Criswell
Theological Review 3.1 (1988) 127-140.
Copyright © 1988 by The
READING JOHN 4:1-45:
SOME DIVERSE
HERMENEUTICAL PERSPECTIVES
DAVID S.
DOCKERY
I. Introduction
The
present state of NT studies is seemingly headed toward a
hermeneutical impasse. The problem of
interpreting the NT is one to
which we all would like to find a simple unlocking
key, an easy
formula that would enable us to approach a text
and quickly and
certainly establish its meaning. Unfortunately,
there is no simple
answer nor consensus of approaches. It is, however,
possible to indi-
cate some diverse
perspectives that will enable us to wrestle with the
text as we seek to understand it. The problem is not
unique to the NT;
in fact it is a challenge that faces anyone who
would seek to under-
stand anything that somebody else has said or
written, especially if
communicated in a different
language, culture and time period. The
NT
in general, and the Gospel in John in particular,
poses distinct
problems because of its own unique and various
literary characteris-
tics. In our recognition of these challenges that
face us, we must never
lose sight of the fact that we are seeking to
understand the written
Word of God.
Our purpose in this article is to
examine some of the problems
encountered by interpreters of John's Gospel by
focusing our atten-
tion on John 4:1-45, the
familiar story of the "woman at the well."
Following
these general observations, we shall attempt to show how
diverse hermeneutical perspectives would view
key aspects of this
passage. We shall examine the passage from three
levels or perspec-
tives: 1) an
"author-oriented" approach; 2) a "text-oriented" approach;
128
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
and 3) a "reader-oriented" approach.l In a brief paper of this type, it
should be recognized that it is beyond the scope and
purpose to do
detailed exegesis of the John 4 passage or to
discuss the three theo-
retical bases of the different
approaches, though we shall attempt
some analysis and evaluation.
II. "The Woman at the Well:" Some General Observations
Following the statement in John
2:25, "He (Jesus) did not need
man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in
man," The
Gospel
proceeds to give examples of two very different people that
Jesus
knew. The accounts in chaps 3 and 4 indicate the different needs
and world-views of the people who encountered
Jesus. These stories
are among the most familiar found in the Gospels.
The first concerns
Nicodemus,
a ruler and teacher of the Jews and the second concerns a
Samaritan Woman. Both accounts, in
different ways, show the need of
all people to come to realize that "Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of the
Living God" (John 20:30-31). Yet, the differences in
these accounts
are tremendous. These enormous contrasts can be
illustrated by the
following observations:
Chap 3 Chap 4
Nicodemus Samaritan Woman
Place
Time By night About 6 p.m.
Occasion Planned Visit By Chance
Content Theological Practical
Initiator Nicodemus Jesus
Ethnic Group Jew Samaritan
Social Status Highly respected Despised Woman
ruler/teacher
Sex Male Female
1 For
"author-oriented" approaches, see the discussion in E. D. Hirsch,
Jr., Validity
in Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976);
for "text-oriented"
approaches, see P. Ricoeur,
Interpretation Theory (
versity Press, 1976); and
"reader-oriented" approaches, see H.-G. Gadamer,
Truth and
Method (tr. G. Borden and J.
Cumming;
J.
Derrida, Speech and Phenomena (ed.
and cr. D. B. Allison;
University Press, 1973). From the standpoint of
biblical studies, a broad survey can be
found in the reader by K. McKim,
editor, A Guide to Contemporary
Hermeneutics
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986).
Dockery: READING JOHN
4:1-45 129
Chap 3 Chap 4
Nicodemus Samaritan Woman
Attitude Serious, polite, Flippant, initially hostile,
calls Jesus Rabbi then respect
Form Dialogue to Dialogue throughout
monologue
Religious Moral, religiously Immoral, heterodox,
Conviction orthodox irreligious
Education Learned No
formal training
indicated
Result Not mentioned Woman converted, she
proclaimed gospel and
others came to believe
John 4 opens with an allusion to the
threat posed by the Pharisees
(4:1,3); There is a proleptic
reference to Jesus' rejection (4:44; cf.
