Five Smooth Stones (I Samuel 17:40)

How many smooth stones did David pick up when he prepared to fight Goliath? Five (I Samuel 17:40)

David’s victory over Goliath is one of the Bible’s most famous stories (I Samuel 17:1-54). While relaying provisions to his three older brothers (I Samuel 17:12-23), David, then a young shepherd, learns that the mammoth Philistine has laid down the gauntlet to engage any Israelite in single combat (I Samuel 17:8-10). Enraged that none of his compatriots has accepted the challenge, David agrees to battle the giant (I Samuel 17:26, 31-32).

The text does a great job of promoting this fight, spending 40 verses on the pre-fight build up (I Samuel 17:1-40) as compared to nine on the battle itself (I Samuel 17:41-49) and another nine on the post-fight analysis (I Samuel 17:50-58). Like a tale of the tape before a championship prize fight, the Bible carefully relates the armor of both contestants. It describes Goliath’s immense armor (I Samuel 17:5-7), whose mass is as impressive as its owner’s (I Samuel 17:4). In contrast, King Saul attempts to fit David with his own armor (I Samuel 17:38-39). Instead David adopts a less is more approach choosing the more familiar garb of a shepherd (I Samuel 17:40). The battle is not the time for experimentation.

David’s meager arsenal consists of a stick, some stones and a sling (I Samuel 17:40):

He took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd’s bag which he had, even in his pouch, and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine. (I Samuel 17:40 NASB)

Eugene H. Merrill (b. 1934) recaps:

David armed only with his confidence in God, a sling, and five smooth stones, slew Goliath and brought back his severed head in triumph (I Samuel 17:33-51). (John F. Walvoord [1910-2002] and Roy B. Zuck [1932-2013], The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, 448)

The verse has rhetorical elements in Hebrew that are lost in translation (I Samuel 17:40). J.P. Fokkelman (b. 1940) reveals:

The verse regarding David’s weaponry has a virtuoso style [I Samuel 17:40]. Two very short lines with the rhyme beyaādō...surround two long lines, so that I Samuel 17:40abcd is a series ABB'A'. The middle lines I Samuel 17:40bc concern the smooth stones from the brook (I Samuel17:40b, look for, I Samuel 17:40c put away) an their length reflects the care and precision which David devotes to the hard core of his equipment. They start with “he chose” and end in “in the shepherd’s bag”, and that is a splendid find in Hebrew: the roots of yibhar and yalqūt are very close semantically and the substantive yalqūt looks like an imperfect. The pair is accompanied by the rhyme lō. The density of phonetic means continues however, and is impressive...The alliteration is exceptionally rich: h (5x), m (7x), q (5x), l (8x), and it has a special centre. The qof and the lamed, in fact, occur together in all four “weapons” (mql, hlq, ylqt, ql‘), nota bene in an alternation which respects and strengthens the pattern ABB'A', and this means that Israel’s secret weapon (the youth’s shepherd’s gear) is the motor of the sound patterns. Note that Goliath a little later on complains about the stick (mql) and breaks into curses (qll!!) [I Samuel 17:43], but will be tamed by the three weapons that he does not mention. By continuing with the alliteration with q and l he unwittingly digs his own grave. The abuse he utters [I Samuel 17:43-44], the last we hear from him himself, becomes a swansong which contributes to the power of Israel’s secret weapon. (Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Volume 2, 178)

David brings his “staff” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “stick” (CEV, NASB) (I Samuel 17:40). Since he will not use the staff when facing Goliath, this “weapon” may have been a diversionary tactic.

Robert Alter (b. 1935) considers:

He took his stick [I Samuel 17:40]. That is, his shepherd’s staff, which he is used to carrying. David evidently does this as a decoy, encouraging Goliath to imagine he will use cudgel against sword (compare I Samuel 17:43) and thus camouflaging the lethal slingshot. (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 108)

If the staff is intended to conceal David’s game plan it works. Goliath takes note of the stick as evidenced by his taunts (I Samuel 17:43).

David has his weapon on hand but no ammunition so he carefully selects five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40). Rachelle Gilmour comments:

He [David] prepares himself for battle in I Samuel 17:40 by selecting five smooth stones and placing them in his pouch. He does not rush into battle like Saul [I Samuel 11:1-16]...but pauses to give Goliath a rather lengthy theological statement on the victory that is about to take place (I Samuel 17:45-47). David’s self-control after he receives the spirit is further highlighted by the contrast with Saul in I Samuel 16:14-23 who has now received an evil spirit. Saul is tormented and only the skillful lyre playing of David provides calm. (Gilmour, Representing the Past: A Literary Analysis of Narrative Historiography in the Book of Samuel, 123)

David’s attentiveness to his weaponry demonstrates that the shepherd has had time to think about the decision he is making. Marshall Ganz (b. 1943) suggests:

Plainly, David is courageous. But it takes more than courage to defeat Goliath. David wins the battle because he thinks about it differently. At first, he accepts the shield, sword, and helmet that conventional wisdom deems necessary [I Samuel 17:38-39]. He then realizes, however, that he cannot use these weapons effectively against a master of them. Instead, he conceives a plan of battle—a strategy—based on the five stones he notices in a creek bed, his skill with a slingshot, and the giant’s underestimation of him [I Samuel 17:40]. (Ganz, Why David Sometimes Wins: Leadership, Organization, and Strategy in the California Farm Worker Movement)

David secures the stones in a shepherd’s “bag” (ASV, CEV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, RSV), “pouch” (ESV, NIV, NRSV) or “pack” (MSG), which he has brought with him (I Samuel 17:40). It likely serves the same function as a contemporary fanny pack.

The Hebrew vocabulary used for the receptacle is obscure (I Samuel 17:40). Ralph W. Klein (b.1936) informs:

The word ילקוט is a hapax legomenon. An ancient gloss was placed before it, identifying it as a shepherd’s bag (cf. I Samuel 17:40 and Julius Wellhausen [1844-1918]). (Klein, 1 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary), 179)

The future king procures the stones from the “brook” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NKJV, RSV), “stream” (NIV, NLT) or “wadi” (HCSB, NRSV) (I Samuel 17:40).

David Toshio Tsumura (b. 1944) defines:

Wadi (hannahal) is the dry riverbed (see Genesis 26:17) of the Valley of Elah [I Samuel 17:2, 19]. (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 459)

Specifically, David finds “five smooth stones” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) (I Samuel 17:40). The literal Hebrew is “smooth ones” with virtually all translations supplying the necessary noun.

A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) describes:

An adjective used as a noun: “smooth ones.” The form is unique: B’s teleious is a mistaken correction of the literal leious (“smooth”). (Auld, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 206)

Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) and Michael O’Connor (1950-2007) explain:

Because the boundary between adjectives and substantives is not fixed or rigid, it is common to find nouns that are most often used as adjectives in substantive slots...Adjectives may occur as constructs, usually with a superlative force [Isaiah 19:11, Ezekiel 7:24; II Chronicles 21:7; I Samuel 17:40]. (Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 261)

These stones are hardly pebbles. Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) depicts:

Such stones were part of the normal repertoire of weapons in the ancient world (cf. II Chronicles 26:14), usually balls two or three inches in diameter and manufactured from flint (Ovid R. Sellers [1885-1975], “Sling Stones in Biblical Times,” Biblical Archaeologist 2/4 [1939]: 41-42,45). David, however, had a ready supply of naturally spherical stones of the right size at hand. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel ~ 2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 183)

The archaeological record attests to such weaponry. Stephen J. Andrews (b. 1954) and Robert B. Bergen (b. 1954) document:

Excavations in Israel have revealed hundreds of sling stones at many fortified sites. They are typically the size of tennis balls and weigh about a pound each. An accomplished warrior could sling a stone this size at a rate of 100 to 150 miles an hour, making it a very lethal weapon. It is most likely that David chose stones from the dry stream bed of this size and weight. (Andrews and Bergen, I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 127)

Robert B. Bergen (b. 1954) adds:

Examples of ancient Near Eastern slingstones are on display in the Lachish exhibit at the British Museum. Photographs of slingstones from Middle Eastern cultural sites can be seen in The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, editor James B. Pritchard [1909-1997] (London: Princeton: 1958, plate 101; and New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, editor Eprhaim Stern [b. 1934] (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), 2:463. A Middle Eastern slingstone from the private collection of David A. Dorsey [b. 1949] at the Evangelical School of Theology weighs approximately 450 grams, very much in line with those on display elsewhere. (Bergen, 1,2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 194)

The stone’s smoothness is essential for their purpose (I Samuel 17:40). Smooth stones make superior slingshot pellets as they produce more predictable trajectories and are less apt to get caught on the cradle.

Phil Farver (b. 1956) praises:

Picking smooth stones showed wisdom on David’s part [I Samuel 17:40]. He demonstrated that he knew the weapons he chose, how to use them and what they could accomplish. The smoothness showed that the stones had gone through a refining process by being tumbled around, tossed to and fro, in the stream and polished, ready to be used. The smoothness also guaranteed a faster, straighter flight from sling to target, generating more force against that intended target. Odd shaped stones or stones with jagged edges were not reliable and very difficult to control. (Farver, Five Smooth Stones: Proven Steps for Positive Success, 27-28)

Thomas D. Logie (b. 1951) compares:

Modern rifling to impart a spiral would not have been available to David. For the same reason as a baseball pitcher wants a seam in a baseball to make it break, David wanted to avoid seams or similar irregularities because he needed to throw hard and straight. So David learned to use smooth stones as his ammunition. I Samuel 17:40 reflects accurate science; if David had to use his slingshot in an emergency, the last thing he needed was to throw a knuckleball. (Logie, Meditations on Holiness)

These stones are selected for their compatibility to a sling (I Samuel 17:40, 50). David Toshio Tsumura (b. 1944) identifies:

Sling (qela‘) is a military weapon, common in the ancient Near East; Egyptian evidence goes back to the beginning of the second millennium B.C. Note the slingers, wearing iron helmets and coats of mail, depicted on the reliefs in the royal palaces at Nineveh and Nimrud. Hebrew usages support this meaning, though the Ugaritic counterpart of ql‘ could mean “shield” on the basis of Akkadian kabābu (ga-ba-bu in Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit 4.63:24, etc.) “shield.” (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 460)

W.E. Nunnally (b. 1955) describes:

A weapon consisting of two thongs made of rushes, animal sinews, leather, cloth, or hair attached to a wider pocket that held the projectile. The projectile was placed in the pocket and swung above the head one to three times. When the desired centrifugal force had been generated, one thong was released, discharging the missile. The sling was inexpensively manufactured and required little technical know-how to produce. Optimum accuracy (Judges 20:16) was achieved only by years of practice. Stones were carried into battle in a bag (I Samuel 17:40). During a siege they were piled at the slinger’s feet. The average slingstone was slightly smaller than a tennis ball. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], “Sling”, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 1233)

V. Philips Long (b. 1951) clarifies:

One is not to think of a forked stick with an elastic catapult stretched between it, which is a modern invention, but of a leather or cloth pouch to which two cords were attached. A slingstone, either crafted by hand or, as in the present instance, rounded by water action, was placed in the pouch and then, after swinging the sling overhead or to the side to gain momentum, was released at great speed by letting go of one of the cords. Slings were affordable but effective weapons used, for instance, by shepherds to drive off predators. David’s background as a shepherd would have afforded him opportunity to develop considerable skill in the use of a sling. In time, slings became (along with bows and arrows) a regular part of the long-range arsenal of ancient Near Eastern armies. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 351)

The birth of the sling represented an important military development in the ancient world. Richard A. Gabriel (b. 1942) traces:

An important innovation was the sling. Evidence of its existence appears at Catal Hüyük between 5500 and 4500 B.C. Most likely the early sling fired stones selected for their small size and smoothness. David, prior to his battle with Goliath, selected just such stones in preparing for battle. At Catal Hüyük we see the first evidence of shot made from sunbaked clay, man’s first foray into making a specific type of expendable ammunition. The sling represented a giant leap in the range of killing technology. (Gabriel, The Culture of War: Invention and Early Development, 28)

Ralph W. Klein (b.1936) supports:

Assyrian slingers wearing copper helmets and coats of mail, are depicted in Sennacherib’s palace (7th century, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary 1, 115). The slingstone was held in a pouch with cords attached at opposite ends. The sling was whirled over the head until one end was suddenly released. While I Samuel 17 apparently understands the sling as a shepherd’s weapon, it could also be used by organized armies, and with amazing accuracy as the Benjamites demonstrated (Judges 20:16; cf. also I Samuel 25:29; I Chronicles 12:2 and II Chronicles 26:14). (Klein, 1 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary), 179)

