John 4:9

Joh_4:9-10

How is it that Thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me?

--It is remarkable that while the Samaritan woman here is taunting the Lord with being a Jew, the Jews, in a somewhat similar passage, charge Him with being a Samaritan (Joh_8:48). (G. J. Brown, M. A.)

Askest and saith

There is a singular decorum in the use of words here. The woman has said, not unnaturally, How is it that Thou askest of me? But αἰτε͂ιν is a word of petition as from an inferior to a superior, in this different from ἐρωτᾶν, which has more of equality in it. Christ therefore when He refers to that request of hers does not take up and allow her word. He says not, Who is it that asketh, but who it is that saith (λέγων) to thee; while the asking is described as the proper attitude for her, Thou wouldest have asked (ἤτησας) of Him. There lies often in such little details an implicit assertion of the unique dignity of His person, which it is very interesting and not unimportant to trace. (Abp. Trench.)

Dealings and gift of God

The former word seems to explain the first part of our Lords answer. She had come day by day to draw water at that well. Had she never known that that water was a gift of God? Had no thirst on a hot day or no failure of the spring taught her that? Was water a thing to traffic in? (F. D. Maurice.)

The significance of giving drink

Among us even an enemy might ask or receive a drink of water without fear of compromising himself or his opponent; but not so in the East. There, the giving and receiving of a drink of water is the seeking and the making of a covenant of hospitality, with all that that covenant implies. It is not, indeed, like a covenant of blood, or a covenant of salt--indissoluble; but it is like the covenant of bread-sharing, which makes a truce, for the time being, between deadliest enemies. Aboolfeda tells, for example, of the different receptions awarded by Saladeen to the king of the Franks on the one hand, and to Prince Arnald of Caracca on the other, when the two Christian leaders were received in his tent by the victorious Saracen after the battle of Hatteen. Saladeen seated the Christian king by his side, and gave him drink cooled with snow. When the king, having tasted it, offered it also to Prince Arnald, Saladeen protested, saying, This wretch shall not drink of the water with my permission; in which there would be safety to him; and then, rising up, he smote off the head of the prince with his own sword. Over against this we are told that when Hormozan, a Persian ruler, surrendered to the Khaleef Omar, the successor of Aboo Bekr, and was brought a prisoner into the presence of his captor, he asked at once for a drink. Omar asked him if he were thirsty. No, he said; I only wish to drink in your presence, so that I may be sure of my life. He was assured that he might rest perfectly secure; and that assurance was kept. (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)

History of the Samaritans

After the Assyrian conquest colonies from the East were placed in the deserted cities. The country having been desolated by war wild beasts multiplied, and became the terror and scourge of the new inhabitants. The barren heights of Hermon and Lebanon are to this day infested with bears, panthers, wolves, and jackals. The strangers attributed the calamity to the anger of the local deity, of whose peculiar mode of worship they were ignorant. They therefore petitioned for Jewish priests to instruct them in religious rites; and after they had heard them they feared the Lord, and served their own gods (2Ki_17:24-41). In after times the Jews refused to acknowledge them in any way, and would not permit them to assist in building the second temple, though their refusal cost them many trials (Ezr_4:1-24.). Being cast off by the Jews, the Samaritans resolved to erect a temple of their own on Gerizim. The immediate occasion appears to have been the circumstances related by Nehemiah, that a sen of Joiada, the high priest, had become son-in-law to Sanballat, and had on this account been expelled from Jerusalem Neh_13:28). The date of the temple may thus be.fixed about

B.C. 420. Shechem now became the metropolis of the Samaritans as a sect, and an asylum for all apostate and lax Jews (Joseph. Antiq. 11:3-6). These things tended to foster enmity between the two nations, which resulted in the total destruction of the Temple of Gerizim by the Jews under John Hyrcanus. The very name Samaritan became a byword and a reproach among the Jews, just as the name Yehudy, Jew, is among modern Syrians; and some even supposed that the Jews nicknamed the city of Shechem Sychar, Falsehood, to mark their opinion of the pretended origin of its in- habitants. In our Saviours time the Samaritans retained their worship on Gerizim, though the temple was in ruins; and they had some vague expectations of a Messiah. During the reign of Vespasian Shechem was rebuilt, and renamed Neapolis, New City, an appellation which has run into the Arabic Nabulus--one of the very few instances in which the Greek has supplanted the Semitic name. The ancient Samaritans and modern Druses appear to have had very much in common both in character and origin. The ancient Samaritan was part heathen, part Jew; and the modern Druse of Mount Lebanon is part heathen, part Christian; and some have thought that the modern Druses derive their origin from the very same tribes as the ancient Samaritans. After the second captivity of Israel, Esarhaddon re-peopled the wasted strongholds of Samaria with the tribes whose names are given with so much particularity in Scripture (2Ki_17:24; and Ezr_4:9), races of fierce habit and degraded faith, whose heathen practices, engrafted on the corrupt Judaism which lingered amongst the earlier Samaritans, brought down on the new colonies the especial Nemesis of God. Of these fierce tribes there were some who, Cuthites in name, were of the family of the Royal Scythians, or Gordyans, from the Gordiaean mountains, whom in.subsequent times the Greeks knew by the name of Carduchi (Xen. Anab.), and with whom we are familiar as Koords. Some of these were settled in the Lebanon, and from them it has been said that the Druses spring, and draw the tenets of an ancient but unholy worship. (Lord Carnarvons Druses of the Lebanon.)

