80 Comparing Luke 9:51-56 with the contents of this chapter, Von Soden discredits the success among the Samaritans here recorded. That is, when one Evangelist speaks of the resistance shown to His ministry by Samaritans when the Lord is going in the direction of Jerusalem southwards, and another records a journey from Jerusalem northwards, which has a different result, the two accounts are held to clash. There is a good deal of the same superficial criticism in such literature. The writer named is silent upon the words of verse 9.
80a Verse 1.―Observe “the Lord” of the Evangelist, and “Jesus” of the Pharisees; and for “the Lord,” cf. 6:23, 11:2, 20:20. “Knew,” supernaturally (Milligan). Cf. 2:24.
81 Verse 2 f.―Wellhausen treats this as an editorial interpolation made to remove apparent discrepancy between the fourth Evangelist (cf. 3:22) and the Synoptists. If that, however, had been really felt, would not the course likely to be taken by any editor be to leave out the words “and baptizeth,” which he found in the autograph? Here the Evangelist reverts to “Jesus,” because he seems to be quoting a report. So Moffatt.
82 Verse 5.― “Sychar.” Doubt was at one time felt as to the Evangelist’s accuracy in this name. It was supposed to stand for Sichem, which is given by the Sinaitic Syriac, whilst the Harclensian recension has “Sychar.” Eusebius, settled at Cæsarea, distinguished them. Thomson’s identification of the place with the Askar was questioned by Grove, but it has been upheld by G. A. Smith irk his “Historical Geography of Palestine”: “The author knew the place about which he was writing” (p. 368 ff.). That was not Shechem, the modern Nablûs.
83 Verse 6.―οὔτως, “thus.” Field, apparently following Chrysostom― “as it chanced” ―for which see also 5:30, 8:40. That is, just as He was (cf. Mark 4:36). The “wearied,” as Zahn says (ii. 539), emphasizes His humanity.
84 “Sixth hour.” As to John’s way of reckoning hours, see note on 19:14.
85 Verse 7 ff.―Dr. Abbott, on the ground alleged that “no disciple was present,” says that “it is practically certain that the dialogue did not occur in the exact words recorded” (“Encycl. Bibl.,” col. 1,801). As to the absence of all disciples, see in note 61 above, to which may be added here the consideration that we are not to suppose all persons with whom Christ spoke kept the knowledge of such conversations to themselves. It is practically certain that they would reproduce at least the substance of Christ’s words to them. For this, cf. what the expositor has said in the volume on Mark (p. 10, foot).
86 Verse 9.― “A Jew.” She knew Him to be such by His dress. See Schor, “Palestine and the Bible.” Here used in the broadest sense. So in verse 22, unlike 7:1, etc.
87 “For Jews have no intercourse with Samaritans.” These words are treated as parenthetical in the R.V.―that is, as an explanatory comment of the Evangelist. Calvin considered them to be spoken by the woman.
88 “The gift of God.” Luthardt, Govett and Zahn take this in the same way as the expositor. Godet, Westcott (referring to 3:16), and Carr follow Stier, who explains it of Christ. But Jeremy Taylor rightly described that as “too vague.” “Christ, the smitten rock, was the source” (Govett).
88a Verse 14.― “Shall not thirst for ever.” So Govett, referring to Rev. 21:6.
89 Verse 20.―On προσκυνεῖν, see Abbott, “Johannine Vocabulary,” §§ 1,640-1,651.
90 Verse 22.―Olshausen, followed by Ryle, takes σωτηρία as equivalent to “the Saviour.” Cf. Luke 19:9.
90a Verses 21-24.― “The hour.” This present dispensation, which is only for a while: it will give place to the millennial. As to the character of worship on earth then, see Govett, pp. 145 f.
“God (θεὸς) is a Spirit (πνευρα).” The word θεός in latest philological research has been connected with “breath,” “spirit.” See article GOD in Hauck’s “Encyclopædia,” vol. vi., p. 780.
91 Verse 25.― “That is called Christ.” Here, again, brackets have been used in the R.V. to indicate a parenthesis, the Revisers understanding the words to be the Evangelist’s addition, not used by the woman. “The woman expected a teacher, not a liberator” (Horton, p. 191).
92 Verse 26 f.―The first direct assertion by our Lord that He is “the Christ,” and outside the Jewish territory. On the disclosure of this to a woman, Quesnel has remarked: “It is a great mistake to suppose that the knowledge of the mysteries of religion ought not to be imparted to women.... The abuse of the Scriptures and the sin of heresies did not proceed from the simplicity of women, but from the conceited learning of men.”
92a “Wondered,” etc. The rabbinical rule, much quoted (from Dr. John Lightfoot), was that a man should not speak even to his wife in the street. See “Jewish Prayer-Book” (Eyre and Spottiswoode), p. 185. The knowledge of this prejudice shown by the Evangelist is one of the indications of his Jewish nationality. Others occur in 5:1 ff., 7:22, 27, 49, 12:34, etc. (see note 1, ad fin.).
93 Verse 28 f.―Origen calls her the “apostle of the Samaritans,” whilst Cyril notes that after Christ had first bidden her call her husband, she finally of her own behest called all the men to Him, and receiving the talent of the glad tidings, she at once put it out to interest.
The R.V. has, “Can this be the Christ?” according to the form used in verse 33, but the older rendering practically comes to the same thing.
94 Verse 34.―Augustine here remarks that we should not be surprised by the woman’s not understanding about the water of which Christ spoke to her when His disciples misunderstood what He said about food. This verse (cf. 9:4) explains the “must” of verse 4 above.
95 Verse 38.―Origen “Did not Moses and Elias the sowers rejoice with the reapers, Peter, James, and John, when they saw the glory of the Son of God at the Transfiguration?”
96 Verse 43 f.― “His own country.” It is difficult to determine whether this means Galilee or Judaea. Meyer, Hofmann, Luthardt, Govett and Zahn say Galilee, suggested by the like expression in the Synoptic Gospels (see note on Mark 1:21); whilst Origen, Maldonatus, the approved Roman Catholic commentator (whom. Kenrick follows), Westcott, Sadler, Milligan, Plummer, Norris, Reynolds, Wendt, Schmiedel and Carr (see his note) take it of Judaea. If the second view be right, we have here, of course, a recognition by the fourth Evangelist of the birth at Bethlehem, of which critics represent him as “knowing nothing.”
Cyril, Calvin, H. Holtzmann, Field, and Briggs decide for Nazareth; Chrysostom and Euthymius, Capernaum. Cf. also Mark 6:4 for its bearing on the question.
97 Verse 48.―Cf. Mark 8:12 and note 27 on that Gospel; also Matt. 12:39. It is not a question so much of the Lord’s own attitude or that of the disciples (which fluctuated) towards miracles as that of the mass of the people, which none of the Evangelists adopt, although critical works might lead one to suppose such was the case.
98 Verse 54.―This incident is not to be confused with that in Luke 7.
99 The working of “a sign” by way of display (“epideictic”), apart from some groundwork of antecedent faith (cf. 11:26 f. with verse 40 there), can no more be charged against the Johannine than the Synoptic miracles (cf. 2:11 and note. 52).