1We will define the term “betrothal” later in this booklet and show the shades of meaning that it can have. Though some people make a big distinction between betrothal and engagement, I will use the terms interchangeably from now on. Various translations translate the Hebrew word אֵרַשׂ as “pledged” (NIV, WEB), “betrothed” (NKJV, AMP, ESV) and “engaged” (NASB, NET, NLT, NRSV, GWORD). It is not as important to argue over the term that is used as it is over what it means. In my view of engagement, the parents are involved in granting permission, there is a promise by the fathers to permit the marriage and there is a promise by the engaged couple to get married in the Lord.↩

2See especially Hosea 2:14-23 where God describes his joyful betrothal to Israel.↩

3Francis Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, vol. 4 (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1982), p. 62.↩

4In Nehemiah 8 God actually rebukes Israel for making the Sabbath a day of weeping, sorrow, and introspection, saying, “This day is holy to the LORD your God; do not mourn nor weep… Go your way, eat the fat, drink the sweet, and send portions to those for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy to our LORD. Do not sorrow, for the joy of the LORD is your strength.” The weekly Sabbath was the first and the greatest of the festival days listed in Leviticus 23. In four passages God connects blessing with the Sabbaths. Three times the word “delight” is in the same paragraph as the Sabbath. One time God equates losing the Sabbath with losing mirth (Hos. 2:11). In nine verses about the Sabbath the terms joy, rejoice, or enjoy occur 13 times. It is anything but a kill-joy day. It is God’s great gift to us. And in Ezekiel 20 and again in Ezekiel 22 God says that it makes Him sad when we despise what God intended for our delight.↩

5Note that the marriage of a master to a slave mentioned in Exodus 21:7-11 implies:

1. the agreement of the slave girl to this marriage covenant (note the reference to “marriage” in v. 10, which is always a covenant or an agreement between two parties, and the phrase “he has dealt deceitfully with her” in v. 8, implying a covenant promise)
2. that once she is married she can no longer be considered a slave (v. 9),
3. that she has full marriage rights as if she had been a former free woman (vv. 9-11)
4. that this is clearly a sin on the part of the master (“he has dealt deceitfully with her”).

In connection with point 4, it is important to distinguish between what is a sin and what is a crime. Not all sins are crimes. There are many divorces that were sins but were not crimes. The civil government only steps in when a divorce happens to ascertain that the divorce meets the minimum civil requirements. In this case, it is lawful in terms of civil law, but is unlawful in terms of personal sin. We should never confuse sin and crime in our exegesis of Scripture.↩

6As we will see later, Boaz made an informal betrothal commitment that lasted less than one day. It was a contract, but not a covenant. If the other relative had agreed to marry Ruth, there would have been no need for a betrothal to him. It could have been concluded that same day.↩

7The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge says of verses 12-13, “This was a token of renouncing her religion, and becoming a proselyte to that of the Jews. This is still a custom in the East: when a Christian turns Mohammedan, his head is shaved, and he is carried through the city, crying, la eelah eela allah wemochammed resoolu’lahee, ‘There is no God but THE God, and Mohammed is the prophet of God.’” If this interpretation is not taken, then Deuteronomy 21 blatantly contradicts such passages as Deuteronomy 22:13-19,28-29; 24:1-4, Ezra 10:1-16, Nehemiah 13:23-30, and Malachi 2:14-16. The permission to marry a foreigner could only be in a situation similar to Rahab’s, who voluntarily renounced idolatry and embraced Yahweh. The Old Testament did not forbid intermarriage with other nationalities. Rather it forbade intermarriage with other faiths. Christ’s own genealogy has examples of Gentiles who became Jews: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba.↩

8Note that verse 7 does not conflict with Deuteronomy 15:12 because she was being sold for marriage. Deuteronomy 15:12 is clear that both male and female slaves were set free in six years, but Exodus 21:7 says that she did not go free in the sixth year. The reason she did not go free was because she was purchased for marriage. The debt was forgiven in place of a dowry, and since marriage is permanent, her place in his household was permanent.↩