1:11),
but the rest of the chapter is positive. Jesus is making more
disciples than John (4:1). He encounters the
Samaritan woman in
what is John's fourth account of Jesus' ministry in
who by Jewish standards had made a mess of her
life, was an outcast
in society. Into her life enters Jesus with a
unique and gentle sensi-
tivity that led the woman
beyond any relationship she probably
thought was ever possible.2
The passage has a clear structure
dominated by two major dia-
logues of Jesus. After the
introduction in 1-6, we find the dialogue of
Jesus with the Samaritan woman. This contains two
distinct themes;
in 6-18 the living water from Christ,3
in 19-26 the worship that the
Father
seeks.4 The dialogue of Jesus with the
disciples in 31-38 is set
between two paragraphs, 27-30 describing the
witness of the Samari-
tan woman to the people of Sychar
and 39-45 recounting their
conversion.5 The dramatic nature of
the second episode has been
2 Cf. R. A. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel (
198;3) 91, 136-37.
3 The emphasis in the
interpretation of the early church fathers is focused upon
the "living water," although the
"water" is interpreted in numerous symbolic ways (so
Ireneaus, Origen, Cyprian, Cyril, Theodore and Chrysostom). See the discussion in
M.
F. Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel (
4 C. K. Barrett, Essays on John (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1982) 14-16, focuses
on the concept of worship in 19-26 as central to
this story. Not only does he find it
important for understanding this story, but
central to the entire Gospel. On page 14, he
says, "I suggest, however, that it may be
profitable to consider John 4:19-26 as a further
summary of what John intended to achieve in
writing his book."
5 G. R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC; Waco: Word, 1987) 56-59.
130 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
frequently noted. C. H. Dodd likened it to a drama
with action taking
place on two stages. On the one stage Jesus is
conversing with his
disciples (31-38), while on another stage the
woman speaks to the
townspeople of Sychar, and
persuades them to come and see Jesus
(28-39).
The two groups then come together and move to the
town;
the scene concludes with a declaration of the
people of Sychar, like
the final chorus of a play, summing up the movement
of the whole.6
III. Challenges Facing Interpreters of John 4
An initial, and important, stage in
understanding the text is a
study of the background of the passage.7
After the interpreter trans-
lates the passage, the
geography of the text's setting, the historical
state of Jewish-Samaritan relationships and other
cultural matters
must be considered. This step is more important for
those who seek
to interpret the passage from the standpoint of
the biblical author
than for those who choose to emphasize the reader's
perspective. Also
beneficial will be a knowledge of the book's
author/editor and his
community, as well as the intended audience.
Similarly it is important
to have an idea of the author's possible sources.
With regard to this
matter in our present story we must ask where did our
author obtain
this particular account? Some parts of the story
contain a private
conversation between Jesus and the
woman. The interpreter must
seek to determine which of these two passed the
story on to the
author? If it was both, did the story take different
shapes and
emphases? Has John created the story or shaped it
in a manner he
thought appropriate? These are different
questions and are relevant to
the historical nature of the account. Do we have a
historical report
about an actual conversation or a narrative developed
by the evange-
list to bring out points which he thought important
for his readers or a
mixture of these two?8
6 C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (
Press, 1953) 315.
7 I am deeply indebted to
the work of I. H. Marshall at this point. See
"The
Problem of New Testament Exegesis" JETS
17 (1974) 67-73; also see Gordon
Fee, New
Testament Exegesis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985).
8 Johannine
scholars differ over these questions. Note R. Bultmann,
The Gospel of
John, (tr. G. R.
Beasley-Murray;
guish between tradition and Johannine additions. He finds little historical material in
the fourth gospel, On the other hand, R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB;
2
vols; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966) affirms that, the
narrative rests upon tradition
and the tradition has a historical basis. F. F.
