The saying goes that a picture is worth a thousand words. If so, then the next section of this book should be worth about 4000 words. So far we have determined what the Word of God details concerning marriage and divorce from the Old Testament. What we need to do now is see that detail portrayed in the lives of God's people. In the pages of the Old Testament, there are at least three cases where problems entered into the marriage relationship's of God's people. There is also one case found in the New Testament, but occurred while the Law of Moses still ruled over God's people and therefore will be included in this section of Old Testament study. How these conflicts were resolved is important to our study.
The account of the marriage of the Old Testament prophet Hosea, is one that is absolutely vital to our understanding of God's view of divorce. This story, found in what is known as the "minor prophets" section of the Old Testament, has a major message. It is without a doubt, the clearest demonstration of how godly love is to maintain a disastrous marriage relationship. The account of Hosea's marriage to Gomer is a vivid description of the relationship between God and Israel. Hosea represents God and Gomer represents Israel. But apart from the representations, there was a real Hosea and a real Gomer and a real marriage between them that was greatly flawed and in serious, if not critical trouble. The story divides into 2 segments. The first is the account of the beginning of the marriage relationship where all is seemingly fine. Unfortunately, it does not last as Gomer becomes and adulteress. The second segment is the account of how Hosea waits for her to come to repentance and his winning her back from her lovers in order to restore their marriage. G. Campbell Morgan, in his little book Hosea: The Heart And Holiness Of God, writes, "The first part is tragic, but it is not uncommon. The second part is by no means common, and it is absolutely amazing." The teaching and example of this story should be encouraging to you and me.
The story begins with an interpretational problem. In Hosea 1:2, there is a command from God to Hosea to take a wife of whoredoms. Some have suggested that Gomer was already unchaste at this time of the marriage. If so, God would have violated His own law in commanding Hosea to marry her (Lev. 21:7) . The just action towards Gomer would be stoning (Deut. 22:20-21). In order to understand the command to Hosea correctly, we must understand that Hosea is writing this after the fact, the story has concluded and Hosea is able to write from 20/20 hindsight. God, being omniscient, can use 20/20 foresight when He speaks. The best understanding is that God foreknew that Gomer would become an adulteress, but at the time of her wedding, she was yet innocent and chaste. This is significant for God knows the future of everyone He brings together. As stated earlier, the basis of marriage is the will of god. As God brought Eve to Adam and as He brought Rebekah to Isaac, so God sovereignly brings His children together, that two may become one. If we knew that our spouse would become unfaithful somewhere down the road, chances are we would think twice, if not more, about marrying them. But God told Hosea that in spite of her future failure, He wanted them to marry.
The marriage of Hosea to Gomer began like most marriages, both were happy and in love. In time, a child was born to them who would be named Jezreel. More time elapsed and Gomer gave birth to a daughter who would be named Lo-ruhamah. It is interesting to note that concerning the birth of Jezreel, verse three of chapter one states, "... and bare him a son", whereas verse six says of Lo-ruhamah, "... and bare a daughter". Some commentators believe that because of the omission of the word "him" in verse six, that Hosea was not the biological father of Lo-ruhamah. Likewise, in verse 8 a second son is born who is named Lo-ammi, and once again the text states, "... and bare a son" without the word "him". If these commentators are correct, then we may see some changing attitudes of Hosea in the naming of the children. Jezreel was a prophetic name concerning the future of the northern kingdom. As a father, Hosea may have been delighted in having a son of his who might follow him in the prophetic ministry. At this point, life seems to be good in the Hosea household. However, with the birth of Lo-ruhamah, which means "no mercy", suspicion of infidelity may have crept into Hosea's mind. In fact, it is possible that he knew first hand of Gomer's adultery and there was a warning that if it happens again the consequences will be severe.
