BIBLICAL ATTITUDES TO ROMANTIC LOVE
Tyndale Bulletin 35 (1984) 91-128.THE TYNDALE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY LECTURE, 1983BIBLICAL ATTITUDES TO ROMANTIC LOVEBy John P. BakerI INTRODUCTIONRomantic Love'"When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said in arather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it tomean - neither more nor less"." The word 'love' can beunderstood in a number of ways, according to the speakerand context in question. The term 'romantic' is perhapseven more liable to misunderstanding, especially whencoupled with 'love'. One dictionary, for example,defines 'romance' as a 'mediaeval tale of chivalry', or‘a tale with scenes and incidents remote from ordinarylife, this class of literature, an episode or loveaffair suggesting it . . . sympathetic imaginativeness;exaggeration or falsehood'.2 'Romantic' has an evenless encouraging set of definitions: '1) marked by,suggestive of, or given to, romance; imaginative,visionary, fantastic, impractical; 2) (in art andliterature) preferring grandeur, and picturesqueness, orpassion and irregular beauty to finish and proportion. . . ’. To many people 'romantic' simply refers to a poeticworld of fantasy, dream, escape and remoteness. Yet theexpression 'romantic love' is often also used to referto the love of two persons of the opposite sex for oneanother, understood and expressed in terms ofattraction and devotion to each other, and delight andjoy in appreciation of each other, including the sexualand physical dimension, but not confined to that alone.It is in the latter sense that this paper willunderstand the expression 'romantic love'.1.2.Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass (London:Dean & Son, n.d.) 142.The Pocket Oxford Dictionary (Oxford: OUP, 5thedition, 1969).
92TYNDALE BULLETIN 35 (1984)C. S. Lewis once wrote: 'A romantic theologiandoes not mean one who is romantic about theology, butone who is theological about romance, one who considersthe theological implications of those experiences whichare called romantic.'3 A fresh look at the Bible'sunderstanding of romantic love, or love between thesexes, especially in relation to courtship and marriage,is made advisable by three historical and culturaltrends. First, the mediaeval idea of courtly love,which entered with the Provencal poets of Languedoc,apparently as a total novelty,5 in the eleventh centuryand swept across Europe in the succeeding years with thetroubadours, continues to reverberate through Westernculture. It has left behind it a double legacy: thefrequent identification of romance and sexual love withlove outside marriage; and a tendency for romantic andsexual relationships to be anchored in fantasy ratherthan reality.4 Though a lengthy literary process ofdevelopment in two directions, the result of this todaycan be seen at grass-roots level in the often sexlessfantasy romances of the nineteenth and earlier twentiethcentury cheaper women's books and magazines on the onehand, and in pornographic magazines for men on the other.A second historical fact is the exceedingly poortrack record of much of the teaching programme of theChristian churches in the West on the subject ofsexuality, love and marriage, the legacy of which isalso still with us. Both E. Schillebeeckx and J.Dominian5 point out that the Roman Catholic Church hasnot only exalted celibacy as the highest estate inChristian life and ministry, but has also tended tojustify sexual relations and even marriage itself almostexclusively in terms of the procreation of children. Ithas generally written and spoken of marriage incanonical and juridical terms, rather than in terms ofinterpersonal love and relationships. While there have3.4.5.C. S. Lewis (ed.) in Essays Presented to CharlesWilliams (Oxford: OUP, 1947) vi.Cf. C. So Lewis, The Allegory of Love (Oxford: OUP,1970 reprint) 2ff.E. Schillebeeckx, Marriage: Human Reality andSaving Mystery (London: Sheed & Ward, 1965),Introduction; J. Dominian, Christian Marriage(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1967) 17ff.
BAKER: Romantic Love93certainly been exceptions to this among the churches ofthe Reformation and their heirs, yet on the whole thesealso have been similarly affected by distorted vision.The combination of these first two historicaltrends goes some way towards explaining the penetratingobservation made by D. Sherwin Bailey: 'The church hasbeen unable to prevent the secularization and debasementof the romantic ideal. . . That there seemed to be nomiddle way between "puritanism" and licence was due tothe fact that romanticism had been allowed to become apurely secular force. The Reformation mitigated, butdid not remove, this anomaly, and even in modern timeswe have seen the church somewhat hesitant in assertingitself against secularism in such matters as sexeducation, and in resisting the encroachments of pseudoromanticism.’6 A re-examination of the biblicalwitness may show how tragic and damning an indictmentthis truly is.Thirdly, as Schillebeeckx correctly observes in theintroduction to his excellent book on marriage,7 recentdevelopments in western socio-economic and culturalpatterns make it especially appropriate and urgent forthe Church to re-examine the place of romantic love, 'inother words, the discovery of the personal aspect ofmarriage', which 'in the past was seldom the subject ofdiscussion'.8 These developments include the breakdownof the supportive structures of the larger tribal, clanand extended family unit (and even of much communitylife), and its replacement by the small, isolatednuclear family unit; the greatly raised status andchanging role of women in society and in the pattern offamily life; the advent of modern contraceptivetechniques; the much more widespread expectation ofpersonal fulfilment and happiness through the maritalrelationship; and the easier obtaining of divorce. Ifthe interpersonal relationship and mutual love of thetwo partners are not adequate to support a marriage,6.7.8.D. Sherwin Bailey, The Mystery of Love and Marriage:A Study in the Theology of the Sexual Relation(London: SCM, 1952) 9.Marriage, Introduction.Ibid. xix.
94TYNDALE BULLETIN 35 (1984)there is not a great deal else in society today to do so.Much as we may regret this fact, it surely lends pressingurgency to a consideration of this whole subject byChristian people, especially those who teach.Deliberately broadening our definition andunderstanding of the expression 'romantic love' beyondwhat some uses of the term 'romantic' would allow, weshall now turn to the Old and New Testaments to examinethe attitudes to romantic love to be found there, thatis, to love between man and woman, which includes thesexual dimension in the narrower sense but goes beyondit to embrace much more in the interpersonalrelationship, especially with regard to man and womanin courtship and marriage. (This is not of course todeny either that men and women relate in many other waysand contexts - as children, parents, brothers andsisters, friends, co-workers, etc. - or that theirmaleness and femaleness in the widest sense is relevantin those relationships. It is merely to restrict thescope of our enquiry, hopefully to manageableproportions.)II THE OLD TESTAMENTA. Cultural FactorsWhen we turn to Scripture the possible distinctionbetween 'biblical' patterns and attitudes and thedivine pattern has to be borne in mind at certainpoints. In other words, we have to make due allowance,first of all, for the medium of a divine revelationgiven in the context of ancient Near Eastern andSemitic social customs and cultural patterns. Theseinclude marriage patterns and customs, and themanagement of relationships between the sexes in familyand social contexts there (e.g., the arranged marriagepattern, the veiling of women or girls). These do notnecessarily convey a divine pattern for all time.Secondly, divine patterns, ideals and paradigms, divinecommands and even divine approval (expressed orimplied), must be distinguished from the concreteachievements or lack of them by people in Israelitesociety in any given time and instance, or even9.Cf. Schillebeeckx, Marriage 8, 82.
BAKER: Romantic Love95throughout much of the OT period. For instance, was theposition of women in marriage and the family implied inGenesis 2 always borne in mind and mirrored in laterIsraelite society? And how does Christ's redeeming ofus from the curse of the law affect the curse on thewoman in Genesis 3 in practice for us today?10This is such an important background factor that itrequires some attention at the outset. The ideal andpractice of romantic love, of interpersonal love andrelationships in relation to sexuality and marriage, arebound to be affected by several other factors. Some ofthese are: (1) the prevailing idea and ideal ofmarriage - its nature, function and purpose - in theculture concerned; (2) the prevailing system ofmarriage, who arranges it and with what ends in view,the ages at which people marry, the pattern ofcourtship, and even the form of the wedding ceremonies;(3) the position of, and attitude to, women in societyand the family, in relation to men; (4) the prevailingunderstanding of, and attitude to, human sexuality;(5) the prevalent pattern of social and family life,including the allocation of roles, tasks and time, andthe size and pattern of the family or tribal unit; and(6) the controlling concepts of love and responsibilitybehind human relationships and life as a whole.11A brief look at the prevailing system of marriagewill serve to illustrate the possible influence of onesuch factor here. It is well known that throughout thebiblical period the ancient Near East generally worked asystem of parentally arranged marriages, and this wasclearly the pattern in Israel,12 possibly due in partto the relatively young ages (thirteen and twelve years)at which boys and girls reached marriageable age. Thisdid not necessarily mean that the young people10.Gn. 3:16; Gal. 3:13. Polygamy and male headshipare two relevant issues, for instance.11. Most of these will be referred to in the course ofthis paper, but generally only in passing, insofaras they directly affect this study,12. See, e.g., Gn. 21:21;.38:6; Ru. 3:1-2; I Sa. 18:21.
