Not many histories of the doctrine of justification have been written. A few have been penned by reformed theologians. When you read the table of contents of the very few volumes, you will get the history of the doctrine in the Old Testament, next in the Apostolic Age, then in times of the patristics, and finally you jump to the reformation. They read as though there was an actual total apostasy of the doctrine of justification. The reformed writers say that you can see justification implicitly in the early and late church fathers, but not until the reformation do you see the doctrine developed. Is that true?

A Gap in the History of Justification

If that is true, that is, that the New Testament doctrine of justification stopped with the patristics and wasn’t revived again until the reformation, then many would have a good argument for a total apostasy. The doctrine of justification, after all, is the gospel. We are justified by faith and have peace with God. That’s salvation. Certain reformed evangelicals, like the former head (2006-2007) of the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society), Francis Beckwith, who recently “returned” to Roman Catholicism from evangelicalism, use the lack of history as a basis for pushing eject from evangelicalism. The Vatican named Beckwith their person of the year for 2007. Part of his argument for returning was the lack of continuity historically between the church fathers and his faith. He believed Catholicism was historically consistent. If we really can’t find justification between the fourth century (and then only implied) and the 16th century, a 1200 year gap, that is quite a leap of historical inconsistency.

A large percentage of fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals make the gospel, that is, the doctrine of justification by faith, their only separating doctrine. They separate based upon the gospel, which to them is the essential doctrine of Christianity. All other doctrinal matters are tertiary. So here they have the essential, the thing they separate over, and it was non-existent for 1200 years. Talk about separation, 1200 years of separation! Yet, they say that this is the doctrine that they unify over.

Bridging the Gap

How do Protestants bridge this chasm? Ad Fontes. Ad fontes? Yes, ad fontes. If all else fails, quote some Latin. The Reformers said “go back ‘to the sources,’” the ad fontes. Forget about history and forget about tradition; just look at Scripture. To a large degree, I’m with them on that. Erasmus put out the Greek New Testament. The Reformed (Owen, Turretin, the Westminster Divines) published some big-time defenses of the preservation of Scripture. Perfect preservation was a reformation doctrine. Other Latin. Sole Scriptura. And Sole Fide. Scripture Alone and Faith Alone. They didn’t need a history. Their standard was the original sources, the Scriptures themselves, preserved perfectly, and from that they got their justification-by-faith-alone doctrine.

Of course, now the Protestants and the Conservative Evangelicals and the Fundamentalists aren’t as sure on the sources. They say “back to the doctrines!” They say that none of us can be sure on the exact words. That would require too much fide. So they don’t believe the doctrine of perfect preservation. They ignored the evidence of that part of their history when textual criticism came along. It’s sort of like saying that George Washington didn’t exist, but they’re still willing to let go of preservation. They still have the reformation doctrine of justification that can be found among the teachings of Scripture and that’s the big one.

So is this all true? Aside from the New Testament, did the doctrine of justification by faith appear first during the reformation? Do all of us receive our doctrine of justification from the Protestant Reformation, after years of dormancy or apostasy? A big problem for the Protestants of whatever denomination is that they don’t have a history. And if you are a Catholic, you have a history, a very embarrassing one. I don’t say either of those to attack any Protestants or Roman Catholics. I say them as statements of fact. They don’t have a history, but Baptists do. I recognize that the English separatists don’t believe this. They still cling to the reformation for their history. But we Baptists do have historic evidence for the doctrine of justification.

The Pre-Reformation History of the Doctrine of Justification

I especially refer to two early separatist, New Testament groups, the descendants of the apostles, who never joined the Roman church: the Waldenses and the Albigenses. Evidence exists of both of these two groups believing in the doctrine of justification by faith.

Ancient Waldensian literature abounds with evidence that the Waldenses had a sound doctrine of soteriology or salvation, insisting on justification by faith alone, hundreds of years before Luther. For instance, the author of the 12th-Century treatise “On the Purgatory Dream” makes these statements [Samuel Morland, The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont, Gallatin, Tennessee: Church History Research and Archives, 1982, 162-163]:

But St. Peter shows, Acts 15, that the hearts are purged by faith, and that faith is sufficient to cleanse evil, without any other outward means. . . . Where the apostle shows, that Christ so loved His Church, that He would not cleanse it by any other washing, but by His own blood.

J.H. Merle D’Aubigne (History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1987, p. 30) writes:

From their mountain heights the Waldenses protested during a long series of ages against the superstitions of Rome. They contend for the lively hope which they have in God through Christ - for the regeneration and interior revival by faith, hope and charity - for the merits of Jesus Christ, and the all-sufficiency of His grace and righteousness.

V. Raymond Edman (The Light in Dark Ages, Wheaton, Illinois, Van Kampen Press, 1949, p. 301) writes:

As to their doctrinal views there is little dispute: they held to . . . justification by faith, and a life of good works together with stout denial of the value of priestly absolution or intercession of saints and angels, or the existence of purgatory, or the authority of the Roman Church.

E.H. Broadbent (The Pilgrim Church, Southampton, England, Camelot Press, 1985, p. 130) writes:

In Strassburg in 1212 the Dominicans had already arrested 500 persons who belonged to churches of the Waldenses. . . . Their leader and elder, named John, declared as he was about to die, “We are all sinners, but it is not our faith that makes us so, nor are we guilty of the blasphemy of which we are accused without reason; but we expect the forgiveness of our sins, and that without the help of men, and not through the merit of our own works. . . .” They did not admit the claim of the great professing Church to open or close the way of salvation, nor did they believe that salvation was through any sacraments or by anything but faith in Christ, which showed itself in the activities of love.

Antoine Monastier (A History of the Vaudois Church, New York, Lane and Scott, 1849, p. 52) relates this account of how the Waldenses, under the name of Ultramontanes or dwellers beyond the mountains, were condemned by a Catholic monk:

Gilles relates that a barbe of his name having gone into a church at Florence, heard a monk who was preaching exclaim “O Florence! What does Florence mean? The flower of Italy. And so thou was until these Ultramontanes persuaded thee that man is justified by faith and not by works; and herein they lie.”

Tremendous and highly reputable research was finished by the historian Pierre (Peter) Allix, who wrote two significant volumes on the histories of these peoples: Some Remarks on the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont (Originally published in 1690 and 1692. Revised in 1821. Oxford.). He writes in his preface:

Their faith was in most things the same with that which our Reformers taught in opposition to the Church of Rome; and after all the endeavors that have been used to blacken them by the most horrid calumnies, as well as to destroy them by the cruelest inquisitions and crusades, the innocency of their lives, and the exemplariness of their deaths, makes them to be justly gloried in as the true authors of the Reformation.

On page 95 of his comments on the Waldenses, Allix writes:

When Bishop Gerard, of Arras and Cambray, charged the Waldenses with abhorring (Catholic) baptism, they said baptism added nothing to our justification, and a strange will, a strange faith, and a strange confession, do not seem to belong to, or be of any advantage to a little child, who neither wills, nor runs, who knows nothing of faith, and is altogether ignorant of his own good and salvation, in whom there can be no desire of regeneration, and from whom no confession of faith can be expected.

