Ch. 4:1-26. CHRIST AND THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA.--CHRIST A PREACHER
IN SEASON AND OUT OF SEASON.--HIS EXAMPLE AS A CHRISTIAN
CONVERSATIONALIST.--THE DIVINE SPRING; THE HUMAN CISTERN.--THE
ESSENTIAL AND THE INSIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS IN WORSHIP CONTRASTED.
This interview between Christ and the Samaritan woman is reported
alone by John. The time is uncertain; the only definite indication is
that of verse 35, and the interpretation of that is uncertain. With
Ellicott and Andrews, I think December of A. D. 27 the most probable
date. Matthew (4:12) explains Christ’s departure into Galilee by
saying that it took place when he heard that John the Baptist was cast
into prison; John here attributes it to another cause, a fear of
rivalry and contention between his own and John’s disciples. The
probable explanation is that Christ left Judea for the latter reason,
but did not commence his public ministry till the imprisonment of the
Baptist. See ch. 5, Prel. note.
1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard
that Jesus made and baptized[124] more disciples than John,
[124] ch. 3:22, 26.
2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
3 He left Judæa, and departed again into Galilee.
4 And he must needs[125] go through Samaria.
[125] Luke 2:49.
=1-4. Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.= The
conversation between Christ and Nicodemus took place at the Passover,
and therefore in the spring; if that between Christ and the woman at
the well occurred in December, Jesus and John the Baptist baptized
together during the summer. The doctrine which Christ preached at this
time was substantially the same as that of the Baptist. “Repent, for
the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17); for he had not
yet begun to explain publicly the spiritual and universal nature of
his kingdom. But differences between the ministries of the two were
from the first apparent; differences chiefly respecting the
ceremonials of religion--purifying, baptizing, fasting (ch. 3:25, 26;
Matt. 9:14). The increasing popularity of Christ threatened to awake
the envy of the Baptist’s disciples, his disregard of ceremonial to
awaken their suspicion; the Pharisees were alert to stimulate both. So
Christ withdrew, forestalling the first danger of rupture and
conflict, a lesson to all Christian workers against all unchristian
rivalries and contentions about details in doctrine or ceremony. Envy
is the most common instigator of denominational controversy.--=Jesus
himself baptized not.= No instance is recorded of any baptism
administered by Christ, or of any baptism commanded or authorized by
Christ, till after his resurrection and about the time of his
ascension. Baptism appears to have been adopted by his disciples from
John the Baptist, and employed by them without express direction from
Christ, as a symbol of repentance and a profession of a new life, and
to have been subsequently adopted in a modified form by their Lord.
That it was always regarded by the apostles as subordinate to the
preaching of the Word is indicated by Acts 10:4, 8, with 1 Cor. 1:16,
17, from which it appears to have been a ministerial act not
ordinarily performed by the apostles. On the history of baptism, see
note on the baptism of Jesus by John, Vol. I, p. 72, and on Christian
baptism, note on Matt. 28:19.--=And he must needs go through Samaria.=
Simply because that province lay directly between Judea and Galilee,
and therefore on the direct route. See map. Josephus tells us that it
was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city to
the festivals, to take their journey through the country of the
Samaritans. The more bigoted Judeans may have sometimes avoided it by
going through Perea. The history of Samaria explains, and in some
measure justifies, the odium attaching to it and its inhabitants among
the Jews. At the time of the secession of the ten tribes under
Rehoboam (1 Kings, ch. 12), Shechem was adopted by him as the capital
of the new monarchy, and made the seat of an idolatrous worship.
Subsequently the city of Samaria was built by Omri, king of Israel, as
capital (1 Kings 16:24), and so remained till the time of the
captivity of the ten tribes under Shalmaneser (2 Kings 17:6). A
heathen colony was then sent in to take the places of the exiled
Israelites; these colonists suffered from the devastations of wild
beasts, and acting on the common assumption of that time that their
own gods were not competent to take care of them in a strange land,
sent for and received priests of Israel to teach them the manner of
the God of Palestine. The result of this instruction was a mixed
religion, partly Jewish, partly heathen (2 Kings 17:24-41). In the O.
T., the phrase “the cities of Samaria,” is equivalent to the “kingdom
of Israel;” it thus included all of Palestine north of Judea. That
portion of Israel east of the Jordan which originally belonged to it
was subsequently taken away the kings of Assyria (1 Chron. 5:26),
Galilee shared the same fate (2 Kings 15:29), and Samaria was reduced
to the dimensions which it possessed in the time of Christ. The
character and conduct of the Samaritans increased the antagonism
between them and the Jews. They were refused permission to participate
in the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem, at the time of the
return of Judah from captivity, and became open, and, for a time,
successful opponents of the rebuilding (Ezra, chaps. 4 and 5; Neh.,
chaps. 4 and 6). Finally, an exiled priest from Jerusalem obtained
permission from the Persian king of his day to build a rival temple at
Gerizim, and Samaria became the rival of Jerusalem, and the
rallying-point of its foes and its outlaws (Josephus’ Antiq. 11:8, 6).
To a rival temple and religion, they added a Samaritan Pentateuch, for
which they claimed a greater antiquity and authority than for any copy
of the O. T. possessed by the Jews. The bitter national and religious
antipathy between Jew and Samaritan, consequent upon this history, is
illustrated in several passages in the N. T. (ver. 9, note; 8:48; Luke
9:52-56; 10:30-37; 17:16). If anything could justify such an antipathy
this would be justified, since the Samaritans were renegades both to
their religion and to their nation; and Christ’s course here and
elsewhere implies a condemnation of all rancor and bitterness, founded
on race, national, or religious differences. Of the Samaritans, one
hundred and fifty still worshipping in a little synagogue at the foot
of Gerizim are all that are left, “the oldest and the smallest sect in
the world.”
5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called
Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave[126]
to his son Joseph.
[126] Gen. 33:19; 48:22; Josh. 24:32.
=5. A city of Samaria called Sychar.= The prevalent opinion is that
Sychar is a corruption of the name Shechem, that it means _drunken_,
and that this slight change was given by the Jews to the rival capital
in derision, and in possible allusion to Isaiah 28:1. If this be so,
it must have become current at this time; for we can hardly believe
that John would otherwise embody a mere term of derision in the
Evangelical narrative. Dr. Thomson (_Land and Book_, ii:206, following
Hug, Luthardt, and Ewald) identifies the ancient Sychar with a village
about half a mile north of the supposed site of Jacob’s well, called
Aschar; and as the corruption of Shechem into Sychar is a mere
hypothesis, framed to account for the use of the word here, Dr.
Thomson’s opinion appears to me the more probable. Shechem was two
miles distant from Jacob’s well, and apparently was abundantly
supplied with water.
[Illustration: JACOB’S WELL.]
6 Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being
wearied with _his_ journey, sat thus on the well: _and_ it
was about the sixth hour.
