Denny Burk writes here, speculating on whether or not the woman at the well (John 4:1-26) was married to any of the 5 men Jesus refers to. His argument is based on the fact that the same Greek word, “aner” can be translated simply as “man” or as “husband” depending on context. Though having made this point, he doesn’t seem too interested in what the context tells us here. He goes on to suggest that the use of the possessive pronoun is key to knowing if it is her husband because it is “her man” or simply “a man”.
I find his argument entirely unpersuasive for the following reasons. First, I don’t think that the possessive pronoun needs to be present at each stage to distinguish generic ‘man’ from ‘husband’. Otherwise, and this is a crucial interpretive principle, it would make it impossible for Jesus/John to convey the possibility that the five men were her husband.
Secondly, not to put too fine a point on it, but I would suggest that a woman who is sleeping with multiple men who are not her husband is likely to be promiscuous and likely to have a reputation for it. Can I gently suggest that five men who weren’t her husband sounds too high for someone not to have that reputation whilst simultaneously too low for someone who does.
Thirdly, if Jesus wanted to say “You have had six men and none of them are your husband”, then it is possible to say that in Greek as well as in English and this wouldn’t be it. In other words, Burk makes both Jesus and John unnecessarily ambiguous.
Fourth, the issue of women passed through legal marriage to legal marriage was an issue of concern. There were in fact two ways that it was possible for her to have had multiple husbands. Both are considered by the Law of Moses and both come up in discussion with Jesus. The first situation was a leverite marriage in which case the woman’s husband would have died requiring his brother to step in. The Sadducees turn up on one occasion to ask Jesus about such a scenario where seven brothers in a row die (Matthew 22:23-33). “Whose husband will she be in the resurrection?”
The other scenario is divorce and re-marriage. Moses envisages a situation where a woman might be divorced by her first husband, married again, divorced by her second husband and then the first husband tries to take her back (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). In such a case, Moses says it is not permitted because that brings defilement. Jesus is questioned on this point because there was a dispute going about what reasons were permissible for divorce. Jesus insists that his interlocuters have missed the point. Moses’ instructions were not licence to divorce as though that was an okay thing to do. Rather, Moses recognised their hard hearts, made allowance for it but also built restrictions and protections in (Mark 10:1-12). The point of the Law was to ensure that a woman could not be passed around like some cheap chattel.
Now, why does this matter? Burk is correct that the passage makes clear that marriage and sex are not the same thing. However, he does not need his interpretation to do it. It’s clear that Jesus recognises a need in this woman. She needs the dee, thirst satisfaction of the Gospel that she won’t find elsewhere. This doesn’t really hang on the interpretation either. However, of course, if the 5 men were her husband, it leaves open the possibility that she was not guilty of sexual sin in every situation, that this was not her life story, that she was more sufferer than sinner in that context. It is important to be clear at this stage that this does not mean she was without sin and in fact, she is currently in a promiscuous relationship. It simply means that we shouldn’t and don’t need to assume that she had specifically been in sexual sin previously. This does however open up the possibility that whilst our conversations with seekers need to deal with the issue of their own sin and responsibility, that this is not the only aspect that we need to be talking about. The hope of the Gospel is never less than Christ taking the penalty for our own sin but it might be more than that.
Burk is right to draw our attention to the way that one word translates as man or husband. This does have implications for other matters as similarly wife and woman depends on context. This has implications for our understanding of other passages including Paul on elders and deacons in 1Timothy 3.
Beyond that though, this just looks like speculation. It’s the kind that on the surface sounds like it’s big heavy-weight intellectual stuff when it isn’t really. And ultimately, I don’t think this is helpful to Gospel work because it reinforces an impression of Scripture as being this complicated, unclear thing that is for academics rather than God’s clear, living, authoritative word for us.
Faithroots 