The hostility of the Samaritans towards the Jews

The Samaritan sought by every petty annoyance to irritate the Jew. Their country was the nearest road for the caravans of northern pilgrims going to the feasts in Jerusalem. The Samaritans churlishly refused these the poorest rites of hospitality, and compelled them often to avoid maltreament, by taking the circuitous and more fatiguing route by the Jordan Valley. Again, it was one of the few consolations enjoyed by the bands of exiled Jews in Babylon to have announced to them, by means of the only ancient telegraphic communication--beacons on the mountain-tops--the appearance of the paschal moon. The first beacon-fire was lit on the summit of Olivet, and thence caught up from mountain to mountain in luminous succession, until, within sight of the Euphrates, they could, for the moment at least, take down their harps from the willows as they remembered Zion and its holy solemnities. But the Samaritans indulged the mischievous delight of perplexing and putting them out of reckoning by the use of false signals. Another wicked and successful exploit is recorded; and occurring as it did under the government of Coponius only a few years previous to the gospel era, may have tended at this time to deepen these animosities. A band of Samaritans succeeded in stealing to the courts of the Temple of Jerusalem during the Passover season, and defiling the sacred precincts by scattering them with dead mens bones; thus incapacitating the Jews that year from celebrating the great feast of their nation. (J. R. Macduff, D. D.)

Samaritan churlishness

On asking drink from a woman near Nablus who was filling her pitcher, we were angrily refused--The Christian dogs might get it for themselves. (Canon Tristram.)

The hatred of the Jews for the Samaritans

The Jew was no way behind in his manifestation of malevolence. The son of Sirach says, There be two manner of nations which my heart abhorreth, and the third is no nation; they that sit upon the mountain of Samaria, and they that dwell among the Philistines, and that foolish people that dwell in Sichem. So that this false race dwelling at Sichem is more offensive to the pious Sirach than apostate Israel, with its worship of the golden calves on the mountains of Samaria (Sir_47:23-24), or even than the Philistines themselves, those hereditary enemies of Gods people. He abhors an Israel which demeans itself as if it were no Israel; he abhors the no-Israel which persists in its hostility and defiance to the true Israel; but most deeply of all does he abhor the no-Israel which demeans itself as if it were Israel, the heathen wearing the mask of Israelite. To eat with them was for a Jew as if he did eat swines flesh. He denounced the Samaritan as a base time-server who would not hesitate to purchase immunity from pains and penalties by forswearing Jehovah and kissing the impious shrine of Baal or Jove. He regarded him as unclean as the evaded leper; to harbour him in his house would entail a heritage of judgments on his children. The name Samaritan became a byword of reproach. He was publicly cursed in the synagogue--cursed in the name of Jehovah, by the writing on the two tables of the law, by the curse of the upper and lower house of judgment. He was pronounced unworthy of eternal life--excommunicated alike from the Church on earth and the Church in heaven. The bitterest word of scorn the Jew could hurl at the Infinitely Pure One was this, Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil. The yet untutored apostles shared the same exasperated feelings when they asked their Lord to call down fire from heaven on some Samaritan village. All worthy of remembrance is His gentle but sharp reproof, Ye know not what spirit ye are of. (Canon Tristram.)

The evils of national rivalry

I do not know anything more ludicrous among the self-deceptions of well-meaning people than their notion of patriotism, as requiring them to limit their efforts to the good of their own country--the notion that charity is a geographical virtue, and that what is holy and righteous to do for people on one bank of a river is quite improper and unnatural to do for people on the other. It will be a wonderful thing some day or other for the Christian world to remember that it went on thinking for two thousand years that neighbours were neighbours at Jerusalem, but not at Jericho; a wonderful thing for us English to reflect, in after years, how long it was before we Could shake hands with any one across that shallow salt wash which the very chalk dust of its two shores whitens from Folkestone to Ambletense. One magnificent attribute of the colouring of the late twelfth and the whole thirteenth and the early fourteenth century was the union of one colour with another by reciprocal interference, that is to say, if a mass of red is to be set beside a mass of blue, a piece of the red will be carried into the blue, and the reverse, sometimes in nearly equal proportions. And I call it a magnificent principle, for it is an eternal and universal one, not in act only, but in human life. It is the great principle of brotherhood, not by equality, nor by likeness, but by giving and receiving; the souls that are unlike, and the nations that are unlike, and the natures that are unlike, being bound into one noble whole, by each receiving something from and of the others gifts and the others glory. (John Ruskin.)

