John 4

[smndtupidisaftr]

This was the reading this past Sunday, and the priest talked about an interpretation that I had never heard before today. He said that the woman was not an adulteress and that the husbands are the gods of Baal that the Samaritans worshipped alongside of God. He also said that the fact that she went out for water so late in the day was not evidence for anything. He also topped it off by calling her the first Christian missionary.

So is any of this real? Normally I wouldn’t be suspicious but this is a very permissive priest, the kind who makes jokes at the start of Mass and during the announcements. So I wanted to know if this is in line with Catholic interpretation.

 

[guanophore]

This was the reading this past Sunday, and the priest talked about an interpretation that I had never heard before today. He said that the woman was not an adulteress and that the husbands are the gods of Baal that the Samaritans worshipped alongside of God. He also said that the fact that she went out for water so late in the day was not evidence for anything. He also topped it off by calling her the first Christian missionary.

So is any of this real? Normally I wouldn’t be suspicious but this is a very permissive priest, the kind who makes jokes at the start of Mass and during the announcements. So I wanted to know if this is in line with Catholic interpretation.

I am sorry that you were subjected to such a homily. I recommend that you listen to the homilies on EWTN. They are from orthodox and much better educated priests.

 

[babs57]

In the footnotes of the Ignatious Catholic Study Bible it has the following:

“4:18 five husbands: The woman has endured multiple marital struggles. The woman’s personal life paralells the historical experience of the Samaritan people. According to 2 Kings 17:24-31, the five foreign tribes who intermarried with the northern Isrealites (Samaritans) introduced five male dieties into their religion. These idols were individually addressed as Baal, a Hebrew word meaning “lord” or “husband”.The prophets denounced serving these gods, calling such worship infidelity to its true covenant spouse, Yahweh. Hope was kept alive, however, that God would show mercy to those Isrealites and become their everlasting Husband in the bonds of a New Covenant (Hos 2:16-20). This day has dawned in the ministry of Jesus, the divine Bridegroom (3:28), who has come to save the Samaritans from a lifetime of struggles with five pagan “husbands”.”

It also makes mention that the wives of Isaac, Jacob and Moses were first encountered at a well, so Jesus is the divine Bridegroom seeking his covenant bride, his believers, at a well.

 

[Fidelis]

In the footnotes of the Ignatious Catholic Study Bible it has the following:

“4:18 five husbands: The woman has endured multiple marital struggles. The woman’s personal life paralells the historical experience of the Samaritan people. According to 2 Kings 17:24-31, the five foreign tribes who intermarried with the northern Isrealites (Samaritans) introduced five male dieties into their religion. These idols were individually addressed as Baal, a Hebrew word meaning “lord” or “husband”.The prophets denounced serving these gods, calling such worship infidelity to its true covenant spouse, Yahweh. Hope was kept alive, however, that God would show mercy to those Isrealites and become their everlasting Husband in the bonds of a New Covenant (Hos 2:16-20). This day has dawned in the ministry of Jesus, the divine Bridegroom (3:28), who has come to save the Samaritans from a lifetime of struggles with five pagan “husbands”.”

It also makes mention that the wives of Isaac, Jacob and Moses were first encountered at a well, so Jesus is the divine Bridegroom seeking his covenant bride, his believers, at a well.

I was about to refer to this as well. Your priest may be aware of this explanation, and overstated the case. This is a pet peeve of mine: homilists or catechists stating as a definitive fact something that is one possible explanation.

Te part about her being the first missionary is a common bow to political correctness. She was more of a witness rather than what we think of as a missionary

 

[Glacies]

Traditionally Church Fathers like Origen, St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine have taken it to mean human husbands while there are mystical interpretations that see them to signify the Five Books of Moses or the five senses.

AUG. The five husbands some interpret to be the five books which were given by Moses. And the words, He whom thou now have is not your husband, they understand as spoken by our Lord of Himself; as if He said, You have served the five books of Moses, as five husbands; but now he whom you have, i.e. whom you hear, is not your husband; for you do not yet believe in him. But if she did not believe in Christ, she was still united to those five husbands, i.e. five books, and therefore why is it said, you have had five husbands, as if she no longer had them? And how do we understand that a man must have these five books, in order to pass over to Christ, when he who believes in Christ, so far from forsaking these books, embraces them in this spiritual meaning the more strongly? Let us turn to another interpretation.