With the birth of Lo-ammi, whose name means "not my people", comes the public declaration of Gomer's adultery and a separation takes place. At this point, Gomer either voluntarily leaves Hosea's home in pursuit of continuing adultery or Hosea forcibly evicts her. At this point, Hosea could have insisted on following the letter of the law and have had Gomer stoned. But we see just the opposite taking place. Although she is gone and although she is still sinning, Hosea begins a process of restoration. Never, at any time is there a threat to dissolve the marriage relationship. Beginning in chapter two, Hosea seeks to win Gomer back by pleading with her through the children concerning her sin (2:1-3). Sin, in any relationship, always causes a division, a separation of fellowship, and can not be overlooked. It is unbiblical counsel to ignore sin and pretend it does not exist. No marriage relationship can survive where infidelity is ignored. It was absolutely necessary for Hosea to confront Gomer with her sinfulness and declare the consequences of that sin. But when God confronts us with our sin, it is always for the purpose of restoration. So was Hosea's intent.
The first action of Hosea in seeking Gomer's restoration was to cut off her lovers from her (2:6-7). This action was not vindictive, but the first step in keeping Gomer from continuing in her sin. The purpose is stated in the end of verse 7, where it says that she will, "return to my first husband; for then was it better for me than now." This action of Hosea's is totally in keeping with the character of God. In Exodus 20, the passage dealing with the 10 commandments, the Israelites were told not to have any other gods for the Lord is a jealous God. Generally we think of jealousy as a bad trait, but it does not necessarily need to be since it is a trait of God. Godly jealousy is the intense love for someone that will seek to preserve the relationship from anything that will disrupt it. Unfortunately, Gomer did not immediately respond to Hosea's plea and therefore she had to suffer the consequences of her sins. It is not unloving to chastise for sin. Hebrews tells us that whom the Lord loves, He chastens. It was not that Hosea was simply wanting to "get even" or release his frustrations on Gomer but that He wanted her to come to repentance and she was not heading in that direction. In order to make her change directions, Hosea removed his benevolence toward her and caused her to see the shame of her activity (2:9-13).
Like the prodigal son, Gomer had to come to an end of herself and come to her senses. Luke tells us that the prodigal spent his inheritance on "riotous" living. The word riotous does not necessarily mean immoral, but has the idea of spending it as if there is no tomorrow, or that the well will never run dry. Gomer believed that she could continue in her adultery and that the pleasure she was receiving from it would never end and no consequences would come. There is a law of God in Galatians 6 that states whatever we sow, we shall also reap. It was time for Gomer to reap. But bringing Gomer to the place where she recognized the sinfulness of her sin was not all that Hosea needed to do in order to restore the relationship.
Chapter 2, verses 14 through 20 continues the process where Hosea takes the initiative to woo Gomer's affections. How ironic it is that the offended takes the lead in winning back the affections of the offender. "Normal" thinking would be the other way around. How is it that Hosea would want to take such an "unnatural" action to restore Gomer who had sinned so grievously against him? The answer comes from Hosea 3:1. God commanded it. What Hosea did in redeeming his wife may have been diametrically opposed to his feelings, but was 100% in accord with the command of God and the marriage covenant he made with Gomer the day they wed. Michael P.V. Barrett, in an excellent article appearing in Biblical Viewpoint writes, "Whereas Israel was bent on backsliding (11:7), God purposed to remain faithful (11:8, 14:4). Whereas Israel's covenant loyalty was like the passing cloud and dew (6:6), the Lord's covenant loyalty was central to the relationship He initiated and established (2:19-20). He would not quit His love, and He told Hosea again to love a woman in spite of her actual, not potential, unfaithfulness (3:1)."1 The story of Hosea's redeeming love for Gomer is a story that, if it were not written in Scripture, we would have trouble believing it. It is in reality, a story of God's love for us. And the love that our God has for you and me, is the same love that married people are to demonstrate to each other. It is a love that is loyal to the covenant it makes. There was nothing exceptional about Hosea that made it easier for him to love an unfaithful partner than you or I could. He was just an ordinary guy who desired to be obedient to God. That's the key!
