FAMILY. The center of the covenant activity of God is the family. Father, mother, children and extended relatives all play a part in the scriptural ideal.

I. Family in the OT

The OT teaching about the family is embodied in the first chs. of the Torah. The creation of God was in a world-order and in a family-order. In the OT family relationships are concentric, that is the married couple—husband and wife—form the nucleus of the circle, the children lie in the next circle, the grandparents, cousins, and the like on a further circle. This principle is clear in the terminology. Each term is applicable beyond the mere immediate definition to the set of relations which the term represents, e.g. the term daughter (q.v.) may be applied to a number of other individuals aside from one’s own female offspring, or it may be applied to any number of females who are in a specific law-relationship to the “father.”

A. Terminology. The OT often uses the common Sem. term for “house” Heb. בַּ֫יִת֒, H1074, as a term for the idea of “family” (Ruth 4:11). In this sense the KJV trs. “family” for bēyt in 1 Chronicles 13:14; 2 Chronicles 35:5, 12; Psalm 68:6, while the RSV trs. “household.” The most frequently occurring term is Heb. מִשְׁפָּחָה, H5476, a fem. noun which is not developed in Heb. but does appear as a noun in Ugaritic meaning “family.” A secondary form שִׁפְחָה, H9148, also appears in Heb. and refers to the less central relationships such as maid and menservants (Gen 30:7, 10, 12). These terms are usually tr. “family” but they actually embrace all possible range of meanings from “clan” (10:5); through “species” (8:19); to “consanguinity” (24:38). The term with all its difficult semantic range appears some 300 times in the OT, the highest frequency being in Numbers where it frequently stands for “clans” of the tribes of Israel. On one occasion the KJV mistakenly trs. the Heb. אֶ֫לֶפ֮, H547, “thousand” as “family” (Judg 6:15). Usually it appears with mispāḥāh in the sense of a subgroup qualified numerically from the whole group (e.g. 1 Sam 10:19), “Now therefore present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes [mispāḥāh] and by your thousands [’ēlēph].” However, all such terms are simply collectives for the group and do not involve much of the elaborate socialmoral connotation of the modern usage of the term “family.”

B. The creation ordinances and the law. The initial statement of the relationship of man and woman in the Scripture is given in the narrative of the creation account. In the section which begins the creation of the world-order, the creation ordinances (Gen 2:4-5:1), the form of human family life is set forth. The unity of male and female in the marriage bond is set down on two levels, the fulfillment of man’s need for companionship and the sexual relationship for the procreation of the race (2:18; 3:20; 4:1, 2). There is no question throughout the rest of the Bible that the monogamy of the Garden of Eden is the situation to be considered “normal” and the ordained law of marriage (Mark 10:6-9). This relationship was not to supersede the relationship to God (Deut 13:6-10; Matt 19:29; Luke 14:26) nor was it binding upon either party when separated by death (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25 on the analogy of many OT passages). This complete reliance upon the monogamous law-order was an inherent part of the Israelite world-view and from that source has continued to be a mark of western civilization. Regardless of all evolutionary and psycho-analytic theories of explanation, the monogamous, lifelong relationship is that which is the nature of man and the creation. In view of this the creation ordinance is walled about with several other sets of strictures, the Decalogue (Exod 20:14, 17); the Levitical laws (Lev 18:6-18; 20:14-21; 21:7-15); and the customs e.g. Dowry Feast, Bride (q.v.). To the positive statement of the text and the illustration in the history of the creation there are added the various negative restrictions. It was correctly assumed by the rabbis that for every negative commendation or commandme nt the contrapositive statement also was true. Thus the negative statements concerning the family relationships have equally binding positive obligations.

C. Cultural developments. The OT is primarily a continuous narrative of the history of the covenant people of God. It begins with the Adamic covenant, continues through the patriarchal and tribal periods and ends with the rise and fall of the Israelite monarchy. There is a definite temporal progression, and the various changes in the cultures of the ancient Near East—the development from mesolithic to neolithic, from bronze to iron and from food-getting nomads to food-producing township settlements—all have their impact on the covenant people. In such an arrangement, the place and structure of the family underwent certain alterations. Some of these are insignificant, some positive and some absolutely contrary to the covenant and the law order itself. In the patriarchal period the story of Lot and his antagonism to the rampant sexual immorality of his surroundings (Gen 19:4-11) and of Joseph and his escape from Potiphar’s wife (39:6-20) show the resistance of the covenant people to the family notions of their contemporaries. Ultimately, however, as Israel became a settled and independent political entity these cross-cultural forces worked upon the family associations of the Jews.

