Jesus and the Woman at the Well: A lesson in cross-cultural ministry (Part 1)

Introduction

It is often said that the “The world is getting smaller.” But what does that mean? Intuitively, it is ridiculous to suggest that the world is physically smaller today than it was at any time in the past. Yet it is an unmistakable fact that today it only takes hours to travel the circumference of the earth. Technology, both in travel and communication, makes touching the farthest ends of the earth (and beyond) a reality of everyday life. However, ministry/evangelism in cross-cultural settings is far more complex than simply jumping on a plane or picking up the phone to fulfill Jesus’ Great Commission. Instead, cross-cultural ministry has a systematic, intentional and most importantly a relational element that is essential to any ministry effort. The purpose of this lesson is to take a closer look at the way Jesus modeled cross-cultural ministry generally and how that was practiced more specifically in his encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well recorded in John 4:1-42. First let’s take a look at the biblical text for Part One.

            John 4:1-15

            The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, ² although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. ³ When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. ⁴ Now he had to go through Samaria. ⁵ So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. ⁶ Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour. ⁷ When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” ⁸ (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) ⁹ The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) ¹⁰ Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” ¹¹ “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? ¹² Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?” ¹³ Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, ¹⁴ but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” ¹⁵ The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”

Greater Context

In order to understand the cross-cultural intersection of this Johannine passage, it is essential that the reader have a clear understanding of the greater context within which the passage would have been understood. Jesus’ earthly ministry spanned a geographical area from Judea in the South of Israel to Galilee in the North. Interestingly, Samaria finds its home right between the two. Generally, Jews and Samarians were staunch enemies. Jews believed that they were the true descendants of Abraham while the Samarians were merely half-breeds by inter-marrying with non-Israelites after the Assyrian captivity (721 BC). “The Assyrians colonized the area by settling it with people from a number of Mesopotamian Towns, including Cuthah. These colonists adopted the Israelite faith alongside their own religion and their descendants…are the Samaritans of later times.”[1] Israel believed the Samaritan Torah, priesthood and ritual practices were syncretistic to pagan practices and thereby not only illegitimate but abhorrent. Samaritans, on the other hand, believed they were the true descendants or Abraham. “Samaritans have always believed that they are the direct descendants of a faithful nucleus of ancient Israel. From their perspective, Israel’s apostasy began as early as the time of Eli when the nation’s cultic center was removed from Gerizim to Shiloh (and thence to Jerusalem)…For them, therefore, the question of origins should be directed more toward Judaism than to themselves.”[2] Samaritans believed the true holy mountain was Mt. Gerizim in Samaria not Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. Consequently, Jews and Samaritans had a well known and distinct hatred for one another. Yeshua Ben Sira, author of the deuterocanonical book Sirach (circa 10-175 BCE), states that “His soul is vexed with two ethnic groups, the Edomites…and the Philistines, and especially with a third group which is [the]…‘foolish people’ dwelling in Shechem”[3] (Samaritans). This is the broad historical/geographical context within which this pericope must be understood.

Contrasting Attitudes (vv. 1-3)

These verses seem somewhat out place in this particular section. However, in light of the events of Chapter 3, they provide a paradigm shift between Jesus’ actions among the Jews to his actions among the Samaritans. Specifically, Chapter 3 contains the well known exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus. Nicodemus, a Pharisee, proves to be the perfect opposite to the woman at the well—the focal point of the verses that follow. “Nicodemus was a man, a Jew, and a respected member of society who came to Jesus by night. She was a woman, a Samaritan, and a marginal member of society who encountered Jesus in broad daylight.”[4] There are numerous parallels in the two encounters that must be considered in the overall context of John’s writing. For example, they both encounter Jesus alone, they are both engaged in a conversation with Jesus, Nicodemus acts as a representative of all Jews when he uses the pronoun “we” (John 3:2) when addressing Jesus and the Samaritan woman acts as a representative of all Samaritans when she uses the pronoun “our” and “we” (John 4:20). However, the end result is that although the encounters between Jesus and these two characters have numerous parallels, the end result is that Scripture does not indicate that Nicodemus went away from his encounter any more enlightened then when he arrived (even though he re-enters the scene at Jesus’ death with myrrh and aloe to anoint Jesus’ body) while the Samaritan woman left believing and proclaiming the message to others. Ultimately, this is Jesus’ mission—to bring the light of understanding—the light that is Jesus himself—into the darkness of people’s ignorance and presuppositions of God. “Light and darkness are such prominent Johannine motifs that their presence in the narrative signals important theological meanings.”[5]

