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]
Pastor unqualified?
- Thread starter Preach
- Start date
- Status
I want to highlight one of J. I. Packers great moments. It is from his book Rediscovering Holiness.
Leadership. What do we Christians Chiefly value in our leaders-our Preachers, teachers,pastors, writers, televangelists, top people in parachurch ministries, money-men who bankroll churches and other Christian enterprises, and other folk with key roles in our set-up? The answer seems to be not their holiness, but their gifts and skills and resources. The number of North American leaders (and other Christians too) who in recent years have been found guilty of sexual and financial shenanigans, and who when challenged have declined to see themselves as accountable to any part of the body of Christ, is startling. Much more startling is the way in which, after public exposure and some few slaps on the wrist, they are soon able to resume their ministry and carry on as if nothing had happened, commanding apparently as much support as before. To protest that Christians believe in the forgivenss of sins and the restoration of sinners is beside the point. What I am saying is that the speed of their reinstatement shows that we value them more for their proven gifts than for their proven sanctity, since the thought that only holy people are likely to be spiritually useful does not loom large in our minds.
More than a century and a half ago, the Scottish parish minister and revival preacher Robert Murray M'Cheyne declared: "My people's greatest need is my personal holiness." It seems clear that neither modern clergy nor their modern flocks would agree with M'Cheyne's assessment. In the past when your church has appointed a calling committee to hunt for the next pastor, I am sure that a very adequate profile of required gifts has been drawn up, but how much emphasis has been laid on the crucial need to find a holy man? Shall I guess?
Holiness Rediscovered pp33-34
Leadership. What do we Christians Chiefly value in our leaders-our Preachers, teachers,pastors, writers, televangelists, top people in parachurch ministries, money-men who bankroll churches and other Christian enterprises, and other folk with key roles in our set-up? The answer seems to be not their holiness, but their gifts and skills and resources. The number of North American leaders (and other Christians too) who in recent years have been found guilty of sexual and financial shenanigans, and who when challenged have declined to see themselves as accountable to any part of the body of Christ, is startling. Much more startling is the way in which, after public exposure and some few slaps on the wrist, they are soon able to resume their ministry and carry on as if nothing had happened, commanding apparently as much support as before. To protest that Christians believe in the forgivenss of sins and the restoration of sinners is beside the point. What I am saying is that the speed of their reinstatement shows that we value them more for their proven gifts than for their proven sanctity, since the thought that only holy people are likely to be spiritually useful does not loom large in our minds.
More than a century and a half ago, the Scottish parish minister and revival preacher Robert Murray M'Cheyne declared: "My people's greatest need is my personal holiness." It seems clear that neither modern clergy nor their modern flocks would agree with M'Cheyne's assessment. In the past when your church has appointed a calling committee to hunt for the next pastor, I am sure that a very adequate profile of required gifts has been drawn up, but how much emphasis has been laid on the crucial need to find a holy man? Shall I guess?
Holiness Rediscovered pp33-34
Scott,
The text does not say that. In fact, the text says the exact opposite. It calls all five of the men husbands. There is no distinction made at all between the first one and the next four. They are "five husbands" - pe,nte a;ndraj
The tense here is an aorist tense, which does indicate a non-durative state, i.e. she had in the past, not she had in the past and continues to have (which would be imperfect)
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Fred,
Your Greek proves nothing. I never said that the 5 were not literal husbands. Your definition sheds no lightupon Christs point in that He says, "....for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have..". The husband you now have.........is not your husband (either).
Here are some historians:
Henry:
(3.) How closely our Lord Jesus brings home the conviction to her conscience. It is probable that he said more than is here recorded, for she thought that he told her all that ever she did (v. 29), but that which is here recorded is concerning her husbands. Here is, [1.] A surprising narrative of her past conversation: Thou has had five husbands. Doubtless, it was not her affliction (the burying of so many husbands), but her sin, that Christ intended to upbraid her with; either she had eloped (as the law speaks), had run away from her husbands, and married others, or by her undutiful, unclean, disloyal conduct, had provoked them to divorce her, or by indirect means had, contrary to law, divorced them. Those who make light of such scandalous practices as these, as no more than nine days' wonder, and as if the guilt were over as soon as the talk is over, should remember that Christ keeps account of all. [2.] A severe reproof of her present state of life: He whom thou now hast is not thy husband. Either she was never married to him at all, or he had some other wife, or, which is most probable, her former husband or husbands were living: so that, in short, she lived in adultery.