96TYNDALE BULLETIN 35 (1984)themselves were not consulted. In at least twoinstances in the OT (Shechem and Samson) they expressedtheir choice first, and left the parents to negotiatethe marriage for them; Esau rejected his parents' choice;Abraham sent his servant to find the right sort of wifefor Isaac, but Rebekah's family asked for her agreement;Jacob was told by his father the direction in which hewas to look for a bride, and then sent off to go andfind her himself; and an older man like Boaz arrangedthings himself, though still with regard to wider familyissues.13 So the pattern was reasonably flexibleaccording to age and circumstances, but it was still aparentally arranged pattern which prevailed. The mainreasons for this are probably connected with theuniversally recognized need to marry in order to raiseup descendants to continue a man's and a family'sinheritance among Yahweh's covenant people, and thefeeling that marriage in reality involved far more thanthe simple union of a man and woman - it involved arelationship, expressed as a binding contract, betweenthe two families concerned, who presumably could then becounted on to give their general support to the couplein the years ahead.To anyone growing up in a different society andculture, where an idea of romantic love grounded on apersonal choice by the couple on the sole basis ofmutual attraction rules supreme and unquestioned, aparental arrangement of the Israelite type may seemappallingly uncongenial. Others may wonder whether itwas any more dangerous and hurtful than the present'free-for-all' system obtaining in the western world,which perhaps offers much less protection to vulnerableyoung people today. The general merits or demerits ofthe biblical system of arranged marriage do not concernus here, however, but rather two or three facts andimplications surrounding it.First, parentally arranged marriage as such neverreceives explicit divine approval or disapproval as asystem.14 It may, like slavery, monarchy or imperial13.14.Gn. 34:4, 8; Jdg. 14:2: Gn. 26:34-5; 24:1ff. andv. 58; 28:1-5; Ru. 3:11-4:13.On one interpretation of the Song of Songs it may befelt there is an implicit disapproval of certainaspects of it in relation to the king's harem.
BAKER: Romantic Love97government, simply be accepted as part of the status quo,although some (like Abraham) used the system in a betterand more godly way than others. Legislation wasintroduced to curtail and limit the abuses of this andother aspects of marriage and human relationships,15 butthe system as such (as opposed to marriage itself) isnot approved or condemned by comparison with any othersystem. Secondly, however, the system points us to twothings which may be important corollaries, and whichseem to place a question-mark against certain nonbiblical ideas of romantic love. It focuses attentionupon the whole family unit in society, and not just onthe couple alone. Moreover, it allows for anunderstanding of love in marriage which has at least asmuch to do with the commitment of the will as with thestate of the emotions, glands or hormones. One writercomments: 'If it was (earlier) possible to write: "Ilove you, because you are my wife", there is no doubtthat modern man would express this the other way round:“You are my wife because I love you".16 When we cometo look at the idea of love in the Old and NewTestaments, this point will be reinforced further.It is generally accepted that in the Middle Agesthe romantic ideal of courtly love as a love outsidemarriage grew up because there was no room for it inmarriages which were arranged, often in childhood, almostentirely for social or political convenience, and inwhich the woman's place was so far from being equal tothe man that she was part of his property rather thanhis partner,17 It might be imagined that the biblicalpattern of arranged marriages and male headship wouldlikewise banish interpersonal and romantic love fromthe marital bond, or at least make it difficult andimprobable. But in fact, despite the human shortcomings and failures of which Scripture has manyexamples, we shall find that this is not necessarily thecase.15. E.g., in Ex. 21:7-11; Dt. 21:10-14; 24:1-5; 25:5-10.16. Schillebeeckx, Marriage xix.17. Lewis, Allegory 13. See also D. Day Williams, TheSpirit and the Forms of Love (London: Nisbet, 1968)119-230, in correction of D. de Rougemont's Love inthe Western World (New York: Pantheon, 1956edition).
