Untitled Sermon

John 4:15–26 KJV 1900

The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

4:11 you have no bucket The woman misunderstands Jesus as speaking of literal water; this is reasonable based on the use of “living water” as an idiom for spring water (see note on John 4:10). Misunderstanding often comes before spiritual insight in John’s Gospel (see note on 2:21; note on 3:4).

 Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., … Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (Jn 4:11). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

FSB • John 4:15–26

4:15 come here to draw She still misunderstands Jesus, believing they are talking about literal water. See note on v. 11.

4:17 I do not have a husband The woman’s answer seems intended to politely deflect further discussion of the subject.

4:18 five husbands This Greek word can mean “man” or “husband.” If the woman had five previous husbands who either died or divorced her, she would have exceeded the traditional limit of three husbands in Jewish law (according to the rabbinic text Babylonian Talmud Yebamot 64b; Niddah 64a). However, the ambiguity of the word suggests the possibility that none of the five was a legal husband just as the current man is not her husband. This comment also reveals a reason why Jesus chose to speak with her about her place before God.

4:19 a prophet Jesus’ exceptional knowledge of her affairs yields the concession that He must be a prophet. The Samaritans expected a prophetic Messiah. See note on 1:21 and compare v. 25.

4:20 this mountain Refers to Mount Gerizim, the holy mountain for the Samaritan community. The mountain was visible from the well where Jesus and the woman were speaking.

you people say The woman moves quickly to change the subject from her immoral lifestyle to the ongoing religious controversy between the Jews and Samaritans over sacred space.

4:21 neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem Jesus does not take up the debate over legitimate holy places. Rather, he points to a future time of salvation when worship will not be limited to any local sacred site, neither Mount Gerizim nor Jerusalem. How one worships is more important than where one worships.

4:22 You worship what you do not know In the Greek text, the word for “you” is plural. See note on v. 20.

salvation is from the Jews Jesus probably is alluding to the Jews’ preservation of the entire ot Scriptures that revealed God’s plan for salvation. Also, the Messiah would be from the Jews, a son of David—not a Samaritan or Gentile.

4:23 an hour is coming—and now is here A unique expression in the Gospel of John that conveys both future expectation and present reality. Jesus’ work in the present inaugurates a new phase in redemptive history. Jesus’ phrasing also echoes the language of the ot prophets (Jer 31:31; 2 Kgs 20:17).

spirit and truth Authentic worship involves an inward change of heart, not just outward observance. Real followers of God worship in complete sincerity.

4:25 Messiah The Samaritans expected a deliverer called the taheb or “Returning One” who fulfilled the promise of a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15–18). Compare note on John 1:20; note on 1:41.

4:26 am he Jesus rarely confirms being the Messiah, probably due to expectations of political deliverance among Jews. The Samaritan concept of a Messiah was linked more to the restoration of proper worship of God. This is one of the “I am” sayings in John’s Gospel.

Jesus’ ‘I Am’ Statements Table

4:27 he was speaking with a woman It would have been unusual for a rabbi (like Jesus) or any Jewish man to converse publicly with a woman. Jewish teaching warned against spending too much time talking with women because of temptation and the appearance of impropriety. Through this interaction, Jesus is showing care for the lowliest of people in the eyes of Jews.

4:28 water jar A clay vessel made for carrying water. In her haste to tell the townspeople about Jesus, she abandons the original purpose of her trip to the well.

4:29 Perhaps this one is the Christ The woman’s question implies hesitation and doubt. The Greek text indicates that a negative response is expected: “This cannot be the Messiah, can it?”

4:31 Rabbi See note on John 1:38.

4:32 I have food to eat Just as with the Samaritan woman and the metaphor of living water, Jesus uses tangible physical things to teach intangible spiritual truths.

4:33 No one brought him anything to eat Just like the woman at the well (v. 11) and Nicodemus (3:4), the disciples misunderstand Jesus.

4:34 will of the one who sent me Jesus’ mission is more important than His need to eat. Compare Matt 4:4.

4:35 yet four months and the harvest comes Harvest imagery has overtones of end-time abundance (compare Joel 2:18–27). Jesus draws on a common proverb about a lack of urgency to emphasize the immediacy of His work. Compare Matt 9:37–38.

they are white for harvest Jesus may be alluding to the imminent encounter with the Samaritans who will believe in Him (John 4:39–42). Either way, the time to bring people into God’s kingdom is now—they’re as prepared as they will ever be.