In every case where two have come together as one, the will of God has been for those two to remain together for the duration of their lives. But there is one special case found in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah that provides an exception to the rule. The accounts found in these two books are the only examples of the utilization of the "exception clause" provided in the Law of Moses. Before looking at the specifics of the divorcing in these two books, it is necessary to provide a little historical background to them. Both of these books are known as "post-exilic historical books", that is, that what is recorded in them transpired after the 70 years of Babylonian captivity. Under the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonians had taken practically all of Israel captive and destroyed the country. Now, a Medo-Persian king, Cyrus, has issued decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland and rebuild the city of Jerusalem. Ezra is first to arrive and as a priest, takes leadership in rebuilding the temple. Nehemiah follows about 25 years later and leads in rebuilding the walls of the city.
During the 70 years of captivity, many of the Jewish men had married foreign women and consequently, the children born in these marriages were being influenced, if not altogether reared in pagan religion. At stake was the religious purity of the nation. The reason that Judah had been taken captive in the first place was that she had prostituted herself spiritually, adopting the religious practices and beliefs of the pagans around her. Marrying of certain foreign women was prohibited by the Mosaic law because of the probability of producing religious apostasy. Because of these unlawful mixed marriages, Israel was culpable of being disciplined by God again. Unfortunately, this disregard of the prohibitions of Deuteronomy 7:1-4 was not an isolated case or two. Ezra 9:1-2 notes that it was the people, the priests, the levites, and the princes and rulers of the land that were involved in the sin. Unless something would be done, it would not be long before the entire nation would be suffering under the hand of God's correction. Fortunately for Israel, there was a man of integrity who would counsel them into doing God's will and avert any judgment. In the presence of many men, Ezra confessed the sin of the nation in violating the prohibition of Deuteronomy 7. When finished, a man by the name of Shechaniah came and agreed with Ezra concerning his declaration, and then adds an interesting addendum, "yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing". The only hope there could be is that God had made some provision for their sin. I believe this is exactly what the divorce provision of Deuteronomy 24 deals with. Otherwise there is no hope.
What is interesting about this situation is that there does not seem to be any dipleasure of the men concerning their wives in anything pertaining to marriage other than they were unbelievers. Apparently, none had committed adultery, ruined the kids, didn't keep the house clean, laid around watching soap operas all day, or any other complaint. Under any other circumstance, they would have been pleased to be married to them. But a revival had begun in the land and the people of God were repenting of sin, and of necessity, undoing what they had done wrong, even at great cost. There are a number of reasons why this passage of Scripture can not be applied to present marriages in order to provide an opportunity for divorce.
First, the prohibition of mixed marriages was given to the nation of Israel, not the Church (this will be dealt with at length later in the study of the gospels). Apart from a possible prohibition of inter-racial marriages in Acts 17:26, there is no New Testament prohibition of inter-national marriages. Secondly, the purpose of this prohibition was to maintain the religious purity of the nation which would bring forth the Messiah. Since the Messiah has come, the need for the prohibition is no longer necessary. However, this does not mean that God is no longer concerned about the religious purity of His people. Quite the contrary! In 2 Corinthians 6:14 and following, there is a prohibition against unequal yokes. Marriage is a "yoke", a binding together of two into one. It is completely out of the will of God for a believer to marry an unbeliever, however, should this nonetheless happen, the Church will still be able to accomplish her mission on earth. While there was a prohibition of mixed marriages in the Old Testament, not all mixed marriages were prohibited. Of particualr interest is one mixed mariage that had Messianic implications. Naomi and Elimelech had two sons named Mahlon and Chilion. In the course of time, this family left their native country, Judah, and traveled to Moab. There Elimelech died. After his death, the two boys married Moabite women, Ophrah and Ruth. Unfortunately, the two men died leaving three widows in Moab. Naomi decided to return to her home in Bethlehem, Judah. Before leaving she encouraged her daughters-in-law to remain in their home country and remarry. Ruth refused to leave Naomi and followed her back to the land of Israel where she later married Boaz. From that union came Obed, who was the father of Jesse, who was the father of King David, from whom came Jesus Christ. The geneology of our Lord includes a mixed marriage nationally, but one that was pure spiritually. Had all mixed marriages been prohibited, then our Savior would have been disqualified by birth. A final reason why this passage can not be applied to marriages today is that there is an exact opposite command given in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16. Here the apostle Paul encourages the believer to remain with an unbeliever in marriage, realizing that the believer is a sanctifying influence on both the spouse and the children that may have resulted from that marriage.