The evils of sectarian bigotry

The utter absence of real charity and love among men in the days when our Lord was upon earth ought not to be overlooked. Well would it be if men had never quarrelled about religion after He left the world! Quarrels among the crew of a sinking ship are not more hideous, unseemly, and irrational than the majority of quarrels among professors of religion. An historian might truly apply St. Johns words to many a period in Church history, and say, The Romanists have no dealings with the Protestants, or the Lutherans have no dealings with the Calvinists, or the Calvinists have no dealings with the Arminians, or the Episcopalians have no dealings with the Presbyterians, or the Baptists have no dealings with those who baptize infants, or the Plymouth Brethren have no dealings with anybody who does not join their company. These things ought not so to be. They are the scandal of Christianity, the joy of the devil, and the greatest stumbling-block to the spread of the gospel. (Bp. Ryle.)

The Jews and Samaritans

Josephus writeth that at Samaria was a sanctuary opened by Sanballat for all renegade Jews, etc. The Jews therefore hated the presence, the fire, the fashion, the books of a Samaritan. Neither was there any hatred lost on the Samaritans part, for if he had but touched a Jew he would have thrown himself into the nearest water, clothes and all. (J. Trapp.)

The forbearance of Christ

You may have gone along the road on a hot summer day, tired and thirsty, and have seen the gleam of a cottage in the distance. Suppose you went to the door and asked for a drink of water, exactly as our Lord did; but your speech betrayed you, and you were asked, How do you, being a Protestant, ask drink of me, a Roman Catholic; or, How do you, being Scotch, ask of me who am Irish, for the Scotch have no dealings with the Irish? You would have ground your heel on the gravel, and vowed never to give any one the chance of so speaking to you again. But insults are just as they are taken; and you cant insult a man who wont let you. Jesus bows His head, and lets your ignorant speeches fly past Him. (John McNeill.)

Christ cares not for classes or races, but for souls

People when they talk of the working classes think that they have described the whole thing with one touch. They imagine that, like the enter such and such a one in Shakespeares stage directions, when they have said the working classes, then everything by way of definition that is to be said, is said. They label the article, so to speak, and then expect you to understand all about it. How difficult it is indeed to bridge across the chasm between class and class I But more difficult it is to remember that the working class, or any class, is made up of individual souls. Our dear Lord did not speak to classes only. Jesus spoke to souls. He took men one by one, and each finite creature with his infinite future, each immortal being with his own history, his own work, his own sins, his own feelings, his own sorrows, was an object of tender interest to Jesus Christ. (Knox Little.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 4:9. Then saith the woman, How is it that thou, being a Jew — As it appears by thy habit and dialect thou art; askest drink of me, &c., for the Jews have no dealings — Or rather, no friendly intercourse; with the Samaritans — They would receive no kind of favour from them. That the expression, no dealings, as Dr. Campbell justly observes, “implies too much to suit the sense of this passage, is manifest from the preceding verse, where we are told, that the disciples were gone into the Samaritan city Sychar to buy food. The verb συγχραομαι, is one of those called απαξ λεγομενα, once used: it does not occur in any other place of the New Testament, or in the Septuagint. The Pharisees were in their traditions nice distinguishers. Buying and selling with the Samaritans were permitted, because that was considered as an intercourse merely of interest or convenience; borrowing and lending, much more asking or accepting any favour, was prohibited; because that was regarded as an intercourse of friendship, which they thought it impious to maintain with those whom they looked upon as the enemies of God.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4:9 The woman was surprised because social taboos would keep a Jewish teacher like Jesus from speaking to her (4:18). However, Jesus did not let social taboos constrain him from giving her what she truly needed.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 4:9. Πῶς, how is it) Her manifest simplicity shines forth from the very first words of the Samaritan woman.—Ἰουδαῖος, a Jew) From His dress or His dialect she inferred that He was a Jew.—οὐ γάρ, for not) A parenthesis of the Evangelist, expressing the cause why it seemed strange to the Samaritan woman. The Rabbinical maxim accords with this: To eat the bread of a Samaritan man, and to drink his wine, is unlawful.—συγχρῶνται, use together [have friendly dealings with]) What is denied is, not all intercourse between the Jews and Samaritans (comp. the previous verse; “His disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat”), but intimacy.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 4:9 . πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν . How did she know He was a Jew? Probably there were slight differences in dress, feature and accent. Edersheim says “the fringes on the Tallith of the Samaritans are blue, while those worn by the Jews are white”. He also exposes the mistake of some commentators regarding the words uttered by Jesus: “Teni li lishtoth”. The reason of the woman’s surprise is given by the Evangelist in the words οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαίοι Σαμαρείταις . “For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.” Συγχρᾶσθαι literally signifies “to use together with,” so that the sense here might be that the woman was surprised that Jesus should use the same vessel she used; rather it has the secondary meaning “to have intercourse” or “dealings with”; similarly to the Latin utor , see Hor., Ep. , i. xii. 22, “utere Pompeio Grospho,” and xvii. 13, “regibus uti,” to make a friend of, or “be on terms of intimacy with”. The classical phrase is οἶσιν οὐκ ἐπιστροφαί , Eurip., Helena , 440. The later tradition said: “Samaritanis panem comedere aut vinum bibere prohibitum est”. Of course the hostile feeling ran back to the days of Nehemiah. And see Sir 50:25-26 . “With two nations is my soul vexed, and the third is no nation: they that sit upon Mount Seir and the Philistines, and that foolish people that dwelleth in Sichem.” For the origin of the Samaritans see 2Ki 17 , and cf. Farrar’s Life of Christ in loc. Tristram, Land of Israel , 134.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

There is no familiarity nor friendship, between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

How is it that thou--not altogether refusing, yet wondering at so unusual a request from a Jew, as His dress and dialect would at once discover Him to be, to a Samaritan.

for, &c.--It is this national antipathy that gives point to the parable of the good Samaritan (Luk 10:30-37), and the thankfulness of the Samaritan leper (Luk 17:16, Luk 17:18).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 9. That thou, being a Jew] Probably the inhabitants of Judea distinguished themselves from those of Samaria by some peculiar mode of dress; and by this the Samaritan woman might have known Christ: but it is likely that our Lord spoke the Galilean dialect, by which we find, from Mr 14:70, a Jew of that district might easily be known.

The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.] Perhaps better, Jews have no communion with Samaritans. These words appear to be added by the evangelist himself, in explanation of the woman's question. The original word, συγχρωνται, has been variously translated and understood. It comes from συν, together, and χραομαι, I use, or borrow: hence it has been understood to mean, the Jews will be under no kind of obligation to the Samaritans-will borrow nothing from them-will not drink out of the same cup or well with them-will not sit down to meals with them, nor eat out of the same vessel-will have no religious connection, no commercial dealings with them. The word communion, I think, fully expresses the sense of the original; and, being as extensive in its meaning as our word dealings, is capable of as general an interpretation. The deadly hatred that subsisted between these two nations is known to all. The Jews cursed them, and believed them to be accursed. Their most merciful wish to the Samaritans was, that they might have no part in the resurrection; or, in other words, that they might be annihilated.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

9. How dost thou, who art a Jew? This is a reproach, by which she retorts upon him the contempt which was generally entertained by his nation. The Samaritans are known to have been the scum of a people gathered from among foreigners. Having corrupted the worship of God, and introduced many spurious and wicked ceremonies, they were justly regarded by the Jews with detestation. Yet it cannot be doubted that the Jews, for the most part, held out their zeal for the law as a cloak for their carnal hatred; for many were actuated more by ambition and envy, and by displeasure at seeing the country which had been allotted to them occupied by the Samaritans, than by grief and uneasiness because the worship of God had been corrupted. There was just ground for the separation, provided that their feelings had been pure and well regulated. For this reason Christ, when he first sends the Apostles to proclaim the Gospel, forbids them to turn aside to the Samaritans, (Matthew 10:5.)

But this woman does what is natural to almost all of us; for, being desirous to be held in esteem, we take very ill to be despised. This disease of human nature is so general, that every person wishes that his vices should please others. If any man disapproves of us, or of any thing that we do or say, we are immediately offended without any good reason. Let any man examine himself, and he will find this seed of pride in his mind, until it has been eradicated by the Spirit of God. This woman, therefore, knowing that the superstitions of her nation were condemned by the Jews, now offers an insult to them in the person of Christ.

For the Jews hold no intercourse with the Samaritans. These words I consider to have been uttered by the woman. Others suppose that the Evangelist added them for the sake of explanation, and, indeed, it is of little consequence which meaning you prefer. But I think it more natural to believe that the woman jeers at Christ in this manner: “What? Is it lawful for you to ask drink from me, when you hold us to be so profane?” If any prefer the other interpretation, I do not dispute the point. Besides, it is possible that the Jews carried their abhorrence of the Samaritans beyond proper bounds; for as we have said that they applied to an improper purpose a false pretense of zeal, so it was natural for them to go to excess, as almost always happens with those who give way to wicked passions.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(9) Woman of Samaria (twice).—Better, Samaritan woman. In both cases the Greek has the adjective. It is the religious and national position as a Samaritan which is prominent in this verse.

