Pensacola Bible institute

[StandInTheGap]

On 1/7/2022 at 11:27 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

John 4:17-18 -- "The woman answered and said, I have no husband.  Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband; for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

In this passage our Lord Jesus Christ Himself seems to be acknowledging that the woman HAD a man (was with a man), while that man was NOT to be viewed as the woman's actual husband.  Indeed, when the woman stated that she had NO husband (at that present time), although she had engaged in five previous marriage relationships (as per Jesus' own declaration), and although she was presently with a man (as per Jesus' own declaration), our Lord Jesus Christ directly acknowledged that she had said WELL and TRULY.  She had been married five previous times (all acknowledged by Jesus), but she was NOT married AT ALL at that present time (also acknowledged by Jesus).  She had a man at that very present time (acknowledge by Jesus), but was NOT actually married to him at that present time (also acknowledged by Jesus).  Thus it appears from our Lord Jesus Christ's own viewpoint that physical sexual relationship itself is NOT the defining factor for a divinely recognized marriage.  

Bro. Scott,

    I've considered this passage over the years and agree that it is a strong case for marriage being more than a sexual act, the one thing that stands out ot me in this passage is that it isn't clear that the man and women are having a sexual relationship. It seems possible in this case that they may very will be divorced and dwelling together or never married at all and not having sexual relations. 

   I've seen cases where a husband and wife are divorced but still live together sleep in separate bedrooms. In the case of the woman in John 4, the laws of interpretation compel me to believe that they are not sexually active as it does not explicitly say that they are. And considering the other clear definitions of what constitutes the "members" of a man and woman becoming "one flesh" is would be presumptuous to believe that they are. In short the man referred to would most likely be viewed by the Lord as her husband if they had sexual relations.

[BrotherTony]

2 hours ago, StandInTheGap said:

Bro. Scott,

    I've considered this passage over the years and agree that it is a strong case for marriage being more than a sexual act, the one thing that stands out ot me in this passage is that it isn't clear that the man and women are having a sexual relationship. It seems possible in this case that they may very will be divorced and dwelling together or never married at all and not having sexual relations. 

   I've seen cases where a husband and wife are divorced but still live together sleep in separate bedrooms. In the case of the woman in John 4, the laws of interpretation compel me to believe that they are not sexually active as it does not explicitly say that they are. And considering the other clear definitions of what constitutes the "members" of a man and woman becoming "one flesh" is would be presumptuous to believe that they are. In short the man referred to would most likely be viewed by the Lord as her husband if they had sexual relations.

Your interpretation here seems to me to be a bit twisted. I believe Jesus has implied that she is in a relationship outside of marriage...the one that thou now HAST....I don't believe, having had five husbands in the past, that she would be living with a man without relations unless it were her brother, son, etc. This is clearly not the case.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On 1/12/2022 at 8:01 AM, StandInTheGap said:

Bro. Scott,

    I've considered this passage over the years and agree that it is a strong case for marriage being more than a sexual act, the one thing that stands out ot me in this passage is that it isn't clear that the man and women are having a sexual relationship. It seems possible in this case that they may very will be divorced and dwelling together or never married at all and not having sexual relations. 

   I've seen cases where a husband and wife are divorced but still live together sleep in separate bedrooms. In the case of the woman in John 4, the laws of interpretation compel me to believe that they are not sexually active as it does not explicitly say that they are. And considering the other clear definitions of what constitutes the "members" of a man and woman becoming "one flesh" is would be presumptuous to believe that they are. In short the man referred to would most likely be viewed by the Lord as her husband if they had sexual relations.

Brother "StandingintheGap,"

I recognize your perspective on this matter (allowing for the fact that the passage does not specifically state that she was fornicating with the man that she was presently with); however, I would contend that Jesus' specific terminology would lend itself toward an accusation of sexual involvement.  For Jesus did not say, "He whom thou now livest with."  Rather, Jesus said, "He whom thou now HAST."  Jesus employed a verb of possession, just as he had in the earlier phrase concerning the previous possession of husbands.  Somehow she had "possession" of that man, in a similar fashion wherein she had had previous "possession" of husbands.  How might that be?  It could not be the "possession" of marriage since Jesus specifically stated that he was NOT her husband.  So, how else does a woman "possess" a man who is not her husband?  From my perspective it seems fairly clear that Jesus was referring to a sinful, sexual relationship (especially considering that contextually this seems to be the point by which the woman was convicted of sin unto faith in the Savior).

Edited January 13, 2022 by Pastor Scott Markle