G.Second Sign — Healing the Nobleman's Son (4:46-54)

G.Second Sign — Healing the Nobleman's Son (4:46-54)

JOHN 4

F. THE SECOND DISCOURSE — THE WATER OF LIFE (4:1-42)

1. Jesus' Departure for Galilee (4:1-3)

1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.

Jesus had been at work in Judea. The next incident John narrates took place in Samaritan territory; therefore John inserts a brief section to explain this change of scene.

1 "Therefore" (which NIV omits) is at first sight a little curious, for in the immediately preceding section John has not mentioned the Pharisees, nor, of course, how they came to know what Jesus was doing. We can take it only as marking a stage in Jesus' journeyings.¹ For "Jesus" many MSS read "the Lord," and this should probably be accepted.² The expression might be used as an ordinary polite form of address (much like our "Sir"), but it could also be used with reverence and awe, for example, when it was used of the Deity. After the resurrection it was used of Jesus habitually, though during his lifetime it was apparently not much used of him other than in the ordinary polite sense. He was usually referred to by name as "Jesus" or else as "Teacher" ("Rabbi"), and this whether in direct address or in the third person. In this Gospel he is often called "Sir" (vv. 11, 15, 19, 49 etc.), or "Rabbi," by people who have not come to understand the significance of his Person. At first the disciples do this as well as others. But in 6:68 Peter calls him "Lord," which we may not unfairly associate with the heightened appreciation shown in the words that follow. After this the disciples sometimes use "Rabbi" (9:2; 11:8), but they also use "Lord" (11:3, 21; 13:6; 14:5, etc.; of course some of these may well be examples of "Sir" rather than "Lord"). The climax is reached in Thomas's magnificent exclamation: "My Lord and my God"! (20:28). After the resurrection the disciples habitually use "Lord." It is also worth noticing that the Evangelist himself speaks of Jesus as "the Lord" only here and in 6:23; 11:2; 20:20; 21:12. His reserve may be a mark of acquaintance with the primitive state of affairs.³ We should, however, notice that while the title "Lord" was not characteristic during the earthly ministry the lordship of Christ was there. The relationship established during the days of his flesh prepared the way for the full use of the title in later times.

The Pharisees⁴ have already been mentioned as taking a close interest in John the Baptist (1:19, 24). It is not surprising that they took steps to acquaint themselves with Jesus' activities also. The situation reflected in 3:26 (where see note) is continued here. Jesus drew many more adherents than did the Baptist.

2   In an aside the Evangelist makes it clear that, though⁵ baptism was practiced in Jesus' circle and with his approval,⁶ he himself did not perform⁷ the rite. That was left to the disciples.⁸

3   John does not say that the Pharisees took any action against Jesus, or even that they were planning any such action.⁹ But it is not likely that they would view with equanimity the rapid increase in the number of Jesus' followers. Jesus, however, forestalled any action on their part by withdrawing from Judea and setting out for Galilee. He would not precipitate a clash until the right time. Probably also he did not wish to enter into a controversy on baptism. John's word for "left" is unusual in the sense of leaving a place. It often has the meaning "abandon" (as in v. 28 of the woman's waterpot), and there may be something of this meaning here.¹⁰

2. Living Water (4:4-14)

4Now he had to go through Samaria. 5So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour. 7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) 9The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.^a) 10Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." 11"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water. 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?" 13Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

a. 9 Or do not use dishes Samaritans have used

Nicodemus was an eminent representative of orthodox Judaism. Now John records an interview Jesus had with one who stood for a class that was wholeheartedly despised by orthodox Judaism.¹¹ From the point of view of the orthodox Jew there were three strikes against her: she was a Samaritan, a woman, and a sexual sinner. Curiously Marsh speaks of her as "a representative of her people at their best" (p. 209), but it is difficult to think that the Samaritans could do no better than this specimen of matrimonial maladjustment! But the rivalries and hatreds that were meat and drink to the Jews of his day mattered not at all to Jesus. His was a ministry for all people. John is clear that Jesus came to bring salvation for people of all races, and this incident strikingly brings out this truth. In the former incident Jesus spoke of the importance of the new birth. Here his theme is the living water that he came to bring to needy people. The terminology is different, but the basic message is the same.¹² A feature of this story is the way the woman persistently attempts to avoid the issues Jesus raises. But just as persistently Jesus brings her back to them until finally he secures the desired result.¹³

R. H. Lightfoot points out that there are parallels with the passion narrative. In both we read of Jesus' physical distress (4:6; 19:1-2), and of his thirst (4:7; 19:28). In both there is a time note mentioning "the sixth hour" (4:7; 19:14) and a reference to the completion of his work (4:34; 19:30; the Greek verbs are related). There may be nothing to all this, but in 4:42 Jesus is called "the Savior of the world," John may accordingly be recalling of set purpose incidents that point to the Passion, wherein the world's salvation was wrought out.

4   The necessity for Jesus to pass through Samaria¹⁴ was not absolute. Strict Jews, like the Pharisees, disliked the Samaritans so intensely that they avoided their territory as much as possible.¹⁵ Their route from Jerusalem to Galilee lay through the region beyond the Jordan. This was considerably longer, but it avoided contact with the Samaritans. Those who were not so strict went through Samaria.¹⁶ For those in a hurry the shorter way was a necessity. Josephus uses exactly the expression here rendered "had to" when he says, "for rapid travel, it was essential to take that route (i.e. through Samaria)" (Vit. 269). John may possibly wish us to take the expression in this fashion. More probably the necessity lay in the nature of the mission of Jesus. John often uses the word "must" of this mission (3:14; 9:4; 10:16; 12:34; 20:9; see on 3:7). The expression points to a compelling divine necessity. Jesus had come as "the light of the world" (9:5). It was imperative that this light shine to others than Jews.

The reason for the hostility of the Jews to the Samaritans goes back a long way. When the Assyrians took Samaria captive they deported large numbers of the inhabitants and replaced them by people from all over their empire (2 Kings 17:23-24). These people brought their own gods with them (2 Kings 17:29-31), but they added the worship of Yahweh to their other practices (2 Kings 17:25, 28, 32-33, and 41). In time their polytheism disappeared, and they worshiped Yahweh alone, though their religion had its peculiarities. For example, they acknowledged as sacred Scripture only the Pentateuch. They thus cut themselves off from the riches in the Psalms, the Prophets, and other books. Their religion was also marked by a pronounced bitterness toward the Jews. When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon the Samaritans offered to help them rebuild their temple, but the offer was refused (Ezra 4:2-3). This naturally engendered great bitterness. One might have expected that the Jews would have appreciated the fact that the Samaritans worshiped the same God as they did. But it did not work out this way. The Samaritans refused to worship at Jerusalem, preferring their own temple built on Mt. Gerizim c. 400 B.C. When this was burned by the Jews c. 128 B.C. relations between the two groups worsened. Occasions of friction were not lacking, and by New Testament times a settled attitude of hostility had resulted.¹⁷ At the time with which we are dealing the hostility between Jews and Samaritans was bitter and widespread, though not universal. Properly "Samaria" was the name of the capital city, but the term was used also of the territory of which it was the capital. Here the latter, of course, is the meaning. "A Samaritan woman" (v. 7) means a member of the race that inhabited the general area, not a lady from the city of Samaria (which was many miles away).

5   Sychar is perhaps to be identified with the village called Askar, near Shechem.¹⁸ There is a reference to Jacob's buying of a piece of ground in this vicinity (Gen. 33:19). He also gave some land to Joseph (Gen. 48:22), and he was buried there (Josh. 24:32). There is no Old Testament reference to his having dug a well there, but there is nothing improbable about it.

6  The word for "well"¹⁹ is not the usual one (which is used later, vv. 11, 12). It signifies rather a spring or fountain. As applied to a well it may mean a well fed by a spring. But probably we should not look for too great precision. Some scholars think that the choice of word is linked with the "spring of water welling up to eternal life" (v. 14), where the other word would be impossible. But since the water is contrasted with that, the reason is not exactly impressive.

The well top was apparently furnished with a wooden or stone wall, which formed a seat for the weary traveler. In speaking of the weariness of Jesus, our Evangelist points to his true humanity. While he consistently depicts the full deity of Jesus, he is insistent also that he really became man, with all that that means in terms of human limitation. NIV omits John's "thus"; the passage may indeed mean "tired as he was" (with NIV), or perhaps, "thus as he was," that is, without selecting a good place. Chrysostom explains it as "Not upon a throne, not upon a cushion, but simply, and as He was, upon the ground" (31.3; p. 109). The note of time is quite in the Johannine manner (see on 1:39). The sixth hour is noon on our reckoning, which seems an unusual time for a woman to be drawing water; sunset seems to have been the favored hour. However, we should not overlook the fact that Josephus speaks of the damsels that Moses helped (Exod. 2:15ff.) as coming to draw water at noon (Ant. 2.257ff.), so the practice was not unknown. Perhaps even more curious is the fact that the woman should have come to this well at all, for there was plentiful water nearer her home. It may be that the water at Jacob's well was thought to be of better quality; being so deep it goes below the water table and may have yielded better water than more shallow wells. More likely there was some superstitious veneration for a place hallowed by associations with the great patriarch. But the woman had a bad reputation, and the explanation may be very simple — she chose the time and the place to avoid other women.

7-9   It was probably Jesus' weariness that led the disciples to leave him while they went into the village to buy food. He was thus at the well, possibly alone, when the woman came to draw water. He asked for a drink (the impossibility of his providing for his own need is brought out in v. 11²⁰). On this request Godet sagely remarks, "He is not unaware that the way to gain a soul is often to ask a service of it." But we should not think of the question as simply a device to get into conversation. Jesus really was thirsty. But his request startled the woman into asking, "What? You are a Jew, and you ask me for a drink — me, a Samaritan!" (Moffatt). That he should ask a woman for water is perhaps not so surprising, since it was women who generally drew water.²¹ But this particular request involved using the Samaritan woman's utensil, and Jews could be very scrupulous about contracting defilement. The words "For Jews do not associate with Samaritans" are probably the Evangelist's comment and not part of the woman's speech. The words seem to refer to the use of vessels for food or drink.²² The customary rendering "have no dealings with" is difficult to sustain, for the narrative informs us that the disciples had gone into the village to buy food.²³ It is hard to find what meaning we are to put into "have dealings with" if it does not cover buying food, all the more so in view of the importance the Jews attached to food laws.

10   Jesus immediately lifts the conversation to a higher plane by speaking of God's gift, and of seeking "living water." His word for "gift"²⁴ (here only in the Gospels) stresses the freeness of it all. It is a matter of bounty. Jesus is referring to the new life he brings. Had the woman been aware of the realities of the situation in which she found herself, and especially of the fact that she was speaking to him whom God had sent to give life to the world, the asking would have been the other way around.²⁵ This is indicated by the use of the emphatic "you." In the ordinary usage of the time "living water" was water that flowed. It was water in a river or stream as against water in a pond or cistern, which did not flow. This usage is almost invariable. And it is worth noting that, while the rabbis freely use "water" in a metaphorical sense,²⁶ they rarely employ "living water" in this way.²⁷ For the meaning of the present passage there may possibly be significance in the fact that "living water," water that flowed, was greatly preferred for purposes of ritual purification. It was "living water" that took away defilement and made acceptable worshipers out of unclean people. But Jesus is giving the expression a deeper meaning than that. The living water that flows from within the believer is later explained in terms of the Holy Spirit (7:38-39), and something similar is required here. Jesus is speaking of the new life that he will give, a life connected with the activity of the Spirit. He calls himself "the bread of life" (6:35), but not "the living water." Living water rather symbolizes the Spirit,²⁸ whom he would send, than the Christ himself. Odeberg shows that in a number of Jewish writings water symbolizes teaching or doctrine.²⁹ It seems likely that the primary meaning here is the Holy Spirit. But, in the manner so typical of this Gospel, there may be also a reference to Jesus' teaching. If so, it will be to his teaching as issuing forth in spiritual life.³⁰

In the Old Testament living water is sometimes associated with Yahweh. He is called "the spring of living water" (Jer. 2:13; 17:13). Again, an invitation can be issued in these terms: "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters" (Isa. 55:1). We should also bear in mind the waters that issued from the temple in Ezekiel's vision (Ezek. 47:1-12); perhaps the application of "a garden fountain" and "a well of flowing water" to the bride is also relevant (Song 4:15). And with Yahweh "is the fountain of life" (Ps. 36:9). We should not miss the claim implied in Jesus' words.

11-12   Up to this point the woman has no desire to talk about profound spiritual realities. She accordingly chooses to understand Jesus' words as referring to nothing more than water of the kind she came to draw (for similar misunderstandings see on 2:20). "Sir" (see on v. 1) is a respectful form of address, and may be meant to put a polite barrier between them. The well³¹ so deep (about a hundred feet) that it would be impracticable to secure water from it without some implement for drawing it up. And, as the woman points out, Jesus has nothing of the sort.