The sling could be highly destructive in the hands of a skilled user. Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) assesses:

In a skilled hand the sling could be a deadly weapon. According to Judges 20:16 the tribe of Benjamin could at one time count on the services of seven hundred left-handed slingers every one of whom ‘could sling a stone at a hair, and not miss’. Compare also the ambidextrous Benjamites mentioned in I Chronicles 12:2. The sling was commonly deployed in near eastern armies, the evidence in the case of Egypt going back to the beginning of the second millennium BC. (Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, 157)

Malcolm Gladwell (b. 1963) appreciates:

Slinging took an extraordinary amount of skill and practice. But in experienced hands, the sling was a devastating weapon. Paintings from medieval times show slingers hitting birds in midflight. Irish slingers were said to be able to hit a coin from as far away as they could see it, and in the Old Testament Book of Judges, slingers are described as being accurate within a “hair’s breadth” [Judges 20:16] An experienced slinger could kill or seriously injure a target at a distance of up to two hundred yards. The Romans even had a special set of tongs made just to remove stones that had been embedded in some poor soldier’s body by a sling. Imagine standing in front of a Major League Baseball pitcher as he aims a baseball at your head. That’s what facing a slinger was like—only what was being thrown was not a ball of cork and leather but a solid rock. (Gladwell, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, 9-10)

The sling is especially emphasized in the story of David and Goliath (I Samuel 17:1-58). The Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery observes:

Perhaps the most famous sling is the one carried by David and used to fell Goliath. This particular weapon is not just mentioned in the narrative (I Samuel 17:40) but assumes a rhetorical role in the summary: “So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him” (I Samuel 17:50). As it turns out, this weapon choice has something to say about Israel’s up-an-coming king. First, it says that David was smart. When we consider the list of weapons carried by Goliath (I Samuel 17:4-7), we can see that he intended to engage his Israelite competitor in close-range combat. While David had briefly considered the use of a sword (I Samuel 17:39), he quickly abandoned it in favor of the sling. In doing so David betrayed his intentions; he was not planning to get anywhere near the Philistine fighting machine but rather to dispatch him from a distance. While this reveals his thoughtful intelligence, it also says something about this faith in the Lord. David took only one weapon into the fight, counting on the Lord to guide his aim and the stone toward his bellicose target. Thus the author of I Samuel directs us to the sling because it was the smart choice and because it was the choice that marked David as a leader after God’s own heart [I Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22]. (John A. Beck [b. 1956], “Sling”, Zondervan Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

George B. Caird (1917-1984) notices:

It is curious that although both sources agree on David’s use of the sling on this occasion [I Samuel 17:40, 50], we never hear of it again in any of his subsequent battles. (George Arthur Buttrick [1892-1980], Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel (Interpreter’s Bible), 978)

The use of the sling is part of David’s presenting himself as he truly is: as a shepherd (I Samuel 16:11, 19, 17:15, 20, 28, 34). The sling is a shepherd’s tool. James E. Smith (b. 1939) imagines:

David chose to arm himself with what he knew best. He took his staff in one hand. He selected five smooth stones from the stream nearby and out them into the pouch of his shepherd’s bag, i.e., something akin to a knapsack. With his sling in his hand he went out to confront the Philistine. Obviously David was skilled in the use of the sling, having practiced endless hours with it while guarding the sheep. (Smith, I & II Samuel (College Press NIV Commentary), 228)

Shawn Easton connects:

We see in I Samuel 17:40 David taking the staff that he used to fend off wild beasts while tending to the sheep. He also took five smooth stones out of the brook and put them in a shepherd’s bag. There we see a reference to David’s experience as a shepherd. We see David taking something out of his victorious past (the shepherd bag and staff) and combining it with something from the present (five smooth stones) to deal with the future (the Philistine Goliath. (Easton, Divine Connections: The Key to Unlocking the Purpose in the Kingdom, 89-90)

While there is a rationale to David selecting stones, there is question as to why the Bible specifically references the number five (I Samuel 17:40). Keith Bodner (b. 1967) asks:

Does the reader have any clues as to why David chose five stones? Did he lack confidence in his swinging ability? Or is the head of Goliath a rather big target that may require more than one rock to penetrate? (Bodner, National Insecurity: A Primer on the First Book of Samuel, 130)

There are many metaphorical interpretations associated with the number five. Five appears in Biblical expressions relating to being hopelessly outnumbered (Leviticus 26:8; I Corinthians 14:19). Biblical numerologists cite five as the number of the Bible and suggest that David’s selection represents his using the very word of God to defeat Goliath. In charismatic circles it has been said that five represents the “five fold ministry” of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher.

Likely the most famous allegorical use comes from Augustine (354-430). Ferdinand Lot (1866-1952) chronicles:

Saint Augustine [354-430] himself, while protesting against the dangerous neglect into which the literal significance of the Holy Scriptures had fallen, is thoroughly imbued with the method. For example, here is the analysis of his sermon on David and Goliath, preached at Hippo:—“David pre-figures Christ, and Goliath the Devil. David takes five stones from the brook and puts them in the vessel used for milking his sheep; then, armed, he marches against the enemy. The five stones are an image of the five books of the law of Moses. The Law, in its turn, contains ten precepts; that is why David fights with five stones and sings to an instrument with ten strings. Observe that he does not sling five stones but only one, which is the Unity that fulfils the Law, namely Charity. (Lot, The End of the Ancient World, 375-76)

Edward A. Gosselin (b. 1943) interprets:

Augustine [354-430]’s abandonment of the Old Testament event for the New Testament reading may be seen in the following, rather typical example. In explicating, Psalm 43, Augustine points out that the historical event which prompted the psalm’s composition was the battle between David and Goliath. Quickly shedding the Old Testament ambience, Augustine explains that David is really Christ, Goliath Satan; that the five stones with which David armed himself were the Pentateuch, while the one stone which David hurled at Goliath was the New Testament. Thus, says Augustine, the Law of Moses was made efficacious by the grace of the New Testament, which killed Satan and sin. (Raymond-Jean Frontain [b. 1951] and Jan Wojcik [b. 1944], “Two Views of the Evangelical David: Lefèvre d’Etaples [1455-1536] and Theodore Beza [1519-1605]”, The David Myth in Western Literature, 57)

Some more recent homileticians have also tried to connect David and Jesus using the five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40). Fulton J. Sheen (1885-1979) preaches:

A new David arose to slay the Goliath of evil, not with five stones but with five wounds—hideous scars on hands, feet, and side; and the battle was fought not with armor glistening under a noonday sun, but with flesh torn away so the bones could be numbered. The Artist had put the last touch in his masterpiece, and with the joy of the strong He uttered the song of triumph that His work was completed. (Sheen, Life of Christ, 559)

Pseudo-Philo adapts the number of stones to better fit a less literal reading. Frederick J. Murphy (1949-2011) notes:

In I Samuel 17:40, David chooses five smooth stones for his sling. They become seven in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 61:5 and on them David writes the names of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, himself, and God. This symbolic act underlines Israel’s very identity. Israel’s relationship with its God is its very core. (Murphy, Pseudo-Philo : Rewriting the Bible: Rewriting the Bible, 210-11)

Other interpreters have attempted to link the number five to Goliath himself. The five stones may in some way correlate to Goliath making five boasts in his mocking challenge to the Israelites (I Samuel 17:8, 9, 10, 43, 44). If there is a connection here, it is an editorial insertion after the battle as only three of Goliath’s insults occur before David selects the rocks (I Samuel 17:8, 9, 10).

More commonly, David’s selection of the five smooth stones is presented as the shepherd preparing for retribution from Goliath’s four relatives. This is based upon II Samuel 21:15-22 and a parallel passage in I Chronicles 20:5. Though the Bible does not specifically state that Goliath had four brothers, he had at least one (II Samuel 21:19).

J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988) typifies:

Some people believe that David chose five smooth stones so that if he missed his first shot, he could use one or all of the others. David did not intend to miss, friend. Then why did he select five stones? The answer is found in II Samuel 21:22: “These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.” Goliath had four sons, and David was sure they would come out when he killed their father. This is why David picked five stones. That was the number he needed. (McGee, First and Second Samuel (Thru the Bible), 98)

This conjecture does not fit the context because even if Goliath did have four brothers, it is doubtful that David would have been aware of this fact. David is portrayed as being shocked by Goliath’s challenge and is seen asking questions about the situation (I Samuel 17:26, 29).

Phil Farver (b. 1956) situates:

Why five smooth stones [I Samuel 17:40]? Why not one? Why not ten?...I have heard preachers explain that since Goliath had four brothers, David took with him the number of stones he would need: one each for Goliath and his brothers. I researched the story and I don’t believe that David knew that Goliath had four brothers. According to what is written David came into the camp without any prior knowledge of what was happening at the time, other than the fact that Israel was involved in a military battle with the Philistines. In fact, it seems he was taken by surprise by what he observed when he entered the camp [I Samuel 17:26, 29]. (Farver, Five Smooth Stones: Proven Steps for Positive Success, 27)

That the four remaining stones are not connected to Goliath’s family is supported by the fact that David does not slay any other giants. Further, he is facing a huge obstacle and for optimum results, his sole focus should be on Goliath, the giant at hand.

A more likely yet no more substantiated supposition is that David planned complete obliteration of the enemy. The Philistines controlled five cities each led by a lord (Joshua 13:3; I Samuel 6:16, 17, 18). Goliath was the representative of Gath (I Samuel 17:4, 23), one of the five Philistine strongholds.

The simplest explanation to David’s rationale is that the shepherd is being pragmatic (I Samuel 17:40). He could not have carried many stones and the extras provide a contingency plan in the event he misses or one blow is not adequate to fell the giant. Likewise, carrying more than five would be pointless as had five shots been unequal to the task, he would likely have already been defeated. From this perspective, David is not placing all of his eggs in one basket. Proponents of this explanation laud David for being responsible and not limiting God to a single result.

The debate over the meaning of the five stones rages as it pertains to whether or not David exhibits complete trust in God. Many have viewed a pragmatic David as hedging his bets. A deficit in faith does not seem to fit the context as a lack of confidence is not part of this story (I Samuel 17:26, 32-37). In the parlance of today’s youth, David had to have some serious stones to undertake this mission in the first place.

Some have even seen the five smooth stones as evidence of doubt (I Samuel 17:40). Jentezen Franklin (b. 1962) assures:

Do you know why I think David picked up four more stones than he needed? I think it was afraid he might miss. It doesn’t take a lot of faith; it only takes faith the size of a mustard seed [Matthew 17:20; Luke 17:6]— just a little faith. You don’t have to have great faith, just a little faith. (Craig Groeschel [b. 1967], “God is Able” What Is God Really Like?, 87)

David does not violate any command when selecting the five stones (I Samuel 17:40). He is not told that one shot will slay the giant and it is quite possible that one stone may not be enough.

Clark Strand (b. 1957) considers:

In the end, it isn’t a matter of how much or how little faith David has that God will help him defeat the giant. He still doesn’t know how many stones it will take. He still doesn’t know how much, or for how long, God expects him to fight...Once the conversation with God is underway, we will be told everything we need to know, as we need to know it. And if we need to know...That is what is so beautiful about the moment in the story when David stoops down at the brook to gather five stones for his scrip [I Samuel 17:40]. How long will he have to fight? He doesn’t know. How much of the outcome will be determined by his skill with the sling and how much by God? There is no way to separate the two...Even when the story is over and the giant lies dead at his feet, there is no clear line dividing David from the one he calls “the Living God” [I Samuel 17:26, 36]. (Strand, How to Believe in God: Whether You Believe in Religion or Not, 89-90)

Instead of doubt, perhaps David exhibits humility and prudence.

The same God who guides David against Goliath provides not one but five suitable rocks in the brook (I Samuel 17:40). As is often the case, God presents more than is necessary (Ephesians 3:20-21).

