Origen probably wrote Book 13 of his Commentary on John during his earlier years in Caesarea, most probably in the 230s. He interprets Jacob’s well as a symbol of Scripture and the Samaritan woman as a heretic who cannot find lasting satisfaction in a shallow interpretation she mistakenly takes to be profound. In John’s story she finally discovers in Scripture the truly profound and inexhaustible understanding open to those who encounter Jesus himself and, through him, gain access to a knowledge transcending Scripture (27–30). Such an understanding enables those who have progressed spiritually beyond the normal human condition to worship God in a way that is more confident as well as more contemplative than ordinary Christians can (98–100), even if they still await an eschatological perfection (113). With characteristic attentiveness, Origen notices that, although the woman uses the word “well” (phrear), Jesus uses a different word, “spring” (pêgê), indicating a continuous supply of fresh water (23). Origen is also attentive, as Jean-Michel Poffet’s recent study has shown, to the actual dynamic of John’s story and to its larger context. Thus, in order to place the story in its historical setting, he investigates how, precisely, a Samaritan would understand Messiahship (154–62). We also see Origen being characteristically attentive to spiritual life when he argues that we do not gain benefits from God unless we ask for them (5).
Here Origen argues with an alternative interpretation, that of the second-century Gnostic Heracleon, a follower of Valentinus, whose approach has much in common, superficially at least, with his. Thus, for example, like Origen, Heracleon interprets the text as dealing with the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. While giving Heracleon credit where he feels it is due, Origen criticizes him (with good cause, in Poffet’s view) for lacking akribeia, “accuracy.” Heracleon, Origen argues, imposes an interpretation determined by his own heterodox theology rather than by the logic of the text itself. Exampes are Heracleon’s arbitrary interpretations of “you” in verse 4:22 as “Jews and gentiles” (102–3) and of the water-jar in verse 4:28 as “aptitude to receive life and mindfulness of the power which comes from the Savior” (187–9).
The translation is from Origène, Commentaire sur S. Jean, vol. 3, ed. Cécile Blanc = SC 222, Paris, Cerf, 1975, pp. 36–136.
Text
Jesus answered and said to her: “Everyone who drinks from this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks from the water that I shall give him, there shall be in him a spring of water leaping to eternal life” (Jn 4:13–14).
I This is Jesus’ second response to the Samaritan woman; the first was when he said, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who is saying to you ‘Give me something to drink,’ you would have asked him and he would have given you living water” (Jn 4:10). And now, to encourage her to ask for living water, he says the words just cited. 4 In response to his first question, the Samaritan woman did not ask for it but instead raised an objection to his comparison of one water with another, but after the Lord’s second response, accepting what he said, she says, “Give me that water” (Jn 4:15).
Perhaps there is some requirement that no one receives a divine gift except those who ask for it. In a Psalm, the Father even encourages the Son himself to ask so that he may give to him, as the Son himself teaches, saying: “The Lord has said to me: ‘You are my Son, ask of me and I shall give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as a possession’ ” (Ps. 2:7–8). The Savior also says: “Ask and it shall be given to you, everyone who asks receives” (Mt. 7:7–8; Lk. 11:9–10) . 6 Nonetheless, the Samaritan woman – who is, as I have already said, an image of the outlook of the heterodox when they study the divine Scriptures – is persuaded to ask for Jesus’ water, when she had heard about his comparison of the two kinds of water. 7 And see how, in her experience, when she drank from what she supposed to be a deep well, she was not refreshed nor was her thirst assuaged.
II Let us therefore see what is signified by “Everyone who drinks from this water will thirst again.” From a bodily perspective “thirst” and “hunger” can signify two things; one is that we lack nourishment, and after being deprived of it, we desire food or drink as a result of dehydration, the other is when often the poor and those deprived of basic needs are said to be consumed by hunger or thirst.
An example of the first is in Exodus when,
lacking food on the nineteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt, the whole assembly of the children of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron, and the children of Israel said to them, “It would have been better if we had died, stricken by the Lord in Egypt, when we sat by pots full of flesh and ate bread and were filled, since you have led us out into this desert in order that all this assembly may die of famine.” The Lord said to Moses “See, I shall rain down for you bread from heaven, and the people shall go out and collect it day after day, until I test them, whether they will walk in my law or not.”
(Ex. 16:1–4)
Such words are those of men who are hungry and lack necessary nourishment. Those deprived of water and thirsty also grumbled against Moses “what shall we drink?” when Moses cried to the Lord, and the Lord showed him wood, and he threw it into the water and the water became sweet (see Ex. 15:24–5). 11 And a little later, when they had come to Rephidim, it is written that “The people thirsted there for water, and the people grumbled there against Moses” (see Ex. 17:1–3; Amos 8:11).
An example of the second usage may possibly be in Paul when he says: “Up until this time we have hungered, we have thirsted, we have been naked” (1 Cor. 4:11).
The first kind of hunger and thirst necessarily happens to those with healthy bodies, the second happens to those who are impoverished.
III It must be investigated what sort of thirst is intended in “Everyone who drinks from this water will thirst again.” The first sense is perhaps as it is from a bodily perspective, when someone is assuaged for the moment, but when the drink has passed through, the one drinking it experiences the same craving, that is, he thirsts again, having been restored to the same situation in which he began. 14 Therefore he added: “but whoever drinks from the water that I shall give him, there shall be in him a spring of water leaping to eternal life.” For who could ever thirst if he had a spring inside himself?
Nonetheless, the principal sense must be the following: the person partaking in what he considers to be a doctrinal profundity is refreshed for a short time, having accepted the ideas deduced as very profound and thinking that he had discovered them. Nonetheless, on reflecting on them a second time, he has his doubts about the ideas in which he had earlier found refreshment, because what he had accepted as something he supposed to be profound could not provide a clear and distinct perception of the things investigated. 16 Therefore, someone who is inveigled into assent to specious reasoning later finds he has the same predicament which he had before he had learned those things. But I have doctrine of such a kind that what I have announced will be a spring of living refreshment in the person who accepts it. And the person who receives my water will experience such a great benefit that there will gush forth in him a spring of waters leaping upwards capable of discovering everything investigated, when his intelligence is leaping and flying swiftly, as a consequence of that highly mobile water, bearing him upwards by its leaping and bounding into eternal life. 17 He says that somehow the purpose of the leaping water is eternal life, just as Solomon says about the bridegroom in the Song of Songs: “See, that one comes leaping on the mountains, bounding over the hills” (Sg 2:8). 18 Just as there the bridegroom leaps over the most noble and most divine souls, called “mountains,” and bounds over the inferior souls, called “hills,” so, here, in the person who drinks from the water which Jesus will give, the spring which comes to be in him will leap to eternal life. 19 Doubtless it will also leap, after eternal life, to the Father who is above eternal life. For Christ is life (see Jn 14:6), but the one who is greater than Christ (see Jn 14:28) is greater than life.
IV Then he who drinks from the water which Jesus will give will have in himself the spring of water leaping to eternal life, when the promise is fulfilled that those who hunger and thirst for justice will be made happy. 21 For the Word says: “Happy are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be fed” (Mt. 5:6).
