John 4 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

4:1 Jesus. While good mss read “Jesus” (66* א D 038 086), equally good mss read “Lord” (66c 75 A B C L Ws 083). Most likely “Jesus” was changed to “Lord” by scribes (such as the corrector of 66) because they wanted to alleviate the awkwardness of repeating Jesus’ name twice.

4:4 Samaria. The animosity between Jews and Samaritans had been developing for centuries. When the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17), they left only a small number of Jews there and deported hundreds of pagans to live there. The resulting intermarriage produced half-Jews who became the Samaritans. When the Jews returned from exile under Ezra and Nehemiah, they demanded that the people divorce their pagan spouses and return to the pure faith. The Samaritans refused and often sent letters to the Persians, accusing the Jewish people of sedition. Then around 400 BC, the Samaritans erected their own temple on Mt. Gerizim, which had been the center of the Jewish religion before Shiloh served this function (Deut 27; cf. Josh 8:30-35; 1 Sam 1:9). In 128 BC, John Hyrcanus, the Jewish king, destroyed the Samaritan temple, and that sealed the hatred between the two peoples. At the time of Christ, the animosity continued to be very strong.

4:5 Samaritan village of Sychar. We do not know for certain where Sychar was. We do know Jacob’s well, for it is well attested (cf. Dalman 1935:212-216), but the identification of Sychar is uncertain. Some believe it is the modern town of Askar, east of Mounts Gerizim and Ebal (so Barrett, Carson), but because the remains on the site have only been dated to medieval times, many doubt it (so Brown, who prefers Shechem). But Shechem was destroyed by John Hyrcanus before 107 BC, so perhaps placing Sychar just east of Mounts Gerizim and Ebal is best (so Köstenberger).

4:7 Jesus said to her. He broke several taboos in speaking to this woman: (1) The religious taboo—Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch as canon and would not worship in Jerusalem, believing Mt. Gerizim to be the true holy site. In fact, several years earlier some Samaritans had scattered human bones (ritually unclean) in the courtyard of the Jerusalem Temple, further inflaming the animosity. (2) The sexual taboo—men were not supposed to associate with women. This was held more strictly in Judea than in Galilee, but to start a conversation with a female stranger at a well was pretty much unheard of anywhere. In fact, Jesus was risking ritual defilement by talking with a Samaritan woman. (3) The ethnic taboo—as stated above, Jews and Samaritans had no dealings with each other. The Synoptics show how Jesus’ compassion led him to ignore such things, as when he healed the woman with the hemorrhage and raised the little girl from the dead (Mark 5:21-43 and parallels). When there were physical or spiritual needs at hand, social and religious expectations became unimportant.

4:9 Jews refuse to have anything to do with Samaritans. Some mss (א* D ita,b,e,j copfay) omit this clause, probably because it seems clumsy and unnecessary. However, the ms evidence for its inclusion is too strong to ignore (63 66 75 76 א1 A B C L Ws et al.).

4:10 the gift God has for you. Schnackenburg (1980:426) says the “gift” was “a comprehensive term for everything that God bestows on man for his salvation,” such as the Torah for the Jews, the Holy Spirit for the church, as well as righteousness and the grace of God (Paul’s emphases).

4:14 the water I give. Bruce points out (1983:105) that the rabbis compared the law to refreshing water. Jesus offered water superior not only to Jacob’s well but also to the “legal religion of Jews and Samaritans alike.”

4:18 five husbands. There are several symbolic interpretations of the five husbands—for instance, that the woman represents Samaria, who held that only the five books of Moses were canonical, or that this reflects 2 Kgs 17:24-25, where false gods were brought into Samaria by pagans from five cities. This would mean that Samaria considered Yahweh to be her husband but that she had no husband because her worship was impure. However, while there were five cities, the list of their gods in 2 Kgs 17:30-31 mentions seven gods. Moreover, this would not fit the Samaria of Jesus’ day, which was strictly monotheistic. Finally, there is no hint of such a meaning in the context of John 4. This is simply the number of husbands she had been married to—it has no further symbolic meaning.

4:20 So tell me. It is possible that the woman was not so much interested in the theological issue as she was in steering the discussion away from the dangerous topic of her immoral life (so Morris). While this is viable, the flavor of Jesus’ prophetic status seems to infuse what she says.