Also from the research of Allix among many concerning their held doctrine of justification by faith are these statements:

First, They say it is clear, that when God pardons sin, he doth it not with any respect to the merit of any man, but of mere grace; whence it follows evidently, that the remission of sins cannot be attributed to a man’s confessing of them; for if it were so, we must own that the remission is no longer of free-gift, but that it is a recompense given by God to the merit of him that confesseth.

Secondly, They say, if it be confession that procures a man the pardon of his sins, what will become of that passage in the third chapter of the Epistle to Titus, where it is expressly declared, that God hath saved us of his mercy, and not according to the works of righteousness that we have done? Or how shall we explain that in the ninth of the Romans, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy We know, that the first grace that God works in us is the remission of sins: now if this grace be absolutely the effect of the mercy of God, it cannot be the effect of confession, which by consequence is not necessary to salvation.

In addition to all this, we have actual confessions of faith from the Waldenses, dating back to 1120, which among many other things, instruct in justification by faith:

That Christ is our life, and truth, and peace, and righteousness - our shepherd and advocate, our sacrifice and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should believe, and rose again for their justification.

Conclusion

The doctrine of justification by faith is not a reformation doctrine. It is a Scriptural one for sure, but it is the doctrine of those who remained separate from Roman Catholicism centuries before the reformation. The Protestants were surely martin and johnny-come-lately in the matter. The heritage of faith is found in the historic Christians who are the ancestors of the modern, separatist Baptists, at least the Waldenses and Alibigenses. They were part of the line of truth that fulfilled Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His church. Only some would depart from the faith; not everyone. Some didn’t apostatize with the false church and with them lies our history and our legacy of justification by faith.

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Paul warned Gentile believers about becoming proud because unbelieving Israel was cut off from blessing so that the blessing might be offered to Gentiles—if God wouldn’t spare the natural branches, Israel, then He surely wouldn’t spare the wild ones, the ones contrary to nature, the Gentiles (churches) [v. 24]. And then he says explicitly in v. 25 that he gave this warning so that the Gentiles would not “be wise in [their] own conceits.” God gave this to Paul because he knew that then and in the future the Gentiles could get all full of themselves over their part in God’s plan for them and then show that toward the Jews. Taken to its end, the Gentiles could completely dismiss the Jews at all as having a part in God’s plan. No, the Gentiles were just grafted in; that’s all. They weren’t even the natural plant. God was still going to work through the nation Israel.

Everyone should look at v. 26, because Paul says that “all Israel shall be saved.” He doesn’t say that a “remnant” shall be saved. “All Israel” should be taken as “all Israel”—the entire nation. In this context, why would Gentiles see “all Israel” as only a redeemed remnant that is sucked up by “the church”? Answer: Gentile arrogance and conceit.

Gentile Christians at their worst could tend toward hatred of Jews spurred by an arrogance about their view of Gentiles in God’s plan. Instead of seeing themselves as grafted branches, they think they’re natural. And then Israel isn’t even a graft, let alone the main original stalk. Unrestrained by the Holy Spirit through conversion, a perversion of Christianity, Roman Catholicism, took on anti-semitic practices all over the world.

Augustine, one of Christianity’s most influential leaders, likened the Jewish people to Cain, who had murdered his own brother and thus became the first murderer in history. He wrote that Jews were a “wicked sect” who should be subjected to permanent exile because of their evil ways. He wrote in his Confessions (12.14):

How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!

Roman Catholicism officially made these decrees:

• Trulanic Synod (692)_prohibited Christians from being treated by Jewish doctors.
• Synod of Narbonne (1050)_prohibited Christians from living in Jewish homes.
• Synod of Gerona (1078)_required Jews to pay taxes to support the Church.
• Third Lateran Council (1179)_prohibited certain medical care to be provided by Christians to Jews.
• Fourth Lateran Council (1215)_required Jews to wear special clothing to distinguish them from Christians.
• Council of Basel (1431-1443)_forbade Jews to attend universities, them from acting as agents in the conclusion of contracts between Christians, and required that they attend church sermons.

The anti-semitic legacy passed from Roman Catholicism to reformers of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther wrote:

First their synagogues . . . should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians . . . . Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed… For, as has been said, God’s rage is so great against them that they only become worse and worse through mild mercy, and not much better through severe mercy. Therefore away with them . . . . To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may be free of this insufferable devilish burden — the Jews.

We can find a similar attitude as Luther by John Calvin, surely influenced by his replacement theology or Gentile arrogance. Barry Horner has written about this in his book, Future Israel. Being gracious, I believe, Horner says that there is a strong anti-Judaism in Reformed Theology saying Israel had lost its election, lost the right to all its covenants and promises. He further writes:

The wrong perception of Israel and the Jews by so-called Christians has produced consequences of horrific proportions during the history of the church. Such a shameful legacy perpetrated during the illustrious Reformation and onwards remains undiminished, largely unconfessed and still prevalent in substantial degrees up to the present within a Calvinistic Reformed and Sovereign Grace environment.

A lot of support exists for Israel from “evangelical Christianity” in the United States, but the recent increase of reformed theology and then amillennialism has resulted in a decreased support from professing evangelicals. When Israel hears of replacement, it all sounds eerily familiar, hearkening back to centuries of persecution from “Christians.” It is no wonder then that Israel’s and American Jew’s attitudes toward Christianity becomes more hostile.

With Divinely empowered prescience, the Apostle Paul warned of Gentile conceit. My own opinion is that amillennialism was conceived from this very arrogance. Instead of merely shelving Israel as Scripture reveals, the Roman Catholics and then Protestant Reformed replace her with “the church.” The great privilege that God has given us as Gentile believers doesn’t nullify the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (or however else young Calvinists want to explain it). The destiny of Israel will be reversed. Her return to the Lord not only is possible but certain. All Israel will be saved. Gentile Christians should embrace God’s promises—if God could nullify His promises to the natural tree, then He certainly could for the grafted branches too.

We believe the local church is the focal point of God’s plan for displaying his glory to the nations.  Our vision is simple: Churches that reflect the character of God.  Our mission is to cultivate and encourage churches characterized by these nine marks.

9 Marks then says that these are the nine marks:

1. Expositional Preaching
2. Biblical Theology
3. Biblical Understanding of the Good News
4. Biblical Understanding of Conversion
5. Biblical Understanding of Evangelism
6. Biblical Understanding of Membership
7. Biblical Church Discipline
8. Promotion of Christian Discipleship and Growth
9. Biblical Understanding of Leadership

Have you ever been attempting to describe to someone the type of church he should be looking for?  Haven’t you used certain characteristics as the means of that description?   Like 9 Marks, I too want churches to dedicate themselves to certain traits, fleshing out what Scripture says about the church and imitating the distinctives that we see from there, instead of being fad oriented.  I desire for men to trust the sufficiency of God’s Word as it relates to their churches, instead of running to conferences to hear what the latest growth or management guru says a church ought to be.