Bruce, The Gospel of John (
Eerdmans, 1983) and L. Morris, The Gospel According to John (
mans, 1971) in general affirm the historical nature
of the Johannine accounts. "Text" and
Dockery: READING JOHN
4:1-45 131
The next question for the
interpreter is an identification of the
genre of our text.9 Having recognized John
4 as narrative discourse,
we must ask what is the form and function of the
narrative? This
leads to questions regarding the purpose of the story
in the overall
Gospel,
its place in the Gospel and its literary context.10 Many under-
stand the final verses in chap 20 as representative
of the Gospel's
overall purpose, "Jesus did many other
miraculous signs in the pres-
ence of his disciples, which
are not recorded in this book. But these
are written that you may believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of
God, and that by believing you may have life in his
name" (John
20:30-31).
Understanding this purpose, our account in John 4 is not
just a moving story, but it must be seen to function
within the
Gospel's overall purpose. This, however, still
leaves many questions
unanswered.
Is the story of the Samaritan woman
to be read in light of chap 3
indicating that all kinds of people need to know
and respond to the
Gospel
message?11 Perhaps a similar function is to
show that non-Jews
(Samaritans)
can also participate in the blessings of the Gospel.12
A.
M. Hunter has suggested the point of the story is the contrast
between the old ways of the Jews and the
Samaritans--symbolized
by water in wells--and the new life offered by
Jesus and symbolized
by the living water.13 Perhaps all of
these insights are valid and add
fullness to our understanding of the story.
Once we understand the function of
the passage, we can press
further questions about the form and meaning of
the story. If the text
is a historical narrative, does this mean it has
to be understood
literally? If we attempt to understand the text
from the author's
standpoint, does this mean we cannot read the text
symbolically,
typologically, allegorically, or
existentially? Are multiple meanings
"reader" approaches tend to be less concerned with
historical questions though Cul-
pepper, Anatomy, 236, asks whether "his
story" can be true if it is not "history."
9 Cf. C. H. Talbert, What is a Gospel?: The
Genre of the Canonical Gospels
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).
10 The best understanding
of the form and function of the narrative in John's
Gospel
is found in Culpepper, Anatomy. An
insightful perspective on the purpose of
the fourth gospel can be found in D. A. Carson,
"The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel:
John
20:31 Reconsidered" JBL 106
(1987) 639-51.
11 Many interpreters take
this approach following the great Anglican commen-
tator, B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (
1892) 67ff.
12 J. Marsh, The Gospel of
13 A. M. Hunter, The Gospel According to John (CBC;
Press, 1965). This echoes many of the
approaches found in the early church fathers. See
n 3 above.
132
CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
possible? Are multiple meanings intended by the
author?14 We shall
look at some of these ,issues in the next section.
IV. Various Hermeneutical Perspectives
A.
Author-Oriented/Historical Perspective
This hermeneutical approach seeks to
discover what the text
meant in the mind of the original author for the
intended audience.
Such
interpretation attempts to discover the meaning of the passage
in its literary and historical context. This
produces a dialogue relation-
ship between chap 4 and the entire Gospel in its
literary settings as
well as the event and its historical background.
The Johannine
intention appears to be threefold: 1) to proclaim
the gift of the "living water," 2) to
prioritize the worship of the Father
"in Spirit and in truth," and 3) to explain the mission
to non-Jews.
These
are all bound together by the ministry of Jesus Christ, which
includes tasks of revealing God, redeeming
humankind and mediating
between God and his people.15 The point of the pericope
is that the
woman had no understanding of what it meant to drink
the living
water till it dawned on her, however inadequately and
crudely, that
she stood face to face with the one who "will
make known everything
to us"--the Messiah. John intended his readers
to understand that she
drank the "living water" and thus entered
into a new relationship with
Jesus
and that her fellow townsfolk did so as well (vv 39-42).16
Jesus revealed himself to her,
"I am the Messiah" (v 26), in a most
unusual way. It was his clearest
self-declaration of his person and
mission found in the Gospel. Normally in Jesus'
ministry, he veiled his
identity and his office by use of other sayings
like "Son of Man." In
Galilee
and
been misunderstood in political terms. But with the
Samaritans, the
dangers of revolt by national zealots were not
problematic.17 John has
presented the woman persistently attempting to
avoid the issues that
14 R. Shedd,
"Multiple Meanings in the Gospel of John" Current Issues in Biblical
and Patristic Interpretation, (ed. G. F. Hawthorne;
249-58.
For instance, the word "living" used to describe the water that Jesus
offers to
the woman can mean "running" as opposed
to stagnant or still water. Perhaps this
misunderstanding is a key to proper understanding
in the story. How can this be com-
municated in the translation? Is
double meaning the key to understanding Johannine
misunderstandings? See D. A. Carson,
"Understanding Misunderstanding in the Fourth
Gospel"
Tyn Bul 33 (1982)
59-91; and Barrett, "Paradox and Dualism" Essays on John
98-115.
15 Beasley-Murray,
John, 65.
16 Ibid.,
65-66.
17 Morris, Gospel According to John, 273.
Dockery: READING JOHN
4:1-45 133
Jesus
raised. But equally persistent, Jesus re-raised the
issues for her
until the desired results were secured. At first
glance, she caught sight
of a thirsty man, she was startled when a Jew
spoke to her and she
indicated her dislike of the Jew and her flippancy
toward religious
matters. Finally, however, she was swept off her
feet by the prophet
and she came to adore, worship and proclaim Jesus
as Messiah and
Lord.
B.
Text-Oriented Approach
Johannine
scholars such as C. H. Dodd, Alan Culpepper and Paul
Duke
have detected a kind of dramatic form in the way the story is
told.18 The story is presented
like a play on two stages with the center
of interest shifting to and fro from the well to
the town, from the
woman to the townspeople to the disciples.19
It might also be observed that John
4 finds many parallels with
chap 19. R. H. Lightfoot has noted that the same
time (the sixth
hour--4:7; 19:14) indicates a close theological
relationship.20 In both
chapters we read of Jesus' physical distress
(4:16; 19:1) and of his
thirst (4:17; 19:28). Both chapters make reference to
the completion of
his work (4:34; 19:30 where we find related Greek
verbs for "com-
plete"). In 4:42, Jesus
is called "the savior of the world" and John may
accordingly be recalling particular incidents which
point to the passion
where salvation for humankind was provided.
Duke finds intertextual
keys to understanding the drama.21 He
observed the situation is precisely that of some
OT stories in which a
man meets a woman at a well (Gen 24:10-61; 29:1-20;
Exod 2:15-
21).22
The common themes and structure can be identified: 1)
a man is
traveling in a foreign land; 2) he goes to a well;
3) he meets there a
maiden; 4) water is given; 5) the woman hurriedly runs
home to tell;
6)
the man is invited to stay; and 7) a betrothal is
concluded. When
Jesus
ventures into a foreign country and meets a woman at a well,
the properly conditioned reader of the text will
immediately assume
some overtone of courtship, especially since this
narrative follows a
story attributed to the bridegroom (2:11), a title
given to Jesus in 3:29.
While
the woman is ignorant of Jesus identity, the reader knows that
18 Dodd, Interpretation, 315; Culpepper, Anatomy, 136-37; P. Duke, Irony in the
Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox,
1985) 100-103.
19 See Culpepper's
approach (Anatomy, 72-73) where he
finds a similar type
drama in John 9.
20 R.
H. Lightfoot,
21 Duke, Irony, 101.
22 R. C. Culley, Studies in
the Structure of Hebrew Narrative (
Fortress,
1976) 41-43; N. R. Bonneau, "The Woman at the
Well: John 4 and Genesis 24"
The Bible Today 67 (1973) 1252-59.
134
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Jesus
is the Christ, the Logos, the Bridegroom who will win
this
woman to himself.
The text is irony-filled as
exemplified by the initial scene in the
drama. Jesus greets the woman with, a request for
water (cf. Gen
24:12),
which is most ironic in view of who will eventually give water
to whom. Jesus is a Jewish male conversing with a
Samaritan female.
He
has burst the bonds of his people's circle so that the woman
herself is taken-back. Jesus does not answer her
objections, instead he
suggests that she does not know the one talking
with her (v 10). The
emphasis on her ignorance serves dramatically to
increase the sense of
difference between them. The woman
misunderstands u!dwr
to> zw?n
(spring water, running water, living water) reminding him she
lacks
the necessary vessel to carry it. Jesus notes that
his gift of water
relieves thirst forever, the woman, impressed,
but confused, replies
"ku<rie (sir, lord) give me
this water that I may not thirst anymore, nor
come here to draw" (v 15).23 The
element of the gift of water in the
betrothal scene has been elaborated in an
eight-verse interchange by
means of irony, double meaning and misunderstanding.
As Duke has
noted,
Such expansion functions not only to
underline the symbolic significance
of water,
but also to mark the gradual and inexorable movement of the
two
characters toward each other. In the betrothal type-scenes the
drawing of
water is the act that emblematically establishes a bond-
male-female,
host-guest, benefactor-benefited. In elaborating Jesus
offering of
water and the woman's dawning (though misdirected) desire
for it, the
author (the text dramatizes how Jesus draws her to himself.24
The next scene creates new interest.
Jesus asks her to get her
husband and she replies that she has none. This
is what is to be
expected in this type of scene, but there is a
unique turn in the
conversation by Jesus' new
revelation that startles the woman and
readers alike. She is unmarried but not because
she is a maiden, but
because she has been divorced five times and is
currently involved
with another man, who is not her husband. The scene
thus ironically
differs from the Old Testament parallels. The OT
scenes feature a
na’ara (a
young woman whose virginity is assumed, Gen 24:16). Yet,
when the heavenly Bridegroom plays this scene, his
opposite turns out
23 Significantly, she addresses
him as kurie-meaning
for now, "sir," but for
Christian readers and progressively for herself,
"Lord."
Kurie, may
also, interestingly
enough, mean "husband" (Gen 18:12 LXX; I Pet
3:6). See Brown (John I, 170) who
observes the likely progression in the woman's
use of kurie
in II, 15, 19; also see
W.
Foerster, "kurios" TDNT (1965) 3.1043. See Duke, Irony,
101-2.
24 Duke, Irony, 102.
Dockery: READING JOHN
4:1-45 135
to be less than a virtuous young maiden. He
identifies himself in this
action, not with innocence, but with a guilty,
wounded, downhearted
and estranged person, typical of fallen humanity.
The next scene focuses upon Jesus'
identity. She seeks, unsuccess-
fully, to change the subject and speaks of the
Messiah in the third
person. She does not realize Jesus is the Messiah
himself. The scene
closes with Jesus' revelation that he is the Messiah.
As she exits, the
disciples return from their meal and the woman
goes to tell the village
people about her encounter with Jesus.
This approach is related to and
focuses upon the text, its context
and broader biblical texts. Reading the text in
this fashion is not
symbolism or allegory, but it may exceed the
intention of the author
as well as possibly, though not necessarily, imply
that such an encoun-
ter did not really
transpire. It also raises the question about the proper
use of modern literary theories to understand
ancient texts.
C.
Reader-Oriented Approaches
1. Allegorical/Symbolical. Early Church fathers, especially the
Alexandrians,
read this story and most other biblical accounts from an
allegorical perspective.25 An example of
this interpretation can be
found in the mention of the woman's five husbands. It
has been
suggested that the husbands represent the five
false gods of the
Samaritans
(cf. 2 Kgs 17:30) and this relates to the
condemnation of
Samaritan
piety in John 4:22.26
A favorite task among the
allegorical readers is the identity of the
"water." Water is understood not as real water, but as a
variety of
religious symbols.27 Interpreters of
different time periods find rele-
vant and understandable
symbols that communicate to their various
readers.