She sees a further reason for skepticism in the unimportance of her acquaintance; to her way of thinking there was nothing extraordinary about him. So she asks whether he is greater than Jacob, renowned as the great progenitor of the race,³² and particularly important in the present connection, since he was responsible for the well. "You" is emphatic, and the question is framed in a way that looks for the answer "No" (cf. GNB, "You don't claim to be greater than Jacob, do you?"). The woman is incredulous. The people of the day had a deep reverence for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (cf. 8:53, where Jesus is similarly asked whether he is greater than Abraham). The claims Jesus made sometimes seemed to them to imply that he was greater than the patriarchs, but in their eyes this was impossible. If he made the claim he was automatically wrong. In the woman's attitude there appears to be something of a sense of outrage. She was content with her patriarchal well. How dare a mere stranger claim to produce anything better than that? "The irony (for John and for most of his readers Jesus is of course greater than Jacob) is continued and is characteristically Johannine."³³

13-14   Jesus' response contrasts the impermanent result of drinking water from the well with the permanent consequences of receiving water from him.³⁴ Water from Jacob's well might quench a thirst, but it could not prevent thirst from rising again. The living water that Jesus gives is such that those who receive it are permanently³⁵ satisfied (cf. Matt. 5:6).³⁶ The living water becomes in them a vigorous stream (the word for "spring"³⁷ is that used in v. 6, where see note) issuing forth in eternal life (see on 1:4; 3:15). The movement of a fountain is brought out in the vigorous "springing up"³⁸ (or "leaping"; NIVs "welling up" is inadequate; the word in a compound form is used of the formerly lame man leaping up, Acts 3:8). The life that Jesus gives is no tame and stagnant thing. It is much more than merely the entrance into a new state, that of being saved instead of lost. It is the abundant life (10:10), and the living Spirit within people is evidence of this. It is more than possible that the words are also an indication that the life within believers goes into action (cf. 7:38; Isa. 58:11). Life has a way of begetting life.

3. The Woman and Her Husbands (4:15-19)

15The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water." 16He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back." 17"I have no husband," she replied. Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true." 19 "Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet."

Until this point it is probable that the woman was not serious. Perhaps she thought of the stranger as a little bit mad, and humored him accordingly. But there is no indication that she took seriously the important things he has been saying. Jesus now proceeds to show such knowledge of her and her affairs that she is startled into a recognition that he is more than he seems.

15   If the woman has any inkling of the meaning Jesus is giving the living water she chooses not to display it (cf. the way Nicodemus took the new birth literally, 3:4; cf. also the Galileans who asked Jesus to give them "the bread of God," 6:34). She understands his words with a crass literalism, and asks for the water "so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water." Her concern is with her own personal convenience. It would be nice not to have the need to make frequent journeys to the well and go the trouble of drawing water. Though the thing is impossible it is a pleasant thought to play with.

16-18   Jesus' request that she go and fetch her husband has no apparent connection with what precedes.³⁹ It is best taken as his way of bringing the woman's sin into the open. He is met with the curt response that she has no husband. "Her volubility is checked: in the fewest possible words she tries to stop a dangerous subject at once" (Plummer). Jesus' reply is devastating.⁴⁰ It shows that he knows all about her marital misadventures. He knows that she has had five husbands and that the man with whom she now lives is not her husband. This may mean that she had availed herself liberally of the provisions for divorce, but that after all that she was living with a man who was not legally her husband.⁴¹ Or it may mean, in accordance with the standards taught by Jesus (e.g. Matt. 19:3-9), that her last union was not really a marriage. In either case the woman recognized that she was in the wrong. How did Jesus know all about her? It is possible that the conversation is not reported in full, and that she had herself given him this information. While it is not likely that John has recorded everything that was said, this inference is precarious, especially in view of the woman's later words, "Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did" (v. 29). It is more likely that we have here an example of Jesus' more than human knowledge that John brings before us from time to time. This does not cast a reflection on Jesus' genuine humanity, but it indicates that there was revealed to him all that was needful for his ministry.⁴²

Some exegetes interpret the five husbands allegorically and find a reference to the false gods brought to Samaria by the colonists of 2 Kings 17:24. They suggest that Samaria now professed to worship Yahweh, but that he is not "your husband."⁴³ But this interpretation will not stand. In the first place, though it is true that five nations are mentioned in 2 Kings 17:24, the fact is that when their gods are listed in 2 Kings 17:30-31 there are seven of them.⁴⁴ The number is wrong. Moreover, the false gods in 2 Kings are not worshiped one after another (as the husbands followed one another), but simultaneously. Again, it is impossible to think that Jesus (or John) thought of the false gods as the legitimate husbands of the Samaritans and held that Yahweh, the one true God, was no "husband" but a paramour. And, as Beasley-Murray says, "more importantly the Evangelist does not allegorize in this manner." Moreover, it is difficult to understand how John's readers could have been expected to detect such an allusion. It is much better to take the passage at its face value, as a factual statement⁴⁵ about the men with whom the woman had lived.

19   What Jesus has just said has forced on the woman the realization that he is no ordinary being. She gives expression to this conviction by calling him a "prophet." The function of a prophet in the Scriptures was usually to tell forth a message he had from God. But there is evidence that among the people of this time a prophet was sometimes held to have a special insight into people (cf. Luke 7:39, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is"). It is possible that the woman was already groping toward the recognition that Jesus was the Christ. The Samaritans acknowledged no prophet after Moses other than the one spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:18, and him they regarded as the Messiah (see further on 1:21). For her to speak of Jesus as a prophet was thus to move into the area of messianic speculation.

4. True Worship (4:20-26)

20 "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." 21[Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." 25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." 26Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

The woman may have been genuinely interested in the topic she now raises. She is clearly impressed by Jesus. She has recognized him as a prophet. The right place for worship was a prominent topic of dispute between Samaritans and Jews. She may have been genuinely interested in what a prophet would say about this ancient and bitter controversy. But it seems more probable that she is simply trying to change the subject. She wants to steer the conversation away from the unpleasant subject of her sin, so she introduces a distraction. She points to the different ideas held by Jews and Samaritans about the place God has chosen in which people may worship him. But this gambit serves to open up the way for Jesus to speak of the essential nature of God and of the worship that should be offered him. Genuine worship is spiritual. It is not dependent on places and things.⁴⁶

20   The woman introduces her controversial topic. As we saw earlier (on v. 4), there was bitter division between Jews and Samaritans over the rival claims of Jerusalem and Gerizim as places for worship. Both the building of the temple on Mt. Gerizim (which the Jews regarded as an illegitimate rival to the only temple there could be, that in Jerusalem) and its destruction increased the bitterness between the two peoples. The woman, now convinced that Jesus was a prophet, but unwilling to apply his message to herself, refers to this great religious division. "Our fathers" points back to the building of altars in this region by Abraham (Gen. 12:7) and Jacob (Gen. 33:20). Mt. Gerizim was the scene of the blessing of the people when they came into the promised land (Deut. 11:29; 27:12). The Samaritans also read in their Bibles that an altar was commanded to be set up in this mountain (Deut. 27:4ff.).⁴⁷ They had a tradition that Abraham's offering of Isaac took place on this mountain and they held that it was here that Abraham met Melchizedek. In fact, most of the blessed events in the time of the patriarchs seem to have been linked with Gerizim! The Samaritans were helped in this by seeing references to their holy mountain in such expressions as "the house of God," "the goodly mount," etc.⁴⁸ All these associations, added to the building of the Temple on this height, made it a place especially holy for the Samaritans.⁴⁹ "You" is in emphatic opposition to "our fathers." Far from accepting all this the Jews held that people must worship in Jerusalem.⁵⁰ They held that the Law teaches that there can be only one place for the temple (Deut. 12:5). Though it is not specifically said in the Pentateuch that Jerusalem is this one place, this is laid down in other parts of Scripture (2 Chron. 6:6; 7:12; Ps. 78:68), and these passages carried conviction to Jews. But they meant nothing to the Samaritans, for they acknowledged no writings as sacred save the Pentateuch.

21   For "Woman" as a form of address see on 2:4. Jesus refused to be drawn into an argument. Rather, he solemnly predicts that a time is coming when worship will be possible in neither place. There may be a reference to the troubled times that lay ahead for the whole region of Palestine (cf. Luke 21:20ff., etc.). God is often called "the Father" in this Gospel (see on 1:14). Usually, however, it is the Father of Jesus Christ that is meant. Here he is thought of as the Father of all. The woman had appealed to the example of "our fathers"; Jesus points her to the one Father.

22   Jesus' concern is with the essential nature of worship. He accordingly points out to the woman the inadequacy of Samaritan worship. Though they worshipped the true God the Samaritans did so very imperfectly. When we consider that they rejected the writings of the Prophets, the Psalms, the historical books of the Old Testament, and much more we realize that their knowledge of God was, of necessity, very limited. Jesus says that they do not know what they worship (cf. Acts 17:23).⁵¹ Both his "you" and his "we" are emphatic. He sets Jews and Samaritans in sharp contrast. And he associates himself quite definitely with the Jews.⁵² They do know what they worship. Jesus uses the neuter, "that which," and not the masculine, "him whom," as might have been expected.⁵³ This may point to the whole system of worship (cf. Goodspeed: "You worship something you know nothing about"), and not confine itself specifically to the knowledge of God. The reason for the superior knowledge of the Jews is that salvation (this is John's one use of the term) comes from among them. This might perhaps be understood to mean that people enter salvation by following the Jewish system rather than that of the Samaritans. But, quite apart from the difficulty of fitting this into Jesus' teaching as a whole, there is an article with "salvation" that is probably significant. It is "the" salvation of which Jesus speaks. That is to say, the messianic salvation comes from this nation ("from" them, "not in them, or by them" [Marsh, p. 217]). The Messiah is a Jew.⁵⁴

23   It is probable that in this verse Jesus is pointing to the new way that he would inaugurate. "A time is coming and has now come" is a reference to a crisis, to something new. In the person of Jesus we see not only a repetition of old truths (be they held by the Jews or the Samaritans), but the appearing of God's definitive revelation. In due course he would die that atoning death which would bring salvation to the world. We cannot take his words as simply the enunciation of a principle that was always true (this, of course, is the case; but that is not what Jesus is emphasizing). Disputes between Jews and Samaritans will fade away. People will worship on neither pattern. Jesus has already spoken of the destruction of the temple (2:19ff.). Primarily he referred to the destruction of the temple of his body, but, as we saw there, there is probably also a reference to the new system of worship that Jesus would inaugurate, a system not tied to any particular holy place. So here he teaches that the distinction of which the woman speaks is outmoded.

True⁵⁵ worshipers worship "in spirit and truth." It is not likely that "spirit" here means the Holy Spirit (though the Spirit does help our worship, Rom. 8:26ff.). It is the human spirit that is in mind. One must worship, not simply outwardly by being in the right place and taking up the right attitude, but in one's spirit. For "truth" see Additional Note D (pp. 259-62). The combination "spirit and truth"⁵⁶ points to the need for complete sincerity and complete reality in our approach to God. There is an important point in the concluding statement that the Father seeks such⁵⁷ to be his worshipers.⁵⁸ It is not simply that he accepts such worship when it is brought to him. He is a God of love, a God who seeks the best for people, and therefore a God who actively seeks them out.⁵⁹

24   We should omit the indefinite article, which some translations (e.g., KJV, Knox) place before "Spirit." Greek has no such article, and we insert it or not in English as the sense requires. Here Jesus is not saying, "God is one spirit among many"; rather his meaning is "God's essential nature is spirit." The indefinite article is no more required than it is in the similar statements, "God is light" (1 John 1:5) and "God is love" (1 John 4:8). We must not think of God as material, or as bound in any way to places or things. The word order puts an emphasis on "Spirit." The statement is emphatic. Since he is essentially spirit it follows that the worship brought to him must be essentially of a spiritual kind. Notice the word "must." Jesus is not speaking of a merely desirable element in worship. He is speaking of something that is absolutely necessary. In view of the references to living water (which symbolizes the life-giving Spirit) in the context it is probable that this verse contains an allusion to the life-giving activity of God. This is all the more likely in that when the Old Testament refers to the Spirit of God, the usual idea is that of divine activity, not of opposition to things material. John not infrequently combines the ideas of Spirit and life (cf. 6:63). God is the living God. He is ceaselessly active as the life-giving Spirit, and he must be worshiped in a manner befitting such a Spirit. People cannot dictate the "how" or the "where" of worship. They must come only in the way that the Spirit of God opens for them.⁶⁰

25   This appears to be the woman's last attempt to evade the challenge Jesus is forcing upon her. She does not dispute what he has been saying. But her "he" is emphatic; it suggests that these are matters that really come within the province of none but the Messiah (for this term see on 1:20, 41). There are messianic prophecies in the Pentateuch, and thus the Samaritans expected the Messiah. But their rejection of the rest of the Old Testament meant that their information about him was meager.⁶¹ But the woman recognized his authority and looked to him to tell people "everything."⁶²

26   In words of simple dignity Jesus discloses the truth of his Person (cf. 9:37). This is the one occasion on which he admitted his messiahship prior to his trial (though cf. Mark 9:41). He knew that he was the Messiah, but to affirm it openly in Jewish circles would have been to arouse associations of that political Messiah which so many people expected. But in places like this country district of Samaria the term could be used with safety.⁶³ Jesus' "I am" raises problems. It may be that we have here nothing more than a simple affirmation. On the other hand, the use of the emphatic pronoun in this expression is in the style of deity (see on 8:58).⁶⁴ There is no "he" in the Greek. Jesus says, "I that speak to you, I am." Hoskyns comments, "Jesus is more than either Jew or Samaritan had comprehended in the word 'Christ'. He is the answer of God to the sin of the world." But if this is so, it is also the case that in this context the words cannot be only an affirmation of greatness. They are a challenge to respond. As Strachan puts it, they "are really another form of the invitation, 'Come unto me'."⁶⁵

5. The Woman's Witness (4:27-30)

27Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, "What do you want?" or "Why are you talking with her?" 28Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, 29" Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ^a?" 30They came out of the town and made their way toward him.

a. 29 Or Messiah

With the affirmation of Jesus' messiahship the conversation has been brought to its climax. There remains to be recounted only the effect of all this on others. John shows us both the surprise of the disciples and the evangelistic zeal of the woman. She bore such an effective testimony that people went out of the village to meet Jesus.

27   "Just then" means that the disciples returned just as Jesus made his great affirmation. For "his disciples" see on 2:2. They were astonished⁶⁶ to find him carrying on a conversation with a woman. Whatever might be thought of the propriety of asking for a drink (see on v. 7), no rabbi would have carried on a conversation with a woman. One of their sayings ran, "A man shall not be alone with a woman in an inn, not even with his sister or his daughter, on account of what men may think. A man shall not talk with a woman in the street, not even with his own wife, and especially not with another woman, on account of what men may say."⁶⁷ Yet, though the disciples were astonished, they did not question the action of the woman (the first hypothetical question) or that of their Master (the second). They had learned enough to know that, while Jesus did not always respect the conventions of the rabbis, he had good reasons for what he did.

28-29   The woman had come to the well expressly to obtain water. It is thus an indication of the deep impression that Jesus had made upon her that she left her waterpot there.⁶⁸ She completely abandoned the business in hand (though the abandoned waterpot meant that she would certainly return). She set about telling what had happened to her instead. She went back to the village and invited the men there to come and meet Jesus.⁶⁹ Her recommendation is couched in the terms "see a man⁷⁰ who told me everything I ever did." This pardonable exaggeration indicates the profound impression that Jesus' knowledge of her private life had made on her. The question, "Could this be the Christ?" is put tentatively. It is as though a negative answer might be expected, but a positive one is hoped for.⁷¹ For Messiah see on 1:20, 41.

30   Her news and her invitation evoked a response. The people went out from the city, and kept coming to Jesus ("The tense is vividly descriptive," Westcott). No indication is given of the number who came, but the impression left is that a considerable group was involved.⁷²

6. Christ's Food (4:31-38)

31Meanwhile his disciples urged him, "Rabbi, eat something." 32But he said to them, "I have food to eat that you know nothing about." 33Then his disciples said to each other, "Could someone have brought him food? " 34" My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. 35Do you not say, 'Four months more and then the harvest'? I tell you, open your eyes arid look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. 36Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. 37Thus the saying 'One sows and another reaps' is true. 38I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor."

The disciples' suggestion that Jesus should eat some of the food they had brought becomes the occasion for him to teach them something of his priorities. It was meat and drink to him to do the divine will, and the urgent task is not to be postponed.⁷³

31   While⁷⁴ the woman was about her business another scene was being enacted at the well. The disciples' suggestion that Jesus eat was eminently natural. The whole purpose of their trip into the village had been to buy food. They had left the Master weary, and presumably hungry. Now they brought food and asked him to eat. For "rabbi" see on 1:38.

32   Jesus' reply puts a distance between them. His "I" and "you" are in emphatic contrast. "Food"⁷⁵ is used generally of anything that can be eaten, but Jesus says he has sustenance of which the disciples have no knowledge.

33   Following a pattern that we have seen in the conversations with the Jews after the Temple cleansing (2:20, where see note), with Nicodemus (3:4) and with the woman (v. 15), the disciples misunderstand Jesus by taking his words in a literal and material fashion.⁷⁶ Their question expects the answer, "No." "Surely no one has brought him anything to eat?" But the point is that they are thinking only in terms of material food.⁷⁷ However, their complete misunderstanding opens up the way for Jesus to teach them valuable truths.

34   "My" is emphatic. Whatever be the case with others, Jesus' food is to do⁷⁸ the divine will.⁷⁹ The words are eloquent of a sense of mission and devotion. They speak, too, of the satisfaction it was to the Son to do the will of the Father. Notice that God is characterized as "him who sent me" (as often in this Gospel). The work that Jesus did was no mere human work. It was that of one sent by God. Quite often in this Gospel Jesus declares that the work he does is that which the Father has for him to do (e.g., 5:30; 6:38; 7:18; 8:50; 9:4; 10:37-38; 12:49, 50; 14:31; 15:10; 17:4). Obedience to the divine will is for him the major concern. Single-mindedly he presses on. Here he adds the thought of "finishing" his work (for "work" see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13). The verb is cognate with that used on the cross, when Jesus cried, "It is finished" (19:30).⁸⁰ It reminds us of the awful cost of that work, and underlines the devotion implied in the expression. There is a sense in which each stage of his work may be regarded as perfect and complete. And there is a deeper sense in which nothing is complete without the cross.

35   It is not easy to interpret the saying Jesus quotes. "You" is emphatic, which shows that it is not a saying of his. At first sight we would take it for a proverb. It is objected that such a proverb is nowhere attested, and that in fact it takes longer than four months for a harvest to ripen in Palestine. Accordingly the suggestion is made that Jesus is referring to a chance remark of the disciples as they looked at the fields green with the crops in their early stages. But it is even more difficult to think of this incident as taking place four months before harvest. Jesus' request for water points to a time of heat. Moreover, four months before harvest there would be plenty of surface water. A weary traveler would not depend on the charity of a chance acquaintance. A proverbial saying is rendered more likely in that the introduction "Do you not say" is not suited to a casual remark about the state of the crops.⁸¹ It is favored also by the metrical form of the saying. Its lack of attestation may be due to a rustic provenance. How many literary people today can cite all the rural adages now current? Modern rural sayings exist that are not embodied in formal literary works, and we have no reason for thinking it was otherwise in the first century. There is evidence, moreover, that the agricultural year was divided into six two-month periods, seedtime, winter, spring, harvest, summer, and the time of extreme heat.⁸² Thus four months elapsed between the end of seedtime and the beginning of harvest. This might well have given rise to a proverbial saying indicating that there is no hurry for a particular task. The seed may be planted, but there is no way of getting around the months of waiting. Growth is slow and cannot be hurried.⁸³ But Jesus did not share this view when applied to spiritual things. He had an urgent sense of mission and these words convey something of it to the disciples. They must not lazily relax, comfortable in the thought that there is no need to bestir themselves. The fields are even now ready for harvest.⁸⁴ There may even be the thought that in the kind of harvest in which they were engaged (unlike those on farms and the like) there is no necessary interval between sowing and reaping. The disciples must acquire a sense of urgency in their task.⁸⁵

36   "Even now" should probably be taken with this verse rather than the preceding (as KJV, "white already to harvest").⁸⁶ Already the man who is keen and active in his reaping is receiving his wage. Since payment was commonly made only for work completed, (or at least with a stage completed) this indicates something of the urgency of the task confronting the disciples. They must not delay when others are so far ahead of them that they are already receiving wages. Just who these reapers are is not said, and it is difficult to identify them. Perhaps Jesus does not mean that others are actually at work, but is simply continuing the thought of the previous verse. The harvest is ready. The wages are there. Let no one hang back. A harvest will not wait; unless it is reaped while it is ripe it will spoil and there will be no harvest.

Jesus is not thinking only of the wages. The reaper "harvests the crop for eternal life." Anyone who wins souls for Christ is at work on something with lasting consequences; this work is for eternity. The reaper is not in any way competing with the sower; in fact, he is cooperating with the sower, for reaping is simply completing the work that sowing commenced. So it is that the sower and the reaper rejoice together. Sometimes when there is a distinction between the sower and the reaper the thought is that the sower has lost all his labor (e.g., Deut. 28:33; Judg. 6:3; Mic. 6:15). But here there is cooperation. Sowing was hard and wearisome work, and it could be contrasted with reaping, which, though also hard, was joyful (Ps. 126:5-6). But here the interval between seedtime and harvest is done away (cf. Amos 9:13). Sower and reaper rejoice together.

37-38   Another proverb is pressed into service.⁸⁷ In farming, while it is usually the case that the sower looks forward to reaping, it also sometimes happens, as we have just seen, that "one sows and another reaps."⁸⁸ This is also true in a wide variety of situations outside agriculture, not least in the field of Christian service.⁸⁹ It must almost always be the case that those who reap precious souls profit from the work of those who have been before them. Each Christian worker is dependent for success on the labors of predecessors. This general truth is clear enough. But its detailed application is not so clear. One difficulty concerns the particular reaping Jesus had in mind. One would most naturally take it to refer to what the disciples were then doing, but the trouble is that they are not represented as doing anything at all about the reception of the Samaritans. Perhaps they did something that is not recorded. Or Jesus may be referring to such activities as those recorded in verse 2.

Again, the meaning of "others" is not clear. It may be that the plural is not meant to be significant and that Jesus refers to himself only.⁹⁰ If the saying refers only to the contemporary scene the "others" will be Jesus and the woman.⁹¹ J. A. T. Robinson has argued, convincingly to my mind, that the reference is primarily to the work of John the Baptist and his followers. Their work in this very area had prepared the way for Jesus and his band.⁹² Another possibility is that the labors of the prophets in days of old and of people like John the Baptist in more recent times are taken together as the basis for the work of the disciples. What is clear is that Jesus expected them to be reapers. The time spent with him was not only a time of training. It was a time in which they were meant to be rendering significant service.⁹³

The Christian will necessarily read this saying in the light of the cross. It was there, above all, that Christ sowed the seed (cf. 12:24). It is only because he so sowed the seed that eternal life may be reaped by anyone.

7. Samaritan Believers (4:39-42)

39Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." 40So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41And because of his words many more became believers. 42They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

John rounds off the section dealing with the Samaritans with a short statement of the woman's witness and of Jesus' brief stay. There is a magnificent climax as the Samaritan believers acclaim Jesus as "the Savior of the world."

39   For "believed in him" see on 1:12, and for "testimony"⁹⁴ on 1:7. Because the woman bore her testimony to Jesus faith was enkindled within the Samaritans. Many came to believe. The particular words that impressed them form a pardonable overstatement, but they certainly indicate that Jesus' unexpected knowledge of the intimate details of the woman's life had made a profound impression on her. Through her it was passed on to others.⁹⁵ It is an example of John's irony that he lets the words that reflect such a limited conception of messiahship pass, without drawing attention to what is really involved (cf. vv. 31ff.).

40   The new believers did not part readily with their newfound Lord. They pressed Jesus to remain with them ("urged" is in a continuous tense: they kept on asking him). Nor was their insistence without result. Jesus stayed with them for two days.

41-42   The result of this stay was an increase in the number of followers of Jesus. The absolute use of the verb "believe" is significant; so fundamental to Christianity is faith that it is not necessary to specify the object (see further Additional Note E, pp. 296-98). "His words" here means some-thing very much like "the gospel" (as in Mark 2:2). It is the whole message for which Jesus stands. Even in the case of those who believed because they heard Jesus for themselves there was some influence stemming from the woman as their "no longer"⁹⁶ indicates. They had been impressed by what she had said,⁹⁷ though their faith was not fully formed. The woman might introduce them to Jesus, but faith is not faith as long as it rests on the testimony of another. There must be personal knowledge of Christ if there is to be an authentic Christian experience. The incident forms something of an exemplification of Jesus' words in verses 37-38.

Their belief about Jesus is crystallized in the expression "the Savior of the world" (for "world" see Additional Note B, pp. 111-13, and for Jesus' messiahship see on 1:41). This expression occurs again in 1 John 4:14 and nowhere else in the New Testament. The word "Savior" is applied to the Father (Luke 1:47; 1 Tim. 1:1, etc.) as well as to the Son, though John never uses it outside the passages mentioned. It is used in the Septuagint of God the Father. Secular Greek writers employ it of a multitude of deities.⁹⁸ "Savior" is a very general word, but it certainly contains the idea of deliverance, of saving from serious disaster. Jesus is more than our perfect example.⁹⁹ He really saves. The addition "of the world" elevates the title to one of infinite grandeur. Jesus is not concerned with petty, minor issues. Nor is he the Savior of a few unimportant individuals. He is the Savior of the world.¹⁰⁰ Newbigin has an apt comment: "And so what was hidden from the wise and understanding Nicodemus is revealed to these spiritual babes, and while scribes and Pharisees stand aside, the pagan world flocks into the kingdom."