Being a Jew.—This she would know from dress and language. It has been noted that the Hebrew for “Give me to drink,” “Teni lishekoth,” contains the letter Sin, or Shin, which was one of the distinctive points in the Ephraimite pronunciation. They did not say Shibboleth, but Sibboleth (Jdg_12:5-6). They would not say “Teni lishekoth,” but “Teni lisekoth.”

For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.—The original has not the articles, For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. This is a remark made by the writer to explain the point of the woman’s question. She wondered that a Jew, weary and thirsty though he might be, should speak to her. For the origin of the Samaritans, see 2Ki_17:24-41, and Note on Luk_9:52. The later Jewish authors abound in terms of reproach for them—e.g., “He who eats the bread of a Samaritan is as he who eats swine’s flesh;” “No Samaritan shall be made a proselyte;” “They have no share in the resurrection of the dead” (Pirke, Rabbi Elieser, 38; comp. Farrar, Life of Christ, i. 209, note). Jesus Himself speaks of a Samaritan as an alien (Luk_17:16; Luk_17:18; comp. Luk_10:33), and is called a Samaritan and possessed of a devil (comp. Joh_8:48). But the strictest Jews allowed exceptions to the forbidden intercourse. If bread was interdicted, fruit and vegetables were not; if boiled eggs were forbidden, fresh ones were not. At no time probably did the Galileans follow the practice of the Judæans in this matter, and hence they go to the city to buy food, while the woman asks this question of a Jew whom she met on the road from Jerusalem. Later, it was only “because His face was as though He would go to Jerusalem “that the Samaritan village did not receive Him; and it is the Evangelist of the Jerusalem ministry, who would have called down fire from heaven then, who adds this note of explanation for his Greek readers now (Luk_9:52-53).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. woman of Samaria] In both places in this verse we should rather have Samaritan woman: the Greek is not the same as in Joh_4:7. The adjective lays stress on the national and religious characteristics. For ‘then’ read therefore, as in Joh_4:5.

How is it] Feminine pertness. She is half-amused and half-triumphant.

being a Jew] She knew Him to be such by His dress and by His language.

for the Jews, &c.] Omit the articles; for Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. This is a remark, not of the woman, but of S. John, to explain the woman’s question. As He was on his way from Jerusalem she probably thought He was a Judaean. The Galileans seem to have been less strict; and hence His disciples went to buy food of Samaritans. Some important authorities omit the remark.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him,.... In a scoffing, jeering way,

how is it, that thou being a Jew; which she might know, by his language and his dress:

askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? not that the waters of Samaria were unlawful for a Jew to drink of; for as

"the land of the Cuthites (or Samaritans), was pure, or clean, so, "their collections of water", and their habitations, and their ways were clean (m),''

and might be used; but because the Jews used no familiarity with the Samaritans, nor would they receive any courtesy or kindness from them, as follows:

for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans: some take these to be the words of the evangelist, commenting upon, and explaining the words of the woman; but they seem rather to be her own words, giving a reason why she returned such an answer; and which must be understood, not in the strictest sense, as if they had no dealings at all with them: indeed in some things they had no dealings with them, and at some certain times; hence that discourse of the Samaritans with a Jewish Rabbi (n).

"The Cuthites (or Samaritans) inquired of R. Abhu, your fathers, , "used to deal with us" (or minister to us, or supply us with necessaries), wherefore do not ye deal with us? (or take a supply from us;) he replied unto them, your fathers did not corrupt their works, you have corrupted your works.''

They might not use their wine and vinegar, nor admit them to their tables; they say of a man (o),

"because the Cuthites (or Samaritans) ate at his table, it was the reason why his children went into captivity--and further add, that whoever invites a Cuthite (or Samaritan) into his house, and ministers to him, is the cause of captivity to his children.''

And they forbid a man to enter into partnership with a Cuthite (or Samaritan (p)): and particularly,

"three days before the feasts of idolaters (for such they reckoned the Samaritans, as well as others), it is forbidden to have any commerce with them, to borrow of them, or lend to them (q) &c.''

