THREAD: Social distances in John 4.1–44 (Part I).
As we pick up the story, Jesus’ fame has begun to surpass John’s,
which has resulted in large numbers of (water) baptisms (4.1–3).
As we pick up the story, Jesus’ fame has begun to surpass John’s,
which has resulted in large numbers of (water) baptisms (4.1–3).
Water therefore continues to play a major part in John’s gospel (cp. ch. 2’s water of purification, ch. 3’s mention of ‘water and the Spirit’, etc.),
as it will do in 4.3ff.’s events.
as it will do in 4.3ff.’s events.
To avoid the attention of the Pharisees, Jesus leaves Judea and returns to Galilee (4.3).
It is ‘necessary’ (δεῖ) for him, we’re told, to pass through Samaria.
But ‘necessary’ in what way?
It is ‘necessary’ (δεῖ) for him, we’re told, to pass through Samaria.
But ‘necessary’ in what way?
Josephus refers to the route which runs through Samaria as ‘necessary’ (δεῖ) when time is of the essence (Jos. Life 269).
Yet Jesus doesn’t appear to be in a rush (cp. 4.40, where Jesus decides to stay in Samaria for two extra days).
Yet Jesus doesn’t appear to be in a rush (cp. 4.40, where Jesus decides to stay in Samaria for two extra days).
Jesus therefore appears to have felt a different kind of ‘necessity’ to pass through Samaria.
He has recently spoken about the ‘need’ (δεῖ) to be born from above (3.7) and for the Son of Man to be lifted up (3.14).
He has recently spoken about the ‘need’ (δεῖ) to be born from above (3.7) and for the Son of Man to be lifted up (3.14).
And, in what follows, he’ll talk about the ‘need’ (δεῖ) for those who worship God to do so in spirit and truth (4.24).
Perhaps, then, Jesus is motivated by a different sense of need than is made apparent in 4.4, i.e., the need to turn a number of wayward Samaritans into worshippers.
Either way, in 4.5, Jesus arrives in Sychar.
The region of ‘Sychar’ (Συχάρ) is typically identified with the modern-day town ‘Askar’ (عسكر),
which is thought to have been occupied in Jesus’ day.
The region of ‘Sychar’ (Συχάρ) is typically identified with the modern-day town ‘Askar’ (عسكر),
which is thought to have been occupied in Jesus’ day.
It also happens to be located about a mile away from the site traditionally associated with Jacob’s well (cp. below),
which makes it a good fit with the text.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob%27s…
which makes it a good fit with the text.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob%27s…
In 4.6, Jesus encounters the now-well-known ‘woman from Samaria’,
whom he meets at midday (i.e., ‘at the sixth hour’).
whom he meets at midday (i.e., ‘at the sixth hour’).
Jesus’ encounter with the woman strikes a chord with a number of other incidents in Scripture.
We might think, for instance, of a patriarch who went to a foreign land long ago in search of a wife,
and met a woman in the vicinity of a well (at midday) (Gen. 29).
We might think, for instance, of a patriarch who went to a foreign land long ago in search of a wife,
and met a woman in the vicinity of a well (at midday) (Gen. 29).
Indeed, that person’s name has already been mentioned in our text: Jacob.
A casual reader might, therefore, expect the events of our text to follow the course of Gen. 29’s.
And in some senses they do.
Like Jacob, Jesus helps the woman whom he meets to obtain water.
And, also like Jacob, Jesus raises the issue of marriage.
And in some senses they do.
Like Jacob, Jesus helps the woman whom he meets to obtain water.
And, also like Jacob, Jesus raises the issue of marriage.
But Jesus doesn’t do either of these things in the expected manner.
Moreover, the events of our text differ from those of Gen. 29 in a number of important ways.
Moreover, the events of our text differ from those of Gen. 29 in a number of important ways.
While Jacob travels to a foreign land in order to visit one of his kinsmen, Jesus does so in order to find a foreigner, whom his people don’t normally associate with.
While Rachel introduces Jacob to her father, Jesus seeks to introduce the Samaritan woman to *his* Father.
While Rachel introduces Jacob to her father, Jesus seeks to introduce the Samaritan woman to *his* Father.
And, while Jacob seeks to provide water for Rachel, Jesus *requests* water from the Samaritan woman, much to her surprise (4.9).
And, soon afterwards, the woman is again surprised when, in response to her hesitancy, Jesus offers *her* water (4.10).
And, soon afterwards, the woman is again surprised when, in response to her hesitancy, Jesus offers *her* water (4.10).
The water Jesus refers to, however, isn’t water from Jacob’s well.
It is ‘living water’ (ὕδωρ ζῶν),
which is presumably the equivalent of the Hebrew expression ‘mayim chayim’ (מים חיים).
