The Samaritan Woman and the Courtier’s Child (John 4)
The Samaritan Woman and the Courtier’s Child (John 4)
Vs. 1 ὁ Κύριος This designation of Jesus is not found in either St. Matthew or St. Mark, except Matt 21:3 and Mark 11:3 ( Ὁ Κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει), which is a doubtful exception. It occurs also in the later additions to St. Mark in 16:19, 20. In St. Luke it is found several times, e.g. 7:13 (where however there is a v.l. Ἰησοῦς); 11:39; 12:42; 13:15; 17:5 etc. and several times in St. John.
Ἰησοῦς πλείονας etc. repeating the direct words of the speaker so the present ποιεῖ καὶ βαπτίζει. The A.V. has ‘made and baptized’; comp. Gal 1:23.
Vs. 2 καίτοιγε The statement has been made twice over—3:22; 4:1. At the repetition of it, it occurs to the writer to explain the strict fact. Another example of the naturalness, the circumstantial character of this Gospel. Jesus himself did not baptize. Baptism was left to the attendants. See Acts 10:48; 1 Cor 1:17. The subordinate position of John is implied thereby.
Vs. 3 πάλιν The better supported reading on the whole.
Vs. 4 Ἔδει It lay in his way, unless he made a long detour and went through Peraea. Comp. Josephus, Ant. xx.6.1. The whole narrative is an illustration of St. John’s statement that Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. We find the Galileans leagued with the Judeans against the Samaritans. Samaria and the Samaritans are not mentioned in the first two Gospels (except Matt 10:5 where the 70 are prohibited from going into Samaria). St. Luke first recounts our Lord’s dealings with these people—9:52; 10:33, the parable; and 17:11. It does not appear however that he did more than preach casually as he passed through Samaria from Galilee to Judaea, or conversely. This appears from the passages in St. Luke 9:52; 17:11 διήρχετο and from the narrative of St. John Ἔδει . . . διέρχεσθαι here and vs. 40, δύο ἡμέρας.
Συχάρ See Peshitto (Shochar). In the Cureton Syr. the word is missing but the manuscript is torn. This word has been made a difficulty for the authenticity of this Gospel. Yet the word certainly occurs in the Talmud, indeed it occurs in the connection the well or fountain at Sychar. See the passages in Delitzsch, Garenkis (?) Zeitschrift Luth. Theol. 1856, p. 243 (cf. Zeit. Luth. xxiv.6.53). It ceases therefore to have any bearing on the authenticity of this Gospel. It is simply a question of interpretation. The points to be observed from the Talmudic notices are: 1) it must have been a corn growing city; 2) it was far from Jerusalem; 3) the place was regarded as profane (by Jews); 4) the identifying of the place was difficult. This latter might have been wrong either: a) the fact of it being a mystical name or a nickname; b) or is it due to its comparative obscurity. If a) be the solution it would refer to Shechem itself, or if b) to such an obscure place as Askar. See John Lightfoot I, p. 597.
Sychar = Sychem = Shechem = Neapolis = Nablus? Neapolis however was not on the exact site of Shechem. So Beelezebub, Beelzebul. ‘Drunkenness’ Is 28:1—‘the crown of pride, the garlands of Ephraim.’ There is however speculation that the name ‘Sychar’ comes from the word for ‘mendacium’ see Hab 2:18. See Smith’s Dictionary of Biog. II, p. 411b.
Against this Sychar = Shechem equation: 1) the expression εἰς πόλιν in vs. 5. But St. John was writing for Gentile Christians unacquainted with Palestine; 2) notice that this nickname was given to Shechem. The passage where Sychar is mentioned in the Talmud betrays no hint that Shechem is meant (see however Wiesler, p. 231); 3) the distance. Jacob’s well is more than a mile from Shechem. In Nablus itself there were many springs. Yet the woman might have preferred the holy well. See John Lightfoot on Acts 7:16.
