Dating Versus Biblical Courtship Part 4 (Final Part)

Posted : 1 Apr, 2010 05:47 AM

Dating Versus Biblical Courtship Part 4 (Final Part)

Author: Unknown

Chapter 5: Dating Versus Biblical Courtship, con�t



The Biblical Engagement or Betrothal



Because the goal of courtship is betrothal and marriage, it is important that believers understand what a biblical betrothal entails; and, understand the differences between the modern American concept of an "engagement" and betrothal (scripturally defined). Although the word engagement means a promise of marriage between a man and a woman and thus is a synonym for the word betrothal, [136] its modern cultural usage means a promise that can be broken at any time for any reason. As Bible-believing Christians, we must reject the modern antinomian concept of engagement and return to the biblical practice of a binding betrothal.



Some may object to this plea to return to a scriptural definition of betrothal as an ignorant acceptance of non-binding cultural traditions. Such an objection ignores the fact that the biblical teaching regarding the betrothal is not based on culture but arises from the Bible's teaching on binding oaths and covenants. It is part of the moral law and is an application of the ninth commandment.



The betrothal is a legally binding promise of marriage. A man and woman who are betrothed have entered a binding covenantal relationship. Although they are not yet married, they are no longer regarded as single persons by their families, church and society. They have a new covenantal relationship that is recognized and dealt with in biblical law. In a biblical society a betrothed man is not permitted to go to war. "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" (Dt. 20:7).



Further, God's law regards a betrothed woman to be the wife of the man to whom she is espoused. If an unbetrothed or unmarried man and women engage in sexual intercourse they are not put to death but are forced to marry and/or the man pays a large fine to the girl's father (cf. Ex. 22:16-17; Dt. 22:28-29).



However, if a betrothed virgin lies with another man, both the woman and man are to be put to death (cf. Dt. 22:23-24). "The betrothed (but not yet married) woman is treated under the law as if she were married. The reason for this is clear when it is remembered that the crime consists not only in the act, but also in the lack of faithfulness signified by the act. Both the married woman and the betrothed woman were committed to a particular relationship with a man; the crime involved breaking that relationship through an unfaithful act." [137]



According to Scripture the betrothal covenant is to be taken just as seriously as the marriage covenant itself. In Matthew's gospel narrative Joseph and Mary are identified as husband and wife during the betrothal period while Mary is still a virgin (cf. Mt. 1:18-25). [138]



When Joseph discovers that Mary is with child he, being a righteous man, decides "to put her away secretly" (Mt. 1:19). This means that the espousal covenant could only be dissolved by means of a legal divorce. "Joseph's attitude is indicated with great naturalness and delicacy, and the necessity for divorce, although the marriage had not taken place, is clearly shown. With the Jews, espousal was much more serious than an 'engagement' is with us, and could be severed only by divorce." [139]



The Bible teaches that God considers couples that have made an espousal covenant to be husband and wife in a certain sense before the marriage ceremony takes place.



Although modern society generally views engagement as a non-binding agreement that can be broken at will, believers ought to recognize a betrothal covenant (unless unlawful, e.g., incest) as a binding agreement before God. Therefore, entering into a betrothal agreement is very serious business. Espousal covenants should only be made after a considerable amount of fact gathering, prayer, counsel and thought.



Once the parents of the parties involved assent to a betrothal, a covenant should be made in front of witnesses and the espousal should be made public. Once again we must emphasize the truth that the biblical manner of betrothal is not cultural but flows from God's law. Obviously, a covenant that can be broken for any reason without sanctions is not a biblical covenant. It is an antinomian promise. "Lord, who may abide in Your tabernacle?... He who swears to his own hurt and does not change" (Ps. 15:1, 4).



The biblical teaching regarding betrothal is reflected to an extent in seventeenth century English law.