Calvin writes:
17. I have not a husband. We do not yet fully perceive the fruit of this
advice, by which Christ intended to pierce the heart of this woman, to lead
her to repentance. And, indeed, we are so intoxicated, or rather stupified,
by our self-love, that we are not at all moved by the first wounds that are
inflicted. But Christ applies an appropriate cure for this sluggishness, by
pressing the ulcer more sharply, for he openly reproaches her with her
wickedness; though I do not think that it is a single case of fornication that
is here pointed out, for when he says that she has had five husbands, the
reason of this probably was, that, being a froward and disobedient wife,
she constrained her husbands to divorce her. I interpret the words thus:
“Though God joined thee to lawful husbands, thou didst not cease to sin,
until, rendered infamous by numerous divorces, thou prostitutedst thyself
to fornication.”
Poole:
I have no husband; that is none that is my lawful husband.; she denieth not that she had one who she used and lived with as a husband, but that she had any legal husbad, to whom she clave, and to no other : still she goeth on, thinking to deceive Christ, and to put tricks upon Him.Christ tells her, she in this did speak truth: he knew she had no legal husband. he tells her that she had five husbands; whether successively, the former being dead, and she marrying another, or five from whom she had been divorced for adultery is not agreed.; the best modern interpreters judge, that she had five men to whom she had been in marriage, but so behaved herself towards them that either for her adultery, or some other froward behavior towards them, they had given her a bill of divorce; and though she used and lived with one as her husband , yet in this she said truly, because her former husbands yet living, he was not her husband.
[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Your Greek proves nothing. I never said that the 5 were not literal husbands. Your definition sheds no lightupon Christs point in that He says, "....for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have..". The husband you now have.........is not your husband (either).
Here are some historians:
Henry:
(3.) How closely our Lord Jesus brings home the conviction to her conscience. It is probable that he said more than is here recorded, for she thought that he told her all that ever she did (v. 29), but that which is here recorded is concerning her husbands. Here is, [1.] A surprising narrative of her past conversation: Thou has had five husbands. Doubtless, it was not her affliction (the burying of so many husbands), but her sin, that Christ intended to upbraid her with; either she had eloped (as the law speaks), had run away from her husbands, and married others, or by her undutiful, unclean, disloyal conduct, had provoked them to divorce her, or by indirect means had, contrary to law, divorced them. Those who make light of such scandalous practices as these, as no more than nine days' wonder, and as if the guilt were over as soon as the talk is over, should remember that Christ keeps account of all. [2.] A severe reproof of her present state of life: He whom thou now hast is not thy husband. Either she was never married to him at all, or he had some other wife, or, which is most probable, her former husband or husbands were living: so that, in short, she lived in adultery.
Calvin writes:
17. I have not a husband. We do not yet fully perceive the fruit of this
advice, by which Christ intended to pierce the heart of this woman, to lead
her to repentance. And, indeed, we are so intoxicated, or rather stupified,
by our self-love, that we are not at all moved by the first wounds that are
inflicted. But Christ applies an appropriate cure for this sluggishness, by
pressing the ulcer more sharply, for he openly reproaches her with her
wickedness; though I do not think that it is a single case of fornication that
is here pointed out, for when he says that she has had five husbands, the
reason of this probably was, that, being a froward and disobedient wife,
she constrained her husbands to divorce her. I interpret the words thus:
“Though God joined thee to lawful husbands, thou didst not cease to sin,
until, rendered infamous by numerous divorces, thou prostitutedst thyself
to fornication.”
Poole:
I have no husband; that is none that is my lawful husband.; she denieth not that she had one who she used and lived with as a husband, but that she had any legal husbad, to whom she clave, and to no other : still she goeth on, thinking to deceive Christ, and to put tricks upon Him.Christ tells her, she in this did speak truth: he knew she had no legal husband. he tells her that she had five husbands; whether successively, the former being dead, and she marrying another, or five from whom she had been divorced for adultery is not agreed.; the best modern interpreters judge, that she had five men to whom she had been in marriage, but so behaved herself towards them that either for her adultery, or some other froward behavior towards them, they had given her a bill of divorce; and though she used and lived with one as her husband , yet in this she said truly, because her former husbands yet living, he was not her husband.
[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Colleen,
(I hope you don't mind me interacting with you--your contributions are helping further the whole thread--I'm not picking an argument with you, even if we disagree)
Thanks for responding. I think we're a lot closer that 99.4% at odds.
