Jesus said she had five husbands, and was with another.

John 4:16-18 Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have well said, 'I have no husband,' for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly."

I now believe that the physical part is the marriage, not the ceremony. Like water baptism is a public testimony of the one true baptism with the Holy Spirit, likewise, the marriage ceremony is a similar public testimony of an already established fact. But Scripture is not clear in this matter, so I hold that belief with a theological grain of salt.

It appears Jesus is either saying the same thing, that she had slept with five men and was living with (but not yet slept with) another, *or* , She was ceremonially married to five husbands while sleeping with yet another. The reason why I would shy away from the second example is that it would be easy to say that she was a widowed, or even divorced, or both, which, if I'm not mistaken, either one would release her from the obligation of that marriage. The point being, she would not longer have five husbands. The logic only fits if she's sleeping with the five and that is considered marriage in God's eyes, and as a result, she would still be bound through marriage to all five, thus "five husbands". *Or*, yet another wrinkle, some would point to the fact that Jesus said that she was right in that she had no husband, the point being that she slept with five men but did not marry any of them, like the 6th and current one. That would require a different translation than Jesus claiming that she had five husbands, putting the focus on her not having five husbands.

Just wondering what other people's biblical thoughts are on this matter are.

Dave

Richard T said:

So while the man should try to do the right thing and marry after sex, the reality seems to be that it is not a done deal according to Exodus.
I think too the NT offers some clues as well. I have not studied this to see more completely, but since fornication and adultery are different though similar sins, then marriage has to be formalized or at least agreed upon by both parties. If sex itself suggested marriage, then why separate out the two different sins? Also, if sex required marriage what would occur for rape, incest or a girl too young?
Could the woman have had five husbands, complete with legal means? I think so. There was still divorce and it does not give details but perhaps some did die or run off.

Click to expand...

Hey rich

What if the sex was the marriage? Sorry I wasn't more clear. That way sex isn't necessarily sin in and of itself, it just means that you're married. Sin can follow if this pattern continues with others. I think Jesus may have said as much as a woman having 5 husbands may imply adultery. Still not sure what was being said there. I'm sure with incest that sin would not equate to marriage, no matter the context. Rape? I honestly don't know. Did rape come with marriage responsibilities back then?

Richard T said:

I had thought maybe Jesus said to go an sin no more. But that is not the case here. It is the case in the woman caught in adultery. He correctly discerned her life but did not offer her correction as far as we know, other than salvation was available and he was the Messiah. I asked google ai if she was maybe a slave? The answer was possibly. That due to debt or poverty she was forced into that and slaves were forbidden to marry. The other possibility is a concubine. So likely no definitive answer on the woman or her past husbands and current status. That she was drawing water at noon suggests she was rather lowly, perhaps an outcast avoiding others at the hottest time of the day. (The sixth hour was noon) Hope that helps. A good scripture to try and unpack.

Click to expand...

That's interesting thought. The way Jesus responded to the woman caught in adultery. Also, I never considered that Jesus as a man, incarnate, we are still in the OT and the Levitical Laws were in play.

Dave

bling said:

She just needed to know Jesus knew.

Click to expand...

Hey bling

What do you suppose Jesus was saying to her in that passage? Was He saying that she ceremonially married fife men, or that she had slept with five men, making all of them her husbands?

Dave

bling said:

Does it really matter? She knew, He knew what she had done and what she was doing, so let's change the subject.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

Is this what we mean when we say consummating a marriage? is a physical union also a spiritual union?

I believe that the physical also results in a spiritual connection of sorts. That's why I also believe that the purest and most profound love is between two virgins, both the male and female sides of it. That would mean that the more that one sleeps around, the more watered down that spiritual union becomes. The spiritual connection is much like us being united with Christ Jesus. In fact, sleeping around directly affects that relationship as Paul was attested to in 1 Corinthians 6:15-20 -- context.

Found this while browsing the web. interesting...

The words for "man", in John 4:16-18, are all different parts of speech for anér (ἀνήρ). Whether it refers to "husband" depends on context. Basically, if it's combined with a possessive, it's referring to a man in the context of marriage (husband).

English treats the word "man" this way as well. Also, historically, husband had a more generic meaning until about the 13th century, when it began to refer specifically to a marriage context.

[John 4]
[16] He says to her, "Go, call the man-yours and come here."
[17] The woman answers and says to him, "I have no man."
    Jesus says to her, "Well spoken – 'I have no man.'"
[18] "For you have had five men, and the one you have now is not your-man. This you spoke truthfully."

Click to expand...

Jesus is catching the woman at a half truth. He refers to her husband (the man-yours), to which she says she has none. Jesus points out that not only has she had (sex with) five men, but the one she now has (sex with) isn't her husband (your-man). Whether that man is married to someone else is ambiguous. However, the word order changes between [4:16] (ἄνδρα σου) and [4:18] (σου ἀνήρ). So Jesus may be stressing that he isn't her man, but someone else's.

Regardless, he is showing his power by seeing through her (half) truth to the (entire) truth, which she immediately recognizes:

[19] The woman says to him, "I see that you are a prophet."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dave

Richard T said:

Yes, I can see sex as marriage in Ruth and Boaz. Naomi told Ruth to lay down with Boaz. Had it not been for a closer relative I think he would have had sex with her. Instead, he was honorable and waited one day to inquire to another relative. In a common law marriage in a state like Texas, you only need to have sex and declare yourself married to others. The tough part of just sex as marriage is that some might recant after the sex and deny it. The government too gets involved to make sure there is not more than one spouse, that age and legal capacity exists to marry. In Indonesia one has to marry inside their own religion. A Catholic must marry a Catholic, a Muslim must marry a Muslim, etc. So various governments do have some interests at stake.

Click to expand...

I always ask people what they would do if the government told them that Christians will no longer be allowed to have marriage licenses. Would that stop Christians from getting married? Our government here in the U.S. now has it's own agenda, just one step ahead of those motivated by propaganda which will soon be a majority. Sometimes I wonder if Christians are validating those false views of the our government by using the legal marriage system. I understand that being married legally now has it's benefits, but so does making our churches corporations so we can write of donations made to them. It doesn't make it good or right, though. Maybe we need common Law marriages again. With todays laws, two buddies would not even be able to share an apartment without it resulting in marriage. lol

I'm only concerned with what God thinks, not governments. Maybe that's what common law marriages originally intended. When the two become one, a man and a woman, physically, that also unites them spiritually.

Richard T said:

Imagine a world where if you had sex you must marry. That would cut down fornication to almost nothing. It would create though lots of divorces I imagine. If the woman at the well was married I think Jesus would have said. So like some others i am thinking she was a slave and could not marry.

Click to expand...

Take the government out of that equation. I think of it like, if you had sex, you were married in God's eyes. The rest is just the legality of it, and not binding beyond that. Consummating a marriage has always been a part of it. The idea has been around for a while. Though maybe the consummating held more weight over ceremonies and government papers than we understood, and that idea was lost over time.

I got this from AI---Consummating a marriage is the completion or actualization of a marital union through the first act of voluntary sexual intercourse between spouses following their wedding ceremony. While highly significant in certain historical, cultural, and religious contexts, it holds little to no bearing in modern secular law.

For seculars, the government is their god. When the government says it's right and good, then for the secular, that's the ultimate legitimizing of it. I see it as.... I'm only an American as much as America is in line with God's Word and will.' That idea would not have been uncommon with our founders, though I believe that many liberals today would see that as extreme these days.

Ten Bears replies to 'The outlaw Josie Wales' with the iconic phrase: "There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men." Biblical translation, "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no."

Dave