Wess Stafford (b. 1949) reflects:

The bit about David choosing five smooth stones from the stream (I Samuel 17:40) made perfect sense to my little band of marksmen. No, not because of the elaborate conjecture I’ve since heard from Bible expositors about Goliath having four fierce relatives to be killed, and so this was some great symbolism for the future. When you live and die by the slings as we did, you’re always walking around with one eye on the ground looking for the next perfect stone. Round rocks are hard to come by and can make all the difference in the world. If one has a little bump on a side, the rock can veer off in flight. Flat rocks? Forget about it? You’re not going to hit anything...I’m pretty sure David picked up five smooth stones simply because they were right in front of him. All us boys knew he should need only one to take care of Goliath, but why pass up the other four? (Stafford, Too Small to Ignore: Why the Least of These Matters Most, 29)

Perhaps David picks up the rocks simply because they are there. He could always use the other four later; they can be saved for a rainy day.

None of these theories regarding David’s five smooth stones is wholly satisfying (I Samuel 17:40). What is clear is that regardless of how many stones David takes into battle, he appears overmatched in this contest. David’s strategy is clearly offensive minded, which offends Goliath (I Samuel 17:43). In bringing no protective gear, the shepherd is quite literally defenseless. In choosing not to play by Goliath’s rules, David becomes the proverbial man taking a knife to a gun fight.

Walter Brueggeman (b. 1933) comments:

David proposes a radical alternative, only five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40). David must have appeared to Saul (and to all the others) to be unarmed and defenseless. David’s alternative must have seemed to be no viable alternative at all. The narrator, however, permits no protest or reservation against David by Saul. David’s refusal of Saul’s armor is let stand as the last word [I Samuel 17:39]. David’s confidence is in the “living God,” who has delivered and who will deliver [I Samuel 17:26, 36]. Such faith is David’s alternative to conventional modes of self-defense. (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 131)

Five proves to be an excess of four as David needs only one smooth stone to fell the Philistine giant (I Samuel 17:49). After the fact, five stones may seem like overkill or an abundance (I Samuel 17:40). But going into battle David’s arsenal likely seem quite insufficient. The difference in perspective pertains to hindsight. It often does.

Why does David procure precisely five stones in preparation to face Goliath (I Samuel 17:40)? Is there any reason why David would not take all of the adequate ammunition which presented itself? Does having enough ammo to take multiple shots represent a lack of faith or prudence? Does David’s taking more than one stone into battle in any way diminish his triumph; is it indicative of doubt? Do the four unused stones provide any benefits? Why does the Bible include David’s selection of exactly five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40); what, if anything, does this detail add to the story? Were you David, would you have picked up the “extra” stones? When have you presumed you had too little only to find later that you actually had a surplus?

There are many contrasts to be made between David’s armor and that of the other two primary figures in the story, Goliath and Saul (I Samuel 17:5-7, 38-39). Notably, David respectfully declines his king’s offer of armor (I Samuel 17:39). Many have noted the shepherd’s wisdom in not donning his king’s bulky gear.

Jerry Sutton (b. 1951) approves:

David could not, did not, and would not use Saul’s armor and weapons [I Samuel 17:39]. His assessment, was, “These are untested.” So what did he do? He went to war with the familiar: a sling, a pouch with five smooth stones, and perhaps a staff [I Samuel 17:40]. He played to his strengths, trusting for God’s intervention, and walked away a hero. (Sutton, A Primer on Biblical Preaching, 14)

This observation is ancient. John Cassian (360-435) apprises:

We sometimes see a bad example drawn from good things. For if someone presumes to do the same things but not with the same disposition and orientation or with unlike virtue, he easily falls into the snares of deception and death on account of those very things form which others acquire the fruits of eternal life. That brave boy who was set against the most warlike giant in a contest of arms would certainly have experienced this if he had put on Saul’s manly and heavy armor, with which a person of more robust age would have laid low whole troops of the enemy. This would undoubtedly have imperiled the boy, except that with wise discretion he chose the kind of weapon that was appropriate for his youth and armed himself against the dreadful foe not with the breastplate and shield that he saw others outfitted with but with the projectiles that he himself was able to fight with [I Samuel 17:40]. Conference 24.8.1-2. (John R. Franke [b. 1961], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), 272)

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) applies:

The offer of bronze helmet and coat of mail was well intentioned [I Samuel 17:38]. But to accept it would have been disastrous. David needed what was authentic to him. Even as I do. For even though the weaponry urged upon me by my culture in the form of science and knowledge is formidable I cannot work effectively with what is imposed from the outside. Metallic forms hung on my frame will give me, perhaps, an imposing an aspect but will not help me do my proper work. (Peterson, Five Smooth Stones for Pastoral Work, 240)

Kenneth L. Chafin (1926-2001) concurs:

Saul’s effort to help David has been copied by many since then [[I Samuel 17:38]. Nothing comes more naturally to people than trying yo get someone to fight our battles the way we would were we fighting them. Through the centuries that Christians have been reading this story they have been moved by the wisdom of David for not trying to do battle with someone else’s armor. People need to have confidence in their own gifts, experiences, and abilities if they are to face the giants in their lives. (Chafin, 1, 2 Samuel (Mastering the Old Testament, 145)

John R. Bisagno (b. 1934) concludes:

David was faithful to hone those skills that came naturally to him. Our Lord only expects the employment of the natural gifts He has placed within our hands. God’s question is always, “What are you going to do with what you’ve got?” Whether it is a staff, a lunch, an empty net or a sling, God doesn’t ask for very much at all. He just asks for all of you. Five smooth stones will do just fine. (Bisagno, Principle Preaching: How to Create and Deliver Purpose Driven Sermons for Life Application, 88)

David is also outfitted entirely differently from his opponent, Goliath. A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) contrasts:

The pieces of armed protection provided by Saul correspond strikingly to the elements of Goliath’s armor (I Samuel 17:5-7). They are not said to be heavy, but David is unable to walk, and what else could a bronze helmet be but heavy? Nor are David’s own weapons of choice called “light.” But the name of everything he does select (I Samuel 17:40) plays on and hints at qal, the Hebrew adjective for “light” and “fast”: most obviously his “stick” (mql) and “sling” (ql’), but also (with the key consonants reversed) the “smooth” [stones] (hlqy) and his “pouch” (ylqwt)—with this young champion in the making, words and reality are in perfect fit. (Auld, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 211)

David does not just reject the king’s armor he rejects armor in general (I Samuel 17:38-40). This further underscores the disparity between David and Goliath. Robert B. Bergen (b. 1954) juxtaposes:

The weapons David gathered for use against Goliath—the stick and the stones [I Samuel 17:40]—were not products of human artifice; rather, they were shaped by God. As such the author may have included these details as a counterpoint to I Samuel 13:19-22; the Philistines feared and relied on weapons pulled from human forges, but David would conquer them with divinely manufactured weapons. Armed with these provisions, David “approached the Philistine” [I Samuel 17:40]. (Bergen, 1,2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 194-95)

David Jobling (b. 1941) bolsters:

Goliath, decked out for battle in a massive weight of “bronze” and “iron” (I Samuel 17:5-7) contrasts starkly with David, who refuses any armor at all (I Samuel 17:38-39) and fights with stones, natural objects (I Samuel 17:40). Goliath’s grotesquely metallic appearance may be lined with the Philistine monopoly on iron (I Samuel 13:19-22)—he is a fantasized version of Philistine technological superiority. (Jobling, 1 Samuel (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 220)

Walter Brueggeman (b. 1933) critiques:

Saul does not understand anything. He has uttered Yahweh’s name. But he wants to outdo Goliath on Goliath’s term in I Samuel 17:38-39. so he offers armor, helmet, coat of mail, sword—David “tried in vain to go” with such encumbrance. David’s contrast is with both Saul and Goliath. Unlike them, he goes unencumbered (“I am not used to them” [I Samuel 17:39]). Both of them—the one a braggart, the other a coward—trust in arms. But David does not trust in arms because of who he is and who his people are: people who have learned that the others always have a monopoly on arms. The tribe must fight in another way. David takes five smooth stones and his sling. They are enough [I Samuel 17:40]. (Brueggemann, David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory, 25)

The most puzzling piece of the story remains why the Bible sees fit to include the detail about David’s five smooth stones (I Samuel 17:40). Preachers have often used David’s arsenal as sermon fodder.

For instance, in his best selling book, Facing Your Giants, Max Lucado (b. 1955) writes:

David took five stones [I Samuel 17:40]. He made five decisions. Do likewise. Past. Prayer. Priority. Passion. And persistence...Next time Goliath wakes you up, reach for a stone. Odds are, he’ll be out of the room before you can load your sling. (Lucado, Facing Your Giants: A David and Goliath Story for Everyday People, 159)

Though this sermonic technique can be effective, it can often defeat the purpose of the story. Richard D. Phillips (b. 1960) evaluates:

The story of David’s victory over Goliath has launched many five-point sermons, one point for each of the smooth stones that David took from the brook and put into his pouch [I Samuel 17:40]. Usually these sermons list principles or behaviors by which even the skinniest Christian can take down the brawniest spiritual enemy...David’s victory, however, was anything but the triumph of an “everyman.” David was not just anyone in Israel, but the one man whom God had especially anointed to lead and deliver his people, for which God had equipped him with the Holy Spirit (see I Samuel 16:3). (Phillips, 1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary), 304)

Wayne Grudem (b. 1948) advises:

Asking what the original author intended the original readers to understand will help the interpreter avoid fanciful allegories that improperly interpret the text. For instance, an interpreter who doesn’t follow this procedure might find all sorts of fanciful interpretations of the “five smooth stones” that David took to fight Goliath (I Samuel 17:40). A modern charismatic interpreter, given to allegorizing, might say that these five smooth stones are the fivefold manifestations of the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 4:11. “But no,” a Calvinistic interpreter might answer. He would say that it’s obvious that the “five smooth stones’ represent the famous “five points of Calvinism.” Then a third allegorical interpreter, an ethics professor, might say that they were both wrong because David is going forth to war against Goliath, and therefore the “five smooth stones” obviously represent the five sides of the Pentagon building in Washington, DC, and they therefore give support to the “just war” theory!...Unless we first anchor our interpretation in what the original author wanted the original readers to understand, there will be no limit to the variety of such incorrect interpretations that have nothing to do with the actual meaning of the text. (Leland Ryken [b.1942] and Todd Wilson [b. 1976], “Right and Wrong Interpretation of the Bible: Some Suggestions for Pastors and Bible Teachers”, Preach the Word: Essays on Expository Preaching: In Honor of R. Kent Hughes [b. 1942], 67)

John H. Walton (b. 1952) and Kim E. Walton (b. 1954) refocus:

David is not the hero—God is. To paint David as the hero runs exactly opposite to David’s own perspective and what the narrator wanted to emphasize. Furthermore, just because God brought down David’s enemies does not mean that he will give us victory over all our enemies. We cannot extrapolate the work of God to everyone’s situation at any given time. Resist using the “lesson by metaphor.” We should not be asking, “What giant in your life does God need to overcome?” or “What are the five stones that you have in your bag?” These do not get to the authority of the teaching of the text, clever as they may be. (Walton and Walton, The Bible Story Handbook: A Resource for Teaching 175 Stories from the Bible, 165)

The most important contrast in the story is not between David and Goliath or even David and Saul; instead it is the apposition of David’s giant God and the giant Philistine.