98TYNDALE BULLETIN 35 (1984)B. 'From The Beginning. . .'The interpersonal relationship of love between aman and a woman which includes specifically sexualattraction and intimacy is placed by Scripture from thevery first in the context of marriage as both itsnatural God-given goal and the proper context for itsfull enjoyment and expression. The two accounts of thecreation of man in Genesis 1 and 2 complement oneanother here. The first18 in Genesis 1:26ff. stressesthe creation of man as male and female and links thisbi-sexual creation with the image of God and fruitfulness in multiplying so as to fill the earth and subdueit. This important aspect of human sexuality, thebearing of 'seed' (in common with the rest of the livingcreatures) is never lost sight of in Scripture. But itis not the only rationale, purpose or justification ofthe man/woman relationship, nor therefore of marriage,since in Genesis 2:18ff. it is rather the fitting helpand companionship which God gives to the man throughwoman which is in view - a partnership which no othercreature could provide. It is in this context that the'one-flesh' union and cleaving of the man and woman areunderstood here, and this union forms the basis of allthe possibilities, delights and joys of married lovewhich are referred to later in the biblical writings.The springs of romantic love between husband and wifelie in Genesis 2, and the reference to 'leaving andcleaving' in v. 24 makes it clear that the union of thetwo as one flesh refers to a dedication to partnershiptogether in the whole of life, and not just to sexualintercourse.1918.19.First, that is, in the pages of Scripture, but notnecessarily in chronological order of composition.At first sight 1 Cor. 6:16 might seem to arguedifferently, but L. Smedes argues convincingly thatthe force of Paul's argument is concerned to affirmthat the logic and intention of intercourse initself is an inter-personal life-union (Sex in TheReal World [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976;Berkhamsted, Herts.: Lion, 1979] 120-126.
BAKER: Romantic Love99Genesis 1 and 2 both state the goodness of humansexuality in its physical and other aspects as God'screation, the first chapter by God's viewing all that hehad made as 'very good', and the second by its closingstatement of the couple's unashamed nakedness. But thedisobedience and resultant curse of the following chapterproduce fear, guilt, shame and 'cover-up', and adislocation and inequality in their relationship to oneanother as well as to their Creator and the rest ofcreation. Even after this the author goes on todescribe the sexual union and intercourse of the man andhis wife as personal 'knowledge' of one another(Gn. 4:1, 17, 25), thereby stressing that sexual intimacyis a revealing form of inter-personal knowledge, andunderlining the character of our physical sexuality asan aspect of the personalities of creatures madetogether in the image of God. H. Thielicke expresses itthus: 'The mystery of man consists in theinterconnection of personhood and bios.'20Declension follows on from the fall of man andwoman, including polygamy, violence, abuse, incest, andrape, which in due course have to be curbed andcontrolled by clear and strong laws reinforcing andmoulding social conventions and behaviour.21 But thesignificance of the opening chapters of Genesis for ourtheme is paramount in making clear the Creator'sintention in creating man and woman, however far shortof its fulfilment particular people or societies mayfall in later years. Monogamous marriage is the ideal,with a clear affirmation of the goodness on every levelof human sexuality, and the union which it makespossible. This union has in view both the raising ofchildren to multiply the race, and also the uniquepartnership of love, help and complementarity betweenman and wife. Since Genesis 2 and later parts ofScripture stress that it is marriage that is here inview,22 it is difficult to overstate the significanceof the Bible's placing of such love from the firstfirmly in the context of the committed union ofmarriage.20.H. Thielicke, The Ethics of Sex (London: Clarke,1964) 20.21. See Ex. 21:7-11; 22:16-17; Lv. 18:6ff.; 19:20-22,29;20:10-21; Dt. 21:15-17; 22:13-30; 27:20-23.22. Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5; Mk. 10:7; Eph. 5:31.