And perhaps, since one must hunger and thirst before being fed, we are to induce hunger and thirst in order to be satisfied, so as to say, “Just as the stag languishes for springs of water, so my soul languishes for you, God. My soul has thirsted for the strong, living God, when shall I come and see the face of God?” (Ps. 41:2–3 LXX [42:1–2]).
Therefore when we thirst, it is good to drink first from Jacob’s spring, which should not be referred to, as the Samaritan did, as Jacob’s well. For in fact the Savior, even in responding to her statement, did not say that the water was from a well, but said simply: “Everyone who drinks from this water will thirst again.” 24 If it were not beneficial to drink from the spring, Jesus would not have sat on the well (see Jn 4:6), nor would he have said to the Samaritan woman, “Give me something to drink”. 25 It should then be added that when the Samaritan woman also asked Jesus for water, he promised somehow to offer it to her in a particular place, beside the spring, saying to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here” (Jn 4:16).
V We shall still seek to understand if it is possible to show a difference in kind between the benefit gained by those who converse with the truth himself and live with him and the benefit supposed to come to us from the Scriptures, even when we understand them accurately. The difference is that he who drinks from Jacob’s spring will thirst again, but he who drinks from the water which Jesus will give will have a spring in himself able to leap to eternal life. 27 Indeed, considering the most important and most divine of the mysteries of God, there are some that Scripture does not contain and others that human speech – following the conventional meanings of words – or human language cannot contain, “For there are many other things, which Jesus did, which, if I were to write them one by one, I do not think that the world itself could contain the books written” (Jn 21:25). 28 And when John was going to write what the seven thunders said, he was prohibited (see Rev. 10:4). And Paul says that he had heard unspeakable words, which it was not possible to utter, for it was possible to speak them to angels, but it was not possible to men, for all things are possible, but not all things are expedient (see 1 Cor. 6:12). 29 Now the unspeakable words that he had heard, it is not possible, he says, to utter to a man (see 2 Cor. 6:12). 30 I think that, in relation to knowledge as a whole, the Scriptures as a whole are to be understood as most meager elements and the briefest introductions, even when they are understood entirely accurately.
See, then, if Jacob’s spring, from which Jacob once drank, but no longer drinks now, and from which his sons also drank, but now have a drink superior to it, and from which his beasts had drunk, cannot be the whole of Scripture, and Jesus’ water the things above Scripture (see 1 Cor. 4:6). 32 It is not possible for all to discover what is above Scripture, unless they become similar to those things, so that they may not be shocked by hearing, “Do not investigate things that are too difficult for you, and do not discover things that are too hard for you” (Sir. 3:21).
VI If we speak of what is above Scripture, we do not say that these things are knowable by the many, but they could have been known by John, who heard such things as the words of thunder without being given permission to write them (see Jn 12:29), learning that it was in order to spare the world that he did not write them, for he thought that the whole world could not contain the books written (see Jn 21:25). 34 But the “unspeakable words” which Paul had learned are also above Scripture (if we concede that it was men who had spoken the things written as Scripture). And things which eye has not seen are above Scripture, and it is not possible to write as Scripture things which ear has not heard. 35 And the things which have not entered into the heart of a man (see 1 Cor. 2:9) are better than Jacob’s spring. These things have been manifested by a spring of water leaping up to eternal life to those who no longer have the heart of a man, but can say, “We have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:16) “so that we may know the things graciously given to us by God, which we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:12–13).
And understand, if it is possible to call “human wisdom” not false doctrines, but the elementary principles of truth that concern those who are still human, as opposed to “teachings of the Spirit,” which are doubtless the spring of water leaping up to eternal life.
The Scriptures, therefore, are introductions, from whose exact understanding, called here the spring of Jacob, one must ascend to Jesus, so that we may be graciously given the spring of water leaping to eternal life. 38 But everyone does not draw in the same way from Jacob’s spring. For if Jacob, his sons, and his beasts drank from it, the Samaritan woman, when she was thirsty, also came to it and drew. Did not Jacob drink with his sons in a distinct way and with intelligent understanding in contrast to his beasts, who drank in a simpler, animal way, and the Samaritan woman in a still different way from Jacob, his sons, and his beasts? 39 Those who are wise about the Scriptures drink as did Jacob and his sons; the so-called “flock of Christ” (see Jn 10:2–5) drink as did Jacob’s beasts; but those who abuse the Scriptures and compose blasphemies on the pretext of understanding them drink as the Samaritan woman drank before believing in Jesus.
The woman says to him, “Lord, give me that water, that I may not thirst nor come here to draw” (Jn 4:15).
VII This is already the second time the Samaritan woman has addressed Jesus as “Lord,” the first being when she said, “Lord, you do not have a water-jar and the well is deep” (Jn 4:11) and sought from where he had living water and if he were greater than Jacob, whom she supposed to be her father (see Jn 4:11–12), and then now when she also asks him for the water that will become in the one drinking it a spring leaping to eternal life. 41 And if “You would have asked him and he would have given you living water” (Jn 4:10) is actually true, clearly, when she said, “Lord, give me that water,” she received the living water, so that she might no longer be baffled as someone thirsting nor come to Jacob’s well to draw, but, away from Jacob’s water, she might be able to contemplate the truth as the angels do and in a superhuman way. For the angels do not require Jacob’s well that they may drink, but each one has in himself a spring leaping to eternal life, a spring brought about and revealed by the Word himself and Wisdom herself.
But no one can receive another water, not given by the Word from Jacob’s spring, without taking great care because of thirst to go to there and draw. For this reason many things are lacking to the many who do not exert themselves very vigorously to draw from Jacob’s spring.
He said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” The woman answered and said “I do not have a husband” (Jn 4:16–17).
VIII We have said above that the law is the soul’s ruler, so that, for each person submitted to it, the law is the soul’s husband. Now, as a testimony to this, we cite the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans who says: “Are you ignorant, brothers – for I speak to those under the law – that the law has dominion over a man for as long as he lives” (Rom. 7:1). But who “lives”? If we take “law” in its ordinary sense, it is the law. 44 He adds immediately: “So the married woman is bound to her husband as to a law,” as if he were saying, “To her living husband, and the husband is the law.” 45 Then again he says: “But if the husband should die, she is set free from the law of the husband” (Rom. 7:2), as if the woman were freed by the death of the law and no more accomplishes the duties of a wife to her husband.
Then he says: “Indeed, while he is living she is considered an adulteress if she should belong to another man, but if her husband should die, she is free from the law, so as not to be an adulteress with another man” (Rom. 7:3).