2. Existential. Another school of thought interprets the story
existentially through the framework
of Heidegger. The story is read
as an expression of the way a person comes to
self-awareness regard-
ing his or her being and
enters into authentic existence. R. Bultmann
25 See the excellent
analysis of this approach in J. W. Trigg, Origen: The Bible and
Philosophy in the Third
Century
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1983) 87-129.
26 E. C. Hoskyns and F. N. Davey, The Fourth Gospel (
Faber, 1947) 242-44.
27 See Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel, 46-49; Brown, John, 1, 178-80; and G. E.
Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 257-58, for
helpful comments on the symbolism of
"water" and its relationship to the Holy Spirit
and to the eschatological eternal life.
136
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
describes vv 16-19 as "revelation as the
disclosure of man's being."28
The
ideas of a gift of salvation and of faith in the traditional sense
disappear, and are replaced by categories drawn
from existentialist
philosophy.29 I, along with many,
would conclude that this is a reading
into the text, not an appropriate reading of the
text.30
3. Pastoral. A very popular reading of this story is to see it as an
example of how Jesus dealt pastorally with the
woman in leading her
to conversion.31 It is seen as an
example of sensitive, gentle, pastoral
ministry. It is pointed out that Jesus did not
violate her selfhood in
leading her to understanding.32 The
story, then is seen as a model for
Jesus'
followers in succeeding generations of how to employ their
oWn activity of personal
evangelism.33
4. Feminist. In the contemporary world of NT scholarship, per-
haps the ultimate example of a reader-oriented
approach is that
offered by some feminist biblical scholars such
as L. Russell,
renza and others. This should
be distinguished from evangelical femi-
nism which seeks a more
objective understanding of the text. The
hermeneutical concerns of these
contemporary feminists are beyond
attempts to see women as equal to men. They are
also concerned
about matters beyond finding balance in translation
to avoid sexist
language and questions regarding patriarchal
readings in the biblical
text. Rather, these scholars proceed from the
vantage point that
oppressive, male-dominated, biblical texts cannot
claim to be the
Word
of God and so must be the words of men. This hermeneutic of
liberation either reads biblical texts from a
feminist perspective or
rejects the accounts if the feminist reading
cannot be attained.34 For
these readers, the significance of the John 4 story
is that it shows that
Jesus'
mission was extended by women, especially to non-Israelites.
Women
were the first non-Jews to become members of the Jesus
movement. The Samaritan woman's attempts to turn
the conversation
away from Jesus' directions indicate her stand
"against limiting the
28 Bultmann, John,
187.
29 See J. M. Robinson and
J. B. Cobb, Jr., The Later Heidegger (
Harper and Row, 1967).
30 See R. Schnackenburg, The
Gospel According to St. John, translated by
C.
Hastings (3 vols;
31 G. L. Borshert, The Dynamics of
Evangelism (Waco: Word, 1976) 61-62.
32 G.
L. Borchert, Assurance
and Warning (Nashville: Broadman, 1987) 106-107.
33 W.
1.65-68.
34 Ct. E. S. Fiorenza, Bread Not
Stone (New York: Crossroad, 1984).