9Though, this alone is not reason to reject it since there are many labels for Biblical doctrines which are not found in the Bible. For example, though the word for inerrancy is not in the Bible, the doctrine is. Though the word “Trinity” is not in the bible, the doctrine clearly is. Though the phrase “hypostatic union” clearly describes the relationship of Christ’s two natures as taught in the Bible, the name given to the doctrine does not. We could just as easily call courtship “seeking a wife” (see 1 Cor. 7:27) or “finding a wife” (Prov. 18:22). The label we use is not as critical as whether the label is being used to describe Biblical content or man-made content.↩

10Some definitions of “courtship” that I disagree with:

• Jonathan Lindvall: “A romantic relationship between a young man and woman in which both were of marriageable age, had the full blessing of their parents, and were seriously contemplating marriage.” As Lindvall later lamented, this definition was inadequate and could easily define dating.
• Joshua Harris: “Dating with a purpose; friendship plus possibility; and romance chaperoned by wisdom.” A relationship with a clearly defined direction. “A reformed version of dating under the supervision of parents between a man and a woman who are ready for marriage in the near future.”
• Robert Andrews: “From the outside courting may look a lot like the old dating game… But unlike dating, they know that they are contemplating marriage, and the restrictions on physical contact still hold. The couple is still conscious of the fact that they have no ownership of the other, and they must continue to guard their hearts. There is no commitment at this point. The fathers must give constant oversight… The purpose of courtship is evaluation, not preparation…” Robert Andrews, The Family: God’s Weapon of Victory (Rice, WA: Sentinel Press, 1995), p. 253. Though this is much closer to my definition, as we will see, his allowance for too much physical mars his approach.
• Planet Papers: “courtship is a reformed version of dating under the supervision of parents between a man and a woman who are ready to marry in the near future.”
• Wikipedia: “the wooing of a female by a male, includes activities such as dating (dinner and a movie, a picnic, or general “hanging out”), along with other forms of activity, such as meeting online (also known as virtual dating), chatting on-line, sending text messages or picture messages, conversing over the phone, writing each other letters, and sending each other flowers, songs, and gifts. Courting usually involves getting to know the family (especially the parents) of the one you are courting. Most of the time courting will be done somewhere public, to lower the chances of anything going on between the couple.”

Some definitions of “courtship” that I basically agree with:

• Thompson: Courtship - A stage/period in Scriptural Romance prior to Betrothal. Courtship constitutes the process of investigating a person with marriage in mind: evaluating character, values, beliefs, practices, interests & life purpose to ensure a godly match. There is to be no physical contact and no developing of romance/emotional ties during this period. Parents first investigate, followed by more detailed investigation by the young people themselves, generally within family settings.
• Myers: Courtship - consists of three main elements:
  1. accountability to parents and other trusted adults;
  2. building each other’s character rather than focusing on physical attraction; and
  3. waiting to develop serious relationships until you are ready to get married.
• Barth: Courtship - “a process by which a mature young man or young lady of marriageable age, along with their parents, seek to discern their God-given life partner. It involves the parents or authorities on both sides and yet allows for feelings and discernment from both of the young people involved.”
• Raunikar: Courtship – a relationship / process begun with full approval of both sets of parents (or an accountability couple if not possible) with the intent to consider marriage, and to become acquainted through family and group activities.

↩

11Greg L. Price, “Christian Education in the Home: Help! My Daughter Wants to Date” (unpublished pdf, 1994). ↩

12Richard Anthony, “Dating, Courtship, & Scriptural Betrothal” at http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/betrothal.html↩

13The text says, “Do not seek a wife” under the temporary circumstances being discussed. But that is clearly in contrast with the ordinary process of seeking a wife when such persecution is absent. For a detailed discussion of the controversy of “seeking” see pages 37ff.↩

14Obviously when no parents exist, or when the couple is much older (as in the case of Boaz and Ruth), some flexibility can be seen. But even there, propriety dictated that others be involved.↩

