Phillip Kayser, Ph.D.

Transcription

Biblical Romance
What Does the Bible Say About Courtship and Betrothal?
Copyright © 2010 Phillip Kayser, Ph.D.
All Rights Reserved.
Published By Biblical Blueprints
307 N. 41st Ave, Omaha, NE 68131-2201
(402) 991-2421 • www.biblicalblueprints.org
Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, New King
James Version. Published by Thomas Nelson. © 1994, 1982, 1980, 1979
Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permission.
Biblical Romance
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION – WHY WE NEED A FRESH STUDY......... 1
CHAPTER 1 – AVOIDING LEGALISM AND LICENSE ......... 5
SCRIPTURE GIVES MORE THAN ONE MODEL AND CALLS FOR
FLEXIBILITY .............................................................................. 5
SCRIPTURE GIVES ALL THE PRINCIPLES NEEDED FOR THIS
SUBJECT .................................................................................... 5
WHAT IS FORM AND FREEDOM? ................................................ 5
FORM AND FREEDOM IN ROMANCE ........................................... 7
SPOILING WHAT GOD INTENDED TO BE DELIGHTFUL ................. 8
CHAPTER 2 – SURVEYING THE BIBLICAL OPTIONS ....... 11
LET’S AVOID REDUCTIONISM ................................................... 11
MARRIAGES WITHOUT COURTSHIP OR BETROTHAL .................. 12
Model 1 – Arranged Marriage Without Betrothal ............................ 12
Model 2 – Marriage of Necessity. .................................................... 13
Model 3 – Marriage to a Slave. ...................................................... 13
Model 4 – Marriage after Fornication. ............................................ 14
MARRIAGES WITH BETROTHAL ALONE ..................................... 14
Model 5 – Marriage of Economic Necessity. ..................................... 14
Model 6 – Arranged Marriage with betrothal. .................................. 15
MARRIAGES AFTER COURTSHIP AND BETROTHAL ..................... 15
Model 7 – Courtship and Betrothal. ................................................ 15
CHAPTER 3 – CLEARLY DEFINING OUR TERMS COURTSHIP ................................................................. 18
WHAT COURTSHIP IS NOT: ....................................................... 19
Courtship is not “Reformed dating” ................................................ 19
Courtship is not mandated ............................................................. 22
Courtship is not a parents-only activity............................................ 22
Courtship is not a couple-only activity ............................................. 23
Courtship is not something that warrants congratulations ................. 24
Courtship is not necessarily a once-only experience ........................... 24
Courtship is not the time intended for developing romance, though if all
things go well, romantic love will inevitably start.............................. 24
WHAT COURTSHIP IS:............................................................... 25
Definition ..................................................................................... 25
Flexibility ..................................................................................... 25
Paternal Supervision ..................................................................... 26
Courtship, Betrothal & Marriage Under Family Jurisdiction ............ 29
In Purity ...................................................................................... 31
Seeking the Will of God ................................................................. 31
Time of Serious Evaluation of Each Other ....................................... 35
For the Purpose of Seeking Marriage ............................................... 36
Concern for the Welfare of the Two Courting ................................... 37
Avoiding Most Romantic Actions ................................................... 38
Concluding words on courtship. ...................................................... 39
CHAPTER 4 – CLEARLY DEFINING OUR TERMS BETROTHAL ................................................................ 42
IS BETROTHAL BIBLICAL? ......................................................... 42
WHAT BETROTHAL IS NOT ....................................................... 42
Betrothal is not mandated or essential to getting married................... 43
Biblical betrothal should not be associated with hyper-patriarchalism . 43
Biblical betrothal should not be defined by the practices of medieval
Judaism ....................................................................................... 45
Betrothal is a contract, not necessarily a covenant ............................. 46
Betrothal is not unbreakable ........................................................... 49
Betrothal is not arranged marriage .................................................. 52
Betrothal is not a commitment made without reference to already
existing love .................................................................................. 52
Betrothal is not simply a “committed relationship,” “going steady,”
being a man’s “intended,” being “spoken for,” or being “ringed” ....... 53
WHAT BETROTHAL IS............................................................... 53
A binding commitment .................................................................. 53
For the purpose of marriage in the near future .................................. 54
After the approval of the father ........................................................ 54
Publically announced .................................................................... 55
Usually accompanied by some token of ability.................................. 56
A time to learn non-sexual romance ................................................ 56
Ordinarily under the guidance of parents ......................................... 57
For the purpose of planning and preparing for the wedding ............... 58
CHAPTER 5 – MAINTAINING PURITY IN COURTSHIP AND
BETROTHAL ................................................................ 60
GENERAL BIBLICAL GUIDELINES ............................................. 60
Miscellaneous commands ............................................................... 60
1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 – How to acquire a spouse ............................. 61
1 Corinthians 7:1 – Premarital touch .............................................. 64
A DETAILED STUDY AND INTERACTION WITH AN ALTERNATIVE
VIEW ....................................................................................... 67
The Primary Areas of Disagreement with Robert Andrews ................ 68
It is more complex than Andrews’ formula shows ............................. 69
The good and the bad of the twelve steps .......................................... 71
CHAPTER 6 – IS THERE A PLACE FOR PRE-MARITAL
ROMANCE? ................................................................. 87
BETROTHAL - DELIGHTFUL ROMANCE ..................................... 87
BETROTHAL – TIME FOR DEVELOPING HABITS AND SKILLS FOR
MARRIAGE .............................................................................. 88
Exercising leadership while under leadership .................................... 89
The five languages of love ............................................................... 89
Interact with other friends .............................................................. 91
Spend extra amounts of time with each other ................................... 91
Make sure God is the foundation and goal for all that you do ............ 92
Biblical Romance • 1
Introduction
Why We Need a Fresh Study
I was motivated to write this book for several reasons. First, people have
repeatedly asked my opinion on the “courtship wars” current in the
homeschool movement. Is all dating sinful? Is courtship a Biblical term?
Must all Christians endorse the “betrothal method”? And which betrothal
method is Biblical anyway? Is the physical contact of Ruth and Boaz
lawful? What about Robert Andrews’ suggested sexual progression? Is
physical touch appropriate during betrothal? What is “going too far”?
And if we are going to use the Bible to talk about premarital romance,
what about arranged marriages? Should Christians avoid all romance
prior to marriage? Isn’t courtship just “safe dating?” What is the
difference between betrothal and engagement? Does the Bible even set
guidelines? What is legalism and what is Biblical? Can one behavior be
sinful for one couple and not sinful for another? These are a few of the
questions this book is designed to answer.
A second reason for writing this book is that I have witnessed great
confusion over the purposes for courtship and betrothal. There have been
too many hurt feelings during courtship because both families have had
quite different expectations of what courtship was about. I have known
some families who have interpreted courtship as a safe process of dating
multiple partners, while others have seen courtship as an equivalent to
“going steady,” and still others have tried to make courtship a formal
process of research to see if there is any interest in even entering into a
relationship. Some have merged concepts of courtship and betrothal,
while others deny that courtship is biblical. Some see betrothal as the
equivalent to “going steady” while others see it as a covenant that can
only be broken by a divorce. With such wide-ranging viewpoints, it is no
wonder that the courtship and betrothal landscape has been littered with a
lot of hurt feelings, bitterness, and broken relationships. God’s “perfect
law of liberty” (James 1:25; 2:12) was intended to give you maximum
liberty. God’s good law (Rom. 7:12,16,21; 1 Tim. 1:8) was intended to
be “for your good” (Deut. 10:13) and for your joy (Ps. 19:8; John 15:917). It is my hope that this book will help to restore such joy.
A third reason for writing this book is to encourage people to take
advantage of the time of betrothal to learn many creative ways of
expressing non-sexual love. How many women wish their husbands
could express love in more ways than in bed! Betrothal gives men and
2 • Biblical Romance
women practice in other languages of love than touch, and these creative
habits of expressing love follow them into marriage. We will be seeing
that God intends betrothal to be the ideal training ground for a richer and
fuller expression of love than many couples know. Unfortunately, many
families are so focused on avoiding sexual love before marriage that they
miss the most important purpose of betrothal. This book will give the
Biblical basis and ground rules for making betrothal a perfect
environment for growing in friendship.
A fourth reason I have been motivated to write this book is to show the
unintended consequences that certain approaches to romance can
produce. Over the past thirty years numerous friends have told me that
they quickly slid into sexual involvement when they were dating. They
never intended to commit fornication, but the very process of dating that
they were using almost guaranteed it. This has in turn left some of them
not only with regrets, but with sexual issues within marriage that came
from guilt or other negative feelings over the premarital fornication. At
least some women have said that they don’t trust their husbands because,
“If he had no self-control with me before marriage, how do I know he
will have self-control with someone else after our marriage?” Counselors
often have to deal with these negative “fruits” but are not willing to cut
down the “root” so as to stop these problems from perpetuating
generation after generation. I think it is time to completely restudy what
the Bible says about courtship and betrothal so as to produce Biblical
fruit.
A fifth reason I have been motivated to write this book is that legalism is
rife within the homeschool movement, and it is strikingly evidenced in
how families go about courtship and betrothal. Legalism can produce just
as many problems in a beginning family as license can. I have known
best friends become estranged because of legalism, inconsistency, and
judgmentalism in the way they have had their children court. When
courtship and betrothal are done Biblically it can bring great joy as well
as provide a smooth transition for marriage.
My last reason for writing this book is that I am tired of having to
contradict people who claim that the Bible doesn’t talk much about premarital romance. The problem is not that the Bible doesn’t say much, but
that it says far more than many people are comfortable with.
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty
by which Christ has made us free,
and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.”
Galatians 5:1
“For you, brethren, have been called to liberty;
only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh,
but through love serve one another.”
Galatians 5:13
“I will walk at liberty, for I seek Your precepts.
Psalm 119:45
“A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives;
but if her husband dies,
she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes,
only in the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 7:39
“But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty
and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer
but a doer of the work,
this one will be blessed in what he does.”
James 1:25
“So speak and so do
as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.”
James 2:12
“as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice,
but as bondservants of God.”
1 Peter 2:16
Chapter 1
Avoiding Legalism and License
Scripture gives more than one model and calls for
flexibility
This book will seek to demonstrate that the Bible gives more than one
model for finding a life partner in marriage. For example, we will look at
passages that show God’s authorization of marriages that had neither
courtship nor betrothal. But we will also look at Scriptures that lay down
a great deal of structure for both courtship and betrothal for most
situations. We will see that God authorized parents and even trusted
friends to arrange a marriage, while other passages speak of the man and
the woman taking most of the initiative. Sensitivity to the person and the
situation dictated these differences. Unfortunately, some people will
latch onto one paradigm or another and insist that it must be applied to
all people in all situations. But God deals with us as unique individuals,
not as abstract statistics. And He wants us to depend upon His guidance
and wisdom as we apply the Scripture to new situations.
Scripture gives all the principles needed for this subject
But let me be clear that when I advocate flexibility I am advocating
Biblical flexibility, not pragmatism. I in no way want to deny the
complete sufficiency of Scripture for this subject. The powerful
Scriptures have “given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness”
(2 Peter 1:2-4) and are so overwhelmingly sufficient “that the man of
God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2
Tim. 3:16-17). Unlike existentialism that excuses sin based on motives,
and unlike situational ethics that excuses sin based on unique situations, I
will be seeking to give Biblical principles for understanding proper
motives, goals, and situations. It is my hope that the principles of this
book will give a jump-start to your study and application of God’s Word
for your own romance and for that of your children.
What is Form and Freedom?
Francis Schaeffer repeatedly urged a balance between form and freedom.
He showed the disastrous results of both autonomous freedom and rigid
legalism. Autonomous freedom lacks Biblical definition and leads to
anarchy and eventually to the bondage of sin. Rigid legalism leads to
another kind of bondage because it adds to God’s “perfect law of liberty”
(James 1:25) and in the process nullifies it (Mark 7:1-13). This rigid
legalism suffocates people by giving them no room for expression and in
the process dehumanizes them by applying some Biblical rules but
ignoring what the Bible says about the person, the goal, and the situation.
People intuitively recognize that we can’t do this with other aspects of
life.
Imagine what art would be like without both form and freedom. Imagine
a father who wants his child to learn poetry well but focuses all of his
time on the principles of form and allows no opportunities for his son to
creatively express his heart. This father teaches his son syllabification,
emphasis, rhythm, rhyme, alliteration, assonance, simile, parallelism,
style, symbol, themes, etc. All of these give form to great poetry. But
form without creative freedom does not produce art. Having taught the
son all about the “form” of poetry, the father then proceeds to ask his son
to write a poem. Sadly, as soon as his son begins to write, the father is
seized with shame (a form of pride) that his son’s poetry is nothing like
that of Wordsworth or even Shakespeare. He wonders what other people
will think of his son’s poetry. In trying to protect his son from “poor”
poetry, the father crosses out each word, substitutes new words, changes
the meter, and adds new verses. What would we have to conclude about
this poem? Eventually we would have to conclude that this is the father’s
poem, not the son’s. By removing freedom the father has failed to teach
his son how to write poetry. The son has failed to take ownership of the
poetry. The son has not experienced the thrill of actually writing poetry. I
think we would all recognize that this is a problem.
Now imagine a second father who over-reacts to this “legalism” and
decides that his son is only going to have freedom by the leading of the
Spirit. He asks his son to write poetry, but he refuses to give him
guidelines. He is convinced that guidelines will inhibit his creative spirit.
In his effort to avoid legalism the father gives no instruction on
syllabification, meter, emphasis, rhythm, rhyme, etc. What would be the
result of rejecting the forms of poetry and embracing autonomous
freedom? It would be a total lack of poetry, even if the child calls it
poetry. The son has freedom, but no form. And he is left with frustration
and numerous mistakes.
The same is true for other areas of life. If the “form” of civil government
is rejected, people and properties suffer under the resulting anarchy. Any
time civil government exceeds the limits of “form” found in the bible,
increasing tyranny is the inevitable result. True liberty is expressed as
freedom within form. Francis Schaeffer illustrated how the balance
between freedom and form is needed in science and in art, in church and
in family.
Form and Freedom in Romance
It is possible to go to the same extremes of neglecting either form or
freedom during the periods of courtship and engagement/betrothal.1
Some fathers set up such unrealistic standards for potential suitors that
they chase away qualified young men. They think, “Only 0.001% of the
men I know are good enough for my daughter.” If everyone thought that,
how would the church fulfill Paul’s command, “Let each man have his
own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2)?
Others become so romantically attached at the start of courtship that they
lose perspective and are not able to evaluate the Biblical qualifications
that need to be in place. Others make the regulations surrounding
betrothal so heavy that they rob that period of its intended purpose – the
development of non-sexual romance. Others overreact to legalism and
end up causing themselves pain through premarital sexual sins. What
God intended to be a joyful time of preparation for marriage2 has in some
circles become so restrictive that they really can’t get to know their
future spouse. Some have claimed that during betrothal there should be
no emotional attachment, no letters of endearment and no expressions of
“I love you!” being said. They believe that the heart may not be given
away until marriage, and certainly (they think) the man should not be
wooing the young lady’s heart. While some of those fears are legitimate
during courtship (as defined in this booklet), I believe they are totally
foreign to the Bible’s description of engagement/betrothal.
It is my belief that the purpose for the period of courtship (when
applicable) is different from the purpose for the period of betrothal. Both
We will define the term “betrothal” later in this booklet and show the shades of meaning
that it can have. Though some people make a big distinction between betrothal and
engagement, I am using the terms interchangeably. Various translations translate the
Hebrew word ‫ א ֵַרשׂ‬as “pledged” (NIV, WEB), “betrothed” (NKJV, AMP, ESV) and
“engaged” (NASB, NET, NLT, NRSV, GWORD). It is not as important to argue over the
term that is used as it is over what it means. On my view of engagement, the parents are
involved in granting permission, there is a promise by the fathers to permit the marriage
and there is a promise by the engaged couple to get married in the Lord.
2 See especially Hosea 2:14-23 where God describes his joyful betrothal to Israel.
1
can help to set the tone for a godly marriage, or both can create problems
within a marriage. Many modern marriages lack the balance of form and
freedom. Francis Schaeffer describes the balance of form and freedom
within marriage when he said,
But the difficulty within evangelical circles is that we often forget
that within the proper form of marriage there is to be an interplay of
personality which is beautiful. There is both form and a freedom for
reality of personal interplay within the form. The form is necessary.
But we must understand that form is not all there is, or sexuality
becomes frigid and dead. So if we have a totally faithful marriage
that is also ugly, it is certainly not what it ought to be; it does not
portray what God means marriage to be. We can speak a great deal
against sexual laxity in the whole area of sexual morality, but
merely speaking of this is not enough. We must show to a world
that is looking for beauty in the midst of twentieth-century ugliness
that in the proper form (marriage), there can be a freedom of
personal interplay which is beautiful.3
This booklet is designed to show the beauty of preparation for marriage
with the same balance of form and freedom. The form that God has given
consists of the guidelines laid down in the Bible. The freedom that the
Lord has given consists in the myriad ways in which those forms are
creatively used to glorify and enjoy God under the leading of the Holy
Spirit. If we err by throwing out either form or freedom in courtship and
betrothal, it will not achieve what God intended these times to achieve,
and could in the process negatively impact the families involved.
Spoiling what God intended to be delightful
People will sometimes point at legalists who have misused courtship and
betrothal and want nothing to do with it. But why let man’s sin rob you
of God’s good gifts? The sin of man can spoil anything that God created
to be precious and joyful. For example, God made the Sabbath to be a
day of blessing (Ex. 20:11; Is. 56:2) and “delight” (Is. 58:13),4 but the
3
Francis Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview,
vol. 4 (Wheaton, Illionois: Crossway Books, 1982), p. 62.
4 In Nehemiah 8 God actually rebukes Israel for making the Sabbath a day of weeping,
sorrow, and introspection, saying, “This day is holy to the LORD your God; do not
mourn nor weep… Go your way, eat the fat, drink the sweet, and send portions to those
for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy to our LORD. Do not sorrow, for the
joy of the LORD is your strength.” The weekly Sabbath was the first and the greatest of
Pharisees robbed the day of its joyous celebration when they added
endless regulations designed to “protect” the day. No doubt their
intentions were noble (they wanted to keep people as far from sinning as
they could), but they were driven by lack of faith in God’s plan and fear
of man’s human nature. And what resulted was a monstrosity of a day
that produced mourning instead of joyful celebration. Others have
overreacted to such legalism and have robbed themselves of refreshment,
joy, and celebration by completely neglecting God’s form for the day.
Whether we err in throwing out form or throwing out freedom, the result
is not good. Only God’s regulations prove to be “the perfect law of
liberty” (James 1:25). All else leads to either the bondage of sin or the
bondage of legalism. Any bondage is incompatible with God’s calling to
sonship (John 8:31-36), whether that bondage is the result of adding to
God’s laws (Mark 7:1-13) or the result of breaking God’s laws (2 Pet.
2:19), “for you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you
received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father’”
(Rom. 8:15).
the festival days listed in Leviticus 23. In four passages God connects blessing with the
Sabbaths. Three times the word “delight” is in the same paragraph as the Sabbath. One
time God equates losing the Sabbath with losing mirth (Hos. 2:11). In nine verses about
the Sabbath the terms joy, rejoice, or enjoy occur 13 times. It is anything but a kill-joy
day. It is God’s great gift to us. And in Ezekiel 20 and again in Ezekiel 22 God says that
it makes Him sad when we despise what God intended for our delight.
“find wives for your sons
and give your daughters in marriage”
Jer. 29:6
“that each of you should know
how to acquire his own vessel [wife]
in sanctification and honor.”
1 Thess. 4:4
“a prudent wife is from the LORD.”
Prov. 19:14
“This is what the LORD commands
concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying,
‘Let them marry whom they think best,
but they may marry only within the family of their father’s tribe.’”
Numb. 36:6
only in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 7:39
Chapter 2
Surveying The Biblical Options
Let’s avoid reductionism
The five Scriptures to the left expose the fallacy of reductionists. Some
reductionists insist on the “freedom” of seeking a wife without any
parental involvement, while others have presented a paradigm of
parentally guided betrothal. Some emphasize the Lord’s choice of a
spouse so heavily that they become passive, waiting for a spouse to drop
out of heaven (so to speak), while others do not seek the Lord’s guidance
enough. Obviously, God should be in the equation (Prov. 19:14), parents
should ordinarily be involved in the process for both sons and daughters
(Jer. 29:6), sons should usually be active in the process of taking wives
(1Thes. 4:4; Jer. 29:6a), and daughters should have a choice in the matter
too (Numb. 36:6). The ideal is to have all four perfectly matched, as in
the following diagram.
But what happens if parents do not have the
mind of the Lord? What happens if parents
believe that a son or daughter should not get
married? What happens in the case of
fornication? What happens if the man, the
woman, and the parents all want the marriage
to happen, but the church rightly points out
that the marriage is unlawful? What happens
if there are no parents? Though this is ordinarily an issue between
families, there are times when both church and state may be appealed to
or must step in to help. We live in an imperfect world, and the Bible
shows the flexibility to be able to handle every circumstance that we
might face.
For example, the way two young people search for a marriage partner
(Gen. 2:21-25; Ps. 45; 1Cor. 7:36-37) might look different from the
pursuit of marriage by an older man and widow (Ruth 3-4; 1Cor. 7:39).
Likewise, the process of a master and a female slave getting married (Ex.
21:7-11) will likely take a somewhat different route than the marriage of
two young people who are under the authority of their parents (Ps. 45;
1Cor. 7:33-38), though neither marriage should be a forced marriage, and
all of the Biblical principles we will look at under “form” must be
followed.5 Since the master acts in a parental capacity with a slave (see
Gal. 4:1-2; Gen. 14:14; 17:23), he is in the unusual situation of marrying
someone under his authority to another person under his authority (Ex.
20:9). This is quite different than two families negotiating a marriage for
their respective children. It is my contention that the Bible presents more
than one model for finding a spouse, though the universal principles (the
form) apply to all. The following are some of the models that I see in
Scripture:
Marriages without courtship or betrothal
Model 1 – Arranged Marriage Without Betrothal
There are times when sons and daughters think so much like their parents
and/or matchmaker that they are able to get married to the one selected
for them without a courtship or betrothal. While the Bible is against
forced marriages as well as marriages that are contracted while the
children cannot give informed consent, it does present arranged
marriages as one viable option. This is still the preferred option in many
countries. Of course, all marriages need to be willingly entered into by
both the man and the woman or it is not a “covenant” (Mal. 2:14; Prov.
2:17). But on this model the bride and groom are not involved in the
search for a spouse. This was the situation with Adam and Eve (Gen.
2:21-25). God gave them to each other and they got married the same
day they met. It could be argued that since God was a perfect parent He
should not be considered a model for how marriages of sinners and by
sinners are conducted. But the fact of the matter is that marriages could
be lawfully covenanted in this way. Examples of such marriages are:
Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:21-25), Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 24), Onan and
5
Note that the marriage of a master to a slave mentioned in Exodus 21:7-11 implies 1)
the agreement of the slave girl to this marriage covenant (note the reference to “marriage”
in v. 10, which is always a covenant or an agreement between two parties, and the phrase
“he has dealt deceitfully with her” in v. 8, implying a covenant promise), 2) that once she
is married she can no longer be considered a slave (v. 9), 3) that she has full marriage
rights as if she had been a former free woman (vv. 9-11), and 4) that this is clearly a sin
on the part of the master (“he has dealt deceitfully with her”). In connection with point 4,
it is important to distinguish between what is a sin and what is a crime. Not all sins are
crimes. There are many divorces that were sins but were not crimes. The civil
government only steps in when a divorce happens to ascertain that the divorce meets the
minimum civil requirements. In this case, it is lawful in terms of civil law, but is unlawful
in terms of personal sin. We should never confuse sin and crime in our exegesis of
Scripture.
Tamar (Gen. 38:8), and Ishmael’s marriage arranged by his mother (Gen.
21:21). While this was not the normal practice in the Bible, there were
circumstances that warranted not having a prolonged waiting period.
Model 2 – Marriage of Necessity.
The Levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10; cf. Gen. 38:8-11; Ruth 3:9-4:13;
Matt. 22:23-28) involved an obligation to marry that did not require
courtship or betrothal. The only decision that was made was whether to
reject the marriage or not (Deut. 25:7-10; Ruth 4:5-8).6 This marriage
was entered for two reasons: 1) to raise a seed for the dead brother, and
2) to redeem the widow out of very difficult circumstances. In the
situation of Ruth, she had two options: Boaz and an unnamed “close
relative.” Obviously Ruth was hoping for Boaz, but the text seems to
indicate that in these dire circumstances, either one would have been a
good choice. This again illustrates that courtship and betrothal were not
considered absolutely necessary prior to marriage. However, it should be
emphasized that there was no forced marriage, or it would not have been
a true marriage covenant, which implies a mutual agreement to marry.
Both Deuteronomy 25 and Ruth 4 show that there was a way out of such
a marriage.
Model 3 – Marriage to a Slave.
The marriage of a master to a slave who had been captured in war could
have been a tremendous blessing to the slave (see Deut. 20:14 with
21:10-14; and by analogy Ezek. 16:1-14). Though Deuteronomy 21
indicates that conversion was required before marriage, and the time for
mourning and conversion was set at one month,7 there is no indication
6
As we will see later, Boaz made an informal betrothal commitment that lasted less than
one day. It was a contract, but not a covenant. If the other relative had agreed to marry
Ruth, there would have been no need for a betrothal to him. It could have been concluded
that same day.
7 The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge says of verses 12-13, “This was a token of
renouncing her religion, and becoming a proselyte to that of the Jews. This is still a
custom in the East: when a Christian turns Mohammedan, his head is shaved, and he is
carried through the city, crying, la eelah eela allah wemochammed resoolu’lahee, ‘There
is no God but THE God, and Mohammed is the prophet of God.’” If this interpretation is
not taken, then Deuteronomy 21 blatantly contradicts such passages as Deuteronomy
22:13-19,28-29; 24:1-4, Ezra 10:1-16, Nehemiah 13:23-30, and Malachi 2:14-16. The
permission to marry a foreigner could only be in a situation similar to Rahab’s, who
voluntarily renounced idolatry and embraced Yahweh. The Old Testament did not forbid
intermarriage with other nationalities. Rather it forbade intermarriage with other faiths.
that there was a courtship or an extended betrothal required. The
description of God’s bride in Ezekiel 16:1-14 seems to be an application
of this passage: 1) Israel was treated as being a foreigner from an enemy
people, with the father being an Amorite and the mother being a Hittite
(v. 2), 2) Israel was rescued from destruction (vv. 5-6), 3) the rescued
girl was young enough to meet the requirements of the law (vv. 4-6), 4)
Israel was a woman without property, 5) as she grew God saw that she
was beautiful, 6) and verses 8-9 discuss an entering into the covenant of
marriage, which is “the time of love” when his garment covered her
nakedness. Both passages almost treat it as an act of charity. However, it
must be strongly insisted upon that both parties would have needed to
agree to the marriage or it would not be a covenant agreement (see Ezek.
16:3,8 where God enters into an oath and covenant with his bride).
Model 4 – Marriage after Fornication.
What should a father do when his daughter has been lured into
fornication? The Bible gives two options. Exodus 22:16-17 did not
require marriage, since the father could refuse to give her to the young
man (v. 17). But at the same time, it is clear that the father and daughter
were in a legal position to force the young man to marry (v. 16). In the
case of Shechem and Dinah (Gen. 34:1-31), Jacob gave permission for
Shechem to marry Dinah, and Shechem immediately took her to his
house (see v. 26). One reason there was no courtship or betrothal was
because fornication jumped the gun and missed the whole purpose for
courtship and betrothal that we will discuss below. The point of listing
this is to demonstrate the flexibility Scripture has to meet all situations.
Marriages with betrothal alone
Model 5 – Marriage of Economic Necessity.
Not all slave marriages were without betrothal. Exodus 21:7-11 discusses
marriage of a master to his slave after “he had betrothed her to himself.”
The courtship was obviously not necessary to get to know the woman
since the master dealt with the woman and had gotten to know her quite
well. The woman was a slave because of debt, and the dowry was the
release of the debt to the parents. This economic negotiation necessitated
a betrothal. Notice that the betrothal was just as binding on the master as
Christ’s own genealogy has examples of Gentiles who became Jews: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth
and Bathsheba.
a betrothal would be to a non-slave. If he broke the betrothal, she was a
free woman (v. 8) and the master would lose the dowry of the forfeited
debt. Once married to the woman, he could not treat her as a slave since
she had all the liberties of a married free woman (vv. 9-10), the debt
forgiveness being the bride price.8 Again, both the betrothal and the
marriage covenant require that she enter into this voluntarily. There is no
such thing as a valid “shot-gun” marriage in the bible. Though we do not
have slaves in America, there are applications that can be made from the
lesser (the slave) to the greater (the free). For example, this passage
clearly teaches that any abuse equal to or greater than the abuse
described in verse 10 was grounds for divorce. One application that
could be made to courtship and betrothal is that courtship is not
necessary if two people have grown up together and the families know
the couple quite well. There is no reason why such a couple could not
move immediately to betrothal if they so desired.
Model 6 – Arranged Marriage with betrothal.
A sixth model shown in the Bible is for free people to enter into arranged
marriages. Some examples would be the promised hand of Merab in
marriage to whoever would slay Goliath in 1 Samuel 17:25, the betrothal
of Merab to David in 1 Samuel 18:17 (which betrothal Saul broke), the
subsequent giving of Merab to Adriel (v. 19), and the betrothal of David
to Michal in 1 Samuel 18:21-27 (with 2 Sam. 3:14). Though there are
likely others, I cannot prove that they were without courtship. Many such
marriages have been entered into using this model in the last few years,
and for the most part they have been successful.
Marriages after courtship and betrothal
Model 7 – Courtship and Betrothal.
It is the assumption of this book that the vast majority of betrothals were
contracted only after the parents and the potential bride and groom had
engaged in sufficient research to make them convinced that the marriage
would be a good one. As we will see, courtship involves researching and
8
Note that verse 7 does not conflict with Deuteronomy 15:12 because she was being sold
for marriage. Deuteronomy 15:12 is clear that both male and female slaves were set free
in six years, but Exodus 21:7 says that she did not go free in the sixth year. The reason
she did not go free was because she was purchased for marriage. The debt was forgiven
in place of a dowry, and since marriage is permanent, her place in his household was
permanent.
“seeking” the right spouse while betrothal is a commitment to marry.
And there is ample evidence that research was engaged in by both
parents and children. Even daughters were normally expected to think
through the implications of whom they would marry. For example, the
law of Moses said of the daughters of Zelophehad, “Let them marry
whom they think best” (Numb. 36:6). It is this last option that is the
safest way of finding a wife, the most common way of finding a wife,
and the way designed to prepare the couple to start their marriage solid
and strong. The rest of the book will seek to demonstrate that this is the
case.
“find wives …”
Jer. 29:6
“who can find a virtuous wife?”
Prov. 31:10
“he who finds a wife”
Prov. 18:22
“Let them [the daughters of Zelophehad]
marry whom they think best…”
Numb. 36:6
“Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released.
Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.”
1 Cor. 7:27 TNIV
only in the Lord.”
1 Cor. 7:39
Chapter 3
Clearly Defining Our Terms - Courtship
It is very easy for disagreements to happen simply because terms mean
different things to different people. Since “courtship” is not a term that is
used in the Bible, it is hard to insist on one definition. Indeed, since there
are so many different versions of courtship circulating in Christian
circles,9 I have been tempted to come up with a totally different word that
9
Some definitions of courtship that I disagree with:
Jonathan Lindvall: "A romantic relationship between a young man and woman in which
both were of marriageable age, had the full blessing of their parents, and were seriously
contemplating marriage." As Lindvall later lamented, this definition was inadequate and
could easily define dating.
Joshua Harris: "Dating with a purpose; friendship plus possibility; and romance
chaperoned by wisdom." A relationship with a clearly defined direction. "A reformed
version of dating under the supervision of parents between a man and a woman who are
ready for marriage in the near future."
Robert Andrews: “From the outside courting may look a lot like the old dating game…
But unlike dating, they know that they are contemplating marriage, and the restrictions on
physical contact still hold. The couple is still conscious of the fact that they have no
ownership of the other, and they must continue to guard their hearts. There is no
commitment at this point. The fathers must give constant oversight… The purpose of
courtship is evaluation, not preparation…” Robert Andrews, The Family: God’s Weapon
of Victory (Rice, WA: Sentinel Press, 1995), p. 253. Though this is much closer to my
definition, as we will see, his allowance for too much physical intimacy during courtship
and betrothal mars his approach.
Planet Papers: “courtship is a reformed version of dating under the supervision of
parents between a man and a woman who are ready to marry in the near future.”
Wikipedia: “the wooing of a female by a male, includes activities such as dating (dinner
and a movie, a picnic, or general "hanging out"), along with other forms of activity, such
as meeting online (also known as virtual dating), chatting on-line, sending text messages
or picture messages, conversing over the phone, writing each other letters, and sending
each other flowers, songs, and gifts. Courting usually involves getting to know the family
(especially the parents) of the one you are courting. Most of the time courting will be
done somewhere public, to lower the chances of anything going on between the couple.”
Some definitions of courtship that I basically agree with:
Gothard: “A father’s agreeing to work with a qualified young man to win his daughter
for marriage.”
Thompson: Courtship - A stage/period in Scriptural Romance prior to Betrothal.
Courtship constitutes the process of investigating a person with marriage in mind:
evaluating character, values, beliefs, practices, interests & life purpose to ensure a godly
match. There is to be no physical contact and no developing of romance/emotional ties
could describe the period of seeking a spouse that occurs before
betrothal. I would like a word that means “pre-romance-investigation,”
or “pre-betrothal-consideration,” but have not found one. So for lack of a
better term, I am importing the Biblical concepts of that period of time
into my definition of courtship. I believe that some of the variation in
definitions occurs because the Bible gives a great deal of liberty and
latitude within boundaries. However, in many cases “courtship” is
simply a conservative backlash against loose dating: it is an attempt to
move the clock back to Emily Post or the nineteenth century. But the
traditions of men are not helpful to those who want to be Biblical,
whether those traditions are relatively new or relatively old. In this book
I will be disagreeing with the activities that Robert Andrews allows
within “courtship.” It is my contention that Andrews has not defined
courtship carefully enough from the Bible. He has allowed cultural
definitions to fill in the gaps in his knowledge and this has led to
significant errors.
What courtship is not:
Courtship is not “Reformed dating”
Joshua Harris’ approach to courtship has been labeled by some as “safe
dating,” or “Reformed dating.” It is dating with parental supervision,
with cautions on purity, and with serious intent to discover a marriage
partner, but it is still dating. Robert Andrews’ approach, while slightly
different, also amounts to a kind of careful Reformed dating. I see no
evidence that the Bible allows for anything close to what has been
described as dating. Here are the contrasts that I see between the two:
during this period. Parents first investigate, followed by more detailed investigation by
the young people themselves, generally within family settings.
Myers: Courtship - consists of three main elements: 1) accountability to parents and
other trusted adults; 2) building each other’s character rather than focusing on physical
attraction; and 3) waiting to develop serious relationships until you are ready to get
married.
Barth: Courtship - "a process by which a mature young man or young lady of
marriageable age, along with their parents, seek to discern their God-given life partner. It
involves the parents or authorities on both sides and yet allows for feelings and
discernment from both of the young people involved."
Raunikar: Courtship – a relationship / process begun with full approval of both sets of
parents (or an accountability couple if not possible) with the intent to consider marriage,
and to become acquainted through family and group activities.
Definition
Age &
preparation
Relation to
family
authority
Purpose
Who plans?
View of
oversight
Privacy
DATING
COURTSHIP
“Dating is a shared event
between a male and a female …
with no commitment to one
another and who are themselves
primarily responsible for their
own supervision while on the
date.” (Price) “Temporary
romantic relationship focused on
current enjoyment/pleasure
without future commitments;
usually one of series of
relationships” (Richard Anthony)
Most teens start dating long
before they have intentions to
marry, and before they have the
necessary resources for marriage.
“Courtship ordinarily constitutes
the paternally supervised process
used by two families to keep their
children pure while they seek the
will of the Lord by testing the
evidence for their suitability for
marriage to each other, with no
deliberate promotion of romance
or romantic touch.”
The couple meets on their own
initiative, with minimal
supervision (perhaps a curfew or
asking where they are going) and
often without the need for
approval. (May later request
permission of father to get
engaged.)
Rarely do people date with the
upfront stated intention of
marriage. In fact, this would
usually scare would-be daters
away. Purpose is usually casual
recreation, fun, pleasure with no
strings attached.
Date is usually planned by the
youths themselves, or sometimes
is not even planned (more
dangerous).
Oversight, chaperoning is
resented as being an intrusion of
privacy.
Complete privacy is permitted by
parents and it is usually expected
“Entered into only after full
preparation for marriage is
finished: spiritually, financially,
etc.” (Prov. 24:27; Gen. 29:18;
Gen. 34:12; Ex. 22:16,17; Deut.
22:28,29; 1 Sam. 18:25; etc.)
The man seeks the approval of the
woman’s father before courting.
Supervision by the fathers of the
couple is present throughout. (1
Cor. 7:36-38; Ex. 22:16,17; Gen.
2:22)
Purpose is always with the serious
intent to pursue marriage, or at
least to talk through issues to see
if marriage is suitable to both.
(Ruth 2:1; 1 Cor. 7:36-38)
Courtship is planned by parents
with the cooperation & consent of
son/daughter (Judg 14:1-7; 1Cor.
7:36-38)
Oversight, chaperoning is
required and welcomed by the
couple for moral protection.
(Deut. 22:15,17,19; 1 Cor 7:3638; Judges 14:4,7; Hos. 2:19,20;
Gen. 34:9)
Complete privacy is disallowed
and avoided during the courtship
DATING
by the couple who is dating.
Physical
Physical affection that arouses
sexual desires is allowed and
expected as being normal.
Nature of
love
emphasized
Tends to emphasize eros love
(romance) and phileo love
(friendship). Thus, whether one
has the right feelings or has
“fallen in love,” tends to be
determinative of whether this is
Mr. or Mrs. right.
Why do
they break
up?
Any # of reasons. However, loss
of romantic feelings (“Am I
really in love?”) or presence of
disagreements tend to be major
cause. The lack of objective
criteria makes it confusing to
know if this person is right for
them.
Safety
Heart is wounded with emotional
scars, bitterness, insecurity from
past breakups. This is especially
true of women, but can be true of
men as well. Men who “scope
out the landscape” can raise false
hopes.
Conscience
Conscience is almost always
defiled and/or seared through
increasing foreplay.
Sometimes there is much
baggage from past romantic
(sexual) relationships, emotional
bonds, unrealistic standards of
comparison and appetite that has
been generated for variety and
change. Some authorities believe
this “trial” mentality sets people
up for divorce.
Baggage in
marriage
COURTSHIP
period. Chaperoned time together
allows the couple to freely discuss
worldview issues. (Judg 14)
Physical affection that arouses
sexual desires is reserved entirely
for marriage. (Judg 14:1-10; 1
Cor. 7:1; Rom. 3:14; 2 Tim. 2:22;
1 Tim. 5:2; 1 Thes. 4:1-8)
Tends to focus on agape love
(self-giving) and phileo love
(friendship), though feelings are
obviously present too.
Commitment based, not feelings
based. See 1Thes. 4:1-8; 1 Tim.
5:2. More realistic expectation
for the sacrificial love needed in
marriage (Eph. 5:22-33)
Disagreements are worked out
through Biblical problem solving,
not breakup. Feelings are not as
important as fundamental
worldview issues, unfaithfulness,
disapproval of parents, whether
the other person is mature enough
or in other ways ready for
marriage. (1 Thes. 4:1-8; Matt.
1:18-19; etc.)
Ordinarily, the heart is protected
by one romance for life. Because
of the involvement of parents, and
the upfront nature of courtship,
people don’t need to experiment
with multiple people to “scope out
the landscape” before they are
betrothed. (1 Cor 7:34; etc)
Conscience is more easily kept
pure. 1 Thes. 4:1-8; 1 Tim. 5:2;
Hos. 2:19,20
Free from the baggage of dating.
The relationship starts with
commitment to the Lord and to
honoring each other. (1 Thes. 4:4;
Hos. 2:19,20)
Courtship is not mandated
A second thing that is important to clarify is that courtship is not
mandated in Scripture. I am not comfortable with a view that claims the
Bible mandates courtship or betrothal, since God Himself gave no
courtship or betrothal time for Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:21-25), and other
marriages were lawfully covenanted without either (Gen. 24; 1 Sam.
25:35-44). I am not comfortable with a definition of courtship that is
either more restrictive than the Bible or less restrictive. So, though I
recommend courtship as the best and easiest way to implement all of the
Biblical principles that we will look at, I do not see it as a Scriptural
mandate. Rather, courtship is my attempt at describing what usually
happened in the Biblical finding of a spouse.
Courtship is not a parents-only activity
By courtship I do not simply mean an activity of the parents that leaves
the potential groom and bride as passive spectators or timid participants.
Though parents on occasion have the authority to mandate a marriage
(cf. Ex. 22:16-17), and though it is lawful to bypass courtship and
betrothal altogether (Gen. 2:21-25; 24:64-67; Ezek. 16:1-14), courtship
implies a healthy relationship in which the parents and the children are
all maturely seeking the Lord’s will (see chart on page 15). Certainly the
Bible speaks of the man as taking initiative in this process. It speaks of
him seeking a wife (1 Cor. 7:27),10 finding a wife (Prov. 18:22; 31:10)
and taking a wife (Gen. 28:1,6; Lev. 21:7,13). It is this process of
seeking and finding (courtship) that enables the young man to finally
decide that he will take her as a wife, which leads to either betrothal or
immediate marriage. Nor did the potential bride only have veto power.
Though she certainly possessed such a right (Gen. 24:58; Nub. 36:6;
Deut. 25:7-9), it is also clear that God expected the women to be
prayerfully considering “whom they think best” to marry (Numb. 36:6; 1
Cor. 7:28,39). Though the parents oversee the process, the young couple
must be fully involved in the evaluation for it to constitute courtship.
The text says, “Do not seek a wife” under the temporary circumstances being
discussed. But that is clearly in contrast with the ordinary process of seeking a wife when
such persecution is absent. For a detailed discussion of the controversy of “seeking” see
pages 37ff.
10
Courtship is not a couple-only activity
However, courtship may not ordinarily exclude the parents in the
process.11 The normal pattern was for fathers to “find wives for your sons
and give your daughters in marriage” (Jer. 29:6). They were very
involved in the process, often initiating the process.12 Though the young
man and woman are doing the courting, it is the parents who determine
what that will look like – especially the parents of the bride. Scripture is
quite clear that the father has authority over his daughter until the day of
marriage (1 Cor. 7:36-40; Ex. 22:17). He even has the authority to refuse
to give her in marriage (Gen. 24:41; 1Cor. 3:37-3813). The law is quite
clear that “if he utterly refuses to give her to him” there is nothing that
either party can do to overrule the father’s decision (Ex. 22:17). Thus, a
young man who is seeking to court his daughter must abide by her
father’s rules of courtship. The young man cannot in any way undermine
the father’s authority. This pulling of the woman back and forth in a tug
of war between two authorities has proved disastrous in many
relationships. When the man encourages the girl to buck her father’s
authority he is teaching her to undermine his own authority once he is
married. So how does a young man show initiative if the father has total
authority? He can show initiative in two ways. First, he can show
initiative by courting the father, honoring the father, demonstrating his
character to the father, and winning the trust of the father. There is no
better way of winning the trust of a daughter than winning the trust of a
father. Second, once the father trusts the young man sufficiently, he may
ask the man to propose some ways in which he might show leadership to
the daughter during the courtship. This is a great test of the young man’s
character and initiative and will help to show to the girl whether this is
the kind of leadership that she wants to be under for the rest of her life.
We will discuss this in more detail later, but the bottom line is that
courtship is not merely asking the father if you can go out on a date and
then determining for yourself everything else that happens. Ordinarily
the whole courtship is supervised and directed by the father. This of
11
Obviously when no parents exist, or when the couple is much older (as in the case of
Boaz and Ruth), some flexibility can be seen. But even there, propriety dictated that
others be involved.
12 Note that it isn’t just the father of the groom who can initiate investigation
13 “But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over
his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he
will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well,
and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.” (NASB)
course does not rule out negotiations (Gen. 24; 48; 1 Sam. 18:17-30) and
communication (Gen. 48; Judges 14:7) prior to betrothal, but it is a
warning to a young man to not take authority prematurely.
Courtship is not something that warrants congratulations
Fourth, courtship is not a stage in the acquisition of a spouse that calls
for congratulations. Though courtship implies that both are interested
enough in each other to consider whether marriage might be a possibility,
a courtship should be called off as soon as they discover that they are not
interested in marriage, even if that means calling off the courtship after
the first interview. This is not akin to going steady. Courtship is purely
for the purpose of discovering the Lord’s will on the matter, and
discovering His will to the satisfaction of the young man, the young
woman, and both sets of parents. As soon as all parties are convinced
that this is of the Lord, they should proceed to betrothal (recommended)
or marriage (optional).
Courtship is not necessarily a once-only experience
But this of course means that a man may have to court more than one
woman before he decides whom he is going to marry. If he gains
permission from a father to court the daughter it is assumed that the
father already approves of the young man sufficiently to move things
forward. But what if the young woman objects to marriage after a month
of getting to know him? Or what if the father discovers circumstances
about the man that warrant him not approving of the marriage (1Cor.
7:36-38)? And what if the young man finds something biblically
objectionable in the young woman after one week? That courtship would
be off, freeing them up to pursue a courtship with a different person.
Courtship is not a commitment for life like betrothal is. It is a serious
testing to discover if marriage is the will of God.
Courtship is not the time intended for developing romance, though if
all things go well, romantic love will inevitably start.
Courtship should not be seen as the time for deliberately developing
romance. Though the process of courtship will often lead to feelings of
romance (see 1Sam. 18:20 for an example of early romance), the purpose
of courtship is not to fan the flames of romance but to see if romance
should be pursued. During courtship, the couple should seek to be as
objective as possible in order to carefully evaluate the evidence of
whether God would have them marry. Too often the emotions of
premature romance cloud the judgment and make couples believe that
their love for each other will compensate for major “red flags” that
would (on better judgment) preclude marriage. If romance develops too
early, the heart is given away before there are adequate grounds for
either the parents or the couple to approve on a Biblical basis. But having
said that, it is impossible to keep all feelings out of the equation as a
courtship progresses – especially if there is every indication that God is
leading the couple to marriage. It is not that it would be wrong to have
romantic love begin to develop in courtship; it is that this is not the
purpose. The purpose is to discover quickly if romance should develop.
What courtship is:
Having cleared the deck of possible misunderstandings of my position,
let me try to define what I mean by courtship. The purpose for defining
courtship is not to tell others how they can use the word. Anyone is free
to define terms as they please, so long as those terms are not Biblical
terms. But to avoid misunderstandings, it is imperative that I give a clear
definition of what I mean. I believe this definition will enable those who
choose the courtship/betrothal route to avoid pitfalls and to follow all of
the Biblical principles that we will discuss later in the book.
Definition
This book is not being written with any other definition of courtship in
mind, and it should be judged on the basis of this definition - “Courtship
ordinarily constitutes the paternally supervised process used by two
families to keep their children pure while they seek the will of the Lord
by testing the evidence for their suitability for marriage to each other,
with no deliberate promotion of romance or romantic touch.” Let’s
examine each of the parts of this definition against the touchstone of
Scripture.
Flexibility
The first operative word in the definition is “ordinarily.” As we have
already seen, courtship is an option, not a mandate (See Gen. 2:21-25;
24:1ff; 38:8; Ex. 22:17-16; Deut. 20:14; 21:10-14; 25:5-10; Ruth 3-4;
etc.). If two families are in full agreement that they want to bypass
courtship, I am fully supportive. Since the only purpose of courtship is to
discover whether the two people should get married, there is no point in
going through courtship if that conclusion has already been reached.
Tightly knit families who have grown up together may not need a
courtship, or may only need a very short courtship. A man and a woman
like Boaz and Ruth may have already seen all they needed to see to make
an informed decision without courtship.
However, it is rather rare that the courtship period of investigation can be
bypassed without missing a lot. If you do not know the other person’s
character issues, leadership style, personal disciplines, worldview,
calling, work competencies, ability to handle finances, abilities as a
peacemaker, theological soundness, etc., then it is likely that you need a
period of courtship to talk through those things. Ordinarily courtship is
an extremely helpful thing before any lifelong commitment is made
(betrothal).
Paternal Supervision
The next part of the definition indicates that courtship should ordinarily
be “paternally supervised.” This is a key difference between courtship
and dating. Adam and Eve did not select each other apart from the
supervision of their Father (Gen. 2:22). Paul makes clear that this Edenic
romance stands as a paradigm for marriage today.14 Just as the Father
gave Eve to Adam, the Father gave the bride to Christ (John 6:36; 1Cor.
1:9), and as one receiving authority from the Father, Paul acts in a
fatherly way presenting a chaste bride to Jesus (2Cor. 11:2). Ordinarily it
was the father who initiated and supervised the getting of a wife (Gen.
21:21; 38:6; Ex. 22:16-17; Judges 14:1-2,10; Ezra 9:12; Jer. 29:6; Matt
22:2; 24:38; Luke 17:27; 20:34,35; 1 Cor. 7:36-38; cf. John 6:44; 17:6),
though there were other forms of supervision that were practiced when
the father was not alive (Gen. 24:1-41; 29:18-19; 41:45; Ruth 2-3). 1
Corinthians 7:36-38 indicates that the father of the bride continues to
have full authority to permit or not permit a wedding. Exodus 22:17 roots
this in the law. But the parents of the groom were also responsible to
give their guidance and to “take” wives for their sons (Gen. 2:22; 21:21;
24:3,37; 28:1,6; cf. John 6:44; 17:6). This was so thoroughly engrained
in the thinking of Israelites that even a compromised older man like
Samson didn’t dare to court a lady apart from the supervision of his
parents (Judges 14), though he may no doubt have wanted to (see the
compromises with the prostitute in Judges 16). R. J. Rushdoony gives an
interesting insight into this “paternal supervision” by giving the
definition of the words “bridegroom” and “father-in-law” in the Hebrew:
14
As examples, see 1Cor. 11:9-13; 1Tim. 2:13-14
…the Hebrew word for bridegroom means “the circumcised,” the
Hebrew word for father-in-law means he who performed the
operation of circumcision, and the Hebrew word for mother-in-law
is similar. This obviously had no reference to the actual physical
rite, since Hebrew males were circumcised on the eighth day. What
it meant was that the father-in-law ensured the fact of spiritual
circumcision, as did the mother-in-law, by making sure of the
covenantal status of the groom. It was their duty to prevent a mixed
marriage. A man could marry their daughter, and become a
bridegroom, only when clearly a man under God.15
The Biblical evidence for the father’s authority in this matter was so
strong that it was not questioned in the church until recent times.
Turtullian (150-220 AD) said, “even upon earth, indeed, sons do not
legitimately marry without the consent of their fathers.”16 In 370 AD
Basil said in Canon XLII, “Slaves marrying without the consent of their
masters, or children without consent of their fathers, it is not matrimony
but fornication, till they ratify it by consenting.”17 These were
declarations that marriage was not made by a sexual act but was made by
a covenant ceremony.18 And more to the point of our current discussion,
the covenant of marriage was under the authority of the parents, and
15
R. J. Rusdhoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 344.
As quoted by Philip Schaff in History of the Christian Church, volume II, p. 164.
17 Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., The Seven Ecumenical Councils (NPNF-2 XIV;
Accordance electronic ed. 14 vols.; New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890),
n.p.
18 That marriage truly is a legally binding “covenant” can be seen from Mal. 2:14 and
Prov. 2:17. It is a common belief that when a man and a woman enter into a one-flesh
relationship that they are married in God’s eyes. However, Exodus 22:17 makes it quite
clear that fornication did not make that couple married, and the law provided that “if her
father utterly refuses to give her to him” (v. 17) the young man had no recourse. He
would have had recourse if he were the new authority in that woman’s life. But until the
two are covenantally married, the father of the girl remains the authority. If it was the
sexual union that made the marriage rather than the covenant vows, then how could
Christ say to the woman at the well that she was not the wife of the man with whom she
was currently committing fornication. He agrees with her that she had no husband: “The
woman answered and said, ‘I have no husband.’ Jesus said to her, ‘You have well said, “I
have no husband,” for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is
not your husband; in that you spoke truly.” (John 4:17-18) Likewise such a view makes
nonsense of the difference between wives and concubines in the Old Testament. (While
concubinage and polygamy were sins in the Old Testament, they were not crimes.) Until
a man and a woman are properly married by family covenant vows, they are living in
fornication and should not consider themselves married.
16
especially the father. While our individualistic age might consider such
language odd, this opinion was seen throughout the church. The
Westminister Assembly wisely recognized this paternal authority as
having exceptions, such as when a father was dead.19 However, the
exceptions ought to reinforce the rule in our minds. God knows nothing
of the unsupervised “dating” culture that started in the 1900s.
Scripture indicates that this principle of paternal oversight was true even
for older women, divorced women, and widowed women. They
ordinarily remained under the authority of their fathers or some other
male relative until they were given in marriage (Gen. 24:41, 29:19; 34:8;
Ex. 22:17; 1Cor. 7:38; etc). Divorced or widowed women either came
under the protective covering of their father (Gen. 38:11; Lev. 22:13), a
son (John 19:25-27), a grandson (1Tim. 5:4), a member of the family
(1Tim. 5:16), a friend of the family (John 19:25-27)20 or—in cases where
the woman was truly “left alone” (1Tim. 5:5)—she could come under the
protective care of an elder (2John; 1Tim. 5:1-19). Such protective care
was considered a blessing. Where there was no protective care of a male
(such as the case of Naomi and Ruth), the kinsman redeemer often
stepped in. While one could argue that widowhood “freed” a woman
from such submission, the pervasive evidence seems to treat the plight of
widowhood as a curse (Ex. 22:24) that needed the protection of law (Ex.
22:22; Deut. 10:18; 14:29; 16:11,14; 24:17,19,20,21; 26:12,13; 27:19),
and which was remedied as soon as possible by marriage (Deut. 25:5;
Ruth; 1Tim. 5:14), or (if meeting the Biblical qualifications) being
employed by and under the authority of the church (1Tim. 5:9-10). In
any case, we are at least arguing in this booklet that paternal supervision
is the ideal for any part of the process leading to marriage. For more
information on this point, see point four under “what courtship is not.”
The original Directory for the Public Worship of God said, “Before that publication of
such their purpose, (if the parties be under age,) the consent of the parents, or others
under whose power they are, (in case the parents be dead,) is to be made known to the
church officers of that congregation, to be recorded. The like is to be observed in the
proceedings of all others, although of age, whose parents are living, for their first
marriage.”
20 It is interesting that Jesus gives His responsibility to care for his mother to his best
friend, John, rather than to his brothers or sisters. The reason is that his brothers were not
believers until after the resurrection (John 7:5; Mark 3:21). On Christ’s close friendship
with John, see John 13:23; 20:2; 21:7; 20:24.
19
Courtship, Betrothal & Marriage Under Family Jurisdiction
The next phrase in the definition says, “Courtship ordinarily constitutes
the paternally supervised process used by two families…” This is seeking
to make it clear that all issues involved from courtship to marriage are
clearly within the jurisdiction of the family and can ordinarily be
concluded without the permission of either church or state. There is no
evidence in Scripture that either the church or the state issued licenses of
any sort.
This does not mean that church or state have no jurisdiction. Both church
and state may and should forbid all marriages that violate Biblical law.
For example, it was lawful for Paul to forbid marriage that violated the
laws of consanguinity and to engage in church discipline when those
laws were violated (1Cor. 5:1-13).21 It was lawful for the church to forbid
divorce that did not meet biblical requirements (1Cor. 7:12-13). Thus to
claim that the church has no jurisdiction over marriage whatsoever is
going too far. Likewise, it was lawful for the state to forbid divorces in
certain circumstances (Deut. 22:19,29) 22 and to mandate divorces in
certain circumstances (Ezra 10).23 So it is clear that the State also has
some limited jurisdiction. Just as the state should not recognize certain
contracts as legally binding contracts (contracts for murder, prostitution,
kidnapping, etc), the state should not recognize certain marriage
covenants as lawful within the state (incestuous marriage, polyandry,
21
The assumption of 2 Corinthians 2:10-11 is that this man got a divorce from the state
before he was restored to the church.
22 Deuteronomy 22:18-19 authorizes “the elders of the city” to impose a law where “he
cannot divorce her all his days.” The question is, “Why?” Deuteronomy 19:16-20 makes
it clear that a false witness should receive the same penalty that the pretended crime
would have deserved. Since the man in Deuteronomy 22:18-19 had falsely accused the
woman of adultery, and since adultery could lawfully lead to either the death penalty
(Lev. 20:10; 21:9) or divorce (Jer. 3:8; Is. 50:1; Matt 1:19), a similar punishment could
be imposed on the man. But giving the woman either penalty would not protect her in the
least. The general equity of Deuteronomy 19:16-20 requires that the punishment protect
the woman, not punish her. Thus the requirement that he could not divorce her all his
days.
23 Since Ezra 10:3 indicates that Ezra judged each case “according to the law” (cf. v. 3),
our interpretation of Ezra 10 should not contradict the regulations concerning divorce and
remarriage found in the Pentateuch. Nowhere in the law is there a mandate that every
foreign woman be divorced. Indeed, God made provision for marriages to foreigners if
they converted (Deut. 20:14; 21:10-14). It seems certain that the foreign wives that the
Jews had to divorce were 1) unbelievers and 2) had been or were currently involved in
criminal behavior. (See my book, Is The Death Penalty Just?) As such they parallel the
situation in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.
homosexual marriage, etc). But there is a vast difference between having
statutory definitions of lawful marriage and setting up a police state that
prevents unlawful marriages by means of a licensing system. The
moment the state tries to prevent sins or crimes (as opposed to punishing
crimes at the petition of citizens) it slides down a pathway into total
control and total tyranny.
Marriage licenses are a modern phenomenon that should be resisted by
Christians.24 For a helpful discussion of the Biblical and practical
problems involved in all forms of civil licensing (medical, food, service,
housing, etc), see E. Calvin Beisner’s book, Prosperity and Poverty: The
Compassionate Use of Resources in a World of Scarcity. There is no
biblical evidence that God ever authorized the state to license anything.
This is certainly true of marriages. If the marriage qualifies as a Biblical
marriage (not within the bounds of consanguinity, not a homosexual
marriage, not a polyandrous marriage, etc) the state and church do not
need to get involved. For example, was the wedding of Isaac to Rebekah
24
Though church licenses went back to the Middle Ages, state-granted licensing is more
recent. In America, licensing was used in the early 1900’s to prohibit whites from
marrying blacks, mulattos, Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Malays, or Filipinos.
These laws have since been declared unconstitutional by the courts. However, contrary to
popular opinion, licensing did pre-date these laws in at least some states. Eleven states
(Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Texas, Utah) and the District of Columbia still recognize common law
marriages as being valid within their borders even when a marriage license is absent.
Common Law marriages contracted in those states will likely be recognized in all other
states. It is illegal to perform common-law marriages (i.e., marriages without a license) in
the following states (where known, dates of specific statutes are included): Alaska
(1917), Arizona (1913), Arkansas, California (1895), Connecticut, Delaware, Florida
(1968), Georgia (1997), Hawaii (1920), Idaho (1996), Illinois (1905), Indiana (1958),
Kentucky (1852), Louisiana (which has French Law, not English Common Law), Maine
(1652 and again in 1820), Maryland, Massachusetts (1646), Michigan (1957), Minnesota
(1941), Mississippi (1956), Missouri (1921), Nebraska (1923), Nevada (1943), New
Mexico (1860), New Jersey (1939), New York (1933, 1902, 1908), North Carolina, North
Dakota (1890), Ohio (1991), Oklahoma (2010), Oregon, Pennsylvania (2005), South
Dakota (1959), Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
(1917), and Wyoming. In the Meister v. Moore case of 1877, the Supreme Court declared
common law marriage to be a right and that state laws and statutes created before or since
are not legal constraints but are “mere directives.” It ruled that Michigan had not
abolished common-law marriage by establishing rules governing the solemnization of
marriages. Though most of the states have routinely ignored this case, it can be appealed
to as a precedent should Christians want to challenge a marriage license law in a given
state. The IRS recognizes common-law marriage if it is recognized by the state where the
taxpayers currently live or in the state where the common-law marriage began.
a church wedding (Gen. 24)? No. Was the state involved? No. It was
clearly a covenant entered into by two heads of household - Abraham the
father of Isaac and Laban the brother of Rebekah. Nor is there the
slightest hint that families had to obtain permission from either church or
state for any other part of courtship, betrothal, or marriage. This does not
mean that citizens are sinning by reluctantly obtaining a marriage license
to avoid problems, but the state itself is overstepping its authority when it
requires marriage licenses. When I perform a wedding, I do not do so by
the authority of the state or by the authority of the church, but by the
authority delegated to me by the fathers. My presence is also a tacit
statement by the families that they are not doing anything that would
violate biblical laws governing marriage. Though attempts to break a
marriage covenant can be disciplined by a church and prevented by the
state, the marriage itself is a public covenant between two families.
In Purity
The next part of the definition says, “to keep their children pure…”
Anyone who understands the power of the flesh will immediately
identify with the strong cautions and warnings that the Scriptures give to
young couples during this stage of their search for a wife. It is all too
easy to give in to the cravings of the flesh and to commit fornication.
Modern methods of dating almost guarantee failure in the area of purity.
In 1 Thesalonians 4 Paul discuses this point of purity rather strongly
when he admonishes the Thessalonians on “how to acquire their own
spouse in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the
Gentiles who do not know God” (vv. 4-5). He wanted the methods for
acquiring a wife to be conformed to Scripture, not the customs of culture.
We will later give a detailed exposition of verses 1-8.
Seeking the Will of God
The next part of the definition says, “while they seek the will of the
Lord.” Proverbs 14:19 says “a prudent wife is from the LORD.” If a
good wife is from the Lord, it means that those who seek a good wife
during courtship must be studying His Word and seeking His guidance.
The whole courtship must be God-centered rather than following the
“philosophies” and “principles” of the world (Col. 2:6-8). Marriage
should not be seen simply as a plan for economic advancement. It is to
be seen as the calling of God for two individuals to be committed to each
other for life. Both individuals must seek God’s guidance and the parents
should seek God’s guidance on their behalf. In the case of Adam and
Eve, both had the same parent, and that parent happened to be God, so
the guidance was clear. In the case of Isaac and Rebekah, God’s
guidance was clearly given to the servant and the parents of the bride
(Gen. 24, especially verses 40,48-52), but neither Isaac nor Rebekah
acted on the guidance until they were convinced in their own mind that
this was from God. Rebekah said, “I will go” (v. 58) and only after “the
servant told Isaac all the things that he had done” (v. 66) did Isaac decide
to marry her (v. 67). The Puritan writer Richard Baxter wisely said, “…if
the consent of the parents be necessary, much more is the consent of
God.”25
Before I move on, I need to correct a tendency in some circles to pit trust
in God in finding a mate against active seeking. Tom Houck is one of
many who advocate total passivity as they trust God to bring a spouse to
their doorstep. In a chapter titled, “Finding vs. Searching for a Mate,”
Pastor Tom says that when Scripture speaks of finding a wife (Prov.
18:22) it is not advocating seeking a wife. He says, “think of it more as a
surprise discovery rather than the results of effort put into searching.”26
He gives two illustrations to try to prove that we should not put effort
into searching for a spouse. The first is from the parable of the growing
seed in Mark 4. Hauck says,
After he plants it, it doesn’t matter if he sleeps or is awake, the seed
sprouts and the man doesn’t have to even know how it does that. It
is not knowing how it will happen that makes it happen; it is just
believing it will.27
His second illustration is of God’s bringing a spouse to Adam. He says,
In God’s pattern for marriage, as found in Genesis, chapter two,
what did Adam do to find his mate? What was he doing just before
he met Eve? He was sleeping – not searching, but sleeping. Sleeping
represents trust and peace. Adam didn’t have to search for Eve, God
brought her to him.28
He also believes that Paul forbids searching for a spouse in 1 Corinthians
7:32-35. He says,
25
Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory (Ligonier, Pennsylvania: Soli Deo Gloria
Publications, 1990), p. 395.
26 Tom Hauck, Parenting for Purity (Zondervan: Pleasant Word, 2006), p. 75.
27 Hauck, Parenting, p. 77.
28 Hauck, Parenting, p. 77.
Searching isn’t biblical because it doesn’t match with God’s call for
being single. It doesn’t allow the undivided, undistracted devotion
to the Lord required in 1 Corinthians 7:35. A searcher’s interest is
divided and he/she cannot give one hundred percent to God.29
There are five problems with this approach to Scripture. First, to pit
divine sovereignty against human responsibility is hyper-Calvinism and
is not Biblical. Scripture indicates that a total trust in God frees us up to
act upon our responsibilities. For example, Philippians 2:12-13 says
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my
presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your
own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in
you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
It is the very fact that God makes us willing and actually works in us the
doing of good works that enables us to work at it so diligently. We work
out what God works in. We must never pit divine working against human
working. The first enables the second.
Even his illustrations bear this out. A farmer who does not research,
investigate problems, and work hard at farming will not receive a
harvest. Certainly it is God who gives the farmer life, breath, a farm,
rain, and productive seed. Yet God does not do it apart from man’s
actions. God blesses the farmer with a crop not because he sleeps, but
because the farmer had a future oriented focus on planting, nurturing,
and harvesting. The same was true of Adam. It is simply not correct to
say that Adam did not search. God made all creatures in pairs except for
Adam, and as Adam named the creatures, the implication of the text was
that he was looking for his pair. Notice the “but” of contrast in Genesis
2:20.
So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to
every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper
comparable to him.
He had obviously been looking. God gave him this assignment to name
the animals so that he could notice the disparity of every creature having
a mate except for him. It was deliberate. God was making Adam look.
And this was before the Fall, so we cannot say that what Adam did was
wrong. “But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.”
29
Hauck, Parenting, p. 78.
Third, the Bible over and over calls upon people to search and to seek for
a godly mate. Jeremiah 29:6 commands the remnant in Babylon, “find
wives for your sons” (NIV). Contrary to the claims of Hauck, the
Hebrew word for “find” in Proverbs 18:22 and 31:10 is not a passive
discovery void of seeking. Indeed, in the ancient Septuagint translation
of the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for find (‫ ) ָמצָא‬is almost always
translated with the Greek word hurisko (εὑρισκω), which means, “to
come upon something through a purposeful search” or “to discover
intellectually through reflection, observation, examination, or
investigation, find, discover,”30 Though it can occasionally refer to
something found accidentally, the following Scriptures show that the
word for “find” (‫ ) ָמצָא‬is not at all in contradiction to the words for “seek”
(‫ ָבּקַשׁ‬, or ‫ דָּ ַרשׁ‬or ‫)שָׁ חַר‬
“…if you seek (‫ ) ָבּקַשׁ‬the Lord, you shall find (‫ ) ָמצָא‬him.” (Deut.
4:29)
“…and you will seek (‫ ) ָבּקַשׁ‬me and find (‫ ) ָמצָא‬me when you search
for me with all your heart.” (Jer. 29:13)
“Seek (‫ )דָּ ַרשׁ‬the Lord, while he may be found (‫( ) ָמצָא‬Isa 55:6)
Fourth, Hauck cannot appeal to 1 Corinthians 7 as supporting his claim
that a single must be undistracted from thoughts of a spouse since the
context was not ordinary situations relating to singleness, but a
temporary need “because of this present distress” (v. 26) that would
produce “trouble in the flesh” that Paul wanted to spare them from (v.
28) and was not a universal “commandment from the Lord” (v. 25).
What was a universal commandment was “let each man have his own
wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (v. 2) and what was a
temporary advice was “Do not seek a wife” (v. 27). But even that
temporary command implied that when people were prepared to get
married and the situation was right, it was proper to seek a wife.
Finally, it should be noted that submission to God’s guidance is not
contrasted with marrying someone whom you desire. God’s command to
even women was, “let them marry whom they think best” (Numb. 36:6).
That implies a process of thinking through the issues, not passively
waiting for God’s guidance. Likewise 1 Corinthians 7:39 does not pit
God’s guidance (“in the Lord”) against a person’s personal wishes
(“whom she wishes”). Instead, it says, “A wife is bound by law as long
30
BDAG, 411
as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be
married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” When God gives
“liberty” to seek, it is legalism to condemn such seeking, so long as the
seeking follows biblical principles.
Time of Serious Evaluation of Each Other
The next part of the definition is “by testing of the evidence for their
suitability for marriage...” This is the biggest decision two families will
make, and it is imperative that they seek the mind of the Lord. The
purpose of courtship is not to romance someone who may not end up
becoming your wife. It is not to get physically involved without a
commitment. It is not even to woo the heart of the bride. It is see if God
wants her to be the bride. It is to seek God’s mind on the subject. The
reason Adam did not need to test the evidence of whether Eve should be
his bride was because God had already done that for him (Gen. 2:21-25).
The reason Isaac did not need to test the evidence is because he trusted
his father’s servant to follow instructions and to thoroughly test the
evidence for him (Gen. 24:1-67). But the evidence needs to be tested in
some way before a commitment to marriage is made. Both the man and
the woman need to have the maturity that will enable them to be
spiritually one (Mal. 2:15) and to raise “godly offspring” (Mal. 2:15).
There needs to be evidence that the woman fits the husband’s calling
since she is to be “a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18,20 NASB). This
means that if he is called to be a missionary to headhunters, she needs to
know that. It would not be proper for a woman to marry a man if she is
convinced that she has disabilities that would keep her husband from
pursuing God’s call upon his life. Women who desire to marry men who
might be officers in the church must themselves be developing the
qualities of 1Timothy 3:11; Titus 2:3-5; etc. The main purpose for
courtship is research. It is not (as one person worded it) “a reformed
version of dating.” It is a time of serious investigation, and as soon as the
research shows that they are not meant for each other, it should be called
off. As soon as they know that they are meant for each other, the
relationship should progress to commitment (betrothal). Courtship should
only last as long as the families are undecided.
There are two helpful books that I have written to help in this process of
evaluation. There is a book for men called, Leader Development: A
Mentoring Checklist for Sons and Young Men. This book is divided up
into 32 areas of life with 586 diagnostic questions. Most men will be
growing in these areas all of their lives, so the point of the book is not to
see if a man has arrived, but to serve as a starting point for evaluating the
man’s character qualities, leadership style, worldview, calling,
competencies, etc.
The second book is Mature Daughters: A Mentoring Checklist for
Daughters and Young Women. This book is divided up somewhat
differently, but has 680 diagnostic questions designed to see where a
daughter is at in preparing herself to be a helper to her future husband.
Again, no woman will be finished growing in all of these areas prior to
marriage, but the book helps a person to consider whether the woman is
qualified in some measure to be married.
For the Purpose of Seeking Marriage
The seventh part of the definition has already been implied in the
previous part of the definition, but it is worth emphasizing that the
purpose of courtship is not recreation, fun, good feelings, fellowship, or
an answer to loneliness. Those things will no doubt occur within
courtship, but unlike most dating, there is one central purpose for
courtship – to seriously evaluate whether to marry the one you are
courting. If you are not serious about marriage, you shouldn’t court.
The Bible speaks of the purpose for this period as being to “seek a wife”
(1 Cor. 7:27). When difficult circumstances made it unwise to get
married,31 Paul said that it was just as unwise to court.32 His advice was
that until those circumstances that made marriage unwise were changed
that “it is good for the man to remain as he is” (v. 26) and to “not seek a
wife” (v. 27). But by implication it would also mean that no one should
court until they are ready for marriage financially, spiritually, doctrinally
and in terms of competencies. Without readiness for marriage, the
31
Note that Paul is not making the single life the ideal for all time, but rather the best
option during “this present distress” (v. 26). The Corinthian Christians were undergoing
severe persecution, and Paul wanted to spare them “trouble in the flesh” (v. 28). It was
not a sin for any of them to get married (v. 36), but Paul advised them to wait until times
were a little better. Contrast this advice to wait with Paul’s advice to not wait in
1Timothy 5:14. In that passage Paul gave the norm when he said, “I desire that the
younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, …” We should never pit Paul’s
time-bounded advice in 1 Corinthians 7 against the universal norms of the Creation
Mandate.
32 Remembering our definition of courtship, it is clear that Paul’s statements: “it is good
for a man to remain as he is” (v. 26) and “Do not seek a wife” (v. 38) are statements
advising virgins not to court.
courtship is not serious. Until ready for marriage, virgins should remain
uninvolved in the distractions of relationship (vv. 32-35), and try to
remain focused on “how he may please the Lord (v. 32). Every Biblical
example of a man righteously spending “quality time” with a woman in
whom he was interested was for the purpose of seeking a wife, not
simply for the purpose of fun (See for example Gen. 24:3,4,7,37,38,40;
28:1,2,6; Lev. 21:7,13,14; Deut. 21:11; 22:13; 24:1; Ruth 4; Prov. 18:22;
31:10; Jer. 29:6; etc). This is why young teenagers should not date. They
are not old enough to get married. Avoiding premature marriage (1Cor.
7:28-40) logically rules out entering into premature courtship (vv. 2627).
Concern for the Welfare of the Two Courting
The next part of the definition says, “to each other.” God cares about the
individual needs and interests of both the females (Numb. 36:6; Deut.
25:5-10; Ruth 2-4; 1 Timothy 5:14; 1 Cor. 7:36) and the males (Deut.
21:11; Judges 21:16; Prov. 18:22; 19:14; 1 Cor. 7:9) who are courting.
This is not as much about the parents’ interests and welfare as it is about
the welfare of the two individuals who are courting and the will of God
in their lives. Both of those children were placed by God “under
guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the Father” (Gal.
4:2). As stewards we will be answerable to God for how we treat them
during courtship. Will they come away from the courtship frustrated at
our selfishness or praising God that we were faithful stewards? Though a
father has authority to say “No” to a suitor (Ex. 22:17; 1Cor. 7:37), the
father must be very sure that the “No” is in the best interests of both
young people.33
Sometimes parents have agendas for marrying off their children that are
self-serving rather than stewardship agendas that are seeking the interests
of the children. To marry a daughter off for wealth, position, power,
connections, prestige or anything else that is purely self-serving and not
in the interests of the children is wrong. Both individuals who are
seeking marriage must be convinced that God wants them married. There
It is very important to note in 1 Corinthians 7 that when the father says “No,” and
resolves in his heart to “keep his virgin daughter” that he is not postponing her marriage
too long (v. 36) and it is because it would be in their best interests (v. 26). All the
instructions for singleness were temporary provisions “because of the present distress” (v.
26) and because he wanted to spare them trouble in the flesh from the severe persecution
that was about to happen. This was not an arbitrary “No” on the part of the father, but a
very carefully planned out “No” that was in their best interests.
33
is no Biblical justification for shotgun marriages. There is no Biblical
justification for parents arranging marriages against the wills of their
children. Even though Isaac and Rebekah trusted the guidance that God
gave through other parties (Gen. 24:48-53), and even though that
guidance was rather remarkable (Gen. 24:12-22,40-52), all the parties
who were involved in this courtship knew that Rebekah must still agree
to be married (Gen. 24:39-41,57-58) as must Isaac (Gen. 24:66-67). This
implies that both Rebekah and Isaac were part of this investigation of the
“evidence.” Though the interests of the family do have a bearing (see for
example Numb. 36:1-13), it is still important that the interests of the
individuals not be neglected.
The purpose of the father is not to intimidate or needlessly scare away
suitors. The purpose of the parent is not to hold onto his daughter as long
as he can. The purpose of the parent is to discharge a stewardship trust
before God of facilitating his daughter entering into a godly marriage.
Courtship principles can be used as a tool of blessing or as a club to keep
away all suitors. Make sure that you always keep in mind the welfare of
those who are courting.
Avoiding Most Romantic Actions
The last part of the definition for courtship is the phrase, “with no
deliberate promotion of romance or romantic touch.” Obviously romantic
attachments can easily happen before betrothal (see Genesis 28:19), and
in most circumstances it is impossible to keep one’s heart from becoming
romantically attached during courtship. In fact, it is assumed that some
degree of romantic love will persuade two young people to desire
courtship and eventually to decide to get betrothed. However, that is not
the central purpose of courtship. The central purpose of courtship is to
find out if you should get married, and to that end, it is wise to seek to
protect each other’s hearts during that investigation. Where courtship is
the time for determining whether the couple should lawfully be involved
in romance, betrothal is the time when romance is more fully developed.
We will later discuss the implications of Paul’s command, “It is good for
a man not to touch a woman” (1 Cor. 7:1) We will also discuss the
meaning of the Song of Solomon’s call, “Do not arouse, do not stir up
love before it’s time” (Song. 2:7; 3:5; 8:4). Suffice it to say at this point
that romantic feelings tend to blind a couple from objectivity during this
time of investigation.
Concluding words on courtship.
There are many critics of courtship who say that the word “courtship” is
not in the Bible. That is true. But that is also true of many labels for
Biblical doctrines. For example, though the word for inerrancy is not in
the Bible, the doctrine is. Though the word “Trinity” is not in the bible,
the doctrine clearly is. Though the phrase “hypostatic union” clearly
describes the relationship of Christ’s two natures as taught in the Bible,
the name given to the doctrine does not. We could just as easily call
courtship “seeking a wife” (see 1 Cor. 7:27) or “finding a wife” (Prov.
18:22). The label we use is not as critical as whether the label is being
used to describe Biblical content or man-made content. We have seen
that if we define courtship properly, courtship is clearly a Biblical part of
finding a spouse. It is ordinarily stage one of the seeking-process, with
betrothal ordinarily being stage two.
Wisdom From Wilson
“The modern dating system does not train young people to
form a relationship. It trains them to form a series of
relationships, and further trains them to harden themselves
to the break-up of all but the current one. At the very least,
this system is as much a preparation for divorce as it is for
marriage... Further, the modern recreational dating system
encourages emotional attachments apart from the
protections of a covenant fence... Moreover, the modern
dating system also leaves the father of the young girl
almost entirely out of the picture. The father, who ought to
be protecting his daughter's sexual purity, sends her off
into the dark with some highly interested young man, and
then does what he thinks is his job, which is to worry... And
he should worry, because the modern dating system
expects a certain amount of physical involvement... We
somehow think a godly Christian is one who can pre-heat
the oven without cooking the roast.”
Douglas Wilson, Her Hand in Marriage
“...in Scripture, sons leave, daughters are given. This is the
Scriptural pattern. A son leaves in order to take a wife, and
establish a new home. A daughter is given to a young man
who is establishing such a home. The idea that a girl can get
to the age of 18 or 19, and leave her father's house in order
to be out on her own is not scriptural.”
“The beauty of biblical courtship is that it never leaves
women unprotected.”
And what man is there who is betrothed to a woman
and has not married her?
Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle
and another man marry her.’
Deut. 20:7
‘I remember you,
The kindness of your youth,
The love of your betrothal,
Jer. 2:2
“I will betroth you to Me forever;
Yes, I will betroth you to Me
In righteousness and justice,
In lovingkindness and mercy;
I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness,
And you shall know the LORD.
Hosea 2:19-20
For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy.
For I have betrothed you to one husband,
that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
2 Corinthians 11:2
Chapter 4 – Clearly Defining Our Terms - Betrothal
Is betrothal Biblical?
There are some who claim that it is not biblical to follow the betrothal
model in “New Testament times,” since the “age of grace” has nullified
the Old Testament law.34 There are others who are simply overreacting to
the legalism they have found within the betrothal camp. Some of the
legalism has come by defining betrothal from the Babylonian Talmud
rather than the Bible, failing to realize that the Jewish traditions that they
cite are the “traditions of man” that Jesus castigated in the Sermon on the
Mount, Matthew 19, Matthew 23, and other places. However, just
because betrothal has been abused does not mean we should neglect the
Bible’s teaching on the subject. Let’s correct, not neglect.
Betrothal is not only mentioned over and over in the Bible (Ex. 21:8-9;
22:16; Lev. 19:20; Deut. 20:7; 22:23,25,27,28,30; 2 Sam. 3:14; Jer. 2:2;
Hos. 2:19-20; Matt 1:18; Luke 1:27; 2:5; 2 Cor. 11:2; see Rev. 19:7-9;
21:1-4,9-10), but the law itself treats those who are betrothed in a
different way than those who are not. For example, fornication with a
betrothed person was punished much more severely (Deut. 22:20-21,2324,25-27) than fornication with an unbetrothed person (Ex 22:16; Lev.
19:20; Deut. 22:28-29). Likewise, betrothed people had special legal
rights (Ex. 21:7-9). Furthermore, God Himself spoke of betrothing Israel
to Himself (Jer. 2:2; Hos. 2:19-20) and the New Testament speaks of the
church being betrothed to Jesus: Paul said, “I am jealous for you with
godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may
present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” (2 Cor. 11:2) Given this
information, I find it difficult to see how anyone can say that betrothal is
not Biblical. While it is not the only option that the Bible allows, it was
certainly a part of most biblical relationships that led to marriage.
What betrothal is not
Because legalists have coopted the word “betrothal” and used it in an
unbiblical way, it is very important that we clearly define the term and
not important non-biblical ideas as so many have done.35
34
For a thorough refutation of this faulty theology, see Greg L. Bahnsen, By This
Standard (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1985). This book is available for free online at
http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gbbs.pdf
35 Some of the different definitions of betrothal are as follows:
Betrothal is not mandated or essential to getting married
It is common to affirm that betrothal is a necessary step before
marriage.36 However, for it to be a necessary step, it would have to be
commanded in the Scripture. Though betrothal was no doubt the most
common (and most wise) approach to marriage in the Scripture, we have
already demonstrated in this book that God both modeled and authorized
alternatives. There were at least four biblical models that bypassed
betrothal altogether and went straight to marriage. To mandate betrothal
for everyone is to tread into the waters of legalism. But if it is not
commanded, then there is flexibility on what form the commitment to
marriage might take. Clear communication between families of exactly
what is intended by “engagement” or “betrothal” is critical to avoid
misunderstandings and hurt feelings.
Biblical betrothal should not be associated with hyperpatriarchalism
It is common to reject any thought of betrothal simply because the
concept has been abused in some hyper-patriarchal circles. I gladly
John W. Thompson: “Betrothal may be defined as a binding commitment to marry,
sought by a young man, agreed to by a young woman, approved and supervised by the
fathers of both, and attested by a bridal provision (bride price/dowry) and by witnesses
and/or a document.”
http://www.preterismeschatology.com/Rediscovering%20the%20Timeless%20Truths.htm#_God's_Design_for
_Scriptural%20Romance
Lindvall: “An irrevocable and publicly announced commitment to marriage, only
terminated for infidelity, during which the cultivation of a romantic relationship is
permitted. Betrothal is instigated by the young man and woman with the full approval of
parents. No physical contact occurs until after the wedding.” This is my summary
stitching together of Lindvall’s chart on http://boldchristianliving.com/articles/youthfulromance/comparison-chart-of-dating-courtship--scriptural-betrothal.html
Von “Betrothal is a covenant between two people, usually entered into for them by their
fathers, which permanently binds them as husband and wife. This then begins a period
where they call each other husband and wife, but do not yet physically consumate their
marriage.”
Greg Price – “Betrothal is ‘a covenant to covenant’--a binding vow to be united in holy
matrimony.” Christian Education in the Home: Help! My Daughter Wants to Date.
(Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books, 1994), p. 11.
36 For example, Greg Price said, “All male-female relationships should pass through
courtship and engagement on their way to marriage.” Help! My Daughter Wants to Date,
p. 19. Common terms are that betrothal is “both pattern and precept.” See for example
Vaughn Ohlman’s book, The Covenant of Betrothal. It is the contention of this book that
it is a pattern (one model), but not a precept (or command).
embrace all Biblical law, including laws that call for patriarchy (such as
Numbers 30). However, numerous people who have gotten on the
Patriarchy bandwagon are actually guilty of hyper-patriarchy because
they have gone beyond (Greek = huper) Biblical law. Let me give a few
examples of the difference between biblical patriarchy and hyperpatriarchy with regard to betrothal:
We have already seen that biblical patriarchy gives options and a great
deal of flexibility on the issues leading up to marriage. In stark contrast,
hyper-patriarchs insist on only one way of doing things. When the law
says “You shall not add to the law I command you, nor take away from
it” (Deut. 4:2) it is calling upon us to not only maintain all laws, but also
to maintain all liberties that are granted in the Scripture. Hyperpatriarchalism has become suffocating because it limits the Biblical
options.
A second example is the issue of the degree to which both the parents
and the young couple are part of the process of deciding whom to marry.
Hyper-patriarchs frequently keep their daughters in the dark about the
young man until they have decided that she should be betrothed. When
people object that this is virtually identical to an arranged marriage, these
people will quickly counter that a daughter has veto power. But that veto
power is virtually emptied of its power because of false guilt that the
young people have if they do say “No.” This is true because the hyperpatriarchs teach that 1) God speaks to the sons and daughters through the
parent and 2) that godly sons and daughters will unreservedly give their
hearts to their fathers, and this means that he or she “fully surrenders to
his parents' desires, opinions, tastes, aspirations, etc.”37 There have been
several cases of young people marrying a person that they do not want to
marry, but doing so out of submission to their parent. This is going way
beyond Biblical law, which allowed women to “marry whom they think
best” (Numb 36:6; 1Cor. 7:39). The discussion of the chart in chapter 2
shows how the decision-making should involve more than simply the
father’s desires. The father is a guide to decision making, not a substitute
for decision making.
A third issue revolves around who may take the initiative in seeking a
wife. Hyper-patriarchs have tended to insist that the fathers must always
37
Jonathan Lindvall in a letter, as cited by Robin Phillips, The Way of a Man with a
Maid, p. 43. I cannot endorse Robin Phillips antinomianism, but if he has correctly
quoted Lindvall, Lindvall gives more authority to the parent than the Scripture does.
take the initiative. But again, this goes beyond the Scripture and is
therefore beyond patriarchy. Scripture allowed fathers (Jer. 29:6), the
unmarried man (1Thes. 4:4), and the unmarried woman (Numb. 36:6;
Ruth 3) to take the initiative, depending on what was most providentially
prudent. While we generally encourage fathers to not be passive, the
process is interactive not unilateral.
Many other examples could be given, but these should be sufficient to
distance my proposal from hyper-patriarchalism.
Biblical betrothal should not be defined by the practices of medieval
Judaism
One of the problems that I have with some modern definitions of
betrothal is that they take the word “betrothal” from the Bible but run to
the Judaism of the Middle Ages to define what betrothal means and/or
they fill in the gaps with other traditions of man. This can lead to a
related form of legalism. If betrothal is a Biblical doctrine, we should
allow the Bible alone to define it. But when we look in the Bible, we find
a range of things involved in betrothal (depending on the circumstances
and needs of the people involved). In other word, the Bible sets
boundaries, but within those boundaries there are many liberties that
have been given.
Thus we do not insist on a one-year betrothal, though obviously people
have the liberty to do that. Adam and Eve, Isaac and Rebekah, and others
appear to have married on the day that they met. We do not insist on a
written contract since some betrothals were entered by oral contract.38
We do not insist on the young lady drinking from a glass of wine, though
pomp and ceremony can be appropriate to the making of a betrothal
contract. While these and other customs from Jewish betrothal customs
may be nice, they are not necessary. Those customs can only be traced
back to the middle ages. What is central to all betrothals is that it is a
promise/contract to marry, enforceable by law, and subject to sanctions
should the contract be broken.39
See Ruth 3:11-13 as one example. Jesus said to “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your
‘No,’ ‘No’” (Matt 5:37). A person’s word should be as good as gold.
39 For example, Exodus 21:8 gives the sanctions when a master breaks his betrothal to a
slave.
38
Betrothal is a contract, not necessarily a covenant
This of course brings up the controversy of whether betrothal is a
covenant or a contract. Medieval Judaism treated betrothal as a covenant
and blurred the lines of distinction between marriage and betrothal. It is
this blurring of distinctions that has led to issues in the betrothal
movement. While there is no reason why a betrothal cannot have a full
covenantal status if a family so wished, there is plenty of Biblical
evidence that covenant is not at the heart of betrothal. It is my contention
that a betrothal is a promise/contract to enter into the covenant of
marriage, not a “covenant to covenant,” as Greg Price words it. As we
will see, the implications of this are very significant.
Covenant is oath, contract is not (Deut. 29:12; 2 Kings 11:4; 1 Chron.
16:16; Ps. 89:3,4; 105:9; Ezek. 17:19; Heb. 6:13-15,17)
The first contrast between a contract and a covenant is that a covenant
always involves the making of an oath, while Jesus and James both
forbid the use of oaths in private promises/contracts. Jesus said, “Do not
swear at all” (Matt 5:34), and James insists, “But above all, my brethren,
do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let
your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No,’ lest you fall into judgment”
(James 5:12). These prohibitions do not contradict the many Scriptures
that command us to swear an oath (Deut. 6:13; 10:20; Jer. 4:2; Jer. 12:16;
Is. 19:21) because those Scriptures are describing oaths under authority,40
whereas Christ is describing commitments made between individuals.
Though a contract is legally binding without an oath, a covenant does not
even exist without an oath. In his outstanding book on covenants, O.
Palmer Robertson says that an oath is so essential to a covenant that the
terms “covenant” and “oath” are often treated as synonyms. 41
Can families impose a covenant oath on the parties at the time of
betrothal? Certainly they are free to do so. But is such an oath essential
to a betrothal? No. Boaz’s promise to marry Ruth (Ruth 3:10-13) was
absent an oath, though it did include a token (Ruth 3:15-18). In contrast,
40
There are three governments that can administrate oaths and covenants: the family, the
church, and the state.
41 He says, “a covenant is an oath. The commitment of the covenantal relationship binds
people together with a solidarity equivalent to the results achieved by a formal oathtaking process. ‘Oath’ so adequately captures the relationship achieved by ‘covenant’
that the terms may be interchanged (cf. Ps. 89:3,34f.; 105:8-10),” O. Palmer Robertson,
The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1980),
p. 6, footnote 7.
his marriage commitment took the form of a covenant (Ruth 4:8-13). His
betrothal was without witnesses (3:8-18) whereas the marriage covenant
necessarily involved witnesses (4:9-12). His betrothal had a condition
inserted into the contract (3:13) whereas the marriage covenant was an
unreserved commitment of Boaz’ person and property to Ruth (4:1-12).
The same distinctions can be seen in other relationships. The words of 1
Samuel 18:17 are contractual and legally binding, but have no covenantal
language. The same is true of 1Samuel 18:20-26 and other passages.
Covenantal oaths can only be imposed by lawful authorities (Numb.
5:19,21; Neh. 5:12; Ex. 22:11) whereas contracts can be entered into
with no authority present
The second major difference between a contract and a covenant was
already hinted at in the previous section. Covenantal oaths can only be
imposed by (or between) lawful authorities,42 whereas contracts can be
entered into by two persons with no “greater” authority present.43 Some
bring up Jonathan and David’s covenant (1Sam. 18:3; 20:16; 23:18) as
an example of equals making a covenant without authority being present.
However even that covenant was between one authority (Crown Prince
Jonathan) and one who had already been anointed as a succeeding
authority (Anointed Successor David) and the covenant they made
explicitly mentions the relationship of authority between them, stating,
“You shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you” (1Sam. 23:17).
Thus O. Palmer Robertson rightly defines a covenant as a bond in blood
sovereignly administered. He says, “Both biblical and extra-biblical
evidence point to the unilateral form of covenantal establishment. No
such thing as bargaining, bartering, or contracting characterizes the
divine covenants of Scripture.”44 So essential is the concept of authority
to covenant that the authority is said to be the covenant (Is. 42:6; 49:8;
Dan. 11:22). Thus Hebrews 6:16 gives the requirement of all covenants
when it says, “men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for
42
Though not an exhaustive list, the following Scriptures illustrate this point: Gen.
21:27,32; 26:26-30; 31:44-54; Deut. 7:1-2; Josh. 9:6-16; 1Sam. 11:1-3; 2Sam. 3:1213,21; 2Sam. 5:3; 2Kings 11:17; 23:3; 1Chron. 11:3; 15:25; 2Chron. 23:1,3,16; Ezra
10:3; Neh. 9:38; Is. 42:6; Ezek. 17:12-16; Dan. 9:27; Hos. 12:1
43 Though not an exhaustive list of contracts, the following are a good representation of
signing a contract of shaking hands on a contract: Gen. 38:17-20; Ex. 21:8; 22:26; Deut.
24:10-13,17; Ruth 3:9-18; Job 17:3; Prov. 6:11; 17:18; 22:26; Jer. 23:3-20; Jer. 32:10-16;
Ezek. 18:7,12,16; Matt 5:37; James 5:12; etc.
44 Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, p. 15.
confirmation is for them an end of all dispute.” Since an oath is essential
to a covenant (previous point) having a lawful authority present is also
essential (this point). Of course, Hebrews says that this poses a problem
for God since there is no other authority. But Hebrews points out that
since God is the highest authority, this is not an issue - “because He
could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (v. 12). So even
with God the authority issue was present. “Thus God, determining to
show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the immutability of His
counsel, confirmed it by an oath…” (v. 17).
This is one of the differences between a wife and a concubine in the Old
Testament. A wife had a written covenant attested to by some authority
whereas a concubine had a legally binding contract, but no covenant.45
Both commitments were treated with great seriousness, but the marriage
of concubinage did not have every right that a marriage covenant did
(Lev. 19:20 versus Deut. 22:23-27). So Scripture recognized two levels
of marriage: contractual concubinage46 and covenantal marriage.47
With this as a background, I think it is clear that betrothal did not have
the characteristics of a covenant. It was a contract to enter into the
covenant of marriage. Just like other contracts (but unlike covenants),
betrothal could have contingencies placed in it (Ruth 3:11-13). Indeed,
45
Interestingly, this tradition has survived in Judaism till today. Rabbi Maurice Lamm
comments: “[T]he Sages said that to live with a wife without a ketubah, or without
specification of fair conditions, is regarded as concubinage—the difference between a
wife and a concubine is that a wife has a ketubah, and a concubine does not.”
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465168/jewish/The-Marriage-ContractKetubah.htm
46 Genesis 22:24 , Genesis 25:6 , Genesis 35:22 , Genesis 36:12 , Leviticus 19:20 , Judges
8:31 , Judges 19:1 , Judges 19:2 , Judges 19:9 , Judges 19:10 , Judges 19:24 , Judges
19:25 , Judges 19:27 , Judges 19:29 , Judges 20:4 , Judges 20:5 , Judges 20:6 , 2Samuel
3:7 , 2Samuel 5:13 , 2Samuel 15:16 , 2Samuel 16:21 , 2Samuel 16:22 , 2Samuel 19:5 ,
2Samuel 20:3 , 2Samuel 21:11 , 1Kings 11:3 , 1Chronicles 1:32 , 1Chronicles 2:46 ,
1Chronicles 2:48 , 1Chronicles 3:9 , 1Chronicles 7:14 , 2Chronicles 11:21 , Esther 2:14 ,
Song 6:8 , Song 6:9 , Daniel 5:2 , Daniel 5:3 , Daniel 5:23.
47 Genesis 34:9 , Genesis 38:8 , Exodus 21:10 , Leviticus 20:14 , Leviticus 21:14 ,
Numbers 36:3 , Numbers 36:4 , Numbers 36:6 , Deuteronomy 7:3 , Deuteronomy 20:7 ,
Deuteronomy 24:1 , Joshua 23:12 , Judges 12:9 , 2Chronicles 18:1 , Ezra 9:14 , Psalms
78:63 , Isaiah 62:5 , Matthew 5:32 , Matthew 19:9 , Matthew 19:10 , Matthew 22:2 ,
Matthew 22:24 , Matthew 22:30 , Matthew 24:38 , Mark 10:11 , Mark 10:12 , Mark
12:25 , Luke 16:18 , Luke 17:27 , Luke 20:34 , Luke 20:35 , Romans 7:3 , 1Corinthians
7:9 , 1Corinthians 7:28 , 1Corinthians 7:36 , 1Corinthians 7:38 , 1Timothy 4:3 ,
1Timothy 5:11 , 1Timothy 5:14 , Hebrews 13:4 , Revelation 19:7 , Revelation 19:9.
the Hebrew word for “betrothal” (‫)אָרשׁ‬
ַ simply indicates a “pledge to be
married.”48 The word “pledge” fits the language of contracts. This term
and the related terms “request” (‫)אָרשׁ‬
ַ and desire (‫ )אֲ ֶרשֶׁ ת‬all indicate
anticipation, not fulfillment. Though there is no reason why a betrothal
cannot be turned into a covenant, it would go beyond the Scripture to
insist that all betrothals must adhere to full covenantal ceremonies. The
meaning of the term itself, its usage, and the examples of those betrothed
in the Bible show that it was a legally binding contract but not a covenant
ceremony with oaths, authority, and witnesses.49 The Bible knows of
only one “covenant” related to marriage (note the singular in Mal 2:14;
Prov. 2:17). I will deal with the objection that the betrothed are called
“husband” and “wife” in the next section.
Betrothal is not unbreakable
Misunderstanding of Matthew 19:9
When betrothal advocates 1) call betrothal an “irrevocable decision”50
that cannot be broken without divorce, 2) treat betrothal as a “marriage
without consummation,” 3) and say that the betrothed are indeed
husband and wife, they are going beyond the Scripture.51 Deuteronomy
20:7 makes it clear that betrothal does not marry the couple in any sense
of the word. It says, “And what man is there who is betrothed to a
woman and has not married her? Let him go and return to his house, lest
he die in the battle and another man marry her.” It is clear that the
betrothed are not yet married.
It is common in some circles to assert that a betrothal may only be
broken if one of the parties has engaged in premarital sex. Matthew 19:9
is used to justify this interpretation. This verse says, “…whoever
divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another,
48
Edward W. Goodrick, John R. Kohlenberger III, and James A. Swanson,
Hebrew/Aramaic to English Dictionary, from Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance.
See also Ersnt Jenni and Claus Westerman, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament.
“First of all, on the one hand, one should distinguish the intention of ʾrś from that
of the marriage ceremony proper: a man may have betrothed a maiden but not yet
have “taken her as wife” (lqḥ, Deut 21:11; 22:13f, etc.; cf. also bʿl “to marry,”
Deut 21:13, etc.; → baʿal; lqḥ is directly juxtaposed to ʾrś in Deut 20:7 and to
hyh lᵉʾisš ǎ ̂ in Deut 22:29).
49 The one possible exception being in Hosea 2. Though see below.
50 Jonathan Lindvall, email newsletter, #88, 2001.
51 See previous discussion about betrothal being a serious contract, but not a covenant.
commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits
adultery.” On their interpretation, this is not talking about the divorce of
a married couple (something they believe cannot happen), but is talking
about the divorce of a betrothed couple. Their main arguments are as
follows: Betrothed people can be called husband and wife (see 2Sam.
3:14; Deut. 22:24; Matt 1:20). Such betrothed people can be divorced
(literally “put away” in Matt 1:20) only on the basis of fornication.52 A
fornicating betrothed may not marry anyone else. They then try to
reconcile Mark 10:11-12 with Matthew 19:9 by saying that Matthew was
written to Jews, whereas Mark was written to Gentiles. They believe that
since Gentile Romans would not have understood that betrothal was the
first step of marriage, they might assume that the exception clause
allowed married people to get divorced (as opposed to only betrothed
people getting divorced) so Mark left the exception clause off to avoid
confusion.
But this imports too many presuppositions into the passage and
contradicts several Scriptures. First, Matthew 19 and Mark 10 are
referring to the same event and cannot be made to refer to quite different
things (divorce in betrothal and divorce in marriage respectively).
Second, the context (verses 3-12) is clearly answering questions about
marriage, not questions about betrothal. Third, the Old Testament
passage being discussed (Deuteronomy 24) was clearly dealing with
marriage, not betrothal. Fourth, it is simply not true that such betrothal
practices would not have been understood by the Romans.53 Fifth, the
Greek word porneia is a much broader term than simply premarital sex.
There is no justification whatsoever for making Matthew 19 refer to
divorce within betrothal alone.
52For
example, Richard Anthony says, ““Betrothal can only be terminated on the basis of
infidelity; requires scriptural divorce.” http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/betrothal.html
53 Many examples could be given, but Robin Seager describes the betrothal of Tiberius:
“But although the betrothal may have been political in conception, the eventual marriage
– probably celebrated after Tiberius’ return from the East in 20 – was a happy one…”
Tiberius (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), p. 11. These betrothals were
legally binding. N.S. Gill says, “The Betrothal, Dowry, and Engagement Rings Engagements and engagement parties were optional, but if an engagement were made
and then backed out of, breach of contract would have had financial consequences. The
bride's family would give the engagement party and formal betrothal (sponsalia) between
the groom and the bride-to-be (who was now sponsa). Dowry, to be paid after the
marriage, was decided on. The groom might give his fiancee an iron ring (anulus
pronubis) or some money (arra).” Matrimonium: Roman Marriage, cited at
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/marriage/a/RomanMarriage.htm
Betrothal doesn’t have to be a covenant to be taken seriously
On the other hand, a pledge, promise, or contract should never be broken
by a Christian since his word should be as good as gold. Jesus commands
us to “let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is
more than these is from the evil one” (Matt. 5:37). The only things that
would permit a betrothal to be broken would be, 1) the presence of
something that could break a marriage, 2) the discovery that the contract
was entered into fraudulently through misrepresentation by one of the
parties, 3) the discovery that the contract is an unlawful contract. Let’s
examine each of these exceptions:
Anything that breaks a marriage can break a betrothal
Joseph was declared to be a just man when he wanted to put Mary away
legally (Matt. 1:19). If his suspicion of fornication had been true, he
would have been fully justified. Biblically adultery with a betrothed
person was worthy of capital punishment (Deut. 22:23-27), but lesser
penalties were allowed.54
The discovery that the contract of betrothal was entered into fraudulently
can break a betrothal
A second thing that can break any contract is if the contract has been
entered into fraudulently. If a married man pretended to be single when
getting betrothed, a subsequent discovery of this fraud would make the
contract itself fraudulent and null and void. Likewise if it were later
discovered that the man had pretended to be a Christian in order to get
permission to be betrothed, but subsequently announced his lack of
interest in Christianity, his contractual deceit would be legitimate
grounds for breaking the contract. Integrity demands a high level of
proof for this fraud, and it would need to be proved in either a civil or a
church court. Breaking the contract would forfeit the dowry (Ex. 21:8).
The subsequent discovery of anything that the Bible would say prohibits
marriage should break a betrothal
Finally, if the Bible says that two people should not be married, they
should not be married even if a betrothal promise has been made.
Promises should be renounced if they are unlawful promises (Numb.
30:5,8,12,13 with Acts 23:12,14; Mark 6:26). The Westminster
Confession rightly says, “No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in
54
See my booklet, Capital Punishment (Omaha: Biblical Blueprints, 2009).
the word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded.”55
If one of the parties to a betrothal becomes a believer, he should break
off the betrothal since the Bible forbids marriage to an unbeliever (1Cor.
7:39). This would not be possible after marriage, but it certainly is
beforehand. If it was discovered that the person you were betrothed to
was a blood relative forbidden in Leviticus 18, the betrothal should be
broken. Likewise, if the person becomes a witch, homosexual, or some
other criminal guilty of a capital crime, the betrothal should be treated as
broken, since entered into on holy grounds. Likewise if one of the parties
to a betrothal became excommunicated justly by a church, the betrothal
should be treated as a broken contract since an excommunicated person
is to be treated as an unbeliever (Matt 18:17).
It is my view that the only lawful reasons for breaking the contract would
be issues that would either make any contract null and void (fraudulent
misinformation) or subsequent issues that would ordinarily make it
biblically unlawful to enter into marriage. Betrothals are not to be lightly
entered into. They are serious contracts that are binding before God. But
unlawful contracts must be treated as unlawful to fulfill. To keep an
unlawful contract (betrothal) by entering into an unlawful marriage
doubles the sin and makes it permanent.
Betrothal is not arranged marriage
Some people have the mistaken notion that all betrothals were arranged
marriages where the decision was made by the parents. Some betrothals
may have been arranged marriages, but not all. The marriages of the
daughters of Zelophehad, Boaz, and David are all illustrations that
betrothal does not imply an arranged marriage.
Betrothal is not a commitment made without reference to already
existing love
Jonathan Lindvall says, “Our marriage is not based on love, our marriage
is based on the will of God, and the love followed the decision to
surrender to God's will.”56 While Mr Lindvall is certainly correct that
lawful marriages can be contracted without any romantic love prior to
the wedding day (see the marriage of Isaac in Genesis 24), and while
such a married couple can certainly learn to love each other (Genesis
The Westminster Confession of Faith, “Of Lawful Oaths and Vows“, 22:7.
Jonathan Lindvall, from the taped lecture, "Scriptural Betrothal: God's Design for
Youthful Romance." Springville, CA: Bold Christian Living)
55
56
24:67 says, “she became his wife, and he loved her”), there is nothing in
Scripture that mandates that this be the case. This is the main difference
that I would have with some betrothal-only advocates. It is legalism to
mandate what Scripture does not. We have already seen in our discussion
of courtship that many (if not most) people will get betrothed precisely
because God has already produced a love for the other person within
them. While courtship is not for the purpose of developing such a love,
Scripture seems to expect that love will ordinarily develop before a
commitment of betrothal is made (see for example Gen. 29:18-20; Prov.
30:19; 1Sam. 18:20).
Betrothal is not simply a “committed relationship,” “going steady,”
being a man’s “intended,” being “spoken for,” or being “ringed”
Another mistake is to lower the standards of betrothal to our modern
culture’s ideas. Roget’s 21st Century Thesaurus lists the following words
as “synonyms” for the word “betrothed”: “plighted,” “going steady,”
“committed,” “pledged,” “asked for,” “intended,” “spoken for,” and
“ringed.” However, those words all have quite different connotations,
and only the words “plighted,” “committed,” and “pledged” approximate
the Biblical definition. When those who date start “going steady” they
are not committing themselves to marriage. Betrothal is a legally binding
commitment to enter into the covenant of marriage at some future date.
In contrast, going steady is simply a commitment to an exclusive
relationship of dating.
What betrothal is
Having ruled out everything that is not at the heart of betrothal, I offer
the following definition as capturing the essence of what the Scripture
associates with betrothal: “Betrothal is a binding commitment to enter
into a marriage covenant at some future but not-distant date, after
approval of the father, publically announced, usually accompanied by
some token, and beginning a period in which a couple can learn to
express non-sexual romance, usually under the guidance of parents, as
they plan and prepare for their wedding.”
A binding commitment
First, it is “a binding commitment.” God says, “I will betroth you to Me
forever” (Hos. 2:19). This is not a “I hope so.” This is a life commitment.
It should never be entered into lightly. An engagement by one whose
word is as good as gold would qualify. But so would a written contract or
even a more formal covenant.
We have already seen that any unlawful contract should be broken, but
our attitude toward betrothal should never be “maybe.” Just as any other
contract is binding upon the parties, and just as a broken contract can be
appealed to a church court, a broken betrothal can be appealed to the
elders of the church of which they are members. Breaking a betrothal
should be treated very seriously as having “dealt deceitfully” (Ex. 21:8).
A person should only enter into betrothal if they are completely
convinced that they should marry.
For the purpose of marriage in the near future
The next part of the definition says, “to enter into a marriage covenant at
some future but not-distant date.” If a person is not financially ready to
take on marriage, is underaged, or does not intend to get married soon, he
should not presume to get betrothed. Betrothal is not intended to be a
means of reserving a person for years at a time so that someone else
cannot get her. Nor should parents prolong the betrothal in the hopes of
gain as Laban did (Gen. 24). 1 Corinthians 7 implies that if some
“present distress” (v. 26) or “necessity” (v. 37) hinders marriage, it
should also hinder betrothal.57 The provision in Deuteronomy 20:7
implies that betrothal would not be for a long, indefinite time. Though
Medieval Jewish betrothals could sometimes be for six months to a year,
Biblical betrothals were likely shorter than a year. Boaz’s one day
betrothal (Ruth 3-4) would be on the short side, David’s two betrothals
(1Sam. 18:17-19; 18:25-27) likely lasted in the range of weeks rather
than months, and Jacob’s seven year wait is portrayed as an ungodly
imposition of the greedy Laban (Gen. 29:1-30). While the Bible does not
give a mandate on this subject, it certainly encourages us to be
considerate in not putting off marriage too long (Deut. 20:7; 1Cor.
7:9,36; 1Tim. 4:11; 5:14).
After the approval of the father
Too frequently young romantics ignore the next provision of the
definition and ask their young lady to marry them before having gotten
At least this is true if you read (as I do) “virgin daughter” rather than “virgin
betrothed.” It was the father who had authority to give or to not give his daughter. This is
the view of most the church fathers as well as Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Bachman, Parry,
Edwards, Allo, Morris, Robertson and Plummer, Snyder, Goudge, and Heinrici.
57
permission to ask from the father. It is clear in Scripture that a father has
the authority “keep his virgin daughter” from a suitor (1Cor. 7:37) or to
“give her in marriage” (v. 38-39). Nor is oversight of a father restricted
to his daughter. Jeremiah commands fathers, “take wives for your sons
and give your daughters to husbands” (Jer. 29:6). And the law of God
gives situations where it is perfectly appropriate for a father to utterly
refuse to give his daughter to a young man, even though they have
fornicated (Ex. 22:17). Godly Abraham gave guidelines in the search for
a wife for Isaac (Gen. 24) and Reuel gave oversight to the marriage of
his daughter to Moses (Ex. 2:21). It was Jewish fathers who were
required to take an oath before God to not give their daughters to pagan
sons, and to not take pagan daughters for their sons (Neh. 10:29-30).
Anyone who has examined all the evidence of Scripture will agree with
Tertullian’s summary when he said, “sons do not legitimately marry
without the consent of their fathers.”58 Obviously we have discussed
exceptions that can occur, but this is the general pattern of Scripture.
Publically announced
The next part of the definition is “publically announced.” The reason
betrothals were publically announced was that this gave extra protection
to the woman. Biblical law punished fornication with a betrothed woman
much more severely (Deut. 22:20-21,23-24,25-27) than fornication with
an unbetrothed person (Ex 22:16; Deut. 22:28-29) because betrothed
people had special legal rights (Ex. 21:7-9). This would be utterly
impossible to know unless the betrothal was publically announced.
Likewise, fornication with a woman betrothed as a concubine (Lev.
19:20) was punished differently than one betrothed to be a wife (Deut.
22:20-21,23-24,25-27). Certainly God’s betrothal to Israel was
announced to the heavens and the earth (Hos. 2:20-21) with the earth
responding (v. 22). Certainly a public announcement has the added
benefit of giving the dad relief from multiple would-be suitors knocking
on his door. An announcement through the church would be one way to
make this public. Another way would be to give the county clerk’s office
notice of the marriage.
58
As cited by Philip Schaff in History of the Christian Church, volume I (New York:
Charles Scribner & Co., 1871), p. 331.
Usually accompanied by some token of ability
The next part of the definition says, “usually accompanied by some
token.” Sample tokens in the Bible were jewelry (Gen. 24:53; Ezek.
16:12), a large sum of money (Gen. 34:12), a city (1Kings 9:16), and
some sort of service (Gen. 29:15-30; 1Sam. 18:25). A ring is a public
statement that this person has been taken. But these tokens were often
more. They were a type of dowry.
I would hasten to say that though the dowry is mentioned in the Bible
(Gen. 29:18-20; 34:12; Ruth 4:10; 1 Sam. 18:25; 1 Kings 9:16; Hos.
3:2?; 12:12), the only place it is commanded is in the case of rape (Ex.
22:16; Deut. 22:29). I acknowledge that giving a bridal provision is wise.
This was one test by which a father of the girl could be assured 1) that
the man was able to support a wife (the man would place a sum of
money into the hands of the father of the bride) and 2) that the woman
would be cared for should the husband die (the father would place the
dowry into the daughter’s hand - Luke 15:8; Gen. 31:15; Josh 15:19;
Judges 1:15; cf figurative use in Gen. 30:20). However, insurance could
achieve objective 2 and other tests could be used by the father to gauge a
man’s ability to protect and support a wife. For example, David was too
poor to afford a worthy dowry (1 Sa 18:22-26). King Saul was satisfied
with proof of valor in battle (1 Sam. 18:27). Caleb’s requirement of valor
in battle by a future son-in-law was similar (Josh 15:16-18). The key is
that an Adam can provide a home and sustenance for an Eve. The sign of
commitment that Boaz gave for Ruth was a load of grain (Ruth 3:15-18)
and the promise to purchase Naomi’s property, which amounted to
paying off a debt (Ruth 4). Scripture seems to portray a bridal provision
as a wise though optional part of getting married.
A time to learn non-sexual romance
Can romance be involved in a betrothal? Yes (Jer. 2:2; Hos. 2:19-20). In
fact, God speaks so highly of this precious time, that we can say that it
should ordinarily be present. Does it always have to be present? No. A
long period of developing romance was not always present (Gen. 2:2225; 24: Ruth 3). We need to distinguish between what is normal and
healthy, and what is required. But when God described His ideal
courtship of Israel, He said, “I will allure her… and speak to her heart”
(Hos. 2:14). Many men have a hard time learning how to speak to the
heart in a way that ministers to a woman. Yet we find that the romance in
that chapter is so pronounced that heaven and earth seem to brighten (vv.
21-22). And Israel’s response to God is pictured as “the kindness of your
youth, the love of your betrothal” (Jer. 2:2). This appears to be one of the
main purposes for betrothal – to prepare a couple emotionally for
marriage and to produce habits of non-sexual communication and love
that will strengthen marriage for a lifetime.
You will notice that this definition avoids the language of “no touch.”
When we discuss 1 Corinthians 7:1 we will be seeing that any kind of
touch that is sexually arousing should be avoided, even if that touch is
holding hands. But touch itself is not the issue. What is to be avoided is
any sexual romance. Such sexual focus robs many young men and
women of the opportunity to learn much more important forms of
romantic communication that women long for once married.
Ordinarily under the guidance of parents
The next part of the definition says, “usually under the guidance of
parents.” It is clear that betrothal in Scripture almost always included
parental oversight and guidance (Gen. 21:21; 38:6; Ex. 21:9; 22:16-17;
Judges 14:1-2,10; 2 Sam. 3:14; Ezra 9:12; Jer. 29:6; Matt 22:2; 24:38;
Luke 17:27; 20:34,35; 1 Cor. 7:36-38; cf. John 6:44; 17:6). I am not
insisting that the definition of betrothal always include parental oversight
or it would rule out older people whose parents were not present (Boaz &
Ruth; David and Abigail; Abraham and his later wives) and could
present obstacles to those who are far distant from their fathers, as was
the case with Jacob (Gen. 28). In the latter case, Isaac was trusting Jacob
to follow Biblical guidelines, but Jacob was not under the supervision of
his parents. Ruth was a woman who had some helpful oversight of her
mother-in-law, but for most of the day, this was not possible. However,
Thompson is correct that in the vast majority of Scriptures, parents of
both the man and the woman approved and supervised the betrothal all
the way up to the day of the wedding. 2 Corinthians 11:2 gives one of the
reasons for this supervision: “I am jealous for you with godly jealousy.
For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a
chaste virgin to Christ.” Though using an illustration for our relationship
with Christ, for the illustration to work, it should be the goal of parents to
protect their children from needless fornication. It is interesting that even
King Solomon’s betrothal took place at Shulamith’s home when he was
romancing her. (See Song 2:8-17 for the memory of this period. 59). Such
supervision was even true of older men like Samson (Judges 14).
For the purpose of planning and preparing for the wedding
The last part of the definition is “as they plan and prepare for their
wedding.” The time of betrothal is not only a fantastic time of learning to
romance the hearts of each other, it is a practical time of learning to work
with each other on the huge project of planning a wedding. While some
Biblical weddings were rather simple events, others were great
celebrations with family and friends. Jointly preparing for such an event
can be a wonderful time for developing leadership, vision, character,
relationship, and other issues of life.
59
Joseph Dillow in Song of Solomon on Sex (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977), pp. 183ff
explains how this little section is a memory of the previous courtship. He says, “As
Shulamith reflects on her wedding day, she remembers the springtime visit Solomon paid
to her country home in the Lebanon mountains. These three reflections occur as
Shulamith awaits the wedding procession sent by Somomon to pick her up and bring her
to the palace in Jerusalem. These reflections picture God’s purposes in courtship. The
first brings out the idea that God’s primary purpose is that couples get to know one
another in ways other than sexual.” (p. 186). An abbreviation of his outline is as follows:
I.
Wedding Day (1:1-2:7
A.
Reflection #1 – Shulamith in the Palace 1:2-8)
B.
Reflection #2 – At the Banquet Table (1:9-14)
C.
Reflection #3 – In the Bridal Chamber (1:15-2:7)
II.
Courtship Days (2:8-3:5)
A.
Reflection #4 – Remembrance of a Spring time Visit (2:8-14)
B.
Reflection #5 – Catching the Little Foxes (2:15-17)
C.
Reflection #6 – A Dream of Separation (3:1-5)
III.
From the Wedding Procession to Marital Union (3:6-5:1
A.
Reflection #7 – The Wedding Procession (3:6-3:11)
B.
Reflection #8 – The Royal Couple Alone on the Wedding Night (4:15:1)
IV.
Sexual Adjustments in Marriage: “the Dream of Love’s Refusal” to the “Dance
of Mahanaim” (5:2-8:4)
A.
Reflection #9 – Troubled dream (5:2-5:8)
B.
Reflection #10 - Upon awakening, changes her attitude (5:9-6:3)
C.
Reflection #11 - Return of Solomon (6:4-10)
D.
Reflection #12 – Shulamith in the Garden (6:11-13a)
E.
Reflection #13 – The Dance of Mahanaim (6:12b-8:4
V.
A Vacation in the Countryside (8:5-14)
“make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts”
Rom. 13:14
“It is good for a man not to touch a woman”
1 Cor. 7:1
“flee also youthful lusts”
2 Tim. 2:22
“You have ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse;
you have ravished my heart with one look of your eyes.”
Song of Solomon 4:9
“For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy.
that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”
2 Cor. 11:2
Chapter 5
Maintaining Purity in Courtship and Betrothal
General Biblical Guidelines
Miscellaneous commands
The whole process from courtship through marriage must be traversed
with absolute sexual purity and with integrity of heart. The following
Scriptures should be foundational for those who are seeking a spouse:

“Flee sexual immorality.” (1 Cor. 6:18)

“Flee also youthful lusts.” (2 Tim. 2:22)

“…make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.” (Rom.
13:14)

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” (1Cor. 7:1)

“Do not arouse; do not stir up [sexual] love before its time.”
(Song 2:7; 3:5; 8:4 in NAB)

“For this is the will of God… that each of you should know how
to acquire his own spouse in sanctification and honor, not in
passion of lust, like the Gentiles…” (1Thes. 4:3-4)
Of course, many godly men and women have found these admonitions
even more difficult to keep during the days leading up to marriage. This
makes it all the more troubling that so many books advocate an approach
to courtship and betrothal that almost guarantees failure on these issues.
The question of this chapter is, “How can one express the ‘love of your
betrothal’ (Jer. 2:2) and remain ‘betrothed to one husband… as a chaste
virgin’” (see 2 Cor. 11:2)? The goal of parents is not only to get their
children to the marriage as virgins, but to keep them chaste in spirit and
body the whole way. It is clear that betrothed people were supposed to
relate to each other in strict “righteousness,” “justice,” and “faithfulness”
(Hos 2:19-20; Jer. 2:2; see also Deut. 22:15,17,20; Matt 1:19), yet still
get to “know” each other in “lovingkindness” and “devotion” (Jer. 2:2;
Hos. 2:19-20). Paul expresses the heart of many parents when he tells the
church, “For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have
betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin
to Christ.” The jealousy of a parent for his daughter’s purity is important.
But though Jews expected a chaperoned accountability, God implies that
there could be a degree of privacy for the couple to share their hearts
with each other at least during the betrothal stage (Jer. 2:2). This chapter
will deal with general and specific principles related to purity during
courtship and betrothal. When implemented, these principles will
continue to guard the hearts of couples throughout their marriage.
1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 – How to acquire a spouse
1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 is an important passage that gives instructions to
every believer (“each of you”) on “how to acquire his own vessel [wife]
in sanctification and honor.”60 These instructions on courtship do not
merely constitute wise advice from a man. They carry full apostolic
authority (“we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus” - v. 1) and they reflect
the moral authority of Jesus Christ Himself (“commandments we gave
you through the Lord Jesus” - v. 2). Paul insisted that anyone “who
rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy
Spirit.” (v. 8). So the issues of courtship versus dating are not legalistic
additions to the Bible, but are Biblical blueprints designed for God’s
honor (v. 1 – “to please God”) and our good (v. 6-7 – “because the Lord
is the avenger of all such…God did not call us to uncleanness, but in
holiness.”). In this passage Paul lays out the following rules to maintain
purity while acquiring a wife:
First, Paul commands “that you abstain from sexual immorality” (v. 3).
“Sexual immorality” is any sexually stimulating contact outside of
marriage. As the Song of Solomon makes clear, sexual contact must be
defined much more broadly than simply intercourse.61 It includes any
60
The Greek word for vessel (σκεῦος) was a Jewish idiom for a wife (1 Peter 3:7). Thus,
Hendriksen translates it, “how to take a wife for himself.” Other translations have “taking
one woman for his wife.” (TCNT), “each of you shall know how to procure himself a
wife” (Weymouth), “his own wife” (EBC). “how to take a wife for himself” (RSV),
“finding a husband or a wife” (GWT) JFB says, “how to possess his vessel — rather as
Greek, “how to acquire (get for himself) his own vessel,” that is, that each should have
his own wife so as to avoid fornication (1 Thessalonians 4:3; 1 Corinthians 7:2). The
emphatical position of “his own” in the Greek, and the use of “vessel” for wife, in 1 Peter
3:7, and in common Jewish phraseology, and the correct translation “acquire,” all justify
this rendering.” Because Andrews sees the vessel as the man’s own body, he misses the
critical information in this passage.
61Bahnsen says, “It should be noted that ‘sexual sin’ (=fornication) need not involve
genital intercourse. Imagine a wife who engages in romantic kissing, undressing,
caressing, fondling, … [of] someone not her husband. It would be ridiculous to defend
her against the charge of “fornication” by appealing to the absence of genital intercourse.
kisses, touch, talk, dancing, or actions that lead either party to be
sexually aroused. Proverbs contrasts the righteous sexual arousal
(“enraptured”) caused by a wife’s kisses, arms, and breasts with the
sinful sexual arousal (also “enraptured”) caused by a seductress’ kisses
and the embrace of her arms (Prov. 5:1-23). Sexual immorality includes
any and all of the foreplay that arouses sexual desires. This command
cannot be taken for granted because even among mature believers,
fornication is a very real danger if the following rules are not followed.
Second, Paul commands believers to be totally set apart to the Lord in
their relationship (“in sanctification” vv. 3-4). To be set apart means to
be separated to the Lord from the world’s ways of doing things.
Third, Paul calls every man to “acquire his own wife in… honor” (v. 4).
Anything that would dishonor this woman must be avoided. A good
question to ask is, “Would I be embarrassed by what I did to her if she
later married someone else?”
Fourth, during this stage when you are seeking “to acquire a wife,” do
not arouse the “passion of lust” (v. 5). Note that this verse doesn’t just
forbid the couple from fulfilling the passion of lust (i.e., sexual
fulfillment by intercourse); it forbids the passions of lust from arising in
the first place. Anything that arouses these passions must be
scrupulously avoided. To fail to do so is to play with fire. Paul will
reinforce this command again in 1 Corinthians 7:1 by ruling out all touch
that “ignites the fire” of sexual desire. Because of the strong temptations
to rationalize, it is helpful to note that kisses (Song 1:2), hand under head
(Song 2:6), petting (Song 5:4-5), and embraces (Song 1:3; 2:6; 8:3) can
definitely be sexually arousing. If the mind and heart are not guarded,
even innocent things like the beauty of feet (Song 7:1), “the curves of …
thighs” (Song 7:1), “tresses” of hair (7:5), privacy (Song 1:4), ornaments
(Song. 1:10-11), perfume (Song 1:12; 3:6; 4:10), eye to body
appreciation (Song 4:1-8; 5:11-16), hand to head contact (Song 2:6; 8:3),
leaning on each other (8:5), a right handed embrace (Song 2:6), and
gazing into the face (Song 2:14) can be a temptation as well. The mind is
The Song of Songs presents the kind of activities mentioned here as appropriate to the
state of marriage.” Theses on Divorce and Spousal Abuse (a Presbytery paper for the
OPC), p. 3. John White rightly says, “Is there any moral difference between two naked
people in bed petting to orgasm and another two having intercourse? Is the one act a
fraction of an ounce less sinful than the other? Is it perhaps more righteous to pet with
clothes on? If so, which is worse, to pet with clothes off or to have intercourse with
clothes on?” (John White, Eros Defiled , ((Madison, WI: IVP, 1977), p. 53
a powerful thing, and as we will see, setting up rules like the Muslims do
will not solve the problem. The heart itself must be guarded by God’s
grace so that we “make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts”
(Rom. 13:14). This booklet is not seeking to lay down a list of
appropriate and inappropriate touches (which may be different from
couple to couple). Rather, it is encouraging couples to avoid all sexually
arousing touch until marriage. It is not a formula, but a principle of
living. Formulas let you down, whereas principles of gracious living
apply to every circumstance.
Fifth, we should not imitate the way the world gets a spouse: (“not in the
passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God” v. 5). Robert
Andrews has unwittingly failed on this point by using a secular model of
sexual progression to define his view of courtship. (More on that below.)
God has his own blueprints in the Bible, and we need to turn to those.
Sixth, Paul commanded every believer to not “take advantage of” the
person he might be courting. Just because one person is not aroused by
physical touch does not mean that the other partner will not be.
Sensitivity to the holiness of the other person must be heightened. Again,
what is proper must be defined by the Bible, not by culture. Andrews
should exegetically show that the kinds of touch he is advocating are all
proper.
Seventh, the man who is seeking to acquire this woman must make sure
that he does not “defraud his brother in this matter” (v. 6) of passions.
There are differences of view as to whether the person defrauded is the
woman’s father or the woman’s future husband, but since the defrauding
has to do with sexual passions (which only a future husband has a right
to), I believe that it is the future husband who is defrauded. The point of
the passage is that with respect to “this matter” of sexual passions, the
suitor must not take what is not yet his to take.62 John Thompson states:
“But who is this brother that is being defrauded? It can only be the
woman's future spouse!” Leon Morris agrees: “The future partner of
such a one has been defrauded…. It reminds us that all sexual looseness
represents an act of injustice to someone other than the two parties
concerned.” (p. 126) Until a person is totally committed in betrothal,
anything he is doing to this woman is potentially being done against
another man. So don’t relate in any way to this woman that you would
To defraud means to cheat, to deprive of rights or of property; “to have or to claim
more than one’s due” (Liddel & Scott).
62
regret if you didn’t end up marrying her. This defrauding is not limited
to sexual intercourse. We know this for two reasons: 1) Verse 6 says that
even though others may not find out, God will know and avenge. 2) The
phrase “this matter” indicates that Paul doesn’t want the “passion of lust”
robbed from the future husband because sexual desire (“passion”) is the
right of the husband and wife alone. This means that any use of each
other that arouses sexual desire is taking something that belongs to the
future spouse alone. Therefore this phrase rules out most forms of dating
because of the sexual feelings and romantic attachments that are taken
from each other.
Obviously, once betrothal has happened, the previous point does not
apply to the same degree that it would before betrothal (the couple are
pledged to be married, and nothing but a divorce could separate that).
But even though betrothal is the time of developing romance and giving
the heart away (see Jer. 2:2 - “The love of your betrothal.”), it is still a
time when sexual purity must be maintained (“I will betroth you to me in
righteousness… I will betroth you to me in faithfulness” – Hos. 2:19-20).
A betrothed woman must be able to be presented by the parent to the
husband as a chaste virgin (2 Cor. 11:2).
Paul anticipates the flippancy of some who think that stolen kisses are no
big deal by warning us that this is indeed a serious matter: “because the
Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and
testified… Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God,
who has also given us His Holy Spirit.” (v. 6). Failure to keep these
rules will almost guarantee failure. Paul knows human weakness, and he
knows how easy it is for us to rationalize our compromise of the
commands of God.
Eighth, we are to avoid all “uncleanness” in our relationship (v. 7). This
would involve not just sexual intercourse, but any sexually stimulating
actions.
Ninth, we are to actively pursue holiness in the relationship (v. 7). This
gives the whole courtship a God-centered focus.
1 Corinthians 7:1 – Premarital touch
1 Corinthians 7:1 says, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
Some commentators take the phrase “touch a woman” as a euphemism
for “to marry a woman,” and agree with the NIV paraphrase (“It is good
for a man not to marry”), teaching that Paul was strongly recommending
against marriage. This would make verse 1 a parallel to verse 26. While
this is a possible interpretation, there are several arguments that stand
strongly against it.
First, this appears to contradict Paul’s words in the very next verse where
Paul commanded the Thessalonians, “let each man have his own wife,
and let each woman have her own husband” (v. 2). Why would Paul
command (the Greek is in the imperative) something that he has just said
is good not to do?63 That seems like an extremely awkward way to argue
his point.
Second, the Greek word for “touch” has sexual connotations, and is not a
synonym for “marry.” Its primary meaning is to cause burning to take
place, to light a fire, or to kindle a fire. The derivative meanings are to
have close physical contact, to cling to, to touch intimately, or to have
sexual contact.64 Though the word “touch” could have non-sexual
connotations, it frequently referred to any kind of physical touch that
would ignite the flames of passion. But it can confidently be said that the
full phrase, “to touch a woman,” always referred to some kind of
sexually stimulating contact with a woman, whether within marriage or
outside of marriage.65 The straightforward meaning of the term has
caused some commentators to take it as an encouragement for married
people to abstain from sexual relations. However, this too violates the
context, which immediately calls for regular sexual relations within
This tension is heightened when one considers Paul’s strong opinion to the contrary in
other passages. For example, 1 Timothy 4:1-3 considers one of the deceptive “doctrines
of demons” to be “forbidding to marry.” In the same book he commands younger widows
to get married and bear children (1 Tim. 5:14). While it is still possible to make verse 1
parallel with verse 26 – as a temporary encouragement to avoid marriage, the immediate
context and the meaning of the terms rule that interpretation out in my opinion.
64 BDAG dictionary lists six definitions: 1. to cause illumination or burning to take place,
light, kindle, 2. to make close contact, 3. cling to, 4. to partake of someth., w. cultic
implications, have contact with, touch, 5. to touch intimately, have sexual contact,6. to
make contact with a view to causing harm, touch. Any of definitions 1 (metaphorically),
2,3 or 5 could be in view and would fit the context of not arousing and/or satisfying
sexual desires.
65 The nine times it occurs in the ancient world is in Plato’s Leges 8:840a; Aristotle’s
Politica 7.14.12; The LXX on Genesis 20:6, Ruth 2:9, Prov. 6:29; Plutarch’s Life of
Alexander the Great 21.4; Josephus’ Antiquities 1.163; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
1.17.6.
63
marriage (vv. 3-5). Why say that it is good to abstain from sexual
relations within marriage and then immediately command every married
couple to engage in regular sexual relations and to not deny one another
(v. 7)? Though this interpretation takes the correct meaning of the term,
it fails to apply it to the right people – singles.
Third, the context itself confirms that Paul was calling upon Christians to
avoid any touch prior to marriage that would arouse sexual desires. The
kind of touch he was talking about was always immoral outside of
marriage (v. 2a) yet was commanded inside of marriage (vv. 2b-5). What
kind of touch would be considered “sexual immorality” before marriage,
but would be considered an obligation after marriage? It is a touch that
renders the Biblically commanded “affection due” to a spouse (v. 3), any
touch that demonstrates authority over the other person’s body (v. 4), and
any touch that relates to sexual hungers (implied in “lack of self-control”
– v. 9). The implication is that the fiancé in verses 25-40 does not yet
have authority over the other person’s body (cf. 2Cor. 11:2). The lady
remains under her father’s protection until marriage (vv. 36-38). The
further implication is that they should indeed deprive one another of their
sexual desires prior to marriage (the opposite of v. 5), they should show
self-control (vv. 5b, 9) and they should not “burn with passion” (v. 9). In
context Paul is ruling out sexual touch or anything that arouses sexual
desires.
The previous considerations rule out three interpretations: First, Paul was
not promoting the single life. Instead, he was commanding marriage as
the norm for “each man” and “each woman” (v. 2) just as Genesis 2 did.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that Paul later considered any
prohibition of marriage to be a doctrine of demons (1Tim. 4:1-3) that
was completely contrary to his normal desires (“I desire that the younger
widows marry, bear children…” – 1Tim. 5:14). It is also supported by a
close analysis of Paul’s arguments in the rest of the chapter which show
that marriage was the norm while singleness was only temporary advice
that applied during “the present distress” (v. 26).66
66
To those who object that verses 25 and following are indeed promoting singleness as
an ideal, I would respond that singleness for the Corinthians was only “good because of
the present distress” (v. 26) and because he wanted to spare them from the “trouble in the
flesh” (v. 27) that they would experience during the “short” (v. 29) time of intense
persecution that was soon to come upon them. His instructions were not a pattern for all
Nor was Paul promoting abstinence within marriage. This ascetic
interpretation flies in the face of the sexual imperatives in verses 2-5, the
language of obligation in verse 3 (ὀφειλομένην = to owe something;
ἀποδιδότω = to pay something due), the issue of authority/lack of
authority in relation to their bodies (v. 4), and the moral dangers involved
in long abstinence (v. 5). This interpretation is foreign to Paul’s thought.
Nor is Paul ruling out all touch of women before marriage (as some
Christians have taught). For example, Paul is not referring to the kind of
touch that a man would have for his sister. 1 Timothy 5:2 admonishes us
to treat “younger women as sisters, with all purity.” Certainly some
forms of brotherly/sisterly touch might become inappropriate if they
began to enflame passions, but the prohibition in verse 1 is not a
prohibition of all touch, but a prohibition of any touch that might stir up
sexual desires.
The bride of Song of Solomon gives sound advice to the virgins of
Jerusalem when she charges them: “Do not arouse, do not stir up love
before its own time” (Song 2:7; 3:5; 8:4 in NAB). The love that is being
stirred up is sexual love. Certainly “it is better to marry than to burn with
passion” (1 Cor. 7:9), but it is better to not start those sexual fires in the
first place through touch (v. 1). God’s will for couples seeking marriage
is to “flee sexual immorality” (1 Cor. 6:18) and to “flee also youthful
lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22). He calls them to “make no provision for the flesh, to
fulfill its lusts” (Rom. 13:14).
A Detailed Study and Interaction With an Alternative
View
Now that we have laid down the general principles, it is time to analyze
in detail what this looks like. I will be using Robert Andrews’ book, The
Family: God’s Weapon of Victory, first edition, as a foil with which to
interact with mistakes people have made in both form and freedom. I am
time, but were a temporary measure. And so strong was the norm of marriage and
children in Paul’s mind (see the parallel of Gen. 1:28; 2:18-15) in 1Tim. 5:14; 4:1-3), that
Paul makes clear that even his temporary advice during the present distress could be
ignored if the father thought his daughter was getting too old to wait (vv. 36,38). Far
from making singleness the norm, marriage and children is the norm, and singleness is
the exception that requires a special “gift” from the Lord v. 7).
using his book as a foil for three reasons: First, because two chapters in
the book have led a number of people into needless stress and even sin.
This is because Robert Andrews has neglected key elements of Biblical
form and has consequently misinterpreted the true nature of freedom.
The second reason I am using his book as a foil is because Andrews’
book is the best book that I have read on the subject of family and comes
very highly recommended by me. I would like people to have the needed
corrections to the book so that they can benefit from the rest of what he
had to say. The third reason I am using his book as a foil is that it brings
up all the issues that need to be discussed in this chapter: issues of “love
at first sight,” gazing into one another’s eyes, romantic talking, holding
hands, deep communication of vision, hand around the waist or shoulder,
and kissing. It is my hope that people will benefit from both his book and
from my interactions with it. My goal is for the body to grow by means
of iron sharpening iron.
The Primary Areas of Disagreement with Robert Andrews
The chapters where the most problems can be found in Robert Andrews’
book are chapters 15 and 18. In chapter 15 I especially take issue with
the following sections: “Get me to church on time – the sexual
progression,” “Steps to Oneness,” “The total package,” and “Sexual
progression summary.” In chapter 18 I especially take issue with the
following sections: “Establishing a courtship relationship,” “During
courtship,” and “Engagement!”
Though he describes steps 4-12 of his “steps to oneness” as being
“sexual” in nature, he believes that steps 4-6 are appropriate in courtship
and that steps 7-9 are appropriate in engagement. The three “sexual”
steps he allows during courtship are holding hands, arm to shoulder
contact and hand to waist contact. The three steps that he approves of for
engagement are mouth to mouth kissing, hand to head contact and eye to
body perusal. He believes the twelve steps outlined are the normal,
sequential steps that should be taken in a healthy relationship.
There are three problems with this approach. The first is that Andrews
does not seek to justify his “steps to oneness” from Scripture. Nor does
he seek to define each step by Scripture. Instead, Andrews has simply
adopted a secular sociological model established by Desmond Morris, a
zoologist/anthropologist. It is “man’s wisdom,” not the wisdom of God.
Second, this is a formulaic approach to finding a spouse that is not
sensitive to great differences that occur among individuals. While it is
true that one couple may find holding hands to not in any way arouse
sinful desires, another couple may react quite differently and stumble
into sin by using these steps. The Bible’s approach does not try to push
everyone through the same formula. Instead, it provides principles which
must be applied by the Spirit’s help to unique people and unique
circumstances. Formulas tend to lead to immaturity because there is no
need to think, apply Scripture or seek the Spirit’s wisdom - you just
apply the formula. But formulas also have a tendency to lead to either
legalism or moral failure. They can lead to legalism if a person insists
that each of these steps is necessary to achieve a godly marriage (when
Scripture does not insist on any of the “pre-marital”). On the other hand,
it can lead to moral failure if a person feels pressured to kiss or engage in
other body contact that would turn him/her on sexually. As we will see,
the Bible requires wisdom to avoid sin, not formulas.
Third, it is disconcerting that Andrews would view any sexual touch as
appropriate prior to marriage. We have already demonstrated that when
Paul said, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Cor. 7:1), he
had in mind all touch that ignites sexual arousal. Andrews believes that
six of the nine “sexual” steps are appropriate prior to marriage. He says,
“Sex is not intercourse alone. Sex is the total package, beginning with
holding hands.” (p. 204)
But this last statement brings up a fourth objection. I am not convinced
that his characterization of what is sexual and what is not sexual is
accurate in all situations. For example, on steps 1-3 Andrews says, “At
this point, little if any bonding has occurred. Either or both parties can
stop the relationship because the sexual progression has not begun.”
However, his comments after steps one and two belie this: “Where have I
been?” “Their eyes meet. There is magic in the air.” As we will see in the
next section, even these steps can be sexually intoxicating given the right
people, the right circumstances and the right frame of mind. On the other
hand, is it always true that “hand to hand” contact is “the first ‘sexual’
contact” (P. 203)? I think these issues need to be defined Biblically,
which we will now seek to do.
It is more complex than Andrews’ formula shows
Andrews rightly admonishes his readers to “flee sexual immorality” (1
Cor. 6:18) and to “flee also youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22). He calls them
to “make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts” (Rom. 13:14).
Those are great admonitions. However, it is foolish to think that only
steps 10-12 would make provision for the flesh. Steps 10-12 are so
obviously wrong for an unmarried person that we would agree with
Andrews’ assessment that they are only appropriate to marriage.67
Andrews lists steps 10-12 as 10) hand and mouth to breast, 11) hand to
genital and 12) genital to genital. But Song of Solomon indicates that in
the right context all twelve steps (and many more) can be intoxicatingly
erotic. Song 6:5 says, “Turn your eyes away from me, for they have
overcome me.” His very gaze was intoxicating her with sexual desire.
This is not to say that every look from her husband had that effect, and it
would be legalistic to say that betrothed couples may not look at each
other at all. But we need to recognize that even a look can go too far.
Scripture cautions us, “Do not arouse, do not stir up love before its own
time” (Song 2:7; 3:5; 8:4 in NAB). It is saying that anything that stirs up
sexual love before marriage should be avoided, whether it is physical or
not. Sexual love is “like flames of fire” (Song. 8:6) and “many waters
cannot quench love” (Song 8:7). To get the fires of sexual desire started
is a dangerous thing. You simply cannot start down the slippery slope of
any sexual touch without violating Song 2:7; 3:5 and 8:4.
However, avoiding sin in our romance is more complex than simply
setting up a legalistic set of rules. Some Muslims have sought to avoid
sin by covering their women head to toe and avoiding all physical
contact prior to marriage. Scripture does set guidelines and hedges in
place, but it does not see all non-sexual sight and touch as inappropriate.
How do we define what is and is not sexual? Anything can have the
potential of being sexual during a romantic betrothal. But this does not
mean that we are to avoid meeting together. On one occasion, a glance at
the feet or hips would not stir up sexual passion, but in the right situation
Solomon confesses that the beauty of feet and “the curves of your thighs”
(Song 7:1) was intoxicating and “the king is held captive by your tresses”
(7:5). That is certainly sexual language. Likewise a kiss (Song 1:2; 4:11;
5:13,16; 7:9; 8:1), privacy (Song 1:4), ornaments (Song. 1:10-11),
perfume (Song 1:12; 3:6; 4:10), eye to body appreciation (Song 4:1-8;
5:11-16), hand to head contact (Song 2:6; 8:3), leaning on each other
(8:5), a right handed embrace (Song 2:6), gazing into the face (Song
2:14), embracing chest to breast (Song 1:13), as well as the obvious
67
We are of course not considering the non-romantic touch that is necessary for a health
care worker to administer care, hygiene, etc.
examples of steps 10-12 are all capable of quickly leading to the final act
of love.
Couples need to guard their hearts by not putting themselves into
situations where innocent acts could easily lead to guilty acts. Given the
right circumstances, Solomon confessed to his wife that even “one look
of your eyes” has “ravished my heart” (Song 4:9) and a “link of your
necklace” had the same effect. I use these illustrations to point out that
even what might be permissible in some contexts for a betrothed couple
could lead to sin in other contexts. This requires personal maturity on the
part of the couple, not simply formulaic rules. Only those who “walk in
the Spirit” will “not fulfill the lust of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16). A set of rules
will not fix the problem. Such a couple might need to back away from
even innocent things should their hearts begin to be ravished. Any touch
that amounts to “foreplay” violates the command to not defraud (1Thes.
4:6). It is also making provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts (contrary
to Romans 13:14).
The good and the bad of the twelve steps
Let’s consider each of the twelve steps that Andrews lists and try to
discern the liberties and cautions that the Scriptures set before us.
Step 1 – Eye to person. He notices her across a crowded room. “Where
have I been?” he says.
This eye to person contact could have quite a wide range of meaning
from negative (stare, leer, peek, gape, oggle, undress with one’s eyes,
longing eyes) to neutral (notice, glance) to positive (observe, recognize,
watchful). Obviously the maturity of the heart will dictate whether this
step violates Matthew 5:28 or whether it is a godly observation such as
Boaz had of Ruth (Ruth 2-3). Boaz’s objective analysis of Ruth’s
marriageability is a very good example of this step being useful.
However, it would be legalistic to say that this step is necessary. Many
good marriages have been contracted via a mail romance with eye to
person contact not being made until late in the courtship game. Isaac and
Rebekah didn’t see each other till their wedding day (Gen. 24:64-67). It
would be legalistic to insist that this be a needed step for a Biblical
marriage to take place. It may be preferable for any given couple, but not
necessary.
A further observation that needs to be made is that it is naïve to say that
this step cannot be sexual. Judges 14:1 shows that Samson fell into sin at
this first step. Judah contracted a bad marriage because his heart became
committed at this very first step (Gen. 38:2). One of the reasons for
parental supervision and involvement (see below) is because it is hard for
people to be completely objective. However, single men and women
must guard their hearts and make sure that they do not allow their hearts
to be given away prematurely. For example, it is clear that the eye to
person contact in Song of Solomon 4:1-8; 5:11-16; and 7:1,5 is
descriptive of a person who has completely given his or her heart away
to the other person. As such, it would not be appropriate to a person not
courting since one needs to guard against stirring up love before it’s time
(Song 2:7; 3:5; 8:4) or committing one’s heart before he or she had
evaluated whether the other person meets the Biblical qualifications. The
point of this discussion is that formulas do not show the complexities of
life.
Step 2 – Eye to Eye. Their eyes meet. There is magic in the air!
While there is nothing wrong with eye-to-eye contact prior to courtship
(it is inevitable), we need to recognize the naiveté of thinking that eye-toeye contact is always non-sexual. Proverbs 6:25 speaks of the power of a
prostitute’s eyes – “Do not lust after her beauty in your heart, nor let her
allure you with her eyes.” If it is possible to give your heart away to a
prostitute because of eye-to-eye contact, even a godly man and woman
can give their hearts away without intending to. Think of the intoxicating
power of the godly bride’s eyes in Song of Solomon 4:9. The husband
says, “You have ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; you have
ravished my heart with one look of your eyes.” Does this mean that there
should be no eye-to-eye contact before marriage? Of course not.
Legalistic rules do not provide for solid marriages. But when “magic is
in the air” (as Andrews words it) we must immediately guard our heart
sufficiently to investigate the character, worldview, calling and other
fundamental issues that are foundational to a good marriage. It is hard to
reason objectively without such caution.
I am not saying that God cannot make people romantically “fall in love
at first sight.” But neither is it the foundation for a godly marriage. This
appears to be what happened with Jacob and Rachael (Gen. 29). And
interestingly, it appears to be the eyes that made the heart connection
with Rachael and it was the eyes that made him not attracted to Leah –
“Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful of form and
appearance” (v. 17). So I am not disagreeing with Andrews when he says
that this is often a step in romance. But we need to recognize the power
of this step and not treat it as inconsequential. Many a man is committed
by step two without having done any of the Biblical steps of evaluation
first.
While this step does not mention the communication that happens with
other facial expressions, this non-verbal communication can be quite
powerful. Consider the myriad ways that the face can communicate
without saying a word: grinding his teeth, her face grew pale, he blushed,
his face turned red with anger, radiant, beaming, interested, frown, smile,
grin, pursed lips, knitted brow, worried look, bemused, puzzled,
expressionless face, glower, chin jutting out, clenched jaw, gaped, “her
mouth fell open,” “he had a determined look on his face,” “her face grew
soft,” serene face, troubled face, tight lipped, joyful, bedraggled, tousled,
flustered, shocked, pleased, proud look, despise, look down on, snarl,
“curled his lip,” sneer, “the lights went on,” “her face became clouded,”
astonished, friendly, cruel, aloof, poker face, bored. Obviously, most of
these words do not relate to finding a spouse, but evaluation of a person’s
character should sometimes take into account non-verbal
communication.
Step 3 – Voice to voice. This a get-acquainted time as the couple gets to
know one another. There are no overt sexual overtones. This step occurs
in a group setting.
Obviously hearing each other speaking in a group setting can be a
wonderful way of evaluating other people in a relaxed way. However,
this too takes maturity so as not to use deceit and flattery to make an
impression. Often, those who are “fishing for a mate” can come across
differently when talking with someone that they are interested in than
they might with others. But this is where many different kinds of group
settings can be helpful in seeing the real person (church fellowships,
work events, hospitality, political events, etc).
However, in this list of developing oneness, voice-to-voice
communication should have been included under the courtship and
betrothal sections as well. This is true for two reasons: First, it is
imperative that Christian young people discuss such issues as worldview,
doctrine, values, presuppositions, calling, passions, etc. long before their
hearts begin to romantically bond. The purpose of Biblical courtship is
not romantic bonding, but finding out if the other person is really
qualified to be a spouse.
The second reason is that betrothal is a great time to practice romantic
communication that is not sexual in nature. Many a married woman
wishes that her husband knew how to be endearing without feeling like
such words will always be the prelude to sexual touch. Quality time and
encouraging words are needed throughout marriage, and the time of
betrothal is a great time to practice such voice-to-voice communication
unhampered with sexual agendas. It will develop habits and patterns of
speech that will strengthen a marriage later. In fact, it is one of the main
purposes for betrothal. The time of betrothal is a time of preparation for
marriage through non-sexual communication, endearment, planning and
service.
Having agreed that voice-to-voice communication need not be sexual, we
should not be so naïve as to think that words cannot begin to lead a
person down a slippery slope into sin. They can. The book of Proverbs
not only warns people about non-verbal seduction, but warns about the
“seductress who flatters with her words” (Prov. 2:16; see 6:24; 7:5),
whose “mouth is smoother than oil” (Prov. 5:3) and who can smoothly
rationalize sin with her speech (Prov. 30:20). It is not simply seductive
kissing that makes “the mouth of an immoral woman a deep pit” (Prov.
22:14), but also the communication that comes from that mouth.
Communication is complex and requires the grace and wisdom of the
Holy Spirit to keep it godly. Not even all non-sexual talk is appropriate
between those who are not courting with parental approval.
Step 4 – Hand to hand. “We are a couple.” They have decided to
continue the progression. This is the first “sexual” contact.
There are at least four problems with the way Andrews has worded this:
seeing any sexual contact as being appropriate prior to marriage, seeing
any “progression” of sexual contact prior to a commitment (betrothal)
being made, seeing all hand-holding as involving sexual contact, and
making hand-holding an expected thing during courtship.
I am first of all amazed that Andrews would allow for any “sexual
contact” prior to marriage. If (for the sake of argument) we were to agree
that holding hands was sexual in nature, then 1 Corinthians 7:1 would
rule it out. Any “touch” that kindles sexual desires before marriage is
considered “sexual immorality” (1Cor. 7:1-2). Scripture admonishes us
to “flee youthful passions” (2Tim. 2:2 ESV), not to play with them.
Though this book does not say that people should avoid holding hands
before marriage, we should not be naïve about the power of touch. In the
illustration that Andrews gives, “She finds the touch of his hand to be an
almost erotic experience.”68
Second, to give allowances for a progression on the sexual scale (as his
whole paradigm does) is also dangerous. Andrews describes the
progression from the first sexual touch to the next:
When he holds her hand, both notice the level of excitement is
considerably lower than it was the first time. The sexual law of
diminishing returns is now operative: There must be deeper, more
intimate physical contact to receive the same stimulation as the previous
sexual encounter produced.69
Once a person starts to give in to actions that pique sexual desire, the
sexual desires continue to grow stronger and stronger in a slippery slope
that drives irresistibly towards coitus. Paul did not speak of easing one’s
way into sexual progression, but rather said, “make no provision for the
flesh, to gratify its desires” (Rom. 13:14 ESV). One should stay as far
away from the sexual “progression” as he can. Later in this book I will
distinguish between sexual romance and non-sexual romance.
And this brings up a third objection. I think we are going beyond the
Bible if we insist that all hand-holding is sexual in nature. If it was, it
should be avoided prior to marriage. And some couples will have to
avoid holding hands if they are to make no provision for the flesh. But
they should not make rules for others regarding holding hands if the
Bible has not made such rules. And this highlights the difference
between following principles and following paradigms. The principle is
that we should not engage in any touch that arouses sexual feelings. This
might mean quite different things for different people. Indeed, it might
entail becoming more strict as one goes further into betrothal. A
paradigm puts everyone through the same experience (making some fall
into sin and causing others to miss legitimate romance). Parents often
feel, “If it was good for me, it should be good for my children.” But your
children may have greater vulnerabilities to lust than you did. It is much
better to give the principle – “Make sure that you seek to guard your
hearts during courtship. Make sure you guard your sexual desires during
betrothal and avoid anything that stirs them up.” It is quite conceivable
that a woman might be able to hold hands with no kindling of the sexual
68
69
Andrews, The Family, p. 202
Andrews, The Family, p. 202.
desires while her fiancé is not able to do so. She needs to be sensitive to
his weakness and not push the issue. It is quite conceivable that both are
able to hold hands at the beginning of their betrothal, but as time passed,
it became a temptation to sin. Only the individual can know those
boundaries and avoid them. A rule will not achieve the same thing. I am
not saying that a couple cannot make stricter rules for themselves
because of the dangers that they feel, but in this section I am trying to
avoid legalism. Scripture indicates that holding hands can be a sign of
affection with absolutely no sexual intimation, as children holding hands
with a mother (Is. 51:18) and God holding our hand (Ps. 73:23; Is. 41:13;
42:6). There can also be other reasons for holding a person’s hand. Jesus
drew Peter’s mother-in-law to her feet by the hand when he healed her
(Mark 1:31), as He did another unmarried girl (Matt 9:25). Peter did
much the same with Tabitha (Acts 9:40-41). So there is at least a
theoretical possibility that a betrothed couple could express their
affection for each other through holding hands.
But neither would I want to insist that this should be a normal part of
courtship or betrothal, as Andrews does. I see no requirement for it in the
Bible. The Bible indicates that parents should not press their children to
do anything that might cause them to stumble (Mark 9:42; 1Cor. 8:13;
2Cor. 11:29). Instead, they should encourage their children to apply the
universal principles in a way that will keep them pure all the way till
marriage (2Cor. 11:2).
Step 5 – Arm to shoulder. This is the first signal that “I want to protect
you.”
The fifth step that Andrews recommends is “arm to shoulder” contact.
He says, “This is the first sign that I want to protect you.” But is she his
to protect during courtship? Second, is it premature for him to pull her to
his side prior to her father giving that permission? Based on our
definition of courtship, this is the period to try to decide whether they are
to be married at all, so why would the man presume to affirm this kind of
belonging? Until the father gives permission to marry (as for example, in
betrothal), she is not his to protect.
The second problem I have is that “arm to shoulder” could mean
different things. This could be a greeting that one would give to a mother
or sister (see 1 Tim. 5:2). Or it could be a quick, innocent expression of
love and affection that would be appropriate to betrothal. Or it could be a
more sensual and prolonged touch that leads to sexual arousal. So even if
this step were applied to betrothal, it would have to be qualified. It is
unfortunate that Andrews believes that physical contact of some sort is
necessary for a budding romance to be “alive and well.”
Step 6 – Hand to waist. At this stage of vision, deeply held beliefs, values,
and life goals are shared. This is an opportunity to know one another
rather intimately without sexual pressure.
The sixth step that he gives is hand to waist. He states,
At this stage vision, deeply held beliefs, values, and life goals are shared.
This is an opportunity to know one another rather intimately without
sexual pressure.
This hand to waist contact does not flow from a commitment to the
woman since there is still a “chance to get out of this relationship without
someone being seriously hurt.”70 But if these steps are truly part of “a
slippery slide to intercourse” as Andrews affirms, 71 I fail to see why he
would advocate getting onto the “sexual progression” at all, let alone
before there is a commitment. Furthermore, what the hand to waist has to
do with vision, deeply held beliefs, values and life goals, I fail to see.
The second sentence seems to be more the driving reason for putting the
hand to the waist – deeper physical intimacy. But the problem once again
is that courtship is not the time for intimacy, but the time for discovering
whether they are to be married in the first place. I see this as a form of
embrace. Ecclesiastes 3:5 tells us that there is a time to embrace and a
time to refrain from embracing. 1 Corinthians 7:1 indicates that any time
that embracing leads to sexual arousal prior to marriage, it is not the time
to embrace. Song of Solomon indicates that any time that it arouses
sexual love before it’s time, it is inappropriate.
Step 7 – Face to face (mouth to mouth). Kissing occurs for the first time.
Much time seems to be spent gazing into each other’s eyes. Care must be
taken as the motor is now running. The wedding had better be
approaching.
Step 7 takes place during betrothal on Andrews’ plan. Two of the things
that Andrews allows at this stage can be highly erotic: gazing for
prolonged times into each other’s eyes and kissing mouth to mouth. Even
his definition of this stage admits that this is playing with fire. But the
70
71
question comes, “Why must care be taken while kissing and gazing into
each others eyes as opposed to care being taken to avoid kissing and
gazing into each other’s eyes?” I want to give Biblical information on
these two points because they have formed a stumbling block for so
many people. But first, let me point out that Andrews himself shows how
inappropriate this is simply by discussing the issue. He says,
God designed the slippery slope to end in intercourse, two people
becoming one flesh. For anyone to think that he or she can stop the
progression whenever they choose is foolish and naïve… Sex is not
intercourse alone. Sex is the total package, beginning with holding
hands. We do not hold hands with members of the same sex. Why?
Because even holding hands is sexual in nature. Each step,
beginning with holding hands, is designed by God to lead one step
nearer the ultimate goal of sexual union.72
As a counselor I have seen many couples end up engaging in the ultimate
goal of sexual union because they have caved into social pressure to
engage in the previous steps. It is foolish. God tells us to “flee sexual
immorality” (1 Cor. 6:18) and to “flee also youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22).
He calls us to “make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts” (Rom.
13:14). He clearly tells us not to touch each other in any way that will
ignite the fires of sexual desire (1 Cor. 7:1). We are to avoid being on the
slippery slope altogether because it is almost impossible to put the brakes
on once you are heading down the slippery slope. As Andrews himself
notes, “It is impossible to overemphasize the power of the sex drive
when it is unleashed. Whatever starts the sexual engine must be avoided
if purity is the goal.”73 Much of what Andrews says elsewhere does
promote purity, but he is sending mixed messages with chapters 15 and
18.
Gazing into each other’s eyes for prolonged periods
The eyes are the windows of the soul. As such, they are vehicles of
communication that are profound. A couple with pure hearts can look
into each other’s eyes with no problem, but this gazing can very quickly
and suddenly lead to arousing sexual desires. Song 6:5 says, “Turn your
eyes away from me, for they have overcome me.” The person in this
passage is experiencing the intoxicating desires that locked eyes can
72
73
produce. On the other hand, loving looks should not be forbidden
completely. Each couple will need to distinguish through mature
dependence on the Spirit where their hearts are.
Kissing mouth to mouth
Though a kiss is also a kind of touch, and should be evaluated according
to the principles given above, it might be useful to see what the Scripture
says about kissing. It must be admitted that not all kissing of the opposite
sex is wrong. For example, the whole church is admonished to “greet one
another with a holy kiss” (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Pet
5:14). While the early church interpreted this admonition as applying
women to women and men to men, the text does not say so. Indeed the
admonition indicates that a “holy” kiss was commanded to guard against
the possibility of an unholy kiss. From this it might be easy to conclude
that greeting a fiancé in the same way one greets her mother in church
could be appropriate. However, as with every other ethical decision, one
must not only look at the rules of Scripture, but must also analyze what
the Scripture says about the inner disposition and the outer
circumstances.74 the Scriptures seem to indicate that the ethics of kissing
are framed not just be rules, but also by the inward heart and by the
changes in the outward circumstances.
For example, Song of Solomon 8:1-2 seems to indicate that what is
appropriate in respect to kissing changes as soon as there is any romantic
relationship involved. It says,
Oh, that you were like my brother, who nursed at my mother’s breasts! If
I should find you outside, I would kiss you; I would not be despised. I
Two examples might suffice: Proverbs 27:14 says, “He who blesses his friend with a
loud voice, rising early in the morning, it will be counted a curse to him.” There is
nothing wrong with giving a blessing. In fact, you can probably think up a few Biblical
rules that command us to bless each other. There are even situations where doing so with
a loud voice is appropriate. But when you do it at 2 o’clock in the morning, it will not be
received as a blessing. Sensitivity to the situation is necessary to fully obey the Bible.
Another example could be given in the area of worship. Proverbs 21:27 says, “”The
sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with wicked
intent!” Sacrifices are good, but when we have just rebelled against God, God won’t
accept our worship. Our worship is even more offensive if our motive for worshipping is
not to please God, but to impress other people, such as the Pharisees were seeking to do.
These two Scriptures illustrate that the Bible requires a proper motive, situation, and
standard.
74
would lead you and bring you into the house of my mother, she who used
to instruct me.
This passage indicates that the kind of kissing appropriate between a
brother and sister would be inappropriate (“despised”) when engaged in
by the couple in public. Whichever way one interprets that passage (are
they betrothed or married?), it seems to at least indicate that the “who”
and the “where” can change the appropriateness of a kiss. Those two
factors made a kiss that was appropriate in one circumstance
inappropriate in another. Thus it is not enough to look at the rules of
Scripture. One must also examine the inward heart and the outward
circumstances.
Another example is the situation of Jacob and Rachael. Jacob kissed
Rachael when he first met her and had found out that she was a cousin
(Gen. 29:11-12), but after a month passed and Laban discovered that he
had grown to love her (v.v. 14-19) there appears to be no more contact
(vv. 20-25). This could explain the lack of recognition of Leah’s voice,
kiss, body, gestures, etc.
Of course, we must be cautious about deriving norms from examples like
this, but they do illustrate that circumstances change when a couple is
engaged. It is the opinion of this author that kissing will almost always
become sexual when engaged in by a betrothed - even if it doesn’t start
that way. Any kissing that is sexual violates the principles on the former
pages. However, all the Scriptural data is presented below so that the
reader can make his own ethical decision on this subject:
Statistical Analysis of Kinds of Kissing in the Bible
The following list comprises a comprehensive catalogue of types of
kissing in the Bible.
1. Parents (or grandparents) kissing sons & daughters (Gen.
