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?
Varnel Watson
Walter Polasik If it was not for women pastors like Lucy F. Farrow: there might not been Pentecostalism at all http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/massive-youth-revival-in-the-schools-of-delbarton-west-virginia/
Walter Polasik
It’s pretty sad that you put it that way. You don’t know your Bible. If it wasn’t for the Holy Spirit and true Biblical doctrine, there might not be Pentecostalism. Troy, I have found, over the years, that helpful definition of Liberals is: “People who love making the exception to the rule, the rule.” What is also amazing to me is how much, across denominational divides, people are so alike in nature. To wit: when the Holy Spirit begins something and people see the hand of God in it, a Divine act, they are thankful for a while, give glory to God for a little bit….and then set about building their own traditions, their edifices, on top of it. After they have done so, they identify a particular God-birthed movement by their own little trappings and edifices that they have built. So it has been, increasingly over the years, that, instead of God’s supernatural work and His holiness and purity (regarding doctrine and practice in the church) the Pentecostal movement has increasingly been characterized by three things: 1.) Ecumenism (making peace at the expense of truth, otherwise known as “kumbayah”) 2. Pandering to the world by turning Praise and Worship music into a straight rock fest. There has also been a “youth-izing” of everything and today’s Pentecostal teen and 20-something is only as Pentecostal and Christian as it fits his personal convenience. The latest look and the latest Christian rock band are de reguer. Everything must be “the latest”, and ‘cool”. No one wants to be thought of as “peculiar” any more. 3.) While #’s 1 and 2 predominate in modern Pentecostalism, # 3 isn’t far behind. Pastorettes are all the rage and it was Pentecostalism who put women in the pulpit first before the Episcopal or Methodist or any other church did so as the fashion of feminism took hold.
Pastorettes may be a “distinctive” of Pentecostal history and even theology, but it is no biblical distinctive and just as stubborn a denominational hold-over as pedo-baptism is for Presbyterians and Reformed. That’s not biblical either, but wild horses won’t tear it out of the people’s “denominational’ fidelity. Stubbornly, with nary a verse to show for it, they hang on. That kind of Christianity and Pentecostalism…I could do without.
Varnel Watson
Like Robert Borders explained earlier comments like the one made by Walter Polasik “relate to whether or not denominations and traditional contemporary models of hierarchical church structure and government are biblical” and not to the Biblical role of women in ministry. I pray that this group and our movement have more wisdom in honoring and recognizing women pastors like Lucy F. Farrow and so many others with a historic role within Pentecostalism
Walter Polasik
Troy Day: Again, notice how you phrase things “pastors like Lucy F. Farrow with a HISTORIC role within Pentecostalism”. Problem: that something is historic doesn’t make it right. Prostitution is historically the oldest trade in the world—yet its’ historicity doesn’t make it RIGHT. Roman Catholicism certainly has a long history and claims for itself the title of “historic church”. Again, this does not make it RIGHT. Cessationism also claims a long history and, if you include the general anti-supernatural attitude, this goes all the way back to the Sadduccees. It’s quite historic, but certainly not RIGHT. So, Troy, unless you’re able to demonstrate how women in the pastorate is a BIBLICAL concept, I suggest you drop what is “popular” and stick with what is clearly delineated in the Bible. 😉
Walter Polasik
P.S.—-I’m somewhat qualified to speak on things historical, I think: I teach it for a living 5 days a week.
Varnel Watson
Glad you are finally noticing it and BTW most here are also qualified and even over qualified so that doesnt make it right either. But since you teach history of Pentecostalism and Lucy F. Farrow please do share your insights with the group. It will benefit a few
Varnel Watson
William DeArteaga Lucy F. Farrow was Baptized in the Spirit on September 6, 1905 after Parham opened up a month-long meeting in Columbus, Kansas. Lucy F. Farrow was baptized in the Spirit during this month of meetings. In the meantime, Parham was watching events unfold in Zion, Illinois, where John Alexander Dowie was faltering.
I think Parham sent her and a man when Seymour sent notice that he needed help. Who was Julia?
It was not a Nazarene church, but an independent Holiness church. The NAzarenes have proved this. We learned this later
William DeArteaga
Thank you