The Baptist Distinctives

I still think that the Baptist Distinctives are nice marks for a church.  I wouldn’t recommend a church that did not have them.  They are Scriptural and do act as a certain benchmark for obedience to God.  They are obviously not everything, but if you look at the Baptist Distinctives, you will see some basics that have historically characterized God’s churches.  For those who don’t know them, they are:

• Bible Sole Authority for Faith and Practice
• Regenerate Immersed Church Membership
• Autonomy of Each Church
• Pastor and Deacons:  Two Church Offices
• Soul Liberty, the Priesthood of the Believer
• Immersion and Lord’s Table:  Two Church Ordinances
• Separation of Church and State
• Separation Both Personally and Ecclesiastically

Those distinctives should characterize a church and they are a bottom line for what I see as a New Testament Church.  I don’t really know if 9 Marks would see the Baptist Distinctives as important as their nine marks.  I do.

What’s Missing?

I would guess that some people reading this post skipped right down to this section.  This is what they wanted to find out anyway, you know, just to see if they agree whether I was on target on missing marks.  Certain attributes come to mind when I go to help someone understand what kind of church they should be looking for.  I will quickly spell out required features when I tell others the churches we get along with.  I love the 9 Marks, at least as I would understand them.  I wish more churches had those qualities.

When I look at the 9 Marks, I don’t see Separation.  There’s a lot that could fit under conversion or Biblical Theology, but if you are going to give three different slots for good news, conversion, and evangelism, then there should definitely be one for separation.  You can have church discipline, but what does it matter if you don’t practice separation too?   Capital Hill breaks fellowship with church members who are unrepentant or who will not fulfill certain membership qualifications.   I think that’s great.  It’s Matthew 18:15-17.  You can’t keep company with excommunicated church members, but you can fellowship with disobedient brethren who aren’t from your church.

Separation has been a hallmark of New Testament churches because it’s a doctrine and practice found in some form in every New Testament book.  A lot of liberalism has been eliminated from the Southern Baptist Convention.  I applaud the Southern Baptists and men like Dever who have been a strong influence toward conservative theology.  However, his Southern Baptist church is part of the convention and, therefore, cooperates in the support of some liberalism in the convention in missions, parachurch organizations, and seminaries.  When the Convention convenes, Dever convenes with them, and so do all the other Southern Baptists, convening for the great cause of getting together with a cost of some truths.

I know that Dever says that he does separate, just not as much as fundamentalists.   Separation isn’t one of the 9 Marks.  It was, however, one of the marks of the Schleitheim Confession, number four.

A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness which the devil planted in the world; in this manner, simply that we shall not have fellowship with them (the wicked) and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations. This is the way it is: Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith, and have not united themselves with God so that they wish to do His will, are a great abomination before God, it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things. For truly all creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and those who (have come) out of the world, God’s temple and idols, Christ and Belial; and none can have part with the other.

To us then the command of the Lord is clear when He calls upon us to be separate from the evil and thus He will be our God and we shall be His sons and daughters.

He further admonishes us to withdraw from Babylon and earthly Egypt that we may not be partakers of the pain and suffering which the Lord will bring upon them.

Just like in a church change comes from discipline and division, we make change on the outside of the church by separation.   Some might argue that if we separate, we’ll lose the influence we might have had with some of those from whom we separate.  That idea just disregards what God has said about what His people should do.   In those situations, biblical influence comes from separation.   Without separation, we not only invite impurity into our own church, but we influence other churches to keep unscriptural affiliations.  Evil associations corrupt good behavior.  It’s an axiom that no one can escape.

Are any of the 9 Marks worth separating over?  Which ones are required by the Bible?  Or are they just the 9 Preferences?   I believe God’s Word mandates most of them.  So if a man or a church doesn’t practice the marks, what does 9 Marks do?  Do they separate over the violations of the marks?  Or do they continue acting like nothing is wrong?  What does this say about the dedication of the 9 marks?  The answer for disobeying Scripture isn’t “build a website,” “have a conference,” and “print literature.”

I believe that other marks are necessary for a basic description of a New Testament church.  I would include Scriptural Worship.  That’s at least as important as scriptural evangelism, one of the 9 Marks, and really more important when we consider the purpose of our justification (John 4:23, 24).   Many foundational perversions of scriptural evangelism methods are identical to those of biblical worship.  Worship gives God what He wants.  He doesn’t want something worldly, sensual, fleshly, or profane.  Does it matter to us if a church has all 9 Marks but has worship that gratifies men and displeases God?

Could a 9 Marks church have a woman pastor?  Could a 9 Marks church seek after signs?  Could a 9 Marks church have a church party with rock music, booze, and dancing?  Could a 9 Marks church have a pastor who cusses?  Could a 9 Marks church put on a performance of Godspell?  Could a 9 Marks church believe that the Bible has errors?  Could a 9 Marks church allow public nudity in the form of women’s swimsuits?  Could a 9 Marks church advertise “no dress code” for an assembly to worship?  Could a 9 Marks church sprinkle infants into the membership of the church?

I like the 9 Marks.  They aren’t enough though.

In the past few weeks we’ve had quite the discussion about how to find a life partner.  It actually got me to doing more than maintenance of the jackhammr.  Actually, it was my “drive-by” post that stirred the waters or fed the fire.  Now most of you have just sat by the fire watching the three jackhammrs spar with each other and put up with an occasional burst of ammunition from the “Soldier of War.”  I don’t mind that.

I said briefly in my post that sons go (I intend to also show that daughters are given).  This was first taken as an affront to Kent’s thorough exegesis and historical study.  In his best example, he has said that the Father chose the Bride for the Son.  This is true.  He says that in the model he follows, the father chooses and the son approves.  This is good; because no earthly father is going to know his choice is perfect like our heavenly Father would.

I’ll admit that I have not developed a “WAY” as Kent has, but this month has helped, and yet I still think sons go.  The reason is that even in Kent’s best example, the Son went.  The Father chose, but the Son was sent.  Because the Trinity is Divine, the arrangement worked out cleanly (although when the Son came, he was at first rejected–John 1:12).  When human nature is put into the equation, Kent puts the father and son into the choosing.  More fatherly input, but the son approves also.  In my mind the next step continues in the same manner, father and son.  Rather, son and father.  Because the Son actually was sent and the Father approved, we should follow this same pattern in finding a life partner.  Sons go because the Son was sent:

But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.  (Matthew 21:37)

Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.  (Mark 12:6)

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  (John 3:17)

That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.  (John 5:23)

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.  (John 6:40)

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?  (John 10:36)

Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.  (Acts 3:26)

But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,  (Galatians 4:4)

In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.  Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.  (1 John 4:9-10)

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.  (1 John 4:14)

The Father did not abdicate his responsibility by sending the Son; He had already chosen.  The Son could not have fulfilled His responsibility if He had not gone.  While the Father chose, he did not hand the prize to the Son on a platter.  The Son was sent from the comforts of Heaven to seek his Bride (Luke 19:10).  This reason, from the best of all examples, is why I believe sons go–the Son was sent.

