Is God a cuckold? And the possible offensive answer is yes. God loves us with an undying love. But He won’t force himself on us. Throughout time, he saw people claiming to be His fornicating with idols like Moloch, Asarte, Appolo, Diana.
The Bible has used the imagery of an unfaithful wife to describe an apostate nation. His prophets used this description to describe ancient Israel.
Ezekiel 16 is a heartbreaking chapter describing how God found the Israelites, loved them, made them strong and beautiful.
6 “‘Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, “Live!”[a] 7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown, yet you were stark naked.
8 “‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your naked body. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign Lord, and you became mine.
9 “‘I bathed you with water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. 10 I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put sandals of fine leather on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments. 11 I adorned you with jewelry: I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck, 12 and I put a ring on your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. 13 So you were adorned with gold and silver; your clothes were of fine linen and costly fabric and embroidered cloth. Your food was honey, olive oil and the finest flour. You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen. 14 And your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made your beauty perfect, declares the Sovereign Lord.
God loves us. God wants what is best for us. God makes us the people that we should have been without the taint of pride and sin. We are beautiful to God. He loves us. But ancient Israel let pride and lust lead her astray
15 “‘But you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become a prostitute. You lavished your favors on anyone who passed by and your beauty became his. 16 You took some of your garments to make gaudy high places, where you carried on your prostitution. You went to him, and he possessed your beauty.[b] 17 You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them. 18 And you took your embroidered clothes to put on them, and you offered my oil and incense before them. 19 Also the food I provided for you—the flour, olive oil and honey I gave you to eat—you offered as fragrant incense before them. That is what happened, declares the Sovereign Lord.
God had prophet Hosea marry a prostitute named Gomer to show the pain that He feels when he sees His children throwing their adultery in His face.
The same is happening today. We have “evangelical Christians” who may have once loved Christ but are laying down with other lovers.
It would be one thing if they cast off God and said “I don’t love you or need you anymore. I found a better and stronger love”. That would be bad enough but what American evangelical Christianity does is worse. She still claims to love God and fight for “Christian” values all the while opening their legs or going on their knees for the oil industry, the NRA, for racial and national pride.
They do this knowing that God is watching. They throw their wanton adultery in their maker’s face. They do this while they go to prayer breakfasts and talk of making America Christian again.
So, back to the question. Is God a cuck? Is God a cuckold. I believe he is. But what is worse, The Husband who loves his wife and knows that she is sleeping with other men under his nose or the unfaithful wife who opens her legs to every Tom, Dick, or Harry that will promise them a campaign donation or a gift.
I think we all know the story of Jesus being born in a manger.
And I think we all now that “Jesus” was the “Son of God.”
Now Jesus’ mother was Mary.
His human “father” was Joseph.
But his “real” father was “God.”
1. Were Mary and Joseph married?
a. When did they get married?
b. Where did they get married?
c. How long were they married before she got pregnant?
2. Was Jesus conceived out of wedlock?
3. Did God have consensual sex with Mary?
a. If not did “God” rape Mary?
4. Did Mary know who Jesus father really was?
5. Was Marry sleeping around?
6. Was Joseph a “cuckold?” *
a. Where was Joseph when Mary was conceiving Jesus?
7. We’re May and Joseph having sex with others?
8. Did Mary and Joseph have any other children?
a. Did they have any before Jesus?
b. Did they have any after Jesus?
* Cuckold defined:
–noun 1. the husband of an unfaithful wife.
–verb (used with object) 2. to make a cuckold of (a husband).
Origin:
1200–50; ME cukeweld, later cok ( k ) ewold, cukwold < AF *cucuald (cf. MF cucuault ), equiv. to OF cocu cuckoo + -ald, -alt pejorative suffix ( see ribald); appar. orig. applied to an adulterer, in allusion to the cuckoo's habit of laying its eggs in other birds' nests
—Related forms cuck·old·ly, adverb
Dictionary.com
Did Joseph sleep with Mary, The Lord God's Wife? Is God a Cuck?
The Birth of Jesus
…23“Behold! The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel” (which means, “God with us”). 24When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and embraced Mary as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a Son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.…
Was Joseph Really Suspicious of Mary? A Look at the Gospel Reading for Christmas Eve
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly. 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:18–21).
Here's the question I want to deal with here: why does Matthew tell us that Joseph wanted to "send [Mary] away quietly"?
The most common interpretation is that Matthew's story implies that Joseph was suspicious of Mary's pregnancy. In this view, Matthew's narrative insinuates that Joseph thought that Mary had been unfaithful to him and that the child was likely from another man. In sum, he did not want to put her to shame by revealing her unfaithfulness and expose her to the authorities. As is well known, the penalty stipulated in the Torah for such actions would have been capital punishment.
This view has some support in Christian tradition. Advocates, for example, include Augustine and John Chrysostom.
However,
not all shared this view, which we might call "the suspicion theory".
Here I want to highlight another approach, whose advocates include
Origen, Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux.
Problems with the Suspicion Theory
First, let's be honest: the view that Matthew intends us to think that Joseph was simply suspicious of Mary seems to have problems.
Some might object here on the grounds that I'm just hesitant to take such a view seriously because I'm a Catholic and such an interpretation might cause problems with Mariology. Actually, many Catholics do take this view though. So let's be clear; I'm not somehow dogmatically hamstrung here.