But then at other times, and in other respects, they had dealings with them; they might go into their cities and buy food of them, as the disciples did, Joh 4:8; they might send their wheat to a Samaritan miller, to be ground (r); and as it appears from the above citations, their houses and habitations were clean, and might be lodged in, with which compare Luk 9:52; the poor of the Samaritans were maintained with the poor of Israel (s); wherefore the sense is, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, that the Jews refused to receive the least favour or kindness at the hand of a Samaritan; and therefore the woman might justly wonder, that Christ should ask so small a favour of her, as a little water. The reason of this distance and aversion, was religion; and so the Ethiopic version, rather paraphrasing than translating, renders the words, "the Jews do not agree in religion, nor do they communicate with the Samaritans, nor mix together": and this was of long standing, and had been occasioned and increased by various incidents; for when the ten tribes revolted in Jeroboam's time, the calves were set up in Dan and Bethel, in order to draw off the people from worship at Jerusalem, which gave great umbrage to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; and when the ten tribes were carried away captive by the king of Assyria, he planted the cities of Samaria with colonies in their room, consisting of Heathenish and idolatrous persons, brought from Babylon, and other places; to whom he sent a priest, to instruct them in the manner of the God of the land; but with these instructions, they still retained their idols, and their idolatrous practices; see Kg2 17:24, which must render them odious to the Jews: and these were the principal adversaries of the Jews, after their return from captivity; and discouraged them, and weakened their hands, in the building of the second temple: but what latest, and most of all had fixed this aversion and enmity, was this; Manasseh, brother to Jaddua the high priest, having married Sanballat's daughter, governor of Samaria, was for it removed from the priesthood; who applying to his father-in-law, he proposed building for him a temple on Mount Gerizim, and making him an high priest; for which he obtained leave of Alexander the Great, and accordingly built one, and made his son-in-law high priest; which drew a great many profligate Jews over to him, who mixing with the Samaritans, set up a worship, religion, and priesthood, in distinction from the Jews; and this was ever after a matter of contention and quarrel between these people, and the reason why they would have no dealings with them.

(m) T. Hieros. Avoda Zara, fol. 44. 4. (n) Ib. (o) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 104. 1. (p) T. Bab. Becorot, fol. 7. 2. Piske Toseph. ib. art. 4. & in Megilla, art 102. (q) Misna Avoda Zara, c. 1. sect. 1. (r) Misua Demai, c. 3. sect. 4. (s) Piske Tosephot Yoma, art. 63.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

Ver. 9. Askest drink of me?] The Samaritans knew that they were slighted by the Jews, and took it ill, Gens haec (saith Giraldus Cambrensis, of the Irish) sicut et natio quaevis barbara, quanquam honorem neseiant, honorari tamen supra medam affectant. No man would be slighted, how mean soever.

For the Jews have no dealings, &c.] Josephus writeth, that at Samaria was a sanctuary opened by Sanballat for all renegade Jews, &c. The Jews therefore hated the presence, the fire, the fashion, the books of a Samaritan. Neither was there any hatred lost on the Samaritan’s part; for if he had but touched a Jew, he would have thrown himself into the next water, clothes and all; both of them equally sick of a noli me tangere. Do not touch me. (Epiphanius.)

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

No dealings with the Samaritans - For an account of the Samaritans, and of the differences between them and the Jews, see the notes at Mat 10:5.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

There was a great estrangement of the Jews from the Samaritans, the Samaritans having a peculiar temple built upon Mount Gerizim, in opposition to that at Jerusalem. It is said that the Jews did buy of and sell to the Samaritans, but were restrained by an order of the sanhedrim from using any familiarity with them, or borrowing or receiving any thing as a gift from them; which was the cause of this reply of the woman of Samaria, knowing our Saviour, either by his habit or by his dialect, to be a Jew: this is thought to be the sense of συγχρωνται in this text, though it hath a larger significance, extending to all kinds of commerce.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

9. Being a Jew—Jesus presents himself to her first as a Jew. If he shows himself by needing drink to be a man, doubtless, in his dress, his dialect, and his physiognomy, this Lord of all was

a Jew. Askest drink of me— Some feeling of gratification there doubtless was in the woman’s mind, that a Jew should be obliged to ask a favour of a Samaritan. Yet this very fact both called attention to their religious differences and prepared her mind to listen with complacency. Moreover, his bland voice, serene aspect, and calm dignity, even in petitioning, present to her insight something of divine, and prepare her heart for faith.

Jews have no dealings—It was the Jew who was the most positively hostile, and with some justice; for it was the Samaritan who was the mean and mendacious offender. See notes on Mat_10:5; Luk_9:52-54. His religious system was an imitation and a mockery of Judaism, and yet claiming to be the genuine reality. He first plagiarized the Jew, and then audaciously boasted of being the true original. This woman has her misgivings that the Jew may be right, (Joh_4:20;) and this, joined to the impression which the Lord’s appearance has made upon her, induces her to ask, not without surprise, the reason of his condescension.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Samaritan woman therefore saith to him, How is it (compare this "how" with that of Nicodemus. Jesus had at once provoked inquiry, which he was not unwilling to gratify) How is it that thou, being a Jew? She would have known that he was a Jew by his speech, for the Samaritans were accustomed to turn the sound of sh into that of s; and so, when Jesus said in Jewish Aramaic, Teni lish (e) koth, "Give me to drink," while she would herself have said, Teni lise-koth, his speech would betray him. Again, the contour of the Jewish face differs greatly from that of the Samaritan, and the customary fringes on their robes were of different national colours. Moreover, his appearance, travel stained, weary, and thirsty, on the great highway between Galilee and Judaea, would have suggested at once that he was no Samaritan. Askest drink from me, who am a Samaritan, and a woman, too? Already this was a startling puzzle, for her experience so far had only shown her that Jews have no dealings (a word only once and here used in the New Testament) with Samaritans. Most commentators suppose that this is an explanatory remark of the evangelist, pointing to the absence, in a hostile and haughty spirit, of all pleasant relations between the peoples (see note at commencement of chapter). We are not compelled to this conclusion. The words may just as likely have been the pert, half-ironical tone of the woman, who was drawing a contrast between the current profession of Israelites and the request which the need of Jesus had extorted (Moulton). The eighth verse had just said that the disciples had clearly some dealings with Samaritans, and had gone to purchase food at Sychar, taking with them the apparatus used for drawing water. This last fact is the evangelist"s reason for introducing the remark of the woman. He would hardly have made it himself.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON Ver. 9. Patriotism and Christianity.