In Genesis, Moses placed Jacob’s deception of Isaac within the larger context of marriage. The last two verses of chapter 26 inform us that Esau was 40 years old when he had married two Hittite women, causing Isaac and Rebekah great grief.  Isaac was 40 when he married Rebekah (25:20).   Wifeless Jacob is also 40.   The covenant blessings of Abraham will pass through Jacob and his descendants. Genesis 24 is a very detailed description of how Abraham obtained a wife for Isaac from among his own relatives, rather than from among the Canaanites.   There Abraham strongly emphasized that under no circumstances was Isaac to return to Padan-aram.

After Jacob deceived his father and stole his brother’s blessing, Esau planned to kill Jacob and he waited for his father’s death.  Rebekah heard of Esau’s intentions so set out to save Jacob’s life.  She said nothing to Jacob about marriage (Gen 27:42-45).  She warned only of Esau’s plan to kill him and then urged him to flee to her brother Laban in Padan-aram to stay for “a few days” until Esau’s anger diminished.

Marriage was mainly a pretext for sending Jacob away to spare his life.  When Rebekah spoke to Isaac, she said nothing of Esau’s plan to kill Jacob.  Instead, she pointed out that Esau had married the daughters of Heth and that she couldn’t live if this were to happen to Jacob.  Isaac responded by sending Jacob to Padan-aram to acquire a wife from the daughters of Laban. Isaac did not seek to keep Jacob from going to Padan-aram, as Abraham kept Isaac from going there. He does not warn him not to stay there. He simply sent him on his way.

Here’s the point.  Neither Isaac nor Rebekah took this marriage matter very seriously.  It was more of an excuse than a reason. Granted, Isaac and Rebekah hated Esau’s marriage to two Hittite women, but they hadn’t given Jacob any instruction, leaving him to figure it out on his own (Gen 28:6-9).  Esau was married, Jacob wasn’t, but his parents still did nothing to secure a wife for him.  Only after Rebekah learned that Esau planned to kill Jacob did she and Isaac send Jacob away.

Jacob’s deceit of Isaac and theft of the blessing was the reason why he went to Padan-aram. Jacob didn’t acquire a wife in a godly manner. His circumstances forced him into a situation in which he providentially obtained his wives from his mother’s family.  This contrasted drastically with chapter 24, where Abraham so purposefully sought to obtain a wife for his son. It was circumstances, not faith, nor obedience, which caused Jacob to obtain his wife in Padan-aram.  If God had not compelled Jacob to return to Canaan, he would have stayed on in Padan-aram indefinitely, away from the land of blessing.

Principles from the Pattern in Genesis 24 Continued

Principle Three—The Agency (Genesis 24:9-11)

The trusted servant acted on behalf of Abraham.  When a father is unable or there is no father, a surrogate of the same belief and practice may and should step in for the dad.  This isn’t to remove a father’s God-ordained responsibility.  It does say that a family can attain aid from others and that there is room for stand-in authority.

Principle Four—The Asking (Genesis 24:12-14)

Like the servant here, we should pray for the life’s partner.  To pray, we should know what we’re praying for, based upon Scripture.  When we obey God’s Word, we can pray in faith, so that in the end, God gets the credit for providing.  I hope most parents are praying for the future life’s mate for their children.  A prayer of faith starkly contrasts with the machinations of two young people working it out in concert with their lust.

Principle Five—The Answer (Genesis 24:15-27a, 50)

When you pray, then you can wait on God for the answer.  The servant did look.  Faith without works is dead.  However, he watched and waited, resting in the provision of God.  If that is the way that you operate, then at the end, you can give praise to God, which is what the servant did.  If you did it your way, then God doesn’t get the praise.  This is the “honor God” part of “sanctification and honor.”

Principle Six—The Attractiveness (Genesis 24:16)

Does physical beauty come in?  That gets mentioned in this task, meaning that it is a consideration.  It shouldn’t get left out of the equation.  A parent will probably know better what a match is.  However, God is a good God and He doesn’t do ugly.

Principle Seven—The Award (Genesis 24:22)

The servant brought an expression of the potential bride’s worthiness.  Gifts might be traditional, but they also communicate the value of the woman and this endeavor.  These tokens expressed a commitment to her as a candidate for marriage.  Doing this kind of thing makes it all more landmark.

Scripture accentuates the woman’s beauty above the man.  Rebekah didn’t bring fashion accessories for Isaac.  She was naturally good looking, but that didn’t mean that her prettiness couldn’t be accentuated by external means.  Adding physical embellishment and ornamentation from among God’s created products does not contradict faith in God’s design.

Principle Eight—The Axiom (Genesis 24:27)

“I being in the way, the LORD led me to the house of my master’s brethren.”  The Lord leads those who are already in the way.  We seek the Lord and we’ll collide with the one God has for us.  When we are out of the way, we can’t run into the one in God’s will.  One way we get out of the way is by taking a different process than Scripture examples.  The one we will marry is in God’s will with us.  So, we get in the path and then we look for someone in the same path we’re in.  If we already love God’s will, then He’ll lead us in His will.

Principle Nine—The Acclamation (Gen. 24:28-33a)

We can celebrate a marriage when we’ve acted in God-honoring fashion.  When we take things into our own hands, we can find trouble and vexation.

Principle Ten—The Accounting (Gen. 24:33b-49, 66)

When you do it right, there is a testimony to tell afterwards that will glorify God—you did it His way and He blessed.  You won’t be embarrassed by any of the details when you act in faith.  Your story can be a help and encouragement to others.  You won’t have to say, “Do what I say, not what I did,” when someone asks.

Principle Eleven—The Arrangements (Gen. 24:50-61)

We see two major principles in the arrangement.  They work through the daughter’s father and Rebekah is given veto power or consent.  The father or the brother gave her away, so men were involved in the protection of the daughter.  They gave her a choice not to go.  She wanted to, but she could have said no.  We don’t see a situation where the daughter is forced to marry anyone.  In the arrangements, respect is shown to both families.  There is agreement, coming to terms, resulting in good relations between the family.  No one has been defrauded.

Principle Twelve—The Alliance (Gen. 24:67a)

Isaac took; Rebekah became.  She took a new identity, wife of Isaac.  When the man and woman come together in marriage, they become a new family.  They aren’t a new family until then.  They shouldn’t be like they’re already husband and wife before they are.

Principle Thirteen—The Adoration (Gen. 24:67b)

Isaac loved her.  Love wasn’t dependent on his having seen her before.  A husband loves his wife because this is the role of the man.  God is love and they that abide in Him can and will love.

