Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
No, Jesus says "....for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have..". The husband you now have.........
[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]
[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
No, that was Jesus' point, the husband that the woman had was not her husband. Her husband was the first one she married.
Where? If you can find a specific reference, please point me to one of the texts that speaks of a remarried person as the present husband or wife of the former spouse. Could you point out the text you are thinking of that speaks of a divorcee as the (present) spouse of the one he/she is divorced from. The John 4:18 reference (per Scott above) is unhelpful to that position because the tense (aorist) can scarcely support any other rendering than we find, i.e. a past reference to five previous marriages. In fact, when Jesus follows with, "and the one (man) you have now isn't even your husband," he is saying she's not married in her present relationship. He's not referring to any other husband as her true spouse.disagree...scripture still refers to them as the other's husband/wife even though divorced
[and]
no they are not a "bigamist", but according to scripture their previous spouse is still considered their husband/wife...and therefore they still have a husband/wife living other than their current spouse.
John 4
16Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." 17The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have well said, "I have no husband,' 18for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly."
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Otherwise would it not read that five MEN were her husbands and the MAN that she has now is not her husband?
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
I will have to ask hubby and my children's godfather to go over the greek on that one. Because as it reads in english (and yes I very much appreciate knowing the greek rendering) it says "the ONE" refering to husbands...not "the man"
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
These support what I noted in the English: (the one = another husband)
ESV John 4:18 for you have had five husbands, and THE ONE you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true."
NKJ John 4:18 "for you have had five husbands, and THE ONE whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly."
NAU John 4:18 for you have had five husbands, and THE ONE whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."
This one supports your rendering: (the man = indicating specific and allowing for change in relationship compared to the other five)
NIV John 4:18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and THE MAN you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."
"That's nicely put: "I have no husband.' 18You've had five husbands, and the man you're living with now isn't even your husband. You spoke the truth there, sure enough."
Originally posted by pastorway
Even the Message gets it right!
"That's nicely put: "I have no husband.' 18You've had five husbands, and the man you're living with now isn't even your husband. You spoke the truth there, sure enough."
Seriously, Jesus said she had spoken correctly when she said she did not presently have a husband - and then He revealed to her the truth that He knew - she had been married 5 times in the past and was even now living with a man outside of marriage. She was amazed that He knew this about her, because it was all TRUE.
The text proves the following (in Greek and English):
She is presently single.
She had been married to 5 men.
All 5 of these men had been her husband.
She is now living with a man who is not one of the 5 and is also not her husband.
It is that simple guys.
Phillip
Originally posted by fredtgreco
I am not following either Colleen or Scott.
Christ says that she had five husbands, and that the man who she now has is NOT her husband.
Here is the Greek:
pe,nte ga.r a;ndraj e;scej kai. nu/n o]n e;ceij ouvk e;stin sou avnh,r\
it is 5 husbands (andres), the man whom (a masculine singular relative pronoun) is NOT your husband (aner - singular of andres)
It seems clear to me that Christ is saying that she had 5 husbands whom she was divorced from, and she is now living with a man who is NOT her husband because she is not married to him.
If the 6th man was not her husband because of the previous relationships, then how could Christ call numbers 2-5 her husbands ?
This doesn't seem so tough to me - it appears that Colleen and Scott want the text to prove a point it is not intending to prove.
The text cannot be parsed this way. You can't just say "This word, this indefinite pronoun can be substituted with the word "husband" for clarity." Because it can't mean "husband", and making it say so positively unclarifies it, and even says something wrong. Here's how it looks put into S/V word order the way we used to diagram sentences in H/S. "And now you are having one-whom (he) is not your husband" Rephrased it might sound like this: "And now you are in possession of someone who is defined as one-who-is-not-your-husband."The husband you now have.........is not your husband (either).
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
uuurrrrk. Scott.
Help me understand you. No matter what else we say, we have got to agree that the text, Jesus himself, says she had fully FIVE husbands.
Your appeal to the commentators baffles me as well.
Henry agrees she has had multiple husbands:
"her former husband or husbands were living"
So does Calvin:
"Though God joined thee to lawful husbands"
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
What I am saying is that legally or in others eyes he may be her husband, but in God's eyes, he is not and cannot be
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
What I am saying is that legally or in others eyes he may be her husband, but in God's eyes, he is not and cannot be
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
What I am saying is that legally or in others eyes he may be her husband, but in God's eyes, he is not and cannot be
Okay, here's my problem with this analysis:
1. The woman is living with a man.
2. The man she is living with is not her husband.
3. The woman has had FIVE husbands, not just one.
4. Therefore, it cannot be because the woman had a previous husband that the sixth man is not her husband.
5. This is because, if that were the case, then the second man would not have been her husband, the third man would not have been her husband, the fourth man would have not been her husband, and the fifth man would not have been her husband.
6. If #5 would be incorrect, then Jesus would've had to have said "Truly, you have had one husband and four men who are not your husband."
But this is not what Jesus says; he says that the woman has had five husbands, and is now currently living with a man who is not her husband. And what I don't get,is that both Calvin, Henry, and Poole all seem to be saying the same thing that I am: that the sixth man is not her husband. But that is NOT because she has had a previous husband. It is because he is NOT her husband, either because he is married to another or she has never been married to him. If it were because she had been previously married. There is no way she could have had FIVE husbands. That would be impossible.
Am I missing something here?
9. But I say to you. Mark relates that this was spoken to the disciples apart, when they had come into the house; but Matthew, leaving out this circumstance, gives it as a part of the discourse, as the Evangelists frequently leave out some intermediate occurrence, because they reckon it enough to sum up the leading points. There is therefore no difference, except that the one explains the matter more distinctly than the other. The substance of it is: though the Law does not punish divorces, which are at variance with God's first institution, yet he is an adulterer who rejects his wife and takes another. For it is not in the power of a man to dissolve the engagement of marriage, which the Lord wishes to remain inviolate; and so the woman who occupies the bed of a lawful wife is a concubine.
But an exception is added; for the woman, by fornication, cuts herself off, as a rotten member, from her husband, and sets him at liberty. Those who search for other reasons ought justly to be set at nought, because they choose to be wise above the heavenly teacher. They say that leprosy is a proper ground for divorce, because the contagion of the disease affects not only the husband, but likewise the children. For my own part, while I advise a religious man not to touch a woman afflicted with leprosy, I do not pronounce him to be at liberty to divorce her. If it be objected, that they who cannot live unmarried need a remedy, that they may not be burned, I answer, that what is sought in opposition to the word of God is not a remedy. I add too, that if they give themselves up to be guided by the Lord, they will never want continence, for they follow what he has prescribed. One man shall contract such a dislike of his wife, that he cannot endure to keep company with her: will polygamy cure this evil? Another man's wife shall fall into palsy or apoplexy, or be afflicted with some other incurable disease, shall the husband reject her under the pretense of incontinency? We know, on the contrary, that none of those who walk in their ways are ever left destitute of the assistance of the Spirit.
For the sake of avoiding fornication, says Paul, let every man marry a wife, (1 Corinthians 7:2.) He who has done so, though he may not succeed to his wish, has done his duty; and, therefore, if any thing be wanting, he will be supported by divine aid. To go beyond this is nothing else than to tempt God. When Paul mentions another reason, namely, that when, through a dislike of godliness, wives happen to be rejected by unbelievers, a godly brother or sister is not, in such a case, liable to bondage, (1 Corinthians 7:12,15,) this is not inconsistent with Christ's meaning. For he does not there inquire into the proper grounds of divorce, but only whether a woman continues to be bound to an unbelieving husband, after that, through hatred of God, she has been wickedly rejected, and cannot be reconciled to him in any other way than by forsaking God; and therefore we need not wonder if Paul think it better that she should part with a mortal man than that she should be at variance with God.
But the exception which Christ states appears to be superfluous. For, if the adulteress deserve to be punished with death, what purpose does it serve to talk of divorces? But as it was the duty of the husband to prosecute his wife for adultery, in order to purge his house from infamy, whatever might be the result, the husband, who convicts his wife of uncleanness, is here freed by Christ from the bond. It is even possible that, among a corrupt and degenerate people, this crime remained to a great extent unpunished; as, in our own day, the wicked forbearance of magistrates makes it necessary for husbands to put away unchaste wives, because adulterers are not punished. It must also be observed, that the right belongs equally and mutually to both sides, as there is a mutual and equal obligation to fidelity. For, though in other matters the husband holds the superiority, as to the marriage bed, the wife has an equal right: for he is not the lord of his body; and therefore when, by committing adultery, he has dissolved the marriage, the wife is set at liberty.
And whosoever shall marry her that is divorced. This clause has been very ill explained by many commentators; for they have thought that generally, and without exception, celibacy is enjoined in all cases when a divorce has taken place; and, therefore, if a husband should put away an adulteress, both would be laid under the necessity of remaining unmarried. As if this liberty of divorce meant only not to lie with his wife; and as if Christ did not evidently grant permission in this case to do what the Jews were wont indiscriminately to do at their pleasure. It was therefore a gross error; for, though Christ condemns as an adulterer the man who shall marry a wife that has been divorced, this is undoubtedly restricted to unlawful and frivolous divorces. In like manner, Paul enjoins those who have been so dismissed
to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to their husbands,
(1 Corinthians 7:11
that is, because quarrels and differences do not dissolve a marriage. This is clearly made out from the passage in Mark, where express mention is made of the wife who has left her husband: and if the wife shall divorce her husband. Not that wives were permitted to give their husbands a letter of divorcement, unless so far as the Jews had been contaminated by foreign customs; but Mark intended to show that our Lord condemned the corruption which was at that time universal, that, after voluntary divorces, they entered on both sides into new marriages; and therefore he makes no mention of adultery.