4:23-24 in spirit and in truth. There are two major issues regarding the interpretation of “in spirit and in truth.” This first involves whether it has (1) an external force, in which pneuma [TG4151, ZG4460] refers to the Holy Spirit and the phrase can be taken as “the Spirit of truth” (so Barrett, Schnackenburg, Brown, Michaels, Burge, Thompson [2001:214], Keener); or (2) an internal force pointing to spiritual worship in one’s spirit or with the whole heart (so Hendriksen, Morris, Whitacre, Blomberg, Köstenberger). But is only an “either-or” approach viable, or is there a “both-and” option? In the context of John, the latter is more likely. The Spirit is certainly connoted, for it is the Spirit that makes worship possible. At the same time, worship is to be an inner, spiritual act. The second issue is whether “spirit and truth” should be considered separate items (Barrett, Comfort) or one single entity (Carson). The former could be favored by the importance of both in John, but Carson correctly notes that both are governed by a single preposition and should be taken together. Since “God is spirit” worship must be a spiritual act; since “God is Spirit” worship must be in the Holy Spirit.

4:24 God is Spirit. The KJV has “God is a Spirit,” but that is clearly wrong. First, the indefinite article is not mandated by the Gr. (Cf. 1:1 on this), and even more, it could hardly mean “God is one of the spirits” in this context.

4:26 I Am the Messiah! Several (e.g., Brown, Carson) note that Jesus gives an unqualified affirmation of his messianic office to a Samaritan here in John, when he refused to do so in a Jewish setting in the synoptic Gospels (cf. Mark 1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:30; 9:9 and parallels). The reason for the so-called “messianic secret” in the Synoptics is that the Jews expected a military conqueror rather than a suffering Servant as Messiah and thus would have misunderstood the implications of such a claim—this was true even of Jesus’ disciples! Jesus did not want his messianic work bandied about in such a setting. However, to the Gentiles (Mark 5:19) and Samaritans who did not have such a misunderstanding, he spoke more freely.

4:27 They were shocked to find him talking to a woman. This reflects the Jewish prejudices against both Samaritans and women (cf. note on 4:7). Rabbis were not allowed to have anything to do with women apart from their wives, for such contact was thought to detract from their study of Torah and bring evil upon them (cf. Strack and Billerbeck 2.438). In addition, some considered it inappropriate for women to study Torah at all (m. Sotah 3:4). Here, the disciples did not have the courage to question Jesus regarding his motive or purpose in conversing with the woman. He was their rabbi and Messiah. They had to wait and trust his reasons, even though they were skeptical.

4:28 left her water jar. Other possible explanations are that she left the water jar there so Jesus could get a drink (Hendriksen) or that the scene symbolizes that such a jar is unnecessary in light of the living water Jesus had provided (Brown). Both seem to go beyond the scene itself. The simpler explanation is that she left the jar in her haste to tell the townspeople about Jesus (Bruce).

4:38 I sent you to harvest. Many (e.g., Brown, Schnackenburg) believe this refers not so much to the mission of Jesus as to the later post-Resurrection mission to the Samaritans in Acts 8, referring especially to the success of Philip in Samaria. While John would have understood the relevance of this for that later event (he was sent with Peter to investigate it, Acts 8:14-17), there is no need to doubt the historical trustworthiness of this scene. Brown, in spite of his view regarding the focus of the verses, accepts a historical nucleus for this section (1966:183). It is better to say that the Samaritan harvest really occurred but also had added relevance for the early church in light of the events of Acts 8.

This is the third of the salvation dramas (1:35-51; 3:1-15); it shows Jesus again taking the initiative (Cf. 1:43) in reaching out. Note how this develops chapter 3. There, he was reaching out (though in a slightly different way, for Nicodemus came to him) to a Jewish leader—here, to a despised, sinful woman among the despised Samaritans. Equally relevant is her positive reaction and the absence of any such response from Nicodemus at this stage. Moreover, this is a central section for John’s mission theme, as it contains the first major discourse on mission (4:31-38). The Samaritan mission launches God’s mission to the world.

The scene opens with Jesus traveling from Jerusalem to Galilee (4:3) and deliberately passing through Samaria on the way. He left because of the controversy that was brewing when “the Pharisees had heard” that Jesus was performing more baptisms than John (4:1). Most likely this means that opposition was about to break out because the Pharisees were focusing on Jesus. The Baptist had been in Aenon in the southern part of Samaria (3:23), quite possibly due to persecution. Jesus decided this was not the time for such conflict; he “left Judea and returned to Galilee” (4:3).

