John 4 JOHN 4:1-6 Conversation With a Samaritan Woman Now when Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that he was winning and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were), he left Judea and set out once more for Galilee. But he had to pass through Samaria. Now he came to a Samaritan town called Sychar, near the plot of land that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob’s well was there, so Jesus, since he was tired from the journey, sat right down beside the well. It was about noon.
There are two sayings in these verses which deserve particular notice. They throw light on two subjects in religion, on which clear and well defined opinions are of great importance. We should observe, for one thing, what is said about baptism. We read that "Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." The expression here used is a very remarkable one. In reading it we seem irresistibly led to one instructive conclusion. That conclusion is, that baptism is not the principal part of Christianity, and that to baptize is not the principal work for which Christian ministers are ordained.
Frequently we read of our Lord preaching and praying. Once we read of His administering the Lord's supper. But we have not a single instance recorded of His ever baptizing any one. And here we are distinctly told, that it was a subordinate work, which He left to others. Jesus "himself baptized not, but his disciples." The lesson is one of peculiar importance in the present day. Baptism, as a sacrament ordained by Christ Himself, is an honorable ordinance, and ought never to be lightly esteemed in the churches. It cannot be neglected or despised without great sin.
When rightly used, with faith and prayer, it is calculated to convey the highest blessings. But baptism was never meant to be exalted to the position which many now-a-days assign to it in religion. It does not act as a charm . It does not necessarily convey the grace of the Holy Spirit. The benefit of it depends greatly on the manner in which it is used. The doctrine taught, and the language employed about it, in some quarters, are utterly inconsistent with the fact announced in the text.
If baptism was all that some say it is, we would never have been told, that "Jesus himself baptized not." Let it be a settled principle in our minds that the first and chief business of the Church of Christ is to preach the Gospel. The words of Paul ought to be constantly remembered--"Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." (1 Cor. 1:17.) When the Gospel of Christ is faithfully and fully preached we need not fear that the sacraments will be undervalued.
Baptism and the Lord's supper will always be most truly reverenced in those churches where the truth as it is in Jesus is most fully taught and known. We should observe, for another thing, in this passage, what is said about our Lord's human nature. We read that Jesus was "wearied with his journey." We learn from this, as well as many other expressions in the Gospels, that our Lord had a body exactly like our own. When "the Word became flesh," He took on Him a nature like our own in all things, sin only excepted. Like ourselves, He grew from infancy to youth, and from youth to man's estate.
Like ourselves, He hungered, thirsted, felt pain, and needed sleep. He was liable to every sinless infirmity to which we are liable. In all things His body was framed like our own. The truth before us is full of comfort for all who are true Christians. He to whom sinners are bid to come for pardon and peace, is one who is man as well as God. He had a real human nature when He was upon earth. He took a real human nature with Him, when He ascended up into heaven.
We have at the right hand of God a High Priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, because He has suffered Himself being tempted. When we cry to Him in the hour of bodily pain and weakness, He knows well what we mean. When our prayers and praises are feeble through bodily weariness, He can understand our condition. He knows our frame. He has learned by experience what it is to be a man. To say that the Virgin Mary, or any one else, can feel more sympathy for us than Christ, is ignorance no less than blasphemy.
The man Christ Jesus can enter fully into everything that belongs to man's condition. The poor, the sick, and the suffering, have in heaven One who is not only an almighty Savior, but a most sympathetic Friend. The servant of Christ should grasp firmly this great truth, that there are two perfect and complete natures in the one Person whom he serves. The Lord Jesus, in whom the Gospel bids us believe, is, without doubt, almighty God--equal to the Father in all things, and able to save to the uttermost all those that come unto God by Him.
But that same Jesus is no less certainly perfect man--able to sympathize with man in all his bodily sufferings, and acquainted by experience with all that man's body has to endure. Power and sympathy are marvelously combined in Him who died for us on the cross. Because He is God, we may repose the weight of our souls upon Him with unhesitating confidence. He is mighty to save. Because He is man, we may speak to Him with freedom, about the many trials to which flesh is heir. He knows the heart of a man. Here is rest for the weary! Here is good news!
Our Redeemer is man as well as God, and God as well as man. He that believes on Him, has everything that a child of Adam can possibly require, either for safety or for peace. Technical Notes: 1. Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2. (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but his disciples), 3. He left Judæa and departed again to Galilee . 4. But He needed to go through Samaria . 5. So He came to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar, near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. 6.
Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied from His journey, sat thus on the well. It was about the sixth hour. 1.--[ Therefore...Pharisees...than John. ] The connection between this chapter and the last will be found at the 25th verse of the last chapter. The controversy between John’s disciples and the Jews was the means of calling public attention to our Lord’s ministry. It became a subject of common conversation and attracted the notice of the principal religious teachers of the Jews: viz., the Pharisees.
They had been already disturbed by the ministry of John the Baptist and the crowds which attended it. (John i.19-28.) The deputation which they sent to John had been distinctly told by him that One greater than himself was about to appear. When therefore “the Pharisees heard” that Jesus was actually baptizing more disciples and attracting more attention than John, we can well imagine that their minds would be even more disturbed than before.
A vague, uncomfortable feeling would arise in their hearts that this mysterious person, who had cast out of the temple the buyers and sellers in so miraculous a manner and was now baptizing so many disciples, might possibly be the Christ. And then would come the attendant feeling that if this was the Christ, He was not the Christ they either expected or wanted. The result of both feelings would probably be a bitter enmity against our Lord, and a secret determination, if possible, to settle all doubts by putting Him to death.
In what manner our Lord “knew” what the Pharisees had heard, we need not be careful to inquire. Possibly He knew it from information obtained by His disciples. We can hardly doubt that some of them kept up intercourse with their old master, John the Baptist, and so learned what was going on at Ænon. It is more probable that He knew it from His omniscience as God. We are frequently told that “he knew the thoughts” of His enemies, and acted and spoke accordingly.
It is good for us all to remember that nothing is spoken, talked of, or reported among men, however secretly, which Christ does not know. 2.--[ Though Jesus...baptize...disciples. ] The fact that our Lord did not actually administer baptism with His own hands is only mentioned here in the Gospels and is noteworthy. It shows, at any rate, that what is done by Christ’s ministers, at Christ’s command, in the administration of ordinances is regarded as done by Christ Himself.
The preceding verse says that “Jesus baptized” while the present one says that He “did not baptize.” Lightfoot remarks: “It is ordinary, both in Scripture phrase and in other language, to speak of a thing as done by a man himself which is done by another at his appointment. So Pharaoh’s daughter is said to ‘nurse Moses,’ and Solomon is said to ‘build the temple and his own house.’ So David ‘took Saul’s spear and cruse,’ meaning Abishai by David’s appointment.’” (1 Sam. xxvi.12.) The reasons assigned for our Lord’s not administering baptism with His own hands are various.
Lightfoot mentions four. (1) “Because He was not sent so much to baptize as to preach. (2) Because it might have been taken as a thing somewhat improper for Christ to baptize in His own name. (3) Because the baptizing that was most proper for Christ to use was not with water but with the Holy Ghost. (4) Because He would prevent all quarrels and disputes among men about their baptism, which might have risen if some had been baptized by Christ and others only by His disciples.” To these reasons we may add another of considerable importance.
Our Lord would show us that the effect and benefit of baptism did not depend on the person who administers it. We cannot doubt that Judas Iscariot baptized some. The intention of the minister does not affect the validity of the sacrament. One thing seems abundantly clear, and that is, that baptism is not an ordinance of primary but of subordinate importance in Christianity.
The high-flown and extravagant language used by some divines about the sacrament of baptism and its effects is quite irreconcilable with the text before us, as well as with the general teaching of Scripture. (See Acts x.48; 1 Cor. i.17.) 2.--[ He left Judæa, etc. ] The context of the preceding verses seems to show that this movement was intended to avoid the designs of the Pharisees against our Lord. If He had remained in Judæa, he would have been cut off and put to death before the appointed time.