Dockery: READING JOHN
4:1-45 137
inclusive messianic table community of Jesus to
theological argument from the mouth of the woman
signifies the
historical leadership women had opening up Jesus'
movement and
community to non-Israelites. The woman is thus
representative of an
exemplary disciple: an apostolic witness.36
Feminist interpreters, in general,
are reacting to the type of
interpretation employed by the likes
of A. Edersheim in his classic
volume, Life and
Times of Jesus the Messiah.37 Edersheim
grounds,
the Samaritan woman into the dust with little
justification, referring to
her in pejorative terms of indignant poverty and
ignorance. He then
adds in condescending fashion that those who know
how difficult it is
to "lodge any idea in the mind of the
uneducated rustics in this
country will understand how utterly at a loss
this Samaritan country
woman must have been to grasp the meaning of
Jesus."38 Evangelical
feminists are quick to point out how little
evidence is in the biblical
text regarding her supposed stupidity. She may not
have had the
education of Nicodemus (John 3), but she at once
recognized Jesus as
a Jew and showed no ignorance of her own
country's history or
religion. She grasped the physical level of Jesus'
words easily. Her
misunderstanding was a spiritual
problem, not one of ignorance. And,
in fact, she grasped spiritual truths more quickly
than did the learned
Nicodemus.39
All feminists are equally affirming
of Jesus' treatment of women
by finding specific points in the text that can be
emphasized. Without
question, Jesus violated common cultural codes to
relate to the woman
as evidenced by her own response as well as the
disciples (his disciples
returned and were shocked to find him
"speaking to a woman").
These
readers note, without hesitation, that it is to a woman that Jesus
revealed himself as Messiah in a straightforward
way for the first time
in the fourth Gospel.
She immediately bore witness of
Jesus' messiahship to her villa-
gers. Her testimony carried
great weight among the villagers because
35 E. S. Fiorenza, In Memory
of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of
Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad,
1983) 138.
36 Ibid.,
327.
37 A. Edersheim,
Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
(1886;
Eerdmans, reprint 1965).
38 Ibid. Edersheim's comments about "this country" refer
to his own
the 1880's. I am sure that many had difficulty
reading the learned and erudite
sheim. In his discussion of
John 4 alone there is one sentence 129 words long and
another 118.
39 See D. R. Pape, In Search of
God's Ideal Woman (
1976) 58-00.
138
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
they came out to see Jesus and believed on account
of her testimony.
It
cannot be denied that the biblical text affirms the witnessing role of
the Samaritan woman which is underscored by the Johannine lan-
guage.40 The villagers
"believed because of her word" (e]pi<steusan
dia>
to>n lo<gon) are nearly identical words to those of Jesus'
"priestly"
prayer when he prays not only for the disciples,
"but also for those
who believe in me through their word (pisteu<onton dia> tou?
lo<gou,
John
17:20). Certainly, it can be said that the Samaritan woman
preached the "good news" of Jesus (eu]agge<lion); thus she was an
evangelist. Most likely, these observations have
become more obvious
because of the concerns of feminist readers.
Yet, these final observa-
tions are not read into the
text, but are read out of the text. They may
not have been seen because of the biases of
traditional (male?) read-
ings of the Gospel. The
ministry of the Samaritan woman is high-
lighted through the concerns of the feminist
scholars, but these final
observations, in contrast to Fiorenza's readings mentioned above, are
grounded in the text itself and may very well
have been a part of the
author's purpose in telling this story.
V. Conclusions
In this essay, we have examined
certain hermeneutical issues
involved in seeking to understand John 4:1-45.
The task and the
various possibilities presented can seem
overwhelming and bewil-
dering. Following such a
survey of hermeneutical perspectives, we
may ask if it is possible to affirm in any sense
the; doctrine of the
perspicuity of Holy Scripture? Hopefully, the result
of our outline will
not be despair and discouragement. It does,
however, affirm and
underscore the complexity of the task.
We have noted that following
textual, background, linguistic and
grammatical concerns, we are still faced with three
levels of under-
standing: 1) the authorial level,41 2)
the textual level, and 3) the reader
level. We are forced to ask if there are valid
interpretations at any or
40 L. Swidler,
Biblical Affirmations of Women
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979)
189-91;
also R. E. Brown, "Roles of Women in the Fourth Gospel" Theological Studies
36 (1975) 691.