=6. Now Jacob’s spring was there.= There are two Greek words
translated _well_ in this narrative: the first means a spring or
fountain, _i. e._, water-source; the second a well or cistern, _i.
e._, a water-chamber. The first (πηγή) is used here, indicating that
the well was fed internally by springs, not externally by rain. A
well, now dry and deserted, answering to all the conditions of the
narrative here, is designated by an ancient tradition as the one here
described; and the case is one of the very few in Palestine in which
tradition appears to be trustworthy. It is accepted even by Dr.
Robinson. The purchase of the ground by Jacob is described in Gen.
33:18-20, but for the digging of the well there is no other authority
than tradition, unless Gen. 49:22 is an allusion to it. Whether Jacob
himself dug it, or whether his name was subsequently given to it by
tradition is not known, nor does the reference here determine that
question; it only designates the well by its customary name. Why he
should have dug a well at all has been made matter of question, since
the whole valley abounds with water. To this question Dr. Thomson
replies: “The well is a very _positive_ fact, and it must have been
dug by somebody, notwithstanding this abundance of fountains, and why
not by Jacob?” And he suggests that these fountains may have been
already appropriated by the native population. The site of the well is
in the valley between Mts. Gerizim and Ebal. For a striking
description of this valley, see Van der Velde. The historical
associations connected with the site were many and sacred. There the
Lord first appeared to Abraham (Gen. 12:6, 7); Jacob built his first
altar (Gen. 33:18-20); Joseph sought his brethren in vain (Gen.
37:12); Joshua rehearsed the law, with its blessings and cursings, and
amidst the loud amens of the assembled people (Josh. 8:30-35;
24:1-25); and there Joseph was buried in the land that belonged to his
father Jacob (Josh. 24:32). “At no other spot in Palestine, probably,
could Jesus have more fitly uttered his remarkable doctrine, of the
absolute liberty of conscience from all thrall of place or tradition,
than here in Shechem, where the whole Jewish nation, in a
peculiar sense, had its beginning.”--(_H. W. Beecher’s Life of
Christ._)--=Being wearied with his journey.= The commentators call
attention to this weariness as an evidence of the reality of his
humanity. It seems to me, when coupled with the prophecy of Isaiah
53:2, his apparent sinking under the weight of the cross, and his
early death, while the two thieves survived (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:44;
John 19:32, 33), to be an indication that his physical frame was not
robust, was not equal to the demands of the soul which it contained,
and that, as a part of his human experience, he knew the peculiar
sorrows which an intense and active mind feels when hindered by a weak
bodily organization.--=Sat thus at the spring.= “What meaneth ‘thus’?
Not upon a throne; not upon a cushion; but simply and as he was upon
the ground.”--(_Chrysostom._)--=And it was about the sixth hour.= That
is, about twelve o’clock. There appears to be no adequate reason for
the opinion that has been advanced, that John employs a different kind
of reckoning from that common among the Jews, and means here 6 P. M.
It is true that the evening was the common hour of resort to the wells
by the women, but evidently this conference was with Christ _alone_,
an indication that the hour was not the evening hour, for then others
would probably have been present also. Ryle suggests that there is a
significance in the fact that while Christ talked with Nicodemus
alone, and at night, his ministry to this sinful woman was at a public
resort, and at noon. “If a man will try to do good to a person like
the Samaritan woman, alone and without witnesses, let him take heed
that he walk in his Master’s footsteps, as to the time of his
proceedings, as well as to the message he delivers.” Compare the
circumstances of Christ’s Gospel message to the woman that was a
sinner (Luke 7:37, etc.).
7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus
saith unto her, Give me to drink.
8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy
meat.)
=7, 8. A woman of Samaria.= That is, a Samaritan woman.--=To draw
water.= In the East the towns are not supplied, as with us, by means
of aqueducts and water-pipes, nor are individual houses furnished each
with its well. The well itself is usually excavated from the solid
limestone rock, and provided with a low curb to guard against accident
(Exod. 21:33). On such a curb Christ probably sat to rest. The well is
ordinarily not furnished with any apparatus for drawing water. Each
woman brings her own bucket, most commonly made of the skin of some
animal; sometimes the well is shallow, and she descends by steps made
for the purpose (Gen. 24:16), and dips the water up from the surface;
if it is deep, she lets down her bucket with a rope. To assist in the
work, a wheel or pulley is sometimes fixed over the well. A trough of
wood or stone usually provides a means for watering cattle and sheep
(Gen. 24:20; Exod. 2:16). In this case, Christ had no bucket with him,
and the well being deep, so that he could not descend into it, he had
no means of obtaining water (ver. 11).--=Jesus saith unto her, Give me
to drink.= Observe how insignificant a request he makes the occasion
for a deeply spiritual religious conversation; and how natural the
transition from the material to the spiritual. Observe, too, that by
asking a favor he opens the way to the granting of one. He thus
verifies the truth that the way to gain another’s good will is not at
first by _doing_, but by _receiving_ a kindness.--=His disciples were
gone ... to buy meat.= They apparently carried little or nothing to
eat on their journeys (Matt. 16:6, 7; 12:1), but money to make the
necessary purchases (John 12:6). The direction to depend on
hospitality (Matt. 10:9, 10) was not for their general guidance and
government.
9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that
thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman
of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings[127] with the
Samaritans.
[127] Acts 10:28.
=9. For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.= This is
taken by some to be said by the woman; more probably it was added
parenthetically by the Evangelist, to explain to his Gentile readers
the woman’s surprise. For the reason of the fact, see on verse 4. It
seems clear that the statement is not to be taken literally, for the
disciples, who were Jews, had just gone into the Samaritan city to
purchase food; but that there was abundant ground for it is evident
from Rabbinical writings; _e. g._, “Let no Israelite eat one mouthful
of anything that is a Samaritan’s; for if he eat but a little mouthful,
he is as if he ate swine’s flesh.”
10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the
gift[128] of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give
me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would
have given thee living[129] water.
[128] Eph. 2:8.
[129] Isa. 12:3; 41:17, 18; Jer. 2:13; Zech. 13:1;
14:8; Rev. 22:17.
=10. If thou knewest the gift of God.= Not, If thou knew that water is
the gift of God; this knowledge might indeed have prevented her
seemingly surly refusal, but it would not have led her to ask living
water of him. Nor, If thou knewest the peace and joy which are the
spiritual gifts of God; these constitute the living water, and if she
already knew them, in her experience, she would not need to ask to
_receive_ them. Christ is the unspeakable gift of God; if she knew the
full importance of this gift, the office and work of the Messiah, and
that he who was asking her for a drink of water was he, she would have
asked and received from him living water. The objection that the woman
would not have so comprehended the reference, and therefore that it
cannot be the primary meaning (_Alford_, _Meyer_), is not tenable,
because by the very language itself it is implied that the woman will
not comprehend it. Christ speaks of a mystery to provoke her to
further inquiry.--=Living water.= This phrase signifies primarily
spring water, as opposed to water in a cistern. In Gen. 26:19; Lev.