For the law according to the letter has died, and the soul will not be an adulteress should it belong to another husband, the law which is according to the Spirit. For when the husband has died to the wife, it may somehow be said that the wife has died to the husband, so we can interpret “So, my brothers, you also have been put to death with respect to the law through the body of Christ, so you may belong to another, the one who has been raised from the dead, so that we may bear fruit for God” (Rom. 7:4). 48 Assume that the husband is a law and the Samaritan woman has a certain husband, having submitted herself, by abuse of healthy doctrines, to a certain law according to which each of the heterodox wish to live. Here the divine Word desires that the heterodox soul, having been confounded by the comparison with the law ruling her, should despise it, because it is not a legitimate husband, and seek another husband. Thus she will belong to another, the Word who will rise from the dead, who is not to be refuted or put to death, but will remain eternally (see Isa. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:25), reigning, and subduing all enemies (see Ps. 8:7; Eph. 1:22) –“for Christ, being raised from the dead will never die again, death no longer has dominion over him. For what died, died to sin once and for all, but what lives, lives to God” (Rom. 6:9–10) “being at his right hand, until all his enemies are placed as his footstool” (see Heb. 10:12–13; Ps. 109:1 [110:1]).
If the woman had not by herself repudiated her husband, where should the Samaritan woman’s supposed husband be convinced that he is not a husband, except by Jesus beside Jacob’s spring? Therefore Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.”
Possibly she already has some of the water leaping to eternal life. Because she had said “give me that water” and did not lie to the one who had already announced to her, “You would have asked him and he would have given you living water” (Jn 4:10), the woman answered, accusing herself on account of her relations with such a man, and said, “I do not have a husband.”
Jesus says to her: “You have said well ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband; you have spoken the truth in this” (Jn 4:17–18).
IX I think that every soul introduced into reverence toward Christ in accordance with the Scriptures, starting from so-called sensible and corporeal things, has five husbands, one husband corresponding to each of the senses. But if, after having had relations with sensible things, wishing to emerge and turning toward the intelligible, it comes across an unsound doctrine that makes a pretext of allegory and spiritual interpretations, that soul, after the five husbands, submits to another – giving, so to speak, a bill of divorce to the previous five and deciding to cohabit with the sixth. 52 Until Jesus’ coming makes us conscious of what sort of man that is, we consort with him. But when the doctrine who is Lord has conversed with us, we renounce that man, saying, “I have no husband,” and he praises us, saying, “You have said well ‘I have no husband.’ ”
“You have said well” is like a reproach, since the things that she had said earlier were not true. And doubtless it was not true that “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (Jn 4:9). 54 Indeed Jesus himself, as we have discussed earlier, had dealings with Samaritans so that he might benefit them. 55 Neither was “You do not have a water-jar and the well is deep” (Jn 4:11) a true statement. 56 Doubtless “Jacob drank from the well and his sons and his beasts” was also not true, if Jacob and his sons and his beasts did not, in fact, drink in the same way as the Samaritan woman. When the Samaritan woman supposes that she had drunk in the same way exactly the same drink as Jacob, his sons, and his beasts, she is clearly mistaken.
X Let us also look at Heracleon’s comments on this passage. He says that “this life and its glory have become limp, brief, and flawed, for they are of the world,” and he supposes that the reference to Jacob’s beasts having drunk from it is proof that it is of the world.
We would not blame him for such an interpretation, if what he considers limp, brief, and flawed is knowledge in part (see 1 Cor. 13:9), either that which comes from the Scriptures by comparison with the knowledge of unspeakable things which it is not possible for a man to say (see 2 Cor. 12:4), or all that knowledge which we now see through a mirror in an enigma (see 1 Cor. 13:12) and will be canceled by the arrival of that which is perfect (see 1 Cor. 13:10). However, if this interpretation is intended to slander the Old Testament, he is blameworthy.
But when he says “that the water which the Savior gives is from his spirit and power,” he is not mistaken. 60 “He shall not thirst until eternity” (see Jn 4:14), he explains in these terms:
his life is eternal and never corrupted, like the first, that of the well, but it abides, for the grace and gift of our Savior are not to be taken away and are not lost or corrupted in those who participate in them.
In holding that the first life is corruptible, if he speaks of that life according to the letter – seeking that life according to the Spirit which comes about when the veil is lifted (see 2 Cor. 3:16) and finding it – he speaks soundly. But if he accuses the Old Testament of being entirely corruptible, he evidently does so because he does not see that these good things have the shadow of things to come (see Heb. 10:1).
His explanation of the “leaping” water is unpersuasive: “those who receive part of a gift richly accorded from above, in turn cause those gifts which have been accorded to them to gush out to the eternal life of others.”
But he also praises the Samaritan woman as “having received an unhesitating faith in accordance with her nature, not hesitating with regard to the things said to her.” 64 If he had approved the woman’s choice, without hinting that her nature was something distinctive, we would also agree, but if he ascribes the cause of her assent to her natural constitution, as if all did not have such a constitution, his reasoning is to be rejected.
I do not know how Heracleon, making an unsubstantiated inference, says concerning “give me that water”: “the woman, being stimulated instantly by the Word, hated from then on even the place of this so-called ‘living water.’ ”
Yet also concerning “give me that water, that I may not thirst nor come here to draw,” he says: “The woman says this indicating how exhausting, hard to obtain, and sterile this water is.” Where, however, does he find any indication that Jacob’s water is sterile?
XI Again, regarding “He said to her,” he says: “It is evident that he was saying something like ‘If you want to receive that water, get up and call your husband’ ” and he supposes that “what the Savior referred to as Samaritan woman’s husband was her Fullness, so that being with him in the Savior’s presence she might be able to receive from him the power, unity, and amalgamation with her Fullness.” For he says “that Jesus did not speak to her concerning a husband of the world, that she might summon him, because he was not ignorant that she did not have a lawful husband.” 68 Obviously he forces the text here, saying that “when the Savior said to her ‘call your husband, and come here’ he was indicating her comrade from the Fullness.” If that had been the case, he would have needed to indicate the husband and in what manner he was to be called, so that he might be with her in the Savior’s presence.
But since, as Heracleon says, “in intelligible terms, she did not know her own husband, but in simple terms she was ashamed to say that she had a paramour and not a husband,” how was it not pointless to give her the order “Go, call your husband, and come here”?
Then, with regard to “You have said well ‘I have no husband,’ ” he says: “because the Samaritan woman had no husband in the world, but she did have a husband in eternity.”
Now we have read “you have had five husbands” but we find in Heracleon “You have had six husbands.” 72 And his interpretation is that “by the six husbands is indicated the whole material evil in which she was implicated and to which she was related by fornicating contrary to reason and by which she was abused, rejected, and abandoned.” 73 It should be said to him that if indeed the spiritual woman fornicated, the spiritual woman sinned, but if the spiritual woman sinned, the spiritual woman was not a good tree, for according to the Gospel: “A good tree cannot bear wicked fruit” (Mt. 7:18). 74 This clearly eliminates their made-up fables: if it is impossible for a good tree to bear wicked fruit, and if the Samaritan woman, being spiritual, was a good tree, it follows that he would either have to say that her fornication was not a sin or that she did not fornicate.
The woman said to him: “Lord, I behold that you are a prophet. Our fathers have worshipped on this mountain, and you say: ‘In Jerusalem is the place where one should worship” ’(Jn 4:19–20).