15Note that it isn’t just the father of the groom who can initiate investigation↩

16“But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.” (NASB)↩

17In addition to an adult woman coming under the protective covering of their father (Gen. 38:11; Lev. 22:13), you also see God authorizing single adult women coming under the protection of a son (Jesus – see John 19:25-27), a grandson (1 Tim. 5:4), another member of the family (1 Tim. 5:16), a friend of the family (John 19:25-27) or—in cases where the woman is truly “left alone” (1 Tim. 5:5)—she could come under the protective care of an elder (2 John; 1 Tim. 5:1-19). I especially find it significant that Jesus preferred the spiritual oversight of the apostle John over that which might have been expected from His brothers (who were at that time unbelievers – John 7:5). When discussing options that a daughter might have other than being under the authority of an abusive or foolish father, consider the implications of this verse. The Scriptures also seem to indicate that where there was no protective care of a male (such as was the case of Naomi and Ruth), the kinsman redeemer often stepped in. While one could argue that widowhood “freed” a woman from such submission, the pervasive evidence seems to treat the plight of widowhood as a curse (Ex. 22:24) that needed the protection of law (Ex. 22:22; Deut. 10:18; 14:29; 16:11,14; 24:17,19-21; 26:12-13; 27:19), and which was remedied as soon as possible by marriage (Deut. 25:5; Ruth; 1 Tim. 5:14), or (if meeting the Biblical qualifications) being employed by and under the authority of the church (1 Tim. 5:9-10). While these verses show extensive support for a woman being under the oversight of a male, these illustrations seem to indicate that God primarily had protection in mind, not necessarily the father’s authority. Any time a person is in another person’s home, the authority of the head of that home must be considered. But it seems to me that these verses indicate that there may be options other than her father’s home when her father’s home has major problems.↩

18It is interesting that Jesus gives His own responsibility to care for his mother to his best friend, John, rather than to his brothers or sisters. The reason is that his brothers were not believers until after the resurrection (John 7:5; Mark 3:21). On Christ’s close friendship with John, see John 13:23; 20:2; 21:7; 20:24.↩

19As examples, see 1 Cor. 11:9-13; 1 Tim. 2:13-14↩

20R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 344.↩

21As quoted by Philip Schaff in History of the Christian Church, volume II, p. 164.↩

22Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., The Seven Ecumenical Councils (NPNF-2 XIV; Accordance electronic ed. 14 vols.; New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890), n.p.↩

23That marriage truly is a legally binding “covenant” can be seen from Mal. 2:14 and Prov. 2:17. It is a common belief that when a man and a woman enter into a one-flesh relationship that they are married in God’s eyes. However, Exodus 22:17 makes it quite clear that fornication did not make that couple married, and the law provided that “if her father utterly refuses to give her to him” (v. 17) the young man had no recourse. He would have had recourse if he were the new authority in that woman’s life. But until the two are covenantally married, the father of the girl remains the authority. If it was the sexual union that made the marriage rather than the covenant vows, then how could Christ say to the woman at the well that she was not the wife of the man with whom she was currently committing fornication? He agrees with her that she had no husband: “The woman answered and said, ‘I have no husband.’ Jesus said to her, ‘You have well said, “I have no husband,” for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.” (John 4:17-18) Likewise such a view makes nonsense of the difference between wives and concubines in the Old Testament. (While concubinage and polygamy were sins in the Old Testament, they were not crimes.) Until a man and a woman are properly married by family covenant vows, they are living in fornication and should not consider themselves married.↩

24The original Directory for the Public Worship of God said, “Before that publication of such their purpose, (if the parties be under age,) the consent of the parents, or others under whose power they are, (in case the parents be dead,) is to be made known to the church officers of that congregation, to be recorded. The like is to be observed in the proceedings of all others, although of age, whose parents are living, for their first marriage.”↩

25The assumption of 2 Corinthians 2:10-11 is that this man got a divorce from the state before he was restored to the church.↩

