377
THE KING’S BUSINESS
years and Jerome speaks of a Roman wife who had thirteen husbands. Even men like Macaenas, Cato, Augustus and Cicero divorced their wives for mere trifles. It was in’ this sort of a world that our Lord promulgated the strict law regarding divorce found in Matthew 19:8, 9. Divorce was not shocking even to moral teachers in that day, but it was shocking to the One who was here speaking. But in this woman’s case there was a worse evil than divorce, the woman’s sixth man was not a husband in any sense at all. She was living in open, flagrant and notorious sin. How did our Lord know this wom an’s history ? He was a perfect stranger, just passing through, had. never met the woman before. He knew it because even in His humilia tion He knew all men, He knew what was in man (cf. John 2:24, 25; Mark 2 :8; Luke 5 :22; ch. 6 :64; 1 :48; Luke 22:10-12). Who then was He? Be yond a peradventure, God manifest in the flesh (cf. 2 Chron. 6:30; Jer. \ 7 : 9, 10). It is this same omniscient Lord that men must some day meet in the judgment (2 Cor. 5:10; John 5:22; Acts 17:30, 31). V. 19. " The zooman saith unto (rather, to) him, Sir (or, Lord ) / perceive that thou art a prophet.” Our Lord’s deep insight into the woman’s innermost heart and life made it clear to her at once that He was beyond question a true prophet of God—as in the case of Nathanael our Lord’s deep insight into his own hidden life and the facts of his life, that he supposed no one knew, made it clear to him that the Lord Jesus was the Son of God, the King of Israel (ch. 1:47-49). In the case of Nath anael, our Lord’s omniscience had found him without guile; in the case of this woman, our Lord’s omniscience had found her thoroughly sinful; but
tended no explanation that she was living' with a man who was not her husband. She hoped that she might cover all, and yet as the eyes of our Lord were looking into her soul, she must have said, “I have no husband” in a shrinking, fearful way, fearful that He might know all and would lay all bare. The Lord’s direction for her to call her husband might, she thought, be an exposure of His ignor ance and a disproof of the knowledge and power that He seemed to claim. On the other hand, the direction might come from His deep and thorough knowledge of her whole life. It was an anxious moment for her when she said, “I have no husband.” What would He say next? The form of our Lord’s reply (see R. V.) seems to suggest that He paused at least for a little while before He answered. In quoting the woman’s words our Lord transposed their order (though this does not appear in the English Ver sion) and by this transposition laid the emphasis upon the word “hus band.” His words exactly rendered in the order in the Greek would be, “Well saidst thou that husband I have not.” In the woman’s words, the em phasis was upon “I have no” not upon husband, thus by a simple change in the order of the words, our Lord laid bare the whole secret and horror of the woman’s life. The woman had “said well” but she had not done well. This woman’s case may not have been worse than that of many others in her neighborhood as far as divorce was concerned; for, while divorces are said to have been fewer among the Samaritans than among the Jews, in those days divorce was shockingly prevalent everywhere on the slightest pretext. Seneca says that Roman wives counted years by husbands di vorced. Marshall tells of a woman in Rome who had ten husbands. Juve nal tells of one who had eight in five
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter