Preacher Diaries

19.  Between Divorce and Putting Away

Deuteronomy 24:1 presents the process of a legal divorce, three clear steps to a proper divorce between a man and his wife:

When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house (Deuteronomy 24:1, World English Bible).

For the process to be complete and the divorce technically valid, based on the preceding marital breach (porneia, `ervah, etc.) warranting the process,

• “he shall write her a bill of divorce” – legal documentation
• “and give it in her hand” – witness, evidence, consent or concession of the other
• “and send her out of his house” – physical separation

The “bill of divorce” in her hand was the legal or official document on the dissolution of the union between the two; it was the evidence that there was a valid divorce; it was the woman’s license to be

Read more

FIVE HUSBANDS AND TWO MEN: Christian Divorce and Re-Marriage?

(Part 8 of 18)

17. The Perspectives of the Gospels

Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees on divorce and remarriage is recorded only in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Matthew 19:1-10; Mark 10:1-12).  St Luke’s Gospel provides no context to the declaration it makes.  It states in just one verse: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Luke 16: 18).   It also makes no mention of the exception clause that Jesus gave, based on marital infidelities.  It makes no mention of the wife’s equal powers to seek the same redress.

The book of Mark, like Matthew, provides a context to the discussion as arising from a query by the Pharisees.  The account in Mark well matches that in Matthew, except for two details: 1) it omits the fact that “fornication” could be grounds for divorce, and 2) it states the possibility that the woman also can put away.

It is noteworthy that both Mark and Luke were secondary reporters, who were not eye- and ear-witnesses of their reports, not having been disciples of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4).  Even though that does not

Read more

16. Revision or Reinstatement?

Some Bible teachers are of the view that, in answering the Pharisees on the question of divorce, Jesus re-instituted the ‘original order,’ for the two to be one flesh without the option of divorce at all.  The evidence of Scripture, however, is that He revised the old order, and that was not the only instance of His doing so. In His first sermon, generally called the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), for example, Jesus declared several times, “It hath been said … But I say; …. It hath been said … But I say ….”

For instance, whereas the traditional ‘definition’ of adultery was a sexual act between a married person and someone who is not their spouse, Jesus revised it to include lustful looks and thoughts (Matthew 5:27-28).  Murder used to be defined as the act of killing somebody, but Jesus revised the concept to include causeless anger with a brother (Matthew 5:21-22).  An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth: that used to be the law, the Scripture; but Jesus revised that, too, saying, “But I say unto you … resist not evil” (Matthew 5:38-39).  In Matthew chapter 5 alone, that revisionary phrase, “But I say unto you …,” occurs as many as six times

Read more

14. What “Uncleanness”?

The Hebrew word rendered as “uncleanness” in that passage is `ervah, which is sometimes translated euphemistically as “nakedness” and sometimes as “uncleanness.”  In Leviticus 18:6-19, the word occurs repeatedly, warning that one should not (sexually) ‘uncover’ the “nakedness” (`ervah) of one’s daughter or daughter-in-law or stepmother or aunt or granddaughter, etc.  The figurative usage of that word as a reference to sexual uncleanness is clearer in such passages as Leviticus 20:17, which states that “a man” should not uncover or “see” the nakedness (`ervah) of his sister, his daughter, or his niece.  Leviticus 20:18 uses the word in a way that more clearly connects the reference to sexual relations: “if a man shall lie with a woman … and shall uncover her nakedness…” – `ervah.  People uncover their nakedness or that of their partner to

Read more

10. Was it a Parable?

If the encounter with the woman of Samaria had been a parable, we might have had theological pathways to ease the puzzle, but it was a real-life encounter with an actual woman who had had FIVE HUSBANDS – one, two, three, four, and five!  It was a real encounter with an actual woman at an authentic location witnessed by all twelve disciples of Jesus as well as the villagers, especially the men whom she invited to “come see.” 

If the story had been of a man who had had five wives, we might also have bothered differently, even in that New Testament passage.  What did Jesus mean in Matthew 5:32 about legitimate divorce strictly on grounds of fornication, that did not seem to apply in John 4:18 with the Samaritan woman and her five legitimate ex-husbands and five apparently legitimate divorces from each of them?

If it had been a disciple or a Pharisee who had called those men “husbands,” one would have

Read more

8. Was it Fornication?

If consecutive deaths was not the likely cause for the termination of each of the five previous marriages, was it fornication, as apparently provided for by Jesus in His discourse with the Pharisees who had asked if it was okay for a husband to “put away his wife for every cause” (Matthew 19:3)?  Did someone commit fornication (or “sexual immorality,” as some Bible translations put it) in all previous marriages, to warrant the lawful divorces that legitimised the subsequent remarriages, according to the apparent terms of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9?