26Deuteronomy 22:18-19 authorizes “the elders of the city” to impose a law where “he cannot divorce her all his days.” The question is, “Why?” Deuteronomy 19:16-20 makes it clear that a false witness should receive the same penalty that the pretended crime would have deserved. Since the man in Deuteronomy 22:18-19 had falsely accused the woman of adultery, and since adultery could lawfully lead to either the death penalty (Lev. 20:10; 21:9) or divorce (Jer. 3:8; Is. 50:1; Matt. 1:19), a similar punishment could be imposed on the man. But giving the woman either penalty would not protect her in the least. The general equity of Deuteronomy 19:16-20 requires that the punishment protect the woman, not punish her. Thus the requirement that he could not divorce her all his days.↩

27Since Ezra 10:3 indicates that Ezra judged each case “according to the law” (cf. v. 3), our interpretation of Ezra 10 should not contradict the regulations concerning divorce and remarriage found in the Pentateuch. Nowhere in the law is there a mandate that every foreign woman be divorced. Indeed, God made provision for marriages to foreigners if they converted (Deut. 20:14; 21:10-14). It seems certain that the foreign wives that the Jews had to divorce were

1. unbelievers
2. had been or were currently involved in criminal behavior. (See my book, Is The Death Penalty Just?)

As such they parallel the situation in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.↩

28Though church licenses went back to the Middle Ages, state-granted licensing is more recent. In America, licensing was used in the early 1900’s to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Malays, or Filipinos. These laws have since been declared unconstitutional by the courts. However, contrary to popular opinion, licensing did pre-date these laws in at least some states. Eleven states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah) and the District of Columbia still recognize common law marriages as being valid within their borders even when a marriage license is absent. Common Law marriages contracted in those states will likely be recognized in all other states. It is illegal to perform common-law marriages (i.e., marriages without a license) in the following states (where known, dates of specific statutes are included): Alaska (1917), Arizona (1913), Arkansas, California (1895), Connecticut, Delaware, Florida (1968), Georgia (1997), Hawaii (1920), Idaho (1996), Illinois (1905), Indiana (1958), Kentucky (1852), Louisiana (which has French Law, not English Common Law), Maine (1652 and again in 1820), Maryland, Massachusetts (1646), Michigan (1957), Minnesota (1941), Mississippi (1956), Missouri (1921), Nebraska (1923), Nevada (1943), New Mexico (1860), New Jersey (1939), New York (1933, 1902, 1908), North Carolina, North Dakota (1890), Ohio (1991), Oklahoma (2010), Oregon, Pennsylvania (2005), South Dakota (1959), Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin (1917), and Wyoming. In the Meister v. Moore case of 1877, the Supreme Court declared common law marriage to be a right and that state laws and statutes created before or since are not legal constraints but are “mere directives.” It ruled that Michigan had not abolished common-law marriage by establishing rules governing the solemnization of marriages. Though most of the states have routinely ignored this case, it can be appealed to as a precedent should Christians want to challenge a marriage license law in a given state. The IRS recognizes common-law marriage if it is recognized by the state where the taxpayers currently live or in the state where the common-law marriage began.↩

29Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory (Ligonier, Pennsylvania: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1990), p. 395.↩

30Tom Hauck, Parenting for Purity (Zondervan: Pleasant Word, 2006), p. 75.↩

31Hauck, Parenting, p. 77.↩

32Hauck, Parenting, p. 77.↩

33Hauck, Parenting, p. 78.↩

34BDAG, 411↩

35Note that Paul is not making the single life the ideal for all time, but rather the best option during “this present distress” (v. 26). The Corinthian Christians were undergoing severe persecution, and Paul wanted to spare them “trouble in the flesh” (v. 28). It was not a sin for any of them to get married (v. 36), but Paul advised them to wait until times were a little better. Contrast this advice to wait with Paul’s advice to not wait in 1 Tim. 5:14. In that passage Paul gave the norm when he said, “I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, …” We should never pit Paul’s time-bounded advice in 1 Corinthians 7 against the universal norms of the Creation Mandate.↩