He therefore withdrew into the province of Galilee where He was further off from Jerusalem, and where His ministry would attract less public notice. Our Lord’s conduct on this occasion shows us that it is not obligatory on a Christian to await danger to life and person, when he sees it coming, and that it is not cowardice to use all reasonable means to avoid it. We are not to court martyrdom or needlessly throw our lives away. There is a time for all things—a time to live and work as well as a time to suffer and to die.
Whether some of the primitive martyrs would have acted as our Lord did here may be questioned. Their zeal for martyrdom seems sometimes to have partaken of the character of fanaticism. [ He needed... Samaria . ] Many pious and profitable remarks have been made on this expression. It has been thought to teach that our Lord went purposely and out of the regular road in order to save the soul of the Samaritan woman. It admits of grave question whether this opinion is well-rounded. There was no other way by which a person could conveniently go from Judæa to Galilee, excepting through Samaria.
The expression, therefore, is probably nothing more than a natural introduction to the story of the Samaritan woman. The first in the train of circumstances which led to her conversion was the circumstance that Jesus was obliged to pass through Samaria on His journey towards Galilee. This accounted for His meeting with a Samaritan woman. 5.--[ Came to a city...Sychar. ] The common opinion is that the city here spoken of is the same as Sichem or Shechem. (Gen. xxxiii.18,19.) Few places in Palestine, after Jerusalem, have had so much of Bible history connected with them.
Here God first appeared to Abraham. (Gen. xii.6.) Here Jacob dwelt when he first returned from Padan-aram, and here the disgraceful history of Dinah and the consequent murder of the Shechemites took place. (Gen. xxxiv.2, etc.) Here Joseph’s brethren fed their flocks when Jacob sent him to them, little thinking he would not see him again for many years. (Gen. xxxvii.12.) Here, when Israel took possession of the land of Canaan, was one of the cities of refuge. (Josh. xx.7,8.) Here Joshua gathered all the tribes when he addressed them for the last time. (Josh. xxiv.1.) Here the bones of Joseph were buried and all the patriarchs were interred. (Josh. xxiv.32; Acts vii. 16.) Here the principal events in the history of Abimelech took place. (Judges ix.1, etc.) Here Reboboam met the tribes of Israel after Solomon’s death and gave the answer which rent his kingdom in two. (1 Kings xii.1.) Here Jeroboam first dwelt when he was made King of Israel. (1 Kings xii.25.) And finally, close by Shechem was the city Samaria itself and the two hills of Ebal and Gerizim, where the solemn blessings and cursings were recited after Israel entered Canaan. (Josh. viii.33.) A more interesting neighborhood it is difficult to imagine.
Whichever way the eye of a wearied traveler looked, he would see something to remind him of Israel’s history. It is only fair to say that one of the latest travelers in Palestine (Dr. Thomson, author of “The Land and the Book”), doubts whether Sychar and Shechem really were the same place. He grounds his doubt on the fact that the well now called Jacob’s well is two miles from the ruins of Shechem, and that close to these ruins are beautiful fountains of water. He thinks it highly improbable that a woman of Shechem would go two miles to draw water if she could find it close by.
He therefore thinks it more likely that a place now called Aschar, which is close to Jacob’s well, must be the ancient Sychar, and that Sychar and Shechem were two different places. The subject is one on which it is impossible to attain a conclusive decision.
Whether the ruins now called the ruins of Shechem are really on the site of ancient Shechem—whether the well now called Jacob’s well is really the well spoken of in this chapter—whether ancient Shechem may not have been nearer the well that it now appears, are all points on which, after eighteen hundred years have passed away, it is impossible to speak positively. It ought, however, to be remembered that the opinion of most competent judges is almost entirely against Dr. Thomason’s theory.
Moreover, it is worth noticing that the Samaritan woman’s words, “Neither come hither to draw,” seem to imply that she had to come some distance to Jacob’s well when she drew water. [ Near the parcel...Joseph. ] The ground here spoken of seems to consist of two parts. One part was bought by Jacob of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for a hundred pieces of silver. (Gen. xxxiii.29.) The other seems to have been his by conquest, when his sons slew the Shechemites for dishonoring Dinah. (Gen. xxxiv.28, and xlviii.22.) Let it be carefully noted that St.
John here speaks of Jacob and Joseph and the events of their lives as if the history contained in Genesis was all simple matter of fact. It is always so in the New Testament. The modern theory, that the histories of the Old Testament are only fables destitute of any foundation in fact, is a mere baseless invention without a single respectable argument to be adduced in its favor. 6.--[ Jacob’s well. ] It is not known how or when this well received its name. In Genesis we find mention of Abraham and Isaac digging wells, but not of Jacob doing so.
All we know about it is what we read in the chapter before us. A well called Jacob’s well is still shown to all travelers in Palestine, near the ruins of Shechem, and is commonly supposed to be one of the oldest and most genuine remains of ancient times in the Holy Land. In fact, there seems no reason for disputing the common belief that it is the very identical well at which our Lord sat and held the conversation recorded in this chapter. It is in good preservation, and about thirty yards deep. [ Wearied from His journey. ] This expression deserves notice.
It shows the reality of our Lord’s human nature. He had a body like our own, subject to all the conditions of flesh and blood. It shows our Lord’s infinite compassion, humility, and condescension when He became flesh and came on earth to live and die for our sins. Though He was rich, He became poor. He who had made the world, and whose were “the cattle on a thousand hills,” was content to be a weary traveler on foot in order to provide eternal redemption for us. We never read of Jesus traveling in a carriage, and only once of His riding on a beast.
It supplies the poor with the strongest argument for contentment. If Christ was willing to be poor, we may surely be willing to submit to poverty. Men need not be ashamed of poverty, if they have not brought it on themselves by misconduct. It is disgraceful to be profligate and immoral. But it is no sin to be poor. Finally, it shows believers what a sympathizing Saviour Christ is. He knows what it is to have a weak and weary body. He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities.
When our work wearies us, though we are not weary of our work, we may confidently tell Jesus and ask Him for help. He knows the heart of a weary man. [ Sat thus on the well. ] The general meaning of these words is that our Lord sat down on the stones which, according to Eastern custom, formed a wall or battlement around the mouth of the well. The particular meaning of the word “thus” in the sentence is a point that has perplexed commentators in every age, and will perhaps never be settled. Some think, as DeDieu, A.
Clarke, and Schleusner, that “thus” is a pleonasm, or elegant expletive and redundancy in the Greek original, and that although a Greek would see a meaning in it, as giving a finish to the sentence, it has no special meaning that can be attached to it in the English translation. Some think, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Musculus, Bengel, Glassius, and Wordsworth, that “thus” means “just as He was,” without any regular seat, without looking for any convenient position, without any pride or formality; not upon a throne, not upon a cushion, but simply upon the ground.
Some think, as Doddridge, that “thus” means immediately, and find a parallel for it in Acts xx.11. Some think, as Calvin, Lightfoot, Dyke, Bullinger, Beza, Parkhurst, Stier, Alford, and Burgon, that “thus” refers to the weariness just mentioned. Jesus, being wearied, sat down on the well accordingly, after the manner and according to the fashion that any weary person would sit. He was weary, and so He sat on the well. The question is one that I feel unable to settle. The last meaning seems to me, on the whole, the most probable one, though it fails to carry complete conviction with it.
The use of the word “so,” in Acts vii.8, is somewhat like it. The Greek word for “so” in that case is the same as the one here rendered “thus.” Burgon remarks on this sentence, “that Jacob and Moses each found his future wife beside a well of water; and here it is seen that One greater than they, their Divine Antitype, the Bridegroom, takes to Himself His alien spouse, the Samaritan Church, at a well likewise. Quesnel remarks, “The rest of Jesus Christ is as mysterious and full of kindness and beneficence as His weariness.
