John’s narrative regarding the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman has provided the content for numerous scholarly debates. Several questions still remain with regard to the interpretation of John’s narrative, especially in light of the ancient historical and cultural context of the passage. Without a proper understanding of the passage’s historical backdrop and cultural setting, the interpreter risks missing the author’s intended meaning. The following research is not an exegetical analysis but, instead, an examination of how historical and cultural context may assist the interpretive process. More specifically, a proper understanding of ancient Samaritan and Jewish history alongside an appreciation of the social dynamics of ancient hospitality provide a backdrop that enhances the understanding of John 4:1-26. The analysis first provides a synopsis of Samaritan geography followed by a brief history of Samaritan and Jewish relations. The research then compares the potential of a betrothal type-scene versus a culture of ancient hospitality and concludes by exploring how the latter clarifies meaning.
History
Samaritan Geography
The geographical location of the story of Jesus and the woman at the well sets the stage for understanding the entire narrative. The Apostle John explains that Jesus passes through the territory of Samaria and then comes to a town called Sychar (John 4:4-5). It was not uncommon for strict Jews to avoid traveling through the region of Samaria, and instead they would travel east from Jerusalem, cross the Jordan river, head north toward the Sea of Galilee, and then cross back over the Jordan river to enter Galilee. Alternatively, Josephus explains that “it was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city at the festivals, to take their journeys through the country of the Samaritans” (Ant. 20.6.1). Jesus did not follow the path of the strict Jews but followed the path that most travelers took through Samaria.
Consensus does not exist regarding the location of the town or village of Sychar within the region of Samaria. However, according to Rainer Reisner, the location of the town was likely at the site of Askar, which is at the foot of Mount Ebal and probably a major settlement in the region of Samaria just north of Mount Gerizim, the holy mountain of the Samaritans.[1] The importance of Mount Gerizim to the Samaritans is difficult to overstate. The Jews identified Jerusalem as the proper place of worship with good reason. In 2 Chronicles 6, the writer explains that Jerusalem was chosen for “my (Yahweh’s) name to be there” (cf. 2 Chron 7:12, English Standard Version). Furthermore, Psalm 78:68 explains that it was the tribe of Judah and Mount Zion that Yahweh loves. However, Clinton Arnold points out that the Samaritans decided to establish their sanctuary on Mount Gerizim because the Pentateuch does not specifically identify Jerusalem as the place of worship, and the first five books of the Old Testament were the only ones accepted by the Samaritan people as sacred.[3] To emphasize Mount Gerizim over Jerusalem, G. M. M. Pelser notes that sacrifices on Mount Gerizim are prescribed in every version of the Decalogue and, unlike the Jewish version of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy 27:4 in the Samaritan Pentateuch blesses Mount Gerizim.[4] Accordingly, the Samaritan woman at the well states that her ancestors worshipped on this mountain as opposed to Jerusalem where the Jewish people worshipped God (John 4:20). The specificity used by John with regard to the identification of the geographical backdrop of the story lays a strong foundation for meaning clarification.
Samaritan History
The rift between the Jews and the Samaritans runs deeper than a simple disagreement regarding the proper site of worshipping Yahweh. The dissension between the Samaritans and Jews originated centuries before the time of Jesus and lays the groundwork for the geography. Mount Gerizim is just west of the ancient city of Shechem, and Shechem just south of Askar. Its history points as far back as Abraham who built an altar in this area and received the following promise from Yahweh: “To your offspring I will give this land” (Gen 12:6-7). Jacob also safely entered the city of Shechem , set up camp, and pitched a tent (Gen 33:18-19). Further, he likely dug the well that John refers to in his narrative when Jesus decides to rest beside Jacob’s well (John 4:6). The history of Joshua also engages the land of the Samaritans. The leader gathered the tribes of Israel within the town of Shechem, and he presented the people before God (Josh 24:1). Joshua then exhorted the people to put away the foreign gods of their fathers and serve Yahweh alone, and he concludes with his famous words, “But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh 24:14-15). It is within this backdrop of patriarchal connections that, according to Bernadeta Jojko, the Samaritans viewed themselves as children of Jacob, whom God named Israel (2 Kgs 17:34).[5] Accordingly, the ancestors or “fathers” the Samaritan woman refers to in John 4:20 are the ancient patriarchs. The patriarchal connections explain why the woman refers to “Father Jacob” when asking whether Jesus is greater than Jacob (John 4:12). In other words, the Samaritans and the Jews had common ties through the patriarchs. However, the ties begin to unravel soon after Solomon’s reign.