41 R. T. Fortna, The Gospel of
Signs (Cambridge: University Press, 1970) has
noted that at the authorial level, there may be a
number of mezzanine levels at which
the significance of traditions, sources, and
redactors, in addition to the Johannine
community must be considered. The narrative
material may have had one meaning in
its historical setting, another in its traditional
development and another for the Johan-
nine community and the author of the canonical text.
Dockery: Reading John 4:1-45 139
all of the levels. Is it possible that levels two
or three consciously are
not a part of the Johannine
purpose, yet still provide valid insights
consistent with his overall message?
It seems that an important
distinction must be made between
exegesis and hermeneutics, terms often confused
or used synony-
mously. Exegesis must be
limited to the authorial level as it seeks to
discover what the text meant in the mind of its
original author/editor
for the intended audience. Exegesis seeks to
account sufficiently and
adequately for the historical and literary features
of the text in its
context. Hermeneutics on the other hand is an
attempt to understand
the meaning of the text for the contemporary
readers, thus granting
the viability of the second and third levels we
have considered.
The
key, however, seems to be in the words mentioned above: are the
meanings in levels two and three consistent developments of the
author's purpose in the text the overall context
of the author's entire
message? Thus, we certainly can affirm the
appropriateness of a
textual-level approach. The
reader-oriented approach, on the other
hand, seemingly opens up endless meanings to texts,
limited only by
the reader's context, situation and imagination.
For instance, we would
gladly recognize the "pastoral" reading of
the text as an appropriate
view of John 4, though perhaps beyond the original
intention of John.
In
light of John's purpose statement in chap 20, the story should be
seen from the standpoint of the woman as an
unbeliever other than
Jesus as an evangelist. Readers are to identify
with the woman and
acknowledge their own need of Jesus as Savior and
Lord. Yet, for
believers to identify with Jesus as a model for
discipleship is certainly
consistent with the overall biblical picture and
the Church's historic
mission. The feminist readings that shed light
on biases and short-
comings of traditional interpretations are
welcomed, though the radi-
cal feminist approaches, as well as the
existentialist perspectives,
should be questioned regarding their consistent
developments of the
Johannine
purpose and message.
Does this not leave us with what the
Church has historically
called the sensus plenior in Scripture.42 Recognizing the
Bible as a
divine-human book, it is possible,
even likely, that inspiration may
give a passage a deeper meaning unknown (or at least
not fully
known) by the human author/editor. For instance, to
what degree
was Isaiah aware of the glory of Jesus as alluded
to by John in 12:41?
Would
we, in a pre-Christian context, have found the "glory of Jesus"
42 See s. N. Schneiders, "Faith, Hermeneutics and the Literal Sense
of Scripture"
Theological Studies 39 (1987) 719-36.
140
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
in Isaiah's writings in the same way? It certainly
appears that divine
inspiration adds a fullness to the biblical texts'
meaning beyond the
human author's own perspective.
What does this say then about an
objective reading of Holy
Scripture? We want to affirm with Hirsch that the
biblical author's
meaning is the initial goal of exegesis and
hermeneutics. Furthermore,
we want to maintain, contrary to Gadamer, that this meaning is
discoverable through dedicated
effort by the interpreter to reach back
and read the biblical text in its original context
and settings. Yet, with
Gadamer we likewise affirm that our
understanding is in some sense
limited. We also agree with Gadamer
that the text must be expounded
for contemporary readers so that they are placed in
a position to
experience the original impact of the story. What
results is a recogni-
tion of two important, yet
different horizons,43 or a two-way conver-
sation between ancient text
and contemporary reader. The initial
concerns must be with the external features of
the text and the context
in which it was placed. Beyond these are the
concerns with the
internal life of the text, how the text impacts
the present-day audience.
We
cannot afford to ignore either horizon, nor can we let the contem-
porary horizon drown the
objective meaning found in Scripture. Thus
norms and principles essential to historical and
literary methodologies
are incorporated into the theological
interpretation, serving to guide
and oversee contemporary significance, exposition
and application.
43 Cf. Thiselton, Two
Horizons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: