Bible Study Samaritan woman at the well?

[Nicole L. Sattler]

John 4:16-18 (New International Version, ©2011)

16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.â€
17 “I have no husband,†she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 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.â€

I have always wondered how do we know that she was living with the man? I think I have read one bible translation, but most I see say "the man that you have".

Does anybody have any information about this?

John 4:16-18 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version, ©2011 - BibleGateway.com

 

[Pizzaguy]

Christ's words IMPLY that they were living together, if this was not the case, then what Christ was saying was something like: "The man you are having sex with is not your husband".

But as I read it, it appears to me that they WERE living together.

To my knowledge, there is nothing more to go on than Christ's words as recorded in the New Testament.

 

[Nicole L. Sattler]

Christ's words IMPLY that they were living together, if this was not the case, then what Christ was saying was something like: "The man you are having sex with is not your husband".

But as I read it, it appears to me that they WERE living together.

To my knowledge, there is nothing more to go on than Christ's words as recorded in the New Testament.

Okay, so just the fact that he said to go get her husband implies it? That does make sense. I was just thinking about that right after I posted the question, but I was not sure.

Thank you

 

[Pizzaguy]

Okay, so just the fact that he said to go get her husband implies it? That does make sense.

I did not say that.

I said His words "the man you have is not your husband" are what we have to go on.
There is nothing else for us to draw any conclusion from.

 

[Nicole L. Sattler]

I did not say that.

I said His words "the man you have is not your husband" are what we have to go on.
There is nothing else for us to draw any conclusion from.

If we do go on those words, though, couldn't that mean that she is just in a relationship with the man and perhaps doesn't live with him?

I thought that when Jesus told her to go call upon her "husband", it would have been more likely that they were living together (not married because she had no actual husband but acting like it).

 

[reba]

If we do go on those words, though, couldn't that mean that she is just in a relationship with the man and perhaps doesn't live with him?

I thought that when Jesus told her to go call upon her "husband", it would have been more likely that they were living together (not married because she had no actual husband but acting like it).

Fornication/adultery is the sin where one is living is just that 'where they live,

Hello Nicole and welcome to the forums!

I dont think i am understanding your point??

 

[Nicole L. Sattler]

Fornication/adultery is the sin where one is living is just that 'where they live,

Hello Nicole and welcome to the forums!

I dont think i am understanding your point??

Well, my original question was "how do we know they were living together?"

In the translation I read, it said "the man you have now", but to me that could mean anything.

I was trying to find text that implies that they were living together and that was my previous post.

 

[Pizzaguy]

In the translation I read, it said "the man you have now", but to me that could mean anything.

OBVIOUSLY, it means they were in a sexual relationship. If they were just friends, there would be nothing for Christ to comment on.

If they were in a sexual relationship, they were PROBABLY living together, but who cares? It's the sexual relationship that Christ was speaking of.

 

[Nicole L. Sattler]

OBVIOUSLY, it means they were in a sexual relationship. If they were just friends, there would be nothing for Christ to comment on.

If they were in a sexual relationship, they were PROBABLY living together, but who cares? It's the sexual relationship that Christ was speaking of.

Okay, things are starting to make a bit more sense now.

Thank you again.

 

[Pizzaguy]

You are welcome!

I wonder about the times back then, things were very different - today, if they wanted to live together, in the USA - it would be their business.

But back then, in that time and place, would it be as accepted? Maybe they CLAIMED to others to be married, but Christ knew better?

I think that Christ's answer that "You have had five husbands..." would, by itself, have told her that He was not your average person - He knew stuff about her!

There is a definite connotation of sin in His statement, "The man you have is not your husband". SOMETHING was going on that was against Christ's teachings, THAT we DO know, just by His words and her reaction to them.

But I do wonder what life would have been like had they been living together, openly, without marriage. I just wonder what the cultural implications would have been, not that it matters in the discussion, or to Christ Himself.

 

[Nicole L. Sattler]

You are welcome!

I wonder about the times back then, things were very different - today, if they wanted to live together, in the USA - it would be their business.

But back then, in that time and place, would it be as accepted? Maybe they CLAIMED to others to be married, but Christ knew better?

I think that Christ's answer that "You have had five husbands..." would, by itself, have told her that He was not your average person - He knew stuff about her!

There is a definite connotation of sin in His statement, "The man you have is not your husband". SOMETHING was going on that was against Christ's teachings, THAT we DO know, just by His words and her reaction to them.

But I do wonder what life would have been like had they been living together, openly, without marriage. I just wonder what the cultural implications would have been, not that it matters in the discussion, or to Christ Himself.

Now I am wondering too. What if they were telling others they were married? Let say there were, was it just a cover up, or did they actually intend to be married? Too bad we can't find this out...

Perhaps they were just living together. But is living together (without sexual relations) actually a sin?

 

[cleanfreak]

Now I am wondering too. What if they were telling others they were married? Let say there were, was it just a cover up, or did they actually intend to be married? Too bad we can't find this out...

Perhaps they were just living together. But is living together (without sexual relations) actually a sin?

One of the things overlooked in this story is the fact a Jew is actually talking to a Samaritan.......and a women Samaritan at that.....

I am glad Jesus did not follow man's traditions......

 

[Igor]

Now I am wondering too. What if they were telling others they were married? Let say there were, was it just a cover up, or did they actually intend to be married? Too bad we can't find this out...

Perhaps they were just living together. But is living together (without sexual relations) actually a sin?

For something to be a "sin", God has to have told us that it is a sin in His word (either directly or at least clearly in principle.) There is no sin of "living together" in the true sense of those words ever mentioned. Of course, in today's English we have assigned a sexual connotation to those words that was not originally there when we refer to a straight man and woman or a homosexual couple. But there is no sin whatsoever in just the act of two people (even if they are a straight man and woman) living in the same dwelling. It doesn't matter how many people say something is a sin. If God didn't tell us it is sin, we have no right to make it a sin.

Is it the best idea to do this if you believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin and the other person you are living with is someone you are sexually attracted to? Probably not! But not being a good idea, in and of itself, doesn't make it a sin against God. I can envision many hypothetical situations where two sexually attracted people may find themselves living together where it may be the only practical solution for them. In and of itself, this is not a sin any more than it is for two straight men or women to live together as roomates.

One thing you probably have noticed in Mexico is that it is very common for unmarried people (referring to abscense of either legal or church marriage) that are living together to tell everyone they are married and refer to each other as "My husband" or "My wife". This is only because the huge influence of the Catholic church in your country, and the shame they have put on unmarried couples in sexual relationships pressuring them to lie about it to avoid "the evil eye" from the people around them! Lying clearly is a sin in the Bible.

Many times I wonder if the woman at the well was doing the same thing. Perhaps this is an an additional aspect of the story. She was lying about her relationship. Jesus knew this, and was also condemning her for the sin of lying!

 

[Nicole L. Sattler]

For something to be a "sin", God has to have told us that it is a sin in His word (either directly or at least clearly in principle.) There is no sin of "living together" in the true sense of those words ever mentioned. Of course, in today's English we have assigned a sexual connotation to those words that was not originally there when we refer to a straight man and woman or a homosexual couple. But there is no sin whatsoever in just the act of two people (even if they are a straight man and woman) living in the same dwelling. It doesn't matter how many people say something is a sin. If God didn't tell us it is sin, we have no right to make it a sin.

Is it the best idea to do this if you believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin and the other person you are living with is someone you are sexually attracted to? Probably not! But not being a good idea, in and of itself, doesn't make it a sin against God. I can envision many hypothetical situations where two sexually attracted people may find themselves living together where it may be the only practical solution for them. In and of itself, this is not a sin any more than it is for two straight men or women to live together as roomates.

One thing you probably have noticed in Mexico is that it is very common for unmarried people (referring to abscense of either legal or church marriage) that are living together to tell everyone they are married and refer to each other as "My husband" or "My wife". This is only because the huge influence of the Catholic church in your country, and the shame they have put on unmarried couples in sexual relationships pressuring them to lie about it to avoid "the evil eye" from the people around them! Lying clearly is a sin in the Bible.

Many times I wonder if the woman at the well was doing the same thing. Perhaps this is an an additional aspect of the story. She was lying about her relationship. Jesus knew this, and was also condemning her for the sin of lying!

Perhaps he was condemning her for the sin of lying... That is a very interesting point of view.