It is a great matter for a man to learn how to rest himself without being idle, and to make his necessary repose subservient to the glory of God.” [ It was about the sixth hour. ] What time of the day was this, according to our calculation of time? By far the most common opinion is that the sixth hour here means twelve o’clock, the hottest and sultriest time of the day. It is notorious that the Jewish day began at six o’clock, and their sixth hour would be our twelve o’clock.
It is, however, only just and right to say that some commentators, as Wordsworth and Burgon, maintain strongly that in St. John’s Gospel the Jewish mode of reckoning the hours of the day is not observed. They say that, writing later than the other Evangelists and in Asia Minor, St. John uses the Roman or Asiatic mode of reckoning time, and that the Roman mode was like our own.
They say, therefore, that when the disciples followed Jesus (John i.39) at the tenth hour, it was ten o’clock in the morning; and when the fever left the ruler’s son at the seventh hour, it was seven o’clock in the evening. (John iv.52.) They say that when Pilate brought forth Jesus to the Jews on the day of the crucifixion at the sixth hour (John xix.14), it was six o’clock in the morning. And finally, they say that when Jesus, in the passage before us, sat wearied on the well at the sixth hour, it means six o’clock in the evening.
Moreover, they plead in support of their view that it is infinitely more likely that a woman would come to a well to draw water at six o’clock in the evening than at twelve o’clock in the day. In Genesis it is distinctly said that the “evening” is the “time that women go out to draw water.” (Gen. xxiv.11.) These arguments are undoubtedly weighty and ingenious, and the matter is one that admits of doubt. Nevertheless, for several reasons I am disposed to think that the common view of the question is the correct one, and that the sixth hour in this place means twelve o’clock in the day.
I purposely omit the consideration of the other places where St. John mentions hours in his Gospel. None of them seem to me to present any difficulty, except the “sixth hour” in St. John’s account of the crucifixion. That difficulty I shall be prepared to examine in its proper place. I think then that the “sixth hour” in the text before us means twelve o’clock, for the following reasons: (a) It seems exceedingly improbable that St.
John would reckon time in a manner different to the other three Gospel writers. (b) It is by no means clear that the Romans did reckon time in our way and not in the Jewish way. When the Roman poet Horace describes himself as lying late in bed in a morning, he says, “I lie till the fourth hour.” He must surely mean ten o’clock and not four in the afternoon.
When the Roman poet Martial describes the Roman day, he says, “The first and second hours are employed by clients in attending levees, and the third hour exercises the advocates in the law courts.” He surely cannot mean that Roman law courts did not open till two o’clock in the afternoon. About the custom of the Asiatics I offer no opinion. It is a doubtful point. (c) It is entirely a gratuitous assumption to say that no woman ever came to draw water except in the evening. There must surely be exceptions to every rule.
The fact of the woman coming alone , seems of itself to indicate that she came at an unusual hour and not in the evening. (d) Last, but not least, it seems far more probable that our Lord would hold a conversation alone with such a person as the Samaritan woman at twelve o’clock in the day than at six o’clock in the evening. The conversation was not a very short one. There is little or no twilight in Eastern countries. The night soon comes on. And yet, on the theory I oppose, our Lord begins a conversation about six o’clock and carries it on till the woman is converted.
Then the woman goes away to the city and tells the men what has happened, and they all come out to the well to see Jesus. Yet by this time, in all reasonable probability, it would be quite dark, and the night would have begun. And yet, after all this, our Lord says to the disciples, “Lift up your eyes and look on the fields.” (iv.35.) This last reason weighs very heavily in my mind in forming a conclusion on the subject.
Our Lord appears to me to have reached a resting-place for the middle of the day, according to the Eastern custom in traveling, and to have intended staying by the well for a short time, until the heat of the day was past. The arrival of the Samaritan woman at this hour of the day gave ample time for the conversation, for her rapid return to the city, and for the coming of the inhabitants to the well. I must say that I see a peculiar beauty and fitness in the mention of the sixth hour, if it means twelve o’clock, which I should not see so strongly if it meant six in the evening.
To my eyes there is a special seemliness and propriety in the fact that our Lord held His conversation with such a person as the Samaritan woman at noonday. When he talked to Nicodemus, in the preceding chapter, we are told that it was at night. But when He talked to a woman of impure life, we are carefully told that it was twelve o’clock in the day. I see in this fact a beautiful carefulness to avoid even the appearance of evil, which I should entirely miss if the sixth hour meant six o’clock in the evening. I see even more than this.
I see a lesson to all ministers and teachers of the Gospel about the right mode of carrying on the work of trying to do good to souls like that of the Samaritan woman. Like their Master, they must be careful about times and hours, and specially if they work alone. 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 walks in his Master’s footsteps, both as to the time of his proceedings as well as to the message he delivers.
I believe there was a deep meaning in the little sentence, “It was about the sixth hour.” Augustine thinks that “the sixth hour” here was meant to represent, allegorically, the sixth age of the world. He says that the first hour was from Adam to Noah, the second from Noah to Abraham, the third from Abraham to David, the fourth from David to the Babylonian captivity, the fourth from the captivity to the baptism of John, and the sixth the time of the Lord Jesus. I can see no foundation for these things in the text.
If such interpretations of Scripture are correct, it is easy to make the Bible mean anything. JOHN 4:7-26 Conversation With a Samaritan Woman But he had to pass through Samaria. Now he came to a Samaritan town called Sychar, near the plot of land that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob’s well was there, so Jesus, since he was tired from the journey, sat right down beside the well. It was about noon. A Samaritan woman came to draw water.
Jesus said to her, "Give me some water to drink." (For his disciples had gone off into the town to buy supplies.) So the Samaritan woman said to him, "How can you--a Jew--ask me, a Samaritan woman, for water to drink?" (For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, "If you had known the gift of God and who it is who said to you, ‘Give me some water to drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water." "Sir," the woman said to him, "you have no bucket and the well is deep; where then do you get this living water?
Surely you’re not greater than our ancestor Jacob, are you? For he gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock." Jesus replied, "Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again.
But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life." The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water." He said to her, "Go call your husband and come back here." The woman replied, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "Right you are when you said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands and the man you are living with now is not your husband.
This you said truthfully!" The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you people say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem." Jesus said to her, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You people worship what you do not know. We worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews. But a time is coming--and now is here--when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers.
God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming" (the one called Christ); "whenever he comes, he will tell us everything." Jesus said to her, "I, the one speaking to you, am he." The history of the Samaritan woman, contained in these verses, is one of the most interesting and instructive passages in John's Gospel. John has shown us, in the case of Nicodemus, how our Lord dealt with a self-righteous formalist.
He now shows us how our Lord dealt with an ignorant, carnal-minded woman, whose moral character was more than ordinarily bad. There are lessons in the passage for ministers and teachers, which they would do well to ponder. We should mark, firstly, the mingled tact and humility of Christ in dealing with a careless sinner. Our Lord was sitting by Jacob's well when a woman of Samaria came there to draw water. At once He says to her, "Give me to drink." He does not wait for her to speak to Him. He does not begin by reproving her sins, though He doubtless knew them.
He opens communication by asking a favor. He approaches the woman's mind by the subject of "water," which was naturally uppermost in her thoughts. Simple as this request may seem, it opened a door to spiritual conversation. It threw a bridge across the gulf which lay between her and Him. It led to the conversion of her soul. Our Lord's conduct in this place should be carefully remembered by all who want to do good to the thoughtless and spiritually ignorant. It is vain to expect that such people will voluntarily come to us, and begin to seek knowledge.
We must begin with them, and go down to them in the spirit of courteous and friendly offensive. It is vain to expect that such people will be prepared for our instruction, and will at once see and acknowledge the wisdom of all we are doing. We must go to work WISELY. We must study the best avenues to their hearts, and the most likely way of arresting their attention. There is a handle to every mind, and our chief aim must be to get hold of it. Above all, we must be KIND in manner, and beware of showing that we feel conscious of our own superiority.
