Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 4:1 - 4:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jesus Leaves Judaea for Galilee by Way of Samaria (4:1-4)
4:1. ὁκρο. This is read by ABCLTbW, but the Western reading (אΘfam. 1, with a b c e ff2 l Syr. cur.) is ὁἸσῦ. It is plain that the text has been tampered with. The verse is clumsily expressed and seems to have been rewritten, ὁκρο having probably been inserted in the later draft to remove any ambiguity as to the subject of the sentence.
It has been pointed out (on 1:38) that His disciples were accustomed to address Jesus either as Rabbi (Teacher) or as Mari (Lord). And in His absence, according to the Synoptists, they used both terms, either saying ὁδδσαο (as Jesus bade them do, Mar_14:14) or ὁκρο (Mar_11:3), an appellation which He approved (Mar_5:19). In Jn., Martha says ὁδδσαο (11:28); Mary Magdalene says ὁκρο (20:2, 18), and so do the disciples (20:25, 21:7).
In direct narrative, when the evangelists are using their own words and not reporting the words of others, a distinction must be made. In Lk. (7:13, 10:1, 11:39, 12:42, 17:5, 22:61), “the Lord” is often used by the evangelist. So in the Marcan Appendix (16:19, 20) we have “the Lord” twice. This also is the usage of the Gospel of Peter. But Mk. (followed by Mt.) never writes “the Lord,” but always “Jesus.” The primitive narratives, that is, took the form “Jesus said …” “Jesus did … The form “the Lord said” is later.
Now in the direct narrative of the Fourth Gospel we find “Jesus” as in Mk., and not “the Lord” as in Lk., with five exceptions which are instructive. In 4:1, 6:23, 11:2, ὁκρο is the true reading; but these verses are all explanatory glosses, not from the hand of Jn., but written after the first draft of the story had been completed. In 20:20, 21:12, where we have ὁκρο, we are in the middle of the post-Resurrection narrative, and it is not unnatural that special reverence should be exhibited in writing of Him who had risen.
Soon after the Resurrection, the title began to imply that larger and deeper meaning of ὁκρο as the representative of יהֹהwhich is frequent in Paul and is found in the Acts (2:36, 9:11).That “Jesus is Lord” (1Co_12:3; cf. Php_2:11) has become the central thought of the Christian profession; but now the predicate means more than “Master,” for it expresses the doctrine of the Incarnation. Perhaps we may say that the passage from the lower to the higher sense begins with the citation of Psa_110:1 by the Master Himself (Mar_12:36).
Thus the use by Jn. of the form of narrative in which the central figure is designated as “Jesus” (save in the exceptional passages cited) rather than as “the Lord,” illustrates well the primitive characteristics which the Fourth Gospel exhibits.
Probably some time had elapsed since Jesus had begun His ministry in Judæ (cf. δέρβν 3:22); and it is possible that His departure was subsequent to John’s imprisonment (cf. 3:24). The Pharisees (see on 1:24) had begun to take notice of Him, being perhaps even more suspicious of Him than they had been of John (1:24), because they had heard that (ὅιrecitantis) “Jesus is making more disciples than John”; and so He moved to another place (cf. 7:1, 10:39). At this stage He was anxious to avoid open collision with the Pharisees. It will be noticed that we have the “making of disciples” and “baptizing” associated closely thus early, long before the charge is said to have been given to the apostles μθτύαε…βπίοτςατύ (Mat_28:19).
The art. is omitted before Ἰσῦ πεοα μθ πιῖ contrary to the general usage of Jn., who prefers to write ὁἸσῖ (see on 1:29). We have the same omission at 4:47, 6:24, and for the same reason as here, viz. that ὅιintroduces the words which were actually spoken: the construction is not oblique, but that of ὅιrecitantis.
2. If this verse is part of the original draft of the Gospel, it is a parenthetical comment or correction by Jn., and is quite in his manner (see on 2:21). He wishes to prevent his readers from making any mistake; the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was baptizing disciples in large numbers, but Jn. pauses to explain that the report which reached them was inaccurate in so far as it suggested that Jesus baptized in person. And it may be that this correction of ἐάτζνin 3:22 (where see note) is well founded.
But it is probable that the verse 4:2 is not from the hand of Jn.,1 but was added at a revision of the text, because of the idea that it would detract from the dignity of Jesus to perform the ministry of baptism, which even Paul was accustomed as a rule to leave to others. There are slight indications, too, that the style of the verse is not Johannine. κίογ does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., and Jn. is apt to use κίwhere another would use κίο (see on 1:11. Again, Ἰσῦ is not preceded by the def. article, as is the general usage of Jn. (see on 1:29). For ο μθτὶατῦ see on 2:2.
3. ἀῆε τνἸυαα, “He forsook Judæ” ἀίμ is an unusual word to use of leaving a place, but cf. 16:28.
DΘfam. 13 with Latin texts read τνἸυαα γν(cf. 3:22).