Subsequent to Solomon’s death, the united kingdom split into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. Jeroboam, the first king of Israel, built Shechem as the capital of Israel (1 Kgs 12:16-25). The Assyrians captured Samaria in 721 BC and followed the common ancient practice of exiling or deporting many Israelites from the land of Samaria (2 Kgs 17:23). The Assyrians simultaneously placed many foreigners from other lands, such as Babylon, into the cities of Samaria (2 Kgs 17:24). Unfortunately, the imported people groups brought foreign gods into the land (2 Kgs 17:29). The result was a disastrous form of religious syncretism (2 Kgs 17:33). The book of Ezra explains that certain enemies of Judah heard that the Jewish exiles were returning from Babylon to build a temple to the Lord and asked if they could assist (Ezra 4:1-2). Mervin Breneman explains that the enemies of Judah referred to descendants of the foreigners imported by the Assyrians, and thus the Jews would not allow them to assist in order to keep the “purity of the covenant community.”[6] As a result of the rejection, Jojko points out that the Samaritans decided to erect their own rival temple at Mount Gerizim in 388 BC.[7] Josephus documents that after the death of Antiochus, John Hyrcanus overtook Shechem, and the temple “resembled that temple which was at Jerusalem” (Ant. 13.9.1). The destruction of the Mount Gerizim temple occurred around 128 BC, thus the remains were likely still visible when the Samaritan woman refers to the mountain in John 4:20.[8] It is within the memories of such destruction that John tells the story of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. As Jojko explains, the historical background assists the interpreter in understanding that the “Samaritan woman represents her people, with all their infidelity, syncretism, and marginalization.”[9]
Samaritan Inclusion
Without question, Jesus would have known the history, traditions, and animosity between the Samaritans and the Jews just as the Samaritan woman was fully aware of the situation when asking Jesus, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria” (John 4:9). Jesus was about to send a clear message that the geographical and cultural boundaries were to be destroyed under His eschatological reign of inclusion that transcended God’s chosen nation. Joy Jones-Carmack succinctly notes that Jesus simply refused to enter an ethnic debate with the Samaritan woman, and instead, He focused on the “gift of God” (John 4:10).[10] Jesus refers to a gift available to all people that transcends race, culture, and gender. Craig Keener suggests that a cross-gender conversation would have been troubling because Jewish men were not to engage in unnecessary conversations with women.[11] However, Jesus ignores standard protocols and focuses on a message that eclipses cultural norms. More specifically, Jojko recognizes that Jesus uses the term ἡμεῖς in John 4:22 to identify himself with God’s whole nation when stating, “We (ἡμεῖς) worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.”[12] In other words, Jesus is not usurping the spiritual heritage of the Jewish people, but instead bringing it to fruition by offering the gift to the entire world (John 4:42). Similarly, the woman at the well represents the marginalization of her Samaritan nation, while Jesus represents God’s chosen nation and ultimately fulfills God’s covenant promises of blessing all nations through Him (Gen 12:1-3).
Hospitality
Hospitality and Betrothal
By exploring the cultural milieu surrounding encounters at ancient wells, an understanding of John 4 may be enhanced. A popular scholarly observation in recent years is the possibility that John’s narrative refers to a betrothal type-scene. Robert Alter detects the pattern in three Old Testament examples: Rebekah and Abraham’s servant in Genesis 24, Jacob and Rachel in Genesis 29, and Moses and Zipporah in Exodus 2.[13] The pattern or type-scene begins with a potential bridegroom who enters a foreign land, encounters a woman at a well, and eventually marries the woman after she announces the news and invites the bridegroom to a meal.[14] In modern vernacular, the idea is similar to a fictional romance that starts something like: A man meets a woman at a bar and offers to buy her a drink.
The Gospel according to John
The modern reader is set up and knows where the story leads. Likewise, Mark Stibbe suggests the reader will assume the cultural context of John 4 is courtship supported by “marital imagery.”[15] If Alter and his proponents are correct, then Jesus’s references to the woman’s husbands in John 4:16-18 may provide heightened relational tension between Jesus and the woman while simultaneously supporting the popular notion espoused by D. A. Carson that the woman is despised and lacks sophistication.[16]
Although Alter’s hypothesis is possible, an alternative proposal may have more weight. Andrew Arterbury suggests that Jesus’s encounter with the Samaritan woman more closely relates to the ancient custom of hospitality.[17] Arterbury defines ancient hospitality as “the Mediterranean social convention that was employed when a person chose to assist a traveler…by supplying him or her with provisions and protection.”[18] An Old Testament example may be found in Genesis 18:1-5 when Abraham runs to meet three strangers, and he offers them water and bread.[19] Both Philo and Josephus during the Second Temple period recognize that Genesis 18 has overtones of hospitality. With reference to Abraham meeting the strangers, Philo states, “no one in the house of a wise man is ever slow to perform the duties of hospitality” (Abraham XXII 109). Similarly, Josephus refers to the episode by suggesting that Abraham saw the strangers and offered them hospitality in the form of a meal (Ant. 11.2.196-197). Another episode pointing to hospitality occurs in 1 Samuel 9:10-27 when Saul and his servant met young women drawing water and point them to Samuel who feeds the strangers. Importantly, Arterbury notes that in both Greco-Roman and Jewish texts it was acceptable for the stranger to greet the host and vice versa and “good manners prohibited Mediterranean hosts from inquiring about the stranger’s identity and origins until after the stranger’s immediate needs were met.”[20] In summary, Arterbury is not suggesting that Alter’s observations add no value to the scholarly conversation, but that the evidence supporting Alter’s hypothesis more appropriately points to the ancient culture of hospitality rather than a betrothal type-scene.