36Remembering our definition of COURTSHIP, it is clear that Paul’s statements: “it is good for a man to remain as he is” (v. 26) and “Do not seek a wife” (v. 38) are statements advising virgins not to COURT.↩

37It is very important to note in 1 Corinthians 7 that when the father says “No,” and resolves in his heart to “keep his virgin daughter” that he is not postponing her marriage too long (v. 36) and it is because it would be in their best interests (v. 26). All the instructions for singleness were temporary provisions “because of the present distress” (v. 26) and because he wanted to spare them trouble in the flesh from the severe persecution that was about to happen. This was not an arbitrary “No” on the part of the father, but a very carefully planned out “No” that was in their best interests.↩

38For a thorough refutation of this faulty theology, see Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1985). This book is available for free online at http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/by_this_standard.pdf↩

39Some of the different definitions of betrothal are as follows:

John W. Thompson: “Betrothal may be defined as a binding commitment to marry, sought by a young man, agreed to by a young woman, approved and supervised by the fathers of both, and attested by a bridal provision (bride price/dowry) and by witnesses and/or a document.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20081108125545/http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/Rediscovering%20the%20Timeless%20Truths.htm

Lindvall: “An irrevocable and publicly announced commitment to marriage, only terminated for infidelity, during which the cultivation of a romantic relationship is permitted. Betrothal is instigated by the young man and woman with the full approval of parents. No physical contact occurs until after the wedding.” This is my summary stitching together of Lindvall’s chart on https://web.archive.org/web/20081224013628/http://boldchristianliving.com/articles/youthful-romance/comparison-chart-of-dating-courtship--scriptural-betrothal.html

Von: “Betrothal is a covenant between two people, usually entered into for them by their fathers, which permanently binds them as husband and wife. This then begins a period where they call each other husband and wife, but do not yet physically consumate their marriage.”

Greg Price: “Betrothal is ‘a covenant to covenant’–a binding vow to be united in holy matrimony.” Christian Education in the Home: Help! My Daughter Wants to Date. (Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books, 1994), p. 11.↩

40For example, Greg Price said, “All male-female relationships should pass through courtship and engagement on their way to marriage.” Help! My Daughter Wants to Date, p. 19. Common terms are that betrothal is “both pattern and precept.” See for example Vaughn Ohlman’s book, The Covenant of Betrothal. It is the contention of this book that it is a pattern (one model), but not a precept (or command).↩

41Jonathan Lindvall in a letter, as cited by Robin Phillips, The Way of a Man with a Maid, p. 43. I cannot endorse Robin Phillips antinomianism, but if he has correctly quoted Lindvall, Lindvall gives more authority to the parent than the Scripture does.↩

42See Ruth 3:11-13 as one example. Jesus said to “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’” (Matt 5:37). A person’s word should be as good as gold.↩

43For example, Exodus 21:8 gives the sanctions when a master breaks his betrothal to a slave.↩

44There are three governments that can administrate oaths and covenants: the family, the church, and the state.↩

45He says, “a covenant is an oath. The commitment of the covenantal relationship binds people together with a solidarity equivalent to the results achieved by a formal oath-taking process. ‘Oath’ so adequately captures the relationship achieved by ‘covenant’ that the terms may be interchanged (cf. Ps. 89:3,34f.; 105:8-10),” O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1980), p. 6, footnote 7.↩

46Though not an exhaustive list, the following Scriptures illustrate this point: Gen. 21:27,32; 26:26-30; 31:44-54; Deut. 7:1-2; Josh. 9:6-16; 1 Sam. 11:1-3; 2 Sam. 3:12-13,21; 5:3; 2 Kings 11:17; 23:3; 1 Chron. 11:3; 15:25; 2 Chron. 23:1,3,16; Ezra 10:3; Neh. 9:38; Is. 42:6; Ezek. 17:12-16; Dan. 9:27; Hos. 12:1↩

47Though not an exhaustive list of contracts, the following are a good representation of signing a contract of shaking hands on a contract: Gen. 38:17-20; Ex. 21:8; 22:26; Deut. 24:10-13,17; Ruth 3:9-18; Job 17:3; Prov. 6:11; 17:18; 22:26; Jer. 23:3-20; 32:10-16; Ezek. 18:7,12,16; Matt. 5:37; James 5:12; etc.↩

48Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, p. 15.↩

49Interestingly, this tradition has survived in Judaism till today. Rabbi Maurice Lamm comments: “[T]he Sages said that to live with a wife without a ketubah, or without specification of fair conditions, is regarded as concubinage—the difference between a wife and a concubine is that a wife has a ketubah, and a concubine does not.” http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465168/jewish/The-Marriage-Contract-Ketubah.htm↩

50Gen. 22:24; 25:6; 35:22; 36:12; Lev. 19:20; Judges 8:31; 19:1-2,9-10,24-25,27,29; 20:4-6; 2 Sam. 3:7; 5:13; 15:16; 16:21-22; 19:5; 20:3; 21:11; 1 Kings 11:3; 1 Chron. 1:32; 2:46,48; 3:9; 7:14; 2 Chron. 11:21; Esther 2:14; Song 6:8-9; Dan. 5:2-3,23.↩

51Gen. 34:9; 38:8; Ex. 21:10; Lev. 20:14; 21:14; Num. 36:3-4,6; Deut. 7:3; 20:7; 24:1; Joshua 23:12; Judges 12:9; 2 Chron. 18:1; Ezra 9:14; Ps. 78:63; Is. 62:5; Matt. 5:32; 19:9-10; 22:2,24,30; 24:38; Mark 10:11-12; Mark 12:25; Luke 16:18; 17:27; 20:34-35; Romans 7:3; 1 Cor. 7:9,28,36,38; 1 Tim. 4:3; 5:11,14; Heb. 13:4; Rev. 19:7,9.↩

52Edward W. Goodrick, John R. Kohlenberger III, and James A. Swanson, Hebrew/Aramaic to English Dictionary, from Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance. See also Ersnt Jenni and Claus Westerman, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. “First of all, on the one hand, one should distinguish the intention of ʾrś from that of the marriage ceremony proper: a man may have betrothed a maiden but not yet have “taken her as wife” (lqḥ, Deut 21:11; 22:13f, etc.; cf. also bʿl “to marry,” Deut 21:13, etc.; → baʿal; lqḥ is directly juxtaposed to ʾrś in Deut 20:7 and to hyh leʾiššâ in Deut 22:29).↩

53The one possible exception being in Hosea 2. Though see below.↩

54Jonathan Lindvall, email newsletter, #88, 2001.↩

55See previous discussion about betrothal being a serious contract, but not a covenant.↩

56For example, Richard Anthony says, ““Betrothal can only be terminated on the basis of infidelity; requires scriptural divorce.” http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/betrothal.html↩

57Many examples could be given, but Robin Seager describes the betrothal of Tiberius: “But although the betrothal may have been political in conception, the eventual marriage – probably celebrated after Tiberius’ return from the East in 20 – was a happy one…” Tiberius (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), p. 11. These betrothals were legally binding. N.S. Gill says, “The Betrothal, Dowry, and Engagement Rings - Engagements and engagement parties were optional, but if an engagement were made and then backed out of, breach of contract would have had financial consequences. The bride’s family would give the engagement party and formal betrothal (sponsalia) between the groom and the bride-to-be (who was now sponsa). Dowry, to be paid after the marriage, was decided on. The groom might give his fiancee an iron ring (anulus pronubis) or some money (arra).” Matrimonium: Roman Marriage, cited at http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/marriage/a/RomanMarriage.htm↩

58See my booklet, Capital Punishment (Omaha: Biblical Blueprints, 2009).↩

59The Westminster Confession of Faith, “Of Lawful Oaths and Vows“, 22:7.↩

60Jonathan Lindvall, from the taped lecture, “Scriptural Betrothal: God’s Design for Youthful Romance.” Springville, CA: Bold Christian Living)↩