κὶἀῆθνπλνεςτνΓλλίν “He departed again into Galilee,” the first ministry in Galilee having been already described (1:43-2:12); see on 3:24. We should not have expected the aor. ἀῆθν as the journey is not yet completed, and the Samaritan episode comes next. But it is quite good Greek, εςmeaning “towards.” “He left again for Galilee,” is the exact rendering.
πλνis a favourite word with Jn., as with Mk. It is used of going back to a place, as it is here, 4:46, 6:15, 10:40, 11:7, 18:33, 38, 19:4, 9, 20:10. AB*Γ omit πλν but ins.אΘfam. 13 with the O.L. and Old Syriac vss.
4. ἔε δ ατνκλ sc. “He had to go through Samaria,” unless He wished to make a detour. Josephus mentions (Antt. xx. 6. 1) that it was the habit of the Galilæ going to Jerusalem to pass through Samaria, this being the direct route (cf. Luk_9:51, Luk_9:52). But apparently Jesus did not start from Jerusalem, but from Jericho (cf. 3:22); and the road that He took was probably the north-western road from thence to Ai and Bethel, where He would strike the great northern road used by caravans.
ἔε does not stand here for any Divine necessity, although Jn. often uses it thus (see on 2:4, 3:14).
Discourse at the Well with the Samaritan Woman (Vv. 5-26)
5. Σχρ “Near to the plot of ground (χρο; cf. Mat_26:36) that Jacob gave to Joseph,” i.e. to the E. of Shechem (Gen_33:18, Gen_48:22), the modern Nabliû Some have thought that Sychar and Shechem are identical, but they have been distinguished since Eusebius. Sychar is probably to be identified with the village ˒ (עhaving displaced א a linguistic change which is also observable in the Arabic form of Ascalon). ˒ is situated about five furlongs N.E. of Jacob’s Well.1
E. A. Abbott finds Sychar in the root שכ “drunkenness”; i.e. it is an opprobrious name for Shechem (cf. Isa_28:1: this, he suggests, is suitable to the moral of the dialogue, which has to do with drinking.2 But there is no need to find such subtle and obscure allegory in a place-name.
6. κκπαώ. The verb is used again by Jn. only at v. 38. ὁοπραappears elsewhere in the N.T. only at 2Co_11:26.
ἐαέεο “He was seated”; cf. 11:20, 20:12. κθζμιin the N.T. is always used in a durative sense. Tw has the unique variant ἐάια.
οτςmay mean “just as He was,” sc. without waiting to select a place deliberately; but more probably it refers to κκπαὼ ἐ τςὁοπρα “tired with His journey, He was seated by the well.” Cf. 1Ki_2:7 for a somewhat similar use of οτς οτςis omitted here in some cursives and in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic vss.
For κκπαώ, see on 1:14 for Jn.’s emphasis on the true humanity of Jesus. He saw nothing in speaking of Jesus as “tired” which was inconsistent with His oneness with Him of whom the prophet wrote, “The Everlasting God, the Lord, fainteth not, neither is weary” (Isa_40:28).
“Jacob’s Well”3 is at a fork in the northern road to Samaria; one branch, the ancient caravan road, going N.E. to Scythopolis, the other going W. by Nablus and thence N. to Engannim. The well is about 100 feet deep, and at the bottom the water collects, probably by infiltration. The double title πγ (v. 6) and φέρ(vv. 11, 12) is thus explicable. Why any one should have taken pains to sink a deep pit, when there is abundance of water both at Nabl̂ and ˒ we cannot tell; any more than we can explain why a woman should come half a mile from ˒ to draw water which she could have got in the village. But, at any rate, the well is there, and probably has been there since the days of Jacob. In the absence of knowledge of the exact position of the woman’s house, it would be idle to speculate as to the motive which drew her to this, which was even then a sacred well, rather than to the ˓ at ˓
“It was about the sixth hour,” that is, about noon (see on 1:39), the natural time to rest while the sun was at its height. The account given by Josephus of Moses resting by a well in. Midian (Exo_2:15) provides a striking parallel: κθσεςἐίτνςφέτςἐ τῦκπυκὶτςτλιωίςἠέε μσμρα οσςο πρωτ πλω (Antt. ii. xi. 1). As in the Gospel story, Moses was sitting by the well at midday, weary with his journey, when the women came to draw water for their flocks. No doubt, the usual time for this was in the evening, but there is no improbability in water being drawn sometimes at noon, as Josephus represents it, and as Jn. says that the woman came to do.
7. “A woman of Samaria” (ἐ τςΣμρα: cf. 1:44). In later days she was commemorated as St. Photina, on March 20.
For ἀτεν the regular word for drawing water from a well, see on 2:8, 9 above.
δςμιπῖ. So א the rec. has πεν This is a common Greek constr.; cf. Xen. Cyrop. vii. i. 1, τ δ Κρ …ποήεκνἐφγῖ κὶπεν and see v. 33.
8. ο γρμθτὶατῦκλ “For His disciples had gone into the city (sc. Sychar, vv. 5, 39) to buy food.” Had they been with Him, they would have been the natural persons to draw water for their Master, and He would not have had need to ask of a stranger. Probably they carried with them an ἅτηα or skin-bucket, as part of their travelling equipment, in which water could be drawn. The woman notices that Jesus has no ἄτηα(v. 11).
We do not know which of His disciples were with Jesus on this journey (see on 2:2), or how many there were. See further on v. 18.
Syr. sin. places this clause in its chronological order after πγ (v. 6), a rearrangement of the text made for the sake of clearness;1 but the use of parenthesis is quite in Jn.’s style (see, e.g., 2:6).
τοά, victuals, only here in pl. number.
That the disciples should buy victuals in a Samaritan town shows that the barrier between Jew and Samaritan was not impassable. The rule as to food seems to have varied from time to time. One Rabbinical precept is, “Let no man eat the bread of the Cuthæ for he that eateth their bread is as he that eateth swine’s flesh” (M. Shebhiith, viii. 10), and Samaritan wine was forbidden to a Jew. But, on the other hand, “the victuals of the Cuthæ are permitted if not mixed with wine or vinegar” (Jesus. Ab. Zar. v. 4), and their unleavened bread was allowed (Bab. Kidd. 76a).1 There was continuous traffic of Jews through Samaria—from Galilee to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to Galilee—and it is unlikely, except at moments of intense theological excitement, that a hungry traveller would have scrupled to buy bread in a Samaritan village, or that a Samaritan villager would have scrupled to sell it.
9. Πςσ Ἰυαο ὢ κλ The Samaritan woman affects surprise—for her words are ironical—that a Jew should ask her for water. There was nothing strange in asking a woman for water, as it was women who generally drew it from the wells; cf. Gen_24:17. However bitter the feeling between Jew and Samaritan, we cannot suppose that a draught of cold water in the noontide heat would be likely to be refused by either to other. It was counted the mark of a wicked man “not to have given water to the weary to drink” (Job_22:7); and the precept of kindness was universal: “If thine enemy be thirsty, give him water to drink” (Pro_25:21). Yet the woman makes her little gibe—half-jest, half-earnest—recalling to Jesus the old feud between Jews and Samaritans. She recognised Jesus as a Jew, perhaps by His dress or perhaps by His manner of speech (cf. Mat_26:73). The narrative does not say explicitly that she granted the request of Jesus, Δςμιπῖ, but the reader is intended to understand that she did so.
The explanatory comment ο γρσνρνα Ἰυαο Σμρίας “for Jews do not treat familiarly with Samaritans,” is omitted by א a b e, but it must be retained with אΘ σγρσα does not occur again in N.T., but it appears in Ignat. Magn. 3, ὑῖ δ πέε μ σγρσα τ ἡιί τῦἐικπυ “it becomes you not to presume upon the youth of your bishop,” to treat him with undue familiarity.
If σνρνα is translated “have dealings with,” co-utuntur, the comment would not be accurate; for although Jews and Samaritans were intolerant of each other (cf. Luk_9:53, Joh_8:48), of necessity there was much business intercourse. As v. 8 indicates, Jews could trade with Samaritans, as indeed they could do with heathen (cf. Neh_13:16).
The comment is not that of the Samaritan woman, but of the evangelist, and is quite in his manner (cf. Introd., p. xxxiv).
10. ἀερ κὶεπ For the constr., see on 1:50.
ε ᾔεςτνδρ κλ “If thou knewest the gift of God”; Cf. 8:19. δρά a free gift, occurs in the Gospels adverbially (Mat_10:8), and is always used in the Acts and Epistles of a divine gift. It refers here to the “living water” mentioned in the next sentence, i.e. to the gift of the Holy Spirit (which σράalways indicates in the Acts). Some commentators have referred to 3:16, and have interpreted it of the gift which God gave of His Son, and the revelation of salvation through Him.
τςἐτνὁλγνσι The woman had taken Him for a Jew. But He was no ordinary Jew, and if she had understood who He was, she would have been the suppliant (σ ἂ ἤηα ατν “It is you who would have asked Him), and He would have granted her request (cf. Mat_7:7); He would have given her “living water.”
ἔωε ἄ σιὕω ζν This saying was paradoxical in its form, like the saying with which the attention of Nicodemus was arrested (3:3). The woman did not understand it (v. 11), nor could she have been expected to do so. But Jesus is here following the method by which He was accustomed to convey instruction to simple people who were willing to learn; and the discourse which follows may be particularly compared with 6:26f. The plan of these instructions, for which there are Synoptic parallels, has been discussed in the Introduction, p. cxi.
ὕω ζν “Living water” is water issuing from a spring or fountain, unlike the water in Jacob’s Well, which was due to percolation and rainfall,1 being collected in a kind of cistern or pit (τ φέρ v. 12). This was good water, but had not the virtues of “running” or “living” water, such as was always preferred, especially for purposes of purification (Gen_26:19, Lev_14:5, Num_19:17).
