Scripture and Courtship

                                                                   

                                                                  Introduction:

 In a world of casual dating, Christians must ask themselves what they believe about a man and a woman's preparation for marriage. Should the man be equipped to take a wife? How much does a father play in the role of his daughter's potential courtship? While entire books have dealt with this general subject, I want to present a brief Biblical and historical case for courtship in this post. 

I will be making a Biblical case that courtship is superior to dating. Indeed, I wish to show that the Biblical examples of men and women preparing to marry people of the opposite sex never included dating. It should be noted that my use of ''courtship'' in this post differs from that of any sort of modern dating. As I will attempt to prove, not only recreational dating is unbiblical, but any form of dating that does not involve the presence of the parents or an older guardian figure is as well. For example, I believe that double dating between two couples of men and women is still inappropriate. 

I realize that my views on this topic are not going to be popular. The practices of orthodox Christianity generally aren't. For me, that's fine. I'm used to many people rejecting most things that I preach. While I wish that more people held to a Biblical theology, it is not my responsibility for the choices that they make nor what they choose to believe. 

I will briefly examine courtship in the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Middle Ages, the Regency era, and the Victorian Age. Obviously, not every era of history will be examined in this post. If a person wanted to, an entire book could be written on this subject. However, that is not my intent here. In conclusion, I will summarize aspects of courtship that I believe are Biblical and why dating should not be practiced. 

                                                  1. Courtship in the Old Testament: 

One of the interesting things about courtship is that it has changed drastically throughout history. In the Old Testament, marriage often followed betrothal. It was also in the Old Testament that a man's parents often chose his wife for him*1. In general, a man and woman were often betrothed until the two wed. In Genesis 24, for instance, Abraham chose a wife for his son, Isaac. Later, however, other practices followed in ancient Israel. 

In the case of Moses, the exiled Hebrew from Egypt developed a relationship with Jethro, a Midianite, and the latter's daughters. Moses took Zipporah, Jethro's eldest daughter as his wife (Exodus 4: 18-26). With Moses's family back in Egypt, his mother was not involved in this relationship. In this case, his only option was through Zipporah's father alone. 

David, for instance, took Michal, Saul's daughter as his wife (1 Samuel 18: 17-27). This was before David ever became king of Israel. Scripture never articulates any betrothal between David and Michal before their wedding. In fact, considering that Saul was king when David was merely a shepherd, it seems unlikely that David would have been betrothed to Saul's daughter until the young man arose in Israel as a hero after Goliath's death. 

Soloman, David's son, lived with many wives (1 Kings 11: 3). While the topic of polygamy is another one of its own, the fact that Soloman took wives from outside the Kingdom of Israel was itself problematic and caused problems in his own life (1 Kings 11). 

In the Book of Ruth, Boaz took the young woman of the same title name as his wife (3: 11). Since Ruth is a non-Hebrew living in the land of Israel, having come from the Moabites, it's understandable why scripture never mentions Boaz having went through her family to wed her. Their marriage, in many ways, was unconventional and hardly the standard of Old Testament practice as she was at first a foreigner living in the land of the Hebrews before converting to Judaism. 

In short, the practices of marriage varied in the Old Testament. Bethrothel was common, but not universal. Sometimes, as was the case of David, the young man knew Micael's father before being engaged with her and taking her as his wife. Marriage was oftentimes (if not always) through either the potential husband or the potential wife's family (perhaps both). It was never simply between the man and the woman. 

To say that all Old Testament marriage was interchangeable with the act of betrothal is not entirely accurate. The case of David's relationship with Michal was a later foreshadowing of some Medieval and Regency thoughts on courtship. While marriage varies throughout the Old Testament, the idea of dating was simply unknown (and virtually remained unknown until it became widespread during the early twentieth century). 

                                                      2. Courtship in the New Testament

Hermeneutics is key to how we interpret scripture. Some assume that if the New Testament doesn't address an Old Testament theme or concept, then that theme or concept is no longer relevant to Christians of today. I disagree. I don't see a clear distinction between the two covenants except in the places where the New Covenant has made clear that the old is superseded by the theology of the New. Because of this, whatever theological or moral practices that were typical in the Old Testament, I believe Christians should still observe unless the New Testament commands us otherwise. 

But the New Testament nowhere condemns the Old Testament understanding of courtship. Therefore, the practices of the Hebrews in regard to marriage remain good examples for Christians to follow. 

According to Luke 1, Mary and Joseph were betrothed to be married to one another. This shows that even at the time of the early New Testament, the practice of betrothal was common to the Hebrews. Indeed, Christ never revoked any of the traditional understands of betrothal or courtship during His earth ministry. Neither were they changed in the early church after Pentecost or by the instructions of the New Testament epistles. 

It's interesting that the New Testament does not specify any different concept of courtship contrary to those established in the Old Testament. In Ephesians 5, wives are told to submit to their husbands, while husbands are also commanded to also love their wives as the church. However, scripture under the New Covenant nowhere expounds on a different thought of courtship than that of the Old Testament except for building upon the previous thoughts. In Ephesians 5: 31, Paul teaches believers that a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, which was also taught in Genesis 2: 24. Furthermore, while marriage is lifted to the status of a sacrament in scripture (John 6, Ephesians 5), the New Testament never presents the preparations for it as any different than that established among the Hebrews before the coming of Christ.

                                                    3. Courtship in The Medieval Era: 

In many ways, the thought of courtship during the Medieval era reflected the concept of a boy and girl being betrothed to each other from a young age...as had been the case of Abraham for Isaac in the Old Testament. 

Bethrothel, nevertheless, wasn't always binding. Sometimes betrothals were later broken off by children's guardians as they grew older*2. Furthermore, medieval marriage was based on consent and there is actually evidence to show that the man and woman often wanted the marriage to each other.*3. In general, as was the case for the vast majority of Medieval theology, the ideas that the medievals had about marriage and courtship were quite Biblical, often taken directly from scripture. Furthermore, their allegorical understanding of the Old Testament aided their interpretation of the Old Covenants still being relevant to the New Testament Church. 

                                                 4. Courtship in The Regency Era:  

Arranged marriages were no longer common by the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In this way, courtship during these times had a significant breach from medieval thought. 

The Regency era was the time that Jane Austen's novels are set. Many people wrongly call the common ideas about courtship during her time ''Victorian.'' In fact, she lived before the Victorians. In terms of literature, her era was called ''the Romantic period (late eighteenth through early nineteenth century).'' Like the Victorian period that followed in the middle half of the nineteenth century, the Romantics were inspired greatly by the artwork and ideas of the medievals long before them. In neither the Regency nor the Victorian eras, however, did Western society follow the pattern of betrothal that had been common in the Middle Ages. 

During the Regency age, a man would ask the woman of his choice for courtship. If she refused, then that was it. If she accepted, even then, her marriage could be forbidden if her parents did not give consent to it*4. 

The thought of the Regency era resembled David's courting of Michal in 1 Samuel. It prioritized the man's role in pursuing the girl that he wished to marry. Allowing the man or woman to court several people at once could allow a person of either sex to not be emotionally attached to the person that they are courting until engagement makes their relationship exclusive to all else. In short, it could be argued that this prepares a man and woman to never give such an attachment until they are on the verge of marriage (those in the Regency era were typically only engaged for a few weeks before the marriage wedding). 

In general, it should also be noted that courtship was not a state of a relationship. It became a type of status between a man and a woman during the later Victorian era. During the Regency era, people would court each other but there was no formal relationship until engagement. Once the man showed special attention, however, to the woman outside the norm of social acceptance, it was believed that his courtship with her now excluded him from the potential of pursuing other women simultaneously. The concept of a man and woman being in a formal relationship with one another before engagement started with the Victorians. 

During the Regency era, courting simply meant a man pursuing a woman by dancing with her or playing games with her during events (obviously, not alone). The exchange of letters or private affairs between the two was seen as socially unacceptable before engagement. The romantics did not understand any sort of courting or courtship between a man and woman as binding on the other until marriage. 

I find the fact that the Regents rejected letters between men and women before engagement to be interesting. Indeed, in today's world, it is common for private messages between men and women over texting or social media. Much has changed, indeed.

Unlike proms in present society, balls were events for far more than a person's peers. Entire families would socialize at the events and they would happen several times a year. In short, balls were for more than romantic aspirations. It was a time for people to dance and get to know one another (as well as the opportunity for romance for many). Whereas proms have no accountability from parents, balls did. Whereas proms are only about a certain age group, balls included a diverse range of ages. Whereas balls were a social event, proms put pressure on boys and girls to make their romance work with the opposite sex...a social pressure far beyond that of the Regency balls. 

Another problem with the idea of dating is that it allows a man to claim a woman as his girlfriend for years without ever marrying her. Today, it's common to see on social media how two people are in a state of a relationship. By doing this, the man excludes any other men from pursuing the woman that he is interested in without promising her engagement for marriage. In the Regency era, however, engagement often only lasted weeks, and it was actually common for men to give flowers to every girl that they danced with. Neither man nor woman was bound by the other in a relationship until around the time of engagement. Courting was not a formal part of a relationship but a man and woman being open to flirting and considering several people at once. In many ways, I believe that the Regency approach provided a strong balance concerning the relationship between men and women. Dating does not set up anyone for marriage. It allows a man and woman to stay in a ''relationship'' with each other exclusively with no foreseeable marriage in sight. It allows the man to claim the woman as his alone while forbidding other men who wish to pursue her and may marry her sooner than he would. It binds her to a man who promises nothing toward her future, no engagement, no wedding, and no children. 

                                           5. Courtship in The Victorian Age:

The Victorians also had a breach of thought on courtship from the Romantics before them. More of that, I will discuss briefly, shortly from now. 

One of my favorite works of literature is Wives and Daughters by Elizabeth Gaskell. In this book, Roger Hamley pursues and courts Molly Gibson. In general, Victorian thought on courtship is the common practice of courtship among many contemporary conservative homeschoolers and other conservatives who hold to classical education.

The idea of a young man kneeling before a young woman and asking her to marry him did not yet exist in Jane Austen's time. Nor did the universal practice of brides wearing white gowns become common until the Victorian Age. While many conflate the ideas of courtship that existed in both the Regency and Victorian eras, the two were different. Indeed, the Victorians permitted courtship only between one man and one woman at once. 

The conservative ideas of courtship among the Victorians were challenged by new thoughts of the twentieth century. The invention of the automobile helped to serve those who wished to have private dating without the parents of either the guy or girl being involved. In the early 1900s, young men and women began to frequently date each other alone as the whole experience of dating became common throughout the western world. Modern and Postmodernism gradually broke more and more from the more traditional aspects of courtship and marriage that had been commonplace in Christian society for 1800 years. In replacement, the liberals brought about pornography, abortion, birth control, a hatred of men and women for each other, a rapid divorce rate, and widespread adultery that was in the name of ''remarriage.'' If these ideas were not perverted enough, they eventually gave way to homosexuality.  All of this was brought on by dating as it took away the seriousness of marriage between a man and a woman. It made romance casual, sometimes, even sex. The man no longer had to prove himself before the woman's parents, which further developed the mistreatment of women in present society. In the early 1800s, to ''date'' someone meant an implication of prostitution. Dating became seen as a casual fun event by the 1930s. Later, pre-marital sex became heavily affiliated with it during the 1960s. No doubt, much of the immorality in modern society as a whole or partly derived from a conception of marriage and courtship that became widely accepted across western society. 

In many ways, the treatment of the man and woman to each other during the Victorian era resembles what is spoken of marriage in Ephesians 5. By each courting only one person at once, an argument could be made that the Victorian position prepares one for lifelong marriage to one spouse. 

Today, some profess to be conservatives by holding to a more 1950s understanding of dating. While some may date more conservatively than others, all of dating is quite liberal. The argument that every Christian shall decide on what's best for him or she considering that some are weaker in certain areas than others is also a weak argument to practice dating. Dating is not an option for the Biblically-based Christian. It is contrary to Biblical teaching and to everything that the church has ever practiced. To say otherwise, would be to compromise with the ways of the world and be devoid of courtly holiness (even if the person who dates never has sex outside of marriage). 

I would also like to add, that some will point to a lack of a Biblical condemnation of dating in scripture for their claim that it is morally acceptable. I find this argument to be scripturally problematic. First, scripture doesn't have to specify something for it to be considered sinful. Pornography is not explicitly condemned by scripture (though lust and coveting are). While some would call courtship legalism for not being mentioned in the New Testament, by this same argument people would have to accept the idea of Christians having legal access to pornography as nothing in scripture explicitly forbids such immorality. Secondly, scripture does condemn dating by proving every single example of courtship and marriage to be contrary to the practice of dating. Those Christians who embrace dating are making up their own rules on what is right and wrong. Thirdly, it is arrogance and heresy to think that modern Christians can deviate from the historical practices of not just those mentioned in the scriptures but which have received wide acceptance among the church at large. Since both betrothal and courting/courtship are found in scripture as well as church history, they are the examples to follow. Those who believe that scripture is not the pattern to follow are guilty of cherrypicking the Word of God to fit their lifestyles. Biblically, dating stands condemned as it promotes relationships between the opposite sexes that is not aimed toward marriage, does not involve either person's family, and promotes a lack of accountability among young people. While scripture does not explicitly condemn it, it is condemned by the principles of marriage and courtship found in scripture for some of the same reasons that pornography is condemned for being contrary to Christian marriage without being explicitly mentioned either. In short, both are condemned as they contradict Christian principles about marriage and sex. 

                                         6. My Advise on Preparing for Marriage

Although more could be said on this, every man or woman ought to be raised for marriage (even if their marriage is later to the church as a celibate person). Purity, they should practice from their youth. A young man ought to be raised to treat every woman as his sister and every young woman should be raised to treat all young men as her brothers. Engaging in serious multiple relationships before marriage could (and often) makes the matrimony all the less serious. A man should be able to provide for a wife (1 Timothy 5:8). By this point, the man should also not be dependent on his parents to provide for her (Matthew 19:5).  

How a man treats his mother will often reflect in how he treats his wife. How a daughter treats her father will often reflect in how she will treat her husband. Boys and girls should be raised to someday marry. 

Raising a young man to watch traditional films about chivalry where men learn to treat and love only one woman will be of good preparation for the young man for his whole life. There may be a day when he will have to go to war. Even if he never goes to war, however, he will always have to defend his family. 

Raising a young man to show appreciation for his mother's female taste is a good preparation for a future husband. Have him learn to be respectful while his mother is watching films about romance. It's good that he not be awakened to sexual desires too early (especially before puberty). However, he should learn that as long as females are in his life, the choices of entertainment will not be open to him alone. 

Raising a daughter to watch films about traditional feminine aspects of womanhood will aid her in always treating motherhood as more important than any career that she will ever have. Allowing her to see films and read novels about true gentlemen will be a reminder to her of how a man should be treating her. Likewise, as she reflects on the humanities and thinks about more conservative views of womanhood, she will be reminded to show appreciation to the chivalrous men that made western civilization to begin with. 

Raising a daughter to appreciate traditional masculine films about war and adventure is also a good preparation for her as a future wife. Whether or not her husband is someday called to war or if she is with him always, it is important that a young lady appreciate masculinity and understand that there is nothing feminine about opposing a just war that is defending women and children. 

  

                                                               Conclusion: 

Indeed, it is true that the examples of courtship in Jane Austen's novels, for instance, are not the only types of courtship found in scripture. Betrothal is also found in scripture. Either can be Biblically justified. Dating, however, cannot be. Christians are free to agree or disagree if a man or woman can court several persons of the opposite sex at once (Regency Era) or only (Victorian). They are also free to reject either concept and embrace the Medival conception of betrothal, as was the more widespread practice in the early Old Testament. Again, any of these three options is Biblical. It would be legalism to impose one of these three concepts on a Christian family to embrace. The idea, however, of a young man and woman going out alone on a date with just themselves or with their peers conflicts with everything just demonstrated from both scripture and church history. It's theologically problematic as it promotes a practice in conflict with every example of a man and woman pursuing marriage to each other. It's also morally unacceptable as puts the man and woman in a vulnerable position to sin by lack of accountability from his or her parents. For these reasons, Christians should reject dating and understand it as contrary to Christian practice as the ordination of women or the giving of the Eucharist to those living in adultery. 

As a final note, legalism is practicing anything contrary to the orthodox practice and expecting others to embrace it because of one's conviction to do so. Courtship cannot be described as this. Nor can the belief that one of the three types of courtship is binding on all Christians be described as legalism. It is simply legalism to impose one concept of courtship that is mentioned in scripture on others while ignoring the others. On the other hand, however, dating is simply a worldly practice. It is not within Christian freedom to consider as it beckons to differ from the authority of the Old and New Testaments as well as all orthodox Christian practices. Christians who embrace dating as an option to marriage have mixed the taste of the world with the pleasures that follow purity of mind. 

In many ways

Sources: 

*1-https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/cbrfj/27_27.pdf

*2-https://thehistoryjar.com/2017/07/30/rules-for-medieval-marriage/#:~:text=Once%20the%20marriage%20settlement%20had,betrothal%20wasn't%20always%20binding.

*3-https://www.medievalists.net/2013/11/love-and-marriage-medieval-style/

*4-https://byuprideandprejudice.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/courtship-and-marriage-in-the-regency-period/

To end on a quote from John Piper:

''Courtship ordinarily begins when a single man approaches a single woman by going through the woman's father, and then conducts his relationship with the woman under the authority of her father, family, or church, whichever is most appropriate. Courtship always has marriage as its direct goal... Dating, a more modern approach, begins when either the man or the woman initiates a more-than-friends relationship with the other, and then they conduct that relationship outside of any oversight or authority. Dating may or may not have marriage as its goal.''