In human affairs the scale upon which things are done gives them, not only their interest and importance, but much also of their very character. The same spirit which in petty communities is local jealousy may in nations claim the dignified appellation of patriotism. The differences and disputes between Jews and Samaritans may possess for us but little real interest; whilst the sentiments not very dissimilar, which are cherished by great nations, claim dignity and grandeur. This passage in the gospel narrative is suggestive with regard to the relations between Christianity and the love of country.

I THERE IS A GOOD SIDE TO PATRIOTISM WHICH, AS COMPARED WITH SELFISHNESS, IS A VIRTUE. The love of country is both greater and more difficult than the love of family or the love of self. It is morally elevating for a man to lose regard for his own interests in an absorbing desire for the welfare of his tribe or nation. Great deeds have]seen wrought, and great characters have been shaped, by love of fatherland.

II THERE IS A BAD SIDE TO PATRIOTISM WHICH, AS CONTRASTED WITH PHILANTHROPY, IS A FAULT. The love of country may be magnified selfishness. When it renders a man insensible to the merits of those of alien blood or of different education, it warps the nature, and is often the occasion of injustice. Crimes have been done, and that sincerely, in the name of patriotism. Envy and jealousy, hatred, malice, and revenge, have sprung from spurious patriotism that is, from a too exclusive regard to the interests or the honour of a nation.

III CHRISTIANITY, WHILST NOT INIMICAL TO TRUE PATRIOTISM, INTRODUCES A GREAT DIVINE UNITING POWER INTO HUMAN SOCIETY.

1. The religion of Christ teaches the unity of the human race. It represents humanity as united by common origin and participation in a common nature.

2. The religion of Christ bases human unity upon the fatherhood of God. The family is one, because acknowledging one Head.

3. The Incarnation reveals and establishes this unity. Christ is the Son of man, the Friend of man, the Brother of man, the Saviour of man, the Lord of man. In him provision is made for the restoration of that unity which sin has broken.

IV CHRISTIANITY THUS ENCOURAGES SUCH PATRIOTISM AS IS GOOD, AND CHECKS THE EVILS OFTEN CLOAKED UNDER THE NAME.

1. On the one hand, the religion of Christ fosters the feeling of duty which has its scope in political relationships. The duty nearest us is first, and, as we must not neglect our own household for the sake of strangers, so neither must we prefer foreigners and their interest to the welfare of our "kindred according to the flesh." A spurious philanthropy is a poor substitute for a genuine patriotism.

2. On the other hand, our religion forbids us to limit our regard to our immediate neighbours; and requires us to sweep with our spiritual vision the vast horizon of humanity. There is a homely proverb, "Charity begins at home;" to which a homely addition has been made, "but does not end there." The patriotism that takes us out of self is good; yet alone it is insufficient. It should broaden until our regard and our interest and our love reach far as the virtue of Christ"s sacrifice, far as the range of Christ"s gospel. Suspicions and contentions are alien from the Spirit of Christ. There is no limit to the comprehensiveness of the Saviour"s pity; there should be no limit to the comprehensiveness of his people"s love. T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

How dost thou - Her open simplicity appears from her very first words. The Jews have no dealings - None by way of friendship. They would receive no kind of favour from them.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

9. How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me? She saw by his dress, appearance, and the direction whence he came that he was of the Jewish race. The antipathy between the Jews and Samaritans was so bitter that they were never wont to ask any hospitable rite. The woman's reply is not a refusal of the Lord's request, but an expression of astonishment that a Jew should ask a favor of a Samaritan.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Then the Samaritan woman said to him

The word "him" refers to Jesus.

How is it that you, being a Jew, are asking ... for something to drink?