Edmund S. Morgan writes: "When the Puritans left England, several steps were necessary to the proper accomplishment of a marriage in that country:



(1) espousals per verba de futuro, or a contract to marry, made in the future tense, corresponding to a modern engagement but more binding;

(2) publication of the banns, or announcement that this contract de futuro had been made;

(3) execution of the espousal contract by a contract of marriage in the present tense, per verba de praesenti, solemnized at church and followed by a special service;

(4) a celebration of the event with feasting and gaiety at the home of the groom;

(5) sexual intercourse." [140]



The New England Puritans had a much more biblical concept of betrothal (or, as they called it, espousal) than we do today. The espousal was treated very seriously. Espousals were publicly announced (i.e., published) at least eight days in advance so that if a man or woman were hiding any serious defect of character it could be discovered. The parties involved would enter into and sign a contract (i.e., an espousal covenant). The espousal was a public event in which ministers often would preach espousal sermons. Once an espousal was made the parties involved were treated the same as betrothed couples in biblical law.



Morgan writes: "In Plymouth, Massachusetts, and New Haven, as well as in Connecticut, a couple espoused were set apart; they were married as far as other persons were concerned even though the final ceremony had not taken place.... If after becoming espoused to one person, a man or woman had sexual intercourse with another, the act was considered adultery; and if either party broke the contract without just cause, by refusing to marry the other or by marrying someone else, he might be sued for breech of promise." [141]



Although a biblically defined espousal is much more serious than today's shallow non-binding engagement promises, the betrothal is not the marriage covenant itself. A woman who is betrothed is still under the authority of her father and is not obligated to submit to her future mate. A man who is betrothed is not obligated to financially support his future spouse. Indeed, at this point she is still living under her father's roof.



Further, both parties involved are not permitted to engage in sexual intercourse or sexual touching of any kind.

While the betrothal agreement is not the same as the marriage covenant itself, it does serve some important functions.



First, it gives the couple and their families a period of time to plan the day of marriage and the great celebration that attends a wedding.



Second, (if necessary) it gives the couple time to choose a place to live and buy or rent a house.



Third, it gives a couple additional time to seek counsel regarding the marriage relationship.



Fourth, it gives the couple time to develop warm emotions and romantic thoughts regarding their future partner. This point was particularly important to the Puritans. Morgan writes: "Marriage then, or at least proper marriage, resulted not from falling in love, but from a decision to enter a married state, followed by the choice of a suitable person.



But since love formed the chief duty of marriage and since the unruly affections of fallen man might sometimes fail at once to knot themselves to the chosen object, a period of trial was necessary in which to bring the affections into the proper direction. That period was furnished by the custom of espousals. 'By this means,' said William Ames, 'the minds of the betrothed, are prepared and disposed to those affections, which in matrimony are requisite.'" [142]The espousal period is a great time for love letters, poetry, song and romantic speech.



A question that often arises concerning an engagement is: How long should an engagement last? There are very long engagements (e.g., two years) and short ones (e.g., one month). The word of God does not speak specifically to this area. However, there are biblical principles and practical reasons for favoring short engagements over long ones. First, given the serious nature of a biblical espousal covenant and the fact that all the parties involved should have done their analysis and preparations prior to the betrothal, once an engagement occurs there are no practical reasons for a long betrothal period. If a couple have doubts and want a lengthy engagement period to attempts to work things out, then they simply are not ready to get engaged. Important issues are to be resolved before the espousal covenant, not after.



Note, a biblical concept of courtship and betrothal forces people to do their homework up front before a binding covenant is made. A sloppy non-binding concept of engagement tempts people to make agreements they are not ready to make with the hope that things can be ironed out later on.



Unfortunately, in many cases issues and problems are not resolved before marriage and the days that should be times of great happiness, fun and bliss are spent arguing, fighting and fretting. Second, given the nature of man and the strong physical desires that young couples who love each other have, short engagements are to be preferred over long ones. Is it not better to marry than to burn with passion (1 Cor. 7:9)?



Engaged couples are often tempted to touch one another in inappropriate ways. A short engagement will lessen this area of temptation. Third, given the nature and seriousness of the espousal covenant there are no practical reasons for having a long delay before the actual marriage takes place. Planning a ceremony, a party and a honeymoon are not very difficult. [143]



Extraordinary Cases



In our discussion of courtship we have dealt primarily with normal circumstances. That is, with young Christian men and women who are living in Christian homes, who have the loving oversight and counsel of believing parents. Given the fact that churches today have many people who were raised in heretical or unbelieving homes; or, who are older and living independently of parents; or, who are divorced, a brief discussion of such extraordinary cases is in order.



