What was betrothal in biblical times?

It is not now known how the negotiations were conducted that led to a man and woman being betrothed, or espoused, or what were the ceremonies usually attending it. The betrothed couple were at once looked upon as husband and wife, as seen in the case of Joseph, who thought of divorcing his espoused wife Mary. Matt. 1:18-19. In the East a man does not usually see his espoused wife until they are married (as Isaac did not see Rebecca and had no choice in the matter), the engagement, and the amount of dowry to be paid by the husband to the bride's father, being arranged by the relatives.

Of the ancient marriage ceremonies very little is known. On the night of a marriage the young women went forth with lamps or torches to meet the bridegroom and to escort him to the house of the bride, as in Matt. 25. Such processions have been seen in modern times, and the same cry has been heard, "Behold the bridegroom." They had marriage feasts, as in the parable of Matt. 22 (when a special garment was provided for each of the guests), and as the one to which the Lord, His mother, and His disciples were invited at Cana, where the Lord made the water into wine. John 2:1-11.

Among the Jews this was looked upon as being as binding as marriage, and could not be dissolved except by divorce. Certain laws were given as to a betrothed woman. Ex. 21:8-9; Deut. 20:7; Deut. 28:30. Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus, was betrothed to Joseph, and he contemplated putting her away privately, but was instructed as to the truth of her condition by the angel of the Lord. Matt. 1:18-19; Luke 1:27; Luke 2:5. It is used symbolically to express Jehovah's favour to His ancient people in a future day, when He will 'betroth' them to Himself for ever. Hosea 2:19-20. Also as to the position in which the church stands to Christ: Paul wrote to the Corinthian saints "I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." 2 Cor. 11:2. The conduct of the saints should be true to this betrothal.

The status of betrothal was in the eye of Jewish law the same as that of marriage: Deut. 22:23 f.

Therefore "Joseph also went up from Galilee,46 out of the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to David's city, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house and family of David), to be enrolled with Mary47 his betrothed wife,47a she being great with child." From the time that a woman among the Jews was espoused, she was considered legally the wife of him to whom she was betrothed. Thus the Lord, while really Son of His mother Mary, was legally of Joseph; and both Joseph and Mary were of the royal line. The Lord Jesus, therefore, represented David on both sides; but as the law required, He was the descendant of Solomon on the legal side. For no matter how unquestionably He might have been the Son of Mary, descended from the Nathan stem, He could not have been according to law the Messiah as long as there was a living representative of the Solomon branch. But the Lord, being the legally-reputed Son of Joseph as well as Mary's child, was precisely so descended as to be in every required respect "David's Son," the Messiah. I say this quite independently of His Divine glory, which was demanded for other and far deeper reasons. "Wife": so AΔ and later uncials, nearly all cursives (including 33, 69) and Amiat. — Edd. omit, after ℵBCpm DL, etc. Syrsin simply "wife" (Mrs. Lewis in Expositor: "under full legal protection of Joseph").

But first observe Joseph's conduct. Being a just man, and not willing to make his wife a public example, he was minded to put her away privily. You must bear in mind that Joseph and Mary had been a long time espoused, and, by Jewish law, if two were espoused, any fruit that came in the way of nature was regarded as their mutual offspring. Therefore Joseph concluded he would be regarded as the father of this unborn child. Yet he was not hasty or precipitate. He had not got the jealous nature that many a man would boast of, and did not act with that rashness that others even would admire in such circumstances. It is well to think matters well over when a difficulty crosses your path.

Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Her posterity was consequently legally that of Joseph, as to the rights of inheritance; but the child she carried in her womb was of divine origin, conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. The angel of Jehovah is sent, as the instrument of providence, to satisfy the tender conscience and upright heart of Joseph, by communicating to him that that which Mary had conceived was of the Holy Ghost.

But let us look for a little at the remaining view given us of our Lord Jesus in this chapter. Joseph is made very prominent. The genealogy itself is that of Joseph, not of Mary. On the other hand, Mary is the principal figure of the two in Luke, and there it is, I believe, her genealogy. Why is this? It was of necessity, for a Jew, that Jesus should be the heir of Joseph. The reason is that Joseph was the direct lineal descendant of the royal branch of David's house. There were two lines that came down unbroken to those days — the house of Solomon and the house of Nathan. Mary was the representative of Nathan's family, as Joseph was of Solomon's. If Mary had been mentioned without her connection with her husband, there would not have been a legal right to the throne of David. It was necessary that the Messiah should be born, not merely of a virgin, nor of a virgin daughter of David, but of one legally united to Joseph, i.e., in the eye of the law, really his wife. This is carefully recorded here for the special instruction of Israel; for an intelligent Jew would at once have asked that question, and everything must be fenced round with holy jealousy. Let people calumniate as they might, Mary must be espoused to Joseph; else the Lord Jesus would not have a proper title to the throne of David, and therefore the stress here is not laid upon Mary but upon Joseph, because the law would have always maintained the claim of Joseph. On the other hand, had Joseph been the real father, there could have been no Saviour at all. As it is, the wonder of divine wisdom shines most conspicuously, making Him legally the son of Joseph, really the son of Mary, who in the truth of His nature is the Son of God. And all three met and merged in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He must be the undisputed heir of Joseph according to the law, and Joseph was espoused to Mary. The child must be born before Joseph ever lived with Mary as his wife, and this we are carefully shown here.