INTERLUDE IN GALILEE (4:43-45)

43After the two days he left for Galilee. 44(Now Jesus himself had pointed out that a prophet has no honor in his own country.) 45When he arrived in Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him. They had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, for they also had been there.

The scene of action shifts to Galilee, and John inserts a verse or two to explain this. He brings out two points: the one that a prophet is not honored in his own land, the other that the Galileans who had been in Jerusalem at the feast gave Jesus a welcome.

43-44   These two verses are joined by "for" (NIV has "Now"), but it is not easy to understand how the second gives the reason for the first. Verse 43 simply tells of the completion of Jesus' brief ministry in Samaria and the resumption of his journey to Galilee (cf. v. 3). The saying about a prophet being without acceptance in his own country is reported in all three Synoptists (Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24), and in connection with Jesus' visit to Nazareth.¹⁰¹ Perhaps the "for" is meant to indicate that Jesus must show that this is, indeed, the case.¹⁰² He had come unto his own, not under a delusion that he would be welcomed, but knowing full well that he must expect rejection. This would not take him by surprise, for it was in the divine plan. So, to fulfill all this implies he went to Galilee.

Some, it is true, argue that "his own country" refers to Judea, which he was just leaving. "Both by fact and the current interpretation of prophecy, Judaea alone could receive that title" (Westcott). Similarly Hoskyns maintains that Jerusalem was the home of every Jew; preeminently must it be so in the case of the Messiah. It is often added that only this interpretation accords with the circumstances. Jesus had been rejected in Judea, his own country, so he turned to another region, Galilee. Against this is the fact that the reason given for his leaving Judea was not failure but success (v. 1). Moreover, John nowhere indicates that Jesus is "of Judea," whereas several times he links him with Galilee where he had been brought up (2:1; 7:3,41,52, and especially 1:46; 19:19). This agrees with the witness of the Synoptists. It is also the case that if Judea were meant the words ought to be found when Jesus left that part of the country and not between his Samaritan and Galilean visits.¹⁰³ Brown makes the further point that "there is an implication in this explanation that Jesus was disappointed with the reception he had received in Judea and had come back to Galilee to be accorded the honor denied him in Judea. Such a search for human praise is abhorrent to the ideals of the Fourth Gospel (ii 24-25, ν 41-44)." R. H. Lightfoot argues powerfully that heaven is meant. He asks, "Does not St. John perhaps wish to teach that, if the Lord's patris is sought anywhere on earth, nowhere does He receive the honour due to Him, even as a prophet? For He is not of this world (8²³) and His patris is in heaven."¹⁰⁴ This view is much to be preferred to that which sees John as locating Jesus in Judea. But his earthly patris is surely Galilee, where he had lived almost all his life.

45   When he reached Galilee Jesus was welcomed¹⁰⁵ by the Galileans. Large numbers of them habitually went up to Jerusalem at the feasts, and some had been there for the events narrated in 2:13-25. "The Passover feast" (John says only "the feast," but the Passover is surely meant) is the one mentioned in that passage. Once again we are reminded that Jesus did many things that are not recorded. He cleansed the Temple, but the record is in-complete, as 2:23 plainly shows. It is not John's purpose to attempt a complete chronicle, but only to select such events and teachings as will bring out his thesis that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (20:31). So now he does not mention what the things were that so impressed the Galileans, but contents himself with pointing out that their attitude to Jesus was conditioned by what they had seen in Jerusalem. This is not quite what we would have expected after the words about a prophet having no honor (v. 44). This is probably another example of the Evangelist's irony. He does not stay to explain that the enthusiasm of the Galileans was not soundly based. It was dependent on the wonder arising from their sight of the signs, not on a realization that Jesus was indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world. Their very acceptance of him was thus in its way a rejection. They gave him honor of a sort, but it was not the honor that was due to him.¹⁰⁶

G. THE SECOND SIGN — HEALING THE NOBLEMAN'S SON (4:46-54)

46Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. 47When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death. 48"Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe." 49The royal official said, "Sir, come down before my child dies." 50Jesus replied, "You may go. Your son will live." The man took Jesus at his word and departed. 51While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. 52When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, "The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour." 53Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." So he and all his household believed. 54This was the second miraculous sign that Jesus performed, having come from Judea to Galilee.

The second sign of which John gives a report is a miracle of healing. It has some interesting features, notably that it is a case of healing at a distance. Jesus spoke the healing word in Cana and the boy was cured at Capernaum. It is quite in John's manner that the wonderful happening is spoken of as eliciting faith (v. 53). It is a "sign" that effects the divine purpose. The Synoptists relate two healings at a distance, that of the centurion's slave, (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10) and that of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter (Matt. 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30). Some exegetes have held that this is a variant of the story of the healing of the centurion's slave but about the only things in common are some interesting verbal parallels (noted, e.g., by Barrett and Hoskyns), and the healing at a distance. There the man is a centurion and thus a Gentile, here he is in Herod's service and probably a Jew;¹⁰⁷ there the person healed is a slave, here a son; there Jesus speaks his word of power in Capernaum, here in Cana; there the centurion's faith evokes Jesus' praise, here the father's faith is weak; there the centurion asks Jesus not to come to his home, here the father begs him to come. There the illness is paralysis, here a fever. There the elders plead for the man, here he pleads in person. This story takes place just after Jesus' return from Judea, which is evidently much later. The most notable difference, perhaps, is in the attitude of the man seeking healing. In the Synoptists when Jesus proposes going to his home, the centurion strongly opposes the idea and utters his notable words about his giving of commands and having them carried out without being present, whereas here the man asks Jesus to come to his home and when Jesus makes a comment without indicating a move he utters a peremptory "Sir, come down. . . ." The two attitudes are very different.¹⁰⁸ Despite the verbal parallels the two stories are distinct.¹⁰⁹

46   In Galilee Jesus made his way once more to Cana (see on 2:1). The statement that it was "where he had turned the water into wine" is a further indication that John means the earlier narrative to be taken as fact, and not simply as an allegory constructed to convey helpful spiritual truths. "Royal official"¹¹⁰ denotes one of the king's officers. He would have been an official attached to Herod's court. Evidently he had heard of the previous "sign" at Cana, so that when his son became ill with a fever (v. 52) he sought Jesus out.

47   The officer heard of Jesus' arrival and went to him. "Begged" is in a continuous tense, conveying the thought of a persistent request. The man's need was urgent. He pressed his plea. John makes the situation quite plain by telling us that the boy was "close to death."¹¹¹"Come" is really "come down" and is a minor mark of accuracy. Cana was on high ground, Capernaum by the lake.

48   Jesus' reply at first sounds rather harsh. But it is addressed to a wider audience than the officer, as the plural "you people" indicates. It is not so much Jesus' answer to the nobleman's request as "a reflection which He makes on the occasion of that request" (Godet). This is the typical attitude of the Galileans. "Signs" (see on 2:11 and Additional Note G, pp. 607-13) is a usual word in this Gospel for Jesus' miracles and a word that brings out the truth that these miracles have meaning. They point people to God. In this context, however, that thought is not prominent. Here the word means little more than "miracles" (NIV inserts "miraculous" to make this clear), while "wonders"¹¹² directs attention to the sheerly miraculous. The word denotes a portent, something beyond explanation, at which people can only marvel. Jesus is affirming that people such as the man who had come to him were lacking in that deep trustful attachment which is of the essence of faith. They looked for the spectacular, and sought him out only because they loved the sensational. "Never" renders an emphatic double negative.¹¹³ For the people of which he speaks, signs and wonders are an absolute necessity. In this Gospel it is clear that Jesus accepted people who came only because of the miracles (cf. 6:26; 14:11). But such faith is not the highest kind of faith (cf. 2:23-24).

49   The nobleman's deep concern comes out in this plea. He does not defend himself. He does not argue. He simply urges Jesus to do something before the child dies. The word for "child" is not that used in verses 46 and 47, but a term expressive of affection (Barclay, "my little lad").¹¹⁴ The father is so deeply anxious for the welfare of his son that no other consideration weighs with him.

50   Jesus' reply¹¹⁵ must have been totally unexpected. The man had been urging him to come down to Capernaum, evidently thinking that the Master's presence was necessary if he was to perform a cure (contrast the centurion of Matt. 8:5ff. who asked Jesus not to come to his house, since he could easily heal without doing so). Jesus' words impose a stiff test. He gives the man no sign. The officer has nothing but Jesus' bare word. But this is enough and he rises to the implied demand for faith. He believes what Jesus says and goes his way.

51-53   As he journeyed¹¹⁶ his slaves (this is the meaning of "servants") met him with the good news that the lad was well. On inquiring¹¹⁷ when¹¹⁸ the boy "got better"¹¹⁹ he was given a precise time: "yesterday at the seventh hour." This presents us with something of a difficulty. If John is using the normal method of computing time this will be about one o'clock in the afternoon. But since it is only twenty miles or so between Cana and Capernaum many feel that it is unlikely that the officer would still be on his way as late as this. They suggest accordingly that John was using the alleged Roman time system so that the time meant is 7 p.m. If the man reached Jesus at such a time he might well delay his return until the next day, but, they ask, Why would he do this if the encounter took place in the early afternoon? This suggestion has its attractions, but there are strong objections to the view that John ever uses the "Roman" system (see on 1:39). In the present case the man is expressly said to have believed Jesus, so that his anxiety was relieved and he may have been in no hurry to return. Practical considerations may also have weighed with him, such as the need to rest his horse (he would certainly have ridden the animal hard on the way to Jesus). Or the delay may have been accidental. In any case sunset would bring him into a new day, though admittedly "yesterday" would sound a little strange if used in the evening of an event that had occurred around midday.¹²⁰

At any rate the statement of the time coincided with the time when Jesus had told the nobleman that his son lived. This is the third time that we have been told that the boy "lives." John does not let his readers miss the emphasis on Me, that life which Jesus gives. The slaves' words were sufficient to cause the nobleman and his house to believe. In verse 50 this verb had been used of giving credence to Jesus' words (NTV translates, "took Jesus at his word"). Here it is used in the sense of becoming a Christian. Previously the man had known enough about Jesus to regard him as a talented wonder-worker. But the "sign" pointed him beyond that. He plainly saw the hand of God in it, and his whole attitude was modified accordingly. He became a believer. The "sign" transformed his faith into a greater faith.

54   This cannot mean the second¹²¹ of all Jesus' signs, for in 2:23 John has spoken of other signs. The sense is as Rieu renders it, "Thus once again Jesus wrought a miracle after leaving Judaea for Galilee." John has described two signs and both took place after a visit to Judea. Evidently he intends to link this sign with the preceding. In both cases there is divine power at work, but there is a progression. There there was a mighty miracle where Jesus was; here a healing at a distance. There there was a transformation in things (water into wine); here life is given to a boy as good as dead. See further Additional Note G, pp. 607-13.

ADDITIONAL NOTE D: TRUTH

In Greek writings generally the basic idea of truth is much like our own. It is truth as opposed to falsehood, reality as opposed to mere appearance.¹²² But in the New Testament the use of the term is complicated by the fact that it has imported some features from the Old Testament as well. There words like , and refer to truth, but they also refer to faithfulness, reliability, trustworthiness, sureness, and the like. Especially are they used of God, and it is probably not too much to say that they derive part of their meaning from the connection with God. He may in fact be called "the God of truth" (Ps. 31:5; Isa. 65:16). Truth is characteristic of God, and it is only as we know God that we know truth. But we may know truth, for God has revealed it. Thus Jacob can speak of "all the kindness and faithfulness (or "truth") you have shown your servant" (Gen. 32:10). Such a prayer as "in your faithfulness (or 'truth') destroy them (i.e. my enemies)" (Ps. 54:5) is perplexing until we remember that truth includes the complete reliability and integrity of God. He will certainly act in accordance with the highest conceivable morality.

In the New Testament truth is associated with God (Rom. 3:7; 15:8). In a very interesting passage Paul refers to idolatry as exchanging the truth of God for a lie (Rom. 1:25), which makes truth very close to God's essential nature. Truth is also associated with Christ (2 Cor. 11:10), and significantly in the expression, "as truth is in Jesus" (Eph. 4:21). This is often misquoted as "the truth as it is in Jesus" (and even translated this way in REB; NIV has "the truth that is in Jesus"). But Paul is not talking about that aspect of truth which he finds in Jesus. He is saying that the very truth of God, truth itself, resides in him. It is but a step to what Christ has done, and so we read of "the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:5), while "the word of the truth" can be explained as "the gospel of your salvation" (Eph. 1:13). Many passages could be cited here. Now all this affects the conduct of the believer. "The belt of truth" is to be "buckled around your waist" (Eph. 6:14). Christians are to "keep the Festival" with "the bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor. 5:8). Truth is to be as characteristic of the saved as it is of the Savior.

The summit of this development is reached in the Fourth Gospel. Truth for John is a very important concept. He uses the noun άλήθεια 25 times, over against once in Matthew and 3 times each in Mark and Luke (Paul has it 47 times, and it is found 20 times in the Johannine Epistles). There is a similar disparity with the adjectives άληθής (14 times in John, once each in Matthew and Mark, not in Luke, 4 times in Paul), and αληθινός (9 times in John, not in Matthew or Mark, once each in Luke and Paul). Plainly this concept matters to John.

Bultmann takes "the basic meaning of 'truth' in John" to be "God's reality, which, since God is the Creator, is the only true reality."¹²³ Especially important is the fact that truth may be linked with Jesus. He is "full of grace and truth" (1:14), and the source of grace and truth to people (1:17). John the Baptist bore witness to the truth (5:33), and, since he is depicted simply as a witness to Jesus (see on 1:7), this may also link the truth closely with Jesus. The Master could say, "I am ... the truth" (14:6). "So truth is not the teaching about God transmitted by Jesus but is God's very reality revealing itself — occurring! — in Jesus."¹²⁴ Truth understood in this way has a special connection with the cross. As the Gospel comes to its climax Pilate asks, "What is truth?" (18:38). No answer is given in words, but the Passion narrative gives the answer in deeds. As A. Corell puts it, "There can only be one meaning of αλήθεια in the Fourth Gospel: it is the truth about the death and resurrection of Jesus, to which witness is borne in 16.7 and 17.19. This is in accordance with the whole theology of the Fourth Gospel, the central point of which is the 'lifting-up' of Jesus."¹²⁵ Truth as Jesus understood it was a costly affair.

All this has consequences for his people. "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (8:31-32). To know the truth is not to enter intellectual freedom as such, but it is to enter into the liberating experience of being disciples of the Lord, with all that that means in terms of freedom from sin and guilt, and of fellowship with and knowledge of God. Jesus is not describing truth as an ethical virtue or a philosophical concept.¹²⁶ The thought is close to that of 17:3, which describes eternal life in terms of the "true" God and of Jesus Christ. We should probably consider here, too, the fact that "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (1:17), for this indicates a close link between truth and the gospel of God's grace. The whole of Jesus' ministry was exercised in order that he might bear witness to the truth (18:37; cf. 8:40, 45, 46; 16:7). By contrast the evil one does not stand in the truth, and, indeed, there is no truth in him (8:44).

Truth can be associated with the Spirit (who was to continue Christ's work). Indeed, this forms a distinctive feature of the teaching of this Gospel. The Spirit is "the Spirit of truth" (14:17; 15:26; 16:13; John can even say, "the Spirit is the truth," 1 John 5:6). Part of the work of the Spirit is to guide people "into all the truth" (16:13).

So significant for believers is truth that they can be said to be "of the truth" (18:37; NIV, "on the side of truth"). Only those who are "of the truth" hear Christ's voice (18:37). They are sanctified "in the truth" (17:17; NIV, "by the truth"). Indeed, Christ's sanctification of himself (which most exegetes agree involves a reference to setting himself apart for a sacrificial death) was "that they too may be truly sanctified" (17:19). They "do" the truth (3:21, NIV "lives by the truth"; contrast 1 John 1:6). Truth is a quality of action, not simply an abstract concept. Believers worship "in spirit and truth" (4:23-24). So important is this that the Father seeks such worshipers (4:23). Worship must be in conformity with the divine reality as revealed in Jesus.

The connection with Jesus is essential to the idea of truth as we see it in this Gospel. It starts from the essential nature of God, it finds its expression in the gospel whereby God saves people, and it issues in lives founded on truth and showing forth truth.¹²⁷

———————————————

1. See on 1:21 for John's use of οΰν. It is so much a mark of his style that we cannot insist on an inferential sense. It simply links this stage of the narrative loosely with the preceding.

2. ό Κύριος is read by ρ⁶⁶ ρ⁷⁵ A Β C f13 syr^s co etc. NIV follows D Θ f1 syr^c bo etc.

3. See further J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul's Religion (Grand Rapids, 1947), pp. 293-317; G. Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (Grand Rapids, 1954), pp. 118-40; and my The Lord from Heaven2 (London and Downers Grove, 1974), pp. 57-60, and the literature there cited.

4. Westcott comments, "It is worthy of notice that St. John never notices (by name) the Sadducees or the Herodians. The Pharisees were the true representatives of the unbelieving nation."

5. This is John's only use of χαίτοιγε (a strengthened form of χαίτοι). See on 1:5 for his use of χαί in the same sense.

6. W. F. Flemington examines the doubt cast by some on the authenticity of this statement (The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism [London, 1948], pp. 30-31). He thinks the association of both Jesus and his disciples with the Baptist to be significant. The silence of the Synoptists is understandable for they have nothing to say about this early ministry in Judea, while John does not speak of such baptism as is here attested at any later period.

7. The imperfect tense may indicate the habitual practice. Cf. Barclay: "although it was not Jesus Himself who was in the habit of baptizing." Godet comments on the significance of Jesus' practice: "By baptizing, He attested the unity of His work with that of the forerunner. By not Himself baptizing, He made the superiority of His position above that of John the Baptist to be felt."

8. Calvin comments on the significance of baptism by Christian ministers: "He

calls Christ's Baptism that which He administered by the hands of others, to teach us that Baptism is not to be valued from the person of the minister, but that its whole force depends

on its author, in whose name and by whose command it is administered . . . our Baptism

has no less efficacy to cleanse and renew us than if it had been given directly by the Son

of God."

9. E. Stauffer even thinks that the Pharisees were friendly. They had never liked the Baptist, but they "could see an ally in Jesus, the man who observed the sabbath so conscientiously, and who enforced so strictly the prohibitions against carrying anything in the temple area; they spoke amongst themselves with satisfaction at his unparalleled success at his baptism ... to Jesus this was a sign that he should retire" (Jesus and His Story [London, 1960], pp. 62-63). But this seems to be an unlikely reading of the evidence.

10. The verb is άφίημι. Morgan comments: "We should not misinterpret the thought if we said He abandoned Judaea. He did go back, but very seldom. He had been to Judaea. He had gone to the Temple. He had exercised His ministry in the surrounding country with marvellous success; but hostility was stirring there, and He left Judaea; He broke with it." So also Plummer: "First the Temple, then Jerusalem, and now Judaea has to be abandoned, because He can win no welcome." Loyd moves on from this position to notice the relevance of Rom. 11:15, "the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world." Jesus goes to Galilee, and goes by way of Samaria. John's use of the verb is unusual in another respect. He employs it with the meaning "forgive" (relatively common elsewhere) only in 20:23 in the whole Gospel.

11. There is a useful bibliography on the Samaritans in John Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (London, 1964).

12. I cannot follow Cullmann when he asserts that this conversation is "concerned in the first instance with worship" (Early Christian Worship [London, 1954], p. 80), and in particular with baptism. The references to baptism he regards as "certain" (p. 84). It is much more probable that the living water refers to the Holy Spirit (7:38-39) and the life he brings. There is a reference to worship, but this is secondary, and in fact it is a result of the divine nature and activity.

13. Findlay appositely cites Ephraem the Syrian's summary of this incident: "Jesus came to the fountain as a hunter. ... He threw a grain before one pigeon that He might catch the whole flock. ... At the beginning of the conversation He did not make Himself known to her . . . but first she caught sight of a thirsty man, then a Jew, then a Rabbi, afterwards a prophet, last of all the Messiah. She tried to get the better of the thirsty man, she showed her dislike of the Jew, she heckled the Rabbi, she was swept off her feet by the prophet, and she adored the Christ" (Findlay, p. 61).

14. There is practically no mention of Samaria in the first two Gospels, but Luke speaks of a journey of Jesus through this region (Luke 9:51-52) and of the gratitude of the Samaritan leper (Luke 17:15-19), as well as recording the parable of the Good Samaritan. Both Luke and John were very sensitive to the place of the Gentiles, and it is significant that they record activities of Jesus in Samaria. For a very useful account of the Samaritans in general and of the references to them in this Gospel in particular see the article "Samaritan Studies" by J. Bowman, BJRL, 40 (1957-58), pp. 298-327; also Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans.

15. Morgan says, "Those of Judaea practically never travelled to Galilee through Samaria." He thinks that Jesus chose this road "as a protest against their reason for not taking it." This is attractive and may be right. But unfortunately Morgan cites no evidence that the Jews avoided Samaria as a general rule. That strict Jews did so is clear, but the general practice may not have been the same. Less fussy people may not have been prepared to go the extra miles involved. See the next note.

16. Josephus says that it was the custom of the Galileans to pass through Samaria when they went up to Jerusalem for the feasts (Ant. 20.118).

17. Something of the feeling between the two groups may be gauged from the words of Ben Sira: "With two nations my soul is vexed, and the third is no nation; those who live on Mount Seir, and the Philistines, and the foolish people that dwell in Shechem" (Sir. 50:25-26).

18.B iblical Shechem is the modern Balata, near Nablus. Some scholars hold that Sychar was really Shechem, Sychar being a mocking corruption, meaning either "drunken-town" or "lying-town" . Against this are the facts that (a) we know of nothing to justify either title, and (b) from early times Sychar has been distinguished from Shechem. W. F. Albright argues that the town was Shechem and that the corruption into Sychar was accidental (so also Brown). He regards the evidence of the Old Syriac as significant and accounts for the differentiation between the two places by the fact that Shechem was destroyed C. A.D. 67 and rebuilt a few miles away under the name Neapolis (corrupted to the modern Nablus). See The Archaeology of Palestine (Harmondsworth, 1949), pp. 247-48; BNT, p. 160. R. D. Potter favors Askar. Of the topographical references in this chapter he says, "No passage could show better that our author knew this bit of Samaria well" (SE, I, p. 331). The Westminster Historical Atlas, opposite "Sychar," has "Askar?" On the whole it seems that Askar is the most probable site.

19. πηγή. The other word is φρέαρ. On the difference between the two Loyd comments: "A spring is a God-given thing. God creates the spring; man only digs the well, It is a curiosity that such a deep well should have been dug in a country where there are  many springs.(Godet says that there are as many as eighty springs in the region.) The well must originally have been well over a hundred feet deep, so that digging and lining it was no small task. This has been worked into an argument that the well really was dug by Jacob. Only "a stranger in the land" would have gone to all the trouble to construct such a well in a land as plentifully endowed with springs! Many commentators give the depth of the well as about seventy-five feet, but according to Hendriksen a great deal of debris has been cleaned out and the well restored to its original depth.

20. Any band of travelers would probably have an ἄντλημα or skin bucket for drawing water. But in this case the disciples would have had it with them.

21. Yet the rabbinic attitude to talking with women was very strict. See on v. 27.

22. The verb συγχράομαι has traditionally been understood in the sense "to have familiar intercourse with." However, D. Daube has shown that this sense is not found elsewhere and that it is highly unlikely in the present passage (JBL, LXIX [1950], pp. 137-47). The verb means properly "to use with," and this appears to be the meaning in the present passage. Jews do not use (utensils) with Samaritans. This was built into a regulation in A.D. 65 or 66: "The daughters of the Samaritans are (deemed unclean as) menstruants from their cradle" (Mishnah, Nidd. 4:1); in other words, they are all regarded as ceremonially unclean. Barrett has difficulty with the date of promulgation, but such regulations do not spring from thin air, and the saying before us indicates that there must have been widespread scruples in Jesus' time. D. R. Hall examines and rejects Daube's view in favor of "have dealings with, associate on friendly terms with τινι someone" (ExT, LXXXIII [1971-72], pp. 56-57). Like most who object to Daube's view he takes no notice of the fact that the disciples were at that moment having dealings with Samaritans.

It is, however, difficult to be sure of exactly how Jews viewed Samaritans. On the one hand, if three men eat together we are told that they must say the Common Grace and that a Samaritan may be included in the number (Ber. 7:1). Similarly, "They may answer 'Amen' after an Israelite who says a Benediction, but not after a Samaritan until they have heard the whole Benediction" (Ber. 8:8). This presupposes that Jews and Samaritans eat together. Samaritans and the 'Am-ha'aretz are classed together as distinct from Gentiles, even if not completely acceptable (Dem. 3:4). On the other hand, R. Eliezer used to say: "He that eats the bread of the Samaritans is like to one that eats the flesh of swine" (Sheb. 8:10). Again, Samaritans may offer free will offerings, but not any statutory offering (Shek. 1:5); and further, "No writ is valid which has a Samaritan as witness excepting a writ of divorce or a writ of emancipation" (Git. 1:5). Danby summarizes the complicated situation: "(a) a Samaritan conveys uncleanness by what he lies, sits, or rides on, by his spittle (including the phlegm of his lungs, throat, or nose) and by his urine; and (b) the daughters of the Samaritans even from their cradles (convey uncleanness in like manner), as do the gentiles" (Danby, p. 803; see also SBk, I, pp. 538-60).