Here in Mexico I am not sure if the couples I know are legally married or not. I just know it is a common thing for people who do get married to have both a legal and spiritual wedding (usually in the Catholic church).

I think it is possible, though. When I met one of my friends for the first time, she told me she was married. Later on when I asked more about her, she told me he was just her boyfriend. They both live in his parents house.

 

[Igor]

...When I met one of my friends for the first time, she told me she was married. Later on when I asked more about her, she told me he was just her boyfriend. They both live in his parents house.

I was just reading your post about not getting to know many people there yet. The more people you get to know, the more common you will find out that this is! (At least it was in the parts of Mexico I have spent time in.) Reminds me of a funny story. My first experience with this was when I was getting to know a "married" couple in Mexico who always referred to each other as "My husband" or "my wife". They seemed nice, normal people until one day when the woman, right in front of her husband, referred to her "boyfriend" and her husband didn't even bat an eye! I was surprised and said "You have a boyfriend AND a husband!" (I was suddenly thinking maybe polygamy was a lot more accepted in Mexico than I had ever known!:D) That's when they explained to me how so many people just say they are married to avoid dealing with those who would condemn them for living together without marriage. Since learning about that, I've seen it over and over countless times!

 

[Nicole L. Sattler]

I was just reading your post about not getting to know many people there yet. The more people you get to know, the more common you will find out that this is! (At least it was in the parts of Mexico I have spent time in.)

I believe that... especially since this is a big city... almost too big for my liking.

 

[Nathan]

I would like to chime in here and post something.

I do not believe that Jesus was condemning her at all. In fact, I believe He was just 'testing' her to see what her heart was like.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but in that day and age a woman did not divorce a man. He was the one that always did the divorcing. So for 5 men she had been used and then abandoned. But yet her heart obviously was drawn to another man; just as God had ordained it from the beginning. If anything she was pure in her motives. Which is indicative of her not lying to Jesus.

And there is no indication, when look at the original language, that she was 'living' with or having an intimate relationship with this man. Here are a few different translations.

KJV
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

ESV
for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.

YNG
for five husbands thou hast had, and, now, he whom thou hast is not thy husband; this hast thou said truly.

This is where looking over multiple translations comes into play. And even the original language is not a bad idea to study either. What happened is some translators, who translate paraphrase style, have deduced by their own reasoning that Jesus was stating this woman was living with this man.

But the fact is the original language does not state that, and when translated word for word, not thought for though, we can dive a little deeper into what Jesus was stating.

"hast" and "have" is the Greek word echō

1) to have, i.e. to hold
a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as
2) to have i.e. own, possess
a) external things such as pertain to property or riches or furniture or utensils or goods or food etc.
b) used of those joined to any one by the bonds of natural blood or marriage or friendship or duty or law etc, of attendance or companionship
3) to hold one's self or find one's self so and so, to be in such or such a condition
4) to hold one's self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to
a) to be closely joined to a person or a thing

Quite literally its the idea of when the person marrying a couple states "to have and to hold forevermore". This woman at the well had five different men she had given her heart too, and yet once again she had done it again. If anything, there seems to me a tone of sadness when she answers Jesus. As if she was depressed that all these men had left her and she now bore the shame of having been divorced 5 times.

We never see Jesus state that she sinned, and never hear a word of rebuke. So we cannot say that He in the least condemned her. Some compare this to the woman caught in adultery, which interpreted the way most do would also say this woman was committing adultery also. But there is one thing that stands out with the other story. Which we would be wise to take into consideration when doing study like this.

Jhn 8:10-11 Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."

So in my estimation, this woman is not living in sin, yet she is heart broken, and Jesus is there to mend her heart. That is why "He must go" to the well.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Good one, Nathan.

 

[reba]

Very interesting Nathan

 

[Nicole L. Sattler]

If anything she was pure in her motives. Which is indicative of her not lying to Jesus.

And there is no indication, when look at the original language, that she was 'living' with or having an intimate relationship with this man.

That is a great answer. :D

When the idea of her lying was brought up, nobody meant she was lying to Jesus, but maybe to other people about her relationship status.

I too thought that there was nothing that said she was having relations with the man or even living with him, but some suggest that it is implied. It could be, but it is hard to tell what Jesus was exactly saying.

Thank you for your answer... it was very informative. I might do a little digging online about it and see if I can study any of the original text.