The relationship of God to the nation of Israel in the study of divorce is one that presents numerous problems. No matter what position one holds, there are numerous interpretational problems that seem to contradict any position. Isaiah 50:1 is clear that God gave to Israel a bill of divorcement, and yet it is clear in Jeremiah 3:14 that He is married to her. Add to the mix this question: How could God, who loves Israel with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3) divorce her? These questions present an interpretational minefield that we must now cautiously navigate. The relationship between God and Israel, or better, of God toward Israel, is defined in a series of covenants made between God and the nation. Five covenants are listed in the pages of the Old Testament which define the relationship and the responsibilities of God to Israel and Israel to God. These covenants are the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian, Davidic, and the New covenants. Three of these covenants are termed unconditional covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, New).
An unconditional covenant is a covenant that is unilaterally initiated and maintained. The covenant, itself, may contain certain conditions in it which will produce blessing or judgment, but the covenant as a whole, is entered upon as a singular promise of God to do something. For example, in the Abrahamic covenant listed in Genesis 15:18-21, God says to Abraham that He will give the land of Canaan to him and his descendants. There were no conditions to which Abraham had to comply in order for God to give the land to him, God voluntarily and unilaterally declared that this is what He was going to do. Now it is true, that in order for Abraham and his descendants to realize the benefits of this covenant, that they would need to possess the land, but that possession did not in any way alter the declaration of God as to Him giving them that land. Again, it must be stated, for it is of utmost importance to our study of the divorce of Israel, and its application to divorce today, that an unconditional covenant is an unilateral declaration of what one is going to do, regardless of whether the other party agrees to it, or abides by it.
Now, obviously in all the unconditional covenants, the activity of God was so good that there was no reason for Israel to reject God's gracious offers. Why wouldn't Abraham want the land? Why wouldn't David want a king from his line to sit on his throne? Why wouldn't Israel want a new heart? But even if Abraham refused the land, or David refused the kingly succession, in that God unconditionally obliged Himself with these covenants, He was responsible to do what He said He would do. A conditional covenant, on the other hand, requires the acceptance of the second party before the responsibilities of the first become binding. If the second party refuses to accept the covenant, or, later violates the covenant, the first party is not obligated in any way to live up to their responsibilities under the covenant. At issue in Israel's divorce are the Abrahamic and the Palestinian covenants. As noted, the Abrahamic covenant consisted of a promise to Abraham and his descendants of a continuing entity, a promised land, an innumerable seed, and to be a channel of blessing to all nations. That covenant has never failed, nor can it ever fail (Gal. 3:17-18).
The Palestinian covenant, though, was a conditional covenant. In essence, God said to the children of Israel, "As long as you obey me, you will prosper in the land that I have given to you." "Should you disobey me, I will remove you from the land and punish you so that you will not prosper." The nature of these two covenants is important to our study since the marriage relationship is founded upon a covenant. Two questions need to be answered in order to understand the relationship of God's divorce of the nation of Israel to divorce in marriage today. First, with what kind of covenant is the marriage relationship founded upon? Is it an unconditional covenant or a conditional covenant? Secondly, with what covenant was God dealing with Israel when He divorced her? If it was one of the unconditional covenants, then divorce is possible in marriage if the relationship is based on an unconditional covenant. If God divorced Israel on the basis of its rejection of a conditional covenant, then marriage can only be dissolved by divorce if marriage is based on a conditional covenant between the husband and the wife. We will examine the easier of these two questions first.