Read more

6. How the Separation?

The passage does not say how the separations with the five ex-husbands came about, and whose fault it was.  Whatever the case, they were consecutive divorces: one, two, three, four, and five.  If any of the previous partings of ways had not been a valid divorce but a mere separation, the subsequent relationship could not have been called a marriage and the man a “husband.”  It had to have taken one legal divorce for the subsequent relationship to be called a marriage, and the partners “husband” and “wife.”  If each of the five ex-men was at one point legitimately a husband, and Jesus called them “husbands,” then Jesus recognised as valid and acceptable both the processes by which each man was engaged to that woman, and those by which he got later divorced from her; He recognized each of the five as valid consecutive marriages and valid consecutive divorces.

If Jesus would say on one hand in Judea that divorce and remarriage was adultery while one partner still lived, except the divorce had been based on “fornication” by one of the parties, then in Samaria seem to endorse divorces and remarriages which did not appear to have been based on the condition declared in Judea, there must be something more to what Jesus had said, than is apparent from a simple reading of what He said.  My worry is, what was or were the legitimate grounds for the Samaritan divorces, as they did not seem to tally either with the exception clause in the related discourse with the Pharisees in Judea or with Paul’s exception clauses based on death or desertion by the unbelieving partner (1 Corinthians 7:15)?

7. Was it Deaths?

In answering the Sadducees during one interrogation, Jesus gave a hypothetical parable about a woman consecutively marrying each of seven brothers after the previous brother had died, from the eldest to the last (Mark 12:19-22).  Was consecutive deaths the reason and license for the Samaritan woman’s marriage to each next man?  Did each of the consecutive husbands die, thus warranting and legitimising her next marriage, and validating the subsequent man’s title as “husband” rather than “adulterer” – and she “no adulteress,” according to Matthew 19:9?

It is very unlikely that consecutive deaths was the cause of all five previous dissolutions of marriage.  No matter her feminine attractions or other qualities, I wonder how many men would so easily have risked marrying a woman with her graveyard of ex-husbands, a woman who ‘killed’ every man that married her!  Even if Man No 2 and Man No 3 had been too romantic or too bewitched to care about the previous graves, I am not sure that Man No 4 and Man No 5 would have followed so quickly in their trail.  Who wants to sign their death warrant in the name of marriage?  “She should keep her witchcraft-beauty and her graves to herself,” they might have sworn.  Such a killer-wife would have earned an unenviable devilish name in her little community, unless she possessed occult powers by which her victims were hypnotised and zombie-ed irresistibly one after the other into their graves through her conjugal sorceries.  But nothing in Jesus’ interaction with her suggested that, otherwise He might also have been casting out those devils from her. It is not impossible, but very unlikely, that death was the cause of all five previous dissolutions of marriage.  In other words, it was not the death of one husband that permitted her recognised marriage to the next man, as apparently prescribed by Jesus in Judea.

From The Preacher’s diary,
July 20, 2021. 

Note:

If you wondered about the initial post mentioned in the “Preface” in Part 1, note that that first message is Part 1 and 2 of this series. Thanks.

The Preacher

4. A Hostel or a Home? 

In the King James Version, we read: “he whom thou now hast” ….  In the Complete Jewish Bible, the New Living Translation, and a couple of other Bible translations, that expression is rendered as “the man you’re living with now.”  In other words, the woman was already living in with Man No. 6, probably checking out if, at last, that was going to be the man of her dreams and her joy; if that relationship would ‘work out’ at last, after five failed cases – which must have been quite traumatic for her.  Whether she moved in with him or he moved in with her, we cannot say, but given that orthodox culture, it is more probable that it was she who moved in with the man.

When Jesus said that the man she ‘had’ at the time was NOT a husband, not HER husband, He probably meant that she was dating a married man – another woman’s husband, or that the man had not yet done the customary rites to make her a wife, and make him her husband, as in each of the past five cases.  Or was it a polite rebuke that the present relationship was adulterous (or one of fornication), unlike the previous five?  Whatever Jesus meant seemed clear to her, and she had no queries about it.

Secondly, and of more serious concern, Jesus seemed to have been saying that to have ‘had’ a man; to be ‘living with’ the man; to have moved in with him, did not mean marriage.  The reverse would also be true, that to ‘now have’ a woman in the house, to be “living with” her, does not make her a wife.  In other words, residency is not marriage – no matter how long the stay and how intimate the care.  Living long in a flashy hostel or hotel does not make it home, despite the paid care shown; and marriage is much more than consensual cohabitation.