If we let ignorant people fancy that we think we are doing them a great favor in talking to them about religion, there is little hope of doing good to their souls. We should mark, secondly, Christ's readiness to give mercies to careless sinners. He tells the Samaritan woman that if she had asked, "He would have given her living water." He knew the character of the person before Him perfectly well. Yet He says, "If she had asked, He would have given,"--He would have given the living water of grace, mercy, and peace.
The infinite willingness of Christ to receive sinners is a golden truth, which ought to be treasured up in our hearts, and diligently impressed on others. The Lord Jesus is far more ready to hear than we are to pray, and far more ready to give favors than we are to ask them. All day long He stretches out His hands to the disobedient and gainsaying. He has thoughts of pity and compassion towards the vilest of sinners, even when they have no thoughts of Him. He stands waiting to bestow mercy and grace on the worst and most unworthy, if they will only cry to Him.
He will never draw back from that well known promise, "Ask and you shall receive--seek and you shall find." The lost will discover at the last day, that they had not, because they asked not. We should mark, thirdly, the priceless excellence of Christ's gifts when compared with the things of this world. Our Lord tells the Samaritan woman, "He that drinks of this water shall thirst again, but he that drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst." The truth of the principle here laid down may be seen on every side by all who are not blinded by prejudice or love of the world.
Thousands of men have every temporal good thing that heart could wish, and are yet weary and dissatisfied. It is now as it was in David's time--"There be many that say, Who will show us any good." (Psalm 4:6.) Riches, and rank, and place, and power, and learning, and amusements, are utterly unable to fill the soul. He that only drinks of these waters is sure to thirst again. Every Ahab finds a Naboth's vineyard near by his palace, and every Haman sees a Mordecai at the gate. There is no heart satisfaction in this world, until we believe on Christ.
Jesus alone can fill up the empty places of our inward man. Jesus alone can give solid, lasting, enduring happiness. The peace that He imparts is a fountain, which, once set flowing within the soul, flows on to all eternity. Its waters may have their ebbing seasons; but they are living waters, and they shall never be completely dried. We should mark, fourthly, the absolute necessity of conviction of sin before a soul can be converted to God. The Samaritan woman seems to have been comparatively unmoved until our Lord exposed her breach of the seventh commandment.
Those heart-searching words, "Go, call your husband," appear to have pierced her conscience like an arrow. From that moment, however ignorant, she speaks like an earnest, sincere inquirer after truth. And the reason is evident. She felt that her spiritual disease was discovered. For the first time in her life she saw herself. To bring thoughtless people to this state of mind should be the principal aim of all teachers and ministers of the Gospel. They should carefully copy their Master's example in this place.
Until men and women are brought to feel their sinfulness and need, no real good is ever done to their souls. Until a sinner sees himself as God sees him, he will continue careless, trifling, and unmoved. By all means we must labor to convince the unconverted man of sin, to pierce his conscience, to open his eyes, to show him himself. To this end we must expound the length and breadth of God's holy law. To this end we must denounce every practice contrary to that law, however fashionable and customary. This is the only way to do good.
Never does a soul value the Gospel medicine until it feels its disease. Never does a man see any beauty in Christ as a Savior, until he discovers that he is himself a lost and ruined sinner. Ignorance of sin is invariably attended by neglect of Christ. We should mark, fifthly, the utter uselessness of any religion which only consists of formality. The Samaritan woman, when awakened to spiritual concern, started questions about the comparative merits of the Samaritan and Jewish modes of worshiping God.
Our Lord tells her that true and acceptable worship depends not on the place in which it is offered, but on the state of the worshiper's heart. He declares, "The hour comes when you shall neither in this place nor at Jerusalem worship the Father." He adds that "the true worshipers shall worship in spirit and in truth." The principle contained in these sentences can never be too strongly impressed on professing Christians.
We are all naturally inclined to make religion a mere matter of outward forms and ceremonies, and to attach an excessive importance to our own particular manner of worshiping God. We must beware of this spirit, and especially when we first begin to think seriously about our souls. The heart is the principal thing in all our approaches to God. "The Lord looks on the heart." (1 Sam. 16:7.) The most gorgeous cathedral-service is offensive in God's sight, if all is gone through coldly, heartlessly, and without grace.
The feeblest gathering of three or four poor believers in a lowly cottage to read the Bible and pray, is a more acceptable sight to Him who searches the heart than the fullest congregation which is ever gathered in St. Peter's at Rome. We should mark, lastly, Christ's gracious willingness to reveal Himself to the chief of sinners. He concludes His conversation with the Samaritan woman by telling her openly and unreservedly that He is the Savior of the world.
"I that speak to you," He says, "am the Messiah." Nowhere in all the Gospels do we find our Lord making such a full avowal of His nature and office as He does in this place. And this avowal, be it remembered, was made not to learned Scribes, or moral Pharisees, but to one who up to that day had been an ignorant, thoughtless, and immoral person! Dealings with sinners, such as these, form one of the grand peculiarities of the Gospel. Whatever a man's past life may have been, there is hope and a remedy for him in Christ.
If he is only willing to hear Christ's voice and follow Him, Christ is willing to receive him at once as a friend, and to bestow on him the fullest measure of mercy and grace. The Samaritan woman, the penitent thief, the Philippian jailor, the tax-collector Zaccheus, are all patterns of Christ's readiness to show mercy, and to confer full and immediate pardons. It is His glory that, like a great physician, He will undertake to cure those who are apparently incurable , and that none are too bad for Him to love and heal. Let these things sink down into our hearts.
Whatever else we doubt, let us never doubt that Christ's love to sinners passes knowledge, and that Christ is as willing to receive as He is almighty to save. What are we ourselves? This is the question, after all, which demands our attention. We may have been up to this day careless, thoughtless, sinful as the woman whose story we have been reading. But yet there is hope--He who talked with the Samaritan woman at the well is yet living at God's right hand, and never changes. Let us only ask, and He will "give us living water." Technical Notes: 7. A woman of Samaria came to draw water.
Jesus said to her, Give me a drink. 8. (For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy meat.) 9. Then the woman of Samaria said to him, How is it that you, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman? For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. 10. Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift of God and who it is who says to you, Give me a drink, you would have asked of him, and he would have given you living water. 11. The woman said to him, Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do you get that living water? 12.
Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock? 13. Jesus answered and said to her, Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. 15. The woman said to him, Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst nor come here to draw. 16. Jesus said to her, Go, call your husband, and come here. 17.
The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said to her, You have well said, I have no husband, 18. for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly. 19. The woman said to him, Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. 20. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21. Jesus said to her, Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when ye will neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem worship the Father. 22.
Ye worship what ye do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship him. 24. God is a Spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth. 25. The woman said to him, I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. When he comes, he will tell us all things. 26.
Jesus said to her, I who speak to you am he. 7.--[ A woman...water. ] The scarcity of water in the hot climates of the East makes drawing water from the nearest well an important part of the daily business of an Eastern household.
We learn from other parts of Scripture that it was a work ordinarily done by women. (Gen. xxiv.11; 1 Sam. ix.11.) A well became naturally a common meeting-place for the inhabitants of a neighborhood, and especially for the young people. (Judges v.11.) The insinuation, however, of some writers, as Schottgen, that the Samaritan woman’s motives in coming to the well were possibly immoral, seems destitute of any foundation. Bad as her moral character evidently was, we have no right to heap upon her more blame than is warranted by facts.
Augustine regards this woman as a type of the Gentile Church, “not now justified, but even now at the point to be justified.” I doubt whether we were meant by the Holy Ghost to take this view. There is great danger in adopting such allegorical interpretations. They insensibly draw away the mind from the plain lessons of Scripture. Musculus remarks what a wonderful instance it is of sovereign grace that our Lord should turn away from learned Scribes, Pharisees, and Priests to converse with and convert such a person as this woman, to all appearance so utterly unworthy of notice.