What type of covenant forms the marriage relationship? When a man and a woman stand before each other and recite vows, they promise to do a number of things for the other: love, honor, cherish, obey, keep themselves pure, etc. Each promise vowed is vowed unilaterally and unconditionally. The man does not say, "I will love her as long as she keeps the house clean", nor the woman say, "I will obey as long as he doesn't watch too much football" (wow, would I be in trouble). The vows stated are stated regardless of what the spouse will do. An unconditional covenant is the basis of the marriage relationship. Therefore, in order to use the example of God's divorce of Israel for grounds for divorce in the Christian marriage relationship, God must have divorced Israel on the basis of its violation of an unconditional covenant. As we shall see, God never altered His relationship with, or divorced Israel on the basis of the Jews violating the terms of an unconditional covenant (which is really an impossibility anyway), but on the basis of their violations of the terms of a conditional covenant, the Palestinian covenant.
As we consider God's divorce of Israel, we first come to Isaiah 50. Isaiah is speaking to the northern tribes, referred to as Israel, the two southern tribes being Judah. At this point in time, Israel has been taken in the Assyrian captivity. In verse 1, God asks a question as to why the captivity took place. In essence, the question asks if their captivity was due to a lack of resources on God's part that necessitated their putting away or was it because of some unrighteous behavior by God. The answer to the question is a resounding NO, their captivity was due to unrighteous behavior on Israel's part. Ninety years later, God would speak to Judah through the prophet Jeremiah concerning the same issue. Jeremiah 3 and following records what God said to them. In verse one there is the declaration of a gracious offer for a limited time. The offer of God is for the people to return to Him in faith, even though they had been greatly unfaithful. However, the offer, as they say in commercials, was for a limited time only. In likening this situation to the marriage relationship, Jeremiah states that once a divorce has taken place, it is impossible for the woman to return to her husband without polluting the land (see Deut. 24:3-4). In that the offer of grace is only for a limited time, there is also an implied message of coming judgment if the gracious offer is rejected. Beginning in verse 6, Jeremiah instructs Judah to recall how God acted with her sister, Israel. When the northern ten tribes did all the same things that Judah was now doing, God pleaded with her to return to Him. With Israel's rejection of the offer of grace came the divorce from God and judgment. Judah should have learned a lesson from this, but didn't. In verse 14 is the statement that Jehovah is still married to Judah, so we conclude that a divorce had not yet taken place.
Unfortunately, those people of Judah never returned to the Lord and their judgment came quickly. But what was the judgment? What covenant was broken that judgment could come? The judgment was in both cases a deportation from their land. For Israel it was the Assyrian captivity in 721 b.c. For Judah it was the Babylonian captivity in 586 b.c. And the cause for judgment in both cases was the breaking of the Palestinian covenant which judgments were listed in Deut. 28:47-52, 64-66. Did God break any other covenants, specifically, any of the unconditional covenants in divorcing Israel and Judah? The answer again is an emphatic NO. Let's look at the provisions of the other covenants.
Abrahamic Is Israel a continuing entity YES
Do they still have the rights to the promised land? YES
Are they an innumerable people? YES
Did blessing come to the world through them? YES
Davidic Is there a king to sit on David's throne? YES
In these two unconditional covenants made by God with Israel, not one provision has been violated or rescinded. Some say that the people lost their identity as they went into captivity, but the biblical record disagrees. In Jeremiah's pleading for the repentance of Judah, he speaks of God's promises in a future day, how the house of Judah will walk with the house of Israel (Jer. 3:18). Likewise, in Revelation 7, John speaks of a sealing of 144,000 Jews in future tribulation times. Not only is their national identity preserved and known to God, but their tribal identity is as well, for there are 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. God never negated nor rescinded any of the clauses of an unconditional covenant with the divorce of Israel and Judah. To use God's divorce of Israel as a basis for divorce in a Christian marriage is to compare apples and oranges. The marriage relationship is established on the basis of an unconditional covenant between a man and a woman. God has never, nor never will, rescind any provision of an unconditional covenant. The child of God may not either.