When you distinguish between man's legal acts and God's, its important to define where the acts of man and God coincide, as well as where they conflict. E.g., Jesus condemns the scribes of his day for adding to the sinful confusion by authorizing divorce where it was not permitted. Therefore, when two people were granted divorce when there were no grounds, the condition they were in was... Divorced, without grounds. A sinful act followed by a sinful state (where your "???" above, I am distinguishing these two senses of the terms "marriage" and "divorce"). They weren't married anymore. They were supposed to be married. The FIRST resolution to this problem would include 1) repentance, and 2) reconcilliation, i.e. a restoration of the marriage state between them two.
Here's how they would be guilty of adultery:
1) if they two had marital realtions without resuming a proper, legal, formal marriage state,
2) since, being required to marry back one another, if the one or the other or both married other people--that is, the act of marrying would be an adulterous act. Jesus, noting the vulnerability of women, nevertheless points out that the heartless husband by sinfully divorcing his wife literally is guilty of "causing" his wife to commit adultery by remarriage (unless Jesus' meaning is that the husband "makes her out to be" or treats her "as if she were" an adulteress--but this is a weaker interpretation linguistically). Women were not ordinarily self-sufficient in that society. And
3) the one marrying her also commits adultery (by the same act of marrying).
Marital relations within said wrongly-entered marriage would not constitute adulterous acts. Why? Because they are now married. It would be sinful for married people to withhold relations from each other. And another divorce between this new couple would be sinful, so that is not an option.
# 7 in my previous post just says there are certain "relationships" that cannot be called "marriages." There's no point in hmsxls, or the incestuous, or the guy who "weds" his pickup truck getting "divorced" from each other, when they weren't ever "married" (even if they claimed to be so).
As for my # 8 & 9, I wouldn't expect you to agree with my argument there because I know you don't think anyone with a past sinful divorce should be a pastor. But why should a non-Christian not get divorced (on his rebellious presuppositions)? And when he becomes a believer, why should thirty years of growth in grace, a godly wife/children/grandchildren, demonstrated maturity, plus clear evidence of gifts for the ministry, count as "the small dust of the balance" compared to "sins done in ignorance"? The lists of qualifications don't say "never divorced". That is interpretation of the literal "must be [present tense, right now]... a one woman man" just as much as my interpretation is, and a weaker sense I might add. "The old things are passed away."
Consequenses? Yes, I think I've been clear I believe in lingering consequenses. Absolute consequences are spelled out in Scripture; practical consequences may result alongside of Scripture. For what it's worth, we would probably vote the same--turning down 99.99% of these guys who wanted to be our pastor--against Christians who had "sinned against the light." That .01% difference is that I'm afraid of going beyond Scripture when I don't see a blanket ban on them spelled out so neatly as you seem to. God may really have a place for that 1 in 10,000 but it's probably not going to be where I worship.
(I hope you don't mind me interacting with you--your contributions are helping further the whole thread--I'm not picking an argument with you, even if we disagree)
Thanks for responding. I think we're a lot closer that 99.4% at odds.
When you distinguish between man's legal acts and God's, its important to define where the acts of man and God coincide, as well as where they conflict. E.g., Jesus condemns the scribes of his day for adding to the sinful confusion by authorizing divorce where it was not permitted. Therefore, when two people were granted divorce when there were no grounds, the condition they were in was... Divorced, without grounds. A sinful act followed by a sinful state (where your "???" above, I am distinguishing these two senses of the terms "marriage" and "divorce"). They weren't married anymore. They were supposed to be married. The FIRST resolution to this problem would include 1) repentance, and 2) reconcilliation, i.e. a restoration of the marriage state between them two.
Here's how they would be guilty of adultery:
1) if they two had marital realtions without resuming a proper, legal, formal marriage state,
2) since, being required to marry back one another, if the one or the other or both married other people--that is, the act of marrying would be an adulterous act. Jesus, noting the vulnerability of women, nevertheless points out that the heartless husband by sinfully divorcing his wife literally is guilty of "causing" his wife to commit adultery by remarriage (unless Jesus' meaning is that the husband "makes her out to be" or treats her "as if she were" an adulteress--but this is a weaker interpretation linguistically). Women were not ordinarily self-sufficient in that society. And
3) the one marrying her also commits adultery (by the same act of marrying).