Specific Context (vv. 4-6)

In the opening verse of this section, the Greek verb “edei” (meaning “he had to”) has been understood in two different ways. The first view, held by most scholars, is that Jesus passed through Samaria on his way to Galilee because it was the shortest, most convenient route. The only other route from Jerusalem was to cross the Jordan near Jericho, travel through Gentile territory and then cross back again near the Lake of Galilee.

“Popular commentators have sometimes insisted that the longer route through Transjordan was the customary route for Jewish travelers, so great was their aversion to Samaritans; this in turn suggests that the ‘had to’ language (edei) reflects the compulsion of divine appointment, not geography. Josephus, however, provides ample assurance not only that the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans was strong, but also that Jews passing from Judea to Galilee or back nevertheless preferred the shorter route through Samaria.”[6]

This, however, does not explain the use of the word edei by the author. It seems odd to say of Jesus that he “had to” go through Samaria. Why not simply state that Jesus returned to Galilee? In fact, why mention his route at all? Unless, of course, Jesus was compelled in some way to return to Galilee by way of Samaria. Consequently, a divine calling to mission must be considered especially in light of v. 34 that follows.

“Since Jesus lives only for the Father’s will and can do nothing except what he sees the Father doing, there can be no other imperative in his life than the Father’s will. Moreover, viewed positively, the situation of open hostility between the Jews and Samaritans which is well exploited in the passage makes his going there on mission all the more striking. Equally, the extraordinary reception given him by the woman and the Samaritans contrasts sharply with his poor reception by the Jews…Johannine usage of the verb consistently refers to the eschatological necessity of God’s plan of salvation executed by Jesus…Consistent Johannine usage thus leads one to see edei as expressing the divine will for Jesus. In short, his encounters in Samaria form part of his divine mission from the Father.”[7]

Although the precise location of Sychar is not entirely clear, there is no doubt that the area was significant—particularly to Samaritans. Jacob’s well was a central landmark that connected Samaritans to their patriarchal heritage. Joseph’s tomb, located on the piece of land given to him by his father Jacob in Genesis 33, would have been nearby. Also nearby was Shechem which was formerly the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel. And finally, Mt. Garizim where the Samaritans worshipped would also have been near Sychar. In any event, it is in Sychar, amidst these cultural landmarks that Jesus encounters the Samaritan woman.

“Jesus arrived at Jacob’s well about the sixth hour, almost certainly about noon…when the heat of the day and the progress of the journey explains Jesus’ thirst and tiredness.”[8] Here again is an important contrast to Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus who came under the concealment of night versus the Samaritan woman who comes to Jesus during the brightest time of day. “The night blankets both the godly and the wicked, and it is the coming of the light that reveals the true character of each. The light will expose the identity of the wicked, who flee as the dawn removes their concealment, while it reveals the true character of the righteous, who gratefully emerge from the shadows of night to conduct their affairs openly in the broad light of day.”[9] Ultimately, God’s mission and ours are the same—to introduce those who have been living in darkness to the Light of the world that is Jesus (Jn. 8:12).

The Message (vv. 7-15)

While the opening dialogue between Jesus and this woman seems hardly out of place in today’s Western culture, it was wildly out of place in their culture. There would have been countless reasons why Jesus, according to his peers, should not have been talking to this woman. First and foremost was the simple fact that she was a woman. Second, she was a hated Samaritan. And finally, it is possible that she was a woman of poor reputation. The woman herself knows just how out of place her dialogue with Jesus is when she comments on the fact that he is a Jew and she is a Samaritan woman.

“To speak to a Samaritan was bad enough, but Jesus also spoke to a woman in public. Such an act was to trample underfoot the highly revered religious values of the Hebraic community. Remember, the rabbis, who reflected the agrarian-patriarchal values of Jesus’ day, taught: ‘He who talks with a woman [in public] brings evil upon himself’ (Aboth 1:5). Another rabbinic teaching declared: ‘One is not so much as to greet a woman’ (Berakhoth 43b).

Not only did Jesus speak to the woman in public and thereby openly violate one of the rabbinic religious doctrines, but he also did more than just talk; he taught her theology…This was an unthinkable act to a faithful Jewish male. Again, we need to recall that the oral law taught: ‘Let the words of the Law [Torah] be burned rather than taught to women…If a man teaches his daughter the Law, it is as though he taught her lechery’ (Sotah 3:4).”[10]

The Samaritan woman makes it clear that she understands this sentiment with her parenthetical comment that “Jews do not associate with Samaritans.” Or alternatively interpreted as “Jews do not use dishes Samaritans have used.” Although most scholars prefer the former interpretation, the latter would tend to offer an explanation to v. 11 when the woman comments that Jesus has nothing to draw water with. No doubt the woman has something to draw water with since that is why she is there in the first place. However, she obviously assumed that Jesus would never drink or use her vessel or dishes. This is reflective of the “Popular sentiment, to the effect that all ‘daughters of the Samaritans are menstruants from the cradle’ and therefore perpetually in a state of ceremonial uncleanness.”[11] As a consequence, anything a menstruating woman comes in contact with would be considered unclean. Hence, if Jesus were particularly interested in Jewish purity laws as opposed to his mission to reach this woman, he would not touch her water vessel (to say nothing of even talking with her).

What is less obvious from the text is why the woman would be drawing water from the well during the hottest time of the day. Additionally, “Women were more likely to come in groups to fetch water.”[12] However, later verses perhaps shed some light on her social standing when it is revealed that she has had multiple husbands and is living with a man that is not her husband. Therefore it is not unreasonable to suggest that she came to the well alone and in the middle of the day in order to avoid the shame and ridicule of the other women in the community.

Having hereby established the radical nature of Jesus’ actions to this point, it is clear that there are two primary principles of missions being employed by Jesus in this portion of the text. First, we must meet those to whom we have been sent within the context of their own culture. And two, we must be willing to dialogue with those to whom we have been sent. Jesus begins to break down cultural barriers that have existed for centuries by being present in the woman’s culture and engaging in dialogue with her. But missions is an intentional process and Jesus is only beginning the process that will eventually lead to a breakthrough of belief.

In v. 10 Jesus begins to make the transition from his need for water to her need for what Jesus describes as “Living Water.” Nevertheless, “On a physical, non-symbolic level, hunger and thirst are common missionary motifs, hardship which the missionary must bear for the sake of the ‘Good News.’”[13] However, as is often the case when Jesus tries to convey a spiritual truth to his audience, in this case the Samaritan woman, his hearers confuse Jesus’ spiritual meaning with their earthly understanding.

“As a resident of Shechem, the woman knows the location of every water source. But here Jesus says something unexpected: He is able to provide ‘living water.’ ‘Living water’ refers to water that flows as in a spring, river, or stream, that is, moving water. Other water stood still, and one could find it in a well, cistern, or pond…Everyone knew that Shechem had no rivers or streams. Even Jacob had to dig a well in order to water his flocks here. How could a Jewish outsider, someone who barely knew the terrain, offer water that no one else had found? There is no living water in Shechem.”[14]

Instead, the woman fails to realize the theological meaning of Jesus’ use of “Living Water” which is well attested to in the Old Testament where “Yaweh himself can be called the fountain of living water (Jer. 2:13).”[15] Another interesting and relevant point to be gleaned from Jeremiah 2:13 is the fact that the woman is relying on “their own cisterns,” in this case Jacob’s well, both physically and spiritually. Yet the woman clearly has a blind spot to this reality—perhaps because of the Samaritans’ limited use of Scriptures beyond that of the Pentateuch. Nevertheless, Jesus has not yet brought her to the point of considering an alternative meaning. What Jesus has not made clear to this woman, or the reader, is what is meant by his reference to “The gift of God.” But the seed has been planted.

Verse 11 has an interesting parallel to Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus. Recalling part of their discussion, Jesus instructs Nicodemus that he must be “Born again” in order to see the Kingdom of God. And Nicodemus asks Jesus if a man can re-enter the womb and be born again. Likewise, the Samaritan woman seems completely confused when she asks Jesus what he was going to use to draw water and how, since Jacob’s well was so deep. Furthermore, she wants to know how some stranger would insist that he knows a better source of water in Shechem than their revered ancestor, Jacob. Jesus seemed to respond in frustration to Nicodemus’ failure to grasp what Jesus was trying to tell him. This frustration is perhaps the result of trying to teach the Pharisee something he should already have known considering the theological context of his life. However, Jesus demonstrates great patience with the Samaritan woman’s confusion and understands the development processes of human understanding which is crucial in cross-cultural ministry settings. Verse 12 clearly illustrates that the woman is stuck in the box of familiarity. This is a crucial and delicate point in the dialogue. Like all cultures, certain things are considered norms or tradition because their practice or understanding has been passed down through the generations. For example, “The description of Jacob’s giving ‘us’ the well and of his drinking from it, along with his sons and flocks, is not found in the O. T. and could have come from popular tradition in the locality.”[16] These norms or traditions are not necessarily bad or wrong, but they must be acknowledged in order to begin constructing a bridge to a new understanding. Jacob’s legacy in general and this particular well more specifically, is a cornerstone to this woman’s theological construct. Therefore, it is on this cornerstone that Jesus begins building the bridge to a new theological understanding.

In v. 15 Jesus finally gets around to describing the “gift” referred to previously in v. 10. But how is such living water a gift? The answer lies in the means of transfer. V. 10 describes the transaction as a simple request and fulfillment of the request. The key to understanding this gift comes from the Greek word dwvsw (“I will give”) which is primarily understood to mean “To give as an expression of generosity.”[17] There is nothing in the text that would suggest that anything more than a simple request is needed to receive the gift offered by Jesus—the gift of salvation that leads to eternal life. Unfortunately, the Samaritan Scriptures, as previously stated, ended at the Pentateuch or else this woman may have had a better understanding of what Jesus was trying to convey based on God’s promise as recorded in Isaiah 55:1-3 “Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters…that your soul may live.” However, as is common in cross-cultural ministry, understanding is not universal. In other words, not everyone has all knowledge in common. Understanding this reality will likely avoid much frustration and confusion on the part of those conveying the Good News and on the part of those receiving it. This is further illustrated by the woman’s response to Jesus in v.15 when “She asks for the magic water that Jesus has, so that she may not have to come daily for ordinary water!”[18] It is difficult to ascertain the woman’s attitude when making this statement but it wouldn’t be unreasonable to suggest that she was being somewhat disingenuous. Nevertheless, “Although the woman does not know it, her request for ‘this water’ is indeed a request for the blessings of salvation or of life promised in the messianic days.”[19]

Next week we’ll continue with Part Two and begin with: “Perceived Obstacles to Mission.”

---

[1] Craig A. Evans & Stanley E. Porter, eds., Dictionary of New Testament Background, (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 1057.

[2] Ibid., p. 1057

[3] James D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect, (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 119.

[4] Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community,(Minneapolis, MN, Augsburg Fortress Press, 1995), p. 48.

[5] Gary M. Burge, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), p. 139.

[6] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991) p. 216.

[7] Teresa Okure, The Johannine Approach to Mission, (Tubingen, Germany, Gulde-Druck GmbH, 1988) pp. 85-86.

[8] The Gospel According to John, p. 217.

[9] Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, p. 133.

[10] Alvin J. Schmidt, Veiled and Silenced: how culture shaped sexist theology, (Macon, GA, Mercer University Press, 1990) p. 166.

[11] The Gospel According to John, p. 219.

[12] The Gospel According to John, p. 217

[13] The Johannine Approach to Mission, p. 105

[14] The NIV Application Commentary, pp. 143-144.

[15] Colin Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, v. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan Publishing House, 1986) p. 987.

[16] Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, v. 1, (New York, NY, Crossroad Publishing Co.) p. 429.

[17] Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press, 2000) p. 242.

[18] George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary-John, (Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999) p. 61.

[19] The Johannine Approach to Mission, pp. 105-106.