Let us suppose instead that Sychar is a place near Shechem (see Palestinian Exploration, July 1877, p. 149). 1) Early habitation separates Sychar from Shechem (see Eusebius), or at least from Neapolis. See Jerome, Op III, p. 279. He adds ubi nunc ecclesia fabricate est. On p. 265 he says that the city of Jacob is now a desert. Note that the Bourdeaux pilgrim is more explicit—see Smith’s Dictionary s.v. He places Sychar at 1,000 paces from Shechem. 2) A place named Askar exists near the well. The differences in spelling not impossible (at least so Delitzsch). In manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries we have the spelling Esychar. Perhaps the Jews preferred so calling it, endorsing the Samaritan Nablus that it was the locale of Jacob’s well. 3) This is in accordance with the notices in the Talmudic literature—the well of Sychar, the description of the place. In any case see Josephus, Ant. xi.8.6.
Vs. 5 χωρίον ‘a parcel of ground’ is a good translation. Comp. Acts 1:18; 4:34; 28:7. It ought to have been similarly translated in Matt 26:36; Mark 14:32, a place called Gethsemane.
ὃ ἔδωκεν a tradition, the fact is not recorded in the Old Testament. The reference is doubtless to the ground mentioned in Gen 33:19, comp. Josh 24:32; Gen 48:22. On Joseph as the first Samaritan patriarch see Josephus, Ant. ix.14.3, which shows the antipathy of the Jews. Two tombs of Joseph shown there. In Palestine it is better to determine the sites than try and mark the boundaries. The journeyings and sojourns of the patriarchs marked by wells.
Vs. 6 ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ See Sinai and Palestine, p. 237; and especially Robinson, II, p. 282sq.; III, p. 132.
οὕτως ‘without much ado.’ See Ast. (?) Lex. Plat. II, p. 495 s.v.; see R+P, Soph. Phil. 1067.
ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη There were two modes of reckoning. It might be midday, or six o’clock in the evening. It is unimportant which is adopted here. Note rather the definiteness of the impression on the narrative.
Vs. 7 ἐκ τῆς Σαμαρίας i.e. a Samaritan, the country not the city (Sebaste) that was two hours distance. It is not said that she came from Sychar, perhaps it even implies the opposite. Nor can this be inferred from vs. 28. This disposes of some difficulties (for example if she was from Nablus there was water near at hand) whether Sychar be Shechem or not. See Buttmann, p. 58.
Vs. 9 οὐ γὰρ συνχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρείταις If this is part of the woman’s own reply, it is a rude irony, perhaps it is one of the interjectional explanations of the Evangelist. But in either case, what exactly does it mean? How is it reconcilable with vs. 8 ἵνα τροφὰς ἀγοράσωσιν? See the article on the Samaritan Pentateuch in Smith’s Dictionary II, p. 1117 and my Galatians p. 289.
Vs. 10 Εἰ ᾔδεις τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι Δός μοι πεῖν Two things: 1) that God’s gracious gift extends to all; and 2) that I am the administrator of it.
Vs. 11 ἄντλημα See another instance of this in Plutarch, Moral. p.974E.
On βαθύ see Robinson, p. 284.
τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν See e.g. Gen 26:19; Lev 14:50sq. and 15:13.
Vs. 12 The Samaritan tradition.
Vs. 13 The question is only indirectly discussed. Contrast ὁ πίνων with ὃς δ’ ἂν πίῃ (vs. 14).
Vs. 14 γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον The draught itself shall become a well, a fresh source, a fresh center of distribution.
Vs. 20 οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν Deut 37:4 v.l. Trisham’s (?) testimony, p. 149. See the passage in Bereshith Rabba 32 in John Lightfoot, II, p. 540. Comp. Gen 35:4.