1. Polygamy, Levirate marriage. The greatest single erosion of the creation order of marriage, the polygamous marriage, appears early in the patriarchal narrative, “and Lamech took two wives” (4:19). The subsequent events of the families of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob frequently follow what is now known to have been the customs of the other Semites of the time. Analogies frequently have been drawn between patriarchal customs and the family laws of Babylon, Nuzi and Ḥatti. The concubinage of a servant girl to her mistress’ husband is a specific type of polygamy widely practiced in the ancient Near East and also recorded in the patriarchal period (16:1-4; 30:1-5, 9-13). One result of this was the expansion of the family to include not only the man and his wife and their children, but also uncles, aunts, cousins, servants, concubines, slaves, travelers, employees and even prisoners of war.

All of these people came under the family covenant of Abraham (Exod 20:10, et al.). In light of this, the rite of circumcision was performed upon all males born in a Jewish house (Gen 17:23-27). One important factor of Jewish polygamy is the preservation of the dignity and rights of the concubine and her offspring. Nowhere does the OT provide for the elaborate caste systems commonplace in cuneiform descriptions of family relationships. Even a female prisoner had to be treated as a bride in binding marriage (Deut 21:10-13) and captives, whether man, woman or child, could not be sold into slavery. The offspring born to wives were to have no better inheritance than those born to concubines or slaves merely because of their inferior status. Since the polygamy of the ruling and dominating families greatly increased the degree of consanguinity and other males were either slain or forced into monogamy, the children of Israel were in a few generations a separate entity from the other nations round about them.

Since the polygamous marriage of two individuals in separate families, was in effect a covenant between the families, this also tied the few major strains of inheritance even more tightly together so that the families or clans not only grew larger, numerically, but more tightly related (Gen 34:8-22). Aside from specific rare instances the extent of polygamy or bigamy in the OT is small and in the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, there is no reported polygamy on the part of commoners who lived during the age of the monarchy of Israel. Even though polygamy was accepted as a reality and legislation concerning it was ordained (Deut 21:15-17) yet the actual situations in which it occurred are hardly shown to be happy, and are forthrightly declared to be the sources of continual bickering, envy and other sins.

On the other hand the monogamous relationship is praised and lauded (Prov 5:15-19; 31:10-31). In fact, the worship of the one and only true God of Israel is presented in terms of marital devotion and fidelity (Isa 50:1; 54:6-8; 62:4, 5; Jer 2:2) while idolatry and heterodoxy are painted in images of harlotry, bigamy and incest (Hosea). A woman had no legal status in Israel and had to be under the legality or protection either of her father or husband, and if neither were living, then under a kinsman (Heb. גֹאֵ֖ל), described in great detail in the Book of Ruth. In effect, the woman was subservient to the male member of the family. The term for “husband” is Heb. בַּ֫עַל֒, H1251. The word also means “master,” “lord.” Thus the woman was in the subordinate position in the family as declared in the law-ordinance (Gen 3:16); however, the bā'āl or gō'ēl was absolutely responsible for the rights and treatment of his female family members. In the case of the payment of the “bride price” some girls were actually sold (31:15), an unfortunate outcome of the system. The need to retain the family title to land in an agrarian society and similar customs in the nations around them seem to have induced the Jews to accept the relationship of the Levirate marriage (q.v.). Even these somewhat contrived matches appear to have been monogamous. In fact, it is doubtful if the family holdings would have been of much value if too many inheritors were forthcoming. The Levirate marriage was easily brought about, as brides were usually chosen and grooms arranged, although true love often developed between the partners. Love was not the primary motivation, which was familial not personal to begin with, the goals being clan preservation and children. As with most neolithic agricultural people, wealth was measured in the number of sons a man possessed for tilling and herding and the number of daughters for marrying and thus bearing more generations (Ps 127 which in light of Ruth 4:11, et al. refers entirely to one’s children).