XII This is already the third time that the Samaritan woman addresses our Savior as Lord, and it is also the final time that she is recorded as saying this. But she does not yet suppose that he is greater than the prophets or that he is the one whom they prophesied, but that he is a prophet. 76 Once her first five husbands, along with the one left after them whom she supposed to be her husband, are confuted, the heterodox opinion of those dealing with the Scripture, not being able initially to see who the Word refuting them is, says that he is a prophet, as if he were someone divine who had about him some superhuman quality, but not as great as he actually was. That is why she says, as if somehow looking up and considering herself in a state of contemplation: “I behold that you are a prophet.” 77 With regard to “Our fathers” et cetera, one must know the difference between Samaritans and Jews concerning what they regarded as a holy place. The Samaritans, regarding the mountain called “Gerizim” as a holy place, worshipped God on it, because Moses mentioned it in Deuteronomy, saying:
And Moses commanded the people on that day, saying “These are to bless the people on Mount Gerizim after the crossing of the Jordan: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin. And these are to stand in condemnation on Mount Hebal: Reuben, Gad and Assher, Zebulon, Dan and Naphthali.
(Deut. 27:11–13)
But the Jews, having regarded Zion as a place that is divine and special to God, suppose that it is the place chosen (see Ps. 131:13 [132:13]) by the Father of the universe, and they say that for this reason the Temple was built on it by Solomon and the whole levitical and priestly cult is carried out there. 79 Following these assumptions, each race considers that their fathers worshipped God on the one mountain or the other.
XIII If ever Samaritans and Jews agree up to this point in their doctrine, each will raise difficulties as to the rest, and the Samaritan will say to the Jew the word attributed here to the woman: “Our fathers have worshipped on this mountain,” indicating Gerizim, “and you say: ‘In Jerusalem is the place where one should worship.’ ” 81 But since the Jews – indeed from them salvation comes (see Jn 4:22) – are images of those who approve sound doctrines, while the Samaritans are images of the heterodox, it follows that the Samaritans divinize Gerizim, which is interpreted “separation” or “division,” since the historical separation and division of the ten tribes separated from the remaining two happened in the time of Jereboam (see 1 Kings 12), whose own name is interpreted “judgment of people,” but the Jews divinize Zion, which is “observatory”.
It is likely someone would ask why the blessings of which Moses wrote took place on Mount Gerizim. 82 It must be said in this regard that the word “Gerizim” means both “separation” and “division.” One must take “separation” as a reference to when the people were divided by Jereboam and the king lived in Samaria. But one must take “division” as a reference to the blessing, since sages make orderly use of divisions in all of their problems, a procedure required for the understanding of truth. 83 In as much as the hour had not yet come, of which the Savior spoke, when they should worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem, it was necessary to shun the Samaritans’ mountain and worship God on Zion, where Jerusalem is, since Jerusalem is the city which Christ spoke of as that of the great king (see Mt. 5:35). 84 What could be the city of the great king, the true Jerusalem, if it is not the church built of living stones, where there is a holy priesthood, where spiritual sacrifices are offered to God (see 1 Pet. 2:5) by spiritual men and the spiritual law is understood? 85 When the fullness of time has arrived (see Gal. 4:4), then it must no longer be assumed that the true worship and perfect reverence are still carried out in Jerusalem, because one would no longer be in the flesh, but in the Spirit, and no longer in type but in truth, since one has been so constituted as to be assimilated to those worshippers whom God seeks (see Jn 4:23).
XIV “The hour is coming” is written twice, and the first time “and now is” is not added, but the second time the evangelist says, “the hour is coming and now is” (Jn 4:21 and 23) 87 And I suppose that the first indicates the external bodily worship in the process of perfection, the second is the worship of those who in this life have been perfected as much as is possible for human nature to progress. 88 Therefore it is possible to worship the Father both in spirit and in truth when the hour is not only coming but also now is, even if one considers that we remain in Jerusalem on account of those who have come only so far. 89 When it is written, “the hour is coming and now is,” it is no longer said, “neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father,” since this was already said when “the hour is coming” was recorded without “and now is.”
In saying this the Samaritan woman still has a false opinion similar to that which she expressed concerning what she considered a well. For in that case she said “Are you greater than our father Jacob, who has given us this well and drank of it himself, and his sons, and his beasts?” (Jn 4:12) and in this case “Our fathers worshipped on this mountain.”
XV In reference to this passage Heracleon says that “the Samaritan woman had graciously assented to the things spoken by him to her, for, she says, only a prophet could know everything.” He speaks falsely on either account, for the angels can know everything, and the prophet does not know everything, for we know in part and we prophesy in part (1 Cor. 13:9) when we do prophesy or know.
After this he praises the Samaritan woman for “having acted appropriately in accordance with her nature by neither lying nor affirming outright her disgraceful behavior.” He says that, “convinced that he was a prophet, she questions him while indicating the cause of her fornication, namely that through ignorance she neglected God, the worship intended by God, and all things necessary to her life, going through life with no particular purpose, for otherwise,” he says, “she would not have gone to the well which chanced to be outside the city.” 93 I do not know how he reckoned that the cause of her fornication is indicated or that ignorance was the cause of her transgressions, even ignorance of the worship intended by God, but he seems to have put down whatever came to his mind without any plausibility. 94 He adds to this that, “wishing to learn how and whom she should please, and what God she should worship, so that she might be delivered from fornication, she says ‘Our fathers have worshipped on this mountain’ et cetera.” But these statements are extremely easy to refute, for where is it that she wanted to learn whom to gratify so as to give up fornication?
Jesus said to her: “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father” (Jn 4:21).
XVI When Heracleon seemed to have made a very convincing observation on these matters, namely “that earlier he had not said to her, ‘Believe me, woman,’ but now this is enjoined on her,” he then clouds this convincing observation, saying that “the mountain bespeaks the Devil or his world, because the Devil was one part of the whole of matter,” he says, “the whole world was a mountain of evil, the desert home of wild beasts, which all before the law and the gentiles worshipped” (see Rom. 1:25), but “Jerusalem bespeaks the creation or the creator whom the Jews worshipped.” 96 But, alternatively, he considered the mountain to be the creation which the gentiles worshipped, but Jerusalem to be the Creator whom the Jews venerate. 97 “Therefore,” he says, “you, in so far as you are spiritual men, worship neither the creation nor the Artisan but the Father of truth, and he accepts her,” he says, “because she is already believing and counted among those who worship according to truth.”
But we say that what is called reverence by the heterodox, in the ostentation of Gnostic discourses and lofty speculations, is indicated by “neither on this mountain,” but the rule followed by the majority in the church – which the perfect and holy man surpasses by worshipping the Father in a way that is more contemplative, more sure, and more divine – is indicated by “nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.” 99 For, just as even the Jews themselves admit, the angels do not worship the Father in Jerusalem, because they worship the Father in a better manner than that practiced in Jerusalem, so those who already have the privilege of being equal to the angels in disposition (see Lk. 20:26) will not worship the Father in Jerusalem, but in a better way than those in Jerusalem, even if, for the sake of those in Jerusalem, they have relations with those in Jerusalem, becoming Jews for the Jews in order to gain the Jews (see 1 Cor. 9:20). But in my opinion Jerusalem must be understood as we have already set forth above, and the Jews similarly. 100 Assuredly when one worships neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem, the hour having arrived, he worships the Father with bold confidence, having become a son. Therefore it does not say “nor in Jerusalem will you worship God,” but “nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.”