4:37 one who sows and another who reaps The sowing was the expectation of the prophet laid out in Deut 18:18. The reaping will be the belief of the Samaritans. Jesus emphasizes that it’s not always the one who first tells someone about salvation (as the prophets had done for the Samaritans) who brings them to belief, but often it’s those who come later. No matter who reaps, God alone deserves the credit.

4:39 because of the word of the woman The testimony of a woman had little weight, and this particular woman’s reputation would have further weakened the credibility of her witness. Also, she framed her declaration in a hesitant, negative way that did not invite a positive response to Jesus (see note on John 4:29). That “many of the Samaritans believed” despite these obstacles underscores the divine work in preparing the harvest.

4:42 Savior of the world The salvation of a large group of Samaritans provides a glimpse of the universal nature of God’s plan of salvation. Compare Acts 1:8, where the disciples are sent to Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, and the whole world.1

1 Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., … Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (Jn 4:15–42). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

4:16–18 What the woman heard next was the surprise of her life because Jesus related her need for water to the ethics of her sexual activity (4:16). If anyone ever tells you that religion ought to stick to its business of saving souls and stay out of ethical issues of life, do not believe it. That was not the pattern of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, and it certainly was not the way of Jesus with this woman. In order to make it possible for the woman to receive the living water about which Jesus spoke, it would be necessary for her to deal with the tragic nature of her sinful life. Therefore Jesus confronted the woman with her life. When she tried to avoid the issue of a husband (4:17), just as she apparently sought to avoid coming for water along with the other women, Jesus spelled out clearly her ethical problem. After experimenting with five husbands (which should not be allegorized), she no longer found the marriage ritual necessary (4:18). Jewish tradition permitted three husbands, but she obviously had long passed that more lenient rule.171 When she said she had no husband at that time, she had in fact stumbled onto an important idea with Jesus—the idea of truth (alēthes, 4:18). Jesus therefore noted this fact clearly.

4:19–20 The time for truth had come, but the story indicates she was not yet ready to accept its implications. So she sought another tangent or route of avoidance. Again she addressed him as “Sir” (kyrie), and then she raised a major issue by stating, “I can see [sense] that you are a prophet.” Whether she made this observation as an off-handed comment or as a statement of her profound respect for Jesus is not entirely clear. Some interpreters have suggested that she might here have been making a confession that Jesus was “the” prophet like Moses who was expected by the Jews and Samaritans (cf. Deut 18:15–19; Cf. John 1:21). The Samaritans’ expectation focused on the Taheb, a prophet-like figure similar to Moses, whom they believed would be able to answer all the vexing questions of the law (which for them was the Samaritan Pentateuch). On the balance of probabilities, however, it seems that the reference to “prophet” here is likely a generic use of the term since in v. 25 the issue becomes more individualized on a figure.

The purpose of the woman’s referring to a prophet seems to have been to direct attention away from herself to the long-standing argument between the Jews and the Samaritans concerning the temple. Both temples were built on mountains: the Samaritan one on Gerizim174 and the Jewish one on Moriah (the part of Jerusalem, north of the Ophel). The Samaritans argued that their temple was authorized by Moses (cf. Deut 27:4 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, which reads “Gerizim” instead of “Ebal”). They contended that Gerizim was the place that fulfilled the prediction of God’s “dwelling” (cf. Deut 12:5), which was called the mountain of God’s blessing (Deut 11:29 as here in 4:21–24 over against Ebal).

4:21–24 The issue was clear. If Jesus had entered the age-old argument of which was the “right” temple (like our arguments about the “right” church), the woman would not have had to face herself and her sin. Christians who seek to be ambassadors for Christ must always be wary of falling into the trap of arguing about the “right” place of worship or the “right” denomination. Just as Jesus did not argue with the presuppositions of Nicodemus (John 3:2) and the paralytic (5:7), Jesus did not argue with the woman here. The point is not winning arguments but introducing people to the dimension of God in their lives. The model of Jesus is thus very instructive. He turned the conversation away from place of worship to nature of worship. In so doing, he modeled a correct evangelistic perspective.