Principle Fourteen—The Afteraffect (Gen. 24:67c)

Isaac is fulfilled through completion and companionship, replacing what was previously there from his mother, Sarah, who had died.  The man should learn how to relate with women by his relationship with his mother.   When he cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh, his relationship with his mother changes to some degree.  The groom’s mother shouldn’t ever think that she has a position like she did before in her son’s life.  This is the way it should be.

These are most of the principles we can incorporate into our lives from this Scriptural pattern.  Every situation will look different, but the principles should be the same.  In following the model, we can honor God in obtaining our spouse.

How Does This Compare With Other Means?

Any form of dating is not the same as the Scriptural way of acquiring one’s spouse.  History tells the tale of a change of a reliance on a Scriptural manner to one invented by the world.  It wasn’t a group of Christians getting together or a church that originated the dating method or its spin-offs.  If we are going to change the Scriptural and historic manner, there should be some exegesis of Scripture that should initiate it.  That was not the case.

By the 1950s and 1960s in the United States, social scientists, who studied American courtship, found it necessary to remind the American public that dating was a “recent American innovation and not a traditional or universal custom” (”Some Expert Opinions on Dating,” McCall’s, August 1961, p. 125.  Quoting Professor Ruth Shonle Cavan).   “Dating not only transformed the outward modes and conventions of American courtship, it also changed the distribution of control and power in courtship.  One change was generational:  the dating system lessened parental control and gave young men and women more freedom” (p. 20, From the Back Porch to Back Seat:  Courtship in Twentieth-Century America, by Beth L. Bailey.  Baltimore:  The John Hopkins University Press, 1988).  The sociologist Willard Waller, who studied campus life in the 1930s, concluded that dating “is not true courtship, since it is supposed not to eventuate in marriage; it is a sort of dalliance relationship” (p. 289, Hands and Hearts:  A History of Courtship in America, by Ellen K. Rothman.  New York:  Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1984).  In Puritan New England, the law had given parents “the care and power . . . for the disposing their children in marriage” (p. 26, Rothman).

What happened?   We were guided by a Scriptural and historical model for obtaining a spouse. First that changed in the world.  Then it began to change in churches.  The world’s method became the church’s method, except with some Christian garnish.  What was the change?   It was a change from Parental Control to Personal Choice under Peer Pressure, an alteration from Serious Marriage Intentions to Intended for Personal Pleasure and Fun, an amendment from Spiritual Maturity to Feelings/Desire/Hormones, a revision from Protection from Physical Involvement to Emotional and Physical Involvement, a switch from Respect for the Bible to Ignorance and Disregarding of the Bible, a modification from In the Home around the Family to Exclusively out of the Home, and a transition from The Qualification of Character to Physical/Emotional Attractiveness.

What’s Bad about the New Way? (”as the Gentiles which know not God”)

• Sin or Impurity (Prov. 6:25; Mt. 5:27-30; Col. 3:5)—Emotionally and Physically, it is God’s will for men and women to save themselves wholly for their life’s partner, and when they do not, that is sin.  John Holzman in Dating with Integrity, in 1990, makes this excellent statement, “When we begin to develop intimacy with someone, there’s going to be a natural tendency toward a sexual expression…Any time you become emotionally involved with a person, you’re moving into the arena of sexual temptation.  You’re touching one of the springs from which our sexuality comes to surface.”  We would do well to look at the trek to fornication outlined in Colossians 3:5:

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

You look at it in reverse order.  Covetousness is idolatry.  It starts with just wanting more without the regard of God.   We separate God from our pursuit of a thing, a relationship, or a feeling.  Evil concupisence describes that desire outside of the bounds of what is right.  An unmarried young man does not possess the young lady.  He can’t have her until he is married to her.  He cannot have a married desire until after marriage.  Until then, that desire is defiled, an evil desire, evil concupiscense.  Inordinate affection comes when the passions are stirred, some heat is involved.  Uncleanness turns it all into an unclean action still falling short of fornication.  Obviously fornication involves all of these that lead up to it, but someone can be unclean and yet not fornicate.

The means by which someone obtains a life’s partner should not violate Colossians 3:5.  If the means tends towards violation of this verse, it can’t be the Scriptural way.  I contend that any form of dating tends toward a violation of Colossians 3:5.  Dating stirs instincts intended for marriage.

• Rebellion Against Parents (Judges 14)—Young people pull themselves away from parental authority to satisfy on their own certain perceived emotional, psychological, and physical needs. Young people learn to be adults by being with adults as their model, not other young people (an argument against the common socialization thinking of parents—this is really about fitting in with immaturity).  It is obvious when people follow the wrong model of obtaining the life’s partner, they are rebelling against parental instruction (Proverbs 5-7).  It is often called “independence,” but independence is a positive word, and something some young people think they deserve, but it is truthfully rebellion.  Young people are out from under Godly wisdom when making the most important decision in life, and can ruin their life in a short period of time.  The role of the parents disappears or at least greatly lessens with the world’s way.
• Defrauding (1 Thessalonians 4:6)—Emotional and Physical
• Searing the Conscience (1 Timothy 1:19)—It lends itself to rationalization and excuses to cover up, and in truth, sear and suave the conscience, damaging it severely.
• Seduction Skills Are Developed (Proverbs 5-7)—Physical and Emotional Attraction becomes a ’skill’ that must be developed to obtain the life’s partner of a woman’s ‘desire;’ both men and women learn how to flirt.
• Wasted Time (Ephesians 5:16)—Instead of getting prepared and developing character, knowledge, and skills, the ’search is on’ in the ‘dating game.’
• Wasted Abilities (Matthew 25:14-30)—There is a loss of intellectual, social, and spiritual development.–ministry skills not honed.
• Breaking God’s Commandments (The Ten Commandments-Ex. 20)—Idolatry, dishonoring parents, stealing (defrauding), adultery, and covetousness.
• Accompanying Attitude Problems—Jealousy, bitterness, anger, etc.
• Later Marriage Problems—Marriage starts out selfishly.  The break-up pattern formed results in easy divorce pattern.  There is a built-in loss of trust that occurs when the spouse has had multiple dating partners or even more in the past.
• Difficulty in Forgetting Old Relationships
• Perversion of True Love—Love is fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22,23).  Love is abiding in God (I John 4:16).  In the dating system, love is a feeling or emotion; truly lust. In this system good is evil and evil is good.
• Loss of True Friendships—Instead of making lasting friendships, people are busy with the “dating game.”
• Loss of Discernment—Judgment not based on character, but on economics and ‘looks.’
• Lost Honoring God and Obeying God’s Word, and Lost Testimony
• Other Problems
  • The Tongue—Gossip, Slander, Lies, Flatter
  • Diseases–sexually transmitted
  • Crime–Rape, Abortion
  • Unwanted Children

What’s Good About the Scriptural Way?