You worship what you do not know, we worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews (Jn 4:22).
XVII The “you,” according to the letter, are the Samaritans, but according to an elevated interpretation, those who are heterodox with regard to the Scriptures. The “we,” according to what is said, are the Jews, but according to allegory, they are “I, the Word, and those who are formed like me.” These have salvation out of the Jewish discourses, for the mystery now manifested (see Rom. 16:25– 6) had been manifested through the prophetic Scriptures as well as by the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 2 Tim. 1:10). 102 See if Heracleon has not, idiosyncratically and in defiance of the context, explained the “you” as “Jews and gentiles.” 103 Is it possible to say to a Samaritan woman, “You Jews,” or to say to a Samaritan woman, “You gentiles”? But the heterodox do not know what they worship, because it is something made up and not truth, a myth not a mystery. But the person who worships the Artisan, especially in the manner of one who is secretly a Jew (see Rom. 2:29) and of the spiritual Jewish discourses, that person knows what he worships.
It would be too long to cite here Heracleon’s statements taken from the work entitled Proclamation of Peter and to pause to examine whether that book is genuine, illegitimate, or of mixed character. Therefore wishing to postpone such an examination, we report this only, that it represents, as Peter’s teaching, that one must not worship as the Greeks do, who admit material things, worshipping wood and stone, nor should one reverence God in the manner of the Jews because, supposing themselves alone to understand God, they do not know him, offering veneration to angels, months, and the moon. 105 It must indeed be investigated to whom, in truth, the bodily veneration of the Jews accrues, nonetheless, as to their intention, this is clear: it is to offer sacrifices to the Creator of the Universe. 106 But it is worth seeing what is the meaning of the text in the Acts of the Apostles: “God has turned and given them over to veneration of the host of heaven” (Acts 7:42).
I do not know how, when the Savior has plainly said, “Salvation comes from the Jews,” the heterodox deny the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of the Jews (see Ex. 3:6). 107 In addition, if the Savior has fulfilled the law (see Mt. 5:17) and if this or that event during his bodily presence occurred so as to fulfill things written in the prophetic books, how is the meaning of “Salvation comes from the Jews” not clear? 108 For the same God is God of Jews and gentiles, “If indeed there is one God, who justifies the circumcision from faith and the uncircumcision by faith” (Rom. 3:30). For we do not abolish the law through faith, but we establish the law through it (see Rom. 3:31).
But the time is coming and now is when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:23a). XVIII 109 Those who make no profession at all to worship the Father must not be referred to as worshippers of God, but of all those who do profess to worship the Creator – if it is the case that some are no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit (see Rom. 8:9) because they walk in the Spirit and do not accomplish the lust of the flesh (see Gal. 5:16), but others are not in the Spirit but in the flesh and make war according to the flesh (see 2 Cor. 10:3) – the true worshippers must be those who worship the Father in Spirit and not in flesh, and in truth and not in types, but those who do not behave this way are not true worshippers. 110 The person who is in slavery to the letter that kills – neither sharing in the life-giving Spirit (see 2 Cor. 3:6) nor following the spiritual meanings of the law – that person would be the one who is not a true worshipper, not worshipping the Father in spirit. That man, entirely adhering to types and bodily matters, even when he appears to have fully achieved his purpose, worships God in type and not in truth, and cannot therefore be designated a true worshipper. 111 It may indeed be conceded that the true worshipper, worshipping in spirit and in truth, sometimes reasonably does certain things as types, so that, acting according to a plan, he may liberate those enslaved to types, leading them out of types to the truth. It appears that Paul did this in his actions in relation to Timothy (see Acts 16:3), and doubtless also in Cenchreae (see Acts 18:18) and in Jerusalem (see Acts 21:23– 6), as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles.
It must be observed that the true worshippers do not worship the Father in spirit and in truth only in a future time, but in the present as well. But those who worship in spirit, worshipping as they have received, worship in the earnest of the Spirit (see 2 Cor. 5:5) in the present, but they will worship the Father in the entire Spirit, when they have obtained the entire Spirit. 113 If he who sees with a mirror does not see the truth, as has been demonstrated by those who are skillful in the study of optics, but Paul and those like him now see through a mirror, it is apparent that, as he sees, so he worships God. He worships God through a mirror, but when the time comes that will follow the present time, then will come worship in truth, that which is face to face and no longer beholding through a mirror (1 Cor. 13:12). XIX 114 Nonetheless, Heracleon supposes “we” in “we worship” to refer to one who is in eternity and those who go with him, for, he says, “they know the one whom they worship, worshipping in accordance with truth.” 115 But also “It says ‘because salvation is from the Jews,’ ” according to him, “because he was born in Judaea, but not among them, for he was not well pleased with all of them (see 1 Cor. 10:5), and because from this race salvation and the Word went out to all the inhabited world” (see Ps. 18:5 [19:4]; Rom. 10:18). “But,” he explains that, “according to an intellectual perception, salvation has come into existence from the Jews because they are images of things in the Fullness itself”. 116 But he himself and those of his opinion ought to have demonstrated how everything that belongs to Jewish worship is an image of things in the Fullness, if indeed they do not simply say this for public consumption, but actually consider it to be true.
In addition, as an explanation of worshipping God in spirit and in truth, he says that “the former worshippers in the flesh and in error worshipped one who was not the Father, so that,” according to him, “all the worshippers of the Artisan were deceived”.
Indeed Heracleon adds that “they venerated the creation and not the one who had genuinely created it, who is Christ, if, actually, ‘All things came into being through him and without him nothing came to be’ (Jn 1:3).”
For the Father even seeks such to worship him (Jn 4:23b).
XX If the Father seeks, he seeks through his Son, who has come to seek and save what is lost (see Lk. 19:10; Ezek. 34:16), namely the ones whom, cleansing and educating by his word and by sound doctrines, he prepares as genuine worshippers.
Heracleon says that “what belonged to the Father was lost in deep matter belonging to error. It is this which is sought, so that the Father may be worshipped by those who belong to him.”
If, therefore, he had had in view the account of the lost sheep (see Lk. 15:4–6) or of the son who had abandoned his father’s house (see Lk. 15:11–32), we would have accepted his interpretation.
But since, making up fables, those of his opinion provide no clear proofs that I am aware of concerning the loss of the spiritual nature, and provide us no distinct teaching concerning the times and ages before its loss, we find such serious objections adequate reason for deliberately dismissing them.
God is spirit, and those worshipping him must worship him in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24).
XXI Since many persons affirm many things about God and his being, so that some say that he is of subtle and ethereal bodily nature, others of an incorporeal nature, and yet others of a nature exceeding being by dignity and power, it is worthwhile for us to see if we have impulses from the divine Scriptures toward saying anything concerning God’s being.
Here it is said that his being is in some way “spirit.” “For,” it says, “God is spirit,” but, in the law “fire” – for it is written, “Our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29; see Deut. 4:24) – and, in John, “light” – for it says, “God is light and there is not any darkness in him at all” (1 Jn 1:5). 125 If, therefore, we attend to these things in a simpler way, not delving beyond the words themselves, it is the time to say that God is a body. What absurdities result from our saying this it is not possible for the majority to know. Few indeed have understood about the nature of bodies, especially those constituted with reason and providence, saying indeed that what exercises providence is broadly of the same being as those things that are objects of providence, but an object of providence can be perfect. But those wishing God to be a body have accepted all the absurdities that accompany their doctrine, because they cannot face up to the evident consequences of their reasoning.
I say these things while making an exception for those who say that there is a fifth nature of bodies in addition to the elements.
But if each body has a material nature, properly speaking, without qualities – variable, changing, entirely transformable, receiving whatever qualities its artisan wishes to endow it with – it is necessary that God is a material being, variable, changing, and transformable.
These men are not even ashamed to say that he is perishable, being a body, but a spiritual and ethereal body, especially as regards his governing faculty, but even though he is perishable, he is not destroyed, because they say there is nothing to destroy him.
But if, in disregard for the consequences, we say that he is body and, on account of Scripture, some particular kind of body, namely spirit, consuming fire, and light – not accepting what which necessarily follows from these, like foolish persons who speak against the evidence – every fire is indeed perishable because it requires fuel, and every spirit, if we accept “spirit” in a very simple way, is, being a body, by its very nature subject to a change in density.
It is time, therefore, either to accept these absurdities and blasphemies against God by keeping to the words as they are, or to proceed, as we have in many other matters, and examine what can be indicated by saying that God is spirit, fire, or light.
XXII And first it must be said, that, just as when we find it written that God has eyes (Ps. 5:6 [5:5], 31:8 [32:8]), eyebrows (Ps. 10:4 [11:4]), ears (Jas. 5:4; Ps. 115:2 [116:2]), hands (Ex. 15:6; Deut. 33:3; Ps. 37:3 [38:2]), arms (Deut. 15:6; 1 Kings. 8:42; Ps. 70:18 [71:18]) and feet (Mt. 5:335; Acts 7:49), or even that he has wings (Ps. 35:8 [36:7], 90:4 [91:4]), we understand allegorically what is written, despising those who attribute to God a form like that of men, and we do this reasonably, we must act consistently in dealing with the above terms. And this is evident from what is apparently the most practical procedure, “For God is light,” says John, “and there is not any darkness in him at all” (1 Jn 1:5).
Let us inspect, to the best of our ability, how we must understand most intelligently that he is light, for the word “light” is employed in two ways, corporeally and spiritually, the latter being intelligible, for which the Scriptures say “invisible” and the Greeks use the term “incorporeal”. 133 An example of the corporeal usage, approved by all who accept the narrative, is: “There was light for all the children of Israel in all the places where they resided” (Ex. 10:23). An example of the intelligible and spiritual is in one of the Twelve Prophets: “Sow for yourselves in justice, gather for a fruit of life, light for yourselves a light of knowledge” (Hos. 10:12 LXX). 134 Similarly “darkness” can also, by analogy, be read in two ways. An example of the commoner usage is “And God called the light ‘day’ and the darkness he called ‘night’ ” (Gen. 1:5); an example of the intelligible is “The people sitting in darkness … and in the shadow of death, a light has risen upon them” (Mt. 4:16; see Isa. 9:1). XXIII 135 In these conditions it is worthwhile to see what it is appropriate for us to understand concerning the God who is called light in which there is no darkness at all. Is it then the corporeal eyes which God illumines as light or is it the intelligible, concerning which the prophet says, “Enlighten my eyes, so that I may not sleep in death” (Ps. 12:4 [13:3])? 136 I consider that it is apparent to all that we cannot say that God does the work of the sun, while leaving it to another to enlighten the eyes of those who should not sleep in death; accordingly God illumines the minds of those whom he judges worthy of his proper enlightenment.
But if he illuminates the mind, according to “the Lord is my enlightenment” (Ps. 26:1 [27:1]), it is necessary for us to comprehend that he is its intelligible, invisible, and incorporeal light.
Is he not also called “consuming fire” because corporeal fire seems to consume objects such as wood, hay, and stubble (see 1 Cor. 3:12)? If there are intelligible wood, hay, and stubble, is not our God the fire consuming such matter, he who is said to be “consuming fire”? And it is appropriate for the Lord to consume such things and to obliterate evil, so that, when this happens, pain and distress reach, without, I suppose, any physical contact, to the governing faculty, which is the location of that building that deserves to be consumed.
God is therefore termed light, so called by using corporeal light as a metaphor for an invisible and incorporeal light, on account of its power to enlighten intelligible eyes, and in the same way he is addressed as consuming fire, so conceived after a corporeal fire consuming a similarly corporeal matter.
Such also appears to be the case with respect to “God is spirit.” Since we are in the intermediate state ordinarily called “life” we are made alive by the spirit because our own spirit produces what is called, in a very corporeal way, “the breath of life” (see Gen. 2:7). I understand that God, who leads us to the genuine life, has come to be called “spirit” from this spirit. For the spirit is said, according to Scripture, to be “life-giving” (see 2 Cor. 3:6), but evidently it gives not the intermediate life, but the more divine. For the letter kills and brings about death, not the death which consists of the separation of the soul from the body, but the death which is the separation of the soul from God, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. XXIV 141 Also do we not better comprehend “You remove their spirit, and they perish” and “You send out your spirit and they are created, and you renew the face of the earth” (Ps. 103:29– 30 [104:29–30]) in this sense of “spirit,” if we understand that he who is deprived of the divine spirit becomes earthy (see 1 Cor. 15:47)? After making himself ready to receive it and accepting it, he will be re-created, and, being re-created, he will be saved. 142 Such would also be the sense of “He blew into his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7), so that we can regard spiritually the “blowing.” the “breath of life” and the “life” of the soul. 143 Since when the above power finds the soul of the holy person, as it were, an appropriate dwelling, providing a residence for itself in it, so to speak, so it must be supposed that it was written that “I shall dwell in them and walk about among them, and I shall be their God, and they shall be my people” (see Lev. 26:12; 2 Cor. 6:16).
However we require fuller exercise in order to be perfected and to have what the Apostle calls “senses exercised” (see Heb. 5:14) so that we can distinguish good things from evil, true things from false, and to understand matters theoretically, so that we may understand in a manner more opportune and more worthy of God, in so far as human nature is capable, how God is light, fire, and spirit. 145 And in Third Kingdoms, when the Spirit of the Lord came to Elijah, it implies something about God:
For he said “You shall depart tomorrow and you shall stand before the Lord on the mountain. See, the Lord will pass before you, and there will be a mighty wind breaking the mountains, crushing the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord will not be in the wind.”
(In other texts we read simply, “before the wind of the Lord.”)
After the wind will be an earthquake, but the Lord will not be in the earthquake, and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord will not be in the fire, and after the fire a sound of a slight breeze.
(1 Kings 19:11–12)
Doubtless this passage makes evident in what affairs one must participate before comprehending God, a matter not to be explained at the present time.