Actually, the real issue is that the "suspicion" reading causes real problems for the text of Matthew. I'd just ask that the reader to be open here and consider how such a reading seems problematic in light of Matthew's larger narrative and theology.
Joseph, Matthew tells us, is a "just" (δίκαιος).
If Joseph truly thought Mary had been unfaithful would he not be
required to follow the law of Moses? According to the Law, adultery was a
capital crime. Could Joseph really simply look at the other way? It
seems unlikely that Matthew describes Joseph as upright because he fails
to keep the law!
In fact,
according to the Torah there was a specific rite available to suspicious
husbands concerned about their wives' fidelity (cf. Num 5). Yet,
according to the evangelist, Joseph does not seek this course of action.
Matthew simply says that Joseph tried to "send her away quietly".
Anticipating Jesus' Teaching?
Some have
argued that, for Matthew, Joseph's actions anticipate Jesus'
teaching--i.e., Joseph sees a need to relax the law here which he might
have viewed as too harsh. Such seems highly unlikely. Jesus intensifies the law in Matthew: he does not relax it (cf. Matt 5:17-20; Matt 23:2)! Jesus insists that no element of the law should be undermined.
And lest it
be claimed that Joseph was simply showing mercy, note that if Matthew
does present Joseph as suspicious of Mary, there is no indication that
he thought Mary had repented of being unfaithful. Such an understanding
would have to be read into the text!
With Child of the Holy Spirit
Moreover--and
I think this is pretty significant--we should also point out that the
text does not even say that Mary was simply "found to be with child".
Look carefully and you'll see that Matthew says that Joseph wanted to
divorce Mary after she had been "found to be with child of the Holy Spirit" (Matt
1:18). Who "found" her "with child of the Holy Spirit"? The only
candidate, i.e., the only person mentioned in context, is Joseph. In
other words, the text seems to suggest that Joseph knew that the child was "of the Holy Spirit".
Put another way, Matthew notably does not
say that Mary was simply "found to be with child" and that Joseph had
no idea where the baby had come from. Again, that reads something into
the text that is not there. Instead, Matthew says that Joseph's actions
followed upon the discovery that Mary was with child "of the Holy
Spirit." There doesn't seem to be any indication here that Joseph has no
idea where the baby came from--in fact, the text suggests he knows exactly how Mary was with child.
The Humility Theory
So why did Joseph want a divorce in the Matthean story?
There's one
ancient view that is often overlooked: Origen's. Although his
commentary on the first few chapters of Matthew's Gospel has been lost,
Aquinas preserves some of it in his famous Catena Aurea. This
work is essentially a running anthology of patristic opinions on the
Gospel texts. There, along with other interpretations, Thomas gives us
Origen's view.
"He sought to put her away, because he saw in her a great sacrament, to approach which he thought himself unworthy." (Catena Aurea at Matt 1:19).
Though Aquinas does cite from fathers who hold to the suspicion theory in the Catena, he later adopts Origen's view as his own. In the Summa Theologica we read:
“Joseph was minded to put away the Blessed Virgin not as suspected of fornication, but because in reverence for her sanctity, he feared to cohabit with her” (Summa Theologica, III, q. 3, a. 3 ad 2).
Indeed,
this view seems at least historically plausible. Consider this: if you
were an ancient Jew with proper reverence for God, his temple, and all
that he had deemed holy and your wife had been found to be with child by the Holy Spirit, would you not also be hesitant about living with her?
So why then does it say Joseph did not want to expose Mary to shame? Joseph knew that, given her pregnancy, some--not knowing where the child had come from--would conclude the worst when they heard Joseph had divorced her. To save Mary from the appearance of being rejected for being unfaithful, Joseph thus decided to divorce her "quietly".
According to this approach, then, the angel's instruction to Joseph is not understood as revealing Mary's innocence as much as it is a revelation of God's plan: Joseph should not be afraid because God has ordained he shall play a part in the birth of the Messiah.
The angel thus says, "Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife because (gar) what has been conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you will call his name Jesus."
Humility vs. Suspicion
So why then does it say Joseph did not want to expose Mary to shame? Joseph knew that, given her pregnancy, some--not knowing where the child had come from--would conclude the worst when they heard Joseph had divorced her. To save Mary from the appearance of being rejected for being unfaithful, Joseph thus decided to divorce her "quietly".
According to this approach, then, the angel's instruction to Joseph is not understood as revealing Mary's innocence as much as it is a revelation of God's plan: Joseph should not be afraid because God has ordained he shall play a part in the birth of the Messiah.
The angel thus says, "Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife because (gar) what has been conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you will call his name Jesus."
Humility vs. Suspicion
It seems to
me that the "suspicion theory" has more problems than the view taken by
Origen and Aquinas, which we might call the "humility" theory. The
former fails to explain why Joseph as a just man would not keep the Law
and give a suspected adulteress a pass. In addition, it has to ignore
the flow of the text: Mary was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.
The
humility theory, however, does not suffer from these problems. It reads
the text as it flows. It also makes clear how Joseph's identity as a
"just man" informed his decision to put Mary away quietly: he was a
humble man who did not deem himself worthy to play the role of the
foster father of the Messiah, who was born "of the Holy Spirit".
And,
finally, it resonates--at least it does with me. It makes sense to me
that an ancient Jew who was "just" would feel unworthy of being the
spouse of a woman who had just conceived "of the Holy Spirit."
That's got to be just a little intimidating.
