Isaiah 43:14-44:5

14 Thus says the LORD,

your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:

For your sake I will send to Babylon

and break down all the bars,

and the shouting of the Chaldeans will be turned to lamentation.

15 I am the LORD, your Holy One,

the Creator of Israel, your King.

16 Thus says the LORD,

who makes a way in the sea,

a path in the mighty waters,

17 who brings out chariot and horse,

army and warrior;

they lie down, they cannot rise,

they are extinguished, quenched like a wick:

18 Do not remember the former things,

or consider the things of old.

19 I am about to do a new thing;

now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?

I will make a way in the wilderness

and rivers in the desert.

20 The wild animals will honor me,

the jackals and the ostriches;

for I give water in the wilderness,

rivers in the desert,

to give drink to my chosen people,

21 the people whom I formed for myself

so that they might declare my praise.

22 Yet you did not call upon me, O Jacob;

but you have been weary of me, O Israel!

23 You have not brought me your sheep for burnt offerings,

or honored me with your sacrifices.

I have not burdened you with offerings,

or wearied you with frankincense.

24 You have not bought me sweet cane with money,

or satisfied me with the fat of your sacrifices.

But you have burdened me with your sins;

you have wearied me with your iniquities.

25 I, I am He

who blots out your transgressions for my own sake,

and I will not remember your sins.

26 Accuse me, let us go to trial;

set forth your case, so that you may be proved right.

27 Your first ancestor sinned,

and your interpreters transgressed against me.

28 Therefore I profaned the princes of the sanctuary,

I delivered Jacob to utter destruction,

and Israel to reviling. God’s Blessing on Israel

44:1 But now hear, O Jacob my servant,

Israel whom I have chosen!

2 Thus says the LORD who made you,

who formed you in the womb and will help you:

Do not fear, O Jacob my servant,

Jeshurun whom I have chosen.

3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land,

and streams on the dry ground;

I will pour my spirit upon your descendants,

and my blessing on your offspring.

4 They shall spring up like a green tamarisk,

like willows by flowing streams.

5 This one will say, “I am the LORD’s,”

another will be called by the name of Jacob,

yet another will write on the hand, “The LORD’s,”

and adopt the name of Israel. (Isaiah 43:14-44:5, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from January 14, 2007 (the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when some reference was made to the comments of January 16, 2005 (the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One):

The LORD’s reassurance of Israel continues in today’s reading. The LORD’s purpose to bring the Judeans home from exile in Babylon is stated plainly. “Thus says the LORD, / your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: / For your sake I will send to Babylon / and break down all the bars, / and the shouting of the Chaldeans will be turned to lamentation” (Isa. 43:14). The verification (or guarantee) of that promise is the LORD’s identity as “the LORD, your Holy one, / the Creator of Israel, your King” (v. 15). This is “the LORD, / who makes a way in the sea, / a path in the the mighty waters, / who brings out chariot and horse, / army and warrior; / they lie down, they cannot rise, / they are extinguished, quenched like a wick” (vv. 16-17, cf. Exod. 13:17-14:41, when Israel crossed the sea to escape the Egyptian army). The LORD implies that the new “exodus” will surpass the first. “Do not remember the former things, / or consider the things of old,” he says (v. 18), for “I am about to do a new thing; / now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? / I will make a way in the wilderness / and rivers in the desert” (v. 19). Thus the prophet describes the coming deliverance from Babylon by reference to the earlier deliverance from Egypt under Moses’ leadership. But, while Israel does not have to “earn” this renewal and restoration by some extended display of righteous living, the LORD expects a certain reverence. The animals of the wilderness honor him, and so should the Israelites. “The wild animals will honor me, / the jackals and the ostriches; / for I give water in the wilderness, / rivers in the desert, / to give drink to my chosen people, / the people whom I formed for myself / so that they might declare my praise” (vv. 20-21).