Who was appropriate to tell us who God is except his Son, “for no one knows the Father except the Son” (Mt. 11:27)? So that we know, by the revelation of the Son, how God is spirit, and we endeavor to worship God in the life-giving Spirit and not in the killing letter (see 2 Cor. 3:6), to revere him in truth and not in types, shadows, or tokens. In the same way, angels do not venerate God in tokens and shadows, as men venerate God, but in ways that are intelligible and heavenly, since they have a high priest after the order of Melchizedek as the leader of their service of intercession for those who need salvation and and for their mystical and unutterable contemplation.
XXV However, Heracleon says concerning “God is spirit” “For his divine nature is immaculate, pure, and invisible.” 148 I do not know if, by proclaiming these things, he taught how God is spirit, but, considering that he was clarifying “those worshipping must worship in spirit and in truth,” he says:
spiritually in a manner worthy of the one worshipped, not carnally, for, being of the same nature with the Father, whoever worships according to the truth and not according to error is spirit, as also the Apostle teaches, calling such a piety a “reasonable veneration” (see Rom. 12:1).
Let us discern if it is not extremely impious to say that they who worship God in spirit are of one being with the unbegotten and entirely blessed nature. These are the ones who, by Heracleon’s account, are shortly to fall. He says that “the Samaritan woman, even though she is of spiritual nature, had been made a fornicator.”
But those who say these things do not see that everything which is of the same being is also susceptible to the same things. If the spiritual nature had been allowed to commit fornication, even though of the same being with God, what unholy, godless, and irreverent consequences follow from such a doctrine about God it is not without danger even to imagine!
But we are persuaded by the Savior who says: “The Father who sent me is greater than I” (Jn 14:28, see 6:44) and for this reason would not even bear to have the epithet “good” (see Mk. 10:18) applied to him in its proper, true, and perfect sense, but graciously referred it to the Father, finding fault with the person who wished to glorify the Son too much. We say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit transcend all generated beings, not by comparison, but by an absolute transcendence, but that he is transcended as much and more by the Father, as he and the Holy Spirit transcend other beings, not just ordinary ones.
How is it possible even to say what great praise belongs to one who transcends thrones, dominions, rulers, powers, and every name named, not just in this age, but in the age to come (see Eph. 1:21), and in addition the holy angels, spirits, and souls of the righteous? 152 But even though transcending by his being, dignity, power, divinity – for he is the living Word – and wisdom being so many and so great, he can in no way be compared to the Father. 153 For he is the image of his goodness and the emanation not of God, but of his glory and his eternal light, and the exhalation not of the Father, but of his power, and the pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty, and the spotless mirror of his activity (Wis. 7:25–6; Heb. 1:3), the mirror through which Paul and Peter and those like them see (see 1 Cor. 13:12) God, because he said: “He who has seen me has seen the Father who sent me” (Jn 14:9, see 12:45).
The woman says to him: “I know that Messiah is coming, called Christ. When he comes, he will announce everything to us” (Jn 4:25).
XXVI It is worthwhile to see how the Samaritan woman, who accepts nothing beyond Moses’ Pentateuch, hopes for the advent of Christ as it is proclaimed by the law alone. Perhaps it is from Jacob’s benediction to Judah that they hope that there will be a coming of the one who said “Judah, may your brothers praise you, may your hands be on the back of your enemies, the sons of your father will worship you” (Gen. 49:8), and, a little farther on “a ruler from Judah shall not be lacking and a leader from his loins, until what is laid up for him arrives, and he is the expectation of nations” (Gen. 49:10). 155 Perhaps also it is from the prophecies of Balaam that they hope for the same thing, namely that
A man shall go forth from his seed and shall rule over many nations, the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his kingdom shall be increased. 156 God has conducted him out of Egypt; his glory shall be like that of the unicorn. He will eat the nations of his enemies and will suck marrow from their stout parts. With his arrows he will shoot down his enemy. When he has lain down, he has rests like a lion and like a lion’s whelp. Who will rouse him? May those who bless you be blessed and may those who curse you be cursed.
(Num. 24:7–9)
In what follows, Balaam himself says:
I shall show them, but not now. I shall bless, and he does not approach. A star shall rise from Jacob, and a man shall arise from Israel, and he shall shatter the captains of Moab, and he shall carry away captive all the sons of Seth. And Edom shall be his inheritance and Esau his enemy shall be his inheritance, and Israel will act in strength. And he shall arise from Jacob and he shall destroy what is saved from the city.
(Num. 24:17–19 LXX)
You shall examine if it also seems right for the Samaritans to consider Moses’ blessing on Judah – the one which goes “Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah, and may you go to his people. May his hands together judge for him, and may you be his help from his enemies” (Deut. 33:7) – as a reference to Christ. 159 Since the Samaritans boast that Joseph is their patriarch, I investigate whether some of them admit that the blessing of Jacob to Joseph and that of Moses are said in view of Christ’s advent, but it is possible for anyone who wishes to take these sayings from Scripture itself.
And the Savior himself, knowing that Moses had recorded many instances of prophecy concerning Christ, said to the Jews, “If you believed Moses, believe me, because he wrote about me” (Jn 5:46).
But nonetheless most of the things it is possible to find recorded about Christ in the law are referred to him as types and enigmatically. At the present time I do not see any examples more obvious and more clear than these.
He is, moreover, called “Messiah” in Hebrew, which the Seventy translated “Christ,” but Aquila “Anointed.”
XXVII It must also be carefully thought about whether “When he comes, he will announce everything to us” was said by the Samaritan woman from a tradition or from the law. We must not ignore, moreover, that, just as Jesus arose among the Jews, not only saying that he was the Christ, but demonstrating it, so from the Samaritans a certain Dositheus arose, saying that he was the Christ prophesied, from whom came the present Dositheans, who possess the books of Dositheus and recount certain fables concerning him, such as that he did not taste death but is somehow still in life. This will suffice for the text itself.
Nonetheless, heterodox thought – beside Jacob’s spring, which she supposes to be a well – terms “Christ” that doctrine which she understands to be more perfect, saying: “When he comes, he will announce everything to us.” But he whom she awaited and hoped for, being present, says: “I am, the one who is speaking to you” (Jn 4:26).
See also what Heracleon says, for he says: “The church had received Christ and was convinced concerning him, that he alone knew all things.”
Jesus says to her: “I am, the one who is speaking to you.” And at this point his disciples came and they marveled that he spoke with a woman. However, no one said: “What are you seeking? Why are you speaking with her?” (Jn 4:26–7).
XXVIII It must be investigated if somehow Christ proclaimed good news about himself, and these passages must be compared to one another, namely, “I am the one who testifies concerning myself, and the Father who sent me testifies concerning me” (Jn 8:18), and “If you believed Moses, believe me, for he wrote about me” (Jn 5:46), and any other passage like these in any of the gospels.
