others, so that the family is a place where people learn how to love others, forgive others, honour others and serve others (Eph 4:31-32; cf. Mat 20:25-27; Joh 13:12-15).
Wider responsibilities
Parents must be careful that concern for the familys well-being does not make them or their children self-centred. By practising hospitality and helping the needy, parents will encourage their children to have a generous attitude to those outside the family (Rom 12:13; 1Ti 5:10; Jam 1:26-27; 1Jn 3:17; see GOOD WORKS; HOSPITALITY). Such attitudes and conduct, besides benefiting others, will help those within the family develop godly character and produce a happy home (Psa 128:1-4).
Responsibilities within the family concern more than just the parents and children. They extend beyond the immediate family to those of the former generation who may no longer be able to support themselves. Regardless of the help that may come from the government, the church, or other sources, Christians have a responsibility for the well-being of their aged parents (Mar 7:9-13; 1Ti 5:4; 1Ti 5:8; see also WIDOW).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Family
FAMILY
1. Character of the family in OT.Family in the OT has a wider significance than that which we usually associate with the term. The word tr. [Note: translate or translation.] house (Gen 7:1) approaches most nearly to our word family: but a mans house might consist of his mother; his wives and the wives children; his concubines and their children; sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, with their offspring; illegitimate sons (Jdg 11:1); dependents and allens; and slaves of both sexes. Polygamy was in part the cause of the large size of the Hebrew household; in part the cause of it may be found in the insecurity of early times, when safety lay in numbers, and consequently not only the married sons and daughters dwelt, for the sake of protection, with their father, but remote relatives and even foreigners (the stranger within thy gates) would attach themselves, with a similar object, to a great household. The idea of the family sometimes had an even wider significance, extending to and including the nation, or even the whole race of mankind. Of this a familiar illustration is the figure of Abraham, who was regarded as being in a very real sense the father of the nation. So also the same feeling for the idea of the family is to be found in the careful assigning of a father to every known nation and tribe (Gen 10:1-32). From this it is easily perceived that the family played an important part in Hebrew thought and affairs. It formed the base upon which the social structure was built up; its indistinguishable merging into the wider sense of clan or tribe indicates how it affected the political life of the whole nation.
Polygyny and bigamy were recognized features of the family life. From the Oriental point of view there was nothing immoral in the practice of polygamy. The female slaves were in every respect the property of their master, and became his concubines; except in certain cases, when they seem to have belonged exclusively to their mistress, and could not be appropriated by the man except by her suggestion or consent (Gen 16:2-3). The slave-concubines were obtained as booty in time of war (Jdg 5:30), or bought from poverty-stricken parents (Exo 21:7); or, possibly, in the ordinary slave traffic with foreign nations. In addition to his concubines a man might take several wives, and from familiar examples in the OT it seems that it was usual for wealthy and important personages to do so; Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, occur as instances. Elkanah, the husband of Hannah and Peninnah, is an interesting example of a man of no particular position who nevertheless had more than one wife; this may be an indication that bigamy, at least, if not polygamy, was not confined to the very wealthy and exalted. At all events, polygyny was an established and recognized institution from the earliest times. The gradual evolution in the OT of monogamy as the ideal is therefore of the highest interest. The earliest codes attempt in various ways to regulate the custom of polygyny. The Deut. code in particular actually forbids kings to multiply wives (Deu 17:17); this is the fruit, apparently, of the experience of Solomons reign. In the prophetic writings the note of protest is more clearly sounded. Not only Adam but also Noah, the second founder of the human race, represents monogamy, and on that account recommends it as Gods ordinance. It is in the line of Cain that bigamy is first represented, as though to emphasize the consequences of the Fall. Reasons are given in explanation of the bigamy of Abraham (Gen 16:1-16) and of Jacob (Gen 29:23). Hosea and other prophets constantly dwell upon the thought of a monogamous marriage as being a symbol of the union between God and His people; and denounce idolatry as unfaithfulness to this spiritual marriage-tie.
2. Position of the wife.Side by side with the growth of the recognition of monogamy as the ideal form of marriage, polygamy was practised even as late as NT times. The natural accompaniment of such a practice was the insignificance of the wifes position: she was ordinarily regarded as a piece of property, as the wording of the Tenth Commandment testifies. Also her rights and privileges were necessarily shared by others. The relative positions of wives and concubines were determined mainly by the husbands favour. The children of the wife claimed the greater part, or the whole, of the inheritance; otherwise there does not seem to have been any inferiority in the position of the concubine as compared with that of the wife, nor was any idea of illegitimacy, in our sense of the word, connected with her children.