Technically, though David credits God for his success (I Samuel 17:37, 45-47), the narrator never explicitly does so. Peter D. Miscall (b. 1943) acknowledges:

We cannot automatically assume that success or failure indicates that good or evil, in whatever sense, has preceded. For example, David’s killing of Goliath [I Samuel 17:1-58] can be explained in a variety of ways, including an element of chance, i.e. David gambles and wins. Throughout the remainder of I Samuel, David will generally succeed, but we can only ask, and then again, why? Is his success due to the Lord’s intervention, and, if so, does this have anything to do with David’s character or behavior? Or is it due to his own ability and sagacity, to Saul’s incompetence, to the help of others, or to just plain luck? The same applies to Saul’s failure. (Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading, 123)

There can be little doubt that the Bible assumes God’s agency in David’s victory. Gnana Robinson (b. 1935) supplants:

He [David] merely takes his shepherd’s weapons — a staff, a sling, and “five smooth stones” (I Samuel 17:40). The emphasis here is that it is not so much David who is going to fight, but the LORD (I Samuel 17:37; cf. I Samuel 17:45-47). (Robinson, 1 & 2 Samuel: Let Us be Like the Nations (International Theological Commentary), 101)

Frank Johnson (b. 1943) presumes:

Clearly David’s inexperience and inadequate equipment mandate divine assistance. But David is convinced that God will deliver him and aid him, just as before [I Samuel 17:37, 45-47]. He is not afraid. (Johnson, First and Second Samuel (Basic Bible Commentary), 64)

Richard D. Phillips (b. 1960) expounds:

Divested of Saul’s armor [I Samuel 17:38-39], David turned to face the Philistine giant: “Then he took his staff in his hand and chose five smooth stones from the brook and put them in his shepherd’s pouch. His sling was in his hand, and he approached the Philistine” (I Samuel 17:40). But it was not with these only that David went forth to fight Goliath: “He went to the conflict with a blazing concern for the honour of God, with confidence in the certainty of his promises and with the power of the Spirit of God.” David advanced against the Philistine not in the armor and identity of “a king...like all the nations,” which Saul was (I Samuel 8:5), relying on nothing really different from the armor and weaponry of evil Goliath, but as a shepherd-servant of the Lord, defending God’s honor and protecting God’s people in the power of the Lord himself. In this way, whether he realized it or not, David identified with God’s great champions of prior years, shepherd-leaders such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, men of spiritual valor who lived and fought by faith in the promises of God. (Phillips, 1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary), 299)

Elizabeth Achtemeier (1926-2002) contends:

What a hero! No, David slays Goliath “that all the earth may now that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord saves not with sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s (I Samuel 17:46-47). It is God who wins the victory...God chooses what is weak in the world to shame the strong (I Corinthians 1:27). It is always thus in God’s working in this world. (Achtemeier, Preaching and Reading the Old Testament Lessons: With an Eye to the New, Cycle B, 156)

David takes only five smooth stones and faith to face a giant (I Samuel 17:40). Yet they are enough. Equipment and armament do not decide the battle. Nor do David’s skill and courage. It is God who assures the shepherd’s victory. David’s triumph over Goliath echoes throughout history as a reminder that God is indeed sufficient.

What do you take into battle with you? On which are you more reliant, God or technology? Do you credit God with your successes? If so, how? Do the “extra” stones in any way detract from God’s miracle? Do you, like David, have confidence in God’s sufficiency?

“The greatest need of our age and of every age, the greatest need of every human heart, is to know the resources and sufficiency of God.” - A.B. Simpson (1843-1919), But God, Preface

Five Husbands?!?! (John 4:18)

How many husbands did “the woman at the well” have? Five (John 4:18)

Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well in Sychar is one of the longest and most intense discussions recorded in the gospels (John 4:7-38). Though the renowned divine appointment forms a self-contained unit within John’s gospel, it has been argued that the scene is best appreciated when juxtaposed with Jesus’ preceding encounter with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21). See Mary Margaret Pazdan (b. 1942), “Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman: Contrasting Models of Discipleship”, Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Culture 17 (1987), pp. 145-48.

The conversation is one, that culturally speaking, should never have happened. Jesus simply should not be with this woman. R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) acknowledges:

The tension between Jesus and the Samaritan woman crosses four levels: gender, nationality, race, and religion. In the course of the conversation, all four barriers are crossed and community is created. This story, therefore, is the Johannine equivalent of the story in Acts 8:5-24 about how the gospel reached the Samaritans. (Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John: (Interpreting Biblical Texts Series), 139)

The dialogue also features taboo subjects seldom discussed publicly as it encompasses politics, religion and the woman’s sexual history (John 4:7-30). Among the facts unearthed is that the woman has had five husbands and this revelation is awkwardly divulged.(John 4:18).

The discourse between Jesus and the Samaritan woman divides into two parts (John 4:7-15, 4:16-27). After addressing the theological controversies of the period, Jesus abruptly (and intentionally) changes the subject to an even more sensitive issue.

He [Jesus] said to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.” The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.” (John 4:16-18 NASB)

The conversation turns when Jesus instructs the woman to summon her husband. Margaret M. Beirne follows:

With John 4:16, the dynamic shifts as the Johannine Jesus turns the conversation towards the woman’s private life...By having Jesus extend it to her ‘husband’, the narrator is deliberately setting the scene for the woman’s confession (in faith, not moral terms) of her mounting perception of who Jesus is. Whatever is implied by the reference to ‘five husbands’ (John 4:18a), it is not meant to be the focus, but is primarily a way of bringing the woman (and the implied reader) to a further stage of recognizing and witnessing to the identity of Jesus. (Beirne, Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel: A Genuine Discipleship of Equals, 82)

Since Jesus changes the topic from “living water” (John 4:7-15) after the woman has missed his figurative point (John 4:15), it appears that the first portion of the conversation fails. As such, the inquiry into her husband could represent a second attempt.

David Seeley (b. 1956) analyzes:

Hendrikus Boers [b. 1928] recognizes that what he calls the first narrative “subsequence” between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (John 4:6-7, 9-15) “fails in every aspect.” The woman understands neither Jesus’ mission nor his identity. Even in the second “subsequence” (John 4:16-21, 23-26, 28-29), “the woman’s recognition that Jesus may be the messiah” is still couched in terms of “the clearly mistaken sense of a miracle worker.” Nevertheless, Boers maintains that the meaning of the phrase “living water” does become manifest in the woman. “As far as the woman is concerned, it means to participate in Jesus’ doing of his Father’s work.” (Seeley, Deconstructing the New Testament, 120)

It is Jesus who directs the conversation to the topic of men (John 4:16). Through a psychological lens, Jean-Marc Chappuis (1924-1986) evaluates:

Jesus would have been a bad Rogerian...the gospel conversations, in fact, notably those reported by John and even more especially those with Nicodemus [John 3:1-21] and the Samaritan woman [John 4:7-30], testify that he accomplishes only two-thirds of Carl Rogers [1902-1987]’s program. He practices empathy. He perceives and respects the internal frame of reference of those to whom he is speaking. On other hand, he does not submit to Rogers’ third precept, which is that of non-directness. On the contrary, he does direct the attention of his interlocutors authoritatively towards a new horizon at their existence, towards a possibility offered them to live differently. (Chappuis, “Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: The Variable Geometry of Communication,” The Ecumenical Review, 34, no. 1 (1982):12)

The change of subject does not flow naturally and in modern vernacular Jesus appears to be committing a “party foul”. Mark W.G. Stibbe (b. 1960) explores:

At this point, something very strange occurs. We have what appears to be another non sequitur. Instead of pursuing the topic of the living water, Jesus suddenly changes the subject and says, “Go, call your husband and come back’. The South African scholar J. Eugene Botha [b. 1959] has examined this statement in light of speech act theory. He proposes that at this point Jesus breaks one of the ‘cooperation principles’ upon which all conversations depend. This ‘cooperation principle’ goes as follows: ‘make your conversation contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk-exchange in which you are engaged’...One of the four maxims of this cooperation principle is the maxim of relation, ‘which requires that the contribution must be relevant in the talk exchange’...Botha’s view is that Jesus flouts the maxim of relations. He likens the dialogue at this point to the following exchange: ‘A says: “Don’t you think Fred sometimes acts like an idiot?” To which B replies: “I planted some shrubs yesterday”’...What Botha proposes is that Jesus, up until John 4:16, is engaged in a fruitless conversation. He therefore deliberately flouts the maxim in order to pursue a more hopeful topic...Botha...is right to say that Jesus appears to flout the maxim of relation, but he is wrong to say that the conversation up until that moment was ‘a failure’, and he is equally wrong to imply that Jesus’ behaviour here reveals that he is a poor conversationalist. The fact is, Jesus’ language in this exchange is an example of what the literary critics call ‘discontinuous dialogue’ (A.D. Nuttall [1937-2007] 1980: 128-38). Throughout the fourth gospel, Jesus employs a ‘technique of deliberate transcendence’ in his use of language...‘The gaps in Jesus’ dialogue imply a transcending compliment, a supernature’ (Nutall 1980: 133). Nowhere is this truer than in John 4:16. (Stibbe, John’s Gospel (New Testament Readings))

The irregularity of Jesus’ inquiry is seen in the woman’s response: “I have no husband” (John 4:17). Jack W. Stallings (b. 1944) assumes:

Jesus has clearly hit a nerve. For the first time, she has no rejoinder. She can but curtly reply, “I have no husband.” [John 4:17] She is not at all eager to discuss this subject. Jesus, however, is not about to let her off the hook. (Stallings, The Gospel of John (The Randall House Bible Commentary), 67)

The woman seemingly deflects. Some have viewed her attempts to conceal her marital history as evidence of guilt. Others have reminded that her avoidance is not because Jesus’ command to summon her husband is misunderstood but rather because it simply cannot be followed. Consequently, the woman need not be perceived as being deliberately evasive. Both views could be (at least partially) correct.

Jesus’ direction could very well have been a conversation killer. The woman certainly tries to end this line of questioning. Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) suspects:

The woman’s response, “I have no husband,” seems designed to cut off further conversation along these lines (D. A. Carson [b. 1946] 1991:221). Laurence Cantwell (1983:80) aptly sees her “clinging rather pathetically to her privacy and some semblance of respectability,” using “a not very clever equivocation which Christ dramatically exposes, to reveal a life which is not so much immoral [though it is that!] as a mess, a broken series of false beginnings and shattered hopes.” In fact, though technically truthful, the woman’s statement is potentially misleading (Craig S. Keener [b. 1960] 2003:605; hence Jesus’ gentle yet firm response, in which he places ἄνδρα [andra, husband] in an emphatic grammatical position [Daniel B. Wallace [b. 1952] 1996:455]).On the face of it, it could be taken to imply that she was unattached and thus available...Jesus, with fine irony, quickly removes all doubt: “You have had five men, and the one you have now is not your husband.” (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 152)

D. A. Carson (b. 1946) scrutinizes:

The woman’s truculent I have no husband was formally true, if her five former husbands were all deceased or divorced; but doubtless her intention was to ward off any further probing of this sensitive area of her life, while masking the guilt and hurt. Jesus exposes the whole truth (as the woman herself later admits, John 4:29, 30), but in the gentlest possible way: he commends her for her formal truthfulness [John 4:17], while pointing out that she has had five husbands (presumably each had died or divorced her) and the man with whom she is now sleeping is not her legal husband at all. (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 221)

In introducing a new topic, Jesus progresses the conversation from abstract theory to personal history, from head to heart. Kevin D. Huggins (b. 1951) assesses:

Jesus used the concern that was of most interest to the Samaritan woman at the time (worship) to help her discover something about her own heart she desperately needed to change. (Huggins, Friendship Counseling: Jesus’ Model for Speaking Life-Words to Hurting People, 123)

To paraphrase a modern expression, all of a sudden stuff just got real. Jean-Marc Chappuis (1924-1986) generalizes:

The most commonplace communication may expand to become suddenly firm and substantial. That clearly is what happens in the meeting between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. (Chappuis, “Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: The Variable Geometry of Communication,” The Ecumenical Review, 34, no. 1 (1982):11)

Jesus alerts the woman that she has had five husbands and is presently living with a sixth man (John 4:18). Her personal history is alarming even to the contemporary reader: She has assembled a basketball starting five with a sixth man to come off of the bench!

Some interpreters have sought significance in the number five. In addition to the Samaritan woman’s five husbands (John 4:18), John’s gospel documents that Bethesda features five porticoes (John 5:2) and Jesus uses five barley loaves (John 6:9, 13) to feed the five thousand (John 6:10).

Craig R. Koester (b. 1953) informs:

Augustine [354-430]...explains the numbers in the Gospel with considerable consistency, using the dichotomy between imperfection under the Mosaic Law and perfection in faith, love, or the Spirit (II Corinthians 3:6-9)...The five books of Moses were signified by the Samaritan woman’s five husbands (John 4:18); by the five porticoes at Bethzatha, which were ineffective for salvation (John 5:2); by the five barley loaves (John 6:9); and the crowd of five thousand people (John 6:10). (Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 312-13)

Others have found meaning in the chronology of her personal life. Alan R. Kerr (b. 1942) relays:

Mark W.G. Stibbe [b. 1960]...points out that if the woman has had five husbands and is living de facto with a sixth, then Jesus is the seventh man in her life: ‘Since seven is the perfect number in Judaism, the implicit commentary must be that Jesus is the man which she has been waiting for, the man in whose presence she will find wholeness (σωτηρία).’ The surprise is that the bride is a Samaritan and not a Jew. Jesus, the bridegroom, is the Saviour of the world (John 4:42) not just of the Jewish people. (Kerr, The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John, 171-72)

The woman’s sexual history has become her defining attribute because it is the only biographical detail presented in the text aside from her nationality (John 4:7, 9). This descriptive sparseness is typical of John’s gospel.

R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) apprises:

John’s characterization is...peculiar in that it does not give the age or physical characteristics of any character. Only the barest outline of their past is ever related: the Samaritan woman had five husbands [John 4:18], the lame man had been afflicted for thirty-eight years [John 5:5], and the blind man had been blind from birth [John 9:1]. Instead, the characters are individualized by their position in society and their interaction with Jesus. This means that they may easily become types. They are not so individualized that they have much of a “personality.” On the other hand, their position in society and interactions with Jesus are verisimilar and realistic. They must be for the reader to accept them and, more importantly, accept the evangelist’s characterization of Jesus. (Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design, 145)

Despite the paucity of data, Adele Reinhartz (b. 1953) infers:

The age of the woman in this case is not known; the references to her husbands indicate that she is an adult; the allusion to the biblical betrothal motif (“boy meets girl at well”) implies that she is of the same generation as Jesus. The fact that she encounters Jesus at a well near but not within the geographical boundaries of her community may imply that she has gained her knowledge of and commitment to this message while she was away from the community, and that she has returned in order to preach to them. (Amy-Jill Levine [b. 1956] with Marianne Blickenstaff [b. 1959], “Women in the Johannine Community: An Exercise in Historic Imagination”, A Feminist Companion to John: Volume II, 22-23)

The woman’s marital status is emphasized. Robert H. Mounce (b. 1921) mentions:

It is worth noting that when the woman denied having a husband, she placed the crucial word aner (“husband,” Edward W. Goodrick [1913-1992] & John R. Kohlenberger III [b. 1951] 467) at the end of the clause. Jesus in his response placed it first, thus adding considerable emphasis. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Luke~Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary))

The Greek word anēr can literally indicate that the woman has had five “men” but virtually no prominent translations present the text this way, instead opting for the traditional “husbands” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV).

Adeline Fehribach (b. 1950) recognizes:

If five legal husbands is unlikely, should the passage read, “You have had five ‘men’ and the one you are with now is not your ‘husband.’” This translation would imply that she was never legally married to any of the men in her life, a position supported by Laurence Cantwell and Hendrikus Boers [b. 1928]. (Fehribach, The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist Historical-Literary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel, 68)

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) considers:

It is perhaps...another instance of a wordplay...here involving the word ἀνήρ (anēr), which can mean either “man” or “husband.” If so, Jesus may be telling the woman that she has had five “men”(with whom she lived in fornication) and that the one she is now living with is not her “man,” that is, husband (though he may be that of another woman; note the emphatic position of “your” in the Greek.) In other words, the woman is a serial fornicator (see Charles H. Giblin [1928-2002] 1999). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 152-53)

Johns Varghese (b. 1966) expounds:

The fact of the marriage of the woman seems to be based on the interpretation of the word “ἀνήρ” as “husband”. However as Hendrikus Boers [b. 1928] notes, “The parallel between ‘you had’ and ‘you have’, i.e., now, may suggest that none of the other men were her husbands either”. It may thus reflect an adulterous situation in which the Samaritan woman was living and had lived. The woman’s personal history matches her national history. (Varghese, The Imagery of Love in the Gospel of John, 130)

Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) assesses:

The relationship of a man (anēr) to a woman is determined by pronouns and context, so stress must be laid on the pronoun “your.” That the man with whom she lives is not her husband does not necessarily mean that he is someone else’s husband or that they have physical relations. She may be living with a close kin. The humiliating fact of having been married five times and five times widowed or rejected and not to be married at present would be sufficient cause to conceal her status. Jesus’s word of praise for a painful admission indicates that he has moved from playful banter to sincere speech [John 4:17]. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament, 85)

If the Samaritan woman has had five husbands it would not only be highly irregular but many scholars have asserted that it would also be in violation of the rabbinic maximum. Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) notifies:

If the...rendering “five husbands,” is correct, then the woman found herself in conflict with Jewish law (contra Brooke Foss Westcott [1825-1901] 1908:1.154), since rabbis generally disapproved of more than three legal marriages in a lifetime, even in the case of the death of previous husbands (Babylonian Talmud Yebamot 64b; cf. Babylonian Talmud Niddah 64a). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 152)

Rabbi Burton L. Visotzky (b. 1951) challenges:

Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] follows Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] in his comment, “Jews were only allowed three marriages.” This is wrong. The rabbinic law limiting marriages only applies when the previous husbands have died during the marriage, in which case the wife qualifies as a “killer wife” and is prevented from marrying further. In point of fact, a very famous rabbi disregarded the law to marry the woman he desired. Our passage simply points to the woman as a liar, but not necessarily “markedly immoral” as Brown construed her. (John R. Donahue [b. 1933], “Study of John’s Interaction with First-Century Judaism”, Life in Abundance: Studies of John's Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998], 99)

Inferences drawn from the woman’s marital history vary greatly. F. Scott Spencer (b. 1956) discusses:

As Mary Rose D’Angelo [b. 1946] observes, this exchange has generated astonishing “exegetical extravaganzas,” concocting various scenarios about the woman’s pathetic philandering or promiscuous past (“five-time loser”/“tramp”) or, in a thoroughly allegorical reading, interpreting her “husbands” as the alien gods of the five nations ancient Syria relocated in Samaria. (Spencer, Dancing Girls, Loose Ladies, and Women of the Cloth: The Women in Jesus’ Life, 91)

Mark Edwards (b. 1962) audits:

Augustine [354-430] thinks that the purpose of this exchange is to reveal Christ as the true spouse of the soul (Homily 15.19). Calum M. Carmichael [b. 1938] too interprets the scene as the ‘Johannine symbolical equivalent of a marriage’ (1979-80: 335)...Heracleon [second century] defends her by appeal to the Valentinian myth in which a penitent wisdom sows the seeds of spirit by fornicating with the cosmic powers (Origen [184-253], Commentary 13.25). The frequent association of promiscuity with idolatry (Ezekiel 16:51, etc.) lends some weight to the conjecture, endorsed by Sir Edwyn Hoskyns [1884-1937], that these husbands are the five cults which the Assyrians are said to have stalled in Samaria (1947: 242, citing I Kings 17:24-29). (Edwards, John Through the Centuries, 56)

Craig R. Koester (b. 1953) researches:

On a possible link between the woman’s personal situation and her quest for life see Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976], The Gospel of John: A Commentary (translators G.R. Beasley-Murray [1916-2000], R.W.N. Hoare [b. 1940], and J.K. Riches [b. 1939]; Philadelphia 1971; German original 1941), 188; Dorothy A. Lee [b. 1953], Flesh and Glory: Symbolism, Gender and Theology In The Gospel of John (n. 2), 74. The gospel does not say whether the woman was divorced or widowed five times, but five husbands seems excessive, especially since she is living with a man to whom she is not married. Her personal history is often interpreted in terms of sin and unfaithfulness. Some respond that the woman could also be the victim of the sins of others, who divorced her for various reasons (Gail R. O’Day [b. 1954], “The Gospel of John,” New Interpreter’s Bible 9 [1995], 567). (Jörg Frey [b. 1962], Jan G. Van der Watt [b. 1952] and Ruben Zimmermann [b. 1968], “What does it mean to be human? Imagery and the Human Condition in John’s Gospel”, Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, 410)

It is hard not to ask how the woman arrived at this place in life. Andrew T. Lincoln probes:

Jesus’...words...expose the woman’s previous marital history and present domestic arrangements [John 4:18]. But the force of these words has been hotly debated. Feminist readings of this passage are quite right to warn against importing into the text assumptions about women’s sexuality and to point out both that the text passes over the reasons for the woman’s marital history and that is not mentioned in order for Jesus to judge her for it. They also challenge readers to rethink whether that marital history necessarily suggests immortality. Sometimes it is suggested that perhaps she is trapped in the custom of levirate marriage and the last male in the family has refused to marry her. There is elsewhere the trick question put to Jesus by the Sadducees in Luke 20:23-27, based on the levirate custom, about a woman and seven brothers. But that deliberately pushed the custom to absurdity to try to make a point. It does not envisage marriage to six brothers as a likely occurrence. In fact, in first-century Judaism it was quite unusual to have more than three marriages in a lifetime...and, in any case, there is no indication that the sixth male here has refused to marry the Samaritan woman, which would be his right under levirate laws; instead, she is living with this man in a sexual relationship. Anyone in the woman’s situation would be bound to have been viewed as morally suspect. (Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John, (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 175)

Some interpreters have sought meaning in the fact that the story represents a recurring episode known as a “type scene”. The story of boy meets girl at a well certainly qualifies in the Bible.

R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) explores:

The encounter of the leading character with his future wife at a well is a conventional biblical type-scene (e.g., Abraham, Isaac [Genesis 24:10-61], Jacob [Genesis 29:1-20], and Moses [Exodus :15-22]). Allusions to the patriarch (John 4:5, 12) underline the scene’s scriptural associations. The encounter takes place in a foreign land, the protagonist is expected to do or say something characteristic of his role in the story, one or the other of them will draw water and the maiden will rush home and prepare for the man’s coming to meet her father and eat with them. A wedding will follow. In John, however, conventional elements are treated unconventionally; Jesus asks for water but apparently receives none. Dialogue rather than action carries the scene. Living water, of which Jesus is the source, rather than well water, to which the Samaritan woman has access, becomes the critical concern. And the woman is no marriageable maiden; she has had five husbands. Still, Jesus goes to her village, and she receives him as her Lord [John 4:28-30]. (Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design, 136)

Alan R. Kerr (b. 1942) supports:

Paul D. Duke [b. 1953] (Irony in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 101-03) argues that there is a betrothal scene, but John 4:18 introduces an ironical tone to it. Whereas in the betrothal scenes in the Old Testament the potential bridegroom speaks with a virgin, in John 4:18 it is revealed that Jesus is not talking to a virgin but with a ‘five-time loser.’ Calum M. Carmichael [b. 1938] (‘Marriage and the Samaritan Woman’, New Testament Studies 26 [1980], pp. 322-46) argues on theological rather than literary grounds that the narrative of John 4:4-42 presents Jesus and the Samaritan woman as husband and wife. (Kerr, The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John, 171)

Mark W.G. Stibbe (b. 1960) gleans:

Even though the story of the Samaritan woman appears to be about marriage, P. Joseph Cahill [b. 1923] argues that ‘the theme of the narrative is true worship’ and that ‘the controlling metaphor, skillfully contrived by the writer, is not that of marriage but of betrothal’ (p. 41). Many of the narrative characteristics of John 4 fit into the pattern of the Old Testament betrothal scene, especially the mention of Jacob’s well, which is a reminiscence of the well in the betrothal scene of Genesis 29:1-20. However, the marital symbolism and the betrothal echoes are figurative devices. ‘False worship, of which the Samaritan woman is but a symbol, is infidelity or adultery’ (p. 44). John 4:7-30 is an ironic betrothal scene in which infidelity is false worship and marriage true worship. (Stibbe, John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel, 48)

In deference to this backdrop, Lyle Eslinger (b. 1953) poses that Jesus and the Samaritan woman are flirting and that Jesus’ reference to her husband is at the point in the conversation where the suitor learns if the woman to whom he speaking is available (John 4:16).

Kevin Quast (b. 1957) reviews:

If Lyle Eslinger [b. 1953] is right about the conversation between the woman and Jesus being filled with double entendres, then Jesus’ mention of her husband fits the context much better. “At the point where she expected to get his ‘living water’ Jesus’s command comes as a rebuke to her carnal misconceptions. Had she not been making sexual advances, had Jesus not understood them, and had the reader not understood both the reader and Jesus, his command to go call her husband would make no sense here. Jesus tells her to get her husband exactly when she expected to commit adultery against the man.” Jesus proceeds to completely shut down the direction she is heading and “now openly reveals his disinterest in her charms by demonstrating his supernatural knowledge of her past.” (R. Glenn Wooden [b. 1957], Timothy R. Ashley [b. 1947] and Robert S. Wilson [b. 1943], “The Samaritan Woman: An ‘Unorthodox Witness’ (John 4:1-42)”, You Will be My Witnesses: A Festschrift in Honor of the Reverend Dr. Allison A. Trites [b. 1936] on the Occasion of His Retirement, 102)

Not all view this pericope as a betrothal scene. Jan Gabriël Van der Watt (b. 1952) inspects:

The ‘well’ story might point to a ‘betrothal type scene’ on the basis of the Old Testament ‘well scenes;, as John Painter [b. 1935] (1993:200). Sjef Van Van Tilborg [1939-2003] (1993:183-84) supports Teresa Okure [b. 1941] in saying that the parallels are not definite. David Mark Ball (1996:62) also finds it unconvincing. (Van der Watt, Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel According to John, 229)

Sjef Van Tilborg (1939-2003) critiques:

The sexual freedom, ascribed to the women in the romance literature, is absent in the Johannine Gospel (although the five husbands of the Samaritan woman are no barrier for her to be in touch with Jesus). Generally speaking...eroticism is absent in the Johannine women. (Van Tilborg, Imaginative Love in John, 177)

Adeline Fehribach (b. 1950) adds:

Jesus changes the subject by instructing the Samaritan woman to go call her husband (ἄνδρα) and then return (John 4:16). This is an unconventional statement for a betrothal type-scene. Although the woman’s statement that she has no husband (John 4:17a) appears to restore the type-scene, such restoration is short-lived. (Fehribach, The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist Historical-Literary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel, 63)

Given the fantastic nature of having five husbands, allegorical interpretations have emerged throughout the centuries. J.D.M. Derrett (1922-2012) posits that the five husbands represent the “five senses” known to Jews and Greeks (“The Samaritan Woman’s Pitcher,” The Downside Review 102 (1984) 252-61). This approach, however, is uncommon.

Most allegorical readings connect the Samaritan woman to her people. Jerome H. Neyrey (b. 1940) introduces:

Using allegorical methods of interpretation, critics have attempted to identify the five husbands (John 4:18) with the five books of Samaritan Pentateuch or with the five gods (ba’al as husband/god) which the Samaritans were said to worship. (Neyrey, The Gospel of John in Cultural and Rhetorical Perspective, 112)

Daniel Rathnakara Sadananda (b. 1963) bolsters:

It has been observed, ‘the husband/husbands’ are important to the Evangelist’s story as his tendency to present women independent shows, the mother of Jesus, the Samaritan woman, Mary, Martha, Mary Magdalene (cf. John 11:1-53, 12:1-18, 19:25, 20:1-2, 11-18). Then the talk of husband/man or husbands/men must point towards a symbolic interpretation. (Sadananda, The Johannine Exegesis Of God: An Exploration Into The Johannine Understanding Of God, 240)

Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) expounds:

Much is made of the five husbands...as a possible symbolic use of the number five to refer to the five gods of Samaria (cf. Josephus [37-100], Antiquities 9.2888), or the five books of the Samaritan Pentateuch (Origen [184-253], In Johannem 13.8 [Jacques Paul Migne [1800-1875], Patrologia Graeca 14:410-411]), or the five foreign cities that brought their gods (there were in fact seven, but recourse is had to Josephus for the number five) with them (II Kings 17:27-31). The man with whom she is presently living, who is not her husband, has been identified with Simon Magus (cf. James D. Purvis [b. 1932], “The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans” 193-95). These symbolic readings are widespread among those who see the Samaritan woman as a representative figure for all Samaritans (cf. Alfred Loisy [1857-1940], Le quatrième Évangile 182; Oscar Cullmann [1902-1999], “Samaria and the Origins of the Christian Mission” 187-88). In the light of Jesus’ comments in John 4:17 (“you are right in saying”) and John 4:18 (“this you said truly”), C.K. Barrett [1917-2011] (The Gospel according to St. John 235) is correct when he comments: “It is quite possible, and may well be right, to take these words as a simple statement of fact, and an instance of supernatural knowledge of Jesus.” (Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina), 131-132)

Urban C. Von Wahlde (b. 1941) supports:

Some have suggested that “five” represents the five pagan gods mentioned in II Kings 17:24 and worshipped by Samaritans. This is strengthened by the fact that the Hebrew word ba’al (“lord,” “master”) was the word used for “husband” and was also used to refer to a pagan deity. The sixth man, to whom she is not married, represents the God of Israel. However, in II Kings 17:30-31, a total of seven pagan gods are mentioned. However, Josephus [37-100] mentions five (Antiquities 9.14.3§288). Origen [184-253] (In Johannem 13:8) understood this as a reference to the fact that Samaritans considered only the five books of Moses sacred. The Palestinian Targum on Genesis 28:10 mentions that Jacob performed five signs (José Ramón Díaz, “Palestinian Targum and New Testament”). (Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, Volume 2: The Gospel of John (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 174)

Though allegorical readings have fallen out of favor, some contemporary exegetes still adhere to them. Gerald Sloyan (b. 1919) exemplifies:

The whole story is fraught with symbolism, so much so that we are right to doubt the literal truth of the woman’s having five husbands and not being married to her present partner (John 4:18). Aside from the inherent improbability of such a career, there is the fact that Samaritans were stigmatized as “Cuthians” (Berakoth 7:1, and so throughout the Mishnah), a tribe of the Assyrian Empire in II Kings 17:24, 30. These were one of the five idolatrous peoples of the East identified in Second Kings by their gods and consorts (II Kings 17:30-31). If the woman’s five husbands were these peoples, the present liaison of the Samaritans at the stone surface of sacrifice on Gerizim would be the sixth: an idolatrous cult in Jewish eyes. (Sloyan, John (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 55)

Andrew T. Lincoln (b. 1944) defends:

Against this approach it is objected that the polemic of the latter passage actually mentions seven gods worshipped by five ethnic groups, or that there is no parallel to the successiveness of the woman’s five different husbands. However, the use to which this traditional polemic was later put suggested to Jews that the idolatry of the nations that had settled in Samaria was associated with the number five. Josephus [37-100], Antiquities 9.14.31-32 says that ‘each of them, according to their nations, which were in number five, brought their own gods into Samaria, and by worshipping them...provoked Almighty God to be angry and displeased at them.’ To push the issue of successiveness is to treat the matter of allusion too literally. All that is required is that the woman, in representing Samaria, had a history involving five husbands. That the man she was now living with was not her husband would have suggested the common Jewish view that the Samaritans’ present claim to worship Yahweh was not a valid one. And in pointing out that the man she was with was not her husband, Jesus would be acting in the role of God’s prophet, as did, for example, Hosea, when he states on behalf of Yahweh, ‘plead with our mother, please – for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband – that she put away her whoring from her face, and her adultery from between her breasts’ (Hosea 2:2). (Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John, (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 175-76)

Sandra M. Schneiders (b. 1936) argues:

The dialogue on the five husbands is integral to the discussion of Samaritan faith and theology, and the “husbands” are therefore symbolic rather than literal...First, the exchange about the husband occurs...not as prelude to theological discussion but in the midst of it, that is, after the woman has perceived Jesus’ implicit claim to equality with the patriarchs and before she acknowledges him to be a prophet...Second, if the scene itself is symbolically the incorporation of Samaria into the New Israel, the bride of the new Bridegroom, which is suggested by the type scene itself, then the adultery/idolatry symbolism so prevalent in the prophetic literature for speaking of Israel’s infidelity to Yahweh the Bridegroom would be a most apt vehicle for discussion of the anomalous religious situation of Samaria...The third point...Jesus’ revelation to the woman who symbolizes Samaria, of her infidelity is not a display of preternatural knowledge that convinces the woman of Jesus’ power (and thus her helplessness before him), embarrassing her into a diversionary tactic in an effort to escape moral exposure. Rather, it is exactly what she acknowledges it to be when she says in response to his revelation, “I perceive that you are a prophet” (John 4:19). Jesus’ declaration that Samaria “has no husband,” is a classic prophetic denunciation of false worship...In summary, the entire dialogue between Jesus and the woman is the “wooing” of Samaria to full covenant fidelity in the New Israel by Jesus, the New Bridegroom. It has nothing to do with the covenant life of the community. (John Ashton [b. 1931], “A Case Study: A Feminist Interpretation of John 4:1-42”, The Interpretation of John (Studies in New Testament Interpretation), 247-49)

John Shelby Spong (b. 1931) interjects:

People forget that this woman is a mythological symbol of Samaria and so they read this statement moralistically, as if this were a commentary on her loose sexual proclivities. They even suggest that the woman was trying abruptly to change the subject from her questionable past to a debate about the proper place for worship. To read this story that way, however, is to miss its meaning totally. This is a symbolic conversation about how the unfaithful region of Samaria can be incorporated into the new understanding of Christianity that Jesus is believed to present and about how ancient religious divisions in the human family can be overcome in the new human consciousness that Jesus comes to bring. (Spong, Tales of a Jewish Mystic)

The allegorical reading makes the Samaritan woman a representative sample of her people. Johns Varghese (b. 1966) asserts:

In order to interpret this statement of Jesus, one has to first see whether the Samaritan woman can stand as a representative figure for her people or not...Jesus addresses the Samaritan woman as “γύναι” (woman). In John 4:21 the Samaritan woman is addressed first in the singular and then in the plural (λέγει αὐτη ὁ ’Ιησους...γύναι...προσυνήσετε τω πατρί). The plural προσυνήσετε is a true plural and stands for the Samaritan people represented by the Samaritan woman. This is then continued by the use of further plurals in John 4:22 (ὑμεις προσκυνειτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε). Thus the Samaritan woman serves as the spokesperson of the Samaritan people. (Varghese, The Imagery of Love in the Gospel of John, 129)

The woman’s marital history befits a Samaritan. Craig R. Koester (b. 1953) surmises:

The text does not say whether she was divorced or widowed, but five husbands seems excessive...Moreover, the woman was living with a sixth man, either out of desire or necessity, in a relationship that was not a marriage. At best her story is tragic; at worst it is sinful. Yet the peculiar details of the woman’s life actually enhance her role as a representative of the Samaritan people. The woman’s personal history parallels her national history. (Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 48-49)

Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) canvasses:

It has been indicated by a number of commentators that the woman, apart from her individual role, represents the people of Samaria (cf. especially Emanuel Hirsch [1888-1972] 1936, 146). Her only name is “woman of Samaria,” and the reference to five husbands has sometimes been seen as a veiled reference to Samaria itself and to its complex five fold background (cf. the five national groups mentioned in II Kings 17:29-31); Rudolf Schnackenburg [1914-2002], 1:433; Barnabas Lindars [1923-1991], 186-87; Adrien Lenglet, 1985, 494). In fact, there is a form of feminist hermeneutic which sees the five husbands in a way which is purely symbolic or representative and which effectively denies the literal meaning. But, as a general principle, the representative level does not exclude the literal level, and to say that in this case it does is ultimately a disservice to feminism. The woman has had five husbands, and, even in her many marriages, she is also representative. (Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 216-217)

Despite notable support, the majority of scholars reject the allegorical reading. Herman C. Waetjen (b. 1929) surveys:

Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976], The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 188, rejects all allegorical interpretations and declines to speculate about the significance of the number five. C.K. Barrett [1917-2011], The Gospel according to St. John, 35, prefers to take Jesus’ words in John 4:18 as a simple fact and “an instance of the supernatural knowledge of Jesus.” Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975], John (Hermeneia) I, 230 ignores the matter completely. Rudolf Schnackenburg [1914-2002], The Gospel according to St. John, translated by Kevin Smyth (New York: Herder & Herder, 1968) I, 433, dismisses all symbolic meanings as misleading. Gail R. O’Day [b. 1954], Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim, 66-67, does not explore any of these possibilities. Laurence Cantwell, “Immortal Longings in Sermone Humili: A Study of John 4:5–26,” poses the possibility of II Kings 17:29-34 but prefers to view the woman as a representation of all humanity and not merely the Samaritan people. Hendrikus Boers [b. 1928], Neither on this Mountain nor in Jerusalem, 171 maintains that the figure is of no significance except “to reveal Jesus’ miraculous knowledge.” (Waetjen, The Gospel of the Beloved Disciple: A Work in Two Editions, 169)

Reasons for dismissing the allegorical reading abound. For one, it does not fit the modus operandi of the gospel. Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) distinguishes, “The Evangelist does not use allegorization, but rather symbolic representation as his main literary device.” (Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 188)

Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) monitors:

This [allegorical interpretation] is problematic for several reasons. First, two of the five nations mentioned in the latter passage have two gods apiece, making seven altogether, not five. Further, if one so allegorizes the number here, the “five” of John 5:2 and John 6:9 must be allegorized to remain consistent, yet must be allegorized differently. Finally, the narrative makes nothing of such connections. (Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 606)

D. A. Carson (b. 1946) rejects:

The details do not work out. The transported settlers originally worshipped seven pagan deities, not five (II Kings 17:30-32, 41; Josephus [37-100], Antiquities ix.288 appears to have his facts wrong, possibly confused, like some modern expositors, by the five named cities from which the settlers were drawn), and these gods were all worshipped at the same time, not serially. Moreover, although it is true that John frequently uses institutions and details in symbolic ways...his symbolism in such cases is not only commonly predicated upon larger typologies connecting Jesus with the Old Testament, but in any case the symbolic value is tied to broader and demonstrable themes in the Fourth Gospel. The proposed symbolism in this instance fails both tests. (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 232-33)

In responding to the discrepancy that the Samaritans actually worshiped seven, not five, deities (II Kings 17:30-31), Gerald S. Sloyan (b. 1919) contends that two of the gods are consorts (Sloyan, “The Samaritans in the New Testament,” Horizons 10 (1983) 10.