Besides, at the verbal level, here we also learn from him that he is gentle and humble of heart (see Mt. 11:29), for he does not disdain to discuss such matters with a woman who is a water-carrier, who on account of her great poverty must leave the town and labor in order to draw water. 167 For even the disciples marvel when they come, because they have already contemplated the magnitude of the divinity in him, marveling that such a great person would speak with a woman. But we, under the impulse of boasting and disdain, scorn those who are inferior, forgetting that “Let us make man according to our image, and according to our likeness” (Gen. 1:26) applies to each human being. 168 Not remembering the one who fashioned us in the womb (see Jer. 1:5) and fashioned one by one the hearts of all men (see Ps. 32:15 [33:15]) and who attends to all their deeds, we do not know that he is the God of the humble, the helper of the lowhest, the protector of the weak, the shelter of the hopeless, and the savior of the rejected (see Jdt 9:11).
But he used that woman as an apostle to those in the town. She was so inflamed by his words that, abandoning her water-jar and returning to the town, the woman said to the men: “Come, see a man who has told me everything I have done. Is this man not the Christ?” so that “they left the town and began to come to him” (see Jn 4:28–30). And this was the particular time when the Word revealed himself most clearly. So the disciples marveled when they came that even she, a female easily led astray, should have the Word discoursing with her. 170 Nonetheless, persuaded that all things are brought into existence appropriately by the Word (see Jn 1:3), the disciples did not fuss or raise doubts about the questions he asked the Samaritan woman and about his conversation with her.
Doubtless they were astounded by the great beneficence of the Word who condescends to the soul who despised Zion and had her faith in the Mountain of Samaria, so that is why it was written: “they marveled that he spoke with a woman.”
But Heracleon says with respect to “I am, the one who is speaking to you” that
since the Samaritan woman was persuaded concerning the Christ, that at his arrival he would announce all things to her, he says: “Know that that one, whom you await, I am he, the one who is speaking to you.” And when he had confessed that he was the expected one who had come[, he says,] his disciples came to him, on whose account he had come into Samaria.
But why did he come into Samaria on account of the disciples, who were already with him?
The woman therefore abandoned her water-jar and went back into the town and says to the men: “Come, see a man who has told me everything I have done. Is this man not the Christ?” (Jn 28–29).
XXIX It is not in vain, I suppose, that the evangelist has recorded that the woman left her water-jar behind, which the woman did when she went back into the town. According to the text, it indicates the great zeal of the Samaritan woman, who abandoned her water-jar, thinking that such a corporeal and humble duty was not of as great importance as the benefit to many people. For she was moved by most charitable sentiments in desiring to announce the good news of Christ to the townspeople, testifying about him that he has told her everything she had done. 174 She called them to see a man who had a doctrine greater than a man, for what was visible to her eyes was a man. It is therefore necessary for us, forgetting corporeal realities and abandoning them, to hasten to share with others the benefits in which we have participated, for it is to this that the evangelist invites us, in recording, for those knowing how to read, the praise of the woman.
However, we must scrutinize what is, in an elevated sense, the water-jar which the Samaritan woman left behind when she had accepted in some way the words of Jesus; it is doubtless the recipient of the water which she had revered on account of its depth, that is, of the teaching, which she went along with earlier, but which she rejected with disdain when, from something greater than the waterjar she took some of the water that was already becoming in her a source of water leaping to eternal life (see Jn 4:14). 176 For how could she proclaim Christ charitably to the townsfolk without having partaken of this water, marveling that he had announced all that she had done, if she had not partaken, that is, through what she had heard, of the Savior’s water?
Nonetheless, Rebecca, a virgin beautiful in appearance, also went out with a water-jar on her shoulders, before she encountered the servant of Abraham before he had finished speaking to himself, but she did not draw as did the Samaritan woman. She descended to the spring and filled the water-jar, and on her ascent Abraham’s servant ran to her and said: “Give me a little water to drink from your water-jar.” 178 Since he was Abraham’s servant, he would have liked to receive even a little water from Rebecca’s water-jar “and Rebecca hastened and lowered the water-jar to her arm and gave him drink until he stopped drinking” (see Gen. 24:15–18). Therefore it is evidently because Rebecca’s water-jar is praiseworthy that she does not abandon it, but that of the Samaritan woman, not being so, is abandoned at the sixth hour (see Jn 4:6).
XXX Here, then, a woman announces the good news of Christ to the Samaritans, but, at the end of the gospels also, a woman who had beheld him before all the rest recounts the resurrection of the Savior to the apostles. 180 Nonetheless, the one was not thanked by the Samaritans for announcing the good news of the faith in its perfection, since they said: “It is no longer through your speech that we believe, for we have heard and know that this is truly the Savior of the world” (Jn 4:42). And the other was not entrusted with first-fruits of contact with Christ, who said to her: “Do not touch me,” for Thomas was going to hear: “Place your finger here and see my hands, and lift your hand and put it in my side” (Jn 20:17). 181 But these are all the things which the woman did. She had had intercourse with five husbands and after them stooped to a sixth who was not her real husband. After renouncing him and abandoning her water-jar, she was reverently refreshed by a seventh and recommended the benefit of this to the inhabitants of a town, her own town, founded on her former dogmas and built on unsound doctrines. Then the occasion arose for the inhabitants also to leave the town and come to Jesus.
In what follows it is with complete awareness that the Samaritans ask Jesus, not to stay in their town but, “by them” (Jn 4:40), that is, that he come to be in their governing faculties, for doubtless he could not stay in their town, since indeed they acted well in leaving the town and coming to him.
That such an interpretation is evidently the most accurate, because the evangelist himself impels us to an elevated meaning, may be determined from this: 184 first it is written “They left the town and came to him,” and a little later, “Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him on account of the woman’s discourse, testifying: ‘He told me everything I have done,’ and then having come to him, the Samaritans asked him to stay with them” (Jn 4:39–40). 185 Therefore the Samaritans first left the town to go to him and subsequently came to him while he was still at Jacob’s spring, for he does not seem to have moved from there, and they asked him to stay with them. It is not written after this that they re-entered the town, but “He stayed there two days.”
But also in what follows it is not said “After two days he departed the town,” but “And he departed from there” (Jn 4:43). In so far as the intelligible meaning is concerned, the entire plan of benefits to the Samaritans took place beside Jacob’s spring. XXXI 187 But Heracleon considers the water-jar to be the aptitude to receive life and mindfulness of the power which comes from the Savior. He says that
she left it by him, that is, having left by the Savior such a vessel, with which she had come to receive living water, she turned back to the world announcing to those called the good news of Christ’s advent, for it is through and by the Spirit that the soul is led to the Savior.
Let us consider if it is possible that this water-jar is being praised by being completely abandoned, for it says “the woman therefore abandoned her water-jar.” It is not added that she abandoned it “by the Savior.” 189 And is it not implausible to interpret the text as meaning that, after she had abandoned “the aptitude to receive life and mindfulness of the power which comes from the Savior” and the vessel in which she had come to receive living water, she had returned to the world without them in order to announce to those called the good news of Christ’s advent?
And how is it also that the “spiritual woman” had not believed in Christ in a precise way, but says: “Is this man not the Christ?”?
And he explained “They left the town” as “they left their previous worldly manner of life, and came by faith to the Savior.”
One should say to him: “How is it that he stays with them two days?” because he has not taken notice of what we just explained, namely that it is recorded, not that he was in the town, but that he had stayed two days.