61At least this is true if you read (as I do) “virgin daughter” rather than “virgin betrothed.” It was the father who had authority to give or to not give his daughter. This is the view of most the church fathers as well as Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Bachman, Parry, Edwards, Allo, Morris, Robertson and Plummer, Snyder, Goudge, and Heinrici.↩

62As cited by Philip Schaff in History of the Christian Church, volume I (New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1871), p. 331.↩

63Joseph Dillow in Song of Solomon on Sex (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977), pp. 183ff explains how this little section is a memory of the previous courtship. He says, “As Shulamith reflects on her wedding day, she remembers the springtime visit Solomon paid to her country home in the Lebanon mountains. These three reflections occur as Shulamith awaits the wedding procession sent by Solomon to pick her up and bring her to the palace in Jerusalem. These reflections picture God’s purposes in betrothal. The first brings out the idea that God’s primary purpose is that couples get to know one another in ways other than sexual.” (p. 186). An abbreviation of his outline is as follows:

1. Wedding Day (1:1-2:7)
   • Reflection #1 - Shulamith in the Palace 1:2-8)
   • Reflection #2 - At the Banquet Table (1:9-14)
   • Reflection #3 - In the Bridal Chamber (1:15-2:7)
2. Betrothal Days (2:8-3:5)
   • Reflection #4 - Remembrance of a Spring Time Visit (2:8-14)
   • Reflection #5 - Catching the Little Foxes (2:15-17)
   • Reflection #6 - A Dream of Separation (3:1-5)
3. From the Wedding Procession to Marital Union (3:6-5:1
   • Reflection #7 - The Wedding Procession (3:6-3:11)
   • Reflection #8 - The Royal Couple Alone on the Wedding Night (4:1-5:1)
4. Sexual Adjustments in Marriage: “the Dream of Love’s Refusal” to the “Dance of Mahanaim” (5:2-8:4)
   • Reflection #9 - Troubled dream (5:2-5:8)
   • Reflection #10 - Upon awakening, changes her attitude (5:9-6:3)
   • Reflection #11 - Return of Solomon (6:4-10)
   • Reflection #12 - Shulamith in the Garden (6:11-13a)
   • Reflection #13 - The Dance of Mahanaim (6:12b-8:4
5. A Vacation in the Countryside (8:5-14)

↩

64The Greek word for vessel (σκεῦος) was a Jewish idiom for a wife (1 Peter 3:7). Thus, Hendriksen translates it, “how to take a wife for himself.” Other translations have “taking one woman for his wife.” (TCNT), “each of you shall know how to procure himself a wife” (Weymouth), “his own wife” (EBC). “how to take a wife for himself” (RSV), “finding a husband or a wife” (GWT) JFB says, “how to possess his vessel — rather as Greek, “how to acquire (get for himself) his own vessel,” that is, that each should have his own wife so as to avoid fornication (1 Thessalonians 4:3; 1 Corinthians 7:2). The emphatical position of “his own” in the Greek, and the use of “vessel” for wife, in 1 Peter 3:7, and in common Jewish phraseology, and the correct translation “acquire,” all justify this rendering.” Because Andrews (refer to discussion later in this chapter) sees the vessel as the man’s own body, he misses the critical information in this passage.↩

65Bahnsen says, “It should be noted that ‘sexual sin’ (=fornication) need not involve genital intercourse. Imagine a wife who engages in romantic kissing, undressing, caressing, fondling, … [of] someone not her husband. It would be ridiculous to defend her against the charge of “fornication” by appealing to the absence of genital intercourse. The Song of Songs presents the kind of activities mentioned here as appropriate to the state of marriage.” Theses on Divorce and Spousal Abuse (a Presbytery paper for the OPC), p. 3. John White rightly says, “Is there any moral difference between two naked people in bed petting to orgasm and another two having intercourse? Is the one act a fraction of an ounce less sinful than the other? Is it perhaps more righteous to pet with clothes on? If so, which is worse, to pet with clothes off or to have intercourse with clothes on?” (John White, Eros Defiled , ((Madison, WI: IVP, 1977), p. 53↩

