Page 16 - Advanced OT Survey Revised

Once a sandal was placed as a marker or exchanged to validate a vow, no person would ever move the
marker as this was forbidden in Torah (Deut. 19:14. This covenant is thus the progression from being a
friend to being a son or daughter who would inherit the land. That is why the sandal covenant is also
viii
called a Covenant of Inheritance, as it validates ownership of land.

Marriage Covenant
In Bible days, most marriages were arranged by the parents of
their children. Young ladies were married off quite young,
compared to today. Sometimes young ladies as old as 13 were
married to a young man, not more than 17. Most of the time,
the man was a bit older. Upon agreeing upon a match, the
young couple entered a period called a betrothal. This was a
period of at least one year where the couple made a covenant
of marriage and signed legal documents, however, they did not
live together. The young lady would remain under her father’s care and plan on setting up a household
for her future husband. The young man would spend his time constructing a home or addition to
provide a house for his wife when they came together.

The marriage covenant was a man and woman covenanting to one another in an unconditional
covenant. The performance of either did not determine the outcome of the marriage. The man
unconditionally vowed to love and care for his wife, regardless of what may come in the future and what
she brought to the relationship. The same was true of the wife.

A good example of this type of covenant is revealed in the story of Mary and Joseph. Since marriages
were arranged by the parents so Mary and Joseph probably did not know each other very well, so
Joseph should not be blamed for mistrusting Mary when he discovered that she was with child.

The commitment of a betrothal was so legally binding that a divorce breaking that commitment was
required (1:19). Joseph had little choice. If a man’s betrothed became pregnant, people would assume
that she had regarded him as an inadequate man, and this would publicly humiliate him. It also spoke of
her lack of discretion and unwillingness to keep herself pure for her husband. Worse yet, if he did not
divorce her, people would assume that he was the father of the child, and he would bear great shame in
a culture that was obsessed with shame and honor. He would bear this shame for multiple years to
come.

Jewish law required a man to divorce a wife who had been unfaithful. Joseph could have divorced Mary
publicly in a court of justice. The court would not only establish his innocence but also, he would get to
keep Mary’s entire dowry. By planning to divorce her privately, Joseph elected to forfeit the profit of
her dowry rather than shame her any further.

Mary trusted in the Lord and He resolved her issue with Joseph. The same angel informed Joseph that
the child was not as a result of infidelity but was to be the miraculous birth of the coming Messiah.
Willing to endure public shame along with Mary, he took her for his wife into his own home and cared
for her as if the child were his. Joseph was a loving man of God.

Joseph remained faithful to his marriage covenant for the rest of his life. So should we. Many couples
today who enter marriage look to the other partner to “make them happy.” They enter with a
conditional vow. “You must perform for me to make me happy, then we will have a good marriage.”

14