He also observes how singularly our least movements are overruled by God’s providence. Like Rebecca and Rachel, the woman came to the well knowing nothing of the importance of that day’s visit to her soul. [ Jesus said to her, Give me a drink. ] In this simple request of our Lord, there are four things deserving notice. (a) It was a gracious act of spiritual aggression on a sinner. He did not wait for the woman to speak to Him, but was the first to begin conversation. (b) It was an act of marvelous condescension.
He by whom all things were made, the Creator of fountains, brooks, and rivers, is not ashamed to ask a draught of water from the hand of one of His sinful creatures. (c) It was an act full of wisdom and prudence. He does not at once force religion on the attention of the woman and rebuke her for her sins. He begins with a subject apparently indifferent, and yet one of which the woman’s mind was doubtless full. He asks her for water. (d) It was an act full of the nicest tact, and exhibiting perfect knowledge of the human mind. He asks a favor and puts Himself under an obligation.
No line of proceeding, it is well known to all wise people, would be more likely to conciliate the woman’s feelings towards Him, and to make her willing to hear His teaching. Simple as the request was, it contains principles which deserve the closest attention of all who desire to do good to ignorant and thoughtless sinners. The idea of Euthymius, that our Lord pretended thirst in order to introduce conversation, is unworthy of notice.
Cyril thinks that our Lord intended to make a practical protest against the exclusiveness of the Jews by asking drink of a Samaritan woman, and to show her that He disapproved the custom of His nation. [ For his disciples...buy food. ] This verse is an instance of our Lord’s general rule not to work a miracle in order to supply His own needs. He who could feed five thousand with a few loaves and fishes when He willed, was content to buy food like any other man. It is an instance of His lowly-mindedness. The Creator of all things, though rich, for our sakes became poor.
It ought to teach Christians that they are not meant to be so spiritual as to neglect the management of money and a reasonable use of it for the supply of their needs. God could feed His children, as He fed Elijah, by a daily miracle. But He knows it is better for our souls, and more likely to call grace into exercise, not to feed them so but to make them think and use means. There is no real spirituality in being careless about money.
Jesus Himself allowed His disciples to “buy.” The word rendered “meat” means nothing more than “food or nourishment,” and must not be confined to “flesh.” Out of the sixteen places where it is used in the New Testament, there is not one where it necessarily signifies “flesh.” The meat offering of the Old Testament consisted of nothing but flour, oil, and incense. (Lev. ii.1,2.) The meaning of the word “meat,” in the English language, has evidently changed since the last revision of the English Bible.
The whole verse is an instance of one of those short, parenthetical, explanatory comments which are common in St. John’s Gospel. Its object is to explain the circumstance of our Lord being alone at the well, and the fact that He did not ask a disciple to give Him water. 9.--[Then the woman...How is it...Samaritan woman? ] This question implies that the woman was surprised at our Lord speaking to her. It was an unexpected act of condescension on His part, and as such arrested her attention. Thus one point, at any rate, was gained.
It is a great matter if we can only get a careless sinner to give us a quiet hearing. We shall soon see how our Lord improved the opportunity. How the woman knew our Lord to be a Jew is matter of conjecture. Some think that she knew it by the dialect that He spoke. Some think that she knew it by the fringe upon His dress, which He probably wore in conformity to the Mosaic law (Num. xv.38,39), and which the Samaritans very likely neglected. One thing is very clear.
There was nothing in our Lord’s personal appearance, when He was a man upon earth, to distinguish Him from any other Jewish traveler who might have been found sitting at a well. There was nothing eccentric or peculiar about His dress. He looked like other men. I venture the opinion that in the woman’s question stress should be laid on the word “woman.” She was not only surprised that a Jewish man asked drink of a Samaritan, but also that he asked it of a woman. [ The Jews...dealings...Samaritans. ] This sentence is generally thought, with much reason, to be the explanatory comment of St.
John and not the words of the Samaritan woman. It certainly seems more natural to take it so. The sentence should then be read as a parenthesis. Calvin thinks it is the woman’s words, but his reasons are not convincing. The enmity between the Jews and Samaritans, here referred to, no doubt originated in the separation of the ten tribes under Jeroboam and the establishment of the kingdom of Israel.
It was exceedingly increased after the ten tribes were carried into captivity by the Assyrians, by the fact that the Samaritans became mingled with foreigners whom the king of Assyria sent to Samaria from Babylon and other places, and so lost their right to be called pure Jews. (2 Kings xvii.1, etc.) It was further aggravated by the opposition which the inhabitants of Samaria made to the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the return from the captivity of Babylon in the days of Ezra. (Ezra iv.10, etc.) In the days of our Lord, the Jews seem to have gone to the extreme of regarding the Samaritans as entirely foreigners and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.
When they told our Lord that He was “a Samaritan and had a devil,” they meant the expression to convey the bitterest scorn and reproach. (John viii.48.) It is clear, however, from the conversation in this chapter, that the Samaritans, however mistaken on many points, were not ignorant heathens. They regarded themselves as descended from Jacob. They had a kind of Old Testament religion. They expected the coming Messiah.
The bitter and exclusive spirit of the Jews towards all other nations, referred to in this verse, is curiously confirmed by the language used about the Jews by heathen writers at Rome. Exclusiveness was noted as one among their peculiarities. The immense difficulty with which even the apostles got over this exclusive feeling and went forth to preach to the Gentiles is noticeable both in the Acts and the Epistles. (Acts x.28; xi.2; Gal. ii.12; 1 Thess. ii.16.) The utter absence of real charity and love among men in the days when our Lord was upon earth ought not to be overlooked.
Well would it be if men had never quarreled about religion after He left the world! Quarrels among the crew of a sinking ship are not more hideous, unseemly, and irrational than the majority of quarrels among professors of religion. A historian might truly apply St.
John’s words to many a period in Church history and say, “The Romanists have no dealings with the Protestants,” or “the Lutherans have no dealings with the Calvinists,” or “the Calvinists have no dealings with the Arminians,” or “the Episcopalians have no dealings with the Presbyterians,” or “the Baptists have no dealings with those who baptize infants,” or “the Plymouth Brethren have no dealings with anybody who does not join their company.” These things ought not so to be. They are the scandal of Christianity, the joy of the devil, and the greatest stumbling-block to the spread of the Gospel.
The Greek words translated “have no dealings,” mean literally “use not anything togehter with the Samaritans.” Pearce says, “The Jews would not eat or drink with the Samaritans, would not drink out of the same cup or eat of the same dish with them.” This fact throws much light on the woman’s surprise at our Lord’s request, “Give me a drink.” 10.--[ Jesus answered, etc. ] In this verse our Lord proceeds to use the opportunity which the woman’s question affords Him. He passes over, for the present, her expression of surprise at a Jew speaking to a Samaritan.
He begins by exciting her curiosity and raising her expectations by speaking of something within her reach which He calls “living water.” The first step to take with a careless sinner, after his attention has been arrested, is to produce on his mind the impression that we can tell him of something to his advantage within his reach. There is a certain vagueness in our Lord’s words which exhibits his consummate wisdom. A systematic statement of doctrinal truth would have been thrown away at this stage of the woman’s feelings.
The general and figurative language which our Lord employed was exactly calculated to arouse her imagination and to lead her on to further inquiry. [ The gift of God. ] This expression is variously explained.
Some think, as Augustine, Rupertus, Jansenius, Whitby, and Alford, that it means “the Holy Spirit,” that peculiar gift which it was the Messiah’s special office to impart to men in greater abundance than it had before been imparted. (Acts ii.38; x.45.) Some think, as Brentius, Bucer, Musculus, Calovius, Grotius, and Barradius, that it means “the gracious opportunity which God is graciously giving to thee.” If you did but know what a door of life is close to you, you would joyfully use it.