The husband had supreme authority over the wife. He was permitted by the Deut. code to divorce her with apparently little reason. The various passages (Deu 22:13; Deu 22:19; Deu 22:28-29, Isa 50:1, Jer 3:8, Mal 2:16) referring to and regulating divorce, indicate that it was of frequent occurrence. Yet wives, and even concubines who had been bought in the first place as slaves, might not be sold (Exo 21:7-11, Deu 21:14). Indeed, the Law throughout proves itself sympathetic towards the position of the wife and desirous of improving her condition (Exo 21:2; Exo 21:12, Deu 21:10-17). This very attitude of the Law, however, indicates that there was need of improvement. The wife seems to have had no redress if wronged by the husband; she could not divorce him; and absolute faithfulness, though required of the wife, was not expected of the husband, so long as he did not injure the rights of any other man.
The wife, then, was in theory the mere chattel of her husband. A woman of character, however, could improve her situation and attain to a considerable degree of importance and influence as well as of personal freedom. Thus we read not only of Hagars, who were dealt hardly with and were obliged to submit themselves under the hands of their masters and rivals, but also of Sarahs and Rebekahs and Abigails, who could act independently and even against the wishes of their husbands in order to gain their own ends. And the Book of Proverbs testifies to the advantage accruing to a man in the possession of a good wife (Pro 19:14; Pro 31:10 ff.), and to the misery which it is in the power of a selfish woman to inflict (Pro 19:13 etc.).
3. Children.In a household consisting of several families, the mother of each set of children would naturally have more to do with them than the father, and the maternal relationship would usually be more close and affectionate than the bond between the father and his children. Although it was recognized to be disastrous for a household to be divided against itself, yet friction between the various families could hardly have been avoided. One whom his mother comforteth (Isa 66:13) must have been a sight common enougha mother consoling her injured son for the taunts and blows of her rivals children. Thus the mother would have the early care and education of her children under her own control. The father, on the other hand, had complete power over the lives and fortunes of his children, and would represent to them the idea of authority rather than of tenderness. He it was who arranged the marriage of his sons (Gen 24:4; Gen 28:2, Jdg 14:2), and had the right to sell his daughters (Exo 21:7). The father seems even to have had powers of life and death over his children (Jdg 11:39): and the Law provided that an unworthy son might be stoned to death upon the accusation of his parents (Deu 21:18-21). See also art. Child.
4. Family duties.The claims of the family upon the various members of it were strongly felt. Many laws provide for the vengeance and protection of the injured and defenceless by their next-of-kin. Brothers were the guardians of their sisters (Gen 34:1-31). A childless widow could demand, though not enforce, re-marriage with her brother-in-law (Deu 25:5-10). Boaz, as the nearest relation, performed this duty towards Ruth. In spite of the prohibition of the later code (Lev 20:21), levirate marriage seems to have been practised at the time of Christ (Mat 22:25 ff.). Its purpose was perhaps rather for the preservation of the particular branch of the family than for the advantage of the widow herself: in any case it illustrates the strong sense of duty towards the family as a whole.
Children owed obedience and respect to their parents. Even a married man would consider himself still under the authority of his father, whether living with him or not; and his wife would be subject to her father-in-law even after her husbands death.
To an Israelite, family conveyed the notions of unity, security, order, and discipline. These conceptions were nourished by the religious customs and observances in the home, the most conspicuous instance of which was the keeping of the Passover. Such observances no doubt helped to bind the members of the family in close religious and spiritual sympathies. The common longing to love and to serve God was the base of the family affection and unityfrom patriarchal times when the head of each family would offer sacrifice upon his own altar, until the hour in which Marys Son asked in tender surprise of her and Joseph: Wist ye not that I must he in my Fathers house? (Luk 2:49).
E. G. Romanes.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Family
fami-li (, mishpahah, , 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 (Gen 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 (Gen 2:23, Gen 2:14). 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 (Mat 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 Gen 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 – ‘sh (Gen 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 (Gen 3:16). But Adam does not escape retribution for sin, and it may be questioned whether its burden did not fall hardest on him (Gen 3:18, Gen 3:19), 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 (Gen 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 (Gen 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 Gen 6:5 to The Koran, tribute or the sword, and the polygamy of Mohammedans.
5. The Commandments and the Family (5th Commandment)
The commandments (Exo 20:12; Deu 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 (Exo 20:14; Deu 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. See COVETOUSNESS.