• Pleasing God (1 Thessalonians 4:1,2; Hebrews 11:6)
• Honoring Parents (1 Cor. 7:37-39; Gen. 24:1-3)
• God’s Will Accomplished (Proverbs 3:5,6)
• Time Invested and Skills Developed in Preparation
• Takes the Flesh Out of It to Preserve Purity
• Young People Learn Adult Behaviour from Parents
• Protects Conscience, Emotions, Family, Society, Testimony, True Friendships, True Love

I agree with Pastor Brandenburg all the way up to the point where he says “only.”  I think that betrothal is one way that a man finds a wife, but I cannot argue, as he has, that every way of finding a wife besides betrothal falls under the heading of “the lust of concupiscence.”  There are other legitimate points that can be made about this process, and I want to make those arguments in this post.

I don’t mind strong positions, and I most certainly appreciate Pastor Brandenburg’s strong stand on this issue.  I will say that this is the first time I have seen him lay out his case for it, and I am glad to read it.  And, so far as I know, based on discussions we have had on this in the past, he isn’t trying to line up a mate for his children while they are still under thirteen — which is a refreshing difference from the betrothal crowd I knew when I was growing up.  I don’t mind saying that I much prefer his way of doing things to theirs.  The only other betrothal people I ever knew of had contracts on their children by age five. 

That approach has no basis in Scripture, no matter how many texts one might bend and stretch to make their case. 

Pastor Brandenburg is absolutely correct that betrothal was commonly practiced in medieval times.  Anyone who reads literature from that time period will know this.  And, like many customs of that time, the practice has been caricatured beyond recognition, giving it very scarecrow-like qualities.  Certainly, like anything else, the system can go wrong.  We are, after all, a fallen race, and whatever we touch we mess up.  But in many cases, the system was marked by a loving father seeking the best interests of his children. 

So, no, I don’t believe that betrothal is a WRONG way to find a wife.  Certainly, we see examples of it in Scripture.  I see that it has been argued that betrothal is the ideal way to find a wife.  Perhaps so.  The principles behind the betrothal idea are certainly good and right, and therefore are ideal.  I will reserve judgement on the practical aspects of it until Pastor Brandenburg has laid them out in his promised fourth post. 

My point in this post (with apologies for the lengthy introduction) is simply to say that there are other ways that fall under the heading of “ideal.”  And to say that those other ways are also lawful.  But before I do so, I need to answer the claim that betrothal is the ONLY way for a man to obtain a wife.

Are You “BO” (Betrothal Only)?

The key argument that has been made for betrothal is that God gave a wife to Adam, and to Christ.  Without this argument, the arguments from Abraham are completely without weight.  The example of Abraham can only be argued as authoritative given the argument that God gave a wife to Adam and to Christ.  And, certainly, it is undeniable that God gave a wife to both Adams, the first and the Second. 

I hate to over-qualify, but it bears repeating that I am not arguing against betrothal as a way of finding a wife.  It is a legitimate way.  However, we should also point out that God did not search among the possibles for a wife for either Adam.  God created a wife for each.  So, while the example remains intact, the application of it to our situation in this world is clearly different.  The fact that God created a wife for the two Adams makes these  unique and special cases.

God has created a wife for each man.  Godly parents (and their children) will be praying that God will guide them to that wife.  And, by faith, we believe that God will.  When we find that one, we believe that we can say with Adam,

This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.

And with Christ,

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

To say then that God’s choice of a wife for Adam and for Christ relates to our situation takes the example beyond its primary meaning.  Clearly, God has made a wife for each of the Sons of Adam.  He instructs us that we are to search for and find who that is.  But this does not tell us how he intends for us to find which one he made for us.  Nor does it limit us with Abraham’s example.   

So, does God’s giving both Adam and Jesus a wife make this the universal pattern for marriage?  Yes.  And no.  Yes, because God gives a wife to every married man (What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder), and no because it does not follow from this that God requires every man to take a wife for his son without the son’s involvement. 

The argument extends from God’s giving of a bride to his two sons, to Abraham’s giving a wife to Isaac.  Pastor Brandenburg says,

In the story of Isaac, the two marriage candidates aren’t involved with each other at all. They must fully trust authority in their lives. This is pictured as the ideal.

Do we have any Scripture to tell us that this is the ideal?  None has been offered to tell us that Abraham’s way of doing this was the ideal.  In fact, the only evidence that has been offered to prove that this is the ideal has been the fact that God gave a wife to Adam and to Jesus.  Since we have here another father finding a wife for his son, therefore we are told that this makes it a universal pattern.

However, a few points should be made on this.  First, if this was God’s ideal way for finding a wife, Isaac apparantly was not aware of this.  Either that, or Isaac rebelled against it in disobedience.  When it came time for Jacob to find a wife, Isaac made no attempt to find him one.  Isaac sent Jacob to take a wife.  We will get into Jacob’s folly in a few paragraphs.  But for the time being, we will merely note that Isaac did not follow the pattern, and we will further note that God did not rebuke Isaac for this rebellion against the pattern.  In fact, not once in Scripture do we find a place that tells us that we are transgressing God’s law if we send our sons out to find their own wife.  Abraham sent a servant to find a wife for Isaac, Isaac sent Jacob to find himself a wife.  And God says nothing about it.

Of course, at this point we can fully expect the famous rebuttal… “that’s an argument from silence.”  This particular rebuttal is a curious thing, to say the least.  The argument for betrothal relies heavily on arguments from silence.  One might even argue that the entire premise rests on what isn’t said in Scripture.  Nevertheless, the “argument from silence” rebuttal continues to be used arbitrarily as it suits.  But the fact remains that we cannot condemn what God does not, lest we make ourselves more holy than He.

We certainly can claim that betrothal is a lawful way for a man to find a wife.  But we cannot claim that for Jacob to find his own wife at all was sin.  We cannot claim that Isaac was in sin to send Jacob to find his own wife.  And to argue that the result proves it to be sin and wrong is to assign a false cause.  We cannot argue conclusively that Jacob’s folly resulted from Jacob leaving his father’s authority to find his own wife.  First, Jacob went to find his own wife with his father’s full blessing, and under his father’s authority.  Secondly, Jacob’s folly was the result of Laban’s fraud.

And that brings us to another comment that needs to be answered.  Earlier in a comment thread, Pastor Brandenburg made this statement:

You say that Jacob’s pattern was the same as Abraham’s. Laban gave Jacob Leah. Laban, the authority for the daughters, wanted Jacob to have Leah. I believe that the troubles for Jacob show the problem with the son taking the intiative. And so he takes another wife. And another. And another. I can’t take anything as a pattern of what to do from Jacob. He didn’t even follow Laban. Laban gave Leah, but he had to have Rachel.