It is ‘living water’ (ὕδωρ ζῶν),
which is presumably the equivalent of the Hebrew expression ‘mayim chayim’ (מים חיים).
As such, Jesus’ offer is enigmatic (as is his dialogue with the woman of Samaria more generally).
It could plausibly be taken to concern ‘spring water’ (from a different well: Gen. 26.19, Sgs. 4.15) or ‘fresh water’ (from a nearby stream: Lev. 14.5–6).
Or it could be understood in a more metaphorical manner.
Or it could be understood in a more metaphorical manner.
Yet, however the woman ultimately understands Jesus’ offer, she clearly (and correctly) takes it to involve a superior quality of water to Jacob’s well’s, although she doesn’t yet realise how superior it is.
‘Are you greater than our father Jacob?’, she asks,
the answer to which, she will soon discover, is Yes!
the answer to which, she will soon discover, is Yes!
Indeed, Jesus’ superiority over Jacob is implicit in his response,
since Jesus offers the woman water which *permanently* satisfies, and which ‘wells up’ to eternal life (4.14).
since Jesus offers the woman water which *permanently* satisfies, and which ‘wells up’ to eternal life (4.14).
What Jesus has to ‘give’ (δίδωμι) is, therefore, superior to what Jacob has ‘given’ (δίδωμι) the Samaritans (cp. 4.10 w. 5).
Jesus’ response also involves some noteworthy points of contact with its Scriptural and extra-Scriptural backdrop.
Targum Neofiti preserves a tradition related to Gen. 29, in which Jacob performs a remarkable ‘sign’ (נס).
When Jacob removes the stone from the mouth of Laban’s well, its water rises up to its surface and ‘overflows’ (טוף), and continues to do for the next twenty years,
When Jacob removes the stone from the mouth of Laban’s well, its water rises up to its surface and ‘overflows’ (טוף), and continues to do for the next twenty years,
i.e., until Jacob leaves (cp. Gen. 31.38).
As such, Jesus’ offer of water which ‘overflows to eternal life’ portrays him as a ‘greater than Jacob’.
What Jacob provides for twenty years, Jesus is able to provide in perpetuity.
As such, Jesus’ offer of water which ‘overflows to eternal life’ portrays him as a ‘greater than Jacob’.
What Jacob provides for twenty years, Jesus is able to provide in perpetuity.
And, while Jacob’s water supply overflows only while he is present, Jesus’ will be poured out in even greater abundance once he departs (and sends the Spirit in his place).
Also relevant to these events are specific features of Gen. 29’s narrative.
Access to the well in Paddan-Aram is limited.
When Jacob seeks to roll its stone away, he is told it is not yet time to do so.
The well can only be accessed *after* midday (the sixth hour), once Laban’s various flocks have been gathered together.
When Jacob seeks to roll its stone away, he is told it is not yet time to do so.
The well can only be accessed *after* midday (the sixth hour), once Laban’s various flocks have been gathered together.
Jesus’ offer to the woman of Samaria, however, is characterised not by limitation, but by abundance.
The hour for the water of life to be outpoured, Jesus says, is now present (4.23).
And Jesus has come precisely in order to gather God’s various flocks together (10.16).
The hour for the water of life to be outpoured, Jesus says, is now present (4.23).
And Jesus has come precisely in order to gather God’s various flocks together (10.16).
Yet, before he does so, certain issues of morality must be addressed,
which I plan to get to next time round.
which I plan to get to next time round.
SOME FINAL/TANGENTIAL REMARKS:
To close, however, let’s consider a few features of John’s text which exhibit a noteworthy consistency with—and awareness of—the Samaritan culture/theology of the day (as best we can reconstruct it).
To close, however, let’s consider a few features of John’s text which exhibit a noteworthy consistency with—and awareness of—the Samaritan culture/theology of the day (as best we can reconstruct it).
First, John’s Samaritan woman behaves as we would expect her to behave.
Rabbinic texts tend to take a low view of the Samaritans.
Indeed, many texts forbid intermarriage with them (Keener 2010:598).
Rabbinic texts tend to take a low view of the Samaritans.
Indeed, many texts forbid intermarriage with them (Keener 2010:598).
The Samaritan woman’s statement in 4.9—viz. ‘The Jews have nothing to do with the Samaritans’—is, therefore, the kind of statement we would expect her to make.
Equally expected/plausible is her concern about whether worship should take place on Mount Gerizim or in Jerusalem.
The Samaritans saw Mt. Gerizim as the holiest of mountains (e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.85), and regularly observed the Passover there (as Samaritan communities still do today).
Indeed, the Decalogue in the Samaritan Pentateuch includes a commandment to build an altar to God at Gerizim.
And Rabbinic texts suggest the Samaritans held a low view of Jerusalem (cp. Gen. Rab. 32.10, 81.3, where the Samaritans refer to Jerusalem as a ‘dunghill’ in contrast to their ‘holy mountain’).