27:26-27; 31:28; 31:55; 48:10; 50:1; 2 Sam. 14:33; 1 Kings
19:20; Luke 15:20
2. Related same-sex males kissing (Gen. 29:13; 33:4; 45:15; Ex.
4:27; 18:7)
3. Related same-sex females kissing: (Ruth 1:9; 14)
4. Non-related same sex males kissing (1 Sam. 10:1; 20:41; 2
Sam. 15:5; 19:39; 20:9; Matt 26:48-49; Mark 14:44-45; Luke
7:45; 22:47-48; Acts 20:37
5. Non-related, non-romantic opposite sex kissing (Gen. 29:11;
Luke 7:38; Luke 7:45)
6. Sexual kissing that is sinful: (Prov. 5:3; 7:13; 22:14)
7. Sexual kissing that is pure: (Song. 1:2; 4:11; 5:16; 7:9; 8:1)
8. General invitation to greet with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16; 1
Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thes. 5:26; 1 Pet 5:14). Though the
early church interpreted this as men kissing men and women
kissing women, the text does not say.
9. Religious kissing of idol, etc: (1 Kings 19:18; Job 31:27; Hos.
13:2)
10. Metaphorical kissing: (Psalm. 2:12; 85:10; Prov. 24:26; 27:6)
Here is a breakdown of the numbers:
Type of Kissing
Parents/children kissing
Related same-sex males kissing
Related same-sex females kissing
Non-related same-sex males kissing
Non-related, non-romantic opposite sex kissing
Sexual kissing that is sinful
Sexual kissing that is pure
General invitation to greet with holy kiss
Religious kissing of idol, etc.
Metaphorical kissing
Total
# times
8
5
2
10
3
3
5
5
3
4
43
%
17
11
4
21
6
6
11
10
6
8
100
While norms cannot be gained from narrative passages (unless God or
His representative is approving), there are some interesting facts that
should be noted from these Scriptures. 100% of opposite-sex kisses on
the mouth are described as sexually stimulating (Prov. 5:3; 7:13; 22:14;
Song. 1:2; 4:11; 5:16; 7:9; 8:1). 100% of “French kissing” is connected
with either immoral sex (Prov. 5:3; 22:14) or marriage sex (Song 4:11;
5:16; 7:9). Scripture warns against impurity in kissing by calling for the
church to only engage in a “holy kiss” (Rom. 16:16; 1Cor. 16:20; 2Cor.
13:12; 1Thes. 5:26). In my 31 years of counselling I have found that
when young couples begin to kiss, they inevitably start down Andrews’
slippery slope of sexual stimulation. There is a reason why many
courtship and betrothal advocates call for the first kiss to be on the day of
the wedding. Kissing is described in Scripture as having an exhilarating
and powerful affect upon one’s body.
Step 8 – Hand to head. This signifies complete confidence. Who do you
allow to touch your head? Only those you trust completely.
There is a wide range of nuance for “hand to head.” This could be a
perfectly appropriate praying of blessing upon the head of another
person. This is something that anyone might do with a mother or sister,
so would not necessarily be ruled out for betrothal. But Song of
Solomon also describes the head in erotic ways: “His left hand is under
my head, and his right hand embraces me.” (Song 2:6; 8:3). Certainly
that hand to head action was highly erotic and utterly inappropriate prior
to marriage. The fact that Andrews lists this under a sexual progression
troubles me, but hand to head by itself would not necessarily be sexual.
Once again, the Scripture’s approach is simpler and avoids legalistic
rules. It simply asks all parties to honestly evaluate whether the touch
engaged in kindles sexual desire. If so, avoid it.
Step 9 – Eye to body. This is not sexual in nature. “I’ve grown
accustomed to the tent in which you live.”
The ninth stage that Andrews lists is eye to body perusal. Can a person
notice the beauty of a woman without lust (Gen. 29:17; Esther 1:11)?
Yes. Can a woman notice the beauty of a man without sin (Gen. 39:6)?
Yes. Jesus was not blind. The narrators of Scripture describe the
beautiful form of men and of women (Gen. 12:14; 24:16; 26:7; 29:17;
39:6; Deut. 21:11; 1Sam. 9:2; 16:18; 25:3; 2Sam. 11:2; 14:27; Esth.
1:11; 2:7; Job 42:15; Song 1:16; etc.). But obviously caution needs to be
exercised since (contrary to Andrews’ assertion) what might be innocent
one moment can become quickly lustful due to our sin nature (Matt
5:19,28; Mark 7:21; see Gen. 39:6-7; 2Sam. 11:2; etc.).
Andrews lists the last three steps as reserved for marriage. These steps
are:
Step 10 – Hand and mouth to breast.
Step 11 – Hand to genital.
Step 12 – Genital to genital.
Scripture is quite clear that there are to be no sexual relations during
betrothal (Deut. 22:13-21; Matt. 1:18-25) or any time outside of
marriage. Andrews rightly sees these last three steps as only appropriate
to marriage. The breasts are supposed to ravish the husband (Prov. 5:19;
Song 1:13) and are inappropriate for anyone else to touch romantically
(Ezek. 23:3,21). It is impossible to read the Song of Solomon without
seeing that steps 10-12 are appropriate to marriage, but to marriage
alone.
Having looked at these steps, we can come to several conclusions: 1) The
steps are not Biblical steps. 2) The steps aren’t logically progressive
steps. Even he seems to see step 9 as less erotic than step 7. Any step can
quickly progress to any other step. 3) Not all steps need to always be
seen as sexual. 4) It is much simpler and better to follow the general
principles of Scripture and avoid anything that will arouse sexual desire
and/or to back off from anything that does so. Therefore, if hand-holding
is sexual, it must be avoided. If hugging is sexual, it must be avoided. If
kissing is sexual, it must be avoided. If a hand around the waist is sexual,
it must be avoided. Andrews’s advice is radical in our age, but it is not
radical enough. On page 204 he says,
I can hear someone saying, “Andrews, you have gone too far. Do you
really believe that holding hands is sexual and should be avoided?” Yes,
I do, until the appropriate time… When I gave this material many years
ago a married woman came up to me afterwards. “I never thought of it
before,” she said, “but when I first held hands with my husband it
definitely was an erotic experience. I can see that holding hands starts the
motor.
Having standards that preclude any sexual contact with members of the
opposite sex until a permanent commitment is made may incur the
world’s temporary ridicule, but that is a small price to pay for sexual
purity, for after all, “Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world
makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).
Those are good words indeed. But the “proper time” to get the sexual
motors moving is not courtship or betrothal. Paul says that the “touch” of
1 Corinthians 7:1 that ignites the fire should be reserved to marriage (v.
2). There is no gradual entering into sexual touch before marriage in
these verses. There is no start down the slippery slope of no return of
sexual desire. It is hard enough to keep such passions in control without
fanning the flames hotter. To reiterate once again, God’s will for couples
seeking marriage is to “flee sexual immorality” (1 Cor. 6:18) and to “flee
also youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22). He calls them to “make no provision
for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts” (Rom. 13:14).
Wisdom From A Puritan
“In the first institution of marriage, when there was no
father to give consent, then our Heavenly Father gave
His consent: God supplied the place of the father, and
brought His daughter unto her husband, and ever since,
the father after the same manner, hath offered his
daughter unto the husband...a man hath the disposition
of his own substance, so he hath the disposition of his
own children...therefore in Matthew 24:30 the wife is
said to be bestowed in marriage, which signifieth, that
some did give her beside herself...it is a sweet wedding,
when the father and the mother bring a blessing to the
feast, and a heavy union which is cursed the first day
that it is knit. Marriage hath need of many counsellors,
and dost thou count [her] father too many...which is like
the foreman of thy instructors? Mark what kind of youth
they be, which have such haste, that they dare not stay
for their parents advice, they are such as hunt for
nothing but beauty...therefore honor thy parents in this,
as thou wouldest that thy children should honor thee.”
Cotton Mather, A Family Well-Ordered
“Again, the Holy Ghost gives thee two rules, godliness
and fitness: godliness, because our spouse must be like
Christ's spouse, that is, graced with gifts and
embroidered with virtues, as if we did marry holiness
herself… [But] It is not enough to be virtuous, but to be
suitable, . . . we see many times even the godly couples
to jar when they are married, because there is some
unfitness between them which makes [them at] odds . . .
so they which are like strive not, but they which are
unlike, as fire and water... so the unmarried should pray
God to send them a fit wife: for if they be not like, they
will not like.”
Cotton Mather, A Family Well-Ordered
“I remember you, the kindness of your youth,
the love of your betrothal,
when you followed Me in the wilderness,
in a land that was not sown.
Israel was holiness to the LORD.”
Jer. 2:2-3a
“I will allure her…and speak to her heart…
I will betroth you to Me forever;
yes, I will betroth you to Me
in righteousness and justice, in lovingkindness and mercy;
I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness,
and you shall know the LORD.”
Hos. 2:14,19-20
“I am jealous for you with godly jealousy.
that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”
2 Cor. 11:2
Chapter 6
Is There A Place For Pre-Marital Romance?
Betrothal - Delightful Romance
There are some who go overboard in their attempts to stay pure and
speak of not giving their hearts away until after they are married. But this
is the whole point of betrothal in the Bible. It is a time in which the
betrothed couple seeks to grow in friendship, seeks to learn the art of
male-female communication, and seeks to become expert in expressing
non-sexual love, endearment, care, and consideration for each other.
Indeed, it is these non-sexual expressions of love that set up a healthy
pattern for the rest of their marriage. How many women wish their
husbands knew how to show love in more ways than in bed? Well,
betrothal is the perfect period in which to practice what should be a
lifetime of wooing each other’s hearts. Hosea 2:14-23 speaks of an ideal
betrothal (that of God with His betrothed, Israel – see vv. 19-20), and
speaks of this time as a time of wooing (“I will allure her… I will speak
tenderly and to her heart” – v. 14 Amplified).
Though Scripture warns that there are dangers involved in the allurement
of romance, God tells His betrothed, “I will allure her… and speak
comfort to her” (Hos. 2:14), and this romantic allurement would be so
effective that it would cause Israel to sing (v. 15) and make heaven and
earth seem to resonate (v. 21-22). It is clear that this couple has fallen
head-over-heels in love with each other. Though still betrothed (see vv.
19-20), the woman would transition from using the very formal “sir”
(Hebrew Baal) to the more intimate “my man” (Hebrew Ishi), which was
a more romantic and informal type of address that was used by both
married people and betrothed couples.75
Other indications of increasing romance are that the groom-to-be speaks
“to her heart” (literal Hebrew of Hos 2:14), gives her gifts (v. 15a), helps
her dream about the future (v. 15b - “door of hope”), helps her to feel
comfortable in the covenant of betrothal (v. 18), and helps her to
gradually become comfortable with the fact that they belong to each
other (v. 23). All these verses are expressions of being “in love” and
show a couple that is comfortable in finally giving their hearts away. We
See Deut 20:7 where ‫ ָהאִישׁ‬is used of the betrothed man and ‫ אִ שָּׁ ה‬is used of the
betrothed “wife.” The same is true in the Greek where Joseph is called Mary’s “husband”
after betrothal but before marriage (Matt 1:19).
75
have already seen that it is not appropriate to totally give their hearts
away during courtship, since they are not yet committed to each other,
but once the covenant of betrothal has been entered into, this is the best
time for a couple to learn non-sexual ways of expressing their love.
Hosea makes it very clear that all this romantic communication (vv. 1415) and all these expressions of “lovingkindness” (v. 19) can be done in a
manner that guarantees total purity and propriety, for God said, “I will
betroth you to Me forever; yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness
and justice, in lovingkindness and mercy; I will betroth you to Me in
faithfulness, and you shall know the LORD” (vv. 19-20). So Hosea 2 is a
passage that shows the possibility of maintaining purity and propriety at
the same time as romancing the heart of the other person.
In a similar way, Jeremiah 2:2-3 speaks of the “love of your betrothal”
(v. 2) and “the kindness of your youth” before the actual marriage takes
place. It too describes this relationship as having purity in form when it
describes it as being “holiness to the LORD” (v. 3), but it does so in the
context of intimate relationship (“went after Me in the wilderness”). It is
a beautiful balance of form and freedom that should instruct our
betrothals.
Betrothal – Time For Developing Habits and Skills for
Marriage
Before I recommend specific activities for the time of betrothal, let me
mention that betrothal is explicitly said to have as one of its purposes the
developing of habits and skills for a lifetime of marriage. Romancing the
heart of each other is not uncontrollable emotion, but involves thought,
creativity, action, words, social involvement with other friends, etc. For
example, Jeremiah 2 implies specific activities during the betrothal that
showed the considerate “kindness of your youth” (Jer. 2:2), the creative
expressions of “love” (v. 2), emerging expressions of leadership and
followership (“when you followed Me” – v. 2), and new patterns of
worship and devotions together (“Israel was holiness to the LORD” – v.
3).
Hosea 2:14-23 also implies developing skills and habits that would
benefit a marriage. These include the art of wooing (“I will allure her”),
leadership (“I will bring her”), learning to comfort (“speak comfort to
her”), gift giving (“I will give her…”), love and respect (v. 16), patterns
of righteousness (v. 19), justice (v. 19), mercy (v. 19) and keeping one’s
word (“faithfulness”). It is during this time that the relationship can be
set on a God-centered foundation rather than a selfish one (v. 20). This is
the time to highly develop the art of communication (vv. 21-22). Though
there are sexual skills to be learned after marriage, these other issues are
the types of things that many marriages are weak on. What better time to
learn them and make habits of them than during betrothal? The rest of
this booklet will seek to give some guidance on a few of these areas.
Exercising leadership while under leadership
Every man is going to be under authority yet also has opportunities to
exercise authority. Hopefully during courtship the young lady and her
parents have seen the kind of submission and leadership that the young
man has. A wise father will test such leadership throughout the courtship
so that the young lady can witness what it is that she will be submitting
to. But betrothal is also an excellent time to develop this leadership in
submission. The young lady is still under the father’s authority until such
time as she is married (Gen. 2:24; Numb. 30; 1Cor. 7:37-38). Numbers
30 is particularly clear that the woman cannot make unilateral vows apart
from her father’s permission “while in her father’s house” (vv. 3,16).
However, it is wise for a parent to give more and more leadership to the
betrothed man to give him practice in leading a wife. If a father is not
willing to relinquish any degree of leadership, the young man should
submit and wait. However, the wisest course is to not keep the man
passive throughout the betrothal.
The five languages of love
While every person tends to be stronger in one language of love than
another, it is wise to seek to grow in the expression of all five languages
of love. These are
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The expression of encouraging words (1 Cor. 8:1)
Acts of service (1 John 3:18)
Gift giving (John 3:16; Eph. 5:25)
Quality time (John 15:15)
Physical touch and closeness
Encouraging words are especially encouraging when they are
accompanied with the same body language. It is good for all of us to
work on our body language and make sure that it lines up with what we
are seeking to communicate verbally. Greeting each other with a big
smile and the words, “I am really glad to see you,” are quite different
than a shy “Hi” with eyes avoiding his. Depending on the couple, teasing
and flirting can be words that build up. Expressions of thanks and
appreciation for the other person’s actions of love, notes, and special
cards are great ways of expressing encouraging words. Trying to see
things from the other person’s view, or asking questions of clarification,
or affirming respect for the other person’s view (even if you haven’t been
convinced yet) can go a long way when there are disagreements. Praising
the other person in front of others is another way of being encouraging.
Acts of service are a natural way of expressing love. The more varied
and creative these are, the better. These acts of service could be anything
from the more mundane tasks of cooking, washing dishes, helping to
clean the new house, putting gas in the car, etc. to the more creative
services of opening the car door, buying a dinner date, or helping to pick
up the dishes.
Gift giving might seem obvious. “Doesn’t this involve things like a
dinner out, a bouquet of flowers, a box of chocolates, or a special book?”
Yes, but it can be much more. Gifts do not need to be expensive to be
meaningful. Obviously a well thought out gift shows special interest in
the other person. However, even spontaneous gift giving “on the fly” (the
buying of a treat at the zoo, the whimsical purchase of hat at a fair, etc.)
can be very meaningful as well.
Quality time is something that Jesus had with the Father continually, and
he urged us to have as well. Quality time with your partner involves
more than reading the newspaper together or watching a movie together.
It involves careful listening to what the other person is saying and/or
feeling and responding to him or her with care. It involves conversational
basketball. It involves working together, walks in the park, and doing
things that the other person likes (even if it isn’t your favorite). It is a
willingness to share time out of a busy schedule to fellowship. It is an
essential element of friendship.
Physical touch is a language of love that should be used with care by
anyone who is betrothed since any physical touch has the potential of
getting the sexual motors going. However, some couples will have no
problem with a hug around the shoulder while with family, sitting
together in a “love seat,” a lift with the hand into a horse-drawn carriage,
occasional holding of hands, etc. Each couple will need to measure
whether (or to what extent) physical touch can be used for the expression
of affection, always keeping 1 Corinthians 7:1 in mind. Obviously if the
father of the young lady forbids any touch, the couple can joyfully show
submission even if they might disagree. But it would be well worthwhile
for a betrothed couple to at least study some of the many ways of
expressing physical affection and love to each other, and to review those
throughout their marriage.
Interact with other friends
It is easy for a betrothed couple to be so lost in the wonder of love that
they forget their responsibilities and their friends. But to be totally selffocused sets up patterns of selfishness that could be carried into
marriage. It is wise to use at least some of the time of betrothal to jointly
minister to the needs of others by continuing friendships, continued
attendance at social activities, continued involvement (perhaps even
jointly) in church activities and community activities. What is done
during betrothal should set the tone for what is done during the rest of
marriage. Your primary responsibility is to each other, but if you care for
each other, you will seek to get out of your shell and continue to be part
of the world around you.
Spend extra amounts of time with each other
Nevertheless, the previous point needs to be balanced with the fact that
your most important relationship is your fiancé. You should step back
from some of the responsibilities that you have to ensure that you have
enough time to prepare for the wedding, minister to each other, and
romance each other. What is true for the first year of marriage (Deut.
24:5) should also be true for the time of betrothal (Deut. 20:7). Scripture
says,
When a man has taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war or be
charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, and
bring happiness to his wife whom he has taken. (Deut. 24:5)
And what man is there who is betrothed to a woman and has not
married her? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the
battle and another man marry her.’ (Deut. 20:7)
Both Jeremiah 2 and Hosea 2 imply that those who are betrothed spend a
great deal of time together. Parents and friends should be sensitive to this
need and not make as many demands upon their time as they used to.
Make sure God is the foundation and goal for all that you do
My final note on this unfinished booklet is to make God the foundation
and goal for all that you do. It is very easy to become so wrapped up in
each other during betrothal that God becomes excluded from your
thoughts. But if God is to bless your relationship, He must be at the
center of all.
It is my prayer that your courtship and betrothal would be a time of joy
and not of undue stress. Look to the Lord, your Joy-Giver, throughout
the process. As picture on the following triangle, the closer you draw to
God, the closer you will draw to each other. You do not want your time
before and after the wedding to be so focused on each other, that you
remain distant from the Lord who alone can build a house that will last.
Doing your own thing
Focus exclusively on each other
Focus on God; relating to others
In real life as a team
Focus on God
still draws you
close to each other
Resources Available from the Publisher
Cummings, Tim. Ministerial Training: The Bible’s Normative Pattern.
Davis, Andrew. Written on Your Heart: An Approach to Extended Memorization of
Scripture.
Elliot, Michael (Ed.). Bible Acrostic: An Aid to Memorizing the Content of Every Chapter
of the Bible.
Kayser, Phillip. Biblical Romance: What Does the Bible Say About Courtship &
Betrothal?
Kayser, Phillip. The Canon of Scripture, Volume 1: Biblical Presuppositions.
Kayser, Phillip. Church Membership: Is It Biblical?
Kayser, Phillip. December 25 Jewish Style: The Ancient Jewish Celebration Anticipating
the Birth of Christ.
Kayser, Phillip. Dressed Up for Church: A Contrarian Rag on Appropriate Clothing.
Kayser, Phillip. Feed My Lambs: Biblical Guidelines for Parents to Determine if Their
Children are Ready for Communion.
Kayser, Phillip. The Flaw of Natural Law.
Kayser, Phillip. Getting Christians Back Into Politics.
Kayser, Phillip. Glory and Coverings: A Study of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.
Kayser, Phillip. An Hour of Prayer: A Practical Guide to 12 Kinds of Prayer.
Kayser, Phillip. How to Deal with Objections to Inerrancy.
Kayser, Phillip. Is the Death Penalty Just?
Kayser, Phillip. Leader Development: A Mentoring Checklist for Sons and Young Men.
Kayser, Phillip. Mature Daughters: A Mentoring Checklist for Daughters and Young
Women.
Kayser, Phillip. The Problem of Evil: A Dialogue.
Kayser, Phillip. Public Assembly: The Biblical Call to Faithful Attendance at Public
Worship.
Kayser, Phillip. Ransom Paid: Does the Bible Limit the Atonement?
Kayser, Phillip. Ruins of Athens: The Curse of the Athenian Model of Education.
Kayser, Phillip. Seeing History with New Eyes: A Guide to Teaching Providential
History.
Kayser, Phillip. Seven Biblical Principles that Call for Infant Baptism.
Kayser, Phillip. Sunday as a First-Day Sabbath.
Kayser, Phillip. Torture: A Biblical Critique
Kayser, Phillip. Universal Suffrage: A History and Analysis of Voting in the Church and
Society.
Kayser, Phillip, & Bubeck, Mark. Prayers for Spiritual Warfare.
Kayser, Phillip, & Pickering, Wilbur. Has God Indeed Said?: The Preservation of the
Text of the New Testament.
Rose, Ben Lacy. Baptism by Sprinkling.
Visit www.biblicalblueprints.org for additional resources.
Biblical Romance
This book seeks to steer a middle course between the rocks of legalism
and the cliffs of sexual compromise on the subject of finding a life
partner. The Bible gives universal principles that can apply to every
individual and every culture. However, it also guides us in applying
those principles flexibly to the unique situations that people find
themselves in. It is the prayer of this author that this booklet will provide
the guidance needed to help young men and women maintain purity and
propriety while fully enjoying Biblical romance.
Founder and President of Biblical Blueprints, Phillip Kayser has degrees in
education, theology, and philosophy. Ordained in 1987, he currently serves as
Senior Pastor of Dominion Covenant Church, a conservative Presbyterian (CPC)
church in Omaha, NE. He also serves as Professor of Ethics at Whitefield
Theological Seminary and President of the Providential History Festival. He and
his wife Kathy have 5 children and 9 grandchildren.

Phillip Kayser, Ph.D.

Transcription

Similar documents

8.5 x 11

the full set of slides as a pdf

MarriageMarriage Retreat - Faithful Central Bible Church

View a specimen paper for Graded Assessment B

Your Marriage Can Last A Lifetime!

Resources_files/Suggested Reading List

Pope John Paul II`s Teaching on Sexuality and Marriage: An Appraisal

Parish Registration Form - Saint Luke the Evangelist

Family, Religion, and Education