Marital relations within said wrongly-entered marriage would not constitute adulterous acts. Why? Because they are now married. It would be sinful for married people to withhold relations from each other. And another divorce between this new couple would be sinful, so that is not an option.
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.
# 7 in my previous post just says there are certain "relationships" that cannot be called "marriages." There's no point in hmsxls, or the incestuous, or the guy who "weds" his pickup truck getting "divorced" from each other, when they weren't ever "married" (even if they claimed to be so).
As for my # 8 & 9, I wouldn't expect you to agree with my argument there because I know you don't think anyone with a past sinful divorce should be a pastor. But why should a non-Christian not get divorced (on his rebellious presuppositions)? And when he becomes a believer, why should thirty years of growth in grace, a godly wife/children/grandchildren, demonstrated maturity, plus clear evidence of gifts for the ministry, count as "the small dust of the balance" compared to "sins done in ignorance"? The lists of qualifications don't say "never divorced". That is interpretation of the literal "must be [present tense, right now]... a one woman man" just as much as my interpretation is, and a weaker sense I might add. "The old things are passed away."
Consequenses? Yes, I think I've been clear I believe in lingering consequenses. Absolute consequences are spelled out in Scripture; practical consequences may result alongside of Scripture. For what it's worth, we would probably vote the same--turning down 99.99% of these guys who wanted to be our pastor--against Christians who had "sinned against the light." That .01% difference is that I'm afraid of going beyond Scripture when I don't see a blanket ban on them spelled out so neatly as you seem to. God may really have a place for that 1 in 10,000 but it's probably not going to be where I worship.
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
I think I see what Scott is pointing to....bear with me here....
she has HAD five HUSBANDS, and THE ONE she NOW HAS
two things here....it can be like having a pronoun
"Bill had a pickle. Bill ate it."
only it isn't a pronoun (I'm good at writing but not at stating the catergories...argh!)
"Bill ate the pickle and then ate the other one."
obviously we are going to presume that the "one" is also a pickle.
also notice the relationship between HAD and NOW HAVE...that also signals that we are discussing the same term.
Otherwise would it not read that five MEN were her husbands and the MAN that she has now is not her husband?
she has HAD five HUSBANDS, and THE ONE she NOW HAS
two things here....it can be like having a pronoun
"Bill had a pickle. Bill ate it."
only it isn't a pronoun (I'm good at writing but not at stating the catergories...argh!)
"Bill ate the pickle and then ate the other one."
obviously we are going to presume that the "one" is also a pickle.
also notice the relationship between HAD and NOW HAVE...that also signals that we are discussing the same term.
Otherwise would it not read that five MEN were her husbands and the MAN that she has now is not her husband?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Exactly; Thank you Colleen.
Jesus is saying that this woman has had so many husbands, even this last one, yet none are her truly her husbands except the first one as the rest were adulterous......That was the sin Christ was bringing to light.
[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Jesus is saying that this woman has had so many husbands, even this last one, yet none are her truly her husbands except the first one as the rest were adulterous......That was the sin Christ was bringing to light.
[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]
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.
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.
That's pretty much exactly what the Greek says.
I don't understand. The English is clear. We have 5 husbands (plural) and the one/the man/the man whom/whom (it is just a singular masculine pronoun that is in the case of the direct object, the object of the verb "have" ) is the one NOT her husband
So I read the major translations:
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."
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."
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."
tell me again how you read this?
[Edited on 2/3/2005 by fredtgreco]
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
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."
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."
How can a husband be one who is not a husband? The one is NOT YOUR HUSBAND. "the one" has no special meaning. The English cannot mean what you say it means. What you are saying, honestly makes no sense. It is like say that that thing over there is not the sky, and then claiming it is the sky.
Even the Message gets it right!
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
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
Yes, Philip, that is exactly what I was saying. Colleen, were you saying that the tax says the exact opposite of what Philip stated in his post?
I want to make sure that I am not misunderstanding you.
I want to make sure that I am not misunderstanding you.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Calvin, Poole and Henry understood.