One of the greatest accounts of a marriage found in the times of the Old Testament law is found in Matthew 1:18-25. While the gospel of Matthew is a New Testament book, we must remember that until the death of Christ, the Law of Moses ruled the lives of God's people. Therefore, while we consider the gospel New Testament literature, it is properly occurring in Old Testament times.
Unlike the other three examples of marriages that we have looked at, this marriage relationship concerns two very godly people. There is no infidelity between Joseph and Mary. Both are in harmony with each other and, most importantly, with the Lord. We note that even the best of marriage relationships are not immune from difficulties that can threaten to divide, but we also note that it was the will of God that the difficulties be overcome and the consequences of the difficulties endured, rather than taking the easy way out with divorce. Two conflicts are pictured in this account of the parents of Jesus. The first, and most important, is the conflict between love and the law. Without question, Joseph loved Mary. But now he has found out that the woman of his dreams may have become the wife of his nightmares. Having drawn wrong conclusions (although seemingly sensible ones at the time) concerning the nature of her pregnancy, Joseph is torn between doing what his heart told him to do and what his head told him to do. The second conflict in this passage is the conflict between the law and the custom of the people, or what was then popular and expedient.
Three qualities of Joseph appear as he dealt with these conflicts. The first quality is that Scripture tells us he was a just man. The word that is translated "just" is a Greek word meaning "righteous". Joseph had a right standing before God. His righteousness was not from his own doing for Isaiah declares that all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). David said there is no one that does good (Psalm 14:1-3). Joseph's righteousness was imputed to him from God, he was declared by God, to be righteous on the basis of his recognition of his own depravity and faith in God's Messiah who would come and take away his sin. This is how everyone and anyone who desires to be in a right relationship with God gains that standing. I like the old commercial that said, "...we do it the old-fashioned way, we earn it." However, no one earns a right relationship with God. Either they receive it by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8) or they are unrighteous.
We applaud Joseph for being righteous. Unfortunately, righteous people do not always act righteously. While righteous activity should be the consistent testimony of a righteous person, it is not the guaranteed testimony of a righteous person. There are plenty of examples in Scripture of righteous people acting, on occasion, in an unrighteous manner. Noah, Abraham, Samson, David, and Peter are some of the most notable saints of God who all had lapses of faith and fell into sin. To conclude that since Joseph was a righteous man necessitates that he would act righteously, as some have concluded, is a false conclusion. In that Joseph was a just man, he had a heart for the standards of righteousness that were revealed and detailed by God in the Law of Moses. In that he was a sinner, totally incapable of saving himself from his own sin, and a recipient of the love of God which saved him, Joseph also desired to be one who expressed God's love in his actions to others. But how can a man be just, or act justly, and justify the unjust acts of others? The Law of Moses demanded that an adulteress be stoned, but the love that Joseph had for her would not allow it. What was he to do?
Here we encounter the second conflict of Joseph. Matthew tells us that Joseph was minded to put her away privately, not wanting to make her a public example. Some have suggested that divorce had replaced stoning at this time in history since the Roman government regulated capital punishment. Since the Jews were not permitted by the civil authorities of doing what the Law of Moses prescribed, it is declared by some that God gave permission for divorce to replace stoning. I disagree on several counts. First of all, in verse 19, the making of a public example of her, which would be by stoning (Deut. 22:21) had to be a viable option to him or else there would have been no reason for him to be thinking on those things. If stoning was not an option, then he simply would have divorced her on the spot. Secondly, we see that in the ministry of the Lord Jesus, there were a couple of occasions where the Jewish leaders were ready to stone Jesus without governmental permission. In both John 8:59 and John 10:31, the stones were in the hands of the leaders and they would have stoned Him apart from the deliverance of God. Likewise, in John 8:7, Jesus commanded them to cast stones at the adulterous woman. Then we see in Acts 7:58, the Jewish leaders did stone Stephen that he died, and all without Rome's approval. Thirdly, for God to have repealed any portion of the Law of Moses, there would be a necessity to find some record of that repeal in Scripture. There is none. To believe that a repeal existed without record of it is simply wishful thinking. The fourth and final reason I disagree is the fact that while Christians are commanded to obey all the laws of government (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-15), whenever the laws of men conflict with the laws of God, the Christian must follow God and not man (Acts 4:19). Even if Rome would not have permitted the stoning, God had not given the nation of Israel any other options. Joseph battled with what was culturally popular and expedient versus what was commanded by God. Man individually and collectively as a society will always seek naturally to do that which is easy and seemingly painless over that which is difficult and painful. But godly consequences require godly actions. Following God is never easy but always fruitful. Society today, readily approves of divorce as the easy and painless way out of a difficult marriage. God doesn't!
