Old Testtament Wives

[backtothefuture]

Hi,
I was wondering today and did a little searching on some of the Old Testament people in regards to Marriage. I found that Abraham was only married to Sarah. His child with Hagar was not considered a marriage? Is that right. Was it then adultery and sin? He technically under the law only re-married when Sarah died.
Also, David though having lots of wives and concubines, after repenting with that little fling with Bathsheba was not considered married but to only her?
And Solomon, he was just wild and crazy and I am not sure if he really ever under the law did the right thing when it came to marriage.
I was always under the impression that many of the old testament patriarch's had lots of wives, but maybe that was not so:uhh: I have read so much this year about the bride and the bridegroom. Seems like God still wanted just that one on one with marriage. And yet who would be considered the bride today? One type of person or many?
Any thoughts in this area?
Nancy

[Amie]

Forgive my late reply Nancy, this thread slipped my mind!

On another thread, Joe (goinliveinfive) brought up some marital laws:


In Old Covenant terms, the marriage began contractually with the engagement and there were dire consequences for violating a woman who was pledged to another and those consequences were suffered by BOTH parties involved.


Under the Law, a marriage could not be legitimized if the woman wasn't a virgin (hence the parents of the bride keeping the wedding night bedclothes to prove she bled when her hymen was broken) and a man could legally divorce his wife because she belonged spiritually to another.


Even in the event of rape, a woman under the law would be required to marry her rapist under certain circumstances.

In response, I wrote:


Each of the laws that you listed above drive home the sacredness of the act of sex. As for the first, a pledge meant that the woman was to be treated as if the act (consummation = sex) had taken place, therefore consequences would be dealt as if it had.

In the second above, if a woman were found not to be a virgin, that evidenced (supposedly) that she had consummated herself to another and then violated that by not joining with that person in marriage. A man could put her away (what she did was "fornication") because she was therefore impure. NOT impure because she was absent a hymen, but impure because she was actually covenantally bound to another man.

In the third example, again, the sacred act of consummation meant covenantal responsibility on the behalf of the male.

To cut a covenant an animal was split into two halves (spilling blood between the two halves). Two would walk between the animal saying ritually "if I do not keep my part of the bargain/if I do not keep my promise, you may do to me what was done to this animal". I would think that it would not be necessary to point out the parallels between this ritual and sex (consummation).

Sex in the Old Covenant was a bond, and sacred. Basically if you had sex with a woman, you had consummated a covenant with her and vice versa. They were then bound to one another by law and what God had joined, no man may tear apart. Perhaps he didn't make them have sex, but he made them to have sex - having the right organs and given them their desires.

That law was fulfilled when Christ accepted everyone as virgins. Today we have liberty. We have learned a great deal from our freedom - much of what you posted and I agree with.

Sex was not always as demonized as it is societally (though things are getting MUCH better). It wasn't seen so negatively - I would venture to say that it was to the extreme in the other direction which isn't so great either.

Jesus said that from the beginning "two" became one flesh. By a literal understanding of covenantal bond, men could have many wives. The fulfillment of the marital law in love as I understand it was that everyone belongs to God, and not to one another.

When asked about a bill of divorce given them by Moses, Jesus replies that from the beginning God made them male and female and the two would become one flesh. "One flesh" literally meant a sexual union resulting in a joined offspring.

Ephesians 5
30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.

Christ did 'enter into' them (the sexual union imagry). Paul continues in quoting the same Scripture that Jesus did in Mark 10 and then concludes in openly explaining the meaning:

Ephesians 5
31 "For this, a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh." Gen. 2:24
32 The mystery is great, but I speak as to Christ and as to the assembly.

The people waaay back did not have the ability to interpret the law the way that we have, because they did not have Christ's teachings to do it with. I'm sure that God expected that of them and even intended for the misunderstanding to grow and grow. It would only witness to the truth in Gospel itself.

Amie