14:5; Jer. 2:13, the word rendered “springing,” “running,” and
“living,” is in the Septuagint the one here rendered “living.” It is
taken by Christ as a symbol of the spiritual life which he imparts,
and so as a symbol of himself, for he gives himself to the soul, and
is, by his indwelling, the bread and water of life. The spiritual
meaning then is not _life-giving_; for that a different Greek word
would be employed (ζωοποιών not ζῶν). It is true that living water is
life-giving, but that is not the meaning conveyed by the phrase. The
meaning is water that has life in itself, as in John 6:51; “living
bread” means the living Christ, in contrast with the inert manna. The
significance of the metaphor here is explained by its connection.
Christ compares himself with water, not because of its cleansing
power, nor because of its revivifying power on the soil, but because
he satisfies the soul’s thirst. A similar metaphorical use of water is
to be found in the O. T. See Psalm 23:2; Isaiah 55:1; Jer. 2:13; but
especially Numb. 20:8-11, an incident which it appears to me probable
Christ had in mind, and one with which the woman was probably
familiar, as the Samaritans accepted and employed the Pentateuch.
Observe that salvation is the gift of God (Rom. 6:23), and that the
only condition of receiving it is asking (Matt. 5:6; 7:7; Rev. 22:17).
The water’ is always ready; it is the thirst only that is wanting
(Luke 14:17-19).
11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw
with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that
living water?
12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us
the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and
his cattle?
=11, 12. Sire, Thou hast no bucket, and the well is deep.= Not spring;
the water chamber, not the water source (φρέαρ not πηγή) See on ver.
6. The language is that of badinage. It is analogous to that of
Nicodemus in ch. 3:4; though here, commingled with irony, there may
well have been a real perplexity. The original indicates a change in
the woman’s tone; she at first says, How is it that thou being a
_Jew_? she now addresses him as “_Sire_” (kύριε).--=Our father Jacob=,
etc. The Samaritans traced their origin back to the patriarchs, and
her language here implies a claim to an ancestry superior to that of
the Jews, among whom she classed Jesus. Observe an illustration of the
spirit which says, What sufficed for our fathers is good enough for
us, no one can be greater than they; a spirit which is fatal to all
progress, in either material or spiritual things.
[Illustration: AT THE WELL.
“_Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never
thirst._”]
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of
this water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever[130] drinketh of the water that I shall
give[131] him shall never thirst; but the water that
I shall give him shall be in him[132] a well of water
springing up into everlasting life.
[130] ch. 6:35, 58.
[131] ch. 17:2, 3; Rom. 6:23.
[132] ch. 7:38.
=13, 14. Every one drinking of this water=; accustomed to drink
of it, and relying upon it. “The ‘drinking’ sets forth the
recurrence, the interrupted seasons of the drinking of earthly
water.”--(_Alford._)--=Shall thirst again.= He appeals in this to the
woman’s experience, who comes daily to re-supply the ever-recurring
want.--=But whosoever has drunk=; once for all; the tense (aorist,
πίῃ) indicates an historical act once performed.--=That I shall give
to him.= Observe the representation throughout that the water is a
gift, and a gift not _received_ by Christ in common with humanity, but
_given_ by Christ to humanity. The Bible may be searched in vain for
similar language from any prophet or apostle.--=Shall not thirst unto
eternity.= That is, shall never, even unto eternity, thirst. “The
whole verse is a strong argument in favor of the doctrine of the
perpetuity of grace, and the consequent perseverance and the faith of
believers.”--(_Ryle._) Comp. ch. 10:28; Rom. 8:35-39; 2 Tim.
1:12.--=But the water which I shall give him.= This Christ does by
giving his own life for the life of the world in his sacrifice for sin
(ch. 6:51) and in his spiritual indwelling in the soul of the believer
(ch. 14:19, 23).--=Shall become in him a fountain of water.= Not a
_well_ (not φρέαρ but πηγή). The reason he shall never thirst is that
the water which Christ gives becomes itself a water source, a spring,
a perpetual fountain of supply.--=Springing up unto eternal life.= Not
_into_; the preposition indicates not something into which the
fountain will be transformed, but the duration of its existence; it
will forever spring up in the soul. The contrast throughout these
verses is between earthly and spiritual supplies. The _well_ (φρέαρ)
is a symbol of earthly supply. This appeases but never satisfies; for
it furnishes that which is external, and which is consumed in the
using, so that the soul which relies on earthly cisterns for its
satisfaction thirsts again. The living water, the spring (πηγή) which
Christ gives, becomes a fountain in the soul, it enters into and
becomes part of the character; using does not consume but increases
the supply. In Christ’s promise here thirst is not equivalent to
“desire,” nor is the declaration “shall never thirst,” equivalent to
“shall never feel any spiritual want.” Thirst is of all bodily
cravings the most painful and intolerable. Hence it is used in the
Bible as a metaphor, not merely of spiritual _desires_, but of an
urgent and intense desire, that cannot be denied (Psalm 42:2; 63:1;
143:6; Isaiah 55:1; Matt. 5:6, note). Here then the declaration is
that Christ satisfies this painful longing, so that the soul shall
experience it no more. Of soul-thirst we have striking illustrations
in Psalms 41 and 42, and in Rom. 7:17-24; of soul-satisfaction in
Christ, illustrations in Psalm 46 and in Rom. 8:31-39. Compare
Christ’s promises in John 11:36; 16:32, 33. The continuance of earnest
spiritual desires is not inconsistent with a rich spiritual
experience. See Phil. 3:12-14.
15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that
I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
=15.= There is certainly a difference in tone between this request
and the answer of verses 11, 13. The woman now dimly recognizes and
vaguely appreciates Christ’s interpretation of her own soul-want, and
replies half in jest, half in earnest. But her language “neither come
hither to draw,” shows that she still gives to Christ’s words, as I
think purposely misinterpreting them, a prosaic and literal meaning.
Observe the implied misapprehension of the office of Christ, as one
who relieves the soul of all further care and labor in the matter of
religion. “There are many like her who would be glad of such a divine
gift of religion as should take away all the labor and trouble of
Christian life. ‘That I come not hither to draw’ is the desire of
thousands who want the results of right living without the trouble of
living aright.”--(_H. W. Beecher._)
16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come
hither.
=16. Go, call thy husband=, etc. This is in appearance a break in the
conversation; it is in reality the first step toward granting the
woman’s request: “Give me this water;” for the first step is to
convince of sin. It is only if we confess our sins that “He is
faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Hence when Christ came to bring this
water of life to the world he began by preaching the duty of
repentance (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15). Other explanations, as that a
longer conversation with the woman alone would be indecorous
(_Grotius_), or that she was unable to understand Christ’s meaning and
so he summoned her husband (_Cyril_, quoted in _Alford_), or that he
wished her husband to share with her in the benefits of the
conversation (_Chrysostom_), singularly ignore the moral meaning and
continuity of the discourse. Observe Christ’s uniform way of dealing
with skepticism. Its root is in sin; and he addresses not the reason,
but proceeds directly to convict the conscience. It is only the
sinner, conscious of sin, who ever truly finds a divine Saviour.