66To defraud means to cheat, to deprive of rights or of property; “to have or to claim more than one’s due” (Liddel & Scott).↩

67Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, The New International Commentary on the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991), 124.↩

68This tension is heightened when one considers Paul’s strong opinion to the contrary in other passages. For example, 1 Timothy 4:1-3 considers one of the deceptive “doctrines of demons” to be “forbidding to marry.” In the same book he commands younger widows to get married and bear children (1 Tim. 5:14). While it is still possible to make verse 1 parallel with verse 26, as a temporary encouragement to avoid marriage, the immediate context and the meaning of the terms rule that interpretation out in my opinion.↩

69BDAG dictionary lists six definitions: 1. to cause illumination or burning to take place, light, kindle, 2. to make close contact, 3. cling to, 4. to partake of someth., w. cultic implications, have contact with, touch, 5. to touch intimately, have sexual contact,6. to make contact with a view to causing harm, touch. Any of definitions 1 (metaphorically), 2,3 or 5 could be in view and would fit the context of not arousing and/or satisfying sexual desires.↩

70The nine times it occurs in the ancient world is in Plato’s Leges 8:840a; Aristotle’s Politica 7.14.12; The LXX on Genesis 20:6, Ruth 2:9, Prov. 6:29; Plutarch’s Life of Alexander the Great 21.4; Josephus’ Antiquities 1.163; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 1.17.6.↩

71To those who object that verses 25 and following are indeed promoting singleness as an ideal, I would respond that singleness for the Corinthians was only “good because of the present distress” (v. 26) and because he wanted to spare them from the “trouble in the flesh” (v. 27) that they would experience during the “short” (v. 29) time of intense persecution that was soon to come upon them. His instructions were not a pattern for all time, but were a temporary measure. So strong was the norm of marriage and children in Paul’s mind (see the parallel of Gen. 1:28; 2:18-15 in 1 Tim. 5:14; 4:1-3), that Paul makes clear that even his temporary advice during the present distress could be ignored if the father thought his daughter was getting too old to wait (vv. 36,38). Far from making singleness the norm, marriage and children is the norm, and singleness is the exception that requires a special “gift” from the Lord (v. 7).↩

72We are of course not considering the non-romantic touch that is necessary for a health care worker to administer care, hygiene, etc.↩

73Andrews, The Family, p. 202↩

74Andrews, The Family, p. 202.↩

75Andrews, The Family, p. 203.↩

76Andrews, The Family, p. 202.↩

77Andrews, The Family, p. 204.↩

78Andrews, The Family, p. 205.↩

79Two examples might suffice: Proverbs 27:14 says, “He who blesses his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it will be counted a curse to him.” There is nothing wrong with giving a blessing. In fact, you can probably think up a few Biblical rules that command us to bless each other. There are even situations where doing so with a loud voice is appropriate. But when you do it at 2 o’clock in the morning, it will not be received as a blessing. Sensitivity to the situation is necessary to fully obey the Bible.

Another example could be given in the area of worship. Proverbs 21:27 says, “”The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with wicked intent!” Sacrifices are good, but when we have just rebelled against God, God won’t accept our worship. Our worship is even more offensive if our motive for worshipping is not to please God, but to impress other people, such as the Pharisees were seeking to do. These two Scriptures illustrate that the Bible requires a proper motive, situation, and standard.↩

80See Deut. 20:7 where הָאִישׁ is used of the betrothed man and אִשָּׁה is used of the betrothed “wife.” The same is true in the Greek where Joseph is called Mary’s “husband” after betrothal but before marriage (Matt. 1:19).↩

81Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, ὑπέρακμαζω.↩

82As cited by Philip Schaff in History of the Christian Church, volume I (New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1871), p. 331.↩