In the third case, there is not a dealing with known sin, but even the suspicion is not to be tolerated in the people of God. In the jealousy-offering, a direct appeal to God is provided in such a case, where indeed the sin suspected struck at the very foundation of that family relation which not only in Israel but elsewhere is itself the foundation of all other relation between man and man. Its place here, therefore, where the purification of the camp is in question, is perfectly simple, while the typical meaning adds to its significance. The relation of man and wife is that by which (as the nearest and most intimate of all,) it pleased God to set forth His own relation with His covenant-people (Isa. 44:5; Jer. 31:32). The Church is at present but espoused to Christ, not married (2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7); but as to the bond existing, Scripture treats it as the same in both cases (Deut. 22:23-24). To the Church, therefore, also the type fully applies, — in its details, more completely than to Israel.

On the other hand, if the wife had been guilty of fornication and had hid this from her husband, she was to be stoned to death (vs.20-21). This was solemn judgment, but again, this was under law, and the same judgment cannot be carried out under grace, though the crime is abhorrent to God. But grace seeks to restore rather than to condemn.

In the case of a man committing adultery with a woman married to a husband, both the guilty man and the woman were to be put to death (v.22). This is justice. If such a sentence were carried out today, how many people would die! But too many people, taking advantage of God's patient grace, think they can get away with much evil. What a shock it will be for many who have not actually received the .grace of God by faith, when they find themselves faced before God with all the evils they have so lightly practiced!

A young woman might be engaged to be married, yet consent to have sexual intercourse with another man. If the man enticed her, being in a city, she could cry out for help (vs.22-23). If she did not, then she was implicated in the guilt of adultery, and both were to be put to death.

In contrast to being in the city, where a woman's cries for help could be heard, a man may have, in the country, forced a betrothed woman against her will in spite of her cries for help (v.25). This was rape, for which the man must die and the woman be held innocent (vs.26-27).

If a man and woman who were not married nor engaged were guilty of having sexual intercourse, the man must pay fifty shekels of silver to the woman's father and keep her as his wife, being forbidden to ever divorce her (vs.28-29). In all of these things God shows the seriousness of having sexual relationships. He intended this only within the marriage bond, and those who today violate this can expect unpleasant consequences, as well as the displeasure of the Lord.

This was forbidden in the ten commandments; but neither there nor anywhere else is the sin defined. It seems clear, that as far as the man was concerned, if he had intercourse with a woman unless it was with a married woman, he would not be charged with adultery, though he himself might be married; indeed how could he be when he was allowed more wives than one, as well as concubines and slaves? If he committed adultery with a married woman or with one betrothed, both were to be put to death. Deut. 22:22-24. With the woman it was stricter, she must have no intercourse with any man but her husband. If a man was jealous of his wife there was the ordeal of the bitter waters provided to test her innocence. Num. 5:11-31. But we do not read that any man or woman was stoned for adultery, nor that any woman drank the bitter waters. We know from the New Testament that Moses had, because of the hardness of their hearts, allowed a certain looseness, and a man could divorce his wife for any cause, which was easier than bringing a suspected wife to trial. It may be that the men themselves had not good consciences, like those who brought the adulterous woman to the Lord in John 8:3. We have a dreadful picture of guiltiness in Judges 19: and Jeremiah charges Israel with being "as fed horses in the morning, every one neighed after his neighbour's wife," which loudly called for judgement. Jer. 5:8; Jer. 13:27. The Lord declared that a man morally committed adultery (or fornication) in his heart if he lusted after a woman. Adultery had also a typical meaning. Israel had been espoused to Jehovah, but instead of being a faithful wife she had sought other lovers. "With their idols have they committed adultery." Ezek. 23:37. So the false church, who has Jezebel in her midst, the Lord will cast her "and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds." Rev. 2:22.