We once again applaud Joseph for another character quality. Verse 20 tells us that he thought on these things. The word translated "thought" is not the usual word for thinking, but a word that literally means that he had a fire burning within himself. The root of the verb is used to describe a fierce indignation or a passionate action towards some stimulus. Too often the passions of emotion, divorced from the processes of rational thinking, control the actions and reactions of God's people. This almost always leads to disaster. And this kind of behavior is even promoted by lyrics from supposedly Christian songs which state, "it can't be wrong if it fells so right". Emotions are to life what sails are to a sailboat and thinking is to life what a rudder is to that boat. The thinking process is to guide the life, emotions are to drive it in the direction the mind determines. There is little control to a boat without a rudder. But just because a person "gives a lot of thought" to a problem does not necessarily mean that they will make a right decision. As the old computer adage goes, "Garbage in- Garbage out", so too, the mind can only conclude right decisions based on right information. The Apostle Paul gives us a grid for determining right thinking in Philippians 4:8. There we are told to think only on the things that are true, honest, right, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous and praiseworthy. There is only one place where a person is guaranteed to find that kind of information and that is the Word of God. For Joseph, that is where he found the answer to his dilemma.
Matthew tells us that an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and communicated to him what the will of God was in the matter. Sufficient to the Christian today to ascertain God's will for any circumstance, is the written Word of God. While God may yet speak to our hearts and provide motivation to choose a certain direction in life, it is only by searching God's Word that we know that the direction given is truly from God and not self or Satan. The answer to Joseph's dilemma was that the dilemma did not actually exist. The dilemma existed in Joseph's mind because he thought that the story of Mary was a lie. After all, who ever heard of a woman becoming with child apart from intercourse with a man? Not only had Mary been unfaithful, Joseph believed, but she had concocted the wildest of stories to cover her shame. If only she would repent and confess her sin to him, then he could forgive her and love her. But the answer was not in her repentance but in Joseph understanding the truth of Isaiah 7:14. When the light of Scripture dawned upon Joseph's mind, the darkness of his dilemma disappeared. The light of God's Word has a way of doing that with all our problems.
A third quality that we can applaud in Joseph is that he did what the angel had bidden him to do. James tells us that we are not to be hearers only of the Word, but doers also. But doing what was in the will of God would be no easy task for him, just as it is for anyone else. Obedience always requires sacrifice. Joseph could now love her, but it would be at a cost to him. For the rest of his life, Joseph would be known by many as the man that could not wait for marriage or the fool who married an unfaithful woman. Nevertheless, Joseph counted the cost and united himself to Mary in marriage. Unwilling to compromise in any way the integrity of his wife and that of her child, Joseph abstained from sexual relations with Mary until after Jesus was born. In that we know that other children were born to Mary and Joseph, we conclude that Joseph loved her passionately.
The Lord Jesus was also willing to be identified with us that He might fulfill God's plan in saving us. Isaiah 53 states that we esteemed him stricken and smitten of God and afflicted. The Roman soldiers mocked him. The Jewish leaders ridiculed him. His own disciples abandoned Him. Many still do the same today, and yet, in the end, God's will was fulfilled and Christ loved His church. In doing so He remained just and the justifier of them that believe in Him. There will be times when confusion reigns in the marriage relationship. God may be wanting to pull off something spectacular just as He did with Joseph and Mary. In those confusing times, wait on Him, discern His will by meditating upon His Word, and when His way is clear, go forward with a passion and a purity.