Some think, as Euthymius, Toletus, Bullinger, Gualter, Hooker, Beza, Rollock, Lightfoot, Glassius, Dyke, Hildersam, and Gill, that it means “Christ Himself,” God’s gracious gift to a sinful world. It you did but know that God has actually given His only-begotten Son, according to promise, and that He has come into the world, and that it is He who is speaking to you, you would at once ask of Him living water.
Some think that it means “God’s gifts, and especially His gift of grace,” which is now being proclaimed and made manifest to the world by the appearing on earth of His Son. (See Rom. v.15.) This seems to be the view of Cyril, Lámpe, Theophylact, Zwingle, and Calvin. Of these four views, the last seems to me, on the whole, the most probable and satisfactory. The first sounds strange and unlike the usual teaching of Scripture.
“If you knew the Holy Spirit, you would have asked,” is an expression we can hardly expect at this period of our Lord’s ministry, when the mission of the Comforter had not yet been explained. The second view seems hardly more natural than the first. The third view is undoubtedly recommended by the fact that Christ is frequently spoken of as God’s great gift to the world. If the woman had really known anything aright about Messiah, and had known that He was before her, she would have asked of Him living water.
Nevertheless, it is a strong objection to this view that it makes our Lord apparently say the same thing twice over. “If you knew Christ, and that it is Christ who speaks.” The last view makes the first clause general— “If you knew the grace of God,” and the second particular— “If you also knew that the Savior Himself is with you.” Thus both clauses receive a meaning. [ Living water. ] The meaning of this expression, like “the gift of God,” is variously explained. Some, as Calovius and Chemnitius, seem to think it means the doctrine of God’s mercy, pardon, cleansing, and justification.
Others, as Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Gualter, Musculus, and Ferus, think it means the Holy Spirit, renewing, and sanctification. I doubt whether either view is quite correct. I am inclined, with Bullinger and Rollock, to regard the expression as a general figurative description of everything which it is Christ’s office to bestow on the soul of man—pardon, peace, mercy, grace, justification, and sanctification. As water is cleansing, purifying, cooling, refreshing, thirst-satisfying to man’s body, so are Christ’s gifts to the soul.
I think everything that a sinful soul needs is purposely included under the general words “living water.” It comprises not only the justifying “blood which cleanses from all sin,” but the sanctifying grace of the Spirit by which we “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness—not only the inward peace which is the result of pardon, but the sense of inward comfort which is the companion of renewal of heart.
The idea of “water,” we should remember, is specially brought forward in some of the Old Testament promises of good things to come. (See Isa. xii.3; xliv 3; Ezek. xlvii.1, etc; Zech. xiii.1; xiv.8.) A sprinkling of clean water was particularly mentioned as one of the things Messiah was to give. (Isa. lii.15; Ezek. xxxvi.25.) To an intelligent reader of the Old Testament, the mention of “living water” would at once raise up the idea of Messiah’s times. The word “living,” applied here to water, must not be pressed too far. It does not necessarily mean anything more than fresh, running waters.
Thus it is said that Isaac’s servants found a well of living waters. (Gen. xxvi.19. See also Num. xix.17; Cant. iv.15.) There was undoubtedly a deep meaning in our Lord’s words, and a tacit reference to the verse in Jeremiah, where God speaks of Himself as “the fountain of living waters.” (Jer. ii.13.) Nevertheless, the first idea that the words would convey to the woman’s mind would probably be no more than this, that He who sat before her had better, fresher, and more valuable water than that of the well.
The fact is that our Lord purposely used a figurative, general expression in order to lead the woman’s mind gently on. If He had said, “He would have given thee grace and mercy,” she would have been unprepared for such purely doctrinal language, and it would have called forth prejudice and dislike. There is a vast quantity of deep truth contained in this verse. It is rich in first principles, linked together in a most instructive chain. (1) Christ has living water to give to men. (2) If men would only ask, Christ would give at once. (3) Men do not ask because they are ignorant.
The verse condemns all who die unpardoned. They have not because they ask not; they ask not because they are blind to their condition. To remove this blindness and ignorance must be the first object we should aim at in dealing with a thoughtless, unconverted man. The notion of Ambrose, Cyprian, and Rupertus, that “living water” here means baptism, is too monstrous to require refutation. It is only a sample of the preposterous view of some of the Fathers and their followers about the sacraments.
Bengel remarks on this verse our Lord’s readiness to draw lessons of spiritual instruction from every object near Him. To the Jews desiring bread, He spoke of the bread of life. (John vi.33.) To the people at Jerusalem at break of day, He speaks of the light of the world, referring probably to the rising sun. (John viii.2,12.) To the woman coming to draw water, He speaks of living water. 11.--[ The woman said to him. ] The words of the woman, in this and the following verse, imply surprise, curiosity, and perhaps a slight sneer. At any rate they show that her attention was arrested.
A strange Jew at a well suddenly speaks to her about “living water.” What could He mean? Was he in earnest or not? With a woman’s curiosity she desires to know. [ Sir. ] The Greek word so rendered is generally translated “Lord.” This leads some, as Chrysostom, to think that the woman’s heart was so far impressed now that she purposely used a term of respect and reverence. We must not, however, lay too much stress on the word.
It is certainly translated “Sir” in other places where inferiors speak to superiors. (Matt. xiii.27; xxi.30; xxvii.63; John iv.49; v.7; xii. 21; xx.15; Rev. vii.14.) Yet it is difficult to see what other word the woman colud have used in addressing a strange man, without rudeness and discourtesy. [ Nothing to draw with. ] The Greek expression here is simply a substantive meaning “an instrument for drawing water.” What it was we are left to conjecture.
Schleusner suggests from Nonnus that it must mean a cup fastened to a rope. [ The well is deep. ] These words, according to the universal testimony of travelers at this day, are still literally true.
The well is at least thirty yards deep, and to a person not provided with a rope, as the woman doubtless saw was our Lord’s case, the water would be inaccessible. [ Where then...that living water. ] The Greek word here rendered “that” is simply the article commonly translated “the.” It is like “that prophet.” (John i.21.) The ignorance of the woman in thinking of nothing but material water naturally strikes us. Yet it is nothing more than we see in many other instances in the Gospels.
Nicodemus could not see any but a carnal meaning in the new birth; the disciples could not understand our Lord’s having “meat to eat,” unless it was literal meat; the Jews thought the “bread from heaven” was literal bread. (John iii.4; iv.33; vi.34.) The natural heart of man always tries to put a carnal and material sense on spiritual expressions. Hence have arisen the greatest errors about the sacraments. 12.--[ Are you greater. ] This question exhibits the woman’s curiosity to know who the stranger before her could be. Who are you that speaks of living water?
It also savors of a sneer and incredulity. Do you mean to say that you can give me better and more abundant supplies of water than a well which the patriarch Jacob found sufficient for himself and all his numerous company? Do you pretend to know of a better well?
Are you, a poor weary traveler in appearance, so great a person that you do possess a better well than Jacob possessed? [ Our father Jacob...well. ] Let is be noted that the woman carefully claimed relationship with Jacob and called him “our father,” though, after all the intermixture of the Samaritans with heathen nations, the relationship was not very easy of proof. But it is common to find people shutting their eyes to difficulties when they want to prove a connection or relationship.
The advocates of an extreme view of apostolical succession seldom condescend to notice difficulties when they assert that episcopally ordained ministers can trace their order up to the apostles. When it says that “Jacob gave” the well, there is probably a reference to the grant which Jacob made to his son Joseph of the district near the well. From Joseph came the tribe of Ephraim to which, no doubt, the Samaritan woman claimed to belong. (Gen. xlviii.22.) [ Drink...himself...livestock. ] These words were doubtless said to show the goodness and abundance of the water.
Did the stranger at the well really mean to say that he could really give any better water? Bucer, on this verse, remarks how the Samaritans prided themselves on their relationship to Jacob and the possession of his well while they made no effort to imitate his goodness, and points out the tendency of superstition to the same thing in every age.
“True piety,” he says, “does not consist in having Jacob’s well and Jacob’s land, but Jacob’s spirit; not in keeping the bones of the saints but in imitating their lives.” 13.--[ Jesus answered, etc. ] In this and the following verse our Lord proceeds to raise the desires of the woman by exalting the value of the living water of which He had spoken. He still refrains from distinct statements of doctrinal truth; He still adheres to the figurative expression “water.” And yet He makes an advance and leads on the woman gently and almost imperceptibly to glorious spiritual things.
Now, for the first time, He begins to speak of “everlasting life.” [ Whosoever drinks...thirst again. ] It will be noted that our Lord does not answer the woman’s questions directly. He keeps steadily to the one point He desires to fasten on her mind: viz., the infinite excellence of a certain “living water” which He had to give. And first He reminds her of what she knew well by laborious experience: the water of Jacob’s well might be good and plentiful, but still he who drank of it was only satisfied for a few hours. He soon thirsted again.
We cannot doubt that there was a deep latent thought in our Lord’s words in this sentence. He would have us know that the waters of Jacob’s well are typical of all temporal and material good things: they cannot satisfy the soul. They have no power to fill the heart of an immortal creature like man. He who only drinks of them is sure to thirst again. Some have thought that there is a tacit reference in these words to the woman’s insatiable love of sin.
The similarity ought to be noticed between our Lord’s line of argument in this verse and the line He adopts in recommending to the Jews the bread of life in the sixth chapter.
He showed the Jews the superiority of the bread of life over the manna by the words, “Your father did eat manna and are dead.” (John vi.49.) Just so in this place, He shows the inferiority of the water of Jacob’s well to the living water by saying, “He that drinks of this water shall thirst again.” The two passages deserve a careful comparison. 14.--[ Whosoever drinks...never thirst. ] These words contain a precious promise and declare a glorious truth of the Gospel. The benefits of Christ’s gifts are promised to everyone who is willing to receive them, whosoever and whatsoever he may be.
He may have been as bad as the Samaritan woman, but the promise is for him as well as for her: “whosoever drinks shall never thirst.” The declaration “shall never thirst” does not mean “shall never feel any spiritual want at all.” It simply asserts the abiding and enduring nature of the benefits which Christ gives. He that drinks of the living water which Christ gives shall never entirely and completely lose the cleansing, purifying, and soul refreshing effects which it produces. Our English translation of this sentence hardly gives the full sense of the Greek.
Literally rendered it would be, “Shall never thirst unto eternity.” The same expression is used frequently in St. John’s Gospel. See John vi. 51-58; viii.51; x.28; xi.26; xiv.16. [ The water I shall give...everlasting life. ] To see the full meaning of this figurative sentence, it must be paraphrased.
The meaning seems to be something of this kind: “The gift of grace, mercy, and peace which I am ready to give shall be in the heart of him who receives it an everflowing source of comfort, satisfaction, and spiritual refreshment; continuing and flowing on, not only through this life but unto life eternal.
He that receives my gift of living water has a fountain opened in his soul of spiritual satisfaction, which shall neither be dried up in this life or the life to come, but shall flow on to all eternity.” Let it be noted that the whole verse is a strong argument in favor of the doctrine of the perpetuity of grace and the consequent perseverance in the faith of believers. It is difficult to understand how the Arminian doctrine of the possibility of believers completely falling away and being lost can be reconciled with any natural interpretation of this verse.
Zwingle thinks, with much probability, that the words “a fountain in him,” point to the benefits which grace once received makes a man impart to others, as well as enjoy himself. (See John vii.38.) Rollock remarks on this verse: “Let me say in a word what I feel.
You will find nothing either in heaven or in earth, with which you will be satisfied and feel supplied, except Jesus Christ alone, with all that fullness of the godhead which dwells in Him bodily.” Poole says: “He who receives the Holy Spirit and the grace thereof, though he will be daily saying Give, give, and continually desiring further supplies of grace, yet he shall never wholly want, never want any good thing that shall be needful for him.
The seed of God shall abide in him, and His water shall be in him a spring supplying him until he comes to heaven.” 15.--[ The woman said, etc. ] In this verse, I think, we see the first sparks of good in the woman’s soul. Our Lord’s words aroused a desire in her heart for this living water of which He had spoken. She does what our Lord said she ought to have done at first. She “asks” Him to give her the water. [Give me this water...not thirst...draw. ] The motives of the woman in making this request are variously explained.
Some think, as Musculus, Calvin, Bucer, Brentius, Gualter, Lightfoot, Poole, and Dyke, that the request was made in a sarcastic and sneering spirit, as though she would say, “Truly this water would be a fine thing, if we could get it!
Give it to me, if you have it to give.” Some think, as Augustine, Cyril, Bullinger, Rollock, Hildersam, Jansenius, and Nifanius, that the request was only the lazy, indolent wish of one who was weary of this world’s labor, and yet could see nothing but the things of this world in our Lord’s sayings; like the request of the Jews, “Evermore give us this bread.” (John vi.34.) It is as though she would say, “Anything to save me the trouble of coming to draw water would be a boon.
If you can do that for me, do it.” As Bengel says, “She wished to have this living fountain at her own house.” Some think, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius, that the request was really the prayer of an anxious soul, aroused to some faint spiritual desires by the mention of eternal life. “Hast thou eternal life to bestow? Give it to me.” I venture to think that none of these three views is quite correct. The true motive of the request was probably a vague feeling of desire that the woman herself could hardly have defined.
It is useless to analyze and scrutinize too closely the first languid and imperfect desires that arise in souls when the Spirit begins His work of conversion. It is folly to say that the first movings of a heart towards God must be free from all imperfect motives and all mixture of infirmity. The woman’s motives in saying “Give me this water” were probably mixed and indefinite. Material water was not out of her thoughts, and yet she had probably some desires after everlasting life. Enough for us to know that she asked and received, she sought and found.
Our great aim must be to persuade sinners to apply to Jesus and to say to Him, “Give me to drink.” If we forbid them to ask anything until they can prove that they ask in a perfect spirit, we should do no good at all. It would be as foolish to scrutinize the grammatical construction of an infant’s cries as to analyze the precise motives of a soul’s first breathings after God. If it breathes at all and says “Give,” we ought to be thankful. 16.--[Jesus said...call your husband...here.] This verse begins anentirely new stage in the history of the woman’s conversion.
From this point on we hear no more of “living water.” Figurative language is dropped entirely. Our Lord’s words become direct, personal, and plain. The woman had asked at last for “living water.” At once our Lord proceeds to give it to her. Our Lord’s reasons for bidding the woman to call her husband have been variously interpreted. Some think that He only meant her to understand that He had spoken long enough to her, a solitary woman, and that before He proceeded further she must call her husband to be a witness of the conversation and to partake of the benefits He was going to confer.
This seems the view of Chrysostom and Theophylact. Others think, with far more probability in my judgment, that our Lord’s main object in naming the woman’s husband was to produce in her mind conviction of sin, and to show her His own divine knowledge of all things. He knew that she had no husband, and He purposely named him in order to touch her conscience. He always knew the thoughts of those to whom He spoke, and He knew, in the present case, what the effect of His words would be. It would bring to light the woman’s besetting sin. It is as though He said, “ You do ask Me for living water.
You do at last express a desire for that great spiritual gift which I am able to bestow. Well then, I begin by bidding you to know yourself and your sinfulness. I will show you that I know your spiritual disease and can lay my finger on the most dangerous ailment of your soul. Go, call your husband, and come here.” Let it be noted that the first draught of living water which our Lord gave to the Samaritan woman was conviction of sin. That fact is a lesson for all who desire to benefit ignorant and careless sinners.
The first thing to be taught to such persons, when once we have gotten their attention, is their own sinfulness and their consequent need of a Savior. No one values the physician until he feels his disease. Augustine thinks that when our Lord said “Call thy husband,” He meant, “Cause thine understanding to be forthcoming. Thine understanding is not with thee. I am speaking after the spirit, and thou hearest after the flesh!” I can see no wisdom in this fanciful idea. 17.--[ The woman answered...no husband. ] These words were an honest and truthful confession, as far as they went.