The following stanza is a reminder that such praise has not been forthcoming, but rather, the “weariness” of Israel with their God, their insincere sacrificial offerings, and their sins have led to their present condition. “Yet you did not call upon me, O Jacob; / but you have been weary of me, O Israel!” (v. 22). “You have not brought me your sheep for burnt offerings,” says the LORD, “or honored me with your sacrifices. / I have not burdened you with offerings, / or wearied you with frankincense” (v. 23). “You have not bought me sweet cane with money,” adds the LORD, “or satisfied me with the fat of your sacrifices. / But you have burdened me with your sins; / you have wearied me with your iniquities” (v. 24). In spite of the fact that, according to Victor R. Gold and William L. Holladay, Israel has “ignored and offended God” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on vv. 22-24), God will blot out their “transgressions . . . and . . . not remember your sins” (v. 25). God offers grace, but it remains necessary to deal with the issue of sin. We are reminded of the first indictment in the Book of Isaiah. “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? / says the LORD; / I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams / and the fat of fed beasts; / I do not delight in the blood of bulls / or of lambs, or of goats” (Isa. 1:11). What the LORD desired at the outset was a repudiation of evil doings. “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; / remove the evil of your doings / from before my eyes;/ cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / seek justice, / rescue the oppressed, / defend the orphan, / plead for the widow” (1:16-17). According to Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Ritual acts [are] rendered ineffectual by a sinful way of life” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Isa. 43:22-28, with ref. to 1:10-17).

And the LORD has a remedy for sins. “I, I am He / who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, / and I will not remember your sins” (v. 25). He also defends himself for having punished Israel for sins. “Accuse me,” he says, “let us go to trial; / set forth your case, so that you may be proved right” (v. 26). This challenge is followed by evidence, not against the LORD, but against Israel “Your first ancestor sinned,” says the LORD (v. 27a). According to J. J. M. Roberts, the “first ancestor” is “Jacob (Gen. 27-38; Hos. 2-4)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Isa. 43:27). But the LORD continues, through the prophet, “and your interpreters transgressed against me” (v. 27b). Blenkinsopp suggests that this denunciation of “interpreters” who “transgressed” refers to “optimistic prophets during the time of the monarchy who led the people astray” (op. cit., on v. 27; cf. Roberts, op. cit., on v. 27). “Therefore,” says the LORD, “I profaned the princes of the sanctuary, / I delivered Jacob to utter destruction, / and Israel to reviling” (v. 28).

In the new chapter, the word of the LORD returns to the “new thing” (43:15). “But now hear, O Jacob my servant, / Israel whom I have chosen! / Thus says the LORD who made you, / who formed you in the womb and will help you: / Do not fear, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen” (44:1-2). According to Roberts, “Jeshurun (Deut. 32:15; 33:5, 26) [is] an old poetic name for Israel, perhaps meaning ‘upright one’ in Hebrew” (ibid., on 44:2). The theme of rivers in the desert (41:17-20; 43:19) continues. “For I will pour water on the thirsty land, / and streams on the dry ground” (44:3a, b). But the sense is to some extent metaphorical. “I will pour my spirit upon your descendants, / and my blessing on your offspring” (v. 3c, d). Israel’s children will flourish “like a green tamarisk, / like willows by flowing streams” (v. 4; cf. Ps. 1:3). The people will be proud to claim the LORD as their God. “This one will say, ‘I am the LORD’s,’ another will be called by the name of Jacob, / yet another will write on the hand, ‘The LORD’s,’ / and adopt the name of Israel” (v. 5). To the phrase, “write on the hand,” Blenkinsopp compares words of the Shema (op. cit., on v. 5), “Bind [these words] as a sign on your hand, fix them as an emblem on your forehead, and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deut. 6:8-9). Again, the confirmation of these promises is the identity of the LORD God himself. “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, / and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: / I am the first and I am the last; / besides me there is no god” (v. 6). To this we may compare the words given to John in the Book of Revelation. “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord ‘God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8; cf. v. 17; 22:13).

Hebrews 6:17-7:10

17 In the same way, when God desired to show even more clearly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it by an oath, 18 so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God would prove false, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to seize the hope set before us. 19 We have this hope, a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters the inner shrine behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

The Priestly Order of Melchizedek (Gen 14.17-20)

7:1 This “King Melchizedek of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him”; 2 and to him Abraham apportioned “one-tenth of everything.” His name, in the first place, means “king of righteousness”; next he is also king of Salem, that is, “king of peace.” 3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

4 See how great he is! Even Abraham the patriarch gave him a tenth of the spoils. 5 And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to collect tithes from the people, that is, from their kindred, though these also are descended from Abraham. 6 But this man, who does not belong to their ancestry, collected tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had received the promises. 7 It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. 8 In the one case, tithes are received by those who are mortal; in the other, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. 9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. (Hebrews 6:17-7:10, NRSV)

On January 24 and 25, 2008 (Thursday and Friday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), comments on Hebrews 6:13-20 and Hebrews 7:1-17 were based on comments from earlier as indicated there. Relevant comments for today’s reading are repeated here with editing and adaptation:

Earlier in Hebrews chapter 6, the writer includes a stern warning against apostasy, tempered by the encouraging word, “Even though we speak in this way, beloved, we are confident of better things in your case, things that belong to salvation” (Heb. 6:9). And after a reminder that “God is not unjust,” and “will not overlook your work and the love that you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do” (v. 10), the writer offers an encouraging admonition, “And we want each one of you to show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope to the very end, so that you may not become sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (vv. 11-12).