But Jesus did not leave the woman with a vague witness about God. He pushed her to think about the personal God who acts in history. First, he called her to an eschatological reality (the coming hour) that would affect all worship (4:21). Because God has acted primarily through people in the world, he is not basically building-oriented. The mention of “hour” here is a Johannine theme that encapsulates the decisive moment in history of the crucifixion and resurrection that transformed and continues to transform human reality. Second, Jesus reminded her that salvation is directly related to God’s working in history (4:22). The issue was not a matter of national or tribal pride. That was the woman’s perspective on God and religion. It is also a familiar theme among many Americans. The issue, however, was understanding how God had chosen to reveal the divine purpose in history. Worship devoid of understanding God’s activity in history operates within a vacuum. To make this point clear, the evangelist employed his theme of knowledge. Jesus said that Samaritan worship lacked knowledge, the critical relational aspect of genuine worship. Third, Jesus defined acceptable worship as participating in two revealed aspects of divine reality: “spirit and truth” (4:23).

Both of these aspects of worship reflect important themes in this Gospel, and both are repeated in v. 24 so that the point cannot be missed. God is Spirit and not flesh. The worshipers envisaged here are born of the Spirit (cp. 4:24 with 3:6). Thus their worship participates in the revelation of divine reality. Likewise these worshipers participate in the divinely revealed reality of truthfulness or steadfastness/dependability, a category that epitomizes the way God reveals the divine reality to human beings (cf. 1:14; 14:6). No one genuinely knows God except through some form of revelatory encounter, but such encounters should be enlightened through written or oral articulations in order that such encounters become defined to humans and not remain subjective experiences. It is in the combination of those two elements that one can sense the point being made here, namely, that acceptable worship involves both spirit and truth (fulness).

The Johannine understanding of spirit and truth is not to be identified with the Gnostic usage of such terms. The Gnostic perspective is that of a secret godhead that is hidden from all except those who possess the special key of gnosis (knowledge). The stress in John is not on the hiddenness of God revealed through an alien messenger from without. Such a messenger in Gnosticism does not actually participate in human flesh because flesh is regarded as the creation of an evil subgod. Such a messenger always remains a spiritual reality even though it might employ the vehicle of flesh to awaken the elite Gnostics from the sleep of forgetfulness. But such a view is hardly the Johannine perspective on Jesus, the incarnate Son of God.

The statements of Jesus in vv. 21–24 are, thus, far more than arguments in a conversation with a woman. They provide a window into the depth of Johannine theology. If the Samaritan woman wanted a theological prophet, she had met one. This prophet did not bite on her bone of ecclesiastical discussion. Instead, he turned her question around so that she was forced again to confront herself. But was she ready for the implications?

4:25–26 The answer to the last question depends on how one interprets the woman’s next response. Her statement that she knew that the Messiah was coming and that he would provide all the answers (4:25) could be interpreted as a genuine quest for the time of the messianic age, or it could be her last effort at changing the subject and putting this strange speaker in his place. Or it could be a combination of both possibilities. Perhaps the woman did not really want to reveal herself until she was sure it was safe to do so before the one who knew everything anyway. My suspicion is that the last possibility is perhaps closer to the truth because her question to the men in v. 29 seems to suggest a wrestling process.

The woman began her final response with the words “I know” (4:25), an intriguing contrast to Jesus’ earlier statement that “we worship what we … know” (4:22). Her knowledge is clearly reminiscent of the opening statement of Nicodemus (cf. 3:2), who definitely needed further enlightenment. The storytelling techniques of John are truly fascinating because his stories portray Jesus as pushing for deeper understandings of believing from those who met him. It is not necessary in this story line to see the Christian community in the plural here because the contrast in the text is between the Samaritans (hymeis, “you” pl.) and the Jews (hēmeis, “we”). Nevertheless, the community would certainly have later identified itself with the “we” who knew about salvation. The woman’s expectation of the coming messianic figure was of one who would reveal “all things,” consistent with the Samaritan expectation of a Mosaic-like Prophet or Taheb. John added the interpretative note for his Greek readers that the Messiah is the one called “Christ” (4:25).

In response to her reply, Jesus immediately seized the opportunity and declared (lit.), “I am [egō eimi; 4:26], the one speaking to you.” In John the use of egō eimi is an important theological theme that is used in the mouth of Jesus as a self-identifying vehicle for announcing some important theological idea concerning him. Normally the expression is accompanied by some thematic description such as “bread of life” (6:35), “light of the world” (8:12), “door of the sheep” (10:7), “good shepherd” (10:14), or “resurrection and life” (11:25). But in a few places like the present one egō eimi is used without such an accompanying description (cf. also 6:20; 8:58; 18:5). In these texts the shocking reality of a confession of the divine-human presence is being highlighted, and there is no need for discussion with Jesus about who he is. Elsewhere the egō eimi statement by itself is used to emphasize that Jesus is the startling presence of the divine, and in one case it highlights the fact that resistance to him is impossible (18:5). The particular force of the statement here needs to be noted. The conversation is finished!

4:27–30 The return of the disciples constitutes an interruption that in effect sets up a striking contrast between the woman, who is an outsider, and the disciples, who are insiders. The contrast is a study in reversal because the insiders who ought to know Jesus’ perspective wrestle with unspoken questions that reveal their lack of understanding, whereas the outsider posits an important question that moves her in the direction of being an insider. The words in these verses are therefore exceedingly important.

The disciples were astonished that Jesus was “talking with a woman” (4:27). Many commentators following Billerbeck have noted the impropriety of Jewish men talking with a woman in a public place like a street. This opinion included the questionable nature of speaking with one’s own wife in public (ʾAbot 1:4–5). Indeed, the rabbis frowned on discussing any theological issues with women, likening the process of such intellectual discussion to liberating them or opening them to a life of immorality (m. Sota 3, 4 and t. ʿErub. 53). The disciples were thus men of their times, probably more concerned that Jesus was “talking with a woman” than that she was a Samaritan. She really had three strikes against her: (1) she was a woman, (2) she was a Samaritan, and (3) she had a questionable reputation. Yet Jesus did not seem to be bothered by such customary patterns of restrictive conversation. His message was for everyone, those of every culture and standing in society. He was truly cross-cultural in his perspective and concern for others.

The text of 4:27 here indicates that although the disciples had many questions about this so-called “improper” type of conversation, they apparently did not challenge Jesus. Unfortunately we are not told why the disciples were unwilling to confront Jesus, but it is not difficult to surmise. The disciples probably guessed that they would be censured for their Jewish male biases.

So the story line moves to the woman. She left her water pot and returned to the town/city (4:28). Again we are not told why she left the vessel at the well, and again it is not difficult to surmise the reason. Her attention apparently had been diverted from the pot to her life. Carson’s objection to interpretations that would see in this act a rejection of old ceremonial forms of religion is certainly appropriate. The danger of oversymbolization or allegorization of John’s Gospel is always present.

Instead of a water pot she brought a testimony and a question to the “men” of the town. The NIV, RSV, and NRSV rendering of anthropois by “people” is certainly possible but probably misses the force of “men” here. Brown’s argument in support of “people” that “any leering suggestion that the men were interested in finding out the woman’s past is out of place.” I submit that he misses the point of the story. I think we have here a woman who probably knew where to find the men of the town, and her story also may well have been their story! So her comment “come, see” (a Johannine theme; e.g., 1:39, 46) a man “who told me everything I ever did” would be an interesting report to them. Remember the double standard of morality that existed in popular Judaism of that day and continues in many cultures even today. The woman’s statement does not need to imply that Jesus actually had rehearsed her whole life but merely some significant matters. A few such details as suggested in 4:17–18 would have indicated to her that he also knew everything else as well.

Her question, “Could this be the Christ?” introduced by the word mēti implies a negative answer or at least an element of doubt. The evangelist seems to have been suggesting that the woman, despite leaving her water pot, was still debating the issue herself. In periods of questioning, people often seek confirmation. The woman’s question thus seems to be one of those stages in the process toward decision making. Writers and preachers who think the woman had reached the stage of commitment to Jesus at this point or that she was here making a firm confession have failed to account for the Greek text. Her testimony concerning Jesus’ incredible knowledge about her life seems to be balanced by her unresolved doubt. But together they provide a stimulus for the others to go out and investigate this potential Taheb/Messiah (4:30). The evangelist made his case through an ironical twist. People do not need to be fully convinced in order to be witnesses. At this point the woman basically fades out of the story, and the focus moves to the Samaritan village as a whole. But that does not mean that she is outside the Samaritan confession of 4:42. It merely means that at the next stage of the Samaritan discussion the focus will move to the commitment level.

