Betrothal & Emotional Purity:
In previous essays I considered the teaching of betrothal and ‘emotional purity.’ I mentioned that one of the main justifications for this teaching is the argument that, (A) it was practiced in Biblical culture; and (B) scripture directly affirms betrothal and emotional purity be God’s-way-to-do-it. In this essay I would like to look first at claim (A) and then at claim (B).
Is Emotional Purity an
Historical Concept?
Consider the following words, written
by Jonathan Lindvall.
...in many parts of the world today, and
certainly in the not-so-distant past world-wide, the concept ['emotional
purity'] has been assumed. In the modern west, we...have entirely forgotten the
idea of saving one's heart for the one we will marry.[1]
If Lindvall is prepared to make such an
audacious assertion, you would expect him to at least provide a minimum of
historical verification. Although there is a growing quantity of published
tapes and literature on this subject, I have yet to see an advocate of
betrothal cite even one historical example showing the idea of 'emotional
purity' to be anything other than a modern invention.
The following quotation is a typical
example. After positing the false problem of broken-heart syndrome and
emotional impurity, Israel Wayne writes
What is the answer...? My wife and I found it
in the Bible. You see, the ancient Jewish people held to the belief that your
emotions should follow you, rather than you following your emotions. The Old
Testament is filled with stories of young people who chose to marry their
spouses before romantic love had begun. They made a decision to love the person
they married. Our culture tells us to 'marry the person we love...'"[2]
Lindvall argues similarly, “the norm of
scripture is that a couple becomes bonded emotionally after becoming committed
to one another.”[3] Is this
true? Is the Old Testament really literally 'filled' with such stories? Later
on in this essay we shall be having a look to see whether this claim is
correct, but it is first necessary to lay an historical framework for our study
by considering the culture and customs relevant to those times.
Brief Survey of Old
Testament Culture
The Old Testament culture was a
patriarchal society, which meant that the rights of women were very minimal
compared with today. However, the Lord established laws that showed an acute
concern for the protection of woman. Thus, Israelite women had considerably
more protection than women in the surrounding cultures of the day.
In Ancient Near Eastern culture
marriage could often be treated more like a business contract than a
relationship, and a wife like an object of property. A man could have many
wives just as he would have many heads of cattle, although women were not able
to have multiple husbands. If a man grew tired of his wife he could write her a
certificate of divorce for an offense as trivial as cooking a meal in the wrong
way. A woman was not granted the same privilege, however, and could only
divorce her husband under special circumstances. As it is written in the Jewish
Talmud, "A woman may be divorced with or without her consent, but a man
can only be divorced with his consent."[4]
Regarding marriage, the bride had to be
‘bought’, if you will, by the bridegroom's father, either by money or service
offered in exchange for the bride’s father being willing to part with her,
while the bride herself received no dowry. When the bride was 'given in
marriage' there was a transfer of ownership from her father to her husband.
It is only against this cultural
backdrop that we can understand the custom for parents to authorize or, in some
cases, to arrange a marriage. If a man wished to marry a girl, he had to first
procure the permission of her father. This necessity for parents to authorize a
match only applied on the woman's side. Like everything else, this was a
function of the patriarchal society, as well as economic and social conditions.
Economic conditions were such that dependence on parents and the larger
pedigree played a crucial part in the establishment of a new family. People
tended to think much less about the union of individuals and much more about
the union of families or family groups. It is not difficult to see how this led
naturally to some of the customs regarding parental authorization of marriage.
Above all, it is a gross anachronism to suppose the need for such authorization
derived from a set of ideals about emotional purity. When we consider the fact that fathers had
the right to sell their daughters into slavery as a concubine if they wished
(Ex. 21:7-8), it becomes absurd to suppose that the role a father also
exercised over his daughter's marriage resulted from any set of ideas this
culture might have held about marriage. It resulted, rather, from the simple
fact that a daughter was considered her father's property, to do with as he
liked whether that meant marriage or slavery. One of the reasons why this was
is because women were
completely dependent on their fathers or family until that dependence was
transferred to a husband. You couldn't just move away from home when you were
eighteen and support yourself. The sense in which women lacked economic
autonomy led to lack of independence in other areas as well. Hence, we see in the
Bible and Apocrypha that while young men did not always gain approval from
their parents to marry, young women always did (i.e., Jacob had to get Leban's
permission to marry Rachel, but not his father Isaac's, Tobias had to get
Raguel’s permission to marry Sarah but not his father Tobit’s permission)
except for cases when the woman was self-supporting, as in the case of
Abigail's marriage to David.
The Application for Today
Some Christian teachers are now picking
certain aspects out of this culture (such as arranged marriages) and arguing
that these customs have a divine precedent simply because they were practiced
in Old Testament times. Such an argument is not only theologically unsound
(since it confuses scriptural description with scriptural prescription), but it
is meaningless as long as we cannot also return to the social and economic
conditions that lay behind those customs. Such conditions involved not simply
an entirely foreign way of life, but many practices that would be objectionable
to try to reintroduce into our society (such as the custom of raising up seed
to your brother’s widow). The fact that the Lord gave commands to show His
people how to operate within their existing social context, does not
mean that this society always got it right. To use an obvious example, the fact
that Deut. 21:15-17 gives laws to govern situations where a man has two wives
in no way gives God's stamp of approval on the men of today taking multiple
wives.[5]
It is against this cultural backdrop
that we must understand a verse like Exodus 22:16-17. Here the Lord commands
that if a man has premarital relations with a virgin, the father may refuse to
give his daughter to him in marriage, though the young man must still pay the
bride price. This scripture is often pointed to in order to prove that parental
veto power "is not simply a cultural practice that is neutral in God's
eyes. God didn't just permit it, but required it."[6]
It may or may not be true that God intends fathers to veto marriages they
believe will harm their daughter, but we cannot deduce such a position from
this passage alone. The passage assumes a society in which a father had the
power to veto his daughter’s marriage, just as Deut. 21:15-17 assumes a society
in which men have the power to take more than one wife. But just as the laws
governing polygamy or slavery do not tell us, one way or another, whether that
is God’s ideal, neither does Exodus 22 tell us whether paternal veto power is
God’s ideal.
Michael Pearl explains how Exodus 22:16-17 shows that fornication was viewed
in terms of its economic implications since it guaranteed that the father was
not defrauded of the bride price that accompanies betrothal. It also
discouraged a young man from lying with a girl for temporary pleasure since he
would have to pay the bride price anyway and might be forced to marry her. When we look at the Exodus passage
in that light we find that the whole point of it is not to do with marriage at
all, but the fact that there is a responsibility that a man acquires when he
sleeps with a woman, and therefore he must pay the bride price even if they do
not marry. There are many applications we might draw from that in our culture
today. On the other
hand, to read into this passage a Divine sanction for a certain procedure for
getting married, is to make it into nonsense and to completely miss the whole
point of what the passage is trying to tell us.
Having made these general observations
about the Old Testament culture, I want to now move to and look closely at the
custom of betrothal.
Marriage & Betrothal in Jewish Culture
In defining what betrothal meant in the
ancient world, it is necessary to spend greater energy defining what it was not.
Betrothal, as it was practiced in the Jewish and Israelite culture, was very
different indeed to 'betrothal' in the new movement, even as the old fashion
custom of courtship was very different from its application in the new
movement.
At the time of Christ the Jews had very
defined marriage customs, just as any culture has distinct ceremonies connected
with their nuptial rites. These customs had evolved gradually as the culture
matured and would not have been present in the ancient times of the patriarchs.
We tend to think of betrothal as
similar to engagement, or maybe a halfway house between engagement and
marriage. In the Jewish culture of the first century, however, betrothal
(“ERUSIN”) was marriage. There were two stages to the marriage. During
the betrothal stage, though they were legally married, they did not cohabit
together. The wife remained in her parent's house preparing herself for the
move to her husband's house. This lasted a month. If the wife was under twelve
years of age, however, this period lasted a whole year, to give her time to
prepare a trousseau. In some parts of ancient Judea, the man and wife were
allowed intimate physical contact once during the betrothal period, to wet
their appetite and to help the husband appreciate and desire his wife more.
After the final wedding ceremony took place, the wife returned to her husband's
home for the consummation of the marriage.
Just as the Jewish betrothal was equivalent to marriage, so their “shiduchim”
would correspond to what we would call engagement, in so far as it was either a
non-formalized agreement to get married or a formalized contract to enter at a
later stage into a marriage (betrothal) contract.[7]
What Betrothal Was Not
Now I must say what betrothal was not.
It had nothing to do with the idea of a father receiving direct revelation for
who his child would marry, it had nothing to do with restriction on
cross-gender friendships and, most importantly, it certainly had nothing to do
with denying all romantic feelings until the betrothal period. On the contrary,
Hasting’s Bible Dictionary tells us “that in ancient Israel the
association of the sexes was comparatively unrestrained, and naturally led to
personal attachments which sought satisfaction in marriage...”[8]
And again, as the respected Hebrew scholar Alfred Edersheim wrote (about a
hundred years ago),
Where the social intercourse between the
sexes was nearly as unrestricted as among ourselves, so far as consistent with
Eastern manners, it would, of course, be natural for a young man to make
personal choice of his bride. Of this Scripture affords abundant evidence.[9]
In his taped lecture, "Scriptural
Betrothal", Lindvall goes through every single verse in the Bible where
the word betrothal occurs. As Lindvall simply tells us what the word betrothal
meant (namely, the essence of his ideas), he is then able to take all these
scriptures as support for his position. That is to say, he reasons to his
conclusion based on premises that assume his conclusion! That initial
assumption, however (i.e., the definition of betrothal in Bible times), is not
subject to investigation or argument. Lindvall simply tells us that,
The scripture talks about a pattern that it
calls betrothal.... In the Bible there were two steps, with a fairly long
period of time in between. During that lengthy period in between the couple was
encouraged to cultivate their romantic feelings towards one another but not be
physical with one another. And it was during that period that they fell in
love, but it was after the commitment had been made. So they were free
and secure, they were not at risk emotionally of giving their heart to someone
and then being defrauded. That is God's design. Let's look at the Biblical
model of betrothal. God wants our young people to experience a no risk
commitment.... God design is that we would encourage them to fall in
love only after the commitment is made."[10]
Based on this definition of betrothal,
Lindvall is able to argue that the ‘betrothal’ of Mary and Joseph was an
irrevocable period (apart from adultery) for “them to mentally and emotionally
prepare for marriage…”[11]
The ‘betrothal’ of Mary and Joseph is in fact one of Lindvall’s main arguments.
But is this what the word ‘betrothal’ actually meant in the first century?
According to Lindvall, the answer is yes, for as he writes, “Even if one
doesn't hold that betrothal is to be practiced today, it is at least clear what
the Bible means when it uses the term.”[12]
So what does the Bible mean by the term? According to Lindvall, “A biblical
betrothal was an irrevocable covenant made at the beginning of the romance,
authorizing the parties to bond emotionally.”[13]
And again, “the parties keep (guard) their hearts from romantic involvement
until after the commitment is made and then use the betrothal period to
cultivate emotional attachment to one another…”[14]
I have never seen any documentary
evidence to suggest that the above ideas were part of the Jewish custom of
betrothal referred to in the Bible[15],
especially as concerns no risk emotions. In fact, there is actually a wealth of
evidence to the contrary. One piece of evidence is the fact that - whatever
Lindvall may claim - a betrothal, like ordinary marriage, was not irrevocable
and did not require an act of physical unfaithfulness for it to be terminated.
Thus, to suppose that the concept of 'a no risk commitment' or 'emotional
purity' lay behind the betrothal custom, is inconsistent with the fact that if
a couple "fell out of love", or the man found another woman more
beautiful, he could simply divorce his wife, whether it was during or after the
betrothal period.[16]
To this we must add the fact that a man
might acquire as many wives as he liked, a custom still practiced by the Jews
in the first century. (The Talmud, while suggesting limits on the amount of
wives, nevertheless supports polygamy.) When
we add to this the fact that a degree of free association between the sexes was
enjoyed and often led to romantic love occurring prior to any commitment, it
becomes ludicrous to suppose that anything verging on emotional protection was
a principle behind Jewish marriage traditions. It emerges that, whatever
betrothal might have meant in that culture, it was very different from the
principles behind modern ‘betrothal’, especially as concerns the protection of
emotions.
Lindvall's teaching that children
should be allowed veto-power but no positive volitional fiat in the decision
whom to marry, is very unjewish as well. In the Jewish Talmud we read that
A man is forbidden to give his daughter in
marriage while she is a minor, until she is grown up and says, 'I wish to marry
so-and-so'..."[17]
As far as law was concerned, however,
though a father could marry off his daughter while she was still a minor (less
than twelve years and one day), she could annul the marriage upon reaching
twelve years and a day without needing a divorce, if she did not love the man.
The Scripture’s Teaching
When Agur, son of Jakeh compared the way of a
man with a maid to that of an Eagle in the sky, a snake on a rock, and a ship
in the midst of the sea (Prov. 30:19), it is hardly something that can be
construed as a pejorative description, despite the snake. Yet if, as Lindvall
maintains, all ways between a man and a maid should be prohibited until after
betrothal, this verse must be heavily qualified to ensure that the terms 'man'
and 'maid' do not refer to persons of a single status. (The Hebrew term for maid that is used
indicates a virgin.) It is indeed an exercise of unrestrained imagination to
conceive such distinctions being inherent in this proverb. As I have already tried
to show, such concepts would have been completely foreign to the Jewish way of
thinking, and therefore cannot be externally imposed on the Biblical texts.
One
scholar, after I asked him if he knew of any documentary evidence that could be
used to prove the unjewish-ness of ‘emotional purity’, pointed me to the Bible,
which is full of examples of love occurring prior to commitment. We shall be
examining some of these examples in this essay, but first it must be emphasized
that because the Bible stories were not written to specifically address this
subject, any bits we are able to extract should not be turned into a model for
one method or another. This is precisely the mistake that the advocates of
courtship and betrothal frequently make in approaching narrative scripture from
a statistical pattern to try to determine right practice. It is always
dangerous to turn the descriptive passages of scripture into prescriptive
commands. A descriptive passage tells us what happened while a
prescriptive passage tells us how something should happen. An example of
this is the prayer of Jabez in 1 Chronicles 4:10, which is descriptive, vs. the
prayer which Jesus taught his disciples to pray which is prescriptive. Now, of
course, we can gain wisdom on how to live from studying the descriptive passages,
but they should never be approached as blanket models for us to automatically
apply in our own situations.
Having
said that, I would like to now look at some of the descriptive passages of the
Bible where we read about people getting married and having relationships. My
purpose in the following survey is to show that the theories of emotional
purity do not have a pedigree dating back to the Bible or ancient Jewish
practice. (And even if they did, this would not itself prove that such ideas
are normative, based on the above distinction between description and
prescription.) In so doing we shall also see how completely untenable is the
assumption that romantic love is a modern invention - an assumption so
pervasive in the literature of the courtship and betrothal movements.
Isaac and Rebekah: Betrothal Blueprint?
The relationship between Isaac and Rebekah is a favorite among
advocates of courtship and particularly betrothal. I cannot begin to count the
amount of times I have seen Isaac and Rebekah’s relationship cited as a
paradigm of 'God's way.' However, when we look at what the Bible actually says
about Isaac and Rebekah, nowhere do we find God sanctioning the pattern of
courtship, betrothal, emotional purity, or anything of the sort.
To fully understand story, we must back
up and consider what God had been doing with Abraham. The Lord had set Abraham
apart to found a nation that would be God's representative on earth. It was
very important that Abraham's son, Isaac, should not procreate seed that was
defiled, i.e., that was contaminated by the seed of other people's. Nowadays we
see this principle applied in the New Testament where we are exhorted not to be
unequally yoked. Racial purity is no longer an issue as it was back then.
So Abraham made his servant
swear by the Lord,
the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for
my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell; but you shall
go to my country and to my family, and take a wife for my son Isaac."
"And the servant said to him, 'Perhaps the woman will not be
willing to follow me to this land. Must I take your son back to the land from
which you came?'
"But
Abraham said to him, 'Beware that you do not take my son back there. The Lord God of Heaven, who took me from my
father's house and from the land of my family, and who spoke to me and swore to
me, saying, 'To your descendants I give this land,' He will send an angel
before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there. And if the woman
is not willing to follow you, then you will be released from this oath; only do
not take my son back there.' (Gen. 24:3-8)
We do not know what was behind
Abraham's reluctance for his son to travel to his homeland, although we can
speculate. The betrothal lobby have suggested that this was because the custom
was for young men not to be involved in their own marriage decisions. But
notice the servant's reluctance to go without Isaac, and doubt as to whether
the woman would want to go and marry a man she had not met. The implication is
that under normal circumstances Isaac would have sought his own wife.[18]
But this was an unusual situation, and that very fact never seems to be taken
into account when the betrothal advocates appeal to this example. In fact, it
was so unusual an occurrence that a miracle needed to happen. The servant had
no idea which girl would be the right one as there was no knowledge of, or
interchange with, these far off relatives. Hence, he had to rely solely on an
act of divine intervention. Because this was part of the Lord's plan, in
fulfilling the mission to found a chosen people through the patriarchs, the
Lord moved directly in these affairs, bringing the girl of His choosing to the
servant before he had met anyone else. It was all part of the Lord miraculously
fulfilling his original word to Abraham. The servant recognized this marvelous
act of mercy and praised the Lord for it, saying,
"'Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken His
mercy and His truth toward my master. As for me, being on the way, the Lord led me to the house of my master's
brethren.'" (Gen. 24:27)
What was Rebekah and her parent's
response to this unusual proposal of marriage to a man she had never even met?
Her parents recognized that "'The thing comes from the Lord...'" (Gen. 24:50) though they
desired that their daughter remain with them for at least ten days before
leaving (24:55). Despite her parent's wishes, Rebekah desired to depart the
very next day (Gen. 24:56). In this Rebekah shows a degree of autonomy that is
discouraged by the advocates of betrothal.
I love this story because it shows a
family going out on a limb in faithfulness to God's word. The Lord blessed
their faithfulness, for we are told that Isaac loved Rebekah (Gen. 24:67). This
love was obviously emotional, for we read that it comforted Isaac after his
mother's death. (24:67)
Nowhere do I find this story set out as
a blue print for selecting a spouse. Rather, it is a story of Abraham, Isaac
and Rebekah's trust in God's faithfulness. Abraham's faith in the Lord's word
regarding his progeny is shown to have substance in the way God went before and
prepared this young woman for Isaac, and then miraculously engineered the
circumstances necessary to bring them together. To try to find from this story
some divine methodology for finding a spouse reduces its power and
significance.
Take a Wife
Now if a divine precedent for
finding a spouse had been set through these events, then one would
confidently expect Isaac to continue the procedure with his son Jacob. However,
with Jacob we find a very different set of circumstances ensuing.
We are told in Genesis 26:34-35 that
Jacob's brother Esau "took wives", which "were a grief of mind
to Isaac and Rebekah." Ah, there you have it, Esau he took wives for
himself rather than letting his father select them! Furthermore, the result
brought grief to his parents. That is how the betrothal advocates interpret
this verse. For example, Thompson mentions this by commenting that "every
example where the father did NOT initiate and oversee the relationship (such as
Esau/wives, Shechem/Dinah, Samson/Delilah, etc.) the outcome was either mixed
or disastrous."[19]
But just hold on a second. The unifying
factor in the three relationships that Thompson mentions, which accounts for
the disastrous outcomes, is that each involved union with a Gentile, which God
had forbidden. The grief Esau brought upon his parents was not that he 'took
wives' for himself, for that same language is used of Abraham, a generation
earlier, taking a wife for himself: "Abraham again took a wife, and her
name was Keturah." (Gen. 25:1) So the grief would not have been because
Esau took wives, but because, as Rebekah says,
“I am weary of my life because of the
daughters of Heth; if Jacob takes a wife of the daughters of Heth, like these
who are the daughters of the land, what good will my life be to me?” (Gen. 27:
46)
The grief Esau caused his parents was
not because of the procedure for getting married, but because he took wives from
among the pagans. So Isaac instructs Jacob not to take a wife from the
daughters of Canaan, but to go find one amongst his own family.
Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and
sent him away to Padan Aram to take himself a wife from there, and that as he
blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, "You shall not take a wife from
the daughters of Canaan." (Gen. 28:6)
Isaac simply sent Jacob away to find a
wife. Even I favor more parental involvement than that! Isaac had no idea who
his son was going to choose, he simply asks that it be from his own kinsmen.
When Esau heard of this he was jealous and went and took another wife from
Abraham's family too. (Gen. 28:9)
Non-biblical literature from the
Ancient Near East points in the same direction. In the apocryphal book of
Tobit, Tobias' father instructed his son, saying, "do not disdain your
brethren and the sons and daughters of your people by refusing to take a wife
for yourself from among them." The implication of this statement was not
that the father was exercising an inherent right to control his sons' marriage
decision but, like everything else he said in that chapter, simply pointing him
in the direction of what was right. The advice that Isaac and Tobit gave their
sons would be similar to the way a Christian father might counsel his son not
to seek a wife from among unbelievers. Here again, what is not said is as
important as what actually is said in so far as the fathers say nothing
concerning the need to approve the actual individual women.
Jacob: Love Before Commitment
Getting back to Jacob, the events that unfolded show that
people did not hold back their emotions prior to commitment. In Jacob's case,
exactly the opposite is found. At the first meeting of Jacob and Rachel, even before
there is any record of Jacob and Rachel exchanging words, what does Jacob do?
Jacob kisses Rachel! (Gen. 29:11) Shortly afterwards we are told that
"Jacob loved Rachel" (Gen. 29:18) before he asked Leban if he
could marry her. In other words, the love preceded the commitment. (If I’m not
mistaken, he did things the wrong way round according to some.) As Jacob was
penniless, and therefore had no bride price to pay or means to support a wife,
he had to work fourteen years to earn her. As Schaijik observes, “Jacob did not
labor fourteen years for Rachel’s hand because he had ‘discerned a
compatibility’ with her, but ‘because he loved her.’”[20]
So deep was Jacob’s love for Rachel, in fact, that these seven years “seemed
only a few days to him because of the love he had for her.” (Gen. 29:20) Again,
in that culture the father of the bride always had to give consent. Now Leban
was a scoundrel, as can be seen more clearly by juxtaposing this account with
the similar narrative history book of the Jews called The Book of Jasher.[21]
Leban took advantage of Jacob's penniless state, maneuvering things to get
fourteen years work out of Jacob. You all know the story, how Jacob was tricked
into marrying Leah thinking he was marrying Rachel. It is interesting that in
this case the arranged marriage (Jacob and Leah) was actually a disaster. Why
was the arranged marriage a disaster? Quite simply because Jacob didn't love
Leah (Gen. 29:31). On the other hand, the relationship that Jacob himself
chose, prospered because it was a love-match.
Lindvall acknowledges that “there are
several instances in scripture of men and women clearly being drawn emotionally
to one another prior to their marriage,” BUT he hastily adds, “these seem to be
not only exceptional, but to invariably result in unique problems.”[22]
I wonder what sort of ‘unique problems’ Lindvall imagines resulted from the
fact that Jacob loved Rachel before gaining permission to marry her. He doesn’t
say. Anyway, problems in a marriage does not mean that the match is wrong, nor
does it imply that how the relationship was conducted before marriage was
wrong. All marriages experience problems.
Dinah and Shechem
Perhaps Lindvall would point instead to
a story such as that of Dinah and Shechem (Gen. 34). This incident has been
cited by others as an example of the disasters brought about by choosing your
own marriage partner. However, the incident proves nothing either way, but it
does serve to demonstrate the difference between the proper way that Jacob
handled his emotions versus the improper way of the Gentile Shechem. Jacob was
in love with Rachel just as Shechem was in love with Dinah, but Shechem wanted
physical satisfaction immediately while Jacob showed restraint. Jacob obviously
desired Rachel physically too (Gen. 29:21), but he waited. Jacob’s attitude
runs contrary to the consumerism of our materialistic age, where the primacy of
instant gratification leaves little point of contact with romantic love, while
Shechem demonstrates the opposite. It is interesting to note that, even so,
Shechem went to his father to ask him to obtain Dinah for his wife. This shows
that this procedure for parental authorization concerning the female was the
protocol that was required in order to be married - by the godly and the
ungodly alike, by the pagans as well as the children of Israel. There was a
general acceptance of the customs, etiquette and protocol of the culture.
Sampson
We see this again in the story of
Sampson. (Judges 14) Although Sampson had found a girl that "pleased him
well" and whom he desired to marry, it was still necessary for the actual
marriage that cultural customs were observed. So Sampson said to his parents,
"'get her for me as a wife.'" (Judges 14:2) The parents initially
refused on the grounds that she was from their enemies, the Philistines. Again
we see that the authority of the parents to make the plans was an intrinsic
part of that culture. It was not simply a custom observed by righteous people,
as if it was 'God's way' that He had instituted, but was also practiced by
those outside the covenant.
David
Another person who needs to be studied
is David. In 1 Samuel 18:20 we read that "Michal, Saul's daughter, loved
David. And they told Saul, and the thing pleased him." Notice here again
that the love preceded the commitment. It is obvious that this was how people
lived then as we do today. Also notice that the father was informed subsequent
to the love.
Saul’s interference eventually
destroyed David’s marriage to Michal and David took the widow Abigail to be his
wife (1 Sam. 25:39-42). David and Abigail certainly didn't follow any procedure
of parental authorization. David asks directly for Abigail to be his wife
(through messengers) and she accepts immediately. We also read that “David also
took Ahinoam of Jezreel” (25:43), but we are told nothing about it.
Christ's Betrothal to the Church
John Thompson writes,
Perhaps the most compelling reason for
recognizing betrothal as transcultural is our Lord's use of this standard for
His relationship with His own "multicultural" bride, the church. As
the spiritual father of the Corinthians, Paul declares: "...for I
betrothed you to one husband, that to Christ I might present you as a pure
virgin" (2 Cor. 11:2). Why would Christ choose betrothal if it were not
God's own prescription for pre-marital fidelity? Indeed, Paul suggests that its
primary purpose is to "present you as a pure virgin." Just as Christ
doesn't want us "dating around" in the spiritual realm because it
leads to physical, mental and emotional impurity, so likewise in the natural realm.
To say that betrothal must be God's way
because He drew upon it to illustrate His relationship with the church, is a
fallacious argument, for two reasons. First, Jesus used whatever material was
around at the time for illustrations. He drew upon many things from living in
tents to using swords in warfare. Does that mean that fighting with swords is
more godly than fighting with guns because God used the former and not the
latter as an illustration? Is it godlier for farmers to plant vineyards of grapes
rather than fields of oats because God used the former as an illustration and
not the latter?
Secondly, when we realize the vast
difference between true historical betrothal vs. modern betrothal, then the
above argument amounts to saying, "modern betrothal must be God's way
because He drew upon historical betrothal to illustrate His relationship with
the church", even though the latter, as we have seen, was entirely
different, both in its outworking as well as the ideology behind it.
One aspect of historical betrothal that
is particularly meaningful in illustrating Christ's relationship with the
church is the two distinct phases: first, the judicial union of the couple at
the commencement of the betrothal, and then the physical union after the
wedding at the end of the betrothal. This being so, betrothal was a
particularly apt custom for Paul to draw upon in describing Christ's marriage
to the church since Christ's union to the church occurred judicially when
Christ died but will not be consummated until He returns in glory when
"the Spirit and the bride say 'Come!'" to the bridegroom. (Rev.
22:17) When that time comes, we shall say,
"'Let us be glad and rejoice and give
Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself
ready.' And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and
bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints." (Rev.
19:7-8)
The principle that matters here is that
we remain faithful to Christ, and not desert our first love (Rev. 2:4), but
eagerly await the return of the bridegroom when the above verse will be
fulfilled. While we wait, we can make ourselves ready by arraying ourselves in
the fine linen of righteous acts.
To try to reduce these truths into a
method for getting married misses the whole point that the scripture is making.
It is absurd to say that Paul and John were exhorting their hearers on a
"prescription for pre-marital fidelity" here. Paul spent considerable
detail elsewhere laying down rules for marital and premarital behavior, never
mentioning anything close to such ideas.
The attempt to see Christ's
relationship with the church as an illustration of modern betrothal has
actually led some teachers to implicitly deny the basic gospel message. To show
how this is so it is first necessary to review the four-fold progression once
the go ahead has been given for a match.
1. First an offer of marriage/love is made to
the woman
2. Then the woman accepts an irrevocable
commitment.
3. Then the couple 'falls in love'.
4. Finally, there is marriage and
consummation.
The advocates of betrothal are teaching
that the above progression parallels Christ's relationship to the church. First Christ makes us an offer of marriage
through the gift of salvation. Then after we accept comes the betrothal period.
During this time Christ woos us and we fall in love with Him. It is irrevocable
apart from spiritual adultery, which would be turning our back on Him. Finally,
when Christ returns, there is consummation of the marriage.
God forbid! Scripture declares that
Christ's love for us preceded our commitment to Him. “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and
sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins… We love him because he first
love us." (1 Jn. 4:10-19) And
again, "God
demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us" (Rom. 5:8). Why did He die for us and offer salvation? Out of
love (John. 3:16). Therefore His love cannot be the effect of our commitment to
Him, but the other way round. When we say 'yes' to Christ's marriage proposal,
it is because He has wooed us by His great love through the Holy Spirit (John
6:44), instead of in the modern betrothal method where the husband woos the
woman only after she has made a commitment to Him. Christ's relationship to us
is the very antithesis of the pattern of modern betrothal.
What About 'Defrauding'?
There are two other verses from Paul's
letters that are frequently cited by both courtship and betrothal advocates. One
is 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6.
For this is the will of God, your
sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of
you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not
in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one should
take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is
the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified.
This is the main verse that Lindvall
cites as a proof text for betrothal a la Lindvall. Lindvall argues that
Paul's words that no man should take advantage of (or 'go beyond' as some
translations have it), is referring to the sins of sexual impurity, while the
word' 'defraud' is referring to the sin of emotional impurity. "We can all
recognize," writes Lindvall, "that 'going beyond' applies to physical
impurity. This is important, but it's not all there is. He also said not to
'defraud' one another."[23]
Lindvall argues that defrauding applies when a person's emotions are drawn
towards someone that they do not end up marrying. They are defrauded because
they expected something that was not given. Hence, emotions should only be
released after a commitment to marriage.[24]
Surely this is to artificially impose a
distinction in Paul's words that the syntax does not allow. The use of the
inclusive conjunction, together with both phrases being linked into 'this
matter' of sexual immorality, indicate that 'taking advantage' and 'defrauding'
are part of the self same thought rather than being a distinction between
different forms of sin. Furthermore, since defrauding, by definition, involves
deceit, it cannot apply to cases where there is simply emotional attachment
that is not culminated in marriage, as is being suggested, but only to those
cases where a person flatters or flirts a person who believes they are being
genuine when they are not.
The words 'possess his own vessel'
Lindvall says mean 'acquire his own wife.' Scholars disagree whether the words
'vessel' are referring to a wife or one's own body. If they refer to a wife
(which is unlikely from the context of the passage), it is interesting that the
emphasis is not on the father acquiring a spouse but the individual in
question. Lindvall claims that the words 'passion of lust' refers to the
process of pursuing a partner through romance and dating rather than God's
method of betrothal.[25]
But let's not forget that the whole
passage - the whole book of 1 Thessalonians in fact - is talking about personal
sanctification versus sexual immorality. If this passage is read in the context
in which it occurs, it becomes obvious that it is not a passage to unmarried
people about how to (or how not to) get a wife. When Paul intended to give
specific advice to unmarried people, as in 1st Corinthians 7, he said that that
is what he was doing. But 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6 is a passage about the general
wrongs of sexual immorality, similar to Paul's exhortation in 1 Corinthians
6:18-20. He emphasizes the seriousness of sexual purity, and the sinfulness of
following the passion of lust. Seen in this context, when we read not 'to take
advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter', it is clear that 'this
matter' is the sexual immorality spoken of in verse 3, and more specifically
adultery. To make out that this is a reference to pre-marital emotions is
absurd, for if Paul had meant that, he surely would have made it clear. While
Paul may not have been the most organized of writers, let's give him more
credit than that!
What About Brothers & Sisters?
Another passage that these teachers are
quick to point to is Paul’s words in 1 Tim. 5:2, where he instructed Timothy to
treat “younger women as sisters, with all purity” and to treat the older woman
as if they were mothers. Lindvall argues that this passage indicates that Paul
disapproved of romance before engagement.
What did Paul mean by his words to
Timothy? Surely he meant that Timothy should show respect to young women as he
would his sister, even as he should respect elderly woman as he would his
mother. So the application is don’t mess around or flirt because the bottom
line in all relationships must be AGAPE love. If Paul had wanted to say that
romance was wrong, and that most of the entire human race had been deceived by
the romantic inclination, he did not say it here. Further, it is interesting
that Paul’s words only make sense if you assume that there was at least some
level of interaction between the young men and women.
The Song of Songs
No discussion of love in the Bible can
ever be complete without considering the Song of Songs (also called Song of
Solomon). If space permitted, I would devote an entire chapter to this
beautiful book of the Bible.
The Song of Songs has always held a
mysterious excitement for me, going back to my childhood when I was permitted
to read all the books of the Bible except this one. Later, when I was grown and
attending a Bible college that advocated Gothard/Lindvall type ideas about
love, I waited in anticipation for the time when this book would be studied,
curious to see how it would be handled. When the book was finally treated, it
was not seen as a celebration of the glory and beauty of human love, but
understood as only allegory.
I do believe that the Song of Songs can
be understood for its allegorical significance in symbolizing the love
relationship between Christ and His bride. Though the allegorical
interpretation has often been espoused by those who find a straightforward
interpretation embarrassing, even shocking, we should not think that the two
approaches are mutually exclusive.
There are many different ways of
reading the Song of Songs. Those who advocate betrothal have claimed the book for their side, suggesting
that it is about a betrothed couple and thus shows how romantic ‘betrothal’ can
be. Other scholars, such as Tremper Longman III, have suggested that the book is
a collection of disconnected love poetry. By far the most pervasive reading of
the book is to understand it as showing a love relationship between king
Solomon and a Shulamite woman. Other scholars have suggested an alternative
interpretation of the book that is less well known but, in my opinion, more
clean and internally consistent. (See Dr. Bullinger’s Companion Bible and C. D. Ginsberg commentary on The Song of Songs.)
According to this alternative interpretation, the book is not about a mutual love between King Solomon and the Shulamite woman at all; rather, it is the story of Solomon attempting to woo the Shulamite away from her shepherd boy lover. The Song of Songs is the story of how, despite enormous pressure, the Shulamite lass remains faithful and true to him until the end when their love is restored. It is a story of the triumph of love, enduring at all costs and victorious in the end. It is a story of a love that must be pursued in secret when it is opposed first (not insignificantly) by familial authority and secondly by the King himself. Space prohibits any further explanation or defense of this way of interpreting the book, but anyone interested in knowing more should consult my article titled ‘A Song of Love.’
Return to Robin Phillips HOMEPAGE
You are invited
to join my mailing list!
As
a member of my mailing list, you will receive automatic notification about
additional material and features on this site, as well as occasional
newsletters. To join, send a blank email to
largerhope @
tiscali.co.uk
with “Join” in
the subject heading. To unjoin, send a blank email with “Unjoin” in the subject
heading.
(Note:
for anti-spam purposes, the above email address has had spaced inserted before
and after the @ sign. The address will only work after deleting these spaces.)
[1] Jonathan
Lindvall, "Contention Regarding Emotional Purity", Home School Digest
Volume 10, Number 3, p. 20.
[2] Israel Wayne, Ibid.
[3] Email newsletter, #88, 2001.
[4] Cited by Dr. A Cohen, Everyman's Talmud, (London: J.
M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1932), p. 167.
[5] While
polygamy is not forbidden in the Old Testament, the implication can be drawn
that monogamy was still God's ideal from verses such as Ps. 28; Prov. 12:4;
18:22; 19:14; 31:10-31, Is. 62:5)
[6] Jonathan Lindvall, personal letter to author.
[7] As the Encyclopedia Judaica states, “In Jewish law shiddukhin is defined as the
mutual promise between a man and a woman to contract a marriage {betrothal} at
some future time and the formulation of the terms on which it shall take place.
In general parlance, as opposed to legal terminology, it is known as erusin
(Kid. 63a, Tos.), which is in fact part of the marriage ceremony proper. The
concept of shiddukhin can entail either a promise by the intending parties
themselves or one made by their representative parents or other relatives on
their behalf (Kid. 9b; Sh. Ar., EH 50:4-6 and 51).... Shiddukhin as such has no immediate effect on the personal status
of the parties - it being only a promise to create a different personal status
in the future (Resp. Rosh 34:1; Beit Yosef EH 55). In the middle ages the Jews
combined the betrothal ceremony with the wedding ceremony because it was
inconvenient to have an interval between the two ceremonies where the parties
were prohibited from cohabiting yet all the stringency of the married status
applied to them. (Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume XI, p. 1036.)
[8] A Dictionary of the Bible, Edited by James Hastings, M.A.,
D.D. 1900 Publ. T. & T. Clark. 5 volumes.
[9] Rev. Dr. Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in The
Days of Christ, (London: The Religious Tract Society) p. 143.
[10] Lindvall, Scriptural Betrothal, Ibid.
[11] Lindvall’s newsletter, #87
[12] Ibid
[13] Newsletter, issue #88.
[14] Newsletter, issue #85.
[15] Here is a complete list of all the places where
the term appears in scripture: Ex. 22:16; Lev. 19:20; Deut. 20; Deut. 22:23; Deut. 22:25; Deut. 22:27; Deut. 22:28;
Deut. 28:30; 2 Sam. 3:14 ; Ho 2:19; Ho 2:20; Mt. 1:18; Lu. 1:27; Lu 2:5.
[16] Because a
betrothed couple was officially man and wife, a divorce was needed to break it,
as we see in the story of Mary and Joseph. Divorce was not uncommon in those
days, and in fact it was easier to get a divorce than it is today. A man need
only write his wife a certificate of divorce and then send her away. At the
time of Christ there were two rival rabbinic schools, the school of Shammai and
the school of Hillel. Both schools had differing interpretation of the Biblical
text (Deut. 24:1) that allowed divorce. The scholars of Shammai argued that the
phrase in Deuteronomy "he has found some uncleanness in her" or "unseemly
thing", literally means "nakedness of a thing" and thus refers
to unfaithfulness as the only grounds for divorce. But the school of Hillel
understood the phrase to mean anything unseemly and declared the famous words,
"He may divorce her even if she spoil his cooking, or as Rabbi Akiba put
it, "He may divorce her even if he found another woman more beautiful than
she." Some Talmudic sages went so far as to say, "A bad wife is like
leprosy to her husband. What is the remedy? Let him divorce her and be cured of
his leprosy.... If one has a bad wife, it is a religious duty to divorce her.
Cited in Dr. A. Cohen, Everyman's Talmud, (London: J. M. Dent & Sons
Ltd, 1932) p. 162. Despite the boldface audacity of these words, nevertheless
the Hillel position was supported by Deuteronomy 24:3 where a second divorce
can occur simply if the "husband detest her", and also from the fact
that divorce would not have been necessary in cases of adultery since adultery
was punishable by death. It was the Hillel view that found its way into state
law, and the historian Josephus confirms that divorce was common for "any
cause whatever". Nevertheless, many who endorsed this as jurists
understandably condemned it as moralists. Likewise, when Jesus was presented
with the question, while he sides with the ethics of the Shammai view as being
God's original intent, he nevertheless recognizes the Hillel position to be the
correct interpretation of Moses' words by acknowledging that the Mosaic law
gave more latitude on the matter because of the people's hardness of heart.
Jesus in fact reforms the law (Mt. 19:1-12), rather than appealing to an
existing law.
[17] Cited in Dr. A.
Cohen, op. cit., p. 162.
[18] The Talmud states, "A man is forbidden to take a woman
to wife without having seen her, lest he afterwards perceive in her something
objectionable and she becomes repulsive to him..."
[19] John W. Thompson,
"God's Design for Scriptural Romance Part 1: Rediscovering the Timeless
Truths", from the internet.
[20] Schaijik, ibid.
[21] The book of Jasher is referred to in Joshua 10:13 and 2nd
Samuel 1:18, and makes interesting reading when juxtaposed with the Biblical
narrative.
[22] Lindvall’s email newsletter, #88, 2001.
[23] Bold Christian Living
E-Mail Newsletter, Issue #26: Introduction to Emotional Purity--Part One:
Courtship?
[24]
Lindvall writes, “It is just as defrauding for a young man to draw your
daughter's heart before betrothal as it would be for me (a married man) to draw
the heart of some woman other than my wife (no matter how physically pure such
a flirtatious relationship might be). God is calling both married people and
single people to both physical purity and emotional purity.” (Bold Christian
Living E-Mail Newsletter, Issue #93)
[25] 'Shamefaced Romance', Ibid. Also Lindvall's
email Newsletter #26: Introduction to Emotional Purity--Part One: Courtship?