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 (Lev 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 (Neh 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 (Mat 19:1-12; Mar 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. See DIVORCE.
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 (Mat 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 (Mat 18:11 the King James Version), and, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners (Mat 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 (Mat 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.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Family
Of saints:
– Blessed
Psa 128:3; Psa 128:6
– Should be taught God’s word
Deu 4:9-10
– Worship God together
1Co 16:19
– Be duly regulated
Pro 31:27; 1Ti 3:4-5; 1Ti 3:12
– Live in unity
Gen 45:24; Psa 133:1
– Live in mutual forbearance
Gen 50:17-21; Mat 18:21-22
– Rejoice together before God
Deu 14:26
– Deceivers and liars should be removed from
Psa 101:7
– Warned against departing from God
Deu 29:18
– Punishment of irreligious
Jer 10:25
Good, exemplified:
– Abraham
Gen 18:19
– Jacob
Gen 35:2
– Joshua
Jos 24:15
– David
2Sa 6:20
– Job
Job 1:5
– Lazarus of Bethany
Joh 11:1-5
– Cornelius
Act 10:2; Act 10:33
– Lydia
Act 16:15
– Jailer of Philippi
Act 16:31-34
– Crispus
Act 18:8
– Lois
2Ti 1:5 Children; Husband; Wife; Orphan; Widow
Instituted
Gen 2:23-24
Government of
Gen 3:16; Gen 18:19; Est 1:20; Est 1:22; 1Co 7:10; 1Co 11:3; 1Co 11:7-9; Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1Ti 3:2; 1Ti 3:4-5; 1Pe 3:1; 1Pe 3:6
Infelicity in
– General references
Pro 11:22; Pro 12:4; Pro 14:1; Pro 15:17; Pro 18:19; Pro 19:13; Pro 21:9; Pro 25:24; Pro 21:19; Pro 27:15-16; Pro 30:21; Pro 30:23
– Instances of Infelicity in:
b Of Abraham, on account of Hagar
Gen 16:5; Gen 21:10-11
b Of Isaac, on account of disagreement between Jacob and Esau
Gen 27:4-46
b Of Jacob, bigamic jealousy between Leah and Rachel
Gen 29:30-34; Gen 30:1-25
b Moses and Zipporah
Exo 4:25-26
b Elkanah, on account of bigamic feuds
1Sa 1:4-7
b David and Michal
2Sa 6:16; 2Sa 6:20-23
b Ahasuerus, on account of Vashti’s refusing to appear before his drunken courtiers
Est 1:10-22
Persian, domestic customs
– General references
Est 1:10-22 Harem
Religion of the family
Gen 12:7-8; Gen 13:3-4; Gen 17:12-14; Gen 18:19; Deu 4:9-10; Deu 11:19-20; Deu 12:5-7; Deu 12:11-12; Jos 24:15; Psa 101:2; Jer 7:18; Act 10:1-6; Act 10:33; Act 10:44; Act 10:47-48; Act 16:25-34; Act 18:8; 1Co 1:16
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Family
signifies (a) “a dwelling, a house” (akin to oikeo, to dwell); (b) “a household, family,” translated “family” in 1Ti 5:4, RV, for AV, “at home.” See HOME, HOUSE, HOUSEHOLD, TEMPLE.
primarily “an ancestry, lineage,” signifies in the NT “a family or tribe” (in the Sept. it is used of related people, in a sense wider than No. 1, but narrower than phule, “a tribe,” e.g., Exo 12:3; Num 32:28); it is used of the “family” of David, Luk 2:4, RV, for AV, “lineage;” in the wider sense of “nationalities, races,” Act 3:25, RV, “families,” for AV, “kindreds;” in Eph 3:15, RV, “every family,” for AV, “the whole family,” the reference being to all those who are spiritually related to God the Father, He being the Author of their spiritual relationship to Him as His children, they being united to one another in “family” fellowship (patria is akin to pater, “a father”); Luther’s translation, “all who bear the name of children,” is advocated by Cremer, p. 474. The phrase, however, is lit., “every family.” See KINDRED.
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Family
Eph 3:15 (a) GOD’s people are represented as a family for fellowship. This is one of the six aspects of the church found in the book of Ephesians. As a “family” we serve together and play together. We study and work together in happy relationship. Each one helps and loves the other. Each one shares the problems, the defeats and the victories of the others in the family. So it should be among GOD’s people.