4:31–34 In good literary fashion the evangelist returned to his other story—the problem of the disciples’ perception, which was introduced in v. 27. John was a master at weaving two stories into a single unit. His expertise is most evident in the death story, where he first weaves the Peter and Annas stories together (18:18–27) and then alternates between the inside and outside scenes of Pilate’s trial (18:28–19:16). In the present story the task of the Gospel writer was to help the reader understand how Jesus brought his disciples to accept the universal nature of his mission sufficiently so that the impact of both the confession and the sense of community as evident in the concluding verses of this pericope (4:39–42) might be perceived by later readers. The means used to achieve that goal is the discussion over food followed by Jesus’ sermonette on the harvest (4:31–38).

The major concern of the disciples in the story was their search for food—undoubtedly kosher food. So their invitation for Jesus to eat is a reflection of their concern. By contrast the primary focus of Jesus was hardly on food; it was the search for people (the purpose of the incarnation, 1:9–14, and the purpose of this Gospel, 20:30–31). Accordingly, Jesus responded to their request that he should eat by indicating that he had a source of food (brōsis, 4:32, and brōma, 4:34) that was unknown to them.

The disciples’ questioning among themselves (4:33) introduces another case of Jesus’ double-level language resulting in a misunderstanding (cf. Nicodemus at 3:4 and the woman at 4:11). Moreover, it confirmed Jesus’ statement to them that they did not know (a familiar theme) what he was saying. The follow-up statement that Jesus’ food was doing the will of the one who sent him reasserts the theme that Jesus was on a mission as an agent of God doing the Father’s will, one of the strategic themes expanded later in the Festival Cycle and repeated elsewhere (e.g., 5:23, 24, 30, 37; 6:38, 44; 7:16). Moreover, Jesus’ comparison here of food to the will of God is, as Dodd suggested, quite consistent with the message from the first temptation in the Gospel of Matthew (4:3–4). Bread is there contrasted with the word that issues from the mouth of God when Jesus obviously was hungry, having fasted for the long period of forty days in the wilderness (Matt 4:4).

4:35–38 The sermonette here is built around two pithy statements that are almost proverbial in nature. The first concerns the timing of harvest. Some interpreters have thought that the iambic-like meter suggests a Greek proverb behind v. 35. Others have thought that the four months is a chronological reference indicating the season when Jesus was speaking.195 Indeed, A. Guilding has even argued that it reflects the lectionary readings of the synagogue for that period. Perhaps the most defensible view is that the text represents a general Palestinian proverbial statement concerning the time between sowing and the earliest point of harvest.197

The value of the last view is that it opens the way to Jesus’ subsequent exegetical commentary, which takes issue with the statement by pointing out that it was already harvest time, and the disciples should have been ready for it (4:35). As such, any time can be understood as harvest time. Bultmann, in conformity with his perspective, sees Jesus’ comments as an affirmation of a realized eschatological perspective. But how he can read the call of Jesus to the harvest as a call to “patience” and “waiting” I have great difficulty understanding.

The second proverbial statement is “one sows and another reaps” (4:37). It was normally applied in the ancient world to distinguish between the fortunate and unfortunate (e.g., Mic 6:15). The perspective thus was normally depressing in that planters were not reapers (cf. Lev 26:16; Deut 28:30; Job 31:8). The same perspective is present in Jesus’ parable when the master condemns the man who was given only one talent (Matt 25:24–26).

Jesus, however, turned on its head the negative perspective that might be understood in the background of the maxim. Instead of dividing the planter and the reaper, he united them. His perspective was that both participate in the results of their work. Accordingly, both here experience joy (4:36; joy is a significant subtheme in John: cf. also 3:29; 8:56; 11:15; 14:28; 15:7; 16:20–22 20:20). But Jesus did not end his statement there because his primary concern was not merely sowing. His basic concern was reaping. The evangelist understood this concern of Jesus, and therefore he highlighted reaping in the mission directive of Jesus (the Johannine theme of “sent”) to the disciples (4:38).

Some commentators have stumbled on the word “sent” (the aorist form, apesteila) as well as the statement that “others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor.”201 The question is often put in the form of an alternative, namely, Do these statements go back to Jesus, or are they the later reflective comments of the evangelist concerning later Christian workers? The issue is, What did this statement mean to the persons in the story and to the first readers? Schnackenburg, following Cullmann, has argued strongly that since the mission of the church was only confirmed after the resurrection, the statement represents a postresurrection reflection in the text. But he argues equally strongly that the statement is not an inserted saying into the Samaritan story. Instead, he considers it a statement of Jesus while on earth, being fully cognizant that he was speaking of the resurrection era.