The writer to the Hebrews sees this as now a promise for Christians, and, a sure promise guaranteed by God himself “because he had no one greater by whom to swear” (Heb. 6:13). As a basis for home, the writer refers to God’s promise to Abraham that he would bless Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 22:16-18,” which now “applies to all Christians” (Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Heb. 6:13-18). The writer frequently quotes or alludes to Psalm 110:4,’The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, / ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’” (Heb. 5:6, 10; 7:17, 21) as a basis for what he has to say about Christ being a priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,” a theme anticipated in 5:6, 10, but explained at length in 6:20-7:22. But the promise in today’s reading is based on another of God’s “oaths” (Gen. 22:16-18, discussed in Heb. 6:13-18). After Abraham has proven faithful to the LORD to the point of being willing to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22:1-11), the angel of the Lord tells him,

By myself I have sworn, says the LORD: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice. (Genesis 22:16-18 NRSV, my emphasis with boldface print)

The writer to the Hebrews sees this as now a promise for Christians, and, a sure promise guaranteed by God himself “because he had no one greater by whom to swear” (Heb. 6:13). In quoting Genesis, the writer says, “I will surely bless you and multiply you” (v. 14, citing Gen. 22:17a, in boldface above). As we know, Hebrews consistently quotes from the Septuagint (Greek version) when there is a difference from the Hebrew, but there is no significant difference here. The second clause of the promise in Genesis, “I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore,” is reduced to “multiply (plēthynōn plēthunō, worded as in the LXX),” and the addition of “you” for the longer reference to“offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore” as in Genesis (Heb. and LXX).

“Abraham,” we are told, “having patiently endured, obtained the promise” (Heb. 6:15). Confirmation of the promise to the readers of Hebrews is based on God’s oath, which is stronger than the typical human oath. “Human beings,” says the writer, of course, swear by someone greater than themselves, and an oath given as confirmation puts an end to all dispute” (v. 16). An a fortiori, all the more, argument is implied, for if a merely human oath is considered certain, how much more that of God himself–who can swear by no one greater than himself (v. 13). “In the same way,” the author says, “when God desired to show even more clearly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it by an oath” (v. 17). The writer draws a conclusion: In guaranteeing his promise by an oath, God presents two infallible proofs: “so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God would prove false, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to seize the hope set before us” (v. 18). The “two unchangeable things,” says Kittredge, are “God’s promise and God’s oath” (op. cit., on v. 18).

The author then characterizes our hope in God’s promise by the analogy of an anchor. “We have this hope, a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul” (v. 19a). An old Gospel song, based on verse 19, says, “We have an anchor that keeps the soul steadfast and sure while the billows roll, fastened to the rock that cannot move. Anchored it firm and deep in the savior’s love.” One can read it’s words and hear it played at the web site entitled The Cyber Hymnal (http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/w/e/h/wehavean.htm accessed January 11, 2008). As the chapter (and today’s reading) closes, the hope is related to the next topic, Jesus’ high priesthood on the order of Melchizedek. It is “a hope that enters the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (vv. 19b, 20); compare 5:10, which anticipates the new topic, and the fuller treatment in 7:1-22.

The certainty provided by God’s oath is the basis for our “hope, a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (vv. 19-20). An old Gospel song, based on verse 19, says, “We have an anchor that keeps the soul steadfast and sure while the billows roll, fastened to the rock that cannot move. Anchored it firm and deep in the savior’s love.”

Psalm 110:4 has already been introduced (Heb. 5:6) as the basis for the writer’s understanding of a priesthood “according to the order of Melchizedek,” to which 6:20 refers. God’s oath in the promise to Abraham links to the oath which establishes the Messiah’s priesthood after the order of Melchizedek: “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, / ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’” (Ps. 110:4). Although Hebrews frequently cites Psalm 110 in reference to Christ (Ps. 110:1 in Heb. 1:13; Ps. 110:4 in Heb. 5:6, 10; 7:17, 21), he makes specific reference to the oath in 7:20-22.

