4. Clearly Defining Our Terms — Betrothal

Is betrothal Biblical?

There are some who claim that it is not biblical to follow the betrothal model in “New Testament times,” since the “age of grace” has nullified the Old Testament law.³⁸ There are others who are simply overreacting to the legalism they have found within the betrothal camp. Some of the legalism has come by defining betrothal from the Babylonian Talmud rather than the Bible, failing to realize that the Jewish traditions that they cite are the “traditions of man” that Jesus castigated in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 19, Matthew 23, and other places. However, just because betrothal has been abused does not mean we should neglect the Bible’s teaching on the subject. Let’s correct, not neglect.

Betrothal is not only mentioned over and over in the Bible (Ex. 21:8-9; 22:16; Lev. 19:20; Deut. 20:7; 22:23,25,27-28,30; 2 Sam. 3:14; Jer. 2:2; Hos. 2:19-20; Matt 1:18; Luke 1:27; 2:5; 2 Cor. 11:2; see Rev. 19:7-9; 21:1-4,9-10), but the law itself treats those who are betrothed in a different way than those who are not. For example, fornication with a betrothed person was punished much more severely (Deut. 22:20-21,23-24,25-27) than fornication with an unbetrothed person (Ex 22:16; Lev. 19:20; Deut. 22:28-29). Likewise, betrothed people had special legal rights (Ex. 21:7-9). Furthermore, God Himself spoke of betrothing Israel to Himself (Jer. 2:2; Hos. 2:19-20) and the New Testament speaks of the church being betrothed to Jesus: Paul said, “I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” (2 Cor. 11:2) Given this information, I find it difficult to see how anyone can say that betrothal is not Biblical. While it is not the only option that the Bible allows, it was certainly a part of most biblical relationships that led to marriage.

What betrothal is not

Because legalists have coopted the word “betrothal” and used it in an unbiblical way, it is very important that we clearly define the term and not import non-biblical ideas as so many have done.³⁹

Betrothal is not mandated or essential to getting married

It is common to affirm that betrothal is a necessary step before marriage.⁴⁰ However, for it to be a necessary step, it would have to be commanded in the Scripture. Though betrothal was no doubt the most common (and most wise) approach to marriage in the Scripture, we have already demonstrated in this book that God both modeled and authorized alternatives. There were at least four biblical models that bypassed betrothal altogether and went straight to marriage. To mandate betrothal for everyone is to tread into the waters of legalism. But if it is not commanded, then there is flexibility on what form the commitment to marriage might take. Clear communication between families of exactly what is intended by “engagement” or “betrothal” is critical to avoid misunderstandings and hurt feelings.

Biblical betrothal should not be associated with hyper-patriarchalism

It is common to reject any thought of betrothal simply because the concept has been abused in some hyper-patriarchal circles. I gladly embrace all Biblical law, including laws that call for patriarchy (such as Numbers 30). However, numerous people who have gotten on the Patriarchy bandwagon are actually guilty of hyper-patriarchy because they have gone beyond (Greek = huper) Biblical law. Let me give a few examples of the difference between biblical patriarchy and hyper-patriarchy with regard to betrothal:

We have already seen that biblical patriarchy gives options and a great deal of flexibility on the issues leading up to marriage. In stark contrast, hyper-patriarchs insist on only one way of doing things. When the law says “You shall not add to the law I command you, nor take away from it” (Deut. 4:2) it is calling upon us to not only maintain all laws, but also to maintain all liberties that are granted in the Scripture. Hyper-patriarchalism has become suffocating because it limits the Biblical options.

A second example is the issue of the degree to which both the parents and the young couple are part of the process of deciding whom to marry. Hyper-patriarchs frequently keep their daughters in the dark about the young man until they have decided that she should be betrothed. When people object that this is virtually identical to an arranged marriage, these people will quickly counter that a daughter has veto power. But that veto power is virtually emptied of its power because of false guilt that the young people have if they do say “No.” This is true because the hyper-patriarchs teach that

1. God speaks to the sons and daughters through the parent and
2. that godly sons and daughters will unreservedly give their hearts to their fathers, and this means that he or she “fully surrenders to his parents’ desires, opinions, tastes, aspirations, etc.”⁴¹

There have been several cases of young people marrying a person that they do not want to marry, but doing so out of submission to their parent. This is going way beyond Biblical law, which allowed women to “marry whom they think best” (Numb. 36:6; 1 Cor. 7:39). The discussion of the chart in chapter 2 shows how the decision-making should involve more than simply the father’s desires. The father is a guide to decision making, not a substitute for decision making.

A third issue revolves around who may take the initiative in seeking a wife. Hyper-patriarchs have tended to insist that the fathers must always take the initiative. But again, this goes beyond the Scripture and is therefore beyond patriarchy. Scripture allowed fathers (Jer. 29:6), the unmarried man (1 Thes. 4:4), and the unmarried woman (Numb. 36:6; Ruth 3) to take the initiative, depending on what was most providentially prudent. While we generally encourage fathers to not be passive, the process is interactive, not unilateral.

Many other examples could be given, but these should be sufficient to distance my proposal from hyper-patriarchalism.

Biblical betrothal should not be defined by the practices of medieval Judaism

One of the problems that I have with some modern definitions of betrothal is that they take the word “betrothal” from the Bible but run to the Judaism of the Middle Ages to define what betrothal means and/or they fill in the gaps with other traditions of man. This can lead to a related form of legalism. If betrothal is a Biblical doctrine, we should allow the Bible alone to define it. But when we look in the Bible, we find a range of things involved in betrothal (depending on the circumstances and needs of the people involved). In other word, the Bible sets boundaries, but within those boundaries there are many liberties that have been given.

Thus we do not insist on a one-year betrothal, though obviously people have the liberty to do that. Adam and Eve, Isaac and Rebekah, and others appear to have married on the day that they met. We do not insist on a written contract since some betrothals were entered by oral contract.⁴² We do not insist on the young lady drinking from a glass of wine, though pomp and ceremony can be appropriate to the making of a betrothal contract. While these and other customs from Jewish betrothal customs may be nice, they are not necessary. Those customs can only be traced back to the middle ages. What is central to all betrothals is that it is a promise/contract to marry, enforceable by law, and subject to sanctions should the contract be broken.⁴³

Betrothal is a contract, not necessarily a covenant

This of course brings up the controversy of whether betrothal is a covenant or a contract. Medieval Judaism treated betrothal as a covenant and blurred the lines of distinction between marriage and betrothal. It is this blurring of distinctions that has led to issues in the betrothal movement. While there is no reason why a betrothal cannot have a full covenantal status if a family so wished, there is plenty of Biblical evidence that covenant is not at the heart of betrothal. It is my contention that a betrothal is a promise/contract to enter into the covenant of marriage, not a “covenant to covenant,” as Greg Price words it. As we will see, the implications of this are very significant.

Covenant is oath, contract is not (Deut. 29:12; 2 Kings 11:4; 1 Chron. 16:16; Ps. 89:3-4; 105:9; Ezek. 17:19; Heb. 6:13-15,17)

The first contrast between a contract and a covenant is that a covenant always involves the making of an oath, while Jesus and James both forbid the use of oaths in private promises/contracts. Jesus said, “Do not swear at all” (Matt. 5:34), and James insists, “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No,’ lest you fall into judgment” (James 5:12). These prohibitions do not contradict the many Scriptures that command us to swear an oath (Deut. 6:13; 10:20; Jer. 4:2; Jer. 12:16; Is. 19:21) because those Scriptures are describing oaths under authority,⁴⁴ whereas Christ is describing commitments made between individuals. Though a contract is legally binding without an oath, a covenant does not even exist without an oath. In his outstanding book on covenants, O. Palmer Robertson says that an oath is so essential to a covenant that the terms “covenant” and “oath” are often treated as synonyms.⁴⁵

Can families impose a covenant oath on the parties at the time of betrothal? Certainly they are free to do so. But is such an oath essential to a betrothal? No. Boaz’s promise to marry Ruth (Ruth 3:10-13) was absent an oath, though it did include a token (Ruth 3:15-18). In contrast, his marriage commitment took the form of a covenant (Ruth 4:8-13). His betrothal was without witnesses (3:8-18) whereas the marriage covenant necessarily involved witnesses (4:9-12). His betrothal had a condition inserted into the contract (3:13) whereas the marriage covenant was an unreserved commitment of Boaz’ person and property to Ruth (4:1-12). The same distinctions can be seen in other relationships. The words of 1 Samuel 18:17 are contractual and legally binding, but have no covenantal language. The same is true of 1 Samuel 18:20-26 and other passages.

Covenantal oaths can only be imposed by lawful authorities (Numb. 5:19,21; Neh. 5:12; Ex. 22:11) whereas contracts can be entered into with no authority present

The second major difference between a contract and a covenant was already hinted at in the previous section. Covenantal oaths can only be imposed by (or between) lawful authorities,⁴⁶ whereas contracts can be entered into by two persons with no “greater” authority present.⁴⁷ Some bring up Jonathan and David’s covenant (1 Sam. 18:3; 20:16; 23:18) as an example of equals making a covenant without authority being present. However even that covenant was between one authority (Crown Prince Jonathan) and one who had already been anointed as a succeeding authority (Anointed Successor David) and the covenant they made explicitly mentions the relationship of authority between them, stating, “You shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you” (1 Sam. 23:17).

Thus O. Palmer Robertson rightly defines a covenant as a bond in blood sovereignly administered. He says, “Both biblical and extra-biblical evidence point to the unilateral form of covenantal establishment. No such thing as bargaining, bartering, or contracting characterizes the divine covenants of Scripture.”⁴⁸ So essential is the concept of authority to covenant that the authority is said to be the covenant (Is. 42:6; 49:8; Dan. 11:22). Thus Hebrews 6:16 gives the requirement of all covenants when it says, “men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute.” Since an oath is essential to a covenant (previous point) having a lawful authority present is also essential (this point). Of course, Hebrews says that this poses a problem for God since there is no other authority. But Hebrews points out that since God is the highest authority, this is not an issue - “because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (v. 12). So even with God the authority issue was present. “Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath…” (v. 17).

This is one of the differences between a wife and a concubine in the Old Testament. A wife had a written covenant attested to by some authority whereas a concubine had a legally binding contract, but no covenant.⁴⁹ Both commitments were treated with great seriousness, but the marriage of concubinage did not have every right that a marriage covenant did (Lev. 19:20 versus Deut. 22:23-27). So Scripture recognized two levels of marriage: contractual concubinage⁵⁰ and covenantal marriage.⁵¹

With this as a background, I think it is clear that betrothal did not have the characteristics of a covenant. It was a contract to enter into the covenant of marriage. Just like other contracts (but unlike covenants), betrothal could have contingencies placed in it (Ruth 3:11-13). Indeed, the Hebrew word for “betrothal” (אָרַשׁ) simply indicates a “pledge to be married.”⁵² The word “pledge” fits the language of contracts. This term and the related terms “request” (אָרַשׁ) and desire (אֲרֶשֶׁת) all indicate anticipation, not fulfillment. Though there is no reason why a betrothal cannot be turned into a covenant, it would go beyond the Scripture to insist that all betrothals must adhere to full covenantal ceremonies. The meaning of the term itself, its usage, and the examples of those betrothed in the Bible show that it was a legally binding contract but not a covenant ceremony with oaths, authority, and witnesses.⁵³ A further confirmation of our conclusion is that the Bible knows of only one “covenant” related to marriage (note the singular in Mal 2:14; Prov. 2:17). I will deal with the objection that the betrothed are called “husband” and “wife” in the next section.

Betrothal is not unbreakable

Misunderstanding of Matthew 19:9

When betrothal advocates call betrothal an “irrevocable decision”⁵⁴ that cannot be broken without divorce, treat betrothal as a “marriage without consummation,” and say that the betrothed are indeed husband and wife, they are going beyond the Scripture.⁵⁵ Deuteronomy 20:7 makes it clear that betrothal does not marry the couple in any sense of the word. It says, “And what man is there who is betrothed to a woman and has not married her? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man marry her.” It is clear that the betrothed are not yet married.

It is common in some circles to assert that a betrothal may only be broken if one of the parties has engaged in premarital sex. Matthew 19:9 is used to justify this interpretation. This verse says, “…whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (porneia), and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” On their interpretation, this is not talking about the divorce of a married couple (something they believe cannot happen), but is talking about the divorce of a betrothed couple. Their main arguments are as follows: Betrothed people can be called husband and wife (see 2 Sam. 3:14; Deut. 22:24; Matt 1:20). Such betrothed people can be divorced (literally “put away” in Matt 1:20) only on the basis of fornication.⁵⁶ A fornicating betrothed may not marry anyone else. They then try to reconcile Mark 10:11-12 with Matthew 19:9 by saying that Matthew was written to Jews, whereas Mark was written to Gentiles. They believe that since Gentile Romans would not have understood that betrothal was the first step of marriage, they might assume that the exception clause allowed married people to get divorced (as opposed to only betrothed people getting divorced) so Mark left the exception clause off to avoid confusion.

But this imports too many presuppositions into the passage and contradicts several Scriptures. First, Matthew 19 and Mark 10 are referring to the same event and cannot be made to refer to quite different things (divorce in betrothal and divorce in marriage respectively). Second, the context (verses 3-12) is clearly answering questions about marriage, not questions about betrothal. Third, the Old Testament passage being discussed (Deuteronomy 24) was clearly dealing with marriage, not betrothal. Fourth, it is simply not true that such betrothal practices would not have been understood by the Romans.⁵⁷ Fifth, the Greek word porneia is a much broader term than simply premarital sex. There is no justification whatsoever for making Matthew 19 refer to divorce within betrothal alone.

Betrothal doesn’t have to be a covenant to be taken seriously

On the other hand, a pledge, promise, or contract should never be broken by a Christian since his word should be as good as gold. Jesus commands us to “let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one” (Matt. 5:37). The only things that would permit a betrothal to be broken would be

1) the presence of something that could break a marriage, 2) the discovery that the contract was entered into fraudulently through misrepresentation by one of the parties, 3) the discovery that the contract is an unlawful contract.

Let’s examine each of these exceptions:

Anything that breaks a marriage can break a betrothal

Joseph was declared to be a just man when he wanted to put Mary away legally (Matt. 1:19). If his suspicion of fornication had been true, he would have been fully justified. Biblically, adultery with a betrothed person was worthy of capital punishment (Deut. 22:23-27), but lesser penalties were allowed.⁵⁸

The discovery that the contract of betrothal was entered into fraudulently can break a betrothal

A second thing that can break any contract is if the contract has been entered into fraudulently. If a married man pretended to be single when getting betrothed, a subsequent discovery of this fraud would make the contract itself fraudulent and null and void. Likewise if it were later discovered that the man had pretended to be a Christian in order to get permission to be betrothed, but subsequently announced his lack of interest in Christianity, his contractual deceit would be legitimate grounds for breaking the contract. Integrity demands a high level of proof for this fraud, and it would need to be proved in either a civil or a church court. Breaking the contract would forfeit the dowry (Ex. 21:8).

The subsequent discovery of anything that the Bible would say prohibits marriage should break a betrothal

Finally, if the Bible says that two people should not be married, they should not be married even if a betrothal promise has been made. Promises should be renounced if they are unlawful promises (Numb. 30:5,8,12-13 with Acts 23:12,14; Mark 6:26). The Westminster Confession rightly says, “No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded.”⁵⁹ If only one of the parties to a betrothal becomes a believer, he should break off the betrothal since the Bible forbids marriage to an unbeliever (1 Cor. 7:39). This would not be possible after marriage, but it certainly is beforehand. If it was discovered that the person you were betrothed to was a blood relative forbidden in Leviticus 18, the betrothal should be broken. Likewise, if the person becomes a witch, homosexual, or some other criminal guilty of a capital crime, the betrothal should be treated as broken, since entered into on holy grounds. Likewise if one of the parties to a betrothal became excommunicated justly by a church, the betrothal should be treated as a broken contract since an excommunicated person is to be treated as an unbeliever (Matt. 18:17).

It is my view that the only lawful reasons for breaking the contract would be issues that would either make any contract null and void (fraudulent misinformation) or subsequent issues that would ordinarily make it biblically unlawful to enter into marriage. Betrothals are not to be lightly entered into. They are serious contracts that are binding before God. But unlawful contracts must be treated as unlawful to fulfill. To keep an unlawful contract (betrothal) by entering into an unlawful marriage doubles the sin and makes it permanent.

Betrothal is not arranged marriage

Some people have the mistaken notion that all betrothals were arranged marriages where the decision was made by the parents. Some betrothals may have been arranged marriages, but not all. The marriages of David, Boaz and the daughters of Zelophehad are all illustrations that betrothal does not imply an arranged marriage.

Betrothal is not a commitment made without reference to already existing love

Jonathan Lindvall says, “Our marriage is not based on love, our marriage is based on the will of God, and the love followed the decision to surrender to God’s will.”⁶⁰ While Mr Lindvall is certainly correct that lawful marriages can be contracted without any romantic love prior to the wedding day (see the marriage of Isaac in Genesis 24), and while such a married couple can certainly learn to love each other (Genesis 24:67 says, “she became his wife, and he loved her”), there is nothing in Scripture that mandates that this be the case. This is the main difference that I would have with some betrothal-only advocates. It is legalism to mandate what Scripture does not. We have already seen in our discussion that many (if not most) people will get betrothed precisely because God has already produced a love for the other person within them. While a season of discussion is not for the purpose of developing such a love, Scripture seems to expect that love will ordinarily develop before a commitment of betrothal is made (see for example Gen. 29:18-20; Prov. 30:19; 1 Sam. 18:20).

Betrothal is not simply a “committed relationship,” “going steady,” being a man’s “intended,” being “spoken for,” or being “ringed”

Another mistake is to lower the standards of betrothal to our modern culture’s ideas. Roget’s 21^st Century Thesaurus lists the following words as synonyms for the word “betrothed”: “plighted,” “going steady,” “committed,” “pledged,” “asked for,” “intended,” “spoken for,” and “ringed.” However, those words all have quite different connotations, and only the words “plighted,” “committed,” and “pledged” approximate the Biblical definition. When those who date start “going steady” they are not committing themselves to marriage. Betrothal is a legally binding commitment to enter into the covenant of marriage at some future date. In contrast, going steady is simply a commitment to an exclusive relationship of dating.

What betrothal is

Having ruled out everything that is not at the heart of betrothal, I offer the following definition as capturing the essence of what the Scripture associates with betrothal: “Betrothal is a binding commitment to enter into a marriage covenant at some future but not-distant date, after approval of the father, publically announced, usually accompanied by some token, and beginning a period in which a couple can learn to express non-sexual romance, usually under the guidance of parents, as they plan and prepare for their wedding.”

A binding commitment

First, it is “a binding commitment.” God says, “I will betroth you to Me forever” (Hos. 2:19). This is not a “I hope so.” This is a life commitment. It should never be entered into lightly. An engagement by one whose word is as good as gold would qualify. But so would a written contract or even a more formal covenant.

We have already seen that any unlawful contract should be broken, but our attitude toward betrothal should never be “maybe.” Just as any other contract is binding upon the parties, and just as a broken contract can be appealed to a church court, a broken betrothal can be appealed to the elders of the church of which they are members. Breaking a betrothal should be treated very seriously as having “dealt deceitfully” (Ex. 21:8). A person should only enter into betrothal if they are completely convinced that they should marry.

For the purpose of marriage in the near future

The next part of the definition says, “to enter into a marriage covenant at some future but not-distant date.” If a person is not financially ready to take on marriage, is underaged, or does not intend to get married soon, he should not presume to get betrothed. Betrothal is not intended to be a means of reserving a person for years at a time so that someone else cannot get her. Nor should parents prolong the betrothal in the hopes of gain as Laban did (Gen. 24). 1 Corinthians 7 implies that if some “present distress” (v. 26) or “necessity” (v. 37) hinders marriage, it should also hinder betrothal.⁶¹ The provision in Deuteronomy 20:7 implies that betrothal would not be for a long, indefinite time. Though Medieval Jewish betrothals could sometimes be for six months to a year, Biblical betrothals were likely shorter than a year. Boaz’s one day betrothal (Ruth 3-4) would be on the short side, David’s two betrothals (1 Sam. 18:17-19; 18:25-27) likely lasted in the range of weeks rather than months, and Jacob’s seven year wait is portrayed as an ungodly imposition of the greedy Laban (Gen. 29:1-30). While the Bible does not give a mandate on this subject, it certainly encourages us to be considerate in not putting off marriage too long (Deut. 20:7; 1 Cor. 7:9,36; 1 Tim. 4:11; 5:14).

After the approval of the father

Too frequently young romantics ignore the next provision of the definition and ask their young lady to marry them before having gotten permission to ask from the father. It is clear in Scripture that a father has the authority “keep his virgin daughter” from a suitor (1 Cor. 7:37) or to “give her in marriage” (v. 38-39). Nor is oversight of a father restricted to his daughter. Jeremiah commands fathers, “take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands” (Jer. 29:6). And the law of God gives situations where it is perfectly appropriate for a father to utterly refuse to give his daughter to a young man, even though they have fornicated (Ex. 22:17). Godly Abraham gave guidelines in the search for a wife for Isaac (Gen. 24) and Reuel gave oversight to the marriage of his daughter to Moses (Ex. 2:21). It was Jewish fathers who were required to take an oath before God to not give their daughters to pagan sons, and to not take pagan daughters for their sons (Neh. 10:29-30). Anyone who has examined all the evidence of Scripture will agree with Tertullian’s summary when he said, “sons do not legitimately marry without the consent of their fathers.”⁶² Obviously we have discussed exceptions that can occur, but this is the general pattern of Scripture.

Publically announced

The next part of the definition is “publically announced.” The reason betrothals were publically announced was that this gave extra protection to the woman. Biblical law punished fornication with a betrothed woman much more severely (Deut. 22:20-21,23-27) than fornication with an unbetrothed person (Ex 22:16; Deut. 22:28-29) because betrothed people had special legal rights (Ex. 21:7-9). This would be utterly impossible to know unless the betrothal was publically announced. Likewise, fornication with a woman betrothed as a concubine (Lev. 19:20) was punished differently than one betrothed to be a wife (Deut. 22:20-21,23-27). Certainly God’s betrothal to Israel was announced to the heavens and the earth (Hos. 2:20-21) with the earth responding (v. 22). Certainly a public announcement has the added benefit of giving the dad relief from multiple would-be suitors knocking on his door. An announcement through the church would be one way to make this public. Another way would be to give the county clerk’s office notice of the marriage.

Usually accompanied by some token of ability

The next part of the definition says, “usually accompanied by some token.” Sample tokens in the Bible were jewelry (Gen. 24:53; Ezek. 16:12), a large sum of money (Gen. 34:12), a city (1 Kings 9:16), and some sort of service (Gen. 29:15-30; 1 Sam. 18:25). A ring is a public statement that this person has been taken. But these tokens were often more. They were a type of dowry.

I would hasten to say that though the dowry is mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 29:18-20; 34:12; Ruth 4:10; 1 Sam. 18:25; 1 Kings 9:16; Hos. 3:2; 12:12), the only place it is commanded is in the case of rape (Ex. 22:16; Deut. 22:29). I acknowledge that giving a bridal provision is wise. This was one test by which a father of the girl could be assured

1. that the man was able to support a wife (the man would place a sum of money into the hands of the father of the bride)
2. that the woman would be cared for should the husband die (the father would place the dowry into the daughter’s hand - Luke 15:8; Gen. 31:15; Josh. 15:19; Judges 1:15; cf figurative use in Gen. 30:20).

However, insurance could achieve objective 2 and other tests could be used by the father to gauge a man’s ability to protect and support a wife. For example, David was too poor to afford a worthy dowry (1 Sam. 18:22-26). King Saul was satisfied with proof of valor in battle (1 Sam. 18:27). Caleb’s requirement of valor in battle by a future son-in-law was similar (Josh. 15:16-18). The key is that an Adam can provide a home and sustenance for an Eve. The sign of commitment that Boaz gave for Ruth was a load of grain (Ruth 3:15-18) and the promise to purchase Naomi’s property, which amounted to paying off a debt (Ruth 4). Scripture seems to portray a bridal provision as a wise though optional part of getting married.

A time to learn non-sexual romance

Can romance be involved in a betrothal? Yes (Jer. 2:2; Hos. 2:19-20). In fact, God speaks so highly of this precious time, that we can say that it should ordinarily be present. Does it always have to be present? No. A long period of developing romance was not always present (Gen. 2:22-25; 24:64-67; Ruth 3). We need to distinguish between what is normal and healthy, and what is required. But when God described His pursuit of Israel, He said, “I will allure her… and speak to her heart” (Hos. 2:14). Many men have a hard time learning how to speak to the heart in a way that ministers to a woman. Yet we find that the romance in that chapter is so pronounced that heaven and earth seem to brighten (vv. 21-22). And Israel’s response to God is pictured as “the kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal” (Jer. 2:2). This appears to be one of the main purposes for betrothal – to prepare a couple emotionally for marriage and to produce habits of non-sexual communication and love that will strengthen marriage for a lifetime.

You will notice that this definition avoids the language of “no touch.” When we discuss 1 Corinthians 7:1 we will be seeing that any kind of touch that is sexually arousing should be avoided, even if that touch is holding hands. But touch itself is not the issue. What is to be avoided is any sexual romance. Such sexual focus robs many young men and women of the opportunity to learn much more important forms of romantic communication that women long for once married.

Ordinarily under the guidance of parents

The next part of the definition says, “usually under the guidance of parents.” It is clear that betrothal in Scripture almost always included parental oversight and guidance (Gen. 21:21; 38:6; Ex. 21:9; 22:16-17; Judges 14:1-2,10; 2 Sam. 3:14; Ezra 9:12; Jer. 29:6; Matt. 22:2; 24:38; Luke 17:27; 20:34-35; 1 Cor. 7:36-38; cf. John 6:44; 17:6). I am not insisting that the definition of betrothal always include parental oversight or it would rule out older people whose parents were not present (Boaz & Ruth; David and Abigail; Abraham and his later wives) and could present obstacles to those who are far distant from their fathers, as was the case with Jacob (Gen. 28). In the latter case, Isaac was trusting Jacob to follow Biblical guidelines, but Jacob was not under the supervision of his parents. Ruth was a woman who had some helpful oversight of her mother-in-law, but for most of the day, this was not possible. However, Thompson is correct that in the vast majority of Scriptures, parents of both the man and the woman approved and supervised the betrothal all the way up to the day of the wedding. 2 Corinthians 11:2 gives one of the reasons for this supervision: “I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” Though using an illustration for our relationship with Christ, for the illustration to work, it should be the goal of parents to protect their children from needless fornication. It is interesting that even King Solomon’s betrothal took place at Shulamith’s home when he was romancing her. (See Song 2:8-17 for the memory of this period. ⁶³). Such supervision was even true of older men like Samson (Judges 14).

For the purpose of planning and preparing for the wedding

The last part of the definition is “as they plan and prepare for their wedding.” The time of betrothal is not only a fantastic time of learning to romance the hearts of each other, it is a practical time of learning to work with each other on the huge project of planning a wedding. While some Biblical weddings were rather simple events, others were great celebrations with family and friends. Jointly preparing for such an event can be a wonderful time for developing leadership, vision, character, relationship, and other issues of life.