Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 4:39 - 4:39
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_4:39 ff. Resumption of the historical narrative of Joh_4:30, which here receives its elucidation, to which then the continuation of the history attaches itself, Joh_4:40-42. As to the position of the words πολλοὶ ἐπ . εἰς αὐτ . τῶν Σαμ ., see Buttmann, N. T. Gr. p. 332 [E. T. p. 388].
ὅτι εἶπέ μοι πάντα , κ . τ . λ .] Indication of conscience ratifying Joh_4:18.
διὰ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ] on account of His own word (teaching). No mention is made of miracles, but we must not infer from this that there was no need of miracles among the Samaritans; see, on the other hand, Act_8:6 ff. Jesus found that in this case His word sufficed, and therefore upon principle (see Joh_4:48) He forbore to work miracles, and His mighty word was all the mightier among the unprejudiced people.
διὰ τὴν σὴν λαλιὰν ] on account of thy discourse. This is the meaning of λαλιά invariably in classical Greek. The term is purposely chosen, as from the standing-point of the speaker; whereas John, as an impartial narrator, with equal appropriateness, writes τὸν λόγον in Joh_4:39. As to λαλιά in Joh_8:43, where Jesus thus designates His own discourse, see in loc. Observe, besides, the emphatic σήν as contrasted with the λόγος of Jesus which they themselves ( αὐτοί ) have now heard.
ἀκηκόαμεν ] the following ὅτι refers to both verbs. They have heard that Jesus was the Messiah, for this became evident to them from His words.
ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου ] not due to the individuality of John (1Jn_4:14), and put into the mouths of the people, as Lücke and Tholuck are inclined to suppose, but a confession quite conceivable as the result of the two days’ ministry of Jesus; universalism, moreover, being more akin to the Messianic faith of the Samaritans (see Gesenius, de Samar. theol. p. 41 ff.) than to that of the Jews, with their definite and energetic feeling of nationality.
Note.
The prohibition in Mat_10:5 militates neither against this narrative of John 4 in general, nor in particular against the promise of Joh_4:35 ff. It had merely a temporary force, and was abrogated again by Mat_28:19-20, and Act_1:8; and, moreover, it presented no insuperable barrier to restrict Jesus in His work (for He did not wholly exclude even Gentiles from His teaching). Act_8:5 ff. is no proof whatever that this history in John is of mythical origin; it is, on the contrary, the fulfilment of the promise given here. Its several features are so original, and so pyschologically true, and the words of Jesus (see especially Joh_4:21-24) come so directly from the living depths of His soul, that the exceptions taken against certain particulars (as, for instance, against the misunderstandings on the part of the woman; against the words concerning the food, Joh_4:32; against the command of Jesus, “Go, call thy husband;” against the woman’s question concerning the place of worship; against the faith of the Samaritans, which is said to contradict Luk_9:53) are of no real weight, and are explicable only by the very authenticity of the narrative, not by the supposition of an intentional poetizing. This is in answer to Strauss, B. Bauer, and partly Weisse; also to Scholten, who considers that the author’s object was to describe in a non-historical picture the spirit which actuated Jesus even towards the Samaritans. As a full guarantee for that part of the narrative, which the disciples, being absent, could not have witnessed, we may, considering the vivid impress of genuineness which marks it, fairly assume that Jesus Himself communicated it to the evangelist, and there is no need for the unfounded supposition that (Joh_4:8) John was left behind with Jesus (Hengstenberg, Godet). When, finally, Baur (p. 145 ff.; comp. also Hilgenfeld) resolves our history into a typus,—“the Samaritan woman being a figure of heathendom, susceptible, readily opening itself to faith, and presenting a wide harvest field,” a contrast to Nicodemus, the type of unsusceptible Judaism,—with all this arbitrariness on the part of the inventor, it is passing strange, if this were his object, that he did not bring Jesus into contact with a real heathen woman, for this would have been quite as easy to invent; and that he should keep the words of the woman so free from the least tinge of anything of a heathen nature (Joh_4:20 ff.), and have put into her mouth so clear an expression of Messianic hope (Joh_4:25; Joh_4:42),—this bungling is quite out of character on the part of such an inventor.