FIVE HUSBANDS AND TWO MEN: Christian Divorce and Re-Marriage? (Part 1 of 18)

 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.

According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary, the Greek word translated “hast” (or have) in that passage, is echo, meaning “to hold,” “to keep,” “a possession,” etc., all of which suggest a strong degree of intimacy between the parts, a passionate relationship.  From that Greek word, we could say that she ‘held’ the new man, ‘kept’ him, ‘possessed’ him carefully (especially given her past five disappointments), but he was NOT a husband, and she NOT a wife, despite the intensity of the intimacy between them.  Of that conclusion, she was aware and did not argue.  Strangely, in that expression, the focus was on the man, not on her; on what HE was NOT, and only implicitly or indirectly on her, on what she was not.

3. The Discretion of the Good Shepherd

Despite what Jesus knew of that woman, He did not condemn her in their entire conversation.  I couldn’t have trusted many holiness preachers to have managed the moment so respectfully of her and win her at last.  I probably would have brutally bombed her with a few legalistic doses of hellfire sermonettes and provoked either the shame or anger out of her, then fled her Samaritan rage with the conceited self-consolation that her people or she was that kind of a bigoted ‘unrepentant’ person after all.   From my pious podium, I was sure to have fired her with ballistic scriptures about shameless harlots and ‘unmarriable women,’ then proudly consigned her to hellfire for obstinately rejecting my ‘sound doctrine,’ while I carefully dusted my hallowed feet and walked away holily; but not so the Good Shepherd. He probed deep into her past without using it against her.  That amazing discretion might have explained why Jesus dispatched all twelve orthodox Jewish disciples far off into town on the very strange mission of buying lunch, while He engaged that special woman without the likelihood of their legalistic and conceited interference.

I wonder the size of the “bread” that needed twelve adult men to carry it from town.  Jesus eventually would not eat it when they returned.  Their conceited sentiments, against which Jesus had taken the precaution by diplomatically sending them away, showed up in their reaction when they returned to find Him talking with her; they “marvelled that he talked with THE woman” – hmm, “THE woman” … (John 4: 8, 27, 31-32).  They probably knew something of her too.  Five ex-’s plus one new lover couldn’t have been a cheap headline, and now Jesus – No 7!  Her story must have trended far and near on the social gossips of the time.

I wonder how many ‘self-respecting’ high-profile preachers would have risked being found with that kind of a woman, in a public place such as a frequented well, holding a private afternoon discussion from which even close disciples like Peter and John, who had shared other exclusive spiritual moments such as the Transfiguration Mount experience, had to be excluded.  I wonder what social media might have done if that were in our day.

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