What is a person to do when they are living apart from their parents?



The answer to this question really depends on a person's own particular situation. If a man or especially a woman has believing parents and has moved out because of ignorance of biblical teaching, they should move back home. (The scriptural teaching on this issue is very clear when discussing the status of daughters.)



If a person has heathen parents, they must turn to the church for help with courtship while respecting their own parents within biblical parameters. Presupposing a person's church understands biblical courtship, a couple could approach the elders of the church for assistance in this area. The elders could open their own home as a chaperoned environment and offer counsel and screening advice; or, they could assist in finding a godly family who would be willing to fulfill this function.



Greg Price writes: "All male-female relationships should pass through courtship and engagement on their way to marriage. God's plan is that all male-female relationships be governed by these biblical principles. All people (regardless of age) are in need of godly oversight in their relationship with the opposite sex.



We must be careful that we not deceive ourselves into believing we have matured beyond the need of supervision in male-female relationships. Sexual thoughts and desires are not exclusively the lot of the young. We are taught by God to view the heart of man as deceitful and unworthy of trust, especially when it is our own heart (Jer. 17:9; Is. 55:7-9; Is. 65:2)." [144] Even people who are widowed or lawfully divorced (and therefore function as independent covenant heads), need to follow biblical principles in this area to avoid sexual sin and find a suitable Christian spouse.



What should a Christian man or woman do who has believing parents who have an irrational, arbitrary or unbiblical approach during the courtship process? For example the father will only consider rich suitors or the mother will only allow suitors who are extremely handsome. A person who finds himself in such circumstances should respectfully reason with his or her parents regarding their unpractical expectations.



Parents should not go beyond the standards set by Scripture. If parents are absurd and obstinate in their expectations it is appropriate for the elders of the church to give the parents counsel and a rebuke if necessary. One thing Christians should never do is to completely cast aside their parents' authority and elope with someone without their parents blessing. Competent elders should be able to straighten out such situations.



Conclusion



In this chapter we have critiqued the modern dating system and set forth the biblical alternative-father (or parent) controlled courtship. Many reasons why believers should reject the dating paradigm have been noted.

(1) Dating is a recent phenomena that developed in the soil of an apostate secularized culture.

(2) Dating tempts the parties involved to commit sexual immorality. In fact, modern dating presupposes privacy and a certain amount of kissing and sexual touching.

(3) Dating trains people to confuse infatuation, lust and strong emotions with genuine biblical love.

(4) Dating trains young people to take male-female covenant relationships lightly. Its practice has contributed to a high divorce rate in society.

(5) Modern recreational dating violates the biblical teaching regarding covenant headship. Fathers (and parents) have a God-given responsibility to oversee the courtship process. The modern dating paradigm has been an ethical disaster for evangelicals in America. It is time for Christian families and churches to repent of this unscriptural practice.



In examining the biblical alternative (father-controlled courtship), we have noted the following.



(1) Parents have a duty to train and prepare a son or daughter for courtship and marriage.

(2) Biblical courtship involves the covenant protection of a son or a daughter by the father.

(3) The courtship process should not begin until a son or a daughter is ready to get married.

(4) Fathers (and mothers) must get to know potential suitors. The parents are to be intimately involved in screening potential mates.

(5) Parents must only consider like-minded Christians as potential suitors and mates for their children.

(6) Potential suitors must recognize the covenantal authority of a woman's father. Men must approach the woman's father and get permission to court; and, to get engaged and married.

(7) Parents should take an active approach in the search for a mate for a son or a daughter.

(8) Fathers need to be friendly, courteous and non-threatening to suitors and potential suitors.

(9) The decision to get engaged is to be made in conjunction with Christian parents. Betrothal cannot be forced upon a son or a daughter and son or daughter should not get engaged without their father's consent.

(10) Biblical betrothal is a binding covenant that should be taken much more seriously than modern society's concept of an engagement.

(11) Biblical courtship is not optional. It is rooted in the biblical teaching regarding covenant headship, the nature of covenants, God' holy law and the fabric of creation.

Biblical courtship is a great blessing. It takes the extremely important process of finding a life partner out of the realm of human autonomy (irrationality, fleeting emotions, lust and romance), and places it squarely upon God's infallible word.



It frees men and women from temptation and peer pressure, con artists and hasty, ill-informed decisions by protecting them by means of a convenantal fence. It brings men and women together with their Christian parents and their decades of sanctified experience. It also gives young adults a genuine opportunity to really get to know one another. It is our hope and prayer that God's people would return to this biblical practice.



109. W. G. Blaikie, The Second Book of Samuel (Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock, 1978 (1893), pp. 197-198.

110. Charles Hodge, I and II Corinthians (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974 [1857, 59]), p. 132.

111. R. K. Harrison, Numbers (Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1990), p. 377.

112. John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical Doctrinal Homiletical (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 2:163.

113. Gorden J. Wenham, Numbers (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), p. 208.

114. According to Josephus, Antiquities (iv 8.23), "he received the legal 'forty stripes save one'" (Samuel Rolles Driver, Deuteronomy [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986], 256.)

115. Some more recent commentators have taken the position that the evidence of a girl's virginity was blood stained cloths proving menstruation immediately before marriage; thus, indicating the bride was not pregnant at the time of the wedding. Given the quite fallible nature of such evidence and the fact that the practice of parents saving the blood-stained linen sheets after the first sexual union of a bride and groom was the general practice throughout the Middle East (e.g., Syria, Palestine, the Arabs and the Moors), the older more common interpretation should not be abandoned (see John Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament [Streamwood, IL: Primitive Baptist Library, 1979] 2:95-96; and Samuel Rolles Driver, Deuteronomy, p. 255]).

116. P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 293.

117. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), p. 645.

118. Ibid. p. 646.

119. Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), p. 387.

120. In 1 Timothy 5:14 Paul instructs younger widows to get married, bear children and manage the house. This passage has been used to argue that all younger women should get married and raise a family. This would appear to contradict Paul's advocacy of the unmarried state for virgins in 1 Corinthians 7:34-35. The Timothy passage could be used to support the contention that the 1 Corinthians passage is limited to periods of crises. Such a view, however, is unnecessary when we consider the fact that young widows and virgins are not the same thing. Widows were at one time married and thus do not (at least at a younger age) have the gift of remaining celibate. Virgins on the other hand have never been married and thus in extremely rare cases can remain single without the natural desire for a husband and children.

121. Some scholars have argued that the fact that the girls are baptized in the New Covenant era while only boys were circumcised under the Old Testament dispensation means (that apart from women holding positions of authority in the church and speaking during public worship) girls and boys now have identical status. This position should be rejected because: (1) It is based on an assumption without any solid inferences. (2) The Old Testament laws concerning covenant headship and the status of women and daughters reflects creational reality (i.e., creation ordinances). They are not arbitrary or positivistic.

122. Edmond S. Morgan, The Puritan Family (New York: Harper and Row, 1966 [1944], p. 27. The biblical concept of covenant headship may even be reflected in the Hebrew word translated as "children"- naarim. "Naarim actually refers to a broader category than children. All males who had not formed their own households are likely in view. However, the term also is used commonly for male servants" (Kerry Ptacek, Family Worship: Biblical Basis, Historical Reality, Current Need [Greenville, SC: The Southern Presbyterian Press, 1997 (1994)], p. 15).

123. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 344.

124. Ibid., p. 167.

125. John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament (Streamwood, IL: Primitive Baptist Library, 1979 [1810]), 1:21.

126. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis 1-17 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 180-181.

127. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), p. 71.

128. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), p. 401.The Westminster Standards (1647)-The Directory for the Public Worship of God emphasizes that the parties involved in a marriage must be fit and free to make their own choice in the matter. It also emphasizes the importance of obtaining (under normal circumstances) parental consent. It reads: "Marriage is to be betwixt one man and one woman only; and they, such as are not within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity prohibited by the word of God; and the parties are to be of years of discretion, fit to make their own choice, or, upon good grounds, to give their mutual consent. Before the solemnizing of marriage between any persons, their purpose of marriage shall be published by the minister three several sabbath-days, in the congregation, at the place or places of their most usual and constant abode, respectively. And of this publication the minister who is to join them in marriage shall have sufficient testimony, before he proceeds to solemnize the marriage. 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. And, in after marriages of either of those parties, they shall be exhorted not to contract marriage without first acquainting their parents with it, (if with conveniency it may be done,) endeavoring to obtain their consent. Parents ought not to force their children to marry without their free consent, nor deny their own consent without just cause."

