There only seem to be three options I’ve heard or seem possible:
- Adultery (Post-marriage)
- Fornication (Pre-marriage)
- He knew the child was born of the Holy Spirit and want to remove himself from the relationship because he though he was unworthy. (Catholic gave me this view)
If there are any others please mention and provide verses for them.
Here is the story that seems (to me) to point to Joseph suspecting (or in His mind knowing) Mary had slept with another man.
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. – Matthew 1:18-25
However, there doesn’t seem to be a simple way to explain all the details that seem to come up that make this hard to fit into any specific model.
My Notes So Far:
Mary and Joseph were “espoused” or “betrothed” all the way up to Jesus birth. This is important because they were not quite “married” nor “single”. Espousal/Betrothal is a binding covenant prior to the marriage feast and consummation – which is why separate rules are given for it in Deuteronomy 22. Joseph is legally her “husband” and she is is “wife” though they are not yet “married”.
“And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. – Luke 1:26-27
“To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. – Luke 2:5-6
“Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. – Matthew 1:24-25
People both thought Jesus was legitimately Joseph’s son (the statement in John 8:41 is sometimes readinto against this idea, but nothing supports that view)
Is not this the carpenter’s son? – Matthew 13:55
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, – Luke 3:23
Joseph was a “just man”:
“Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, – Matthew 1:19
Knew his action would make her a publick example (either death or shame)
“Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. – Matthew 1:19
Worth noting that the “exception” clause for divorce is only mentioned in Matthew where this situation with Joseph thinking about putting away Mary comes up.
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication – Matthew 5:32
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. – Matthew 19:9
Divorce only seems legal under fornication:
“The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” – Matthew 19:3 “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication” – Matthew 19:9
If the “public example” was the death penalty, it seems to require three specific situations.
The death penalty once married (which they were not yet):
“If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:…” – Deuteronomy 22:13-14
“…if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. – Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Also death if already married:
“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. – Deuteronomy 22:22
Also death if betrothed and in a city:
“If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. – Deuteronomy 22:23-24
This last one is interesting because perhaps this is what Joseph was thinking happened (Mary had just gone to the “country” to visit Elizabeth.
And no death if betrothed, but it happened in the country:
“But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. – Deuteronomy 22:25-27
If Joseph thought this last case might have happened, then what is the whole “make a public example” about since there is no fault of her’s here? Also, how could he legally divorce her (even quietly)? Perhaps he ascribed to the standard teaching Jesus refuted about divorce for any reason?
Derrick Stokes
All these papers seem to be written close to a decade or more ago. So is any of this new?
Varnel Watson
seems like its being imposed internationally
Eric Jones
That is why I am ordained with the Assemblies of God.
Varnel Watson
cause you are neither an apostle nor a prophet?
Eric Jones
Troy Day I may or may not be. I agree with the stance of the AG.
Varnel Watson
Eric Jones NO sir If you are indeed ordained you MUST adhere to doctrinal teaching and policies like them or not So NO you may not be if you are ordained My experience with 4 gen. in my family ordained with AG is that our policies at times change to contradict previous policies But ministers still MUST adhere to them – this has never changed for 115yrs
Eric Jones
Troy Day I adhere to the doctrinal stance of the Assemblies of God. How hard is that to understand?
RichardAnna Boyce
Jesus kept the Law of Moses perfectly; but turned the world the right way up by showing us Abundant Free Grace. We are on Mt Zion not Mt Sinai now.
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce Jesus gave us grace for free but has nothing to do with modern day free grace teachings
RichardAnna Boyce
Free Grace is on Mt Zion, but anything involving works, like repentance being a condition of being born again, is still on Mt Sinai.
Varnel Watson
neither Mt Zion nor Mt Sinai ever envisioned dualistic gnosticism as proposed by the free grace teachings
Eric Jones
Repentance is not a work, but is a change in direction, position, posture and attitude. Grace is not free, but is dripping with the blood of Christ, freely given but calls me to lay down my life.
Varnel Watson
interesting comment on repentance RichardAnna Boyce
RichardAnna Boyce
Eric Jones John’s Gospel 100 times states believe only in Jesus to receive eternal life, as Jesus has taken away the sins of the world, and only the sin to send unbelievers to hell is unbelief. So it is true unbelievers need to change their mind about unbelief and agree with God about belief. But repentance and commitment to turn from sinful behaviour is a work. And the new believer will have no assurance that their repentance has been of sufficient quality to satisfy ‘their’ God’s requirements. THEN AS A BELIEVER, repentance and laying down one’s life is compulsory to earn rewards in the Millennium. But 1 John 1:9 repentance is agreeing with God that the believer has the righteousness of God in Christ.
Eric Jones
My belief will bring action. To cease from believing in my own works and goodness for salvation is repentance. To change my belief to that of believing in the shed blood of Christ, then, would be a “work” in your theological framework. It is a lot of work to just understand what you just wrote. A new believer will not understand you and may believe that their belief might just be works. Repentance is a change of direction (from believing in nothing to believing in Christ for salvation), a change of position (from focusing on my sinful life to the redeeming work of Christ), a change of posture (from that of standing in rebellion to God to submission and surrender to God). God’s grace does the rest. I have ceased from my labors and accepted His sacrifice. What you are suggesting is that while I am in my rebellious drunken stupor, God jumps on me and transforms me without my realization of it. That is foolish. Saul ceased from his struggles, surrendered to Christ and they changed his name to Paul. From that point, I lay my life down for him as a response to His grace. His grace enables me to lay my life down in submission and sacrifice.
Daniel J Hesse
A position paper is good as long as we maintain the position.
Varnel Watson
its been maintained for 20yrs now However, what is the deal with statistical info not maintained and steadily declining since 2018?
Daniel J Hesse
Call GC.
Daniel J Hesse
Then call on JC!
Varnel Watson
call WHO?
Daniel J Hesse
Troy Day ?☝️
Louise Cummings
ER don’t, SS far as I know call ours apostles. lol Apostle Paul. We use Bishops. But we have prophecy. It means fourth telling. I think a woman preaching is a form of prophecy. And it hadn’t ceased. The Scriptures they use to day it has ceased. If they use the whole. Verse. It says at the bottom of the Scripture where there be knowledge it will cease. And knowledge is growing faster and deeper than ever. Which is Binlr. Because the Bible says it will be increased. Thank
Richard Shelton
As an ordained retired Church of God Pastor I appreciate this declaration.
Varnel Watson
how so? it concerns AG ministers
Steven Wise
I rejected the Assembly of God
Eric Jones
Just because you claim to be an apostle or a prophet does not mean you are entitled to governing the body of Christ. Many self-proclaimed “apostles and prophets” are wolves in sheep’s clothing. All of them aren’t but we are not commanded in scripture to follow apostolic succession and impartation. We pray, consider the individual and their commitment to Christ, and then place them in positions of leadership and authority based on the servant principle.
Varnel Watson
but you claimed above you may or may not be one Why all the political vogue talk about this?