In addition to the disputed number of deities, the allegory itself also has shortcomings. James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) confronts:

It is inconceivable that John the evangelist would picture Jesus as speaking of the five false gods as legitimate husbands, while referring to Jehovah as the One with whom the people were living in adultery. The whole of the biblical tradition, which John knew, would reverse that. (Boice, The Gospel of John, The Coming of the Light (John 1-4): An Expositional Commentary), 284)

James D. Purvis (b. 1932) specifies:

The woman was not said to have been a faithless wife—which would be the understanding if the ba‘al/husband was meant to be understood as Yahweh. It is the husband who is singled out: “he whom you now have is not your husband;” i.e., he has no right or claim to be your husband (ba‘al/lord). We are reminded of Justin Martyr [100-165]’s claim of the wide-spread acceptance of Simon Magus as a divine being by the people of Samaria (I Apology 26). That the husband who was not a true husband was a false teacher was suggested by Jerome [347-420]...who identified this person as Dositheus. (David E. Orton, “The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans”, The Composition of John’s Gospel: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum, 181)

Further, the allegorical reading does not fit the story’s broader setting. Benny Thettayil (b. 1967) contextualizes:

If the ‘husbands’ in John 4:16-18 have nothing to do with her personal life, what does she mean when she tells her people in the town, ‘Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done!’ (John 4:29) when the gospel reports no statements of Jesus either regarding anything she had ever done or regarding her personal life except the mention of her ‘husbands’? From the historical point of view, John Henry Bernard [1860-1927] observes in this regard: ‘We cannot in any case assume that more than a fragment of the conversation is preserved, and much that was said is, no doubt, omitted in the narrative of John. Although this interpretation would give an explanation to John 4:29, we cannot accept Bernard’s opinion since it is an argument from silence. We would rather interpret the text on the basis of what is present in the text and what it tells us than on the basis of what is absent in the text. What is present in the text calls for a non-allegorical interpretation of the text. (Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, 35)

Sjef Van Tilborg (1939-2003) concludes:

The story demands narratively that her five or six husbands are seen as real. Jesus’ revelation makes sense only, when one accents that they are real physical persons; and only then, it can become the main argument for her witness in the city. (Van Tilborg, Imaginative Love in John, 185)

Though the allegorical reading does not represent the prevailing scholarly opinion there is an ironic undercurrent in taking a literal approach. Stephen D. Moore (b. 1954) realizes:

The majority of Johannine commentators have preferred the literal reading of John 4:18 to the figurative one...At the same time, these commentators have scrupulously noted the repeated failure of the woman to grasp the nonliteral nature of Jesus’ discourse. In opting to take Jesus’ statement in John 4:18 at face value, then, they effectively trade places with the woman. They reenact what they purport to be describing. They mimic the literal-mindedness that marks her as inferior in their eyes. The standard reading of John 4:18 conceals a double standard, then. To interpret Jesus literally is a failing when the woman does it, but not when the commentators follow suit. (Amy-Jill Levine [b. 1956] with Marianne Blickenstaff [b. 1959], “Are There Impurities in the Living Water that the Johannine Jesus Dispenses?”, A Feminist Companion to John: Volume I, 83)

Even if the woman’s five husband’s have allegorical value, their literal presence must take precedence. R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) prioritizes:

It has often been suggested that the reference to five husbands is an allusion to the five nations that were settled in Samaria (II Kings 17:24). More immediate is the characterization of the woman as one who has been victimized by a series of marriages that for whatever reasons did not last, and who is now living with a man out of wedlock. (Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John: (Interpreting Biblical Texts Series), 141-42)

Five marriages would not necessarily announce an indictment against the woman. For instance, contemporary Christian author Elisabeth Elliot (b. 1926) has had three marriages and the Samaritan woman could be more Elisabeth Elliot than Elizabeth Taylor (1932-2011).

Frances Taylor Gench (b. 1956) recognizes:

The text tells us that the Samaritan woman had five husbands, but it does not tell us why. We do not know whether she has been divorced or widowed. Perhaps, like Tamar in Genesis 38:1-11, she is trapped in the custom of levirate marriage, and the last male in the family has refused to marry her, as Gail R. O’Day [b. 1954] suggests. Moreover, we should bear in mind that divorce (which is not mentioned in the text) was an exclusively male privilege. Linda McKinnish Bridges [b. 1953] observes, “Maybe her five husbands found her lacking, unsuitable, unlovely, unfit for their desires, and they simply rid themselves of responsibility and relationship...What if this woman with no name needed redemption not from the excesses of sexual promiscuity but from a series of injustices from five husbands in a culture programmed for male domination?” (Gench, Back to the Well: Women’s Encounters with Jesus in the Gospels, 116)

Guilty or innocent, it is likely that the Samaritan woman would have been viewed negatively. Jerome H. Neyrey (b. 1940) introduces:

The cultural world of the Gospel highly valued female sexual exclusivity, the core of a female’s virtue and worth. Thus a female with five husbands and a current companion not her spouse mocks this criterion; hardly virtuous, she is instead a sinner, an adulteress, a shameless person. But as in other Gospels, Jesus befriended courtesans. Another stereotype transcended. (Neyrey, The Gospel of John (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 95)

Jey J. Kanagaraj (b. 1948) concurs:

The word “now having” is deliberate to indicate that she was not living with a legally married person [John 4:18]. In conformity with the oriental view on morality, the Samaritans also must have considered frequent remarriages as dishonorable and illegitimate. (Kanagaraj, John (New Covenant Commentary Series), 42-43)

Jerome H. Neyrey (b. 1940) emphasizes:

She had five husbands already...She is no maiden, but a sexually seasoned woman. Her current male companion is not her husband and so has no responsibility to guard her shame or to defend her sexual exclusiveness, which is the only basis for her honor in the village. Although she might have been widowed five times (see Mark 12:20-23), her current non-marital relationship with a sixth male suggests either adultery or concubinage. In any case, she clearly lacks the exclusivity upon which her reputation and honor depend in a gender-divided world. Moreover, when the woman recounts her conversation with Jesus back in the village, she focuses on one point only, his remark about her sexual history: “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done” (John 4:29). The villagers were impressed with her testimony that “He told me everything I have ever done” (John 4:39), which can only refer to Jesus’ remarks in John 4:17-18 about the six men in her life. The author insists on keeping the lack of sexual exclusivity before his audience. (Neyrey, The Gospel of John in Cultural and Rhetorical Perspective, 156)

The woman certainly finds herself in a striking pattern for which many have condemned her, casting her as promiscuous. Paul L. Metzger (b. 1964) characterizes:

She bears an especially heavy burden, for as we find out, she has had five husbands and the man with whom she now lives is not her husband (John 4:16-18). The woman has an unquenchable thirst for love, but like Johnny Lee [b. 1946]’s country song “Looking for Love” says, she has looked for it in all the wrong places...A lot of men have made promises to her in exchange for something. No doubt she is a little jaded. (Metzger, The Gospel of John: When Love Comes to Town, 75)

Some have viewed the woman’s relationships as endemic of an overarching negative portrayal. Musa W. Dube (b. 1964) describes:

There is a sharp division between those who know, the colonizers, and those who know nothing, the colonized. Thus the Samaritan woman is characterized as an ignorant native (John 4:10) and in need of help (John 4:10). She is constructed as morally or religiously lacking something; that is, she has had five husbands, and the one she has now is not her own (John 4:17-18). Furthermore, she does not know what she worships (John 4:22). By way of contrast, Jesus, a superior traveler, is knowledgeable (John 4:10, 22); powerful (John 4:14, 25, 42); sees everything about her past (John 4:17-18, 29); knows and offers answers to her community (John 4:21-26); and teaches her and her people (John 4:21-23). The ignorance of the Samaritan woman is pathetic. Despite all these revelations (John 4:26), she remains ignorant to the end. That is, she is still uncertain and asks, ‘he cannot be the Messiah, can he?’ (John 4:29). As Gail R. O’Day [b. 1954]’s analysis correctly notes, the Samaritan woman’s inability to understand is well above that of the male disciples (John 4:27, 31-33). (Dube and Jeffrey L. Staley [b. 1951], “Reading for Decolonization (John 4:1-42), John and Postcolonialism: Travel, Space, and Power, 67)

It has been postulated that the woman’s Samaritan heritage trumps her marital history in regards to what would have been perceived as her greatest obstacle. Tod D. Swanson (b. 1955) deliberates:

What is the plight of this woman, who is identified only as a Samaritan whose identity is formed by the Jacob relics? Whatever her plight is, it is symbolized by her only salient characteristic: she has five husbands. However the author may have intended it, the Gospel’s Hellenistic audience would not have seen physical polyandry as the woman’s greatest problem. It is more likely that they would have identified the woman as the Samaritan psyche and her many husbands as the dispersed loves that separated her from the One—her spiritual bridegroom. (Musa W. Dube [b. 1964] and Jeffrey L. Staley [b. 1951], “To Prepare a Place: Johannine Christianity and the Collapse of Ethnic Territory”, John and Postcolonialism: Travel, Space, and Power, 24)

Her peers may have seen her as a lost cause. Daniel Rathnakara Sadananda (b. 1963) relays:

Teresa Okure [b. 1941] suggests that the woman’s five husbands should be taken literally, and adds that the Evangelist’s portrait of the woman five times married living with a man not her husband places her in the same category as other “hopeless cases” which serves as the material for Jesus’ signs in the Gospel, but here Jesus did not perform any sign. (Sadananda, The Johannine Exegesis Of God: An Exploration Into The Johannine Understanding Of God, 239-40)

In this vein, some interpreters have viewed Jesus as being corrective. Gerald L. Borchert (b. 1932) epitomizes:

Jesus confronted the woman with her life. When she tried to avoid the issue of a husband (John 4:17), just as she apparently sought to avoid coming for water along with the other women, Jesus spelled out clearly her ethical problem. After experimenting with five husbands...she no longer found the marriage ritual necessary (John 4:18). Jewish tradition permitted three husbands, but she obviously had long passed that more lenient rule. When she said that she had no husband at that time, she had in fact stumbled onto an important idea with Jesus—the idea of truth (alēthes, John 4:18). Jesus therefore noted this fact clearly. (Borchert, John 1-11 (New American Commentary), 205-06)

Not all commentators have evaluated the Samaritan woman negatively. Though it is hard to use the known data to present the woman in a wholly positive light, some apologists seemingly to treat any focus on her husbands as an affront to women.

The Samaritan woman could have had “legitimate” reasons for having had five husbands and her present living arrangement. Turid Karlsen Seim (b. 1945) remarks that “insufficient account” is given to the fact that, as it was the man who initiated the divorce proceedings, in the Samaritan’s era, divorce was almost entirely a male prerogative (Lars Hartman [b. 1930] and Birger Olsson [b. 1938], “Roles of Women in the Gospel of John”, Aspects on the Johannine Literature: Conference Papers, 68).