But it is not only the reference to God’s oath that invites the comparison of Christ with Melchizedek, but the story recorded in Genesis, chapter 14. Levi, the descendant of Abraham from whose tribe the Israelite priesthood would come, though not yet born, “paid tithes [to Melchizedek] through Abraham” (Heb. 7:10). The writer to the Hebrews bases his argument on the following sequence of events: (1) Abraham, returning from the victory over the four eastern kings and his rescue of Lot (Genesis 14), was blessed by “King Melchizedek of Salem,” “priest of God Most High” (Gen. 14:18). “And Abram gave him one-tenth of everything” (v. 10), that is, the spoils of the war. (2) Years later, the Levitical priesthood was established, but “Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him [Abraham]” (Heb. 9-10). (3) Years later again, the Psalmist–David, according to the superscription–says that “The LORD says to my lord [Jesus, in NT interpretation], ‘Sit at my right hand/until I make your enemies your footstool’” (Ps. 110:1), and adds “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind,/’You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’” (Ps. 110:4). The point is that Christ’s priesthood, which is like that of Melchizedek, is greater than the Levitical priesthood for two reasons. Abraham, Levi’s ancestor, paid tithes to Melchizedek, and later a priesthood better than the Levitical priesthood was promised. “Now if perfection had been attainable through the levitical priesthood-for the people received the law under this priesthood-what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the order of Melchizedek, rather than one according to the order of Aaron?” (Heb. 7:11). This involves “a change in the law” (v. 12), and Jesus becoming a priest “through the power of an indestructible life” (v. 16). This seems to infer that Melchizedek had an indestructible life because, “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever” (v. 3). We may wonder about that. F. F. Bruce offers this explanation:

The important consideration was the account given of Melchizedek in holy writ; to him [the writer to the Hebrews] the silences of Scripture were as much due to divine inspiration as were its statements. In the only record which Scripture provides of Melchizedek–Gen. 14:18-20–nothing is said of his parentage, nothing is said of his ancestry or progeny, nothing is said of his birth, nothing is said of his death. He appears as a living man, king of Salem and priest of God Most High; and as such he disappears. In all this–in the silences as well as in the statements–he is a fitting type of Christ; in fact, the record by the things it says of him and by the things it does not say has assimilated him to the Son of God. It is the eternal being of the Son of God that is here in view; not his human life. Our author has no docetic view of Christ; he knows that “or Lord has sprung from Judah” (v. 14). But in his eternal being the Son of God has really, as Melchizedek has typically, “neither beginning of days nor end of life”; and more especially now, exalted at the right hand of God, he “remains a priest in perpetuity.” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, p. 160, on Heb. 7:3).

We might think that the writer works very hard to prove the obvious: God is indeed trustworthy. But apparently, then and now, people find it hard to believe in the trustworthiness of God. Karl Barth, in comments on Romans 1:17, “For in it [i.e. the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed through faith (pivstiV, pistis) for faith (pivstiV, pistis), explained the phrase as “faith in the faithfulness of God,” recognizing the fact that the same Greek word that often means “faith” means, rather, “faithfulness” in some contexts. It is “that which causes trust and faith, faithfulness, reliability” (F. Wilbur Gingrich, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 1965, s.v. pivstiV, pistis, meaning no. 1; cf. Mt. 23:23; Rom. 3:3; Gal. 5:22 [one of the “fruits of the spirit’]). In Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11, Paul cites the third line of Habakkuk 2:4: “Look at the proud! / Their spirit is not right in them, / but the righteous live by their faith” (Hab. 2:4). NRSV footnote e (on “faith”) says “Or faithfulness). The LXX text which Paul cites uses pistis and allows either meaning, but the Hebrew term, hn!Umx$ (’ ^emûnāh), has meanings related to “faithfulness in various Old Testament contexts (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. hn!Umx$, ’ ^emûnāh). Our faith must be in the faithfulness of God.

John 4:27-42

27 Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?” 28 Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, 29 “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?” 30 They left the city and were on their way to him.