On the way to Galilee, Jesus stopped in Samaria because God led him to do so (4:4; dei [TG1163, ZG1256], referring to a divine necessity, Cf. 3:7, 14, 30). It is clear in these chapters that everything occurs as part of the divine plan. Jesus could have gone by another route up through the valley east of the Jordan and avoided Samaria. Josephus tells us that the Samaritan route was the normal way to travel from Judea to Galilee (Antiquities 20.118), but some, like the Pharisees, preferred to travel up the east side of the Jordan River (in Gentile countryside) and then cross back over to Galilee. Again, it was not a geographic necessity but God’s will that led Jesus to Samaria. As he passed through, he came to the village of Sychar near Jacob’s well. There is no Old Testament evidence for this well, but the tradition regarding its location continues to our day and is probably correct. The well today is probably much the same as it was in Jesus’ time, about 100 feet deep and seven feet in diameter. “The field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph” is mentioned in Genesis 48:22 and has an interesting history. The Hebrews brought Joseph’s bones and buried them there after conquering Canaan (Josh 24:32).

When Jesus arrived there, it was noon, one of the hottest times of the day (4:6). Tired from the long trip, he sat beside the well to rest. The disciples had “gone into the village to buy some food,” so Jesus was there by himself (4:8). At first glance, the purchase of food in Samaria could be thought unusual, since the Samaritans were considered unclean by strict Jews; but Galileans were not as legalistic, and travelers going through Samaria either had to carry a lot of provisions or buy food there. As Jesus waited for the disciples to return, a woman came to the well, which was unusual because most women came in groups, either in the morning or at dusk when it was cooler. This was certainly because she was known as an immoral woman (4:18) and would have been shunned by the others (cf. Burge); she came when she could be alone.

Jesus initiated the conversation, startling the woman (4:7). His request for a drink from the well was carefully calculated. Her reply (4:9) shows the distance between the two groups, centering not only on a Jew speaking to a woman but on a Jew asking for water from a Samaritan, for the Jews were very careful about eating or drinking with certain people. The principle was, “To share a meal is to share a life” (DJG 796-797), and Jesus often got into trouble for eating with disreputable people (Matt 9:11; 11:19; Luke 15:2; 19:7). John explained to his readers that “Jews refuse to have anything to do with Samaritans” (4:9). The verb literally means, “Jews do not use utensils (cups of water in this case)” with Samaritans, since that would make them ritually unclean (so Daube 1956:373-382). Jesus had a higher purpose in the request, preparing her for his next offer, though he would have willingly drunk the unclean drink if she had given it to him.

Jesus began, “If you only knew the gift God has for you and who you are speaking to” (4:10). This gift of God is the eternal life that results from faith (3:16, 36); it is also the gift of the Holy Spirit (3:5; 7:38-39). Jesus offered, “Ask me and I [will] give you living water.” She had come seeking water from the well; he offered the Water of Life from God. For the people of his day, “living water” was water that came from fresh bubbling springs (like the pool of Bethesda in 5:2). Barrett (1978:233-234) shows that the idea of (living) water meant many things in the Old Testament and Judaism—not only Torah and the Spirit but also wisdom, God as the fountain of life, and the divine Word. This is especially so because “it is in the waterless spaces of the east that the value of water is most clearly apparent.” In Jeremiah 2:13, God is “the fountain of living water,” and Isaiah 12:3 speaks of drinking “deeply from the fountain of salvation.” Zechariah 14:8 promises that in the day of the Lord, “life-giving waters will flow out from Jerusalem.” “Living water” typifies the life-giving power of God and the presence of the Holy Spirit. This can come only from Jesus, God’s Messiah and Son. As such, this symbol anticipates Revelation 21–22, which speaks of the river of the water of life coming to God’s people from the throne of God and the Lamb, and of God becoming the Temple in the New Jerusalem (so Comfort).

Like Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman thought only on the earthly plane. She said, “But sir, you don’t have a rope or a bucket . . . and this well is very deep” (4:11). Indeed, the well was over 100 feet deep. She, of course, was thinking of a bubbling spring. This would fit Jacob’s well since it was supplied by an underground spring. Then she went on the offensive—“Do you think you’re greater than our ancestor Jacob?” Her words can also be translated, “You don’t really think you’re better, do you?” She looked at Jesus and saw an average-looking person who said outrageous things. How could such a one provide “better water” than Jacob had for his sons and cattle? Since there is no Old Testament mention of Jacob and the well, she was speaking from tradition. Still, her tone shows she was skeptical and unbelieving at this point.