Frank A. Spina (b. 1943) considers:

Many interpreters over the years have seized on the woman’s having had multiple husbands and a current “living arrangement” as a clear signal of a sordid past and an unsavory present. But is that a fair analysis? First of all, the woman’s five spouses may have died, a circumstance reflected in Mark 12:18-23, where some Sadducees try to prove to Jesus that there is no resurrection. Second, if the woman has been divorced multiple times, it is highly unlikely that she would have triggered the procedures. Initiating divorce was for the most part a male prerogative. Third, a woman in the ancient Near East would have had little choice but to remarry after divorce or the death of her spouse, for she would be economically dependent on a husband. This is why so many Old Testament laws call for supporting the vulnerable — among whom are mainly orphans and widows. To be sure, the fact that this woman is currently with someone who is not actually her husband does not speak well of her. At the same time, one must ask whether this arrangement is as much a function of economic necessity as of sexual promiscuity. Granted, Jesus seems to go out of his way to bring her current situation to light; yet, at the same time, he refrains from anything more than a fairly mild and largely implicit criticism. We are thus left to wonder what Jesus had in mind when he introduced this topic. (Spina, The Faith of the Outsider: Exclusion and Inclusion in the Biblical Story, 150-51)

Perhaps what speaks most for the woman’s character is the response she receives from others in the story. Margaret M. Beirne evaluates:

The final word may be with her own people whose openness to faith on the basis of her witness to Jesus (John 4:39a) hardly indicates that treatment of her as a social or moral outcast. (Beirne, Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel: A Genuine Discipleship of Equals, 83)

Equally telling is Jesus’ response to the woman: He does not unleash a lesson in morality. Gail R. O’Day (b. 1954) perceives:

The history of the woman’s five husbands is presented quite disinterestedly, with no suggestion or coloring of moral outrage or judgment. How or why the woman has had five husbands and the quality of those marriages are not a concern of the Evangelist as he tells the story. More importantly, those questions are also unimportant to Jesus. One searches in vain for any words of judgment about the woman’s character uttered by Jesus...This exchange between Jesus and the Samaritan woman is not an attempt to bring the woman face-to-face with her sinfulness or to place in her posture of confession before Jesus. To see the text in this way is to miss the main function of the exchange. The conversation of John 4:16-19 is intended to show the reader something about Jesus, not primarily about the woman. (O’Day, The Word Disclosed: Preaching the Gospel of John, 47)

F. Scott Spencer (b. 1956) advises:

A kinder and simpler reading is preferred. Jesus makes no moral judgments about this woman, and neither should we...We don’t know, and Jesus couldn’t care less about the implication of the woman’s marital status (there is no “go and sin no more,” as with the adulterous woman in John 8:11), except possibly to justify his approaching her at the well (she’s single [technically] and he’s single—so there’s nothing improper about intimate conversation between them there). (Spencer, Dancing Girls, Loose Ladies, and Women of the Cloth: The Women in Jesus’ Life, 91)

In fact, not only does Jesus not scold the Samaritan woman, he instead compliments her honesty (John 4:17). Roger L. Fredrikson (b. 1920) observes:

One catches a note of sad regret in the woman’s terse reply, “I have no husband.” Jesus commends her for telling the truth. All of us need to be aware of the flashes of beauty and goodness we see in every sinner. And then he opens up her whole confused situation. She has lived with a passing parade of men, five of them technically husbands, and the latest a live-in affair. None of them are lasting, meaningful relationships. “She belongs to no man, but has been the property of five.” (Fredrikson, John (Mastering The New Testament), 99)

Commentators who jump at the chance to chastise the woman take sterner action than does Jesus. Gail R. O’Day (b. 1954) and Susan E. Hylen (b. 1968) correct:

John 4:16-19...[has] been consistently misinterpreted in the history of the church, resulting in the much-repeated presentation of the Samaritan woman as immoral, a sinner, and unworthy conversation partner for Jesus. Yet nothing in the tone of these verses conveys that Jesus judges the woman and her history. The tone of judgment belongs to centuries of commentators, not to Jesus. (O’Day and Hylen, John (Westminster Bible Companion), 53)

David R. Beck (b. 1955) bolsters:

The question of the woman’s sinfulness has received far greater attention from some readers than the narration of it seems to warrant. Nowhere in this scene is there any textual evidence of repentance, nor is Jesus portrayed requesting it of her. It is undeniable that by the standards of most cultures, five husbands is excessive, and living with a man not one’s husband is usually deemed unacceptable. Readers whose extratexts include knowledge of common cultural martial standards would find her spousal history notable. (Beck, The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel, 73)

Bruce B. Barton (b. 1943) cautions:

He [Jesus] did not accuse or excuse; he simply described her life so that she could draw some clear conclusions about the mess in which she was living. The conclusions we reach without knowing the facts will usually err in one of two directions: We will accuse others and raise their defenses, or we will excuse others and enable their denial. We see in Jesus’ communication with this woman that faced with an accepting confrontation, people will often respond positively. When we speak to others about themselves, we must limit our words to what we know. (Barton, John (Life Application Bible Commentary), 83–84)

Regardless of what her love life indicates, the Samaritan woman is brazen throughout the text, repeatedly violating societal norms and crossing established social boundaries. Amy-Jill Levine (b. 1956) construes:

According to Jerome H. Neyrey [b. 1940], the woman is sexually shameless: she has had five husbands, she is currently cohabitating with a man not her husband (a situation indicating either adultery or concubinage), and she is conversing in public with a man outside her kinship group. Stranger still, when she recounts her conversation with Jesus to her fellow villagers, she focuses primarily on her sexual history (John 4:29), and, consistent with this violation of cultural norms, she makes her announcement not in private, but in male-defined public space. Nevertheless, in her encounter with Jesus, she transforms herself into an insider: she repeats Jesus’ original words ‘Give me to drink; with her own insistence, ‘Give me this water’ (John 4:7, 15). (Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff [b. 1959], Feminist Companion to John: Volume I, 7)

The Samaritan woman is unfazed by convention. Then again, the same could be said of Jesus. Betrothal scene or not, in this respect, Jesus has found a kindred soul.

Whether read figuratively or literally, accumulating five husbands is implausible. Though having multiple marriages is more common today, five marriages still turns heads. Therefore people have been gossiping about the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well for centuries!

She lives outside of the boundaries. She may have been a notorious figure viewed as a femme fatale replete with the requisite checkered past; a woman who changed men as frequently as most change underwear. The woman could equally be perceived as a tragic figure passed around as an object by men and worthy of sympathy. None of her marriages lasted and she appears to have never experienced a formal, committed satisfying relationship.

Perception of the woman ranges from victim to cougar. For John’s part, the narrator is neutral: The woman’s five husbands are simply presented as a statement of fact. Her life situation is what it is. Perhaps, like all people, the woman is both good and bad. She is human. Given the lack of detail, the reader’s response to the Samaritan woman reveals more about the reader than it does of her.

What is the tone of this conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (John 4:7-30)? Does Jesus’ inquiry comply to social norms; is it inappropriate? Is Jesus’ transition completely abrupt or do the two strands of the conversation connect (John 4:7-15, 4:16-27)? When the Samaritan woman informs Jesus that she has no husband, does she think that she is responding honestly or is she deliberately attempting to mislead (John 4:17)? Does the woman’s reluctance to discuss her past reflect guilt? What can be inferred with any certainty based solely upon the Samaritan woman’s marital history? Do the multiple marriages speak more of the woman or the men in her life? How important is a person’s sexual history to you when forming your opinion of them? If the Samaritan woman has already married five times, why not marry the sixth man who is not her husband (John 4:18); what’s one more? Would readers condemn the woman so readily if they knew her personally? How would the story be read differently if the Samaritan woman was a male? Who do you know of who has had 5+ spouses? How do you view these people? Is the Samaritan woman a sympathetic figure? If the reader justifies the woman, does it mitigate the impact of the text and Jesus’ acceptance; does it enhance her at Jesus’ expense? Who do you know who is most like this woman? Why is the Samaritan woman not scared away by Jesus’ broaching of such a sensitive topic? What does her willingness to stay say about her? When have you been involved in a conversation that abruptly shifted topics? How do you respond when someone asks you something personal that you would rather not discuss?

Jesus’ seemingly abrupt interjection is purposeful (John 4:16). He exposes the most unusual fact about the woman, which may or may not have been common knowledge. This personal interlude completely changes the dynamics of the philosophical discourse.

The fact that Jesus knew about the men in her life is more important than their exact number as he demonstrates supernatural foreknowledge. Jesus routinely exhibits this skill in John’s gospel.

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) pursues:

Just as in the case with Nathanael (John 1:47-48) so here; Jesus’ knowledge of what is in a person (cf. John 2:25, 6:15, 61, 64, 70, 13:27; cf. I Corinthians 12:8: word of knowledge; I Corinthians 14:24-25; Luke 7:39-47) is the basis for the person’s first recognition of who Jesus is. Since he has prophetic knowledge, so the woman reasons, let him resolve the thorny issue between Jews and Samaritans, the place where people ought to worship (John 4:20). (Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and Johannine Epistles, 120)

Jesus exposes the Samaritan woman’s sore, but not to rub salt in the wound. Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) resolves:

Jesus’ intention in mentioning these things was not to create a sense of guilt, but to confront the pain in her relationships with men. This would accentuate her thirst for a meaningful relationship with God and make her receptive to the revelation he was offering her. (Kruse, John (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 132)

Robert Kysar (b. 1934) explicates:

The purpose of Jesus’ comments is not to embarrass or accuse the woman; her sin (if it is such and that is not entirely clear) is not the central feature of the conversation. The purpose rather is to open the discussion to a level of honesty so that it can become clear who the woman is and who Jesus is. It is not absolutely necessary that we interpret the woman’s situation as sinful, since we are not told of the occasions for her numerous remarriages...It is Jesus’ extraordinary knowledge of the woman’s life that is the important point in the passage. The woman’s marvel at Jesus’ knowledge reminds us of Nathanael (John 1:49), but she concludes that Jesus is a prophet (John 4:19). (Kysar, John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 65)

In unmasking the woman, Jesus presents a prophetic understanding of her life situation and in return she recognizes Jesus as a prophet (John 4:19). Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) connects:

He [Jesus] demonstrates the same kind of insight reflected in synoptic accounts of his ‘supernatural knowledge’ (cf. especially Mark 11:2-3, 14:12-15)...The woman replies that he must be a prophet (John 4:19). Luke 7:39 likewise demonstrates popular belief that prophets would have insight into a person’s character, again in the context of an encounter between Jesus and a disreputable woman. (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary, 100)

The Samaritan woman is shocked into a new revelation. Colleen Conway (b. 1962) determines:

Whatever Jesus’ enigmatic statement regarding the woman’s five husbands and her current non-husband may mean, the effect of his statement on the woman is most significant. She perceives him to be a prophet and immediately engages him in theological conversation, first concerning proper worship [John 4:20-24] and then the coming of the Messiah [John 4:25-26]. (Amy-Jill Levine [b. 1956] with Marianne Blickenstaff [b. 1959], “Gender Matters in John”, A Feminist Companion to John: Volume II, 84-85)

Jesus tells the woman just enough to reveal his divine knowledge and in the process turns her life inside out. In exposing the woman, Jesus exposes himself. He unveils his divine capacity and reveals his true identity.

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) evaluates:

The reputation that has dogged her incessantly now has surfaced again. But Jesus is not simply judging her. She rightly sees that this uncovers his abilities as a messenger from God and recoils, looking for a way to deflect the moral probings of this stranger. Despite what she says in John 4:19-20, she continues to “remain in the light,” for she continues to speak with Jesus and not walk away. (Burge, John (NIV Application Commentary), 145)

Thomas H. Olbricht (b. 1929) proclaims:

Jesus’ declaration to the woman at the well in Samaria, “For you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband” (John 4:18), was...a sign that Jesus was from God. This statement was as much a sign as those statements concerning the destruction of the temple, the healing of the royal official’s son (John 4:46-54), and the cure of the paralytic (John 5:1-9). (Dave Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], “The Word as Sign”, Preaching John’s Gospel: The World It Imagines, 84-85)

If the woman is overtly sinful, in this story, her sinfulness merely becomes a means to see Jesus. Jesus gives the woman what she has clearly been seeking: A meaningful relationship and a connection to God. This gives all of us sinners hope: Jesus will respond to us in the same gracious manner as he did the Samaritan woman.

Do you think it is a relief to the Samaritan woman that her “secret” has been revealed and yet the conversation continues; she no longer has to conceal her past or worry about when it might be exposed? What is more disconcerting to the woman, discussing her marriages or talking directly to the Messiah? What is the one subject you least want to talk about right now? Has anyone ever brought it up? What can pastors model from Jesus’ treatment of the Samaritan woman? Can the average Christian be as direct as Jesus? When have you been “exposed”? When have you revealed yourself? When has God been revealed to you?

“Do you not know that there comes a midnight hour when everyone has to throw off his mask? Do you believe that life will always let itself be mocked? Do you think you can slip away a little before midnight in order to avoid this? Or are you not terrified by it?” - Søren Kierkegaard (1833-1855), Either/Or, II.146