Henry:
(3.) How closely our Lord Jesus brings home the conviction to her conscience. It is probable that he said more than is here recorded, for she thought that he told her all that ever she did (v. 29), but that which is here recorded is concerning her husbands. Here is, [1.] A surprising narrative of her past conversation: Thou has had five husbands. Doubtless, it was not her affliction (the burying of so many husbands), but her sin, that Christ intended to upbraid her with; either she had eloped (as the law speaks), had run away from her husbands, and married others, or by her undutiful, unclean, disloyal conduct, had provoked them to divorce her, or by indirect means had, contrary to law, divorced them. Those who make light of such scandalous practices as these, as no more than nine days' wonder, and as if the guilt were over as soon as the talk is over, should remember that Christ keeps account of all. [2.] A severe reproof of her present state of life: He whom thou now hast is not thy husband. Either she was never married to him at all, or he had some other wife, or, which is most probable, her former husband or husbands were living: so that, in short, she lived in adultery.
Calvin writes:
17. I have not a husband. We do not yet fully perceive the fruit of this
advice, by which Christ intended to pierce the heart of this woman, to lead
her to repentance. And, indeed, we are so intoxicated, or rather stupified,
by our self-love, that we are not at all moved by the first wounds that are
inflicted. But Christ applies an appropriate cure for this sluggishness, by
pressing the ulcer more sharply, for he openly reproaches her with her
wickedness; though I do not think that it is a single case of fornication that
is here pointed out, for when he says that she has had five husbands, the
reason of this probably was, that, being a froward and disobedient wife,
she constrained her husbands to divorce her. I interpret the words thus:
“Though God joined thee to lawful husbands, thou didst not cease to sin,
until, rendered infamous by numerous divorces, thou prostitutedst thyself
to fornication.”
Poole:
I have no husband; that is none that is my lawful husband.; she denieth not that she had one who she used and lived with as a husband, but that she had any legal husbad, to whom she clave, and to no other : still she goeth on, thinking to deceive Christ, and to put tricks upon Him.Christ tells her, she in this did speak truth: he knew she had no legal husband. he tells her that she had five husbands; whether successively, the former being dead, and she marrying another, or five from whom she had been divorced for adultery is not agreed.; the best modern interpreters judge, that she had five men to whom she had been in marriage, but so behaved herself towards them that either for her adultery, or some other froward behavior towards them, they had given her a bill of divorce; and though she used and lived with one as her husband , yet in this she said truly, because her former husbands yet living, he was not her husband.
The examples I presented shed the same light upon the idea I and Colleen intend. The emphasis Christ is putting to this woman is that legally she has no husband. The one man (a non legal husband), that she lives with is technically a companion or adulterous affair. Christ saying to her that she "has no husband" is His way of revealing the depth of her sin in that her chain of men have not been ever legal in Gods eyes and that her first husband was the legal one.
Henry:
(3.) How closely our Lord Jesus brings home the conviction to her conscience. It is probable that he said more than is here recorded, for she thought that he told her all that ever she did (v. 29), but that which is here recorded is concerning her husbands. Here is, [1.] A surprising narrative of her past conversation: Thou has had five husbands. Doubtless, it was not her affliction (the burying of so many husbands), but her sin, that Christ intended to upbraid her with; either she had eloped (as the law speaks), had run away from her husbands, and married others, or by her undutiful, unclean, disloyal conduct, had provoked them to divorce her, or by indirect means had, contrary to law, divorced them. Those who make light of such scandalous practices as these, as no more than nine days' wonder, and as if the guilt were over as soon as the talk is over, should remember that Christ keeps account of all. [2.] A severe reproof of her present state of life: He whom thou now hast is not thy husband. Either she was never married to him at all, or he had some other wife, or, which is most probable, her former husband or husbands were living: so that, in short, she lived in adultery.
Calvin writes:
17. I have not a husband. We do not yet fully perceive the fruit of this
advice, by which Christ intended to pierce the heart of this woman, to lead
her to repentance. And, indeed, we are so intoxicated, or rather stupified,
by our self-love, that we are not at all moved by the first wounds that are
inflicted. But Christ applies an appropriate cure for this sluggishness, by
pressing the ulcer more sharply, for he openly reproaches her with her
wickedness; though I do not think that it is a single case of fornication that
is here pointed out, for when he says that she has had five husbands, the
reason of this probably was, that, being a froward and disobedient wife,
she constrained her husbands to divorce her. I interpret the words thus:
“Though God joined thee to lawful husbands, thou didst not cease to sin,
until, rendered infamous by numerous divorces, thou prostitutedst thyself
to fornication.”
