18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”
John 4:18 | ESV
What does Jesus mean here? The word for, have had, is the word used for, have, so why is the last fellow she has now not her husband, but the other five were?
Agreed,
@Asforme&myhouse, but the word 'has' could have been applied to 'has' chickens or 'has' smallpox. Same word. Especially in the case of the chickens.
I’ve heard the argument that she could have been married five times, and all five husbands died when married to her without leaving an heir, thus no man wanted to marry her, and now she was living as a widow with an uncle, brother, or perhaps with her father, and the disgrace was that she couldn’t marry again because no one would have her. Obviously, we don’t know, there isn’t enough information given, but neither is there enough information to know whether the man she is now living with is a sexual partner that she is not married to.
I can see how that would make sense if it said the man she was “with”. However, it says the man she has, same word as like the husbands she had.
In the case of John 4:16-8, the possessive pronoun isn't required, because the Greek word echó, translated in your ESV translation as 'has,' is possessive by nature, as in "he is her man," or "that is his chicken," or (to stretch it a bit) "she possesses smallpox."
The Concordant Literal translation fine tunes John 4:18 slightly: "
Jesus is saying to her, "Go, summon your husband and come to this place." The woman answered and said to Him, "Not
husband have I." Jesus is saying to her, "Ideally said you that 'A
husband I have not,' for five husbands have you had, and now he whom you have is not your husband. This you have declared truly
."
Elsewhere, in another discussion you're part of,
@Asforme&myhouse, another brother mentions in the context of a conversation about who the parties of a marriage covenant are that Laban could conduct marriage negotiations with Abraham through a servant in regard to Isaac getting married on his sister's behalf, because their father was deceased. In
that case, it is being asserted that this makes Laban Rebecca's
man, because their father can now no longer perform the function of being Rebecca's man in the matter. Dad
was the man, and now Laban is the man, and clearly this, at least according to the assertant, makes her Rebecca's man. Heaven forbid, paraphrasing Paul, we're not going to claim that, because Rebecca has this man as the head of her household, she and he are uncovering each other's nakedness.
We could take a vote on it, and I might even vote with you that 'had' makes it more likely she is in a sexual relationship than if what were written were 'was with,' but our vote wouldn't mean anything. Consensus has no more place in scriptural exegesis than it has in science. It's not up to a vote; it's either there or it's not -- and in this case, it's just not there. If YHWH had wanted sexual congress to be there, He would have ensured that, at the very least, one of His many euphemisms would have been in place. I'm not even aware of a translation that breathes the phrase, "
have had," as part of :18b's phrase, "
he whom you have is not your husband," as it does in :18a with, "
for five husbands have you had."
Hear me clearly, though: I'm making no definite assertion that Samaritan Woman wasn't getting some from Man Six, but I am certain that it's not asserted by Scripture, either. And what He doesn't imply, I'm not about to infer. Guesses, sure, but arguing for its definitive meaning as interpretation is greatly different.
For now, I'm still patiently waiting for the scriptures that (a) detail what YHWH does that joins man and woman together in marriage and (b) demonstrate that one-flesh either has nothing to do with sex or isn't the essential behavior that initiates marriage.
