"Training Suitors": a response, Part I

In my last response I didn't get very far... getting rather stuck on the very first sentence. Lets see how far I can get this time...

Later on, in the second paragraph, after a couple of comments on the wisdom of parents who see that their children will age and need a wife (something we address on our site as well) and how Paul uses Adams marriage as paragdigmatic, he continues 'When a son leaves to court a woman'. Chris, commenting to me, points out that the word (and indeed the concept) 'court' is an utter textual novelty... nowhere in Ephesians, Genesis, or anywhere else in Scripture is the word (or concept) of Courtship mentioned.

Doug goes on to say that this 'leaving to court' is 'fulfilling God's creation design for the formation of marriages'. I would love it if someone who says this would point out where the word, or the concept of 'courting' is found in Scripture. Similarly in his continuation, he remarks 'Obviously, when he has left, he must stand alone'. Even assuming (which I don't) this foreign concept of 'leaving' (which we do not see in Scripture) where do we get the idea that having left one must be 'alone'?

Are we ever 'alone' in Gods economy? Or are we always meant to be in relationship, relationship with God first, then our family, our church, our business, friends, etc. Our society has promoted an individualism that does not exist in Scripture.

"Training Suitors": a response, Part I

Unlike Doug Wilsons earlier article, this one gets down to the nitty gritty of the system he is proposing, namely 'courtship'. And this colors the entire article, spoiling (in my view) the excellent focus that he has on 'training'. We are to train 'husbands' and 'wives'; not 'suitors'.

He begins the article by saying, 'The Bible teaches a son leaves his parents in order to take a wife". This is a common thought, but is based on a misapplication of Adams words:

Gen 2:23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Notice what Adam says, and does not say. Adam remarks on the very NATURE of woman, that she is 'bone of [his] bone, and flesh of [his] flesh', names her, and then we read the word *therefore*. Nothing is said that about a man needing to leave his parents in order to take a wife. A man leaves his parents because she *is* bone of his bones, flesh of his flesh.

If the meaning of this verse is that Godly men must leave their parents in order to take a wife, then Scripture is filled with nothing but bad examples: for their is no example of a Godly man leaving his parents *in order* to take a wife.

If, on the other hand, one looks at what *did* happen, and understands something of the underlying culture, the 'leave ones father and mother' becomes more understandable. It was, and is, common in many cultures for a family to literally sleep together, in the same house, in the same bed. We see this in Jesus parable of the importunate neighbor. "I am in bed with my children" he answers his neighbor.

Once, however, a man took a wife, this is no longer the case. It is self-evident that the man cannot *both* sleep with his parents and the wife hers. And with the formation of a new sexual unit, this would be rather awkward anyway. So he 'leaves' his one-flesh relationship with his parents (ie the focus on being their 'seed' etc.) and joins in his new one-flesh relationship.

Indeed we do not see Adam doing *anything* in order to ‘take a wife’. He takes the wife he has been given, and cleaves to her.

To be continued….

Wilson on 'Wake up Little Suzy'

Have been sent some interesting articles by Doug Wilson. One of the first ones was 'Wake up, Little Suzy' . This first article (I cheated and read some of the others already) does a good job of pointing out some of the problems inherent in dating. It is worth reading. He is certainly off to a good start when he says:

A man and woman cannot function within a romantic relationship without becoming emotionally vulnerable to one another. Nothing is wrong with this vulnerability; it is just that we are delicate enough at this level to require protection, a protection which the Bible says is covenantal.

Indeed, a man and woman should NOT function within a 'romantic' relationship without becoming emotionally committed on/to each other. And this covenantal relationship is called 'betrothal'. A true Christian Betrothal is a life-long covenental relationship between a man and a woman leading to emotional, spiritual, and physical committement.

"Living Together": Not part of Christian Betrothal

Any quick check of Google will show 'Christian Betrothal' hitting links to a book called:
Living Together in Christian Ethics by Adrian Thatcher

We wish to make it clear that we do not hold to the the dramatically NON-Christian and NON-Biblical ideas promoted by that book.

Three... not two

It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, that the posters over on puritan board managed, on two sides of an issue, to both miss the point of betrothal quite so accurately.

In an article entitled 'sex as the seal of the marriage covenant' we have two sides arguing over what exactly consitutes marriage. However as they both misinterpret the meaning of the word 'betrothal' or 'espousal' they end up in quite a fudge.

The one side points out, quite correctly, that people (such as Joseph and Mary) who had not yet consumated their marriage were referred to as 'husband' and 'wife'; and infers from this that they were married (thus 'sex is not the seal of marriage').

The other side, pointing out correctly that the overwhelming majority of 'marriages' in Scripture consisted (at least in what is related in Scripture) of nothing other than beginning sexual relations; and thus denigrates the irrevocable covenant relations that are formed by the various actions and vows pre-intercourse... and that the proper name for people in that covenant relationship (called betrothal) are 'husband' and 'wife'.

Both sides ignore the fact that there are three phases that the young man and woman go through, namely 'unmarried', 'betrothed', and 'married'. While the sexual relationship, at least in the sense of intercourse, cannot be completely identified with the transition; it does represent the major event.

Both sides, stuck in modern culture, completely miss the fact that we ourselves are, right now, 'betrothed but not married'. Betrothed by Christ as his bride; yet awaiting the great marriage feast.