Endnotes

129. Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50, p. 140.

130. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), p. 343.

131. Ibid.

132. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Columbus, OH: The Wartburg Press, 1942), p. 660.

133. H. Krabbendam writes: "Unless the husband and wife are believers in Jesus Christ, their marriage will shipwreck in the eyes of God. This is not only so because without Christ they will not be able to overcome the power of indwelling sin. This is the clear teaching of John 15:5 and Rom. 7:1-25. It is also because without the Christ they have no focal point for their conduct. Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as an act of worship of and love to Christ! If you do not submit, do not tell me that you worship and love Christ. See also 1 John 4:20. Husbands, love your wives and show that by your sacrifice for them and your edification of them. If you refuse to do so, do not tell me that the love of Christ is in you. See also 1 John 4:17.

"But furthermore, unless husband and wife are both members of his church, their marriage will equally shipwreck in the eyes of God. This is not only because in the church the husband sees a pattern of sacrifice of and edification by Christ and the wife a pattern of submission to Christ.

It is also because in the church the husband and wife are under the rule, authority, provision and protection, of elders who will train them in the understanding of sacrificial and edifying love and leadership as well as in the understanding of cheerful and loving submission and obedience" (A Biblical Pattern of Preparation for Marriage [Lookout Mountain, TN: self published, n. d.], p. 5).

134. Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confessional of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Water Revival Books, no date [1845]), p. 256.

135. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing Co., n. d.), 2:266. "Apparently it was an Israelite but not a Moabite procedure, for Naomi had to explain to Ruth what she must do to show Boaz that she was interested in marriage with him. Though Ruth carried out the plan readily enough there is no indication that she knew anything about the custom until Naomi outlined it" (Arthur E. Kendall & Leon Morris, Judges & Ruth [Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1968]), p. 284.

136. "What is Engagement, Betrothal, and Espousal? Engagement comes from gage, a Middle English word meaning 'a pledge' Thus engagement is a solemn pledge into which a man and a woman enter. Betrothal is derived from the Middle English word troth which means 'truth, truthful, faithful'. 'I plight thee my troth' has the sense of making a solemn promise to be faithful to the betrothed one alone. Espousal is the act of giving oneself to another as a spouse. The Latin verb from which espousal is derived, spondere, means 'to pledge oneself to, promise solemnly, vow.' What we learn from the derivation of these words is that in each case a solemn promise, vow, or covenant is given to become the faithful husband or wife of the one loved" (Greg Price, Christian Education in the Home: Help! My Daughter Wants to Date [Internet: 1994], p. 6).

137. P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, p. 294.

138. Joseph Addison Alexander writes: "...Many having been espoused, i.e., before the discovery here mentioned, as implied in the past participle (mnasteutheisasI). The Greek verb strictly means to court or woo, but in the passive form to be engaged, betrothed (as in the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, compared with the active voice in Dt. 20, 7.) There are frequent allusions in the Old Testament to the marriage vow as a religious contract (Pr. 2, 17. Ez. 16, 8. Ma. 2, 14), but the first mention of a written bond occurs in the Apocrypha (Tob. 2, 14). According to the later Jewish books, the bride continued in her father's house for some time after her espousal" (The Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids: Baker 1980 (1860)], p. 11).

139. Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982 [1915]), p. 4.

140. Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Family (New York: Harper & Row, 1944, 1966), pp. 30-31.

141. Ibid. p. 33.

142. Ibid., p. 59.

143. This teaching (i.e., engagements should be short) is set forth in the Westminster Standards-Directory for the Public Worship of God: "After the purpose or contract of marriage hath been published, the marriage is not to be long deferred.



Therefore the minister, having had convenient warning, and nothing being objected to hinder it, is publickly to solemnize it in the place appointed by authority for publick worship, before a competent number of credible witnesses, at some convenient hour of the day, at any time of the year, except on a day of publick humiliation. And we advise that it not be on the Lord's day."

144. Greg Price, p. 10

Post Reply