Hospitality and Jesus
Six aspects of the narrative in John 4 describe the social dynamics of hospitality during the first century. First, Jesus passes through the territory of Samaria as a stranger (John 4:4). Historically, according to Josephus, the Samaritans were not necessarily hospitable to strangers, and he tells the story of Samaritans killing certain Galileans passing through their country (Ant. 20.6.1). Jesus’s experience provides a significant contrast. Second, the wearied Jesus sits down to rest beside the well and asks for water from the person that comes to draw water from the well (John 4:6-7; cf. 24:17; 1 Kgs 17:10). Arterbury notes that, as expected when extending hospitality to a stranger in ancient contexts, the stranger attempts to investigate the identity of Jesus by asking indirect questions.[21] Third, Jesus asks the woman to call her husband, which follows the natural progression of a stranger initiating a request to be directed to a hospitable home (John 4:16). Fourth, Jesus’s inexplicable knowledge of the woman’s past prompts the woman to again return to the topic of Jesus’s identity and suggests that He is a prophet (John 4:17-19). Arterbury points out that “traveling prophets were some of the most common guests in Jewish and early Christian hospitality contexts” (e.g., 1 Kgs 17:8-24; Matt 10:5-42; Luke 9:1-6).[22] Fifth, although possibly forced, Arterbury interestingly asserts that Mount Gerizim (John 4:20) points to the topic of hospitability as Antiochus IV decreed the temple be renamed the “Zeus-the-Friend-of Strangers,” which literally means “the God of Hospitality” (2 Macc 6:1-2).[23] Finally, after the woman returns to the city, certain Samaritans from her town extend hospitality to Jesus, and He remains with them for two days (John 4:43). By placing the narrative within the first-century social dynamics of hospitality, the cultural context not only eliminates any motivation by either party of a potential betrothal, but also potentially enhances the interpreter’s understanding of the Samaritan woman.
Hospitality and the Woman
If hospitality rather than betrothal provides the cultural backdrop to the narrative, then the focus may shift from sexual and marital imagery espoused by some scholars to a more culturally refined understanding of the woman. With reference to the woman’s five husbands, Kenneth Gangel concludes the woman “lived outside the boundaries of any religious or cultural standards of her day.”[24] Similarly, D. A. Carson describes the Samaritan woman as “unschooled, without influence, despised, capable only of folk religion.”[25] However, the text does not support such derogatory conclusions. First, although Jesus chastises the woman for living with a man outside of marriage, no reason is given for the previous husbands. In the ancient culture it was often the man’s prerogative to initiate divorce (Deut 24:1-14). Furthermore, some or all the men could have died. According to Jo Ann Davidson, to suggest that the language of John 4:16-18 definitively points to a despised town harlot goes beyond the evidence.[26] Second, the woman was certainly aware of the political situation, as evidenced by her questions regarding the relationship between Samaritans and Jews in John 4:9 and the location of worship in John 4:20. The Samaritan woman also shows a deep curiosity through her questions surrounding Jesus’s identity and His potential as a prophet (John 4:19). Davidson concludes that the woman has a “profound understanding of both Samaritan and Jewish theology.”[2] Finally, the idea that the woman had no influence is undermined by the fact that the people of Samaria followed her to meet Jesus (John 4:39-40). In summary, within a cultural backdrop of hospitality, the encounter may be interpreted as a transformative political and theological discourse where Jesus sees the potential in a Samaritan woman that is unseen by the disciples and many modern commentators.