31 Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, “Rabbi, eat something.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Surely no one has brought him something to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work. 35 Do you not say, ‘Four months more, then comes the harvest’? But I tell you, look around you, and see how the fields are ripe for harvesting. 36 The reaper is already receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. 37 For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ 38 I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”

39 Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I have ever done.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his word. 42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world.” (John 4:27-42, NRSV)

On August 14, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year Two), comments were repeated from January 26, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), when comments were repeated from March 25, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One), when they were combined with revision and supplement from comments of January 16, 2005 (the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), and from comments of February 21, 2005, (Monday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One), comments which were used on January 21, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), and used again on August 17, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year Two). The revised comments are repeated again here with some adaptation:

Last Sunday, the Gospel reading was selections from John chapter 1. Today’ reading, John 4:27-42, and next Sunday’s, John 5:2-18, are not, strictly speaking, in a consecutive series (cf. the readings for most of the Epiphany season in Year Two), so it will be helpful to review the context for this reading.

In John chapter 3 we find Jesus in Jerusalem where he has a nighttime visit from Nicodemus which leads into presentation of fundamental principles of the gospel, God’s gift of his only Son (Jn. 3:16), the contrast between believers and unbelievers (vv. 17-21) in relation to “the one who comes from heaven” and provides eternal life (vv. 31-36). The interval here (vv. 22-30) finds Jesus again in the Judean countryside (v. 22), where John’s disciples and Jesus’ disciples were baptizing (vv. 22-24; cf. 4:1-2). What J. Andrew Overman calls “further testimony of John (cf. 1:19-34)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Jn. 3:22-36) is included in this interval.

Jesus then leaves Judea to return to Galilee. “Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had hears, ‘Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John–although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized–he left Judea and started back to Galilee” (Jn. 4:1-3). According to Donald G. Miller and Bruce M. Metzger, “the Pharisees, hostile to John, now turn on Jesus” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Jn. 4:1-3); compare Overman’s explanation, “Jesus departs to avoid the opposition of the Pharisees (op. cit., on 4:1-3). John, the Evangelist, tells us that Jesus “had to go through Samaria” (v. 4), literally in Greek, “It was necessary ( e[dei, edei) [for] him to go through Samaria.” Jesus might have followed the Jordan valley–on the east side–and avoided the Samaritan territory altogether. The statement that Jesus “had to go through Samaria,” is not understood as a geographical necessity but a theological and evangelical necessity. The verb translated “had to [go]” can mean “to be something that should happen because of being fitting,” more specifically, “to indicate that something that happened should by all means have happened, expressed with the imperfect e[dei (edei) . . . had to [as in] Lk. 15:32; 22:7; 24:26; Jn. 4:4; Acts 1:16; 17:3” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. dei:, dei). Raymond E. Brown says of the words “had to pass”–his translation–This is not geographical necessity; for, although the main route from Judea to Galilee was through Samaria (Josephus, Ant. XX.vi.1; # 118), if Jesus was in the Jordan valley (iii 22) he could easily have gone north through the valley and then up into Galilee through the Bethshan gap, avoiding Samaria. Elsewhere in the Gospel (iii 14) the expression of necessity means that God’s will or plan is involved” (The Gospel according to John, I-XII, Anchor Bible, vol. 29, 1966, on Jn. 4:4).

The divine purpose in Jesus’ coming to Sychar (v. 5) had to do with his encounter with the Samaritan woman (v. 7), and the eventual faith of “many Samaritans” (v. 39). “So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar,” says John, “near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph” (v. 5). Overman says that “Sychar [was] near ancient Shechem; see Gen. 33:19; 48:22; Josh. 24:32” (op. cit., on v. 5). Charles H. Miller says, “The actual site of the village is disputed, most scholars holding for Tel Balata, ancient Shechem (Lat. and Gk., ‘Sychem’; cf. Acts 7:16), but some for the nearby village of Askar. Both are near what is called today ‘Jacob’s Well,’ some thirty miles due north of Jerusalem. The solution depends in part on the accuracy of the site of Jacob’s Well” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, s.v. Sychar). But the precise location is not critical for the story as such. “Jacob’s well was there,” says John, “and Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well. It was about noon” (v. 6).