Water was full of symbolism to Eastern thought, and in the O.T. it is often symbolic of the Divine Wisdom which is the source of life. Thus “the law of the wise” is πγ ζῆ (Pro_13:14; cf. Pro_14:27). The Son of Sirach declares that he that possesses the law shall obtain wisdom: “with bread of understanding shall she feed him, and give him water of wisdom to drink” (Ecclus. 15:2, 3). Zechariah’s vision of hope is that “living waters shall go out from Jerusalem” (Zec_14:8; cf. Eze_47:1, Joe_3:18), i.e. that in the glorious future the blessings of the Law shall be extended far and wide. The promise of Isaiah (12:3) is “with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation,” a passage specially parallel to the declaration of Christ here.
“If thou hadst known who it is that speaketh to thee, thou wouldest have asked Him, and He would have given thee living water.” To appreciate the depth of this saying, it must be remembered that, according to the O.T., it is Yahweh Himself who is the Fountain of living waters (Psa_36:9, Jer_2:13, Jer_2:17:13; cf. Son_4:15, where the mystic Bride is described as φέρὕαο ζνο). So also in the Apocalypse, the river of the Water of Life proceeds from the throne of God and of the Lamb (Rev_22:1; cf. Rev_7:17). Thus the statement of Jesus to the Woman of Samaria that, had He been asked, He would have given her living water, implies His claim to be One with the Lord of the O.T. prophets, who is alone the Source and Spring of the living waters which refresh the soul and assuage the spiritual thirst of men. See further on v. 14.
Note that Jesus does not call Himself the Living Water, although He calls Himself the Living Bread (6:51). It is from Him that the Living Water proceeds, for this is the symbol of the Spirit which He was to send (7:39).
There is no exact parallel in Philo to this doctrine of the Living Water which flows from the Word, although the similar idea expounded by St. Paul (1Co_10:4) of the mystical meaning of the Rock in the Desert from which water flowed forth for the refreshment of Israel is found in Leg. Alleg. ii. 21: ἡγρἀρτμςπταἡσφατῦθο ἐτν ἣ ἄρνκὶπωίτνἔεε ἀὸτνἑυο δνμω, ἐ ἧ πτζιτςφλθοςψχς
In the Messianic forecast of Isa_35:7 one of the promised blessings was εςτνδψσνγνπγ ὕαο, and at v. 26 below (where see note) Jesus is represented as declaring that He was Messiah. See on 9:1 for a quotation of this Messianic passage by Justin Martyr.
11. κρε She is impressed by the Speaker, and so addresses Him now (cf. vv. 15-19) in terms of respect (see on 1:38). How could He provide spring water, or water of any kind, without a bucket (ἄτηα cf. v. 8)?
For φέρand its depth, see on v. 6. The broken Constr. οτ …κίis found only once again in N.T., at 3Jn_1:10.
λγιατ ἡγν. B, with the Coptic Q and Syr. sin., omits ἡγν; but אΘ
12. It could not be from the well, that Jesus would provide living water. Whence then could He get it? Even Jacob got water for himself and his household from this well. Was the Speaker greater than Jacob, who had to draw the water from the well like any one else?
μ σ μίω ε τῦπτὸ ἡῶ Ἰκβ See 6:31 and cf. the similar question put by the Jews (8:53), “Art thou greater than our father Abraham?”
“Our father Jacob.” The Samaritans claimed descent from Joseph, through Ephraim and Manasseh (Josephus, Antt. xi. 8, 6).
ὃ ἔωε ἡῖ τ φέρ Field compares Pausan. iii. 25, 3: ἔτ δ ἐ τ πρίῳφέρἐ τ ἀοᾷ δῦα δ σιιτνΣλνννμζυι
θέμ is a word occurring nowhere else in the Greek Bible. τ θέμτ means “cattle,” a usage of which Wetstein gives many instances; etymologically, it might include also Jacob’s servants or retainers, all who were fed by him.
13, 14. Jesus explains to the puzzled woman that He does not speak of ordinary spring water. Those who drink of it will thirst again; but the Living Water satisfies eternally (ο μ δψσιεςτναῶα cf. 6:35). The parallels between this discourse and that of 6:26f. have been exhibited in the Introduction, p. cxi.
14. “It shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto eternal life.” In v. 10 the thought is of God as the Eternal Fountain; but it was also a Hebrew thought that the man who has assimilated the Divine Wisdom becomes himself, as it were, a fountain from which streams of the water of life proceed. Thus the promise of Isa_58:11 is, “Thou shalt be like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.” Schoettgen quotes an apposite saying from the Talmud: “Quando homo se convertit ad dominum suum, tanquam fons aquis uiuis impletur, et fluenta eius egrediuntur ad omnis generis homines et ad omnes tribus.” And similarly Wetstein quotes from Tanchuma, f. 17. 1: “Unde Abrahamus didicit legem? R. Simeon filius Jochai dixit: bini renes eius tanquam binae lagenae aquarum factae sunt, ex quibus lex promanavit.” See on 7:38 below.
The passage in Ecclus. 24:21-31 about the Divine Wisdom presents some parallels to these thoughts. The stream of the waters of Wisdom comes originally from God: “Her thoughts are filled from the sea, and her counsels from the great deep” (v. 29). Of the wise man increasing in wisdom it may be said, “My stream became a river, and my river became a sea” (v. 31); these waters of Wisdom lose themselves at last in the same eternal Ocean whence they sprang. Cf. Psa_36:9 πρ σὶπγ ζῆ. The water of life is, as Jesus says here, πγ ὕαο ἁλμνυεςζὴ αώιν leaping forth to eternal life. C. Wesley puts it all in familiar words:
“Thou of life the Fountain art,
Freely let me take of Thee;
Spring Thou up within my heart,
Rise to all eternity.”
The verb ἅλμιdoes not seem to be applied elsewhere to the action of water. But water in this passage is symbolic of the Spirit (cf. 7:38f.); and “ἅλμιor ἐάλμιin LXX is applied to the action of a ‘spirit of God,’ forcing its way or falling violently on Samson, Saul, and David.”1 It may be, therefore, as E. A. Abbott has suggested, that ἁλμνυis used here with special reference to the action of the Holy Spirit, vehement like that of rushing waters. If that be so, εςζὴ αώινexpresses the purpose of this spiritual torrent of grace; it is “with a view to eternal life.”
There seems to be a reminiscence of this passage in Ignatius, Rom_7, ὕω δ ζνκὶλλῦ†ἐ ἐο, where Lightfoot supposes the MS. reading to be a corruption of ὕω δ ζνκὶἁλμνν It is possible that there is also a trace of it in Justin (Tryph. 69). Commenting on Isa_35:7 he says: πγ ὕαο ζνο πρ θο …ἀέλσν(i.e. has gushed forth) οτςὁΧιτς Cf. also Tryph. 114, and see on 7:38.
Verses 10 and 14 are quoted explicitly in Pistis Sophia, c.141.
In one important particular, at least, the promise of Jesus about the Living Water transcends what is said about the Water of Wisdom by the Son of Sirach. “They that drink me shall yet be thirsty” are the words of Ecclus. 24:21; the spiritual thirst is insatiable, so far as the Hebrew sage knew. But Jesus said: “Whosoever shall drink of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst” (cf. 6:35). To him who has appropriated the revelation of God in Christ, there is no sense of imperfection in the Divine gift, no dissatisfaction with it as insufficient. The Living Water is always quickening, always flowing in correspondence with human need. As Bengel puts it: “ubi sitis occurrit, hominis non aquae defectus est.” The promise of Jesus is that those who “thirst after righteousness shall be filled” (χραθσνα, Mat_5:6).
With ἐ τῦὕαο ο ἐὼδσ ατ cf. ὁἄτςὃ ἐὼδσ of 6:51. א with the Lat. and Syr. vss. generally, insert ἐώbefore the second δσ; but om. ABCLΓΘ
εςτναῶα “for ever.” This is a common phrase in the LXX and occurs elsewhere in the N.T.; but it is especially frequent in Jn. (6:51, 58, 8:35, 51, 52, 10:28, 11:26, 12:34, 13:8, 14:16, 1Jn_2:17, 2Jn_1:2).
The phrase εςζὴ αώινfirst appears in 4 Macc. 15:3, where a mother prefers to the temporal safety of her sons τνεσβιν…τνσζυα εςαώινζὴ κτ θό. It appears again in Joh_4:36, Joh_6:27, Joh_12:25, Rom_5:21, 1Ti_1:16, and Jud_1:21, and in each case the reference is to the future life, the life after death (see note on 3:15).
15. λγιπὸ ατν For the constr., see on 2:3. For κρε Cf. v. 11.
δςμιτῦοτ ὕω. Cf. 6:34 δςἡῖ τνἄτντῦο. The woman did not understand Jesus, words about the Water which assuages thirst for ever; and her reply is a puzzled request: “Give me this water, that I may not be thirsty, and need not come hither continually to draw from the well.” She speaks half in irony; for she does not believe in any πγ ὕαο such as Jesus had incomprehensibly spoken of as being “in” the recipient of His gift.
The rec. text has ἔχμιwith ACDWΓΘ but א support δέχμι As Field points out, δέχμιmay have arisen from a mistake in transcribing μδεχμι but in any case the prep. δάdoes not add special force to the verb here (cf. Luk_2:15).
ἵαμ δψ κλ For ἵαwith the pres. subj., cf. 6:29, 1Jn_1:2, 1Jn_2:27, 1Jn_5:3.
16. The exact bearing of the words of Jesus, “Go, call thy husband, and come hither,” is not easy to determine. Perhaps the woman was going off, after her last retort, and Jesus bade her come back again with her “husband,” as He wished to carry on His ministry at Sychar (v. 39). He had observed her intelligence, and He knew her need. Another interpretation of the words is that Jesus wished, by mentioning her “husband,” to recall her to a sense of her sad condition, that thus the way might be opened for a fuller presentation to her of His message. We cannot in any case assume that more than a fragment of the conversation has been preserved, and much that was said is, no doubt, omitted in the narrative of Jn. (see on v. 18).
For the verb ὑάεν see on 16:7; and for the aor. imper. φνσν see on 2:5.
17. κὶεπν So אΓΘ but BCW Syr. sin. and Syr. cur. add ατ.
The woman, by this time, feels that she is in the presence of One to whom she cannot lie, and she confesses, “I have no husband.” Jesus gently shows her that He knows all about that, and about her past. “You had five husbands, and he whom thou hast now is not thy husband.” Jn. frequently lays stress on the power which Jesus had of reading men’s hearts (cf. 1:48, 2:24, 25). If the report of His words here is precise, He showed more than natural insight, and this the evangelist evidently means to suggest. But (see on v. 18) we have to remember that the record of this conversation probably depends on the subsequent report of the woman (v. 27), and in regard to some details she may have confused what her own guilty conscience told her with what Jesus saw in her face. On the other hand, to have had five husbands in succession would be an unusual experience, and the woman may have been notorious for the number of her marriages. But there is no hint in the narrative that Jesus had heard of her before, although there is nothing to exclude this possibility.
18. πνεἄδα. It is remarkable that Heracleon (according to Origen) read ἓ ἄδα, a reading unknown elsewhere. Origen, himself, finds allegory in the number five, and says that it refers to the fact that the Samaritans only recognised as canonical the five books of Moses.1
For ἀηέ, אhas ἀηῶ.
Upon the words πνεγρἄδα ἔχςκλ has been built a theory that the narrative of the Samaritan woman at the well is an allegory from beginning to end, and that the woman is a symbol of the Samaritan people. It is recorded (2Ki_17:24f.) that the King of Assyria brought colonists from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and planted them in Samaria; and that each set of colonists brought with them the cult of their former national deities, who were worshipped side by side with Yahweh. Here then are the five “husbands” of the Samaritan woman, while the husband who was “not a husband” stands for the spurious cult of Yahweh, which to the Jews was little better than heathenism.1 But this ingenious interpretation will not bear analysis. It appears from the narrative in 2Ki_17:30, 2Ki_17:31 that not five, but seven, strange deities were introduced into Samaria from Assyria.2 Further, these were not the objects of worship in succession, but simultaneously, so that the supposed analogy to the successive husbands of the Samaritan woman breaks down. Again, the allegory would imply that the heathen deities had been the legitimate gods of Samaria, while Yahweh whom she came to worship was not a true “husband” at all, and that therefore Samaria’s relation to Yahweh was that of an illegitimate and shameful sort, shame equally resting on her and Him who was not her “husband.” No Christian writer of the first century, or of any century, would have ventured to construct an allegory so blasphemous when its implications are examined. This fancy may safely be rejected.
Another suggestion is that “he whom thou hast is not thy husband” alludes to Simon Magus, who had a great influence in Samaria (Act_8:9-11).
But the simplest interpretation is the best. The narrative is a genuine reminiscence of an incident that actually happened, recorded many years after the event, and probably—so far as the words of the conversation are concerned—with much freedom. That Jesus expressed Himself so tersely and even enigmatically, to an ignorant woman, as the deep saying of v. 14 would suggest, without explaining what He said more fully, is improbable. On the other hand, the vividness and simplicity of the story have the note of actuality. The narrative brings out clearly the main features of the interview between Jesus and the woman, and it is easy to follow the general lines of their conversation.
When the woman got back to her friends (v. 29) she reported in eager haste what her experience had been, and told them what Jesus had said to her. She may have exaggerated or confused words here and there, but that the incident became known to any one was probably due to her own talk about it. Jesus seems to have been alone with her (v. 27), but this is not certain. If we could suppose that one of the disciples remained with his Master at the well, while the others went into Sychar to make their purchases (which would a priori be probable), then we should be able to refer the report of the conversation to the disciple’s recollection, as well as to the woman’s account of it. And that the disciple who remained with his Master is not mentioned by the evangelist would not surprise us if he were John the son of Zebedee, who is kept so much out of sight in the Fourth Gospel, while at the same time his reminiscences are behind large parts of it. But this only can be affirmed with certainty, that the woman told the story to her fellow-villagers, and with such emphasis that many of them “believed on” Jesus, so that He (and no doubt His disciples) stayed at Sychar for two days (v. 40). All the disciples who were present (see on v. 8) must have become thoroughly familiar with her report.
19. For κρε see v. 11, and for the shades of meaning of θωενsee on 2:23.
κρε θωῶκλ “Sir, I perceive,” sc. from what you have said, “that you are a prophet” (cf. 9:17, Luk_7:16, “a prophet” not “the prophet”). A prophet was one who had special powers of insight, as well as of foresight. Cf. Luk_7:39, where the Pharisee objects that if Jesus were really a prophet He would have known that the woman with the cruse of ointment was a sinner. The Samaritan woman was astonished at the knowledge of her personal history which Jesus displayed, and, by her reply, she virtually confesses that it is wit! her even as He had said.
20. The woman diverts the conversation to another subject, and proceeds to raise a theological difficulty, either to evade the personal issue, or because she was honestly anxious to learn what a prophet with such wonderful insight would say about the standing controversy between Jews and Samaritans. Probably both motives affected her.
ο πτρςἡῶ κλ “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain,” i.e. Mount Gerizim, at the foot of which Jacob’s Well is situated. Abraham (Gen_12:7) and Jacob (Gen_33:20) had set up altars at Shechem; and the Samaritan Pentateuch at Deu_27:4 recorded the setting up of an altar in Mount Gerizim (the true reading being Mount Ebal); cf. also Deu_11:29, Deu_27:12. After the Return from the Babylonian Captivity, the Jews and Samaritans parted company, and a temple was erected on Mount Gerizim about 400 b.c. It was destroyed by John Hyrcanus about 129 b.c.; but the odium theologicum grew more bitter thereafter, and in the first century the hatred between Jew and Samaritan was ready to break out at any moment.
κὶὑεςλγτ κλ “and you (i.e. the Jews) say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.” ὁτπςis “the place (Deu_12:5) which the Lord your God shall choose …to put His Name there” (cf. Deu_16:2, Deu_26:3), but the name of the place is not given in the Books of the Law, and the Samaritans recognised no later Scriptures (as they deemed them). Thus such passages as 2Ch_6:6, 2Ch_7:12, Psa_78:68, to which Jews appealed as justifying their claim for Jerusalem as the appointed religious centre, were not recognised as authoritative by Samaritans. For τπςas indicating the Temple, see 11:48.
J. Lightfoot1 illustrates this passage by the following from Bereshith Rabba, §32: “R. Jochanan going to Jerusalem to pray, passed by Mount Gerizim. A certain Samaritan, seeing him, asked him, ‘Whither goest thou?’ ‘I am,’ saith he ‘going to Jerusalem to pray.’ To whom the Samaritan, ‘Were it not better for thee to pray in this holy mountain than in that cursed house’?” Cf. Luk_9:53 and Joh_8:48.
The verb ποκνῖ is used absolutely here and at 12:20; it may be followed either by a dative, 4:21, 23, 9:38 (as always in Mk. and Paul), or by an accusative, 4:22, 23 (as in Luk_24:52). It is noteworthy that in the Apocalypse, where it occurs 25 times, there is the same variety of construction as in Jn. Cf. Rev_5:14 for the same absolute use as here.2 The word always stands in Jn. for divine worship, while elsewhere it sometimes signifies no more than respect (cf. Mat_18:26 and perhaps Mat_8:2).
21. πσεέμι γνι is read by א the rec. has γνι πσεσνμι(ADNΓΘ
πσεέμι a unique phrase in the Greek Bible, calls attention to the fact that what follows is deliberately said: the more usual ἀή ἀή does not occur in this chapter (see on 1:51). In a monastic Rule formerly ascribed to St. Benedict it was laid down that no stronger form of asseveration than this is to be used: “iuramentum aliud nemo proferat, nisi Crede mihi, sicut in euangeliis legimus dominum Samaritanae affirmasse, aut Certe aut Sane.”3
γνι see on 2:4.
ἔχτιὥα “an hour is coming”: so v. 23, 5:25, 28 16:2, 25,32. That the phrase occurs 7 times exactly is noted by Abbott (Diat. 2625).
It is not ἡὥα for the thought of the inevitableness of the predestined hour (see on 2:4) is not present here; cf. Luk_17:22.
οτ …οτ … “not (only) in Gerizim and not (only) in Jerusalem.” These ancient rivalries will disappear when the spirituality of true religion is fully realised. The prophets had already taken this wide view. “Men shall worship Yahweh, every one from his place,” was the vision of Zephaniah (2:11): “in every place incense is offered unto my Name, and a pure offering,” was Malachi’s forecast (1:11). The words ascribed to Jesus here are in entire harmony with His saying about the destruction of the Temple, and its replacement by the spiritual temple of believers (see on 2:19). Cf. Act_7:48, Act_7:17:24, Act_7:25.
“The Father,” not as contrasted with “the Son” (see 3:35), but as the Father of all men. The Samaritan woman had referred to “our father Jacob,” and “our fathers (who) worshipped” in Gerizim (vv. 12, 20); but pride of ancestry is to be replaced by the thought of the universal Fatherhood of God, when questions pertaining to worship are being answered.
ὁπτρis a very frequent designation of God in Jn.; but it nearly always occurs in connexion with the thought of the Sonship of Christ. Here, however, it is rather “the Universal Father”; perhaps we may compare 8:27, 16:26f. (see on 6:27).
22. This verse is an assertion of the superiority of the Jewish religion to the Samaritan, not based on any difference as to the place of worship, but. rather on the difference as to their knowledge of the Object of worship. “Ye,” i.e. the Samaritans, “worship that which ye know not” (cf. ἣ ὑεςοκοδτ in v. 32). They accepted Yahweh for the true God, indeed, but they knew little about Him. By refusing to recognise the writings of the prophets and psalmists they had shut themselves off from all revelation of God except that which was contained in the Law. The Athenian inscription Ἀνσῳθῷquoted in Act_17:23 provides no parallel to the ignorance of the Samaritans. The Samaritans knew, as the Athenians professedly did not know, the Name of the God to whom they erected their altar on Mount Gerizim; but their ignorance was an ignorance of His character and purposes.
“We,” on the other hand, i.e. the Jews, “worship that which we know” (but cf. 7:28), the same God as the God of the Samaritans, but known to Jews as He was not known to Samaritans; cf. Psa_147:19, Psa_147:20.Psa_147:1 The Jews were the chosen people, “whose is the adoption and the glory and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises” (Rom_9:4). Paul’s enumeration of their prerogatives is not more emphatic than the calm statement, “We worship that which we know.” The woman of Samaria is not permitted to suppose that the Speaker believes the Samaritan religion to be as good as the Jewish, although He tells her that in the future their poor rivalries as to their respective sanctuaries will be disregarded as of no consequence. He gives the reason why the Jewish religion is, and must be, superior: ἡστραἐ τνἸυαω ἐτν
ἡστρα “the salvation,” the Messianic deliverance (see on 3:17), was the central thought of Jewish national expectation (cf. Luk_1:69, Luk_1:71, Luk_1:77, Act_13:26, Act_13:47). It was to come from the tribe of Judah, ἐ τνἸυαω, as distinct from the other tribes; cf. Gen_49:10 (a passage which Samaritans accepted as canonical, although they do not seem to have taken it as Messianic), Isa_59:20 (quoted Rom_11:26). Later Judaism held firmly to this conviction of Jewish prerogative. Cf. Test. of XII. Patr., Dan_5:10, “There shall arise unto you from the tribe of [Judah and] Levi the salvation of Yahweh”; see also Gad viii. 1, Naph. viii. 2). See further for στρ στρα on 4:42. Here the point is that the Messianic deliverance was to be ἐ τνἸυαω. For the constr. ενιἐ …cf. 1:46, 7:22, 52, 10:16; and for “the Jews” in the Fourth Gospel, see on 1:19.
The force of ἡεςmust be observed: “We worship that which we know.” Jesus, here, definitely associates Himself with the Jews; He is a Jew. Their God is His God. Nowhere in the Gospels is there another passage so emphatic as this, in its assertion of the common nationality of Jesus and the Jews who rejected Him; cf. Mat_15:24. Here He associates Himself with Jews in a common worship. The plural οδμνin 3:11 (see note) is not a true parallel to this. See on 15:25.
In this verse are expressed the worthiness of Jewish worship and the supreme privilege of the Jewish race; but in v. 23 we have on the other hand the simplicity of the ideal worship of God and the catholicity of true religion. Both aspects are included in the Fourth Gospel. The evangelist is not forgetful of the debt which Christianity owes to Judaism, while he views Christianity sub specie œ as for all men and for all time.
23, 24. The repetition of τὺ ποκνῦτςseems to have misled scribes and translators, so that there are a good many minor variants, but none calling for special notice. Syr. cur. exhibits extraordinary confusion here, for in it v. 24 runs as follows: “For God is a Spirit, and those that worship Him in spirit, and to worship for them it behoves, even those that in spirit and in truth worship Him.”1
23. ἔχτιὢα repeated from v. 21 (where see note), the theme of that verse, which has been temporarily abandoned in v. 22, being resumed. It is a question whether κὶννἐτν both here and at 5:25, should not be treated as an editorial comment on the words of Jesus. But probably the words “and now is” are appended to “an hour is coming,” to obviate any misunderstanding. Jesus has told the Samaritan woman that the old rivalries as to sanctuary are passing away, and that in the future “the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth.” But that is not confined to the future; it may be equally asserted of the present, that true worshippers worship thus. See on 5:25.
For the word ἀηιό, “genuine,” see on 1:9. Here ο ἀηιο ποκντιis equivalent to “the genuine worshippers”: at whatever altar they worship, they worship ἐ πεμτ κὶἀηεᾳ
The πεμ is the highest in man, for it associates him with God who is Spirit. In so far as a man walks κτ πεμ, does he realise the dignity of his being (cf. Rom_8:5). To worship ἐ πεμτ is, then, to worship in harmony with the Divine Spirit, and so to worship in truth (cf. 16:13 τ πεμ τςἀηεα). This is a general statement, and we must not bring in here thoughts which are peculiar to Christian doctrine, because of that fuller revelation of God which was granted in the Incarnation. Indeed, Philo has a passage precisely parallel: γήιι[θρπῖι δ εσνα ψχςψλνκὶμννθσα φρύη, ἀήεα, sc. “Genuine religious services are those of a soul offering the plain and only sacrifice, viz. truth” (quod. det. pot. insid. 7). Cf. Psa_145:18.
κὶγρonly occurs again in Jn. at 4:45; it seems to mean “for indeed” (but cf. Abbott, Diat. 2167).
ὁπτρ the Universal Father; see on v. 21.
ζτῖ “seeks.” It is not only that the true worshippers are accepted of God, but that He seeks for such. The approach of man to God is not initiated by man; the first movement of love is on the side of God. This is the constant teaching of Jn.; cf. 1Jn_4:10, and Joh_3:16, Joh_6:44, Joh_15:16. It is a phase of that doctrine of pre-destination which underlies the Fourth Gospel; see note on 3:14. The gift of the Spirit is a necessary preliminary to spiritual worship.
24. πεμ ὁθό. The spirituality of God was an essential tenet of Judaism (cf. <