The truth is, Laban committed a fraud against Jacob. If Laban, as the daughter’s authority, wanted Jacob to have Leah, he should have said so, not snuck her in at the ceremony. I have a feeling that if a man did this to Pastor Brandenburg’s son, there would be cries of “foul.”  The polygamy that resulted from Laban’s fraud is another discussion for another time.  I will only point out that polygamy was a social custom of the time, and was perfectly acceptable.  Jacob could have demanded that he be given Rachel, and that the marriage to Leah be annulled.  Instead, he did the honorable thing and kept Leah.  And the Genesis account of this event shows that Laban suggested that Jacob take Rachel as well (Genesis 29:26-28).  We can hardly place the blame for this on Jacob, and we certainly cannot say that this was caused by Jacob’s rebellion in leaving the authority of his father.

Jacob’s problems were caused by sin… a sinful father-in-law in particular, and they demonstrate that even when we follow parental authority, things can still be messed up.

There are only two other minor arguments for the BO (Betrothal Only) position that must be answered, and then we can move on to making a case for alternative methods.  First, the argument has been made that a boy is not a man until his father says he is.

There is the assumption in Scripture that a Dad has this kind of authority over his son as well.  We read this in Galatians 4:1-2

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

When does a boy become a man?  When his Dad says that he does.  A Dad is to understand manhood, inform his son how to get there, and then tell him when he’s arrived. 

Now, first, we should point out that Paul’s major point here is not to say that the son is not a man until his father says he is.  Paul is illustrating something else, using a cultural custom.  But this verse, which certainly is not written to say that a boy is not a man until his father says he is, does not undo what Scripture clearly says about a boy reaching manhood.  Consider…

Ex 30:14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.

 Ex 38:26 A bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men.

 Le 27:3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.

 Nu 1:3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.

 Nu 1:18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

Nu 1:20 And the children of Reuben, Israel’s eldest son, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, by their polls, every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
(see also vv. 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, and 45)

 Nu 14:29 Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me,

Nu 32:11 Surely none of the men that came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob; because they have not wholly followed me:

According to the Old Testament then, at the age of twenty a young man was responsible to pay his own offering, was old enough to go to war, and was numbered separately from his father’s household.  In other words, he was a man.  And at that point in life, he was free to leave his father’s house. 

We can argue as we wish that the pattern in Scripture is father’s finding a wife for their sons.  But the Bible makes a very clear statement in regards to sons and marriage, and we find this statement repeatedly throughout Scripture. 

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The second minor argument to answer is the argument that the historical practice among Christians was for the father to find a bride for the son without the son’s involvement.  Pastor Brandenburg has said,

In the story of Isaac, the two marriage candidates aren’t involved with each other at all. They must fully trust authority in their lives. This is pictured as the ideal.

 In this day and age, we have placed way too much emphasis on things like “compatability,” “romantic interest,” and even “love.”  A dating couple loves dating.  They love being with someone else who shares feelings with them.  They love romance and flowers and chocolates and activities together.  Do they also love each other?  They will say that they do.  Today.  Tomorrow that might change.  But one thing is sure.  They love to date.

Whether they really love each other or not is debatable.  I thought that I loved my wife before we married.  We felt like we were “in love.”  We told each other that, probably too much.  But that all seems so childish and immature now.  So, I won’t argue too vehemantly against limited involvement.  I will only say that historically, even when betrothal and arranged marriage was common, there was not an utter rejection of romantic interest.  In fact, I am told that the Puritans did not utterly reject romantic interest.

…the Puritans did not consider romantic unions the wayward by-product of “affectionate individualism,” for it was a pairing of both body and soul.  The Reformers too did not believe that anyone should be forced to enter marriage.  They actually executed fines, and even imprisonment, on parents if the consent of their children upon entering a marriage had not been freely given. 

- from Debbie Maken, Getting Serious about Getting Married, p. 49.  She sites John Witte, Jr., From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition. And Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were.

The reason to answer those two minor points is simply to show that young men are not bound to their fathers in the same way that young ladies are, and that a rejection of “dating” does not require a rejection of all romantic interest.  Romantic interest is good and necessary for a proper start to a Biblical union.

And having said all that, we move on to show that other approaches to marriage are equally lawful.

  Around the Parents, Not the Couple

The question has been raised whether or not the Bible shows Dad’s involvement in any way in a son’s individual pursuit of a young lady.  The answer is, yes.  Of course.  Proverbs is full of counsel to a young man in pursuit of marriage.  And, I would argue, the father is teaching the son the importance of listening to his father.  I am not, nor will I argue that a young man need not listen to his father, or seek fatherly counsel if circumstances prevent him from getting his father’s involvement.  But what we see in Proverbs is a father advising his son, pointing out the wrong kind, warning against disastrous pursuits of marriage, but all the while assuming that the son will be pursuing marriage.

This is a pattern in Scripture.  As we pointed out earlier, the son leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife.  But there is one argument that I believe sets the courtship model over and above the idea of “arranged marriage.”  And that is simply this.  While there is one example in Scripture of a father finding a wife and bringing her to his son, the Bible is full of commands to a father regarding his authority over his daughter in her marriage interests and sexual purity.  Numbers 30 would be an example.  Deuteronomy 22:13ff would be another.  And I Corinthians 7 would be another.  We also have historical grounds for saying so, as the long-standing custom has been for the father to give the daughter in marriage, as symbolized at the wedding.  It would be a strange thing to see the groom’s father walking him down the aisle.  The wedding ceremony starts with the bride’s father walking her down the aisle and giving her in marriage.  And this is a picture of what has been happening in the events leading up to the ceremony.

The Bible clearly states that Fathers give their daughters in marriage, and says nothing about the father of the groom.  The plain statement of Scripture carries more weight than Biblical examples, and this leads us to the point about Biblical “courtship.”  One parent has to be in charge, when it comes to seeking a wife. The Bible makes it very clear that the one in charge is the father of the bride. He gives her in marriage, and not the other way around.

The mature son then should approach the girl’s father, and should work through him towards marriage.  And so long as he is no Laban, he will be protected, he will be directed, and he will find the wife God has prepared for him.

Joseph found his wife.

Moses found his wife.

Eleazar took a wife.

The priests were instructed to “take a wife.” — Leviticus 21:13

The pattern is continued in Jeremiah 16:2

Hosea went and took his wife.

Jesus went to find his bride.

Proverbs 18:22 says,

Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favor of the LORD.

it doesn’t say,

Whoso’s father findeth him a wife obtaineth favor of the LORD.

My point in this drive-by post is just to say a few things related to finding a mate, marriage, and complementarianism.

1. Godly families rear their boys to be men and their girls to be ladies; therefore, the boys and girls should also find their mates in different (complementary) ways.
2. Parental involvement is present with both boys and girls, but vastly different.  If your son has not been trained by you how to seek and find a wife on his own (but with your guidance), how is he going to lead the family YOU put together for him?
3. Fathers, please recognize the huge responsibility you have to prepare your son to be able to find his wife. You are definitely involved, but the involvement shrinks as your son gets closer to marriage.

