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 do a father and mother play in the role of their 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. At the end of this post are most of the works that I have cited here, as well as a quote from New Testament scholar John Piper on courtship, in contrast to modern dating. The majority of this post was originally written in 2023, though in 2026, I saw it necessary to add some revisions (especially the addition of point 7). 

I will be making a Biblical case that courtship is superior to dating. I will also be making the case that courtship is actually mandatory and that Christians' dating is either in ignorance of their practice or perpetually sinning by not practicing courtship. 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 is recreational dating 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, double dating between two couples of men and women is still inappropriate (even if better than some other current examples). 

I realize that my views on this topic are not going to be popular. The practices and teachings of orthodox Christianity generally aren't popular with today's culture, which has seen rapid divorce rates for decades. I accept that my views will be hated on many topics (as were those of the Apostles and Early Christians). I'm used to many people rejecting most of what 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 am responsible, however, for being obedient to God and doing what he has called me to do. In the case of this post, I believe that God holds me accountable to teach others why Christians must practice courtship (and if they don't, then their decisions are left between them and him). 

I will briefly examine courtship in the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Middle Ages, the Regency era, and the Victorian Age. Obviously, for the sake of time, 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. Rather, I wish to demonstrate to the readers of this post that modern dating has failed young people, and it is time that Christians return to earlier practices of courtship, through which young men approach a young woman's father and court her in the presence of her parents. Finally, in the conclusion of this piece, 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. 

Solomon, 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 Solomon 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 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 gone 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 with David, the young man knew Michal's father before being engaged with her and taking her as his wife. Marriage was oftentimes (if not always) through either the potential husband's or the potential wife's family (perhaps both). It was never simply between the man and the woman. 

To say that all Old Testament marriages were 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 were typical in the Old Testament, Christians should still observe them 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 understandings of betrothal or courtship during His earthly ministry. Neither were they changed in the early church after Pentecost nor 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, Paul expounds on the importance of husbands and wives submitting to one another. 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 some believe 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 and Isaac in the Old Testament. 

Nevertheless, the church could interfere with the issue of betrothal. Though many people were betrothed young, immorality or a lack of consent by one of the potential marital partners could prevent such a betrothal from being enforced on the individual (even if the parents had planned it for many years). Thus, canon law superseded all else, as the church itself gave the final authorization on what was a legitimate marriage. 

Indeed, 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 as still being relevant to the New Testament Church. 

                                                 4. Courtship in The Regency Era:  

Centuries after the Medieval era, the nineteenth century saw an increasingly changing world in light of revolutions, technological advancements, new scientific theories (especially since the Enlightenment), and new political theories. Today, most people probably think of the Georgian/Regency and Victorian eras when it comes to words like ''courting'' or ''courtship.'' The first two concerned the early nineteenth century (though Georgian began in the eighteenth), whereas Victorian occurred in the middle and late nineteenth century. In the next part of this post, I shall focus on what courting meant in the Regency World. 

Arranged marriages were no longer common by the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Thus, courting during these times significantly breached medieval thought. 

The Regency era was the time during which Jane Austen's novels were 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 to be sent via 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 do. Whereas proms are only about a certain age group, balls include 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 anyone up 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 the 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 is partly derived from a conception of marriage and courtship that became widely accepted across Western society. 

In many ways, the treatment of men and women toward each other during the Victorian era resembles what is spoken of in 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 her, considering that some are weaker in certain areas than others, is also a weak argument for practicing 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 cherry-picking the Word of God to fit their lifestyles. Biblically, dating stands condemned as it promotes relationships between the opposite sexes that are not aimed toward marriage, do not involve either person's family, and promote 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 Advice 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) make 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 how he treats his wife. How a daughter treats her father will often reflect 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 treat 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 who 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. 

                                        7. What Should Courtship Look Like in Practice? 

Having given a brief overview of marriage and courship in the Middle Ages, the Regency world, and the Victorian era, before contrasting those practices with modern dating, I would like to now answer what courtship should look like. 

It is not my intention to provide specifics on this, as faithful Christians across the globe have practiced it through the means of pursuing more than one person at one time (Regency) or more of a formal relationship to one person (Victorian), or betrothal set up by the man and woman's parents, often since they were very young (Medieval). While I respect the Medieval model, I find it so alien to the modern world that I think in practice, the Regency or Victorian models may be preferable (I have already made the case that courtship in all of these eras, I believe, is biblically based as they are). However, because I believe the entire model of modern dating is unbiblical, I discourage its existence entirely. 

That said, what would a modern family look like practicing courtship based on the Regency or Victorian models (as some conservative Christians continue to do)? In each case, if the prospective man approaches the prospective woman's parents (especially her father), he should state his intentions and interest. If the father approves, the prospective man may begin to pursue his daughter. Courtship will often be practiced in the context of both parents (especially the father) supervising their daughter receiving the bachelor's attention. Letters, social media messages, phone calls, and visits to see her will never be done without the father's permission (unless the father has guaranteed the bachelor's right to do any of these things). If the girl has no father, then another Christian man has the responsibility to act as a protective father for her (perhaps her grandfather, uncle, etc). Should her father deem the relationship/friendship acceptable, it may be practical for the woman's sister to accompany her during walks with the prospective gentleman. 

Though the idea of a young man and young woman sitting together in the presence of her parents may seem uncomfortable, it protects both of them to be patient with God's will and makes them rely on him for His best. When a man and woman are alone, it is very easy for one or both persons to quickly emotionally depend on each other. Courtship is meant to protect both. 

The modern idea of a Prom is emotionally dangerous for guys and girls dancing (and sometimes, engaging in far more), with neither's parents present. In the Regency world, balls were not amusements for young people alone, but for entire families. Thus, Jane Austen would have witnessed fathers present when their daughters were pursued by respectable gentlemen. In general, I wish to see a reversal in many of our society's current practices and to return back to the conservatism of the early 1800s. 

But how does a guy get to know a girl if the two are discouraged from being alone? Well, courtship worked out for most of history without the mass divorce rates, remarriage, and frequent abuse of women that have become far more common since the popularity of modern dating in the 1950s (contrary to what you may have heard, the 1950s were not a perfect, utopian ''Earth Angel'' era that some have been told to believe about it). 

It's totally appropriate for a man to meet a woman with her parents and family present. In the book, Misreading Scripture Through Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, biblical scholars E. Randalph Richards and Brandon J. O' Brien note in their work that marrying someone in the first-century world meant that you were marrying into their family (I no longer have the work and have forgotten the exact citation for this). Today, modern dating doesn't make a potential couple consider the possibility of whether or not they will get along with in-laws on the woman's or man's side of the family (though all of this should always be considered with any relationship concerning the opposite sex). 

Let me provide an illustration of what courtship looks like. Imagine a man sees a lovely, young woman at church and wants to learn more about her. Hopefully, he and his family will befriend her own. To not stall what may be an End Zone, he makes clear to her father early on about how he feels (unfortuantly, some modern situations in school and the work force make this more complex as the girl's father is not always present, in which case the young man may have no choice to state his intentions to her should he have no contact yet with her father). 

If there is a lack of interest on the girl's part or that of her parents, it is time for the young man to move on. It will do no one a service for him or her to hold out for the other if her parents discourage the relationship. Should her parents consider him, however, the young man will be free (under their guidelines) to pursue their daughter, with the intention of marriage. While neither the young man nor the young woman is yet bound to marriage, their intentions should be in this direction; they should be praying about God's will for the relationship, and they should be trying to learn more about each other in the meantime, with the right still to break it off at any time (I should also note that courtship is a time for them to decide if they mutually desire one another for marriage). 

If the courtship continues, it may eventually result in marriage. If it doesn't, then it may prepare the young man and young woman to consider what they want in a spouse for a future relationship with someone else. Courship isn't about binding anyone; it's about protecting the aspiring couple from lusting and coveting after each other before marriage. 

Courtship can also be fun. One of the families may desire to invite the other over for games and dinner. If the parents aren't present at every occasion, hopefully, grown siblings will be (though ideally, the father of the potential bride will be involved in most of the relationship). The idea that the young woman is never alone is essential to a biblical understanding of courtship. 

Why does courtship exist? It exists (1) to protect the young woman's virginity and emotional reaction to attaching to another man until the father deems her ready to be given away in marriage. It also (2) protects the prospective man who pursues her from emotionally being attached to her outside of a formal setting where her family protects her. Furthermore, it exists that the wisdom of the woman's parents (and possibly the man's as well) may share wisdom for the aspiring couple on what a marriage and family should be like. 

Regarding my preference for the Regency or Victorian model of courtship, I see both as good practices and see benefits in each. In some respects, the Victorian model benefits me, for as a guy, I can more easily claim a girl to be exclusively in a relationship with me through the Victorian model. In other respects, however, it doesn't benefit me as it may mean that if there is a girl I'm interested in elsewhere, it would require I see a girl in a relationship as beyond my reach. 

While there are pros and cons to each model of courtship, I do think the Regency form of Jane Austen's world is respectable. If this model is followed through, neither a man nor a woman is ever in any sort of relationship until engagement. Before that, they may consider various individuals as their future spouse. In some respects, I think the Regency approach protects the young woman as no man can claim her until engagement. Still, I am open to practicing either of these last two models. As I see neither of them as immoral, I would want the girl and her parents to feel at ease with my intentions. 

Having shared convictions is essential to a healthy and godly marriage. Differing over minors is to be expected, but if one person in the relationship has serious different views about the education of their future children, what marriage looks like, and the purity or lack of it in their persons, these may provide major obstacles to their future relationship. 

Hopefully, a father has had a serious and loving relationship with his daughter. If this has been the case, it is more likely that they will listen to him about what relationships to receive and which to reject. Because of sin, heartbreak is inevitable, either for the man pursuing the woman or her. However, courtship will likely deter some of the emotional extremes that guys and girls feel when their modern date has broken off and has moved on to someone else. 

While Scripture provides no specific age gap between a man and a woman, there are many reasons why it might be wise for a man to be seven, ten, fourteen years, or more older than his potential wife. Research indicates that a thirty-five-year-old man is less likely to abuse his female date than is a twenty-five-year-old man of the same age.5* Furthermore, some reports have found that different women admire the straightforwardness of a man with an age gap more than just another peer. 6* 

None of this is to say, however, that the priority of a relationship should be the man and woman's age. Couples have various ages. Being a Christian and loving God, the church, and preparing to be a good husband or wife should be seen as more essential than a given age gap between a husband and wife. I never based my morals on what is trending in culture, though women dating older men is starting to become more common again (and until recent decades, women generally married men older than themselves in the Medieval, Regency, Victorian eras, etc. This was always the practice for Christian history up until recent years). In the Regency world, it was believed that older husbands were often necessary for women; those in the nineteenth century believed women were more likely to respect older men*7.   

For the biblically minded Christian who believes it is preferable for a wife to stay home and be the nurturer of her children and husband (as taught in Titus 2:3-5), it may be more practical for a man to marry a younger wife, as he has likely had to work harder to prepare for the financial stability of his family rather than rely on two incomes. 

Modern fathers need to realize that women courting older men through their father's protection is actually a return to an older, more conservative practice in Christianity. The Bible alone provides some examples of couples with age gaps, which should show believers today that if God approved of it in the Scriptures, then it must also be permissible (and perhaps preferable), now. Abraham was ten years older than Sarah, his wife (Genesis 17:17). The context of Genesis 24 seems to suggest that Rebekah was much younger than Isaac. Ruth was attracted to an older man (Ruth 3:10). 

But again, the ages of the prospective husband and prospective wife aren't the main issue in Scripture. If a father of a young woman prefers his daughter to date a guy her age rather than have her court a young man older than her, who also courts her in the presence of her father, then there are apparent misplaced priorities. 2 Corinthians 6:14 warns against Christians being unequally yoked. In short, the true warning for the Christian is that they not court or date anyone who doesn't show the qualities of a true Christian. 

With these passages in mind, hopefully, fathers will develop relationships with Christian young men who have expressed interest in their daughters. Retaining the right to reject, the young woman has the right to consider these prospects, whether or not these relationships result in marriage. Likewise, young men must realize that when the father declines their request to court the latter's daughter, the father's authority must be respected (Ephesians 5-6). 

Young men should also not presume a young woman's feelings unless she speaks about having mutual interests. Saying, ''I think we like each other,'' is often cowardly as it projects the man's feelings on her. It is more brave (and vulnerable) for the man to express his interest in her, knowing that she may not share those feelings toward him. 

A young man also makes himself vulnerable by courting a young woman in the presence of her father. But while such a relationship may begin awkwardly, it is necessary for her protection. All young men must realize that they may someday have a daughter and consider how they would want men to treat her. 

While a young man's parents may (and hopefully) play a role in the given relationship, primary emphasis is on the young woman's parents to discern whether or not the young man is suitable for their daughter. Of course, even if the father sees nothing morally objectionable with the young man, he may find that his daughter is simply unattracted/disinterested in the prospective gentleman. If this is the case, the young man also needs to move on. To force someone to marry a person they have no attraction to would actually cause chaos and problems for both people in the marriage relationship. 

Sometimes, people realize that attraction to the opposite sex is more or less natural. If a man prefers blondes and a woman prefers taller guys, then the other person in the relationship (assuming they lack these qualities) may realize that nothing can be done to change the situation. People can't help that they weren't born attracted to everyone. Most humans (men especially, though also women) have preferences. And they aren't always about looks. Maybe a man has always fantasized about being in a relationship with a cheerleader. Maybe a woman has always dreamed of being with a medical doctor. These fantasies and dreams aren't inherently immoral, but they are preferences nonetheless. Hopefully, a girl being a cheerleader or a man being a medical doctor will not be the main criterion of a relationship, however. 

Mutual interests may benefit a prospective couple. If a guy and a girl are both majoring in history, then they may have some major interests to share lifelong together. In this case, they share a bond beyond mutual physical attraction. Thus, decades after they are wed, they may retain common interests that keep them entertained by each other's company. 

Still, similar interests are not the most important aspect of a relationship. Shared core values are. If a woman is pro-choice on abortion and a man is pro-life, major ethical differences will arise over time on this topic. It will also affect how they see parenting, politics, and most importantly, God himself. Or, if a woman wants her children to be homeschooled and the man wants his kids to attend public school, differences will arise within their eventual marriage on how their children view God's teachings in light of ungodly ones. Why? Because core values (at least ethical ones) must be essential to two Christians marrying. I don't necessarily object to the marriage union of a charismatic and a Reformed Christian, as their differences concern secondary areas of theology. But when the theological differences concern ethics (the morality of pre-marital sex, homosexuality, birth control, etc), major problems will likely follow from the given relationship. 

Hopefully, the young man and the young woman/and her family have the core values of biblical Christianity in mind before entering a relationship. Hopefully, everyone is praying for God's will in the meantime. Ideally, no one will walk away hurt (though unfortunately, in our sinful world, being hurt over romance almost always is inevitable, though it shouldn't be intentional). Hopefully, one or more pastors are involved if things become more serious between the given couple. Reading books on marriage counseling and receiving marriage counseling from their pastor/pastors may later help the given couple. 

What about young people who aren't yet ready for marriage, however? Can they flirt and date in the meantime? For all the reasons already implied in this post, it's actually quite dangerous for a man and woman to consider a relationship with one another until they are ready for the possibility of a potential marriage. God calls young people to trust in him for their future in the meantime. In the Psalms, David writes that we must trust in God as our refuge (Psalm 62:8). 

Furthermore, watching pure films about romance (such as many of the adaptations of the works of Jane Austen to the screen), reading books about courtship, frequently studying Scripture, and learning not to compare oneself to other people's relationships on social media or in person are all helpful. 1 Corinthians 15:33 teaches that bad company corrupts good morals. Because of this, hopefully, a teenage young man or woman will aspire to be sexually pure in both mind and body. Hopefully, as difficult as their wait for a future spouse might be, they will recall the beauty and love that the Bride of Christ shares and personifies as she awaits the return of Jesus Christ's second advent in Revelation 19-20. 

As a summary, courtship exists to protect both the prospective husband and the prospective wife. It may not always result in marriage, though both persons should be considering that possibility when beginning the courtship (if not, they shouldn't be courting each other at all). Ideally, if the relationship doesn't go far and abruptly ends, both sides will show respect and wish the other well. However, sometimes emotional or physical abuse may require a person in a courting or dating relationship to no longer entertain the other's company, even as a friend. 

  

                                                               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 Era). They are also free to reject either concept and embrace the Medieval 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 it puts the man and woman in a vulnerable position to sin by lack of accountability from their 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/

*5-https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/age-gap-dating

*6-https://graziadaily.co.uk/relationships/dating/younger-women-older-men/

*7-Muir, Rory. Love and Marriage: In the Age of Jane Austen. Yale UP, 2025. 

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.''