This argument is about as finely nuanced a statement as appears in scholarship today. It attempts to walk the tightrope between mere historicity and later theological development with respect to varying temporal issues evident in the text. What Schnackenburg does is to acknowledge what he considers are differences of emphasis found in such texts, but he roots them in the superior understanding of the earthly Jesus, which understanding he posits was recognized by the evangelist.

4:39–42 The story here returns to the Samaritans and concludes with a two-stage statement of the Samaritans’ believing and with the most important confession in the Cana Cycle. In this conclusion one notes first that the theme of witness again occupies a central role. It is forthrightly asserted that many were brought to a point of believing through the woman’s testimony (lit., “the word of the woman’s witnessing,” 4:39). But John also stressed the fact that their believing moved beyond depending upon the testimony from another human (e.g., the woman). Therefore the story emphasizes a believing based upon the word of Jesus (ton logon autou, 4:41).

The evangelist also pointedly stressed that Jesus actually stayed (note the mention twice of the theme word for “remain” or “abide” at 4:40) with them two days. The Jewish concern over association (ritual purity) that was specifically enunciated by the woman in her opening words (4:9) obviously was not a major concern for Jesus. Jewish rules of ritual purity also were not what he meant when he said “salvation is from the Jews” (4:22). God’s saving work in history had now been epitomized in the coming of Jesus. Encountering him, therefore, was the way to discover God’s intention for the world. These half-breed, Samaritan rejects of Jewish society had been visited by the one who “tented” (1:14) in the world, and in response they confessed that the world was different because of him.

The confession of Jesus as “the Savior [sōtēr] of the world” (4:42) is used only once in this Gospel and only once in the Johannine Epistles (1 John 4:14). In the Old Testament the designation of Savior is applied a few times to God as the saving one (e.g., Ps 24:5; Isa 12:2; 43:3, 11; 63:8). It is used in a similar way of God in Luke (1:47), 1 Timothy (1:1; 2:3; 4:10), Titus (1:3; 2:10; 3:4), and Jude (25). It is applied to Jesus by Luke (at 2:11; Acts 5:31; 13:23) and in a few other places (Eph 5:23; Phil 3:20; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Pet 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18).

For the early Christians the designation “Savior” was a strategic confession like “Lord.” In the Hellenistic world there were many gods and persons designated as “lords” and “saviors” including the Roman emperors such as Augustus, who was virtually deified in the sixth Ecologue of Virgil.206 In contrast, however, the early Christians confessed that Jesus was indeed the Christ, God’s only Son, the Savior. This confession was enshrined in the symbol of the fish (ichthys).

The expression “Savior of the world” is particularly Johannine. It coordinates magnificently with the baptizer’s initial confession of Jesus as the paschal “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). John saw Jesus as the answer to the world’s need. The people of the world were the focus of God’s love in Jesus (3:16). The outcasts of Samaria here articulated the purpose of God because Jesus was their expected Taheb, the Savior of the world. Their confession stands as a vivid contrast to the disgust of the Pharisees in the story of the entry into Jerusalem just prior to Passover when in exasperation they finally complained, “The whole world has gone after him!” (12:19).

7. The Second Cana Sign: Healing the Official’s Son (4:43–54)

43 After the two days he left for Galilee. 44 (Now Jesus himself had pointed out that a prophet has no honor in his own country.) 45 When he arrived in Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him. They had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, for they also had been there.

46 Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. 47 When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.

48 “Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”

49 The royal official said, “Sir, come down before my child dies.”

50 Jesus replied, “You may go. Your son will live.”

The man took Jesus at his word and departed. 51 While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. 52 When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, “The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour.”

53 Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” So he and all his household believed.

54 This was the second miraculous sign that Jesus performed, having come from Judea to Galilee.

This section concludes the Cana Cycle and brings Jesus back to the same town where the theme of signs was introduced (2:11). The fact that the healing of the official’s son is designated as the second sign and none of the other signs in the Gospel are numbered also seems to indicate that the evangelist wanted these two signs to be seen as related to each other in a special way. The fact that the two signs move our thinking in a cycle from Cana to Cana argues that John wanted the two stories to form an inclusio. The focus of this story, as with each of the Cana Cycle stories, is on believing. The point of this story is that it illustrates a new dimension of believing: namely, a believing without the immediacy of seeing. Accordingly, it foreshadows the concluding words of Thomas about believing without seeing (20:29)1

1 Borchert, G. L. (1996). John 1–11 (Vol. 25A, pp. 205–217). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.