This remark appears in the form of a question to express the Samaritan woman's surprise that Jesus asked her for a drink. AT: "I cannot believe that you, being a Jew, are asking a Samaritan for a drink!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

have no dealings with

"do not associate with"

living water

Jesus uses the metaphor "living water" to refer to the Holy Spirit who works in a person to transform and bring new life. (See: Metaphor)

translationWords

Samaria

Jew

gift

God

water

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

9. ἡ Σαμαρ. The adjective, as distinct from ἐκ τῆς Σ. in Joh 4:7, lays stress on the national and religious characteristics. The repetition of the article, ἡ γυνὴ ἡ Σ., giving emphasis to the adjective, is very frequent in S. Joh 5:30; Joh 6:38; Joh 6:42; Joh 6:44; Joh 6:50-51; Joh 6:58, &c. &c.

πῶς σὺ—παρ’ ἐμοῦ. The pronouns are in emphatic opposition: she is half amused and half triumphant. She would know Him to be a Jew by His dress and speech. In His request He would use the testing letter (Jdg 12:6), ‘Teni lischekoth,’ which a Samaritan would pronounce ‘lisekoth.’

οὐ γὰρ συγχ. For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans; no articles. The remark is not the woman’s, but S. John’s, to explain her question. Comp. Luk 9:53. As He was on His way from Judaea she would suppose Him to be a Judaean. Galileans seem to have been less strict, and hence His disciples had gone to buy food of Samaritans. But even Pharisees allowed Samaritan fruit, vegetables, and eggs. Some important authorities omit the remark.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. Ἰουδαῖος ὤν] She knew this perhaps by his dress, more probably by his dialect. There seems to be a sort of playful triumph in the woman’s question, q. d. ‘even a Jew, when weary and athirst, can humble himself to ask drink of a Samaritan woman.’

οὐ γὰρ συγχρ … are the words of the Evangelist to explain her question. συγχράομαι is properly spoken of trade,—but here is in a wider signification. Wetstein quotes from Polybius, παρὰ Ταραντίνων καὶ Λοκρῶν συγχρησάμενοι πεντηκοντόρους καὶ τριήρεις.

Notice, 1) that this explanatory clause is omitted by 1, and certainly may have been a gloss originally: but the authority is not enough to justify us in bracketing it: 2) that Ἰουδ. and Σαμ. are both anarthrous—‘Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.’ The fact is abundantly illustrated in the Rabbinical writings: see Schöttg. h. l. The question of the woman shews a lively naïve disposition, which is further drawn out and exemplified by Him who knew what is in man, in the following dialogue.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. Πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν κτλ. The Samaritan woman affects surprise—for her words are ironical—that a Jew should ask her for water. There was nothing strange in asking a woman for water, as it was women who generally drew it from the wells; cf. Gen 24:17. However bitter the feeling between Jew and Samaritan, we cannot suppose that a draught of cold water in the noontide heat would be likely to be refused by either to other. It was counted the mark of a wicked man “not to have given water to the weary to drink” (Job 22:7); and the precept of kindness was universal: “If thine enemy be thirsty, give him water to drink” (Pro 25:21). Yet the woman makes her little gibe—half-jest, half-earnest—recalling to Jesus the old feud between Jews and Samaritans. She recognised Jesus as a Jew, perhaps by His dress or perhaps by His manner of speech (cf. Mat 26:73). The narrative does not say explicitly that she granted the request of Jesus, Δός μοι πεῖν, but the reader is intended to understand that she did so.

The explanatory comment οὐ γὰρ συνχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρείταις, “for Jews do not treat familiarly with Samaritans,” is omitted by א*D a b e, but it must be retained with אaABCLTbWNΘ. συγχρᾶσθαι does not occur again in N.T., but it appears in Ignat. Magn. 3, ὑμῖν δὲ πρέπει μὴ συγχρᾶσθαι τῇ ἡλικίᾳ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, “it becomes you not to presume upon the youth of your bishop,” to treat him with undue familiarity.

If συνχρῶνται is translated “have dealings with,” co-utuntur, the comment would not be accurate; for although Jews and Samaritans were intolerant of each other (cf. Luk 9:53, Joh 8:48), of necessity there was much business intercourse. As v. 8 indicates, Jews could trade with Samaritans, as indeed they could do with heathen (cf. Neh 13:16).

The comment is not that of the Samaritan woman, but of the evangelist, and is quite in his manner (cf. Introd., p. xxxiv).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The woman of Samaria [η γυνη η σαμαρειτις] . Differently expressed from the same phrase in the preceding verse. Literally, the woman the Samaritan. Here the distinctive character of the woman, as indicated by the race, is emphasized.

Askest [αιτεις] . See on Mt 14:23.

Have no dealings [ου συγχρωνται] . Have no familiar or friendly intercourse with. That they had dealings of some kind is shown by the disciples going into the city to buy provisions. Some authorities omit for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. The Jews treated the Samaritans with every mark of contempt, and accused them of falsehood, folly, and irreligion. The Samaritans sold Jews into slavery when they had them in their power, lighted spurious signals for the beacon - fires kindled to announce the beginnings of months, and waylaid and killed pilgrims on their road to Jerusalem.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.