Poole:
I have no husband; that is none that is my lawful husband.; she denieth not that she had one who she used and lived with as a husband, but that she had any legal husbad, to whom she clave, and to no other : still she goeth on, thinking to deceive Christ, and to put tricks upon Him.Christ tells her, she in this did speak truth: he knew she had no legal husband. he tells her that she had five husbands; whether successively, the former being dead, and she marrying another, or five from whom she had been divorced for adultery is not agreed.; the best modern interpreters judge, that she had five men to whom she had been in marriage, but so behaved herself towards them that either for her adultery, or some other froward behavior towards them, they had given her a bill of divorce; and though she used and lived with one as her husband , yet in this she said truly, because her former husbands yet living, he was not her husband.
The examples I presented shed the same light upon the idea I and Colleen intend. The emphasis Christ is putting to this woman is that legally she has no husband. The one man (a non legal husband), that she lives with is technically a companion or adulterous affair. Christ saying to her that she "has no husband" is His way of revealing the depth of her sin in that her chain of men have not been ever legal in Gods eyes and that her first husband was the legal one.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Phillip,
Why use the word even in the text? It is to emphasize that even the present one is NOT her husband. Neither were the 4 before him. Her husband is the 1st man. This woman is the worst of the worst; she is THE adulteress and Christ rubs her nose in it.
Mar 10:2 And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him.
Mar 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
Mar 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
Mar 10:5 But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife;
Mar 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mar 10:10 And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter.
Mar 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her:
Mar 10:12 and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.
[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Fred, at face value, it reads as it reads. Did Christ always speak clearly? Are the parables clear? In this scenario, you must read between the lines. You say we are making the text say what we want, I say that you are, based upon your doctrine in regards to the subject matter. Poole, Henry and Calvin seem to get it......
This does not prove that the man is not her husband. The Greek word is husband, whichever way you slice it.
Example: If you were a car thief, and the first car you ever had was paid for legally; you owned it. That car is yours; you own it. The next 4 you stole. No one ever caught you for the crime. They were in your possession and you kept them till they ran their course. The last one in your possession, is it your car? No. Jesus is saying to this woman, the man you are with, he isn't your husband either, much like the other 4, the one after the first (or actually the last legal one), he was your husband, these are adulterous.
Fred, I am not denying that at face value, it could be interpreted that way; In fact, I don't believe this is necessarily wrong either. Here's my point; did Jesus condone 5 husbands? No, he did not. To take the text in the manner you and Phillip are, to me, it takes Jesus out of His typical attitude. He was indignant towards divorce. If He spoke to the woman in the terms you say, she would have interpreted His statement as condoning towards her marital history; this I disagree with.
He was being fecitious or speaking to her in her terms......Look at verse 21:
Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.
Do you think she knew what Christ was inferring? No. IN fact, again He was being cerebral.
I say the same towards you...........:bigsmile:
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"
So does Poole:
"her former husbands yet living"
Above, you say:
She says "I have no husband" As in: right now I'm not married. And Jesus says , "Yes! You're speaking the truth! You have none. Not ONE, not FIVE at once. You aren't married to the First, nor the Second, nor the Third, nor the Fourth, nor the Fifth! You aren't married, AND you're engaged today in adultery with yet another person!"
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"
So does Poole:
"her former husbands yet living"
Above, you say:
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."
She says "I have no husband" As in: right now I'm not married. And Jesus says , "Yes! You're speaking the truth! You have none. Not ONE, not FIVE at once. You aren't married to the First, nor the Second, nor the Third, nor the Fourth, nor the Fifth! You aren't married, AND you're engaged today in adultery with yet another person!"
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Agreed. His point in bringing this up is to reinforce the idea that having five is preposterous and more than unacceptable to Gods law.
Bruce,
Maybe it's me. I say this with all honesty. Maybe it is the way I dialog here online; I don't know. Matt has no problem deciphering my ideas. Maybe thats because he knows me well........I never said that the woman did not have 5 husbands. Are we clear on that? You mention Henry saying that her former husbands were 'living'. This is the point, if they were living, she was in adultery and not technically (according to Gods standards) married to anyone other than the lawful husband-correct? This idea is at the premise behind Jesus; statement. "You are correct, the man you now live with is NOT your husband".
Bruce, I never said that by Judaic law she was not married legally. Remember however, as Jesus has said, "From the beginning" divorce was not part of the plan. Mar 10:6. Judaic law and what Moses did was not Gods plan; it was a break in protocol.
[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
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?
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
Not a thing. The above handled God's word reverently and accurately. Nice work!
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Fred,
You say that the commentators I used agree with you in that the woman had 5 husbands; in this I concur. However, again, what I see Jesus doing is chiding her for even that. Let me ask you, did God ordain marriage? Was His plan for us to be married to more than one? What did Jesus mean in this passage?
Mar 10:1 And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again. And again, as was his custom, he taught them.
Mar 10:2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
Mar 10:3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?"
Mar 10:4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away."
Mar 10:5 And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'
Mar 10:7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,
Mar 10:8 and they shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Would Jesus have thought along any other different lines? If not, my premise stands. Christ was chiding her for the 5 marriages and the man she was with. I believe the text speaks of him as her hsuband also.
Henry aludes to the possibility:
"He whom thou now hast is not thy husband. Either she was never married to him at all (*This statement proves that Henry believed that it was possibly that he was her husband), or he had some other wife, or, which is most probable, her former husband or husbands were living: so that, in short, she lived in adultery."
Poole writes:
"she used and lived with one as her husband , yet in this she said truly, because her former husbands yet living, he was not her husband."
Clear to me..........The point is, the possibility is there. This statement would make no sense at all if there wasn't a legal premise attached to it, i.e former husbands living, marriage to anyone is adultery, making the last husband not her (true) husband. Based upon this, the sentence structure, the legal implications, she replies right, I have no husband.
[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]
[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]
You say that the commentators I used agree with you in that the woman had 5 husbands; in this I concur. However, again, what I see Jesus doing is chiding her for even that. Let me ask you, did God ordain marriage? Was His plan for us to be married to more than one? What did Jesus mean in this passage?
Mar 10:1 And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again. And again, as was his custom, he taught them.
Mar 10:2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
Mar 10:3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?"
Mar 10:4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away."
Mar 10:5 And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'
Mar 10:7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,
Mar 10:8 and they shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Would Jesus have thought along any other different lines? If not, my premise stands. Christ was chiding her for the 5 marriages and the man she was with. I believe the text speaks of him as her hsuband also.
Henry aludes to the possibility:
"He whom thou now hast is not thy husband. Either she was never married to him at all (*This statement proves that Henry believed that it was possibly that he was her husband), or he had some other wife, or, which is most probable, her former husband or husbands were living: so that, in short, she lived in adultery."
Poole writes:
"she used and lived with one as her husband , yet in this she said truly, because her former husbands yet living, he was not her husband."
Clear to me..........The point is, the possibility is there. This statement would make no sense at all if there wasn't a legal premise attached to it, i.e former husbands living, marriage to anyone is adultery, making the last husband not her (true) husband. Based upon this, the sentence structure, the legal implications, she replies right, I have no husband.
[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]
[Edited on 2-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Scott,
I repeat: your analysis makes our Lord incorrect when he says she has 5 husbands. How can she have five, if one marriage is sufficient to make all others legally null? Why would Christ speak equivocally about the first 5 when He does not do so with the last one?
I believe you also read too much into the Mark passage (and its parallel in Matthew 19. Calvin explicitly rejects that:
None of this speaks to the issue that started the whole thread, where the man was guilty of adultery; but it is a wresting of the text to say that all future marriages are null and void because of a previous marriage, regardless of how it ended. Christ clearly calls men 2-5 husbands not purported husbands, or men, or anything else. It is true that the Greek word aner can mean "man," but one cannot escape the fact that the word aner/husband is used to describe ALL five of the previous men. Either all were husbands or none were. If none were, your point is rendered moot. If all were, then Christ has come to a different conclusion than you are pressing.
I repeat: your analysis makes our Lord incorrect when he says she has 5 husbands. How can she have five, if one marriage is sufficient to make all others legally null? Why would Christ speak equivocally about the first 5 when He does not do so with the last one?
I believe you also read too much into the Mark passage (and its parallel in Matthew 19. Calvin explicitly rejects that:
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.
None of this speaks to the issue that started the whole thread, where the man was guilty of adultery; but it is a wresting of the text to say that all future marriages are null and void because of a previous marriage, regardless of how it ended. Christ clearly calls men 2-5 husbands not purported husbands, or men, or anything else. It is true that the Greek word aner can mean "man," but one cannot escape the fact that the word aner/husband is used to describe ALL five of the previous men. Either all were husbands or none were. If none were, your point is rendered moot. If all were, then Christ has come to a different conclusion than you are pressing.
- Status