100TYNDALE BULLETIN 35 (1984)The themes of the early chapters of Genesis recurand are followed through in varying degrees in many partsof the OT and NT. Sometimes it is the Genesis 1 strandof the picture (viz. multiplying) which is to the fore,but at other times it is more the relationship betweenthe partners in the marriage covenant which is in view.The goodness of human sexuality is never lost fromsight, but the importance of the perspective and contextof its physical expression is constantly stressed. AsGod's creation it is prevented from assuming a divineauthority of its own, as if it were a god in its ownright, and it is firmly dissociated by the Mosaic lawand the prophets from the cultic context into which theidolatrous fertility religions of the surroundingheathen nations had placed it, cult prostitution beingcompletely outlawed as an abomination to God (Lev. 19:29;Dt. 23:17-18; I Ki. 14:24; Ho. 4:12-14). Men, women andchildren are protected by strict laws against the worstravages which sin and waywardness can wreak in humanlives and relationships through the abuse of humansexuali
Tyndale Bulletin 35 (1984) 91-128. THE TYNDALE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY LECTURE, 1983 BIBLICAL ATTITUDES TO ROMANTIC LOVE By John P. Baker I INTRODUCTION Romantic Love
I. Is LOVE AN ART? II. THE THEORY OF LOVE 7 1. Love, the Answer to the Problem of Human Existence 2. Love Between Parent and Child 3. The Objects of Love a. Brotherly Love b. Motherly Love c. Erotic Love d. Self-Love e. Love of God III. LOVE AND ITS DISINTEGRATION IN CONTEM-PORARY WESTERN SOCIETY 83 IV. THE PRACTICE OF LOVE 107File Size: 1MBPage Count: 148Explore furtherThe Art of Loving by Erich Fromm - Goodreadswww.goodreads.comThe Art of Loving According to Erich Fromm - Exploring .exploringyourmind.comThe Art of Loving - Kindle edition by Fromm, Erich. Health .www.amazon.comRecommended to you b
Basics of Biblical Greek Workbook Basics of Biblical Greek Vocabulary Cards Basics of Biblical Greek Audio CD Biblical Greek: A Compact Guide The Morphology of Biblical Greek The Analytical Greek Lexicon to the Greek New Testament A Graded Reader of Biblical Greek The Zondervan Greek and English Interlinear New Testament (NASB/NIV)
Biblical theology History of biblical theology Christ. Though the victory has been decisively achieved, its final celebration and realization . In NEW DICTIONARY OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, 11-20. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000. History of biblical theology of rejecting the OT altogether .
BRLJ Brill Reference Library of Judaism BRS The Biblical Resource Series BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BTS Biblical Tools and Studies BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft . CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBR Currents in Biblical .
describes the musical style and characteristics of the Romantic Period. On a separate sheet of paper draw, if the statement describes the Romantic period, and if the statement does not. _1. Nationalism is evidently shown in some compositions. _2. Romantic music is monophonic, plain, and repetitive _3.
The Chemistry of Love: Could the first opportunity to fall in love influence our ability to love for a lifetime? By Denise Fisher, MMidPrac, BNurs, IBCLC There are many different types of love: sexual, romantic, platonic, filial, maternal, paternal, spiritual, love of self, love of cou
The love dare challenge day 1. The love dare challenge reviews. The love dare daily challenges. The love dare challenge printable. The fireproof love dare challenge. The love dare challenge app. I believe the only thing you need to have to know true love is true love. SearchReSearchDaniel M. Surprisingly, I am not in a failing marriage, but I .
h,’by’ using’clues’foundwithinthe’story ’ Icanusevariousstrategiestodeterminethe’ meaning’of’words’and’phrases’ Icanrecognizewordsinatextthatallude’ and’ mine’ meaning’ Allude’’ ’ Fourth’Grade’