Whether the woman wished it to be supposed that she was a widow, it would perhaps be hardly fair to inquire. Theophylact and Euthymius suggest that she did wish to deceive our Lord. The way in which our Lord received her declaration makes it probable that she did not profess to be a widow, and very likely her dress showed that she was not. In this point of view, the honesty of her confession is noteworthy.
There is always more hope of one who honestly and bluntly confesses sin than of a smooth-tongued hypocrite. [Jesus said...well said...no husband. ] Our Lord’s commendation of the woman’s honest confession deserves notice. It teaches us that we should make the best of an ignorant sinner’s words. An unskillful physician of souls would probably have rebuked the woman sharply for his wickedness, if her words led him to suspect it.
Our Lord, on the contrary, says, “Thou hast well said.” 18.--[ Five husbands. ] Many foolish and unseemly things have been written about this sentence which it is not worthwhile to bring forward. Of course it is utterly improbable that the woman had lost five husbands by death and had been five times a widow. The more likely explanation is that she had been divorced and put away by several husbands in succession. Divorces were notoriously common among the Jews, and in all probability among the Samaritans, for very trivial causes.
In the case, however, of the woman before us, the second clause of the verse makes it likely that she had been justly divorced for adultery. Augustine regards these five husbands as significant of “the five senses of the body,” which are as five husbands by which the soul of the natural man is ruled! I cannot think that our Lord meant anything of the kind. Euthymius mentions another allegorical view, making the woman to typify human nature, and the five husbands five different dispensations and him with whom she now lived the Mosaic Law! This seems to me simply absurd.
Origen says much the same. It is well to know what patristic interpretation is! [ He whom...not your husband. ] These words show plainly that the Samaritan woman was living in adultery up to the very day when our Lord spoke to her. Our Lord’s perfect knowledge of the woman’s past and present life is very noteworthy. It ought to remind us how perfectly He is acquainted with every transaction of our own lives. From Him no secrets are hid. [ In that you spoke truly. ] There is a kindness very worthy of notice in these words.
Wicked and abandoned as this Samaritan woman was, our Lord deals gently and kindly with her, and twice in one breath commends her confession: “You have well said. In that you spoke truly.” Kindness of manner like this will always be found a most important point in dealing with the ungodly. Scolding and sharp rebuke, however well-deserved, have a tendency to harden and shut up hearts and to make people bolt their doors. Kindness, on the contrary, wins, softens, conciliates, and disarms prejudice.
An unskillful soul-physician would probably have ended his sentence by saying, “You are a wicked woman, and if you do not repent, you will be lost.” All this would have been true no doubt. But how different our Lord’s grave and gentle remark: “You spoke truly!” 19.--[The woman said...I perceive...prophet. ] I think we see in this verse a great change in the Samaritan woman’s mind. She evidently confesses the entire truth of what our Lord had just said and turns to Him as an anxious inquirer about her soul. It is as though she said, “I perceive at last that you are indeed no common person.
You have told me what you could not have known if you were not a prophet sent from God. You have exposed sins which I cannot deny and aroused spiritual concern which I would now fain have relieved. Now give me instruction.” Let it be noted that the thing which first struck the Samaritan woman and made her call Jesus “a prophet” was the same that struck Nathanael, viz., our Lord’s perfect knowledge. To call our Lord “a prophet” at first sight may seem not much.
But it must be remembered that even after His resurrection, the two disciples going to Emmaus only described Jesus as a “prophet mighty in deed and word.” (Luke xxiv.19.) A clear knowledge of the divine nature of Messiah seems to have been one of the points on which almost the whole Jewish nation was ignorant. Even the learned Scribes could not explain how Messiah was to be David’s Lord and also David’s Son. (Mark xii.37.) 20.--[ Our fathers worshiped, etc. ] To see the full drift of this verse, we must carefully remember the state of the Samaritan woman’s mind at this moment.
I think that she spoke under spiritual anxiety. She was alarmed by having her sins suddenly exposed. She found herself for the first time in the presence of a prophet. She felt for the first time the necessity of religion. But at once the old question between the Jews and Samaritans arose before her mind. How was she to know what was truth? What was she to believe? Her own people said that the Samaritan mode of worshiping God was correct. The Jews said that Jerusalem was the only place where men ought to worship. Between these two conflicting opinions, what was she to do?
The natural ignorance of almost all unconverted people, when first aroused to thought about religion, appears strikingly in the woman’s words. Man’s first idea is to attach great importance to the outward mode of worshiping God. The first refuge of an awakened conscience is strict adherence to some outward form and zeal for the external part of religion. The woman’s readiness to quote “the fathers” and their customs is an instructive instance of man’s readiness to make custom and tradition his only rule of faith. “Our fathers did so” is one of the natural man’s favorite arguments.
Calvin’s comments on the expression “fathers” in this verse are very useful. He remarks, among other things, “None should be reckoned Fathers but those who are manifestly the sons of God.” When the woman spoke of “this mountain,” she doubtless meant the hill on which the rival temple of Samaria was built, to the bitter annoyance of the Jerusalem Jews.
It is said that this temple was first built in the days of Nehemiah by Sanballat, and that his son-in-law, the son of Joiada, whom Nehemiah “chased from him” was its first high priest. (Neh. xiii.29.) Some have gone so far as to maintain that the hill Gerizim at Samaria was the hill on which Abraham offered up Isaac, and that the words of the woman refer to this. The more common opinion is that Mount Moriah at Jerusalem was the place. When the woman says “Ye say,” she doubtless includes the whole Jewish nation, of whom she regards our Lord as a representative.
Musculus, Baxter, Scott, and Barnes think that the woman, in this verse, desired to turn away the conversation from her own sins to a subject of public controversy, and in this way to change the subject. I am not, however, satisfied that this view is correct. I prefer the view of Brentius, which I have already set forth, that she was truly impressed by our Lord’s exposure of her wickedness and made a serious inquiry about the things needful to salvation. She was aroused to seriousness and asked what was true religion. Her own nation said one thing, the Jews said another. What was truth?
In short, her words were only another form of the jailer’s question, “What shall I do to be saved?” 21.--[ Jesus said...believe me. ] The calmness, gravity, and solemnity of these opening words are very noteworthy. “I tell you a great truth, which I ask you to credit and believe.” Jansenius thinks that our Lord uses the expression “believe Me,” because the truth He was about to impart was so new and strange that the woman would be apt to think it incredible.
Stier remarks that this is the only time our Lord ever uses this expression, “Believe Me,” in the Gospels. [ The hour comes. ] The hour, or time here spoken of, means the time of the Gospel, the hour of the Christian dispensation. [Ye shall neither...mountain...Jerusalem...worship, etc. ] Our Lord here declares that under the Gospel there was to be no more distinction of places, like Jerusalem. The old dispensation under which men were bound to go up to Jerusalem three times a year, to attend the feasts and worship in the temple, was about to pass away.
All questions about the superior sanctity of Samaria or Jerusalem would soon be at an end. A Church was about to be founded whose members would find access to the Father everywhere, and would need no temple service and no priests or sacrifices or altars in order to approach God. It was, therefore, mere waste of time to be disputing about the comparative claims of either Samaria or Jerusalem. Under the Gospel all places would soon be alike.
It seems far from improbable that our Lord referred in this verse to the prophecy of Malachi: “In every place incense shall be offered to my name.” (Mal. i.11.) The utter passing away of the whole Jewish system seems clearly pointed at in this verse. To bring into the Christian Church holy places, sanctuaries, altars, priests, sacrifices, gorgeous vestments, and the like is to dig up that which has been long buried, and to turn to candles for light under the noon-day sun. The favorite theory of the Irvingites, that we ought (as far as possible) in our