2. Fatherhood, motherhood, childhood. In the participant tribalism of a small agricultural village in Pal. the ages and groups of the members of the village appear to have acted in concert in most of the common tasks. The dress and activities of each group were defined strictly as were the times of their activities. As with most ancient peoples, it was assumed that any two adults of opposite sex, if alone together for any time, were engaging or had engaged in sexual activity. This principle manifests itself frequently in the events (Ruth 3:14, et al.). Fatherhood was assumed to be the prerogative of the mature male, and there is some evidence that the marriage of older men (35-55) to younger women (13-18) tended to lower the birth rate. However, prostitution also is noted in the OT and it apparently had no relation to the marriage bonds (Gen 38:14). Motherhood was construed as the natural outcome of wedlock and the plight of the barren woman is greatly lamented. The notion of male infertility is nowhere advanced. Motherhood was accompanied by an increased security that no other wife or concubine would be necessary to the husband. Although restrictions are placed upon the times of sexual relations, nothing is indicated about the frequency, and the OT generally is much more frank about the female response than have been some recent societies (3:16, et al.). Childhood is non-existent as a class or separate period. While very young children are considered non-combatants (Deut 20:14), and while pleas are made for infants (Jonah 4:11), children who are old enough to talk are held responsible for their deeds and frequently judged (2 Kings 2:24). Progress toward manhood was marked by skill and wisdom, there being no Hebraic concept of knowledge, which was taught by the village elders. Primogeniture was strictly observed (Gen 25:24-26; 38:27-30) for both sons and daughters (25:24-34; 29:26); however, the father had the right to assign the birthright to any son he signified (49:3, 4). Because of the immediate tribalistic nature of life, most children grew up worldly wise and old before their years. While children were suckled up to three to four years of age they were considered mature at a very early age, boys at thirteen (the bar mitzvah), and girls at their first menstrual cycle. During their early years boys were kept with the women, but later on allowed to sleep in the father’s quarters, while girls were kept close to their mother’s activities. The harem, long a feature of the ancient Near E does not appear until the wealth and opulence of the monarchy.

Israelite girls were allowed a great deal of freedom in the small farming communities which predominated in the period of the conquest and the early kings of Israel. After the Amarna Age (fifteenth century b.c. and thereafter) when no one nation of the Eastern Mediterranean held sway over the many petty kingdoms, political marriages and courtly concubinage became commonplace.

It was during this time that Solomon and his successors built their elaborate harems and fostered many sons and daughters who were raised from infancy in the women’s apartments to rule the kingdom someday. It was in this period of decadence that Israel began its final decline; almost all of the creation-ordinances and the Levitical precepts were ignored, and Israel went first through captivity and finally into the diaspora.

II. Family in the NT

The only family actually portrayed in the NT is that of Jesus, and then only scarcely and occasionally. It is clear, however, that while a vast stable of princes and princelings had been enforced by the Hel. and Rom. rulers, the common people still followed the OT family tradition. The father was still the head, the wife concerned with motherhood, and the children raised in the community obligations. The one significant change seems to have been in the growth of the synagogue and the Rabbinate which provided a modicum of participation and education for Israelite boys throughout the country.

To some extent this may have been in self-conscious opposition to the zeal for education caused by Hellenism and the paganizing schemes of the Hel. rulers. Be that as it may, it had a great effect upon the Jewish family.

As with all urbanization the growth of Rom. age towns caused more and more breakdown in the old extended family. The visit of Mary and the subsequent trip to Bethlehem show some of this shearing of the older clan ties (Luke 1:36-40; 2:4). For one thing there is a marked change in the terminology applied and the many difficult semi-social clan determinations which marked the OT pattern are no longer in use. The Gr. terminology is more precise, analytical and directly individualistic; no remnant of the ancient concentricity remains.

A. Terminology. Since the birth and early life of our Lord is accomplished under the old dispensation, the terms are simply trs. of the Heb. e.g. “house and lineage of David” (2:4). The terms are Gr. and they soon develop the more precise Hel. meanings. The most frequent is Gr. οἰκία, G3864, “house,” but from Attic classical lit. used in the sense of “family” (Matt 13:57; Mark 6:4; John 4:53; et al.). Less frequent is Gr. πατρία, “family,” “clan,” “relationship” as in its three NT occurrences (Luke 2:4; Acts 3:25; Eph 3:15). These are both subdivisions of the tribe, Gr. φυλή, G5876, “nation,” “people,” “tribe” (LXX and Matt 19:28, et al.). More often than in the OT the relationships of individuals within the family are stressed and the terms for father, mother, husbands, wives, and children are thus foremost.

B. Jesus’ teaching about the family. Much of Christ’s instruction concerning the family is simply reiteration of the creation ordinances with the added responsibility of motivation (Matt 5:27-32). However, the family is used as the pattern for the forgiveness, love and longsuffering of God. In fact the use of the endearment, “Our Father,” is one of the most profund insights into the nature of God revealed through Jesus’ teaching. It is clear that monogramy is uppermost and the bond of love is central in such discourses (Matt 18; 19; 20).

The family as covenant and the covenant members as a family are two themes repeated in the illustrations Christ gives (19:13-15). The institution of the new covenant with its central rite of the eucharist expanded the availability of the ritual outside of the male members of the family. However, the concept of corporate or “household” salvation certainly is represented in the gospel narratives. It also is important that some of our Lord’s miracles were concerned with families, their sorrows, and their relationships (Matt 8:1-13, 14, 15; 9:18-26; 15:21-28; 17:14-20; Mark 1:30, 31; 5:21-43; 7:24-30; 9:14-29; Luke 4:38, 39; 7:1-10; 8:40-56; 9:37-43; John 2:1-11; 4:46-54; 7:11-17; 11:1-46; 21:6-11.)