Some have used Genesis 24 as merely a picture of Christ and the church. They usually do the same thing with Song of Solomon. I believe those efforts represent something closer to an allegorical hermeneutic. I take the position that types should be stated. If there isn’t some strong connection of the dots, I don’t see a type or a figure. I can say that the ark is a picture of salvation because of other statements in Scripture about Noah and the flood.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that Genesis 24 is about the man leaving father and mother and cleaving to his wife. A pattern is provided. We should judge that pattern by propositional statements found elsewhere in the Bible. We should look at other examples. Everything combined should form the doctrine and practice. I’ve already looked through Scripture at other examples. Principles flesh themselves out that we see modeled here in Genesis 24. Let’s see what they are.

PRINCIPLES IN A PATTERN FOR THE OBTAINING OF ONE’S SPOUSE (Genesis 24)

Principle One—The Authority (Genesis 24:1-2, 49-51)

The chapter starts with Abraham even as he is the patriarch, the one in charge. As the chief executive of his household, he exerts authority over the man who oversees the entire home business, a house manager, something like we see referenced in the some of the parables of Jesus in the NT (Matthew 24:45, “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?”). The servant was the ruler over Abraham’s household, but in the chapter the servant repeatedly and subserviently refers to Abraham as his “master,” which is the word for “lord” (adone). The man is doing Abraham’s bidding all along the way, doing his lord’s will.

Later in the chapter Rebekah’s father Bethuel and her brother Laban stand in the way between the servant and Rebekah. They must decide if she we will go. In v. 49 the nameless servant makes it clear that they are dealing with Abraham in this circumstance. They decide in v. 51 that Isaac can have Rebekah as wife.

The Scriptural way depends upon authority for the obtaining of a life’s partner on both the man’s and the woman’s side. Following authority is the basis for making the right choice. The objectivity of the parent keeps it from emotions or hormones, deceit and defeat. Permission must be granted from the woman’s authority. Also, in the example of the family of Abraham, there is no independent adulthood between the two families. We have two homes in Scripture. In the first home, a man and a woman are under parental authority. In the second home, the man leaves his father and mother, the woman marries him, he becoming her head and she is help meet. There is not an in between marriage time when men or women operate unilaterally to parental authority. When that does happen in Scripture, it occurs almost unanimously to great harm to those who separate from the authority of their father.

The history of dating, essentially an English and mainly American phenomenon, is one in which the process toward marriage steps out from under the authority of parents. The children take the task into their own hands. Today parents are instructed to do so and often gladly do. Those who don’t do it gladly are most often marked as a kind of bigots. This history coincides with a radical cultural change that paralleled with the industrial revolution. Dad’s employment sent him away from home. School went from something small and close to home to something big and further away. Students far outnumbered adults. Boys and girls had more freedom to spend time relatively alone. The parents were less involved with their children. Boys and girls began announcing what they had taken into their own hands. Parents must accept. Now parents endorse.

Without parents initiating, the process took on all sorts of new dimensions. Feelings were now love. Love became the means of choice, but it was actually lust. With the kids taking charge, new dating skills were developed akin to the strange woman in Proverbs. Both boys and girls learned how to seduce at an early age. Less time was spent on skill, intellect, and spirit building and more on mating rituals. The music and fashion industries marketed to this. The young people bought what they were selling. Where we stand today, this has a stranglehold even on Christian college campuses. It is true that much of it is no longer about marriage, but about gratifying short-term physical and emotional desire.

When we see in Scripture this pattern followed of the children taking the authority in the choice of life’s partner, it is often embraced by rebels or godless pagans. Samson ordered his parents around and it lead to his downfall. Jacob, perhaps because he himself didn’t follow his parents instruction, didn’t restrain his own children enough, and this resulted in the sorry incident with Dinah and the Shechemites and then Judah’s corrupt dalliance with Tamar. A lot of problems in the Old Testament revolve around doing this the wrong way.

Dating today just imitates the worst examples in the Bible regarding authority. The whole history of dating contradicts the biblical, historical, and then really traditional way of getting a wife or husband. The point of dating has been for children to initiate the process. Even if the parents are closely involved, the young people are checking each other out and dressing and acting in a way to get that done. The kids then report back to their parents what they like and want. They take the Samson route or the foolish bread boy of Proverbs 7. The temperature goes up, the IQ goes down, and the relationship with the parents drastically changes. If the parents intervene, the kids resent it and the culture backs them up.

In the story of Isaac, the two marriage candidates aren’t involved with each other at all. They must fully trust authority in their lives. This is pictured as the ideal. It is the way of faith, even as we will see later in the chapter. It is the way of answered prayer. The parents are the ones doing everything, including doing the checking out. Of course, to those who don’t like this way, that means the parents pick out someone ugly for their child. After all, they don’t care about the physical as much as character and other matters, so they ignore looks. This isn’t true. Parents want a good match for their children too, but they don’t have to be affected by the looks in the same way that their children will be, where lust is involved. It also allows the looks and character issues to be balanced off.

Part of the attack on God’s way is also an attack on parental authority and ultimately the role of the Dad. Part of the conspiracy of Satan is to destroy the home and a great way to do that is to obliterate the role of the man in the home. He is succeeding at that and this is one of the ways. Dads don’t choose and then they don’t protect their daughters any more. They are a mere figurehead. They might get to choose what television channel the family will watch. Moms are often taking charge in the dating scene, feeling the emotions of their daughters along with them, role-playing, doing dress up, perhaps nostalgic of some of the best feelings they ever had in their life, when they were dating. So much emphasis is placed on dating and the wedding that the marriage is a several decade afterthought, if it lasts that long.

God is a good God, so His way is better, but it is His way. It’s understandable why kids want to be the ones involved all along, but that isn’t the pattern in Scripture. We are to be regulated by the pattern that God has given us for His honor and glory. Without faith it is impossible to please Him.

Principle Two—The Affiliations (Genesis 24:3-4)

Abraham is concerned first about what family she comes from. This relates to what she believes. The Canaanites were polytheists. Abraham’s family believed in the same God as Abraham. False religion was an immediate deal breaker. Abraham limited the possibilities to only the ones who would fit into his family’s belief system. Beliefs are the chief issue in a marriage. We don’t even approach people that don’t believe like we do.

Abraham utilized his servant. The servant was his networker. He went to look on behalf of Abraham, having the same thoughts about things. He went a long ways to get it done. We might need to go away from our own church and network with another church. The beliefs of the church and then the family are the first topics that should be considered in this search to find the wife. Since the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), that makes the most sense today as an application of getting to the location where the qualified possibilities are. I believe the church is a far better perimeter than the institution of the college. Colleges often bring together varied belief systems that will clash in areas not important to college, but very important to a life’s partner candidate.

In the realm of affiliations, there are other passages that apply to this. An obvious one is 2 Corinthians 6:14-16. The candidate should be a believer. In the case of Abraham, it was a family of monotheists, what we would see in principle as limiting ourselves to believers today. Amos 3:3 says it with “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” One reason people get divorced is “irreconcilable differences.” Different beliefs can be that kind of difference. Pea