Jesus explained the point further (4:13-14) so as to clear up her misconception, pointing out that as refreshing as Jacob’s well was, those who drank from it would “become thirsty again,” while those who accepted his water would “never be thirsty again.” The earthly well is inadequate compared to the heavenly water Jesus makes available. While the well water is drawn with a bucket, the heavenly water is “a fresh, bubbling spring.” The Greek verb underlying “bubbling” is very strong, picturing a geyser leaping up. The Old Testament promises behind this are plentiful (cf. Isa 49:10; 55:1-3). Some Samaritans believed that “water shall flow from [the Messiah’s] buckets” (so Bruce, Carson).

The woman, not understanding Jesus, asked for this water so that she would never have to be thirsty or come to the well again (4:15). She exhibited no awareness of the spiritual reality Jesus was addressing. Then Jesus made an abrupt change of direction—but again it was carefully calculated, for it forced her to come face to face not only with who she was (she already knew that) but with who he was. He began by asking her to get her husband, leading her to admit that she was not married. She probably thought that would end the discussion, but Jesus was digging ever more deeply into her true spiritual condition. Before she could drink the living water, she had to come to grips with her moral condition.

Jesus’ omniscient response (cf. his supernatural knowledge about Nathanael, 1:47-49) shocked her. Her five marriages probably included several divorces. Judaism did not prohibit divorce but generally allowed only two or three marriages for women (so Schnackenburg). If this was true of the Samaritans, she was immoral for the number of her husbands as well as for her current living arrangement. Jesus encountered her with the basic problem that was keeping her from the living water. Though she still could not deal with her own situation, Jesus’ revelation of her true condition caused her to rethink who he was, and she said, “You must be a prophet” (4:19). There are two possibilities: (1) he was an inspired prophet who had been given special insight from God (cf. Luke 7:39); or (2) he was “the prophet,” probably the “prophet like Moses” alluded to in 1:21. Since this was the one messianic figure from the Pentateuch, the Samaritans took this as the primary messianic prophecy. Most likely, there is double meaning here, with the woman intending the first but the Evangelist hinting at the second.

Since Jesus was a prophet, she thought he might be able to answer the major issue between the Samaritans and the Jews; it was the question as to whether Yahweh should be worshiped in Jerusalem or on Mt. Gerizim. The latter was visible while they talked. The Samaritans believed that God’s true command to Israel in Deuteronomy 27:4-8 was to build an altar at Mt. Gerizim rather than Mt. Ebal after they entered the Promised Land (as the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch reads). Moreover, Shechem was the place where Abraham erected an altar when he entered the land (Gen 12:6-7). On this basis, the Samaritans argued that they had priority of place over Jerusalem, which did not become a religious center until after the Pentateuchal period.

The first part of Jesus’ answer would also have startled her, for he gave a prophetic revelation regarding the future “time” when neither place would be the center of worship. While this could point to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and the radical decentralizing of Jewish worship that followed, it is better to see it as pointing toward the coming of the Kingdom. But this is not so much a reference to the Eschaton as it is to the new era of salvation inaugurated by Jesus’ death and resurrection. The “time” or “hour” in John always refers to the Cross (cf. note on 2:4). When that time comes, access to the Father will be direct, and neither Jerusalem nor Mt. Gerizim will be important. Since God will become in a new way the Father of his people (the relationship expressed in 1:14, 18 will be extended to his children), there will be a direct access to God (Cf. 16:23), and the indirect way through the centers of worship will no longer be needed. Still, to answer her question, Jesus clarified his message further by saying that, as opposed to the Samaritans, “we Jews know all about [the one we worship]” (4:22). In effect, he was saying that the Samaritan religion was wrong, and the Jews had a superior knowledge of God. The Samaritan belief system was historically conditioned and wrongly based, and so their worship was inadequate. The reason was that “salvation comes through the Jews.” This encompassed both God’s plan of salvation and the Messiah through whom it would come. God had revealed himself to the Jews through the law (or Pentateuch), the prophets, and the writings, not just the Pentateuch, and they were the true path through which God would bring about his salvation. Jesus the Messiah was a Jew.

The key point comes in 4:23-24. Jesus had just said “salvation comes through the Jews”—something that was already a reality, for the Messiah had come—but he then switched to the present tense to clarify and emphasize the reality: “The time is coming—indeed it’s here now.” The “time” or hour, as we have seen (2:4; 4:21), refers to the divinely appointed time of Jesus’ passion. The point here is that the new age to be inaugurated at the coming of the Messiah has now arrived. There is an already/not-yet tension in this: the coming Kingdom has already arrived but has not yet been consummated. There are three stages involved—the Incarnation, the death, and the Parousia (second coming) of Christ, with the first two emphasized here. John 4:23b-24 forms an ABA pattern, with “worship in spirit and in truth” (4:23b, 24b) framing “God is Spirit” (4:24a).

“God is Spirit” is the first of three times John defines God in his writings (“God is light” and “God is love” in 1 John 1:5, 4:8). This states that God is not material and should not be worshiped in a material way (e.g., in Jerusalem or Mt. Gerizim) in the new age. This “expresses the transcendence and holiness of God” (Schnackenburg 1990:1.438) and means that God is “life-giving and unknowable to human beings unless he chooses to reveal himself (Cf. 1:18)” (Carson 1991:225). Since God is Spirit, there is only one way to worship that is acceptable to him—“in spirit and in truth.” There is double meaning in this. In one sense, it refers to a worship that centers on the whole inner being of the person, deeply spiritual and wholehearted. In another sense, such worship is only made possible by the power of the Spirit. The new birth is “from above” (3:3), and Jesus is “from above” (3:31); true worship has a heavenly component and occurs only when one is seeking and thinking “about the things of heaven” (Col 3:1-2). Moreover, it is both in spirit and truth that “true worshipers” worship: first in the Spirit, who is truth (as Christ is truth, 14:6), and then in genuine, real worship. Those in the Spirit truly worship with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Note also the divine necessity (dei [TG1163, ZG1256], “must,” 4:24; Cf. 3:7, 14, 30; 4:4, 20) of worship. Thompson (2001:214-215) believes this culminates the emphasis in chapters 3–4, which is the centrality of the work of the Spirit and of the individual as recipient of the life-giving Spirit. Worship then is intertwined with the gift of the Spirit.

Finally, the woman has begun to realize that Jesus is more than a “prophet” (4:19). Jesus’ deep explanation of worship triggered a thought, so she explored the possibility of the coming “Messiah,” who will “explain everything” (4:25). This fits the Samaritan messianic beliefs. They normally did not use the term “Messiah” but spoke of a taheb or “restorer” who would be the new Moses (Deut 18:15-18) and restore true worship by teaching and revealing the final truths of God. She had not yet identified this one with Jesus but had a dim awareness that something extraordinary was happening. Jesus confirmed this when he replied, “I AM the Messiah.” There is tremendous emphasis in John on the “I am” sayings, for the Greek phrase found in John (egō eimi [TG1473/1510, ZG1609/1639], “I am”) reflects Exodus 3:14, where God reveals that the meaning of the new covenant name he has revealed to Moses, Yahweh, is, “I AM WHO I AM” (cf. also Isa 41:4; 43:10-13, 25; 45:18-19; 48:12; 52:6; and the discussion on 8:58). Thus, the “I am” sayings (such as this one) in effect mean, “I, Yahweh, am the Messiah” (cf. Ridderbos, Keener, Whitacre). Jesus is the true and only taheb, who alone can “explain everything” and provide the living water.

When one is thus gripped by Jesus, it is impossible to keep quiet. Such encounters always result in witness. The woman was so excited that she “left her water jar beside the well and ran back to the village.” There are three things that show the state of her mind. Water jars were important utensils and would not be left sitting unless a great emergency occurred. Also, she was vilified by the community and had come at noon to get water so that she wouldn’t have to face the other women. Finally, women did not normally talk to men in this way. In fact, women could not be official witnesses of anything. If a robbery occurred and was witnessed only by women, the thief could not be prosecuted because women could not provide official testimony (cf. m. Rosh HaShanah 1:8). (Maccini 1994:40-44 believes that such restrictions did not apply to Samaria, but it is difficult to see how they would accept the word of a woman who was known to be immoral). Still, what the Samaritan woman had experienced in talking to Jesus gave her a sense of urgency that surmounted these barriers. Jesus’ incredible revelation regarding her private life had shaken her to the core, so she quickly went back to town and invited everyone to “Come and see a man who told me everything I ever did!” Her tentative conclusion was, “Could he possibly be the Messiah?” (4:29). She clearly hoped that this might be true. The result was that “people came streaming from the village to see him” (4:30). The impression is that large numbers of villagers flocked to see Jesus. Even though this woman was undoubtedly held in contempt for her immoral lifestyle, her witness sparked great curiosity, and the people came to see Jesus for themselves. We hear nothing more of the woman in the story, but the pattern is so close to that of 1:35-50 (the conversion of Andrew and Philip is implied in their actions) that the Evangelist likely intends us to see that she became a believer, along with the majority of the village.

As the villagers were on their way to see Jesus, the disciples asked Jesus if he wanted to eat. The minds of the disciples were entirely on food (the earthly perspective once more). Jesus had a vastly superior meal to the one they were offering, and he wanted them to understand what really matters, so he said, “I have a kind of food you know nothing about” (4:32). The idea of living water or spiritual food that Jesus had offered the woman was the farthest thing from their minds. Naturally, they understood Jesus in a material way (cf. Nicodemus in 3:4, 9 and the woman in 4:11, 15) and asked each other, “Did someone bring him food while we were gone?” One could say they were “spiritually challenged” individuals. Jesus’ comment about their ignorance of his spiritual food reflects the fact that the disciples were still in their spiritual infancy. They had not been with Jesus long, and they lacked understanding. Sadly, this misunderstanding lasted throughout their time with Jesus (cf. Carson 1982).

While Jesus refused to explain the living water to the woman, he did not leave his disciples in the dark. He told them that his food was “doing the will of God, who sent me, and . . . finishing his work” (4:34). Behind this concept is Deuteronomy 8:3, “People do not live by bread alone; rather, we live by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.” The people had grumbled about the manna in the wilderness, but Moses pointed them to what really matters. Jesus wanted his disciples to learn a similar lesson. The concept of the “will of God” in the New Testament is supremely ethical, dealing with every aspect of life and centering on the Christ-centered walk, as in Romans 12:2, where transformed Christians show how “good and pleasing and perfect” the will of God is by their lives. In John, a major purpose of Jesus is to “do the will of God” (5:30; 6:38), and those who center on God’s will have the guarantee of eternal life (6:39, 40). God hears their prayers (9:31). “Finishing [God’s] work” (4:34) is also connected to Jesus’ “hour” (cf. note on 2:4) of destiny, including his passion (cf. the similar Gr. term for “finish” in 19:30, spoken from the cross—teleō [TG5055, ZG5464]; cf. teleiō [TG5048, ZG5457]) and the time of salvation that would result. That time had begun (4:23), and the evangelization of the Samaritans was part of this work.

Jesus then introduced his mission theology (4:35-36), beginning with an observation: “Four months between planting and harvest” (4:35; for the authenticity of this saying, see Ensor 2000). Some have taken this as a temporal reference, meaning they were passing through Samaria in January or February, four months before the May harvest. It is equally likely that this is simply a proverb, as the introductory “You know the saying” also introduces a proverb in Matthew 16:2 (so Brown). Although there is no record of such a proverb from that time, the pithy style would fit such. Either way, Jesus’ point is that farmers normally wait four months from planting to harvest. Then when he says, “Wake up and look around,” he moves from the natural harvest to the spiritual harvest. The command to “wake up” is a call for spiritual vigilance, also used in Revelation 3:2-3 and 16:15 of the need to overcome spiritual lethargy. Jesus asked his disciples to be vigilant for the harvest of souls God was giving them. In the narrative, this has special relevance to the Samaritan mission, for the townspeople were on their way there as Jesus was talking (4:30). They were the “fields” that were “ripe for harvest,” as in the parallel Matthew 9:37-38, which says, “Pray to the Lord who is in charge of the harvest . . . to send more workers into his fields.”

A four-month period separates the work of the “planter” from that of the “harvester,” but Jesus’ point is that in the harvest of souls, there is often no period between the two. The disciples were clearly the harvesters who are “paid good wages” in that they would reap a crop of souls for “eternal life.” They had just returned from purchasing food, but Jesus told them they not only had a much better meal awaiting them but also a terrific harvest to participate in. This is a powerful metaphor. Any of us would jump at the opportunity to earn a lot of money for a certain harvest. How much more should we want to participate in an eternal harvest! It is difficult to know who the “planters” are. It could be John the Baptist who had been ministering nearby in Aenon (3:23, so Robinson), or it could be all the prophets leading up to and including the Baptist (Lindars, Bruce, Carson, Köstenberger). The planter could even be Jesus, who had planted spiritual seed in the woman in 4:7-26, and the woman, who had planted the seed in the villagers (Witherington). It could be argued that Jesus placed himself with the disciples as harvesters, but Jesus could well be both planter and harvester. The Father may even be the sower, with Jesus and the disciples as the harvesters (Whitacre). It is difficult to know for certain. The main point, though, is found in the proverb: “One plants and another harvests” (4:37), and “joy” (4:36) awaits them both. This seems to allude to Amos 9:13, which speaks of the coming time of restoration: “ ‘The time will come,’ says the LORD, ‘when the grain and grapes will grow faster than they can be harvested.’ ” According to Isaiah 65:21-22, God’s people will “eat the fruit of their own vineyards” and “enjoy their hard-won gains.” Both of these passages refer to the final Kingdom that God will establish for his people.

Jesus was saying that the expected messianic age had arrived, and it would be a time of incredible harvest. Schnackenburg (1980:450) summarizes it well: “The mission becomes an eschatological event: Jesus gathers the people of God, to lead it to the Kingdom of God, and sends out his disciples to help with this work or to continue it.” The Samaritans were the crop, and the disciples were invited to the harvest; Jesus sent them to harvest. There is no mention in John of a previous mission, but the Synoptics mention several at the start of Jesus’ ministry (e.g., Matt 4:23-25; Mark 1:38-39). This scene could simply summarize the disciples’ involvement in ministry in the first three chapters of John. They were “sent ones” (Cf. 17:18; 20:21), just like Jesus (3:17, 34) and the Baptist (1:6). Though they did not plant, they joined in the harvest so that all could rejoice in the crop. This is an important message for mission. All success in ministry occurs on the basis of the work of those who have prepared the ground before. Those who reap the harvest of souls build on the work of the many who have witnessed beforehand. When a person witnesses and is rebuffed, they have not been defeated. Their witness is faithful obedience in the eyes of God and may well be another link in a chain of conviction that will later produce a conversion.

The harvest promised in 4:35 comes to fruition in 4:39-42. The Samaritan woman is one of the links in the chain of the conversion of many villagers. They “believed in Jesus because [of what] the woman had said” (4:39). Her witness brought many to Jesus. This chain may have continued even up to the time when Philip evangelized the Samaritans in Acts 8. It is very possible that he came to this region and that the “ready acceptance” of his message was a result of this early mission (so Carson). The Samaritan woman functioned like Andrew and Philip in 1:35-50, bringing others to Jesus. The villagers were not content just to hear her testimony, however; they wanted to hear Jesus for themselves. They invited Jesus to their village, and he stayed two days. Note how much more open they were than Nicodemus was. They “hear his message and believe” (4:41). Note also how their faith was centered on his words and not just his miraculous signs (contra those of 2:23-24). This culminates in their confession of Jesus as “Savior of the world.”

This concludes not just the story of the Samaritan mission but the whole of 1:35–4:42. The “one and only Son” sent by God to provide salvation for mankind (3:16-17) alone removes the sin of the world (1:29). The one who has become the living Word and provided the living water (1:1, 18; 4:10), the one who has shed the light of God on every person (1:4, 7, 8) is indeed the “Savior of the world” (also 1 John 4:14). This would especially be true for the Samaritans who recognized that their taheb (cf. commentary on 4:19) was also the Jewish Messiah and, therefore, the only Messiah for the whole world.

4:44 a prophet is not honored in his own hometown. At first glance, this statement appears to contradict 4:45, for it says prophets are not honored, while 4:45 says “the Galileans welcomed him.” Several solutions have been suggested: (1) His “own hometown” is Judea since he was born in Bethlehem of Judea, so that he had no honor there but was made welcome in Galilee (Origen, Westcott, Hoskyns, Sanders, Lindars). John, however, emphasized Jesus’ Galilean roots (1:46; 2:1; 7:41-42) and said nothing of his Judean birth. (2) It was added by a later redactor (Brown). This explanation is unnecessary in light of the flow of the text; there is no true contradiction. (3) The lack of honor comes from this world as a whole, and Jesus’ “homeland” is heaven (Lightfoot, Morris). Yet while this is certainly true in John as a whole, there is no indication this is the meaning here, and if true, it could even necessitate the idea that Jesus is not honored in heaven, his “homeland.” The earth/heaven distinction is not in the immediate context. (4) His “own country” is “Jewish soil” (both Galilee and Judea, so Carson, Blomberg, Burge, Köstenberger), and the contrast is between true reception (1:11) and an ironic, apparent reception (4:45; see commentary below). This is probably the best interpretation since it fits the context better than the others.

4:46 government official in nearby Capernaum whose son was very sick. Many have thought this to be a variant of the similar miracle reported in Matt 8:5-13, in which Jesus healed a centurion’s slave, but the differences outweigh the similarities. This man was a royal official, not a centurion, and the one healed was his son, not his slave. The illness here is a fever; there it is paralysis. The centurion’s faith is strong, while the official’s is inadequate. Moreover, the actual wording is not close enough to support the view (so Hoskyns) that they are the same story in different guises.

