You are here

Home ›

Wooing as Warfare, part 2: examples

by David and Tim Bayly on November 26, 2007 - 4:28am
  1. Christus Victor. Victor? Over what? In what? For what? For a friend? In a game? Over Himself?
  2. David with Michal. Too literal, perhaps, to be seen by some, but obvious.
  3. Jacob with Rachel. Seven years hard labor.
  4. Jacob with Leah. Why Leah? Well, what exactly was that thing that took place between Leah and Rachel post-marriage? And where exactly did Jacob fit in that equation? Some victories are pyrrhic....
  5. David with Abigail. Obvious again.
  6. David with Bathsheba. Nor are all wars fought fairly.
  7. Tamar. The whole ugly, glorious mess.
  8. Boaz with Ruth. Strategies, plans, obstacles, and...victory.
  9. Esther. Some wars are prosecuted by the weaker vessel.
  10. Gomer. Hosea 2:14-17

Permalink

Comments

Submitted by Brady on November 26, 2007 - 5:19am
What about the first example of marriage, Adam and Eve? What about Solomon and his beloved? Are there exceptions to the rule of warfare? Because as I see it, those may be two of the most important illustrations of how marriage should be played out (the first being marriage where there is no sin yet in the world, and the second being the only courtship/marriage process that is its own book of the Bible). Sure Adam lost a rib, but I don't see that as warfare. He is not trying to overcome the authority of Eve's parents. And Solomon and his beloved fought temptation, but to call it an all out war seems a little more dramatic than the way I read the story.

Submitted by Kim Berner on November 26, 2007 - 6:08am
I'm glad you put Gomer. The story of Hosea and Gomer has recently become one of my favorites.

Submitted by Joel on November 26, 2007 - 9:26am
Dinah's story has its possibilities, if the warfare is not only between the lovers but with the families to whom they have to answer.

Submitted by Joshua W.D. Smith on November 26, 2007 - 12:11pm
If these are meant to show that wooing is a victory of the groom over the bride, then few of them fit. 1. Christ was the victor over, if you will, the pimp who enslaved the bride: Christ did not fight against the bride or against her father. Christ sacrificed himself for his bride: he put himself between her and her enemies. 2. David fought for her, to meet a condition set by her father. Where does he fight against her in his wooing (now, later on, when she despised his godly joy, is another question)? 3. Jacob served at hard labor for Rachel. When did he fight against her or against her father? 4. There was some major deception here by Laban, but I don't see how war fits into the wooing process here. After the marriages, there was conflict between the wives and Jacob favored Rachel, which wasn't a great idea and could be considered at attack on Leah, but that was part of the sinful consequences of polygamy, so it can't be considered normative for Christian marriage. 5. When did David fight against Abigail? She in fact convinces him not to fight against Nabal at that time. And, as in #6, this is David taking another man's wife: not exactly a model for godly Christian wooing and marriage. 6. This situation was a total mess: David could be perceived as "attacking" Bathsheba, and he certainly attacked Uriah, but how can you take this situation, full of violence and sin, and say that this contributes at all to a proper normative view of wooing and marriage? 7. Umm...how exactly does this contribute to a normative view of Christian wooing and marriage? Again, it is certainly full of violence, and Judah could be viewed as "attacking" Tamar by denying her marriage rights, but how does that mean that godly Christian wooing is fighting against the bride and her family? 8. How does Boaz fight against Ruth? On the contrary, the godly Boaz begins with compassion on her and respect for her godliness. Naomi plots, but she puts two godly people in a compromising position: are you saying that Naomi's planning is normative for parents? 9. Again, how are you getting this as an example of godly Christian wooing and marriage? Esther was an oppressed slave who was under attack by a power-hungry despot. Are you saying that the king is a model for young Christian prospective husbands? 10. Okay, maybe this one, but this is not a general principle, but rather part of Hosea's prophetic calling to show forth how God has dealt with His unfaithful people. Using this to construct a normative view of wooing is like using Isaiah's year spent naked to construct a Biblical view of clothing. So, if these are the bases for your "wooing as warfare" paradigm, you need to go back to the drawing board. A godly wooer does not attack the bride or her family, but rather does whatever he can for them, fighting on their behalf: Boaz for Ruth (fighting poverty, hunger, and the verbal abuse of rough fieldhands), or David for Michal (fighting against the covenant enemies of Israel), or Christ for the Church (fighting against sin, death, and the devil). So, sure, wooing is warfare: the enemy is sinful desires, and the young man ought to fight them on behalf of the honor and godliness of the young woman and of her family. And he should have allies in that fight in his own family and in hers, rather than opponents. The language of warfare as wooing ("vanquishing" the woman, for example) comes more from medieval courtly romance than from Scripture.

Submitted by Joshua W.D. Smith on November 26, 2007 - 12:19pm
Far too often, the families are allies of the sin. How? 1. Underestimating the enemy (i.e., sinful desires). "They're good kids--I'm sure they wouldn't do anything like that." 2. Poor training. "Well, they're good kids, so I don't really need to talk to them." 3. Abdicating responsibility. "I'm sure the youth group leader has talked about that." 4. Failing to patrol the borders. "Sure, kids, take the SUV--giant back seat and all--out for your date tonight. Just be back by 10--we'll be asleep, so she can just let herself in..." And if you think these things don't happen in Christian families, think again. I have seen all of these in action first-hand. It is this kind of thing that the modern Christian courtship "movement"--in its best, non-wacky proponents-- seeks to avert.

Submitted by David Bayly on November 26, 2007 - 1:31pm
Joshua, I get the feeling your ox has been gored. Had you really interacted with the post you would have noticed, for instance, that I was speaking in #9 of Esther warring for Artaxerxes and not the reverse. You were in too much of a rush to find the problem to note what I was actually saying. In fact, I largely agree with your second post. But a lockstep commitment to "courtship" leads to a blindness to other points of view and that's a large part of the reason I began this series of posts. In Christ, David Bayly

Submitted by Keith LaMothe on November 26, 2007 - 4:47pm
(referring to both this and the part 1 post) Brother David, Well, that's sure thought provoking. How's the meat off the sacred cow you just slaughtered? Perhaps I should say "sacred calf", the movement is still kinda young. Have you read Wilson's _Her Hand In Marriage_? Would you consider that an expression of the movement you are reacting against? I think you've got a point about the danger "courtship" meaning "insulation from temptation". On the other hand, I think it is vital that the young lady's family (particularly the father) be treated with the utmost respect by the young man. Respect includes both the general sense and particularly the "if-the-father-says-leave-my-daughter-alone-!-then-do-so" sense. In wooing, the man is fighting to gain *consent*, correct? The consent of the woman, and the consent of her father. The young man is seeking to take authority over the young lady, an authority that the father will necessarily lose, but he is to honor the wishes of her father throughout the wooing, correct? In what way does he war against the father? Thanks, Keith

Submitted by John Dekker on November 26, 2007 - 4:55pm
Which Tamar do you mean?

Submitted by David Bayly on November 26, 2007 - 5:16pm
Dear Keith, No. I bought it out in Moscow last month, had Doug autograph it for my daughter, then somehow lost it on my way home. So it's one of his books that I've not read. I did ask him about courtship when we were with him and Nancy for dinner, and what he described of his view of didn't seem to me the frequent "I'm going to protect my daughter from all comers" view of many courtship advocates. In fact, modern courtship often strikes me as akin to Saul's challenge to David for Michal. It's not so much a wise ad hoc course of action as a prescribed course and test. Your brother in Christ, David John, I was thinking of the Genesis Tamar, Judah's daughter-in-law. I suppose the story of Amnon and Tamar could also be put in the list as an example of sinful conquest, but I didn't think of it because it didn't involve marriage. David

Submitted by Joshua W.D. Smith on November 27, 2007 - 12:55pm
David, Point taken on the Esther section. Even if the war is prosecuted by Esther against Artaxerxes, however, I still don't find it a great resource for normative descriptions of godly, Christian wooing and marriage. As usual, one's view of a movement or idea depends largely on one's view of the problem. Sure, a blind adherence to "courtship rules" would be a problem, but I've never met anyone or been part of a community that follows courtship in some kind of lock-step way...or even really considers courtship at all. What I have seen is both Evangelicals and Reformed folks ignoring the question entirely and thereby accepting the status quo of serial dating without any significant protections, especially for young women, who are increasingly vulnerable as the world tells them what they have to be in very explicit fashion (stood in a supermarket check-out line recently?) and tells them that their fathers are not to be trusted (e.g., the major Disney movies of the 90's, which were full of foolish, weak, or irrational fathers whose daughters were in charge). So, I see the problem as simply accepting the culture's views of dating and total failure on the part of parents and churches to consider a more Biblical paradigm. So, I apologize if I seemed over-hasty. The folks I know don't need more reasons to reject even considering some sort of courtship model. Plus, I simply don't find that your Biblical examples actually establish a norm of wooing as warfare against the bride or the family, especially when the paradigmatic courtship is Christ's wooing of the church. He never fights against her, but rather always and ever for her, and she is graciously bestowed as a gift to him. Your examples include notorious sins (Judah, David & Bathsheba), polygamy that runs against the creation order (Jacob and his wives, David & Abigail), etc. The fact that such examples show wooing as warfare seems to me to indicate the opposite: these are not examples to be followed.

Add new comment

The Gospel Blimp
Man vs. Lust
 
Conference, I Believe in God the Father Almighty
 

Recent Comments

more
Subscribe to Recent Comments