FIVE HUSBANDS AND TWO MEN: Christian Divorce and Re-Marriage? (Part 2 of 18)

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 that the Matthew 5:32 position and related passages did not apply to the Samaritan woman’s condition with five serial marriages and divorces, or that the general perspectives on those scriptures are inaccurate?

Again, did Jesus really call those past relationships marriages?   Was what He said to the Jews in Matthew 19:9 not applicable to Samaritans, or this Samaritan?  Was there an exception to this gentile?  Was Jesus being merely polite, to call those ex-men “husbands” when He meant something else?  It is unlikely that He would so casually have used such serious words, given that the conversation had been cordial, with no need for such polite ironies.

Even if Jesus would not condemn the woman, at least He would have condemned the acts of subsequent marriages, divorces, and remarriages.  He did not, not even a mild rebuke.  He rather appeared to have acknowledged it.  What could that mean?

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