Vs. 22 ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε This for two reasons: 1) the mixture of idolatry with the worship of Yahweh among the Samaritans; 2) they were probably of heathen origin. A sprinkling of Jews who remained in the land intermixed with heathen. See 2 Kings 24:17sq. Note the name Cutheans, and this playing fast and loose with the worship of Yahweh seems to have continued. See Robinson, II, p. 290 note 3 and Josephus, Ant. xii.5.5. The mixture of heathenism and Hebrew monotheism seems to have prevailed to a very late date, e.g. the pagan elements in the teaching of Simon Magus (Helen of Troy etc.). In actual correspondence with Antiochus of Syria the Samaritans: 1) actually call themselves Sidonians, and renounce kinship with the Jews; 2) they say their temple is not dedicated to anyone, and they request that the idol of Zeus Ἑλλήνιός be given. Antiochus dedicates the temple to Zeus Ἑλλήνιός. 3) Even the Hebrew side of their religion was imperfect. They received only the Pentateuch. Thus the thread of the progressive development of the revelation was broken. They knew nothing of the Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως (Heb 1:1), more especially nothing of the ever-changing views of the Messianic person and office. The commentators seem to lay all the stress on 2) and nothing on 1) which is more important.
ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν They preserved the continuity of the divine revelation and from them in the fullness of time came Messiah.
ἡ σωτηρία The promised salvation which was implied in his own name—Jesus as in his realized office, comp. e.g. Josh 3:17; Is 2:3; Micah 4:2; Obadiah 21 etc.
Vss. 23-24 ἀληθινοὶ comp. vs. 37.
Πνεύματι the spiritual comprehensive manifestations, ἀληθείᾳ, the archtype the realization of which makes the external worship only a shadow, an image, reflection as it were. Compare the ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια.
Vs. 25 ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται On the nature of the Messianic expectations of the Samaritans see Westcott, Introd. to the Gospels, p. 149, and the references in Ewald, p. 189. The name of ‘Messiah,’ the ‘guide’ illustrates ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα. Compare the name of the Simonian book ‘The Great Announcement.’ How did they get their idea of Messiah? From: 1) the prediction in Deuteronomy; 2) contact with the Jews. But they would not recognize a Messiah who was a descendant of Judah, a son of David. Perhaps through them came the idea of Messiah being a son of Joseph, which the rabbis made a suffering Messiah.
ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός comp. 1:41, a conventional explanation of the Evangelist himself.
Vs. 27 μετὰ γυναικός ‘with a woman’ (Alford all wrong here). The rabbinical maxims explain this. See Erub. Fol. 53.2. R. Jose the Galilean being on a journey found Berurea in the way, to whom he said, ‘What way must we go to Lydda?’ She answered: ‘Oh thou foolish Galilean, have not the wise men taught, “do not multiply discourse with a woman”? You ought to have just said “Which way to Lydda?”’ See Yoma fol. 66.2. fol. 240.2—‘Let no one talk with a woman in the street, no not even with his own wife.’
Vs. 28 ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν Not necessarily ‘went back.’ See e.g. 6:1; 9:7, 11; 12:19 etc. When returning is directly expressed it is ἀπελθειν πάλιν e.g. 4:3; 10:40. She went to the city that she might talk with her neighbors.
Vs. 29 The natural exaggeration of language in one excited. Μήτι—not as the A.V. has it, but more perplexed, and doubtful, ‘Surely this cannot be. . . .’ Comp. vs. 32.
Vs. 30 ἤρχοντο Imperfect ‘started on their way.’ The imperfect explains the Ἐν τῷ μεταξύ in the next verse.
Vs. 31 ἠρώτων asked, not interrogated. See Trench, New Testament Synonyms, sec. 1 no. xl. Here however it may be said that an inquiring is implied. But not elsewhere—e.g. 4:40; 12:16; 16:23, 26; 17:9 etc.
Vs. 32 βρῶσιν Sacramental teaching. Not equal here to βρῶμα. It might well be so, but as βρῶμα itself.
Vs. 33 Μή τις ‘Surely no one was here’ etc.
Vs. 34 Comp. the quote in Deut 8:3 in Matt 4:4.
ποιῶ. . . . τελειώσω The change of tense is determined by the different meanings of the words. τελειώσω is ‘accomplish once for all.’ However there is a tendency to use a past tense of this verb. It cannot be an accident that though the word occurs twenty-three times in the New Testament, it is always in the past tense (aorist or perfect), except in Luke 8:32 (καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ τελειοῦμαι), where there is a special reason for the present tense.