Conclusion
It is difficult to imagine how a modern reader might appropriately understand Jesus’s encounter with the Samaritan woman without first understanding the history of animosity between the Samaritans and Jews. More specifically, the setting of the narrative, the ethnicity of the woman, and the history of the nations, allow the interpreter to recognize Jesus’s mission of inclusion to the Samaritans, and by extension, to all nations. Furthermore, the ancient cultural dynamics surrounding encounters at water wells also clarifites the meaning of the passage. By understanding the backdrop of ancient hospitality, the interpreter recognizes not only the potential in the Samaritan woman to influence others with Christ’s message of hope, but to engage the implications of her political savvy and theological awareness. Without question, a proper understanding of ancient Samaritan and Jewish history alongside an appreciation of the social dynamics of ancient hospitality provide a backdrop that enhances the understanding of John 4:1-26. From a practical perspective, the research not only encourages the interpreter to be cognizant of the historical, cultural, and social context of a passage, but also, in this case, points to the critical importance of inclusion on the level of people groups as well as individuals regardless of race, culture, or gender.
_____________________________________________
[1] Rainer Riesner, “Archeology and Geography,” ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013), 52.
[2] Clinton E. Arnold, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: John, Acts., vol. 2 (Zondervan, 2002), 47–48.
[3] G. M. M. Pelser, “The Samaritans,” in The New Testament Milieu, ed. A. B. du Toit, vol. 2, Guide to the New Testament (London: Orion, 1998), 17.5.4.
[4] Bernadeta Jojko, “At the Well: An Encounter Beyond the Boundaries (Jn 4:1-42),” Gregorianum 99, no. 1 (2018): 15.
[5] Mervin Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, vol. 10, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 96–97.
[61] Jojko, “At the Well,” 16.
[7] Ibid. Note that in fn 32 Jojko highlights the archaeological evidence from excavations in the 1960s that uncovered the evidence of a large temple structure built on Mount Gerizim beneath a temple to Zeus built by Hadrian subsequent to the destruction of the Samaritan temple.
[8] Jojko, “At the Well,” 17.
[9] Joy Jones-Carmack, “Relational Demography in John 4: Jesus Crossing Cultural Boundaries as Praxis for Christian Leadership,” Feminist Theology 25, no. 1 (September 2016): 46.
[10] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 197.
[11] Jojko, “At the Well,” 18.
[12] Robert Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 52–60.
[13] Ibid., 52.
[14] Mark W. G. Stibbe, John (JSOT Press, 1993), 68.
[15] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 216.
[16] Andrew E Arterbury, “Breaking the Betrothal Bonds: Hospitality in John 4,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72, no. 1 (January 2010): 65.
[17] Andrew Arterbury, Entertaining Angels: Early Christian Hospitality in Its Mediterranean Setting (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005), 132.
[18] See two other examples of Old Testament hospitality in Genesis 19:1-24 and 1 Kings 17:8-24.
[19] Arterbury, “Breaking the Betrothal Bonds,” 67.
[20] Arterbury, “Breaking the Betrothal Bonds,” 77.
[21] Ibid., 78.
[22] Ibid., 78–80.
[23] Kenneth Gangel, Holman New Testament Commentary: John, ed. Max Anders (Nashville: Holman Reference, 2000), 76.
[24] Carson, The Gospel According to John, 216.
[25] Jo Ann Davidson, “John 4: Another Look at the Samaritan Woman,” Andrews University 43, no. 1 (2005): 166–167.
[26] Davidson, “John 4: Another Look,” 166.
Bibliography
- Alter, Robert. Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
- Arnold, Clinton E. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: John, Acts. Vol. 2. Zondervan, 2002.
- Arterbury, Andrew. Entertaining Angels: Early Christian Hospitality in Its Mediterranean Setting. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005.
- Arterbury, Andrew E. “Breaking the Betrothal Bonds: Hospitality in John 4.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72, no. 1 (January 2010): 63–83.
- Breneman, Mervin. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Vol. 10. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993.
- Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
- Davidson, Jo Ann. “John 4: Another Look at the Samaritan Woman.” Andrews University 43, no. 1 (2005): 159–168.
- Gangel, Kenneth. Holman New Testament Commentary: John. Edited by Max Anders. Nashville: Holman Reference, 2000.
- Jojko, Bernadeta. “At the Well: An Encounter Beyond the Boundaries (Jn 4:1-42).” Gregorianum 99, no. 1 (2018): 5–27.
- Jones-Carmack, Joy. “Relational Demography in John 4: Jesus Crossing Cultural Boundaries as Praxis for Christian Leadership.” Feminist Theology 25, no. 1 (September 2016): 41–52.
- Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993.
- Pelser, G. M. M. “The Samaritans.” In The New Testament Milieu, edited by A. B. du Toit. Vol. 2. Guide to the New Testament. London: Orion, 1998.
- Riesner, Rainer. “Archeology and Geography.” Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013.
- Stibbe, Mark W. G. John. JSOT Press, 1993.