17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband.Jesus
said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now
hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
=17, 18.= The word (ἀνήρ) in Christ’s reply, rendered _husband_, is one
of more general import and is often translated _man_. But it is the
ordinary word used in the N. T. for husband, and I see no reason to
doubt that she had lived with five successive husbands.--From these
she had been separated, from some perhaps by death, from others by
divorce; at all events the last of these separations was unconcealedly
illegal, and her present life was one which her own conscience
condemned as licentious. Observe the severity in fact and the
gentleness in form of Christ’s rebuke. It shows a full knowledge of
her sin; yet it is couched in the language not of condemnation but of
commendation.
19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive[133] that thou
art a prophet.
[133] ch. 1:48, 49.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain;[134] and ye
say, that in Jerusalem[135] is the place where men ought to
worship.
[134] Judges 9:7.
[135] Deut. 12:5-11; 1 Kings 9:3.
=19, 20. The woman saith unto him.= Her sentence is incomplete, either
in the utterance or in the report. It is the basis of a question,
implied, or perhaps expressed, but not given by John, in which place
should worship be offered; which were right, Jew or Samaritan. The
question was one fiercely debated between them (See on verse 5).--=I
perceive that thou art a prophet.= It was a hasty conclusion; Christ
might have known her character and life by other than supernatural
means. Bigotry and vice are apt to be credulous and superstitious.
Observe, however, the difference in tone between this declaration and
the language of verse 9: “How is it that thou being a Jew.”--=Our
fathers worshipped.= “The argument of ‘our fathers’ has always proved
strong. Opinions, like electricity, are supposed to descend more
safely along an unbroken chain. That which ‘our fathers’ or our
ancestors believed, is apt to seem necessarily true; and the larger
the roots of any belief, the more flourishing, it is supposed, will be
its top.”--(_Beecher._) Calvin’s comments are admirable though too
long to quote. He suggests four errors into which men are apt to fall,
from blindly following the “_fathers_,” all illustrated by the
Samaritans: (1) When pride has created a false custom or religion, the
history of the fathers is ransacked to find justification for it; (2)
when men imitate the example of the evil-doers, because they are
ancient, forgetful that they only are worthy to be reckoned as fathers
who are true sons of God; (3) when we imitate the conduct but not the
spirit of the fathers, as if one should defend human sacrifice
from the example of Abraham in Gen. 22:1-10; (4) when we imitate
the conduct of the fathers without considering the change of
circumstances, as when the Christian church attempts to copy the
ceremonials of the Jewish. “None of these are true imitators of the
fathers; most of them are apes.”--=In this mount=, Gerizim. According
to the Samaritan tradition it was here that Abraham went to sacrifice
Isaac; and here, not on Ebal, as according to our Scripture (Josh.
8:30; Deut. 27:4), that the altar was erected by Joshua on which the
words of the law were inscribed. The first view is sanctioned by some
Christian scholars, prominent among whom is Dean Stanley. A temple was
built on Gerizim by the Samaritans, according to Josephus, during the
reign of Alexander, though the date is doubtful. The two temples
intensified the bitterness of the feud between the Jews and the
Samaritans, and the Samaritan temple was deserted and destroyed, B. C.
129, by John Hyrcanus (Josephus’ Antiquities 13:9, 11); but the
Samaritans at Sechem (Nablus) still call Gerizim the holy mountain,
and turn their faces toward it in prayer.--=Ye say.= She still treats
Christ as a Jew.
Some have regarded the question presented by the woman here as a
serious one; recognizing Christ as a prophet, she asks his solution of
what was to her mind the great religious problem of the day; others
see in it an endeavor on her part to evade the personal reference to
her own sins. Both seem to me true. She endeavors to turn the
conversation; recognizing the truth of Christ’s allegation, “He whom
thou now hast is not thy husband,” not by confessing her sin but by
acknowledging him as a prophet; but eludes the topic by opening a
problem in controversial theology. In all this she is honest and in
earnest. She is not the first inquirer who has deemed theoretical
theology more important than practical duty. The moment her thoughts
are turned to religious truth, they tend to its external aspects, and
she naturally and honestly seeks a refuge from her conscience in the
question, Where ought men to worship? The question, What ought _I_ to
do? is postponed. Observe that Christ suffers her to change the
subject; leaves her conscience to press the sin to which he has
awakened it, and teaches his followers how to deal with those who
evade practical duty by doctrinal or ceremonial questions by his own
response, No matter _where_ or _how_ the soul seeks God, if it only
seeks him in spirit and in truth.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour
cometh, when ye[136] shall neither in this mountain, nor
yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
[136] Mal. 1:11; Matt. 18:20.
22 Ye worship[137] ye know not what: we know what we
worship: for salvation[138] is of the Jews.
[137] 2 Kings 17:29.
[138] Isa. 2:3; Rom. 9:5.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit[139] and in
truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
[139] Phil. 3:3.
24 God[140] _is_ a Spirit: and they that worship him must
worship _him_ in spirit and in truth.
[140] 2 Cor. 3:17.
=21-24. Believe me.= This expression is nowhere else used by our Lord.
It answers to his “Verily, verily, I say unto you” (Matt. 5:18, note),
and to Paul’s “This is a faithful (_i. e._, trustworthy) saying” (1
Tim. 1:15, 4:9; Tit. 3:8). He employs it here because his declaration
is partly in the nature of a prophecy, which must be accepted, if at
all, upon simple trust in him.--=The hour cometh.= The word _hour_ is
here equivalent to time or season; this use of “hour” is not
infrequent in John’s Gospel (ch. 2:4; 5:25, 28, 35, “season;” 8:20,
etc.).--=When ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem
worship the Father.= A prophecy which was speedily, perhaps in the
lifetime of this woman, fulfilled. The ravaging of Palestine by the
Roman armies, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of
the Jews, has scattered the worshippers throughout the world. The
Samaritan sect is indeed extinct, except the few survivors at Nablus,
but the Jews continue their worship in exile in every land (Mal.
1:11).--=Ye worship ye know not what.= Their ignorance concerning the
nature of the true God is indicated in their early history (2 Kings
17:24-34). The woman was solicitous concerning the _place_ of worship;
Christ directs her thought toward the _person_ to be worshipped.--=We
know what we worship.= This is the only instance in which Christ
classes himself with the Jews by the pronoun _we_. He accepts, for the
time, her estimate of him as a Jewish prophet, and declares that it is
in the Jewish Scripture she is to look for a knowledge of the true
God. In fact, all correct knowledge of the character, attributes, and
dealings of God, possessed by the world to-day, has come through the
Jewish people, by means of the Old and New Testaments (see Romans 3:1,
2; 9:4, 5). At the time of this conversation idolatry had entirely
disappeared from the Jewish nation; and however inadequate, imperfect,
and corrupt their worship, they at least recognized the one only true
God. Notwithstanding some efforts to prove the contrary, I think it
is historically demonstrable that Judaism is the source of all
monotheistic religion. It is reasonably certain that the monotheism of
Mohammedanism is due to Mohammed’s early instruction in the principles
of Judaism.--=For the salvation is of the Jews.= The definite article
in the original, unfortunately omitted in our English version, gives
not only emphasis but significance to the language. The Jews know what
they worship, because it is from them, as a nation, that there comes
forth the divine salvation, typified by the sacrifices at Jerusalem,
prophesied by Jewish Scripture, and fulfilled by the Messiah born at
Bethlehem in Judea. It is therefore here equivalent not merely to the
Saviour, but also includes all the preparations which preceded his
personal advent.--=But the hour cometh and now is.= The last clause is
added parenthetically as a suggestion that the woman is not to look to
the remote future for the fulfillment of this word. Already the day
has dawned, though it has not fully arrived. Her language in verse 25
indicates that a suspicion of Christ’s true nature was, perhaps by
this declaration, awakened in her.--=When the true worshippers.= Not
merely the sincere in opposition to consciously hypocritical
worshippers (Isaiah 29:13), but also the true, inward worshippers, in
opposition to those whose worship was one of external form and
therefore not genuine. The word _true_ is elsewhere used thus by John
to indicate the inward and spiritual as contrasted with the external
and earthly, _e. g._, the true light (1:9), the true bread (6:32), the
true vine (15:1). Compare Luke 16:11.--=Shall worship the Father=, and
therefore know what they worship; =in spirit and in truth=. Not in the
Holy Spirit, though it is true that all spiritual worship is inspired
and directed by his influence (Rom. 8:26; Zach. 12:10); nor with the
breathing and aspirations of the heart, in contrast to worship with
outward forms and symbols, for symbol is necessary in all public
worship, language is but an external symbol of inward feeling; nor in
holiness and righteousness of life, for that is not the meaning of
_spirit_; nor in soundness of faith, in contrast to heretical worship,
for the worship of the Jews was not heretical, Christ has just said,
“We know what we worship.” _In_ (ἐν) expresses not the instrument with
which the worship shall be conducted, but the atmosphere in which it
will live, an atmosphere of spiritual life and truth; worship _in
spirit_, is in contrast with a worship in the flesh, the essence of
which consists in the rite, the form, the language, the posture (Comp.
Rom. 12:1; Phil. 3:3, 4; Heb. 9:9, 24); worship _in truth_ is one
which in its character harmonizes with the nature of him who is
worshipped. The Lycaonians would have worshipped Paul and Barnabas
(Acts 14:11-13) in sincerity, but not in truth. Christ’s language
condemns the spirit of ritualism, but not the employment of
rites.--=For the Father is seeking such to worship him.= God is
represented as in quest of such worshippers, among the many who are
worshippers merely in form. Observe _work is not_ worship; God is
seeking not merely workers (Matt. 20:1) but also worshippers (Comp.
Luke 10:38-42, notes).--=God is a Spirit.= This declaration is
fundamental, and radically inconsistent with (1) all scientific
theories which represent him as an abstract impersonal force; (2) with
all metaphysical refinements which, ignoring his personality, treat
him as a “power that makes for righteousness,” or as “the highest
dream of which the human soul is capable;” (3) with much of the
received theology, which often assumes that God is like nature, and
deduces his attributes from such an imaginary likeness; (4) with all
idolatry, whether the idol be in the imagination or in wood, stone, or
canvas. But it justifies us in looking to man’s spiritual nature to
interpret the divine nature to us. The spirituality of God is
abundantly taught in the O. T., but by implication only. The abstract
statement occurs only here and in 2 Cor. 3:17.--=Must worship him in
spirit and in truth.= Nothing else is worship.
Observe (1) Christ answers the woman’s question not by pointing out
the right place of worship, but by inculcating such a conception of
the true nature of worship, that the controversy respecting Gerizim
and Jerusalem shrinks into insignificance. The solution of many
theological problems is to be found, not in any answer, but in a new,
a higher, a more spiritual conception of religion as a spiritual life.
(2) The place, and impliedly the forms and methods of worship, are
matters of no importance. (3) It is important that we know what we
worship, _i. e._, that our worship be intelligent, else it is
superstitious. “Unless there be knowledge, it is not God that we
worship, but a phantom or idol.”--(_Calvin._) (4) That knowledge
includes three elements, viz., that God is a _spiritual being_, with
the sympathies, the flexibility, the _life_ which belongs to spirit;
that he is a Father, and is therefore to be approached with a filial,
reverential, trusting affection (Matt. 5:9, note); that he is revealed
to us through the Jewish Scripture and the Jewish Messiah. (5) He must
be worshipped in spirit, _i. e._, with the heart, and in truth, _i.
e._, in accordance with the realities of his nature as thus revealed
to us; nothing else is worship. (6) Worship is essential to a
religious life. God looks for it, as well as for work, as an evidence
of love. The whole lesson is eloquently embodied by Henry Ward Beecher
in his _Life of Christ_: “It expresses the renunciation of the senses
in worship. It throws back upon the heart and soul of every one,
whoever he may be, wherever he may be, the whole office of worship. It
is the first gleam of the new morning. No longer in this nest alone,
or in that, shall religion be looked for, but escaping from its shell,
heard in all the earth, in notes the same in every language, flying
unrestrained and free, the whole heavens shall be its sphere and the
whole earth its home.”
25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh,
which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us
all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I[141] that speak unto thee am
_he_.
[141] ch. 9:37.
=25, 26. The woman saith unto him.= Chrysostom well expresses her
spirit: “The woman was made dizzy by his discourse, and fainted at the
sublimity of what he said.” So she turns away from the present
revelation, procrastinating its application with the expectation of a
better opportunity when the Messiah comes.--=He will tell us all
things= is not to be interpreted literally; it is the expression of a
vague hope of a clearer light by and by.--=I that speak unto thee am
he.= Christ did not until a much later period declare his Messiahship
to his own disciples; he never declared it more clearly than to this
sinful Samaritan woman. There is a reason for it, in that this
declaration took from her all excuse of procrastination, and in fact
made her a missionary of the Messiah. Perhaps, too, the very fact that
she was an uninfluential woman and a Samaritan may have made him more
ready to reveal himself; for it was certainly his general purpose not
to disclose his character and mission to the public until his death
(Matt. 17:9). We certainly have no right to say, with some
rationalizing critics, that because we cannot fully understand his
reasons it is incredible. Such a method of criticism would make havoc
of all history. Most scholars suppose that the words “which is called
Christ” were spoken by the woman. It seems to me more probable that
they were added by John, as an explanation to his Greek readers of the
Hebrew term Messiah. The word Christ is its Greek equivalent.
* * * * *
NOTE ON CHRIST AS A CONVERSATIONALIST.--Christ as a preacher has
been studied; Christ as a conversationalist is quite as worthy the
Christian’s study. Many of his so-called discourses were simply
conversations; this is notably the case with the discourse to Nicodemus
(ch. 3:1-21) and the discourse here to the woman of Samaria.
Observe, I. _The contrast._ In the first the conversation is with a
religious teacher, of honorable position, of unexceptionable life;
in the second, with an abandoned woman, of licentious life; in the
first, conversation with Christ is sought, in the second, repelled; in
the first, Christ impresses the truth that the moralist must be born
again, and without personal trust in a personal Saviour is condemned;
in the second, he impresses upon the outcast the truth that for the
lost there is new life in him; the first he discourages, the second
encourages; to the first he proclaims duty, to the second he preaches
deliverance. II. _The harmony._ Both are skeptical; both receive
his declaration with scoffs; both invite argument; with both Christ
refuses to argue; to both he simply proclaims the truth, but without
strife or debate; with both he conquers cavilling by patience, not
by argument. III. _Christ’s method._ (_a._) Though wearied, he does
not neglect the occasion and opportunity afforded to him. (_b._) He
commences the conversation by a natural request. (_c._) He opens the
woman’s heart by requesting from her a favor. (_d._) He passes, by a
natural transition, from the physical to the spiritual world, from
nature to the truth which nature typifies. (_e._) He presents to her
not ethical, but spiritual truth; not the simple moralities, but the
deep things of the Gospel. (_f._) Her badinage does not affront him,
nor does he reprove her for it, or indicate surprise, astonishment,
or even objection. (_g._) He answers it by a direct and unanswerable
appeal to her conscience, by convicting her of sin. (_h._) In this,
while his rebuke is sharp, his language is courteous, the language
of commendation clothing condemnation. (_i._) Having once awakened
her conscience, he does not pursue the rebuke; leaving conscience to
do its work, he suffers her to change the subject. (_j._) He answers
her theological question not by direct response, but by asserting a
principle of worship which lifts the soul above all controversies
respecting forms and methods of worship. (_k._) Finally, he makes his
first and fullest disclosure of his Messiahship to this Samaritan
woman, showing himself most a Saviour to her who most needs his
salvation. IV. _His example._ It illustrates the enthusiasm (Rom.
10:1; Col. 4:13; 2 Tim. 4:2), the skill (Prov. 11:30), the patience (2
Tim. 2:24; 1 Thess. 2:7), and the spirituality (1 Cor. 2:13, 14)
needed for the most efficient, direct, personal work of soul-saving.
* * * * *
Ch. 4:27-42. CHRIST IN SAMARIA.--THE SUSTENANCE OF CHRISTIAN
LABORERS.--THE CALL FOR CHRISTIAN LABORERS.--THEIR REWARD.--THEIR
SUCCESS.
27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that
he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest
thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?
28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into
the city, and saith to the men,
29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I
did: is not this the Christ?
30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.
=27-30. And marvelled that he talked with a woman.= There is no
definite article in the original. The disciples knew nothing of the
woman’s character except that she was a Samaritan. What amazed them
was that Christ should descend to instruct a woman at all, and
especially a woman of Samaria. See above on ver. 4.--=No man said,
What seekest thou?= One of the many indications in the Gospel of the
awe in which these life-companions of Christ stood toward him (Mark
9:32; 10:32; 16:8; Luke 8:25; John 21:12).--=Left her waterpot.=
Lightfoot supposes in kindness, for the Lord to use; Calvin, with
greater probability, in her haste forgetting it. In her eagerness to
carry to others the news of the Messiah, she forgets her original
errand, which was to draw water for her home.--=Come see a man.=
Compare ch. 1:39, 46.--=Which told me all things that ever I did.= The
natural exaggeration of enthusiasm. Observe the method of the spread
of Christianity in its earliest years. The new convert became a
missionary, propagating its faith. Compare Acts 8:4; 9:20. If ever a
new convert might be excused from evangelical labors, this one
might--a woman, living in an age when female preaching was more
obnoxious even than now, and a woman of such ill-repute that she might
well expect to be received with scorn, not with respect. But her
strong convictions overbear all obstacles, secure for her a hearing,
and obtain for her mission success (ver. 39). Chrysostom dwells upon
her wisdom as well as her eagerness: “She said not, Come, see the
Christ, but, with the same condescension with which Christ had netted
her, she draws the men to Him; Come, she saith, see a man who told me
all that ever I did. Is not this the Christ? Observe again here the
great wisdom of the woman; she neither declared the fact plainly, nor
was she silent; for she desired not to bring them in by her own
assertion, but to make them to share in this opinion by hearing him. *
* * Nor did she say, Come, believe, but Come, _see_, a gentler
expression than the other, and one which more attracted them.”--=Then
they came out of the city.= Wisdom and tact inspired by enthusiasm
produced by a personal and profound conviction of Christ’s person and
power, rarely fail in evangelical labor.
31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying,
Master, eat.
32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know
not of.
33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any
man brought him _aught_ to eat?
=31-33. Master, eat.= The disciples had brought food from the city, to
obtain which they had originally left him (ver. 8).--=I have meat to
eat that ye know not of.= The commentators generally assume that the
doing of his Father’s will was this meat. This seems to me a false
interpretation not required by and not really accordant with a correct
reading of ver. 34 below (see note there); inconsistent with other
teachings of Scripture, and practically misleading to the disciple.
It is inconsistent with the metaphor; for in nature work is never
a substitute for food, but physiologically exhausts it. It is
inconsistent with other teachings of Scripture, which never represent
_work_, but always divine sustaining grace, as the Christian food. It
is practically misleading, for it leads the disciple to suppose that
he can grow by simply doing the will of his Father, whereas he is to
acquire the power to do that will by constantly receiving grace from
the Father. Christ’s language here is interpreted by such passages as
Matt. 4:4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God;” Matt. 25:4, “The wise took oil in
their vessels with their lamps.” Compare John, ch. 6. That Jesus lived
by this divine food is evident from his habit of prayer, and from such
declarations as John 5:19, 26, 30; 14:10, 11. This meat then is the
indwelling Spirit of God, conditioned upon entire consecration to God.
It was this meat which fed Peter in prison (Acts 12:6), Paul and Silas
at Philippi (Acts 16:25), and Paul in the shipwreck (Acts 27:23,
etc.); this too which sustained Christ in the hour of Gethsemane and
throughout his Passion. A faint type of it is afforded in earthly
experiences by the strength which seems often to be imparted to even a
feeble mother in the hour of her child’s sickness, and which carries
her through vigils which, but for her love, it would be impossible for
her to sustain. Her work is not her food: her love and faith are her
food, and sustain her for her work. No Christian can live by or on his
work; nor did Christ.--=Hath any one brought him aught to eat.=
They thought, perhaps, that the woman had done so. “It is very
characteristic of the first part of this Gospel to bring forward
instances of unreceptivity to spiritual meaning. Compare ver. 11; ch.
2:20; 3:4; 6:42, 52.”--(_Alford._)
34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat[142] is to do the will of
him that sent me, and to finish[143] his work.
[142] ch. 6:38; Job 23:12.
[143] ch. 17:4.
=34. For me meat is in order that I may do the will of him that sent
me.= The meaning is not, as our English version seems to imply, that
meat and doing God’s work are synonymous. The above is a literal
translation of the original; and the meaning is, The object of meat is
that I may do the will of him that sent me and may finish his work.