As before, then, John’s Samaritan woman behaves in the way we would expect her to behave.
Second, John’s allusions to water are contextually plausible/appropriate.
Rabbinic texts frequently compare the Torah to water and a good Torah teacher to a well (e.g., m. Avot 1.4, 11, 2.8, Mek. Vay. 1.74ff.);
Rabbinic texts frequently compare the Torah to water and a good Torah teacher to a well (e.g., m. Avot 1.4, 11, 2.8, Mek. Vay. 1.74ff.);
hence, for instance, the (19th cent.) Rabbinic teacher Chaim of Tchernovitz is referred to on his gravesite marker as ‘Be’er Mayim Chayim’ = ‘A Well of Living Water’.
John does not, therefore, seem to have artificially manufactured 4.1–44’s imagery in order to conform it to the water-related imagery elsewhere in his Gospel (e.g., that of chs. 2, 3, 7, etc).
Rather, John’s imagery is consistent with (what we know of) the imagery of the day.
Rather, John’s imagery is consistent with (what we know of) the imagery of the day.
It is also highly appropriate to Samaritan culture.
A Samaritan tractate known as Memar Marqah compares the speech of Moses to a river ‘abounding with living waters which quench the thirst of all who drink them’ (Memar Marqah 6.3) (trans. MacDonald).
A Samaritan tractate known as Memar Marqah compares the speech of Moses to a river ‘abounding with living waters which quench the thirst of all who drink them’ (Memar Marqah 6.3) (trans. MacDonald).
Moreover, the same tractate likens wisdom/knowledge to ‘a well of living water’ (באר מיה חייה).
Third, 4.1–44’s mentions ofJacob and Joseph seem to be an accurate reflection of the Samaritans’ perception of themselves.
The Samaritans were aware of ‘the Jewish version of their ancestry’ (recorded in 2 Kgs 17.24–41).
The Samaritans were aware of ‘the Jewish version of their ancestry’ (recorded in 2 Kgs 17.24–41).
As a result, they emphasised their descent from Jacob (Keener 2010:602).
More specifically, they claimed to be able to trace their ancestry back to Joseph (cp. Gen. Rab. 94.7) (though not to the Rabbis’ satisfaction).
More specifically, they claimed to be able to trace their ancestry back to Joseph (cp. Gen. Rab. 94.7) (though not to the Rabbis’ satisfaction).
Both the Samaritan woman’s question (‘Are you greater than Jacob?’) and John’s preservation of a tradition which relates the area of Sychar to Joseph therefore make good sense in light of 4.1–44’s context.
Fourth, the Samaritan woman’s concept of Messiahship is consistent with what we know about Samaritan theology.
The Samaritans appear to have viewed Moses as Israel’s last genuine prophet (as would be expected given their rejection of the entire Hebrew Bible aside from the Pentateuch).
Consequently, the Samaritans awaited the appearance of ‘a prophet like Moses’ (per Deut. 18.18),
Consequently, the Samaritans awaited the appearance of ‘a prophet like Moses’ (per Deut. 18.18),
which is consistent with the woman’s association of Jesus’ Messiahship and his prophetic ability, i.e., his ability to recount her past (cp. 4.19 w. Deut. 18.18).
‘When Messiah comes’, the woman says, ‘he will tell us all things’ (4.25; cp. also 4.29, 39).
‘When Messiah comes’, the woman says, ‘he will tell us all things’ (4.25; cp. also 4.29, 39).
Of particular note in light of these considerations is a second feature of the Samaritan Pentateuch,
where Deut. 18’s prediction of a Moses-like prophet who will arise in the days to come appears immediately after the Ten Commandments to emphasise its centrality/importance.
where Deut. 18’s prediction of a Moses-like prophet who will arise in the days to come appears immediately after the Ten Commandments to emphasise its centrality/importance.
CONCLUSION:
In sum, then, while material unique to John is frequently viewed as the product of a Johannine community far removed from Israel, some of it at least exhibits the same indicators of trustworthiness and familiarity with life in Israel as the Synoptic material.
In sum, then, while material unique to John is frequently viewed as the product of a Johannine community far removed from Israel, some of it at least exhibits the same indicators of trustworthiness and familiarity with life in Israel as the Synoptic material.
True, the Samaritans would have been known about to some extent in the wider world in the 1st cent. AD.
But they are nowhere mentioned in the NT epistles, and are only rarely mentioned in the Gospels and Acts,
But they are nowhere mentioned in the NT epistles, and are only rarely mentioned in the Gospels and Acts,
and yet John—who employs the term ‘Samaritan’ as much in John 4 as the rest of the NT’s authors do in the entire NT—seems to be familiar with their culture and theology.
THE END.
THE END.