AUG. Jesus seeing that the woman did not understand, and wishing to enlighten her, says, Call your husband; i.e. apply your understanding. For when the life is well ordered, the understanding governs the soul itself, pertaining to the soul. For though it is indeed nothing else than the soul, it is at the same time a certain part of the soul. And this very part of the soul which is called the understanding and the intellect, is itself illuminated by a light superior to itself. Such a Light was talking with the woman; but in her there was not understanding to be enlightened. Our Lord then, as it were, says, I wish to enlighten, and there is not one to be enlightened; Call your husband, i. e. apply your understanding, through which you must be taught, by which governed. The five former husbands may be explained as the five senses, thus: a man before he has the use of his reason, is entirely under the government of his bodily senses. Then reason comes into action; and from that time forward he is capable of entertaining ideas, and is either under the influence of truth or error. The woman had been under the influence of error, which error was not her lawful husband, but an adulterer. Wherefore our Lord says, Put away that adulterer which corrupts thee, and call your husband, that you may understand Me.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

So it is an interpretation, though by no means the official translation or even the most likely one. But it’s out there and at least not contradictory in any way.

But the way the priest went on about trying to excuse the woman from everything was offputting to me. Going to get water later in the day isn’t evidence of sinfulness, the husbands aren’t real husbands, etc. I didn’t understand why it was necessary to find excuses either way. Whether she was a sinner or not, wasn’t the real lesson in the fact that she was converted?

 

[babs57]

So it is an interpretation, though by no means the official translation or even the most likely one. But it’s out there and at least not contradictory in any way.

But the way the priest went on about trying to excuse the woman from everything was offputting to me. Going to get water later in the day isn’t evidence of sinfulness, the husbands aren’t real husbands, etc. I didn’t understand why it was necessary to find excuses either way. Whether she was a sinner or not, wasn’t the real lesson in the fact that she was converted?

That’s right. It’s also safe to say that this could be looked as another instance of Jesus coming to the whole world, not just Isreal.

 

[PJM]

=smndtupidisaftr;10433716]This was the reading this past Sunday, and the priest talked about an interpretation that I had never heard before today. He said that the woman was not an adulteress and that the husbands are the gods of Baal that the Samaritans worshipped alongside of God. He also said that the fact that she went out for water so late in the day was not evidence for anything. He also topped it off by calling her the first Christian missionary.

So is any of this real? Normally I wouldn’t be suspicious but this is a very permissive priest, the kind who makes jokes at the start of Mass and during the announcements. So I wanted to know if this is in line with Catholic interpretation.

By golly; that IS a DIFFERENT view. One wonders why and HOW these conclusions were reached? Formation is an ever changing process; not always for the better. LET US PRAY!

 

[jonathan_hili]

This was the reading this past Sunday, and the priest talked about an interpretation that I had never heard before today. He said that the woman was not an adulteress and that the husbands are the gods of Baal that the Samaritans worshipped alongside of God. He also said that the fact that she went out for water so late in the day was not evidence for anything. He also topped it off by calling her the first Christian missionary.

So is any of this real? Normally I wouldn’t be suspicious but this is a very permissive priest, the kind who makes jokes at the start of Mass and during the announcements. So I wanted to know if this is in line with Catholic interpretation.

I think you’re priest is right in the sense that the “husbands” are also metaphors for the “husbands” (false gods or “ba’als” - the word actually means “lord” or “master” or “husband”, but the last in a very non-loving sense, see Hos 2:16-20, where the prophet says: “And in that day, says the Lord, you will call me, ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me, ‘My Baal.’”) that the Samaritans worshiped. The story of the woman at the well is the story of the Samaritans return to the true God through Christ. The five “husbands” refers to the five pagan peoples and their gods that were moved to Samaria to inter-marry with the Israelites (2 Kings 17:24).

Now, with regards to the woman herself, well the text does seem to suggest she is a public sinner as no-one would go to a well in the heat of noon if they could avoid it. So, I’d think he was probably wrong about that part.

 

[Gorgias]

He also topped it off by calling her the first Christian missionary.

Well… I’m not sure that I would agree with everything he said, but this statement is accurate, in a manner of speaking. Look at v39 and following:

Many of the Samaritans of that town began to believe in him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me everything I have done.”

…Many more began to believe in him because of his word, and they said to the woman, “We no longer believe because of your word; for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the savior of the world.”

So, calling her a ‘Christian missionary’ isn’t too far off the mark…!

 

[Aussieman88]

I was taught that she was a temple prostitute and he was calling her a five er as in she slept with 5 men at a time during her work as a prostitute.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I was taught that she was a temple prostitute and he was calling her a five er as in she slept with 5 men at a time during her work as a prostitute.

That’s reading into the text a bit too much! I don’t think the Samaritans had Temple prostitutes in 1st century AD.