While Jesus was alone–his disciples having entered “the city to by food” (v. 8)–“a Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, ‘Give me a drink’ ” (v. 7). This request was apparently so contrary to custom and expectations that the woman was unnerved. “How is it,” she asked, “that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (v. 9a). Parenthetically John the evangelist explains: “Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans” (v. 9b). According to Brown:

The Samaritans are the descendants of two groups (a) the remnant of the native Israelites who were not deported at the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C.; (b)foreign colonists brought in from Babylonia and Media by the Assyrian conquerors of Samaria (II Kings xvii 24 ff. gives an anti-Samaritan account of this). There was theological opposition between these northerners and the Jews of the South because of the Samaritan refusal to worship at Jerusalem. This was aggravated by the fact that after the Babylonian exile the Samaritans had put obstacles in the way of the Jewish restoration of Jerusalem, and that in the 2^nd century B.C. the Samaritans had helped the Syrian monarchs in their wars against the Jews. In 128 B.C. the Jewish high priest burned the Samaritan temple on Gerizim. (op. cit., on Jn. 4:9)

In the ensuing conversation Jesus refers to “living water” (v. 10), “a spring of water gushing up to eternal life” (v. 14; cf. 7:38), which at first the woman misunderstands. She says “Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water” (v. 15). When the conversation turns to her “husband” (v. 16), and Jesus tells her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!” (vv. 17b, 18), she recognizes Jesus as “a prophet” (v. 19). The conversation turns to proper worship (vv. 20-24), and the coming of the Messiah (v. 25). Jesus tells her plainly, “I am he [i.e., the Messiah], the one who is speaking to you” (v. 6).

This brings us to the beginning of today’s reading, as Jesus’ “disciples came,” returning from the city. “They were astonished (ejqauvmazon, ethaumazon) that he was speaking to a woman, but no one said, ‘What do you want?’ or, ‘Why are you speaking to her?’ ” (v. 27). Brown translates “they were astonished,” as “they were shocked” (ibid., p. 167). The verb has been defined as “to be extraordinarily impressed or disturbed by something . . . (a) intransitive wonder, marvel, be astonished (the context determines whether in a good or bad sense).” John 4:27 is listed under subsection (g) “with o{ti [that] following . . . wonder, be surprised that” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. qaumavzw, thaumazō). Brown says, “It is curious, as Bultmann points out, that they [i.e., the disciples] were more shocked because he was talking with a woman than because he was talking with a Samaritan” (op. cit., on v. 27). “Then,” says John, “the woman left her water jar and went back to the city” (v. 28a), not because of embarrassment but to spread the news about her encounter with the Messiah (cf. v. 29). On other occasions I have quoted a sermon by Dr. Barbara Worden on Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman. On her departure for the city, Dr. Worden says,

Our Samaritan woman leaves her water jar behind. Why? She’s not forgotten it; she’ll probably come back for it later. The point is she now has some new water, a lot more important than the old. If she carried that old water jar with her, it would be a symbol of going back to her old life and old water, forgetting the living water. Living in the world of when will I wash the clothes, what do I need to make for dinner, her old self and old life. She’s now drunk of the living water. How many of us have an encounter with Jesus and still haul that same old water jar, saying subconsciously, all this is very nice Jesus, but I’ll worry about you later. Right now I have things to do, the same old routine.

When the woman arrives in the city, she addresses the people–those she apparently avoided earlier by going to the well for water in the heat of the midday sun–“Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?” (vv. 28b, 29). Grammatically, introduced by mhvti (mēti), the question ordinarily “invites a negative response to the question,” but “in questions in which the questioner is in doubt concerning the answer [mhvti (mēti) means] perhaps” (BDAG, s.v. mhvti, mēti). Compare the translation, “Could this be the Messiah?” (v. 29b TNIV), or “Could this possibly be the Messiah?” (v. 29b, trans., Brown, op. cit.., p 168). Brown says that the form of the question “implies an unlikelihood . . . ; therefore the woman’s faith does not seem to be complete. However, she does express a shade of hope. Bultmann . . . suggests that the viewpoint of the question is that of the townspeople” (op. cit., p. 173, on v. 29). Her actions certainly demonstrate faith, even if she hesitated to express it in more positive terms, perhaps due to her reputation in the city, the reason for avoiding the crowds at the well in the evening. It was enough to impress the townspeople, who “left the city and were on their way to him” (v. 30).

The next scene finds “the disciples . . . urging him [i.e., Jesus], ‘Rabbi, eat something’ ” (v. 31). Their trip to the city, after all, was for food (v. 8). But the Lord, who earlier surprised the woman with his response, now surprises the disciples, when “he said to them, ‘I have food to eat that you do not know about’ ” (v. 32). At first, the disciples misunderstand, and say “to one another, ‘Surely no one has brought him something to eat?’ ” (v. 33). Introduced by mhv (mē ), the question here does imply a negative answer, that Jesus soon quickly dispels, as he says, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work” (v. 34). As he continues, Jesus makes it clear that the story/event is about evangelism. “Do you not say, ‘Four months more, the comes the harvest’? But I tell you, look around you, and see how the fields are ripe for harvesting” (v. 35; cf. Mt. 9:37-38; Lk. 10:2). Overman says the saying about the harvest is “apparently a proverbial saying; see also v. 37” (op. cit., on v. 35). The latter verse also refers to the harvest as a metaphor for evangelism (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5-7). When Jesus says, “The reaper is already receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that the sower and reaper may rejoice together (Jn. 4:36), Overman interprets the “wages” as “the harvest of believers” (ibid., on v. 36). The explanation of verse 37, “I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor” (v. 38), is addressed to the disciples, but would apply by extension to the later mission of the church.

John the evangelist (i.e., Gospel writer) next reports the result of the woman’s evangelism in the city. “Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me everything I have ever done’ ” (v. 39). These initial results led to further harvest. “So when the Samaritans came to him,” says John, “they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days” (v. 40), with the result that “many more believed because of his word” (v. 41). Although they appear to discount the woman’s evangelism, saying “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world” (v. 42), they do give her credit, albeit indirectly, for initiating the process. And we cannot deny her the credit. As Dr. Barbara Worden says,

In verses 39-42, the Samaritan woman becomes the first evangelist, an evangelist of the best kind. She brings the other members of the village to Jesus by telling them what she knows better than anyone else, what he did for her. When they believe in Jesus, they do so because of their own experience with Jesus, not just because of what she said. (op. cit.)

Kamila A. Blessing sees a deliberate contrast drawn by the placement of the conversations with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman. She compares two of Jesus’ “conversations” in the Gospel of John, one with Nicodemus (Jn. 3:1-21) and one with the Samaritan woman (Jn. 4:1-42). She notes that “among the conversations [as distinct from controversies], Nicodemus is the only one who never expresses belief in Jesus as a result of the conversation” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, 2002, p. 596).

Both misunderstand Jesus at first, Nicodemus (Jn. 3:4) and the Samaritan woman: “throughout, the woman understands and responds to Jesus on the most material level” (ibid., p. 598, cf. pp. 597-599). But,

As the Gospel goes on, Nicodemus’s lack of response to Jesus becomes the more meaningful. He appears only twice more. In John 7:45-52, soldiers sent by the Pharisees to arrest Jesus have returned without him, saying that no one has ever spoken as Jesus has. The Pharisees ask ironically, “Has any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? Nicodemus, “who was one of them,” pointedly does not correct them but poses a question: Should we not hear him out before condemning him? The Pharisees reply with a taunt: “Surely you are not also from Galilee, are you?” Nicodemus remains silent. The second passage is John 20:39-40; Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who also has hidden his faith “because of his fear of the Jews” (Jn. 19:38), claim and bury Jesus’ body. Thus Nicodemus’s faith in Jesus does not bring others to Jesus physically or religiously. He will not endanger his life or status by acknowledging Jesus. He thus fails the criterion in John 15:13 of giving one’s life for a friend. Yet Nicodemus is of the most acceptable and honored social group. He is named, male, a Jew, a Pharisee, and a ruler and teacher of Israel. (ibid., pp. 596-597)

On the other hand, the Samaritan woman

is fruitful for Christ, whereas Nicodemus is not. She contrasts with other disciples also because she enters into a theological discussion with Jesus. Characteristically in John, the male disciples are passively present; they fail in persistence; they leave the tomb upon finding it empty; and they fail to speak their mind to Jesus. This woman may be regarded as one of the sowers whose planting the other disciples are to reap. In a powerful way, one that defies social convention, she carries out the function of a true disciple. (ibid., p. 599)

Dr. Worden wonders about some modern evangelism: Does it focus on the good news about Jesus and the living water? Or does it focus on the evangelist, or some modern program?

An evangelist brings people to the place, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually, where they are ready to meet Jesus face to face, not just a word picture of him reflecting the limited experience of the evangelist. A photograph is a nice reminder of our friends and relatives. It’s not the same as hugging them and talking with them. (op. cit.)

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net