This story frames the section (2:1–4:54) with miracles that occur in Cana. After the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee (2:1-11), Jesus had returned to Jerusalem for Passover (2:13–3:15) and then on his return to Galilee, stopped in Samaria at the village of Sychar for two days (4:40). Then he finished his journey to Galilee (4:43-45), where he would encounter the local official. There seems to be a contrast between 4:44, which is Jesus’ saying that prophets have no honor in their “own hometown” (in Mark 6:4 this refers to Nazareth, but here to Judea and Galilee as a whole), and 4:45, which says “the Galileans welcomed him.” The negative statement of 4:44 repeats the theme that Jesus’ own people rejected him (1:11), and this carries into the episode in Cana, where Jesus derided the Galilean demand for miraculous signs (4:48). The solution is found in 2:23-25, where Jesus refused to “trust” in the inadequate faith of those who focused only on his signs. True faith must be grounded in who he is and not just what he does. Carson correctly notes (1991:236), “Therefore when he arrived, the Galileans welcomed him—not as the Messiah, but because they had seen all that he had done at the Passover Feast in Jerusalem.” They were like Nicodemus, thrilled with his power but not understanding his person. In that sense, their welcome was halfhearted and inadequate.

As Jesus came to Cana, he met “a government official” from Capernaum (4:46). The Greek (basilikos [TG937A, ZG997]) indicates a “royal official,” probably a member of Herod’s court—perhaps Chuza, Herod’s “business manager” (Luke 8:3), or Herod’s “childhood companion,” Menaen (Acts 13:1). Herod Antipas was actually tetrarch of Galilee rather than king, but he was popularly called king (cf. Mark 6:14). The official had apparently heard about Jesus’ earlier miracle in Cana (4:46), as well as of the events in Jerusalem (4:45), and so traveled to Cana from Capernaum (about 16 miles) to ask Jesus to return with him and heal his son, who was close to death (4:47). Jesus’ response was harsh, but it must be noted that he was addressing the Galilean people as a whole and not just the official. Still, the official demonstrated only a desperate hope that a miracle might save his son—not true faith in Jesus. Unlike the centurion in Matthew 8:8, he thought Jesus could only heal if he came to the boy; there was no faith in Jesus’ healing word. As in 2:23-25, Jesus denounced those who only believe when they “see miraculous signs and wonders.” Wonderment centered on the sensational will never suffice for genuine faith in the “Savior of the world” (4:42). This was also a call to the official to find true faith.

The father was not put off by Jesus’ harsh tone; he repeated his plea for Jesus to come with him to Capernaum (4:49). All he cared about at this point was his son. Jesus made a call for faith when he replied, “Go back home. Your son will live.” The man’s focus finally shifted to Jesus, and “the man believed what Jesus said.” His faith became properly centered on the power of Jesus’ words, and he started home. This is the key to a burgeoning faith, one that combines belief with response. The royal official proved the reality of his belief by beginning the journey back to Capernaum. Before he arrived, however, the good news came: “Some of his servants met him with the news that his son was alive and well.” The startling part is the news that the boy “had begun to get better . . . yesterday afternoon at one o’clock” (cf. note on 1:39 regarding ancient timekeeping), the very moment when Jesus had told him, “Your son will live.” As a result, “he and his entire household believed in Jesus” (4:53).

Note the progression of faith: he had an inadequate faith based only on miraculous signs (4:48); then a preliminary faith in Jesus’ words (4:50); and finally a full-fledged faith that included his whole family, probably his slaves as well (in the ancient world, a family generally followed the patriarch’s faith). Jesus had shown himself to have power over life (Cf. 5:21; 11:25), and this led to full-fledged faith. Note also the different types of faith to this point: The disciples believed when they saw Jesus’ glory (2:11), but many others believed only on the basis of signs (2:23); the Samaritans believed on the basis of his words (4:39-42), but many Galileans believed only on the basis of signs and wonders (4:48). Finally, the official and his house came to faith on the basis of Jesus’ works and his words. John concludes by pointing out that “this was the second miraculous sign Jesus did in Galilee.” There were other signs (2:23), but this is the second in Galilee.

There is also a message here based on geography. Both miracles occurred just after Jesus left Judea and arrived in Galilee (2:1; 4:54), perhaps indicating that Judea was not as favored as Jesus’ opponents thought (so Whitacre). The power of God was moving out from Judea to Samaria and Galilee—then to the world (3:16; 4:42).