C. The apostolic and epistolary teaching about the family. The concept of the family was so easily extended that the apostles apparently used it in their preaching to describe, not only the Israel of the theocracy, but also the Church of Christ. Specific instructions concerning the family are given in terms of husband and wife (1 Cor 7:1-28; 11:3; Eph 5:22; Col 3:18; 1 Tim 5:8; 1 Pet 3:7). Of special emphasis is the subject of the subjection of the woman to her husband. This theme is repeated in a number of Paul’s epistles and in 1 Peter 3:1-7.

In the dissolution of the family in the later Rom. republic and early empire was prob. a recurrent problem in the churches. The relation of children to parents is far less prominent than in the OT (Rom 1:30; 2 Tim 3:2; and the exhortations of Eph 6:1-4; Col 3:20, 21, and 1 Tim 4:12). In the three Johannine epistles the figure of the child is brought to its fulfillment with the repetition of the apostolic love for the Church in terms of family endearment (1 John 3:10, et al.). The legal position of children, inheritance, adoption, illegitimacy and naming all are used as figures of the application of the Atonement in the epistles (Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5; Phil 4:3; Heb 12:8; 1 Pet 1:4 et al.).

D. The family in the Early Church. The fact that the first churches were in private homes as that uncovered at Dura Europos, and that the initial converts were usually family groups, gave a specific character to the family image of Christianity (Acts 16:31; et al.). Symbols of Jesus as the Good Shepherd, the murder of the innocents, the scenes of Jesus’ childhood are all extant in early Christian art.

In the apocryphal NT Book of Hermas, there were collected some folk stories of the childhood of Jesus. Of all Christian concepts that of its application to the family as a unit seems to have been the most appealing. Even the love of Christ for the Church is stated as the love of a husband for his wife. This image of the bridegroom and the bride is used in the final apocalyptic visions of the New Jerusalem (Rev 18:23; 21:2, 9; 22:17.) See Divorce.

Bibliography W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage, 2nd ed. (1903); T. G. Soares, The Social Institutions and Ideals of the Bible (1915); J. Doller, Das Weib in Alten Testament (1920); V. Aptowitzer, “Spuren des Matriarchats im jüdischen Schrifttum” HUCA IV (1927), 207-405; V (1928) 261-297; E. B. Cross, The Hebrew Family (1927); M. Tschernowitz, “The Inheritance of Illegitimate Children According to Jewish Law,” Jewish Studies in Memory of I. Abrahams (1927), 402-415; M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (1928); S. Feigin, “Some Cases of Adoption in Israel,” JBL (1931), 186-200; E. M. Mac Donald, The Position of Women as Reflected in Semitic Codes (1931); C. H. Gordon, “Fratriarchy in the OT,” JBL (1935), 223-231; C. H. Gordon, “The Status of Women as Reflected in the Nuzi Tablets,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete, XLIII (1936), 146-169; A. Margolius, Mutter und Kind im altbiblischen (1936); M. Burrows, “The Complaint of Laban’s Daughters,” JAOS LVII (1937), 259-276; C. H. Gordon, “The Story of Jacob and Laban in the Light of the Nuzi Tablets,” BASOR 66 (1937); M. Burrows, The Basis of Israelite Marriage (1938); “Levirate Marriage in Israel,” JBL LIX (1940) 23-33; “The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirate Marriage,” BASOR 77 (1940), 2-15; M. I. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 3 vols. (1941); D. Jacobsen, The Social Background of the OT (1942); E. Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws (1944); J. Pederson, Israel, its Life and Culture, I-II (1946), 46-60; I. Mendelsohn, “The Family in the Ancient Near East,” BA XI (1948), 25-40; A. van Selms, “The Best Man and the Bride,” JNES IX (1950), 65-75; J. Murray, Divorce (1952); W. H. Russell, “New Testament Adoption—Graeco-Roman or Semitic,” JBL LXXI (1952), 233, 234; D. R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage (1953); J. Leipoldt, Die Frau in der antiken Welt und im Urchristentum (1954), 69-114; A. van Selms, Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature (1954); K. Elliger, “Das Gesetz Leviticus 18,” ZAW LXVII (1955), 1-25; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, Vol. I (1957), 19-64; R. Yaron, “On Divorce in OT Times,” Révue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité VI (1957); S. Kardimon, “Adoption as a Remedy for Infertility in the Period of the Patriarchs,” JSS III (1958), 123-126; R. Yaron, “Aramaic Marriage Contracts from Elephantine,” JSS III (1958), 1-39; I. Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son,” ASOR 156 (1959), 38-40; A. N. S. White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the NT (1963).