Vs. 35 οὐχ ὑμεῖς λέγετε Comp. Matt 16:1, 2 which is the best comment on our passage. There is the same pointing to external nature, and the same spiritual application, the same contesting of his hearer’s quick apprehension about times and seasons in their physical being and their dullness in forecasting the approach of times and seasons of spiritual import. If the time is less sure here it is because the hearers are less sensitive to it. And this explains the ὑμεῖς. ‘Ye who are burdened with the things of this world, ye who are engaged with material cares, ye in your lower sphere.’ Comp. 8:15 ὑμεῖς κατὰ τὴν σάρκα κρίνετε, ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω οὐδένα. Alford gets on the wrong track here. ‘Ye who just now misunderstood my allusion to the food and took it in a gross material sense.’
Ἔτι τετράμηνός ἐστιν The vividness of the image and our Lord’s practice elsewhere of teaching from visible nature require that this should be taken as chronologically correct, i.e. that these words were spoken about four months before harvest time, just as above he started from actual ‘living’ water (vs. 13), and the actual food (vs. 31). On the time of the year, see Stanley, p. 239. The slight variations are unimportant, it was in what we would call winter, the end or the beginning of the year. Either is reconcilable with vs. 1.
Before going further, we may note: 1) the soundness and naturalness of the narrative. Note the gradations in the woman’s feelings towards our Lord—contemptuous, ironic, respect mingled with curiosity, wonderment which has almost ripened into faith; 2) the relation of the Lord’s teaching here to his teaching in the other Evangelists—see esp. vss. 34, 35; 3) the exact and lively picture which it conveys of the relations between Jews and Samaritans; 4) lastly, and not leastly, the topographical truth. See Stanley, p. 239.
ἐπάρατε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν καὶ θεάσασθε τὰς χώρας The χώρας here are the spiritual χώρας. The transition is as rapid as in vs. 13 and vs. 31.
λευκαί εἰσιν One of the earliest and most abundant crops was harvested by the Apostles from this very field of Samaria. Comp. Acts 1:8; 8:5 (εἰς τὴν πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρίας, the same place?), 14; 15:3.
Vs. 36 ὁ θερίζων i.e. the Apostles.
εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον This marks the transition from the natural to the spiritual harvest.
ὁ σπείρων
Vs. 37 A.V. wrong. ‘Herein is that saying true . . .’ The manuscript authority favors omitting ὁ, but the apparent difference may have caused the mistake—‘Herein lies truth, the real proverb of which the vulgar sign is only a counterfeit.’
Vs. 38 ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ ἀληθινός comp. τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν (1:9); τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν (6:32); ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή (15:1). So that ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ ἀληθινός means ‘the genuine or real proverb/maxim’ comp. 4:33, which is the maxim taken in its higher, spiritual sense of which the lower physical sense is only a shadow, a counterfeit. Comp. Plato, Tim. p.26E on ἀληθινός.
ἀπέστειλα Their mission had commenced at their call, their commission. Possibly, the mission recorded in the other Evangelists was prior to this, see Luke 9:2; Matt 10:5.
ἄλλοι κεκοπιάκασιν Referring to himself primarily. The plural is for symmetry with ὑμεῖς, just as above ὁ θερίζων of a work for symmetry with ὁ σπείρων.
Vs. 42 διὰ τὴν σὴν λαλιάν ‘your talk’ and διὰ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ (vs. 41), not necessarily depreciating. See Meyer on 8:43, it designates more or less unrestrained familiar talk. Note the receptivity of the Samaritans as in Acts 8. The uncertainty of their belief καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς would make them the more eager for some firm ground on which to stand. See Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 53. Their ready belief has a parallel in the centurion, and the Syrophoenician woman, both beyond the pale of the covenant people.
τοῦ κόσμου The universality of Messiah’s kingdom would be more comfortable to Samaritan rather than to the Jewish people’s presumptions, owing to their mixed origins and less rigorous exclusiveness. See Meyer.
ὁ Χριστός a later gloss in the B.M.T. and T.R. It is omitted in א, B, C.
Vs. 43 Μετὰ δὲ τὰς δύο ἡμέρας ‘the two days,’ not as A.V.
Vs. 44 Another back reference to the Synoptic narrative which is thus assumed. Matt 13:57; Mark 6:4; comp. Luke 4:24. But what is the connection here? There are various unsatisfactory solutions proposed. The explanation that the γάρ is dependent on the following clause is quite inadmissible. Alford’s parallels are no parallels. Look at the Synoptic narratives. The πατρίς in this saying is Nazareth as distinguished from Capernaum. πατρίς there is decidedly not Galilee as a whole, but Nazareth specially. Still a difference remains, for Nazareth and Capernaum (the sea of Tiberias) both belong to Galilee. It cannot be imagined that the writer of the Fourth Gospel did not know that Nazareth belonged to Galilee, for he like the Synoptists speaks of the Lord as a Galilean (7:41, 52).
The explanation is to be sought in the circumstances under which the Gospel was written—its circumstantial character and probably its oral dictation. The writer has permanently in his mind that Jesus in returning to Galilee, avoids his own native town Nazareth. Thinking to mention this, he simply says Jesus went to Galilee without naming the part of Galilee, but he adds the explanation as though his hearers are acquainted with the circumstances that were so obviously present to his own memory, that Jesus carefully avoided Nazareth.
Vs. 45 ὅσα ἐποίησεν Comp. 2:23.
Vs. 46 βασιλικὸς A very frequent word in Josephus. See Kreitz (?), p. 144 and Wettstein here. The soldiers’ attendants, courtiers of Herod, as distinguished from the Roman authorities and their attendants. Elsewhere sometimes βασιλικός means a prince. See Steph. Thes. s.v. Was he Herod’s steward Chuza (Luke 8:3), or Herod’s foster brother Manaen (Acts 13:1)? All this is conjecture.
Vs. 48 εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πρὸς αὐτόν It was a reply to his entreaty, ‘I will work a miracle,’ but it was addressed to the bystanders—‘Except you see miracles, you will not believe.’
Vs. 49 κατάβηθι as 2:12.
τὸ παιδίον μου ‘My darling.’ The tenderness of paternal affection. Before it was τὸν υἱόν in vs. 47 and in the Lord’s reply (vs. 50). It does not appear that his son was very young.
Vs. 50 ἐπορεύετο ‘Started on his way.’ The imperfect preparing the way for ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ καταβαίνοντος as above vss. 30, 31.
Vs. 52 κομψότερον ἔσχεν As we would say, ‘to get on nicely.’ It was a doctor’s expression. See Epictetus iii.10. Grammatical pedants objected to the expression. See Bekker, Anecd. p. 102.23. Archilochus (?) used κομψότερον of a sick man.
ὥραν ἑβδόμην Either at one o’clock or at seven o’clock. The probabilities of the case seem rather to favor the latter as the father would probably not delay on the road and spend the night out.
Vs. 53 ἐπίστευσεν More than is implied in vs. 30.
Vs. 54 δεύτερον σημεῖον a second miracle in Cana or in Galilee, for meanwhile he had wrought others in Jerusalem. The A.V. is loose and not very intelligible. Here again the writer seems to be answering some inquiries or solving some perplexities of his disciples.
This is not the same miracle as in Matt 8:5; Luke 7:1 for: 1) The place is there Capernaum, here Cana; 2) The petitioner is there a centurion, a Roman soldier, here a servant of Herod, a βασιλικός; 3) The sick person is there a servant (ὁ παῖς μου in Matt and τινος δοῦλος in Luke), here a son; 4) The sickness there is παραλυτικός, here the issue is a fever (ὁ πυρετός); 5) The centurion there asks Jesus not to enter his house but only to say the word, the courtier here entreats him to come down to his house, ere his child die; 6) The words of the centurion and the answer of the Lord are both so remarkable there, that they would not fail to be expected here if the incident were the same. The only thing in common is the healing at a distance but that is not peculiar to these miracles.