The expression is parallel to and interpreted by Paul’s in Acts 20:24,
“Neither count I my life dear unto myself so that I might finish my
course;” or in Phil. 1:21, “For to me to live is Christ.” The object
of Christ was the accomplishment of his mission; for this purpose
alone had meat any value to him; for this purpose he both needed and
possessed meat that his disciples, in their then state of spiritual
culture, did not and could not understand; and in the work which he
had accomplished, by his conversation with the woman, he had received
greater satisfaction than in any food which they could have brought to
him from the city.
35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and _then_
cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes,
and look on the fields; for they are white already to
harvest.[144]
[144] Matt. 9:37.
=35.= There is some uncertainty regarding the proper interpretation
of this verse. Alford, Tholuck, De Wette, and some others, suppose
that Christ is quoting a proverbial expression; perhaps referring
to the time which elapsed between seed-time and harvest, perhaps
to some time intervening between a local feast or a religious
anniversary and the harvest. Meyer, Andrews, Ellicott, and others
take it as a chronological indication that it was then four months
to harvest, _i. e._, the month of December, a fact to which perhaps
some reference had been made by the disciples in the course of
their walk. Chrysostom, Meyer, and others, suppose moreover that
the approaching Samaritans were seen through the corn-fields, and
to them Christ pointed when he said, “Lift up your eyes and look on
the fields.” “The approaching townspeople now showed how greatly
the doing of the Father’s will was in process of accomplishment.
They were coming through the corn-field, now tinged with green;
thus they make the fields, which for four months would not yield
the harvest, in a higher sense already white harvest fields. Jesus
directs the attention of his disciples to this; and with the beautiful
picture thus presented in nature he connects further appropriate
instructions.”--(_Meyer._) The phrase “Say not ye” seems to me clearly
to indicate that Christ refers to some proverbial saying (comp. Matt.
16:2); the direction, “Lift up your eyes and look on the fields,”
indicates some present appearance which gave point to his declaration
that they were white already, a declaration which would have no
significance if the fields were literally ready for the harvest. I
therefore, with Tholuck, combine the two views and suppose that Christ
did refer to a proverbial expression, probably indicating the time
between seed-time and harvest, and appropriate then because it
was then the seed-time. The spiritual meaning is very clear.
Procrastination is a fault of the church as well as of the world, of
the disciple as well as of the impenitent sinner. The Christian is
constantly waiting for an opportunity; he should wait _on_, he never
need wait _for_ the Lord. Since Christ has ascended, and the Holy
Ghost has been given, the field is always white for the harvest; we
never need wait for God to ripen the grain. The message, “All things
are now ready,” was given by the Lord to his servants; it is only as
the servant understands and believes this that he can make the guests
believe it (Luke 14:17).
[Illustration: SAMARITAN REMAINS IN GERIZIM.]
36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth
fruit[145] unto life eternal: that both[146] he that soweth
and he that reapeth may rejoice together.
[145] Rom. 6:22.
[146] 1 Cor. 3:5-9.
37 And herein is that saying true, One[147] soweth, and
another reapeth.
[147] Micah 6:15.
38 I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour:
other[148] men laboured, and ye are entered into their
labours.
[148] 1 Pet. 1:12.
=36-38. And he that reapeth receiveth wages and gathereth fruit unto
life eternal.= The Lord’s husbandman has both wages and heaven. The
earthly wages of the successful evangelist is not in his salary, nor
in his fame or position, but in the affections which reward him, and
the personal present consciousness of work achieved, the highest and
grandest which it is ever permitted man to do. To this is added the
joy inherent in bringing souls to Christ, and through Christ into
eternal life, a joy which will not be consummated until the reaper
enters into glory, with an “abundant entrance,” and brings his sheaves
to his Lord.--=That both * * * may rejoice together.= The sowing is in
tears; the reaping is with rejoicing (Ps. 126:5); but in the future
life both will rejoice in the ingathering; hearts that knew not whence
they received the seed will learn to thank the unknown or the
unrecognized benefactor; and the Lord of the harvest will say to both,
“Well done, good and faithful servants.”--=Herein is that saying
true.= Undoubtedly a reference to a proverbial saying, to which Christ
gives a new and spiritual significance. Primarily, Christ is the
sower, who sowed in tears and reaped but little; the apostles are the
reapers, who gathered in a single day more souls into the church of
Christ than Jesus himself in his whole lifetime.--But secondarily the
prophets were sowers and the apostles reapers, a fact illustrated by
their constantly quoting of the prophets in attestation of the divine
character and mission of Christ. And finally, the twofold work of
sowing and reaping goes on throughout all time, the same man sometimes
being both sower and reaper, sometimes sowing all his life in tears
that another may reap in joy. The truth of Christ’s saying in verses
37, 38, is illustrated, but as a prophecy it is not fulfilled, by the
successful mission of the apostles to Samaria, where Christ sowed at
this time and they reaped subsequently (Acts 8:5-8, 14-17).
39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on
him for the saying[149] of the woman, which testified,
He told me all that ever I did.
[149] ver. 29.
40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they
besought him that he would tarry with them: and he
abode there two days.
41 And many more believed because of his own word;
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not
because of thy saying: for[150] we have heard _him_
ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ,
the Saviour of the world.
[150] ch. 17:8; 1 John 4:14.
=39-42.= This mission of Christ to the Samaritans is not inconsistent
with his directions to his apostles, when they were commissioned, not
to go into any Samaritan city, for the reason of that prohibition was
not his unwillingness to open the Gospel to the heathen, but the fact
that his apostles did not yet comprehend its catholicity, and could
not therefore successfully preach it to the heathen. That the opening
of the doors to others than Jews was neither an afterthought with
Christ, nor a supplemental act originating with Paul, is evident from
the incident recorded here. Notice that the faith of the Samaritans
rested on Christ’s words--he apparently wrought no miracles; and
that they recognized in him the Saviour not of the nation but of the
_world_. “Universalism was more akin to the Messianic faith of the
Samaritans than to that of the Jews, with their definite and energetic
feeling of nationality.”--(_Meyer._) Notice too, the forms of Christian
experience illustrated in this passage; one (ver. 39) rests on the
testimony of others, the other (ver. 42) rests on a personal communion
with and experience of Christ as a Messiah and Saviour.
* * * * *
Ch. 4:43-54. THE CURE OF THE CENTURION’S SON.--TWO KINDS OF FAITH; A
POOR FAITH REQUIRES MIRACLES; A TRUE FAITH ACCEPTS CHRIST’S WORD SIMPLY.
43 Now after two days he departed thence, and went
into Galilee.
44 For Jesus himself testified, that[151] a prophet
hath no honour in his own country.
[151] Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24.
45 Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galilæans
received him, having seen[152] all the things that he
did at Jerusalem at the feast: for[153] they also went
unto the feast.
[152] ch. 2:23.
[153] Deut. 16:16.