In that conversation, Jesus was addressing two kinds of relationships: marriage and cohabitation.  With the previous five, it was marriage; but with Man No. 6, it was cohabitation, which neither society nor God had recognised as marriage.  Jesus, who was Man No. 7 in her significant encounters, knew what marriage was and what it was not.  The woman knew, too, and did not argue.  There was no ambiguity about what was meant, so she never asked for clarifications as she did about the other topics during their long afternoon discourse (vv. 9, 11, 12).

5.        Five New Testament Husbands? 

The next point is what bothers me: five husbands!  Did Jesus really call all those ex-men “husbands”?  Wasn’t it He who said, in the same New Testament, that if ANYONE divorced and remarried while the other partner was still alive, it was adultery, unless there had been a case of “fornication” (Matthew 5:32; 19:9)?  If only the first marriage was valid, according to the passages quoted, then the subsequent relationships would have been adultery, and the men should not have been called “husbands” but “adulterers,” or more politely, “concubines.”  If Jesus called them “husbands” and not “adulterers,” can it be logically assumed

Read more

Monday 28th – Wednesday 30th April, 2025.

Fast daily according to your time zone, break when you would, later in the day. We meet online daily to pray together in the Spirit, iron sharpening iron…

PRAYER TIMES:
– Nigeria/UK: (WAT/GMT) 11:45 PM
– Montreal, Canada: 6:45 PM
– New York, USA: 6:45 PM
– Brasilia, Brazil: 7:45 PM
– Nairobi, Kenya: 1:45 AM (next day)
– Johannesburg, South Africa: 12:45 AM (next day)
– Sydney, Australia: 8:45 AM (next day)

Corporate global fasting and prayers for yourself, family, the Church and the nations. We have had encouraging testimonies in the past, yours is next …

Venue: Zoom
Kindly click on the link below to join:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83040745485?pwd=eE5aeVFBWXBNZm9pMWhHSm9jRGlRQT09Meeting

Meeting ID: 830 4074 5485
Passcode: Jesus

Enquires: (SMS/email only)‪+234 803 5115 164‬; info@thepreacher.info

 PREFACE: The Second Word 

In 2021, the first part of this message was published, on the Samaritan woman with her five ex-husbands and two other men.  Some readers thankfully wrote back to say that it was a refreshing eye-opener, and they were looking out for the continuation.  They were persuaded that it had a follow up, or had to have one.  As that was all that I had at the time, I could give no more. I kept telling them politely that there was no “Part 2” to that post, unless I received a further word from the Lord.  I wasn’t expecting any more, though. 

Before the end of 2024, however, probably in answer to those earnest enquiries and other souls in need of the healing that this might offer, God began to open to me the ‘continuation’ – the fuller picture that apparently resolves the puzzles stirred by the first post.  In the fitting words of Jeremiah, maybe I should say, “And the word of the LORD came unto me the second time, saying …” (Jeremiah 1:13; Jonah 3:1).  That notwithstanding, the entire message retains the original date of my first encounter with it in July 2021. That initial post is Part 1 and 2 of the present series.

I have taken many days since the ‘second encounter’ to carefully put down the message.  Quite unusually (except occasionally for editorial purposes), I have taken the further step of theological caution, to submit the first draft of the message to select Christian leaders who should judge it for scriptural veracity.  The Bible says that if one prophet prophesies, the others in their silence might judge the speaker (1 Corinthians. 14:29).

Two respondents from those were persuaded that this was an audacious liberating truth, bringing theological balance to an uncommon topic, but warned that one should prepare for the backlash from doctrinal hardliners, not because it was false teaching but because it was an unsettling truth.  So, as the document itself verily admits, prepare to learn, relearn, and unlearn, as I, too, have.  The link to the e-book version shall be provided in the last three ‘Parts’ of this series, which is where the meat is.

Thanks for your time. 

The Preacher
February 2025

 1.  The Insight of a Prophet 

One tiring thirsty afternoon, Jesus broke a long-distance trip on foot to sit by a midway Samaritan well where He struck up a memorable conversation with a local woman.  By prophetic insight at one point in their discussion, Jesus said to her, “thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband” (John 4:18).  The woman was very shocked at how the stranger knew so much about her private life, and that opened the door to other serious matters.

2. Every Man is not a Husband 

When Jesus said, “thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband,” He was making a distinction between husbands and a non-husband; a non-husband irrespective of the level of intimacy between the partners.  Jesus was specific that the woman had had five men who were “husbands,” and was at that time with Man Number Six who was “not” a husband, or not yet a husband, notwithstanding that she ‘had’ him at the time.  In other words, ‘having’ a man does not make him a husband or make one the wife, and ‘being with’ does not mean ‘married to,’ no matter the degree of the intimacy, even if it were to such an intensity as to be noted even by Jesus the Son of God.

Read more