23. τροφάς. This is the only place in the New Testament where the word is used in the plural, though the singular is common. We cannot conclude from the fact that the disciples were buying food that the laws about uncleanness were being disregarded, for certain dry foods did not convey defilement. It was otherwise with water and wet foods.

24. δωρεά. The accusative δωρεάν occurs elsewhere as an adverb with the meaning "freely," but this is the only place in any of the Gospels where the noun occurs in the sense "free gift."

25. Cf. Stauffer, "The spiritual man understands the wisdom of God's way, he recognizes the hidden plan of salvation which comes to its climax in the cross, and he lays hold of the beneficia of God (1 Cor. 2:1-16; John 4:10)" (NTT. p. 173). But the woman was not in this sense "spiritual."

26. For the rabbinic use see SBk, II, pp. 433-36. The rabbis sometimes refer to the Holy Spirit when they use "water" metaphorically, but more often they mean the Torah.

27. Actually we sometimes come quite close to it in the Old Testament; for example "The law of the wise is a fountain of life" (Prov. 13:14); "The words of a man's mouth are as deep waters; the wellspring of wisdom is as a flowing brook" (Prov. 18:4). Macdonald informs us that "living water" is common in a sense like that in John in Samaritan writers (The Theology of the Samaritans, p. 425).

28. Cf. the Qumran teaching, "Like purifying waters He will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth" (1QS 4:21).

29. FG, pp. 149-69. Some of the passages are striking, for example "And speaking

waters . . . drew near my lips from the. fountain of the Lord . , . plenteously. And I drank  and was inebriated with living water that doth not die" (Od, Sol. 9:6 7, FG, p. 156). The Qumran covenanters say explicitly, "The well is the law," but they add, "and those who dug it are the captivity of Israel, who went out from the land of Judah and sojourned in the land of Damascus" (DSS, p. 353). They also speak of apostates who "departed from the well of living water" (DSS, p. 356). R. E. Brown can say, "For Qumran the water of life comes from the community's discipline and lore; for John it is given by Christ to those who believe in him" (SNT,p.200).

30. Water was widely connected with life in antiquity, and this is rooted in the very language. Thus άλίβας, "a dead body," was apparently derived from ά-privative and λιβάς, "a stream," "water" (see LS), while σκελετός, "skeleton," has the notion of "dried up" (cf. σκέλλω, "to parch"). Jesus' symbolism is very natural and would have a wide appeal.

31. The word is φρέαρ, a change from πηγή in v. 6 There is a similar change in Gen. 16:7, 14, where the source of water is first called "a spring" and then "the well." So also with Gen. 24:11, 13, 16 where we have "well," "spring," "spring." In all these passages where NFV has "spring" LXX has πηγή, and where NIV has "well" LXX has φρέαρ, the same two Greek words as in our passage.

32. Josephus tells us that the Samaritans claimed to be descended from Joseph, through Ephraim and Manasseh (Ant. 11.341). Jesus, however, referred to the Samaritan leper as άλλογενής, "foreigner" (Luke 17:18). Yet it should not be overlooked that neither here nor in v. 20 where the woman refers to "our fathers" does Jesus deny the claim as he does that of the Jews in 8:39ff. Odeberg comments: "The Samaritan woman, who is ready, seemingly to desert her traditional religion (vs. 15b), is in reality faithful toward the element of truth received from the fathers, whereas the Jews, who were apparently unswervingly loyal to the inheritance from their father Abraham and to the Tora of Moses, in opposition to the demands of J [i.e. Jesus], had already severed themselves spiritually and intrinsically from the way of Abraham and the Tora of Moses" (FG, pp. 178-79). On the appeal to a great one of the past Ryle pungently remarks, "Dead teachers have always more authority than living ones" (on 6:31).

33. Barrett. MacGregor thinks that the woman came to this well, "Possibly because of 'the fondness of tradition which... drew Jacob's fanatic children to its scantier supplies' (G. A. Smith, p. 374); for the same reason, John may have felt, that men cling to dead ritual when they might draw from the Spirit of the living Christ" (on v. 7).

34. Note the contrast between the present participle, πας ό πίνων ("everyone who drinks continually"), and the aorist subjunctive, δς δ'αν πίη ("whoever has drunk once for all"). Abbott sees the contrast between "the multitude of those that go wrong" and "the individual that goes right" (2574).

35. They will not thirst εις τόν αιώνα, an expression that John uses 12 times, which is more than anyone else in the New Testament (next is 8 times in Hebrews).

36. Calvin notes that this does not exclude a legitimate thirsting after God: "Christ's words do not contradict the fact that believers to the very end of their lives ardently desire more abundant grace. For He does not mean that we drink so that we are fully satisfied from the very first day, but only that the Holy Spirit is a constantly flowing well. So there is no danger of those who are renewed by spiritual grace becoming dry."

37. On the contrast between φρέαρ and πηγή Strachan comments: "A contrast is intended which goes deeper than the natural one between 'spring' and 'pit'. It is between the 'water of life', and the human labour that is spent on conserving it by means of traditional institutions." R. H. Lightfoot asks, "Is it possible, therefore, that in St. John's thought Jacob's Well can be described by the more living word until the coming of the Lord, but that with His arrival it becomes no better than a cistern, in contrast to the fount of springing water which His coming brings?"

38. The verb is βλλομαι, which does not appear to be used elsewhere of the action of water. There may be the thought of the Spirit as working violently within a person.

39. Temple, however, finds a logical sequence. He connects Jesus' words with the woman's request for the water for her own convenience (v. 15): "But the gift of God (10) cannot be received to be merely enjoyed. It must always be shared. . . . If we are not sharing with others the gift of God, that is proof that we have not received it. So the Lord tells this woman to call the person with whom she would naturally share first."

40. Although the woman had said, Ούκ έχω ανδρα, Jesus reports her words as Άνδρα ούκ έχω, thus putting the emphasis on ανδρα. Similarly πέντε is stressed.

41. A woman could not divorce her husband in Jewish law. But under certain circumstances she could approach the court, which would, if it thought fit, compel the husband to divorce her (see, for example, Mishnah, Ket. 7:9, 10). Or she might pay him or render services to induce him to divorce her (Git. 7:5, 6). In theory there was no limit to the number of marriages that might be contracted after valid divorces, but the rabbis regarded two, or at the most three, marriages as the maximum for a woman (SBk, II, p. 437).

42. Similar to this passage are those telling us that Jesus knew that Lazarus was dead (11:14), and that Peter would deny him (13:38). Not very different is his foreknowledge of the feeding of the multitude (6:6) and of what would befall him after he was arrested (18:4). He knew the truth of witness borne of him (5:32). He knew his sheep (10:14, 27). He knew who did not believe and who would betray him, and he knew this "from the beginning" (6:64). He knew the extent of the Father's gift to him (13:3). Above all, he had such a knowledge of the Father as no one else had or could have (7:29; 8:55; 10:15; 17:25). Plainly the knowledge John attributes to Jesus is part of the way in which he shows us the divine Christ.

43. Cf. Wright: "What, therefore, the Evangelist wishes to say here, is to remind his readers of the 'religious adultery' of Samaria's past, personified in this 'woman of Samaria,' and of the 'irregular' union of Samaria in the time of our Lord to the service and worship of Jehovah." J. Estlin Carpenter thinks that "the figure may outwardly imply the supernatural knowledge of the Incarnate Son; but inwardly it points (as has long been recognised) to the gods brought by the five groups of settlers transported from Mesopotamia by the Assyrian conquerors." He rejects the reference of "the contemporary who was no true husband" to Yahweh, and favors "some representative of false teaching." As possible candidates he nominates Dositheus (mentioned by Jerome) and Simon Magus (The Johannine Writings [London, 1927], p. 245). Augustine reports that some interpret the passage

of the five books of Moses; he himself understands it of the five senses of the body (15.21; p. 104).

44. It is often said that Josephus refers to the number of gods as five, but this is not so. He says that there were five tribes and that each brought its own god (Ant. 9.288). It might be inferred that there were five gods, but Josephus does not say so. We could draw the same inference from 2 Kings 17:29, but when we turn to v. 30 we find not five gods, but seven. This kind of inference is precarious.

45. Abbott says that τοϋτο άληθές εΐρηκας is quite different from τοϋτο άληθώς εΐρηκας. The latter might mean, "Truly, i.e. in truth, thou hast said this," or "Thou hast said this truly, i.e. with truth." John's expression, however, means " 'This, at all events, among all that thou hast said, is true' — implying that hitherto the woman has talked in a reckless and trifling way" (1894).

46. In these verses the verb προσκυνέω is used absolutely (v. 20), with the dative (vv. 21, 23) and with the accusative (v. 23; this is unusual). It seems that these variations are stylistic only. Abbott thinks that there is a difference between the last two, the construction with the dative signifying prostration (before God or people), bowing down to, and that with the accusative indicating adoration, the worship proper to God alone (Johannine Vocabulary [London, 1905], 1640-51). Moulton also sees a distinction (Μ, I, p. 66). But few recent writers agree. In view of John's habit of introducing slight variations without distinction of meaning (see on 3:5) the differences should not be pressed.

47. It is usually accepted that MT is correct in reading "Mount Ebal," and that the Samaritans altered the text to suit their own purposes. This may well be the case. But the possibility that the alteration was made by Jews should not be overlooked. If Gerizim were original, it might well have been altered by Jews as part of an anti-Samaritan polemic.

48. The Samaritans thought there were thirteen different names for their holy mountain. Where any of them occurs in Scripture they applied the passage to Gerizim. See J. Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans, pp. 327-33, for Samaritan views about Gerizim.

49. The feelings aroused by the controversy may be gauged from the following incident: "R. Ishmael b. Jose was going up to Jerusalem to pray. He was walking past a plane tree (by Gerizim) where a Samaritan found him. He said to him, 'Where are you going?' He answered, " I am going up to Jerusalem to pray.' The former said, 'Would it not be better for you to pray in this blessed mountain rather than in that dunghill?' " (SBk, I, p. 549).

50. SBk cites a midrash on Ps. 91: "He who prays in Jerusalem is as one who prays before the throne of glory; for there is the gate of heaven and the open door to the hearing of prayer" (Π, p. 437).

51. Cf. Calvin, "we are not to essay anything in religion rashly or unthinkingly. For unless there is knowledge present, it is not God that we worship but a spectre or ghost. Hence all so-called good intentions are struck by this thunderbolt, which tells us that men can do nothing but err when they are guided by their own opinion without the Word or command of God." On v. 20 he has said, "The Samaritans took the example of the fathers as a precedent; the Jews were grounded on the commandment of God."

52. Cf. Bernard, "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." In passing we may notice that John possibly recorded this saying with a certain form of heretical teaching in mind. Some held that the God of the Old Testament was an inferior being. Jesus firmly accepts the Old Testament and rules out any such interpretation.

53. Murray thinks that the significance of this is that "In neither case did worship rise to the height of personal communion."

54. Cf. Lenski, "Though in the Greek abstract nouns may have the article as a matter of course, here 'the salvation' denotes the specific and only salvation contemplated in God's promises and to be realized in his incarnate Son. This salvation is in no way promised to the Samaritans, so that it would emanate from their midst, but to the Jews alone. The Messiah could not be a Samaritan, he had to be a Jew." Bruce comments, "The affirmation, 'It is from the Jews that salvation proceeds', stands as an effective answer to the charge of anti-Jewish bias frequently laid against this Evangelist nowadays."

55. For άληθινοί see on 1:9. On only two occasions in this Gospel does attributive άληθινός precede its noun, so it must be regarded as emphatic in those two places (here and at 17:3).

56. Both here and in v. 24 the expression is έν πνεύματι και άληθεία. The linking of the two nouns under a single preposition shows that they belong together. There is one complex idea. E. C. Blackman takes the expression as demanding worship "conformable to the divine nature which is spirit, and determined by the truth which God has made available concerning himself. Here again the thought of Jesus as the personal embodiment of truth is not far away . . . in so far as men see the truth in Jesus they will both worship and live acceptably to God, but such worship and conduct are not possible apart from Jesus" (TWBB, p. 270). Cf. Westcott: "Worship is necessarily limited by the idea of the being worshipped. A true idea of God, even if still διά κατόπτρου, is essential to a right service of Him."

57. There is an ambiguity connected with τοιούτους. The meaning might be, "the Father seeks such to be his worshippers" or, "The Father seeks that his worshippers be such." Most authors take the former meaning, but Phillips translates, "Indeed, the Father looks for men who will worship Him like that."

58. For the unusual accusative after προσκυνέω see n. 46 above.

59. That God seeks people is a new and distinctively Christian idea. Cf. C. G. Montefiore's comment on the parable of the lost sheep: "The virtues of repentance are gloriously praised in the Rabbinical literature, but this direct search for, and appeal to, the sinner, are new and moving notes of high import and significance. The good shepherd who searches for the lost sheep, and reclaims it and rejoices over it, is a new figure" (The Synoptic Gospels, II [London, 1909], p. 985).

60 Cf. G. S. Hendry, "it has commonly been taken to mean that God, being Spirit, is present everywhere and can be worshiped anywhere; the important thing is not where men worship, but how they worship." This he vigorously denies. The saying "means the precise opposite; it means that God is present in his own realm, to which man as such has no access. To worship God in spirit is not a possibility that is always and everywhere open to man.... But this is just the gospel of Christ, that this possibility has now been opened to men. . . . The meaning is that the location has been redefined, and God is now to be worshiped in the place where he is present, i.e., in Him who is the truth incarnate" (The Holy Spirit in Christian Theology [London, 1957], pp. 31-32).

61. The Samaritan name for the Messiah was Taheb (), "He who returns" or" He who restores." According to Odeberg, "A prominent feature in the Taeb traditions was that the Redeemer, in accordance with Deut 1818 would teach the faithful concerning all things" (FG, p. 183). Dodd reminds us that we should not build too much on this figure, for our information about him is late and we do not know whether or not the Taheb was known in New Testament times (IFG, p. 240, n. 2). But Josephus recounts an incident wherein a man gathered armed men to Mt. Gerizim, saying that he would show them sacred vessels hidden there by Moses (Ant. 18.85). This looks very much like messianic expectation during the New Testament period.

62. For the Messiah as a teacher cf. Enoch 49:3, and cf. SBk II, p. 438. "Everything" may refer to Deut. 18:18. This incidentally is John's only use of &πα.ς.

63 There is no reason for thinking that Samaritan ideas of the Messiah were with out nationalistic aspects. But the Taheb was primarily a teacher, a restorer of true worship, a priest. Macdonald says, "no king was looked for and no royal prerogatives" (The Theology of the Samaritans, p. 362). Clearly to accept the title "Messiah" in Samaritan surroundings in a discussion with a woman about worship was a very different matter from accepting the title among Jews.

64. E. Stauffer gives six reasons for affirming that Jesus' words are "to be understood as the theophanic formula ANI HU" (Jesus and His Story [London, 1960], p. 152). He later says, "There is no doubt that the evangelist wishes this to imply that Jesus pronounced the first significant, but as yet half-veiled, words concerning the secret of his person not in Judea or Galilee, but on that occasion in Samaria" (p. 153). Hamer is impressed by Stauffer's argument but sees a double meaning here: "On the one hand it is used absolutely, but on the other hand it takes the word 'Christ' as an implied predicate" (Harner, p. 47).

65. C. K. Barrett insists that this Gospel is theocentric rather than christocentric. He concludes an article with, "The figure of Jesus does not (so John in effect declares) make sense when viewed as a national leader, a rabbi, or a θείος άνήρ; he makes sense when in hearing him you hear the Father, when in looking at him you see the Father, and worship him" (Essays on John [London, 1982], p. 16).

66. The verb "were surprised" is θαυμάζω, which denotes "incredulous surprise" (MM).

67.SB k, II, p. 438. Nor was it only discourse in public places that was discountenanced.

"Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem said: Let thy house be opened wide and let the needy be members of thy household; and talk not much with womankind. They said this of a man's own wife: how much more of his fellow's wife! Hence the Sages have said: He that talks much with womankind brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Law and at the last will inherit Gehenna" ('Ab. 1:5). R. Jose the Galilean once asked a woman, "By what road do we go to Lydda?" only to be rebuked by her: "Foolish Galilean, did not the Sages say this: Engage not in much talk with women? You should

have asked: By which to Lydda?" ('Erub. 53b; Soncino trans., p. 374). Perhaps the greatest blot on the rabbinic attitude to women was that, though the rabbis held the study of the Law to be the greatest good in life, they discouraged women from studying it at all. When Ben Azzai suggested that women be taught the Law for certain purposes R. Eliezer replied: " If any man gives his daughter a knowledge of the Law it is as though he taught her lechery" (Sot. 3:4). The rabbis regarded women as inferior to men in every way. A very ancient prayer (still found in the Jewish prayer book) runs, "Blessed art thou, Ο Lord . . . who hast not made me a woman." The corresponding prayer for a woman was "Blessed art thou, Ο Lord, who hast fashioned me according to thy will." Temple comments, " If we now feel that the women had the best of the exchange, that is a Christian and not an ancient Jewish sentiment!"

68. Barrett thinks the reason "presumably in order that Jesus might drink" (so Hendriksen and others). This seems most unlikely. Hoskyns's view is better, namely that it was partly as I have indicated and partly "in order to contrast her behaviour with that of the disciples (vv. 31-3). She went as quickly as possible, unencumbered by having to carry a pot full of water on her head, and without difficulty persuaded the Samaritans to come and see the man whom she had good reason to suppose was the Christ." It is, of course, also possible that the woman had not yet filled the pot. She would then leave it to save carrying it back and forth. But my point still stands. She abandoned the bringing of water for the bringing of men. Temple comments: "The water-pot is a little bit of sheer realism. As Scott Holland used to say 'You cannot allegorise that water-pot. It is a perfectly empty water-pot. No one ever found the old Law at the bottom of it.' "

69. "And it is the nature of faith that we want to bring others to share eternal life with us when we have become partakers of it. The knowledge of God cannot lie buried and inactive in our hearts and not be made known to men. For that word must be true: '1 believed, and therefore will I speak' (Ps. 116.10)" (Calvin).

70. That she should call Jesus "a man" is not remarkable. But John often uses άνθρωπος of Jesus, as in 5:12; 8:40; 9:11, 24; 10:33; 11:47, 50; 18:14, 17, 29; 19:5. He may wish to stress the real manhood of Jesus, to depict him as "the Man."

71. The question is introduced by μήτι. BDF gives the force of this as "that must be the Messiah at last, perhaps this is the Messiah" (427 [2]).

72. . D. Gordon has a suggestive comment: "The disciples had just been down to the town — they who knew the Master much longer and better. They brought back some loaves. That was all. The woman went down; she brought back some men" (The Sychar Revival [London, n.d.], p. 25).

73. The words remind us of the temptation narrative, where Jesus refused to use his powers to satisfy his physical hunger. It is worth pointing out that John has parallels to the other two temptations also, namely Jesus' refusals to be made a king (6:15) and to do the kind of sign that his brothers demanded (7:3ff.). John does not have a specific temptation narrative, but he makes the point in his own way.

74. μεταξύ is not a common adverb, and may well be used to put some stress on the idea of the interval: "'During the interval' Jesus utters His doctrine about the interval between the sowing and the harvest" (Abbott, 2668).

75. The word is βρώσις. Strictly it denotes the process of eating, but here (and elsewhere in John) it is used in the sense of βρώμα (which occurs in v. 34), i.e., of food in general.

76. Augustine comments, "What wonder if that woman did not understand about the water? See; the disciples do not yet understand the meat" (15.31; p. 107).

77. They think also in terms of someone bringing him food. Their question throws light on Jesus' use of his miraculous powers. As Wright says, " It never entered their minds that He would or could work a 'miracle' in order to feed Himself; as, for example, that he could or would turn stones into bread." The miracles were never wrought for selfish ends.

78. Moulton cites this as one of his examples that "will show anyone who is free from predisposition that Iva can lose the last shred of purposive meaning" (Μ, I, p. 208).

79. "Jesus, whose hunger is to do the Father's will, sees the satisfaction of His hunger in the prospect of the universal Church foreshadowed by the conviction of the Samaritan woman. But His words are not only to be taken symbolically. Everyone knows how the enthusiasm of achievement can make a man rise superior to his bodily needs" (Bailey).

80. The verb used here 1s τελειόω and in 19:30, τελέω.

81. A rather similar expression is used to introduce a proverbial saying in Matt. 16:2. Knox translates here: "Is it not a saying of yours, It is four whole months before harvest comes?" In a footnote he comments, "this may have been a proverb, meaning that there was no hurry, like our 'Rome was not built in a day'." Cf. also Dodd: "That it is to be understood as a banal remark upon the time of the year (as many commentators have assumed, in their anxiety to discover data for a calendar of the Ministry of Jesus) If ind entirely incredible; such remarks did not find a place in the gospel tradition" (HTFG, p. 394).

82. See John Lightfoot, HHT, p. 277. He cites a Talmudic saying: "Half Tisri, all Marchesvan, and half Chisleu, is the seed's time," and so on for the periods called "the winter," "the winter solstice," "the harvest," "the summer," and "the great heat." There is support for this also in the Gezer Calendar, our oldest Hebrew inscription. Between its "Two months of sowing" and its month for the general harvest it has "Two months of late sowing (or spring growth). Month of pulling flax. Month of barley harvest" (trans, by J. Mauchline, in Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winton Thomas [London, 1958], p. 201). Again there is a period of four months between the end of sowing and the beginning of harvest.

83. Calvin sees a hint "at how much more careful men's minds are for earthly things than for heavenly. For they are so consumed with looking for harvest that they carefully count up the months and days. But it is surprising how lazy they are in reaping the wheat of heaven.

84. The use of λευκαί is somewhat puzzling, for few crops are white at harvest time, and certainly not wheat (cf. "the golden grain"; Stauffer thinks that rye is meant, Jesus and His Story, p. 63). The expression clearly means "ready to reap." Η. V. Morton tells of an incident at this spot: "as I sat by Jacob's Well a crowd of Arabs came along the road from the direction in which Jesus was looking, and I saw their white garments shining in the sun. Surely Jesus was speaking not of the earthly but of the heavenly harvest, and as He spoke I think it likely that He pointed along the road where the Samaritans in their white robes were assembling to hear His words" (In the Steps of the Master [London, 1935], p. 154). This may well be the explanation of it. Incidentally the same explanation

was given long ago by John Lightfoot, who depicts our Lord as "pointing without doubt towards that numerous crowd of people that, at that time, flocked towards him out of the city" (HHT, p. 277). Morgan comments on this verse: " If those disciples had been appointed a commission of enquiry as to the possibilities of Christian enterprise in Samaria I know exactly the resolution they would have passed. The resolution would have been: Samaria unquestionably needs our Master's message, but it is not ready for it. There must first be ploughing, then sowing, and then waiting. It is needy, but it is not ready." BAGD classes πρός here under the heading, "of the result that follows a set of circumstances" (III.3.b); the fields "are white, so that the harvest may begin."

85. There is a fine sense of urgency in a saying attributed to R. Tarfon (c. A.D. 130) and that reminds us of the present passage: "The day is short and the task is great and the labourers are idle and the wage is abundant and the master of the house is urgent" (Mishnah, 'Ab. 2:15).

86. There are, of course, few or no punctuation marks in the oldest MSS, and we are dependent on our sense of the fitness of things. It seems that the note of urgency throughout the passage requires us to take "even now" with the words about reaping rather than those about harvest.

87. For άληθινός, "true," see on 1:9. G. D. Kilpatrick argues that we should read here όάληθινός with the meaning, "the true saying consists in this" (BT, 11 [1960],p. 174).

88. Notice the double use of άλλος. John is fond of this word, which he uses 34 times.

89. "This world is not merely directed and guided by those of us who happen to be alive. We inherit not only the sins of the dead, but their faith and sacrifice also as a spiritual heritage. It is ours to bear the one without murmuring as our opportunity, and to thank God for the other" (Strachan).

90. Plummer takes this view. The plural, άλλοι, he thinks, is used to balance the plural ΰμεΐς. Similarly, he argues, in v. 37 "both are in the singular for the sake of harmony; ό σπείρων, Christ; ό θερίζων, His ministers." An objection to the latter part of his interpretation is that Jesus was simply quoting a current proverb (or so it would seem). It may not be without significance that, in the expression "have done the hard work we have the same verb and the same tense as that which tells us that Jesus sat weary, κεκοπιακώς, by the well (v. 6).

91. Cf. Bernard: "Primarily, Jesus and the woman were the ἅλλοι into whose labours the disciples had entered, not to speak of every prophet and pious teacher of the past who had prepared the way in Samaria for the message of Christ." The difficulty in the way of interpreting the words too strictly of the Samaritans is that it is hard to see how the disciples reaped at all in this case. All the work, sowing and reaping, seems to have been done by Jesus and the woman (unless we look forward to Acts 8).

92. "The Others' of John 4,38" (SE, I, pp. 510-15). Robinson takes this passage as a test of exegetical method. He refutes Cullmann's view that the passage is best understood, not of any situation in the life of Jesus, but of the mission of the apostolic church. Cullmann, who is supported by M. Simon (St Stephen and the Hellenists [London, 1958], pp. 36ff.), regards the "others" as the Hellenists of Acts 8 (preeminently Philip), who took the gospel to Samaria, after which the apostles Peter and John entered the fruits of their labors. Robinson shows that the connection between Jesus and the Baptist movement, and between the Baptist movement and the location of this chapter, make it reasonable to infer that Jesus was speaking of the way his followers were reaping the fruits of the earlier work. (This argument might be used in support of Albright's identification of "Aenon near to Salim" in 3:23; cf. p. 343, n. 99.)

93. "The parable of sower and reaper is so narrated as to cross various planes of interpretation. First, no doubt, the seed sown in the woman bears fruit in the harvest of the advancing Samaritans; then the work of the prophets, and especially of John the Baptist, is embraced by and completed in the work of Jesus; then the Samaritans disappear in the thought of the apostolic mission to the world based upon the mission of Jesus; and finally, the Evangelist addresses his contemporaries and exhorts them to reap the harvest, so that the others who have laboured become, as Bauer has noted, less Jesus and the prophets of Israel than Jesus and the apostolic generation" (Hoskyns).

94. That is "witness." Actually John does not use the noun "testimony" but the participle μαρτυρούσης. Without the article this means "as she testified" rather than "who testified"; there is the thought of persistence in testifying rather than the designation of the woman as the one "who" testified.

95."She spoke a word, the word, to them; and we have already noticed that this confession or word (4^25,29,39) was very farfrom perfect; but such as it was, for its purpose and at that moment it was adequate; and it brought many of her countrymen to belief in Him" (Lightfoot).

96. ούκετι. In the note on 1:5 we saw that John uses ού and ούδέ more than any other New Testament writer. The same is true of ούκετι, which he uses 12 times; next come Mark and Romans each with 7 times.

97. The expression is διίχ τήν σήν λαλιάν, which Findlay renders "not because of your chatter." Calvin also comments severely: "the Samaritans seem to be claiming that they now have a stronger support than a woman's tongue — which is usually untrustworthy." The word λαλιά undoubtedly often denotes speech that is not to be taken seriously, gossip. Thus Thorlief Boman dismisses the term when he is studying the concept of "the word" in Greek, saying "λαλιά signifies disorderly utterance, mere prattle" (Hebrew Thought compared with Greek [London, I960], p. 67). Yet too much should not be read into the use of this word, for in the New Testament the unfavorable sense found elsewhere is not marked, if present at all. The word may even be used of Jesus' speech (8:43). See further on 1:37 for the cognate verb, λαλέω. σήν is emphatic. G. D. Kilpatrick has shown that in John the normal order for personal possessives with the article is article, noun, article, possessive (see on 3:29). The order in the present passage is found three times only, and in each case there is emphasis (5:47; 7:16). It should, perhaps, be noted that p75 supports Β and Origen in reading λαλιάν σου. But even with this reinforcement the reading will scarcely commend itself.

98. Deissmann cites "Saviour of the world" as a title frequently used of the Emperor (LAE, p. 364; see also TDNT, ΙΠ, p. 892, n. 88). That such an expression was common in the Hellenistic world is clear. But John does not derive it from such a milieu; its Old Testament roots are sufficient to show this. But granted such an origin, it is not impossible that John is mindful of the contemporary use for the Emperor when he records the title. Craig R. Koester has examined the expression (JBL, 109 [1990], pp. 665-80). He concludes, "The title 'Savior of the world' was used by Caesar, but the Samaritans recognized that it truly belonged to Jesus, whom they received in a manner appropriate for a king" (p. 680).

99. Cf. Barclay, "A great example can be merely a heart-breaking and frustrating thing when we find ourselves powerless to follow it. Jesus was Saviour. That is to say, He rescued men from the evil and hopeless situation in which they found themselves; He broke the chains that bound them to the past and gave them a power and a presence which enabled them to meet the future."

100. The expression "sums up the main point of this chapter — that the conversion of Samaritans is the first sign of the universality of salvation in Christ" (Bailey). This is "a great insight from a little people" (Beasley-Murray).

101. This is a very difficult passage, as the following discussion will make clear. D. A. Carson mentions R. T. Fortna's view (and notes others who hold this view); he then lists eight ways other scholars have interpreted it (JBL, 97 [1978], p. 424, n. 50). There cannot be said to be any consensus.

102. "It was not in accord with the mind of Jesus, says the Evangelist, to stay where the welcome was greatest, or the difficulties least" (Wright). "He had to go on and get on with the business of being rejected by the many and accepted by only the few. . . . He goes on into Galilee, to receive the kind of welcome which He knew so well to be hollow and worthless" (Loyd).

103. Bernard finds both interpretations so difficult that he thinks the verse a gloss, the meaning of which is not clear. This seems no better an explanation. It also poses the question why a straightforward text should be complicated by a perplexing gloss. Other suggestions are that "his own country" is Palestine in general as opposed to Samaria, or upper Galilee as opposed to lower Galilee. For a thorough discussion see J. Willemse, "La Patrie de Jesus selon Saint Jean iv.44" (NTS, 11 [1964-65], pp. 349-64). Willemse thinks that Judea or Jerusalem is meant.

104. Lightfoot, p. 35.

105. έδέξαντο, "received," has about it the air of welcome. It is used, for example, of welcoming guests. Hoskyns cites Quesnel: "To have believed without miracles was the excellency of the faith of the Samaritans; to believe, as the Galileans did, because of them is, at least, to yield to the authority of God and to advance further than did the generality of the Jews."

106 It is perhaps significant that John's word for "honor" here is τιμή, a terra he uses nowhere else. When he refers to the honor due to Jesus he prefers δόξα.

107. This is not certain. But (a) there is nothing in the story that hints at the presence of a Gentile, and (b) in v. 48 the man appears to be included in the crowd of miracle-seeking Jews. Cf. Brown, " In John he is in Herod's service, and nothing is said to indicate that he is not a Jew." Brown, however, thinks the same incident lies behind the three accounts.

108. E. Haenchen maintains that "the story which John used" is identical with that in the Synoptics on the grounds that it "differs only in one, though most important point" (SE, I, p. 497). The hollowness of this position is demonstrated by the list of differences. In his commentary on John, Haenchen has altered his position: "The differences between this story and the synoptic parallels are admittedly large" (p. 236). But he still sees the same event as underlying all the accounts. Edward F. Siegman discusses the problem (CBQ, XXX [1968], pp. 182-98). He says, " it is possible to reconcile each of the varying details in the three accounts. It must be admitted, however, that the cumulative effect of the differences tends to weaken the thesis that only one incident is the basis for the three pericopes" (p. 194; Siegman's italics).

109. Attention is often drawn to a rabbinical story: "Once the son of R. Gamaliel fell ill. He sent two scholars to R. Hanina b. Dosa to ask him to pray for him. When he saw them he went to an upper chamber and prayed for him. When he came down he said to them: Go, the fever has left him. They said to him: Are you a prophet? He replied: I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I learnt this from experience. If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that he is accepted: but if not, I know that he is rejected. They sat down and made a note of the exact moment. When they came to R. Gamaliel, he said to them: By the temple service! You have not been a moment too soon or too late, but so it happened: at that very moment the fever left him and he asked for water to drink" (Ber. 34b; Soncino edn. pp. 215-16). This is a typical rabbinic story, the purpose being to excite wonder at the extraordinary power exercised by the man of God. The story John tells has a quite different purpose. It is a "sign." It shows us God at work. At the same time v. 48 vigorously opposes the view that faith should be bound up with miracles. In this Gospel the faith elicited by miracles is never despised. But it is not the highest kind of faith.

110. βασιλικός is the adjective "royal"; "a certain royal one" could denote a man of royal blood, but the present passage seems to rule this out. More likely the meaning is as NIV, "royal official," one who serves the king. It has been conjectured that he was Manaen, foster brother of Herod the tetrarch (Acts 13:1), or Cuza, "the manager of Herod's household" (Luke 8:3). But there is no evidence for either identification. Strictly speaking Herod was not a king at all, but a tetrarch. He was, however, of the royal house, and exercised kingly rule, so on occasion he could be called King (e.g., Mark 6:14). The word probably denotes, then, one of Herod's officers.

111. ήμελλεν γαρ άποθνήσκειν. The auxiliary μέλλω conveys the thoughts of, imminence and certainty. It is worth noticing that άποθνήσκω is used by John more frequently than in any other book in the New Testament, namely 28 times (next is Romans, 23 times, then Luke, 10 times).

112. τέρατα. The word is always plural in its 16 New Testament occurrences, and it is always linked with σημεία. The miracles of which the New Testament treats are never merely wonders. They have meaning and they point people to God.

113. Moulton has a valuable note on the use of the emphatic ού μή in the New Testament (Μ, I, pp. 187-92). He disagrees with the contention of such scholars as Gildersleeve that "the stress" of this construction "has been lost by overfamiliarity" (p. 189). He points out that it occurs 93 times in all, of which 12 are citations from LXX, 60 are in the Gospels, 4 in Paul, 1 in the Catholic Epistles, and 16 in Revelation. Apart from the last-mentioned (where he finds special factors), the construction is thus uncommon outside the Gospels. Of the 60 occurrences in the Gospels 54 are in the words of Jesus, and they are distributed over all the Gospels and all the sources postulated by critics. It is clear that the New Testament writers used the construction sparingly apart from passages coming from the Old Testament and words of the Master. Moulton concludes, "Since these are just the two elements which made up 'Scripture' in the first age of Christianity, one is tempted to put it down to the same cause in both — a feeling that inspired language was fitly rendered by words of a decisive tone not needed generally elsewhere."

114. The word is παιδίον. Although the diminutive is often used conventionally, here it is a real term of affection. υΙός is used in vv. 46, 47, 50, and παις (according to the better reading) in v. 51. On the latter verse Godet comments: "The servants, in their report, use neither the term of affection (παιδίον), which would be too familiar, nor that of dignity (υΙός), which would not be familar enough, but that of family life: παις, the child." G. D. Kilpatrick argues that παΙς is "a harmonization to Matthew and Luke" and that υΙός is to be preferred (JThS, n.s. XIV [1963], p. 393). But the MS evidence is strong against this reading, and further, it scarcely seems as though Kilpatrick does justice to John's love of variation, as Edwin D. Freed points out (JThS, n.s. XVI [1965], pp. 448-49).

115. Translations like NIV's "Your son will live" (so NRSV, Schonfield), "Your son is going to live" (Goodspeed), or "thy son is to live" (Knox) miss the point that Jesus is not simply prophesying the outcome of the disease. He is speaking a word of power, a healing word. It is a "sign" that John is recording, not a word of prophecy or clairvoyance.

116. αύτοϋ καταβαίνοντος is a somewhat free use of the genitive absolute in view of the following αϋτώ. But such constructions are found elsewhere in the New Testament and in other writings of this period. No special significance attaches to it.

117. The verb is έπύθετο. Normally the imperfect of this verb is used where an answer is sought, and BDF goes so far as to say that the aorist here is "incorrect" (328). This seems to be going too far. The aorist will give a touch of peremptoriness to the question.

118. We might have expected the dative (as in v. 53) to express the point of time instead of the accusatives, τήν ώραν and ώραν έβδόμην. But Moulton points out that the accusative was encroaching on this section of the sphere of the dative (Μ, I, p. 63). BDF sees the construction as classical with ώρα (161 [3]). Perhaps we should notice that in place of παρ' αύτων ρ75 and Β read έκείνην.

119. κομψότερον ίχω appears to be a colloquialism (like our "He is doing nicely!). MM cites the expression from the papyri (cf. also New Documents, 4.69). It occurs here only in the New Testament. The aorist suits a sudden recovery.

120. MacGregor comments: "it is certain that John is not the least concerned with problems of time and distance. It is enough for him that the healing occurred simultaneously with the word of Jesus." Plummer examines the various possibilities and decides that the balance is in favor of the normal Jewish method of reckoning time.

121. The construction is unusual, τοϋτο . . . δεύτερον σημεϊον έποίησεν, "This he did (as) a second sign" (cf. 2:11).

122. Cf. Bultmann, "As in judicial language the αλήθεια is the actual state of affairs to be maintained against different statements, so historians use it to denote real events as distinct from myths, and philosophers to indicate real being in the absolute sense'' (TDNT, I, p. 238).

123. Theology of the New Testament, II (London, 1955), p. 18.

124. Bultmann, Theology, p. 19.

125. Consummatum Est (London, 1958), p. 161.

126. G. E. Wright says, "the 'grace and truth' of Jesus Christ (John 1.14) are not abstract virtues but the active ḥesed and 'emeth, rooted in the covenant conception" (God Who Acts [London, 1954], p. 114). It is valuable to be reminded that these are dynamic concepts, rooted in the Old Testament. But we should not overlook the fact that they are not simply Old Testament ideas restated. They have a new content, and that content comes from Jesus Christ. There is a valuable note on truth in E. Hoskyns and N. Davey, The Riddle of the New Testament (London, 1931), pp. 35-43. Their conclusion is: "Truth, in short, is knowledge of God through Jesus; such knowledge of God as through Jesus makes men veritably Sons of God."

127. See also the note in Strachan, pp. 141-43, and that by S. Aalen, SE, II, pp. 3-24.

↑ Back to top