=43-45. After two days.= Spent in preaching the gospel to the
Samaritans. The nature of this ministry is left to conjecture. We must
presume, however, that it was of the same type as Christ’s preaching
in Galilee at this time, where his theme was, “Repent, for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17); the nature of that kingdom, and
the character of the Messianic king, he probably made no attempt to
explain. It was preparative; he sowed only, leaving the reaping to be
done by others at a later day.--=For Jesus himself testified that a
prophet hath no honor in his own country.= The rationalistic critics
cite this as one of the evidences that the Fourth Gospel is not the
product of one of the Twelve. Thus, “In the Synoptics Jesus is
reported as quoting against the people of his own city, Nazareth, who
rejected him, the proverb, ‘A prophet has no honor in his own country’
(Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24). The appropriateness of the remark
here is obvious. The author of the Fourth Gospel, however, shows
clearly that he was neither an eye-witness nor acquainted with the
subject or country when he introduces this proverb in a different
place. * * * * * He (Christ) is made to go into Galilee, which is his
own country, because a prophet has no honor in his country, and the
Galileans are represented as receiving him, which is a contradiction
of the proverb.”--(_Supernatural Religion_, Vol. II, 447.) I have
cited this objection at length because it is a not unfair illustration
of the straits to which rationalism is reduced in its efforts
to discredit this Gospel. Constructive dogmatism is bad enough;
destructive dogmatism is much worse. The difficulties created by
evangelical critics in the interpretation of the passage are equally
curious as an illustration of forced and fanciful exaggerations. The
curious will find them stated in Alford and Meyer. The English reader,
who simply takes the context, will assuredly find no difficulty in the
passage. Christ was received in Samaria, notwithstanding he was a Jew,
with whom usually the Samaritans had no dealings (ver. 9), and this
though he wrought no miracles, and merely because of his words, _i.
e._, the purity and beauty and self-evident truth of his teaching
(ver. 41).--In Galilee he was received only because he was a Jew, and
had wrought miracles at Jerusalem (chap. 3:2), and brought with him a
metropolitan reputation. He had no honor in his own country as a
prophet, until he brought it back with him from the holy city; it was
honor, not indigenous but imported.
46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he
made[154] the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman,
whose son was sick at Capernaum.
[154] ch. 2:1, 11.
47 When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judæa into
Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would
come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of
death.
=46, 47. Into Cana.= For site see chap. 2:1, note. The fact that he
went at once to Cana, gives color to the supposition that the marriage
there may have been that of John, according to an ancient tradition;
at all events it probably was one of some intimate friend of
Christ.--=A certain nobleman.= Probably an officer of Herod Antipas
who had a palace at Tiberias. It has been conjectured that he may have
been the Chuza, whose wife became attached to Jesus with other women
of Galilee (Luke 8:3). That he was a Jew is probable, since the
manifestation of faith in a heathen is generally especially noted by
the historian or by Christ.--=Was sick at Capernaum.= About twenty
miles distant.--=Was at the point of death.= Literally _Was about to
die_.
48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs[155] and
wonders, ye will not believe.
[155] 1 Cor. 1:22.
49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child
die.
=48, 49. Except ye see signs and wonders.= Rather a soliloquy applied
to the entire people, than a personal rebuke of the nobleman. For
there is certainly no evidence that his faith was notably small;
rather the reverse. He had traveled twenty miles to apply to Christ
for assistance; his request that Christ should come personally was
certainly not unnatural, for he could not be expected to assume that
Christ would or could heal by a word; when the word was spoken he went
away undoubtingly; and he evidently made no great haste (see note
on verse 51), an indication of his restful assurance on Christ’s
mere word. Analogous to Christ’s utterance here is that of Mark 9:19;
see note there. It is certainly a rebuke to the skepticism which to-day
demands signs and wonders as a basis for faith, and to the church
which continually endeavors to satisfy this desire by demonstrating
the miracles as though they were the evidences of Christianity. Christ
himself never, in public discourse with skeptics, based his claims on
his miracles; never performed a miracle for the purpose of proving his
claims to an unbeliever (Matt. 11:4, 5 is not an exception; see note
there); and rebuked the demand made on him for miracles as a basis of
faith in his mission.--=Come down.= One of those geographical and
incidental evidences of accuracy in the historian which demonstrate
his familiarity with the country. Capernaum was on the shore of the
sea of Galilee; Cana was in the hill country.
50 Jesus saith unto him, Go[156] thy way; thy son liveth.
And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto
him, and he went his way.
[156] Matt. 8:13; Mark 7:29, 30; Luke 17:14.
51 And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and
told _him_, saying, Thy son liveth.
52 Then inquired he of them the hour when he began to
amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh
hour the fever left him.
53 So the father knew that _it was_ at the same[157] hour,
in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and
himself believed,[158] and his whole house.
[157] Ps. 107:20.
[158] Acts 16:34; 18:8.
54 This _is_ again the second miracle _that_ Jesus did,
when he was come out of Judæa into Galilee.
=50-54. He went his way.= The course of the nobleman was not that of
one deficient in faith. On the contrary, he did not wait to see signs
or wonders; he believed the simple word. That he did not hasten is
evident from the next verse. Christ spoke the word of healing at the
seventh hour, _i. e._, one in the afternoon. The father could have
reached home that same night; but it was not until the next day that
his servants, coming to relieve his fears, met him on the road. Faith
neither worries nor hurries.--=Thy son is living.= He was so sick
before the father left home, that the mere announcement that he was
living demonstrated that he was recovering. The case was one in which
life could not last long if a change for the better did not take
place.--=Himself believed.= Believed what? He had believed before,
when he came to Jesus, or he would not have come; and again when he
went away, or he would not have been satisfied at the mere word of
Jesus. But he before simply believed _about_ Jesus, _e. g._, that he
was a prophet, possessing certain healing powers, the extent of which
he had not measured. Now he believed _on_ Jesus; without as yet
comprehending the Saviour’s mission or character, he yet had faith in
him; that kind of faith which was ready to accept him as all that he
claimed, whatever that might be. To _believe_, used absolutely, as
here, always indicates not believing a doctrine about Christ, but
personal belief in and allegiance to him.
This miracle is certainly not the same with the healing of the
centurion’s servant, recorded in Matt. 8:5-13, with which it has been
sometimes confounded, but with which it really has little in common.
One is wrought at Capernaum, the other at Cana; one at the petition of
a nobleman, an officer of the court, the other at the request of a
centurion; one probably for a Jew, the other certainly for a Roman;
one in behalf of a son, the other in behalf of a servant; one for a
petitioner who entreats Christ to come to his house, the other for one
who deprecates his doing so; one affording an illustration of the
largest faith in a heathen, the other of the development of faith from
a small beginning in an Israelite. The resemblances are superficial;
the differences are radical. Accepting the narrative as true, it is
one of the many which utterly refute the rationalistic explanation of
miracles offered by such writers as Schenkel. This cure could not have
been due to any natural means, as the inspiration of hope, or the
infusion of nervous power by personal contact, or the like, for the
sick man did not see Jesus nor even know when the father saw him.