Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 4:9
Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
9. woman of Samaria ] In both places in this verse we should rather have Samaritan woman: the Greek is not the same as in Joh 4:7. The adjective lays stress on the national and religious characteristics. For ‘then’ read therefore, as in Joh 4:5.
How is it ] Feminine pertness. She is half-amused and half-triumphant.
being a Jew ] She knew Him to be such by His dress and by His language.
for the Jews, &c.] Omit the articles; for Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. This is a remark, not of the woman, but of S. John, to explain the woman’s question. As He was on his way from Jerusalem she probably thought He was a Judaean. The Galileans seem to have been less strict; and hence His disciples went to buy food of Samaritans. Some important authorities omit the remark.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
No dealings with the Samaritans – For an account of the Samaritans, and of the differences between them and the Jews, see the notes at Mat 10:5.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Joh 4:9-10
How is it that Thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me?
–It is remarkable that while the Samaritan woman here is taunting the Lord with being a Jew, the Jews, in a somewhat similar passage, charge Him with being a Samaritan (Joh 8:48). (G. J. Brown, M. A.)
Askest and saith
There is a singular decorum in the use of words here. The woman has said, not unnaturally, How is it that Thou askest of me? But is a word of petition as from an inferior to a superior, in this different from , which has more of equality in it. Christ therefore when He refers to that request of hers does not take up and allow her word. He says not, Who is it that asketh, but who it is that saith () to thee; while the asking is described as the proper attitude for her, Thou wouldest have asked () of Him. There lies often in such little details an implicit assertion of the unique dignity of His person, which it is very interesting and not unimportant to trace. (Abp. Trench.)
Dealings and gift of God
The former word seems to explain the first part of our Lords answer. She had come day by day to draw water at that well. Had she never known that that water was a gift of God? Had no thirst on a hot day or no failure of the spring taught her that? Was water a thing to traffic in? (F. D. Maurice.)
The significance of giving drink
Among us even an enemy might ask or receive a drink of water without fear of compromising himself or his opponent; but not so in the East. There, the giving and receiving of a drink of water is the seeking and the making of a covenant of hospitality, with all that that covenant implies. It is not, indeed, like a covenant of blood, or a covenant of salt–indissoluble; but it is like the covenant of bread-sharing, which makes a truce, for the time being, between deadliest enemies. Aboolfeda tells, for example, of the different receptions awarded by Saladeen to the king of the Franks on the one hand, and to Prince Arnald of Caracca on the other, when the two Christian leaders were received in his tent by the victorious Saracen after the battle of Hatteen. Saladeen seated the Christian king by his side, and gave him drink cooled with snow. When the king, having tasted it, offered it also to Prince Arnald, Saladeen protested, saying, This wretch shall not drink of the water with my permission; in which there would be safety to him; and then, rising up, he smote off the head of the prince with his own sword. Over against this we are told that when Hormozan, a Persian ruler, surrendered to the Khaleef Omar, the successor of Aboo Bekr, and was brought a prisoner into the presence of his captor, he asked at once for a drink. Omar asked him if he were thirsty. No, he said; I only wish to drink in your presence, so that I may be sure of my life. He was assured that he might rest perfectly secure; and that assurance was kept. (H. C. Trumbull, D. D.)
History of the Samaritans
After the Assyrian conquest colonies from the East were placed in the deserted cities. The country having been desolated by war wild beasts multiplied, and became the terror and scourge of the new inhabitants. The barren heights of Hermon and Lebanon are to this day infested with bears, panthers, wolves, and jackals. The strangers attributed the calamity to the anger of the local deity, of whose peculiar mode of worship they were ignorant. They therefore petitioned for Jewish priests to instruct them in religious rites; and after they had heard them they feared the Lord, and served their own gods (2Ki 17:24-41). In after times the Jews refused to acknowledge them in any way, and would not permit them to assist in building the second temple, though their refusal cost them many trials (Ezr 4:1-24.). Being cast off by the Jews, the Samaritans resolved to erect a temple of their own on Gerizim. The immediate occasion appears to have been the circumstances related by Nehemiah, that a sen of Joiada, the high priest, had become son-in-law to Sanballat, and had on this account been expelled from Jerusalem Neh 13:28). The date of the temple may thus be.fixed about
B.C. 420. Shechem now became the metropolis of the Samaritans as a sect, and an asylum for all apostate and lax Jews (Joseph. Antiq. 11:3-6). These things tended to foster enmity between the two nations, which resulted in the total destruction of the Temple of Gerizim by the Jews under John Hyrcanus. The very name Samaritan became a byword and a reproach among the Jews, just as the name Yehudy, Jew, is among modern Syrians; and some even supposed that the Jews nicknamed the city of Shechem Sychar, Falsehood, to mark their opinion of the pretended origin of its in- habitants. In our Saviours time the Samaritans retained their worship on Gerizim, though the temple was in ruins; and they had some vague expectations of a Messiah. During the reign of Vespasian Shechem was rebuilt, and renamed Neapolis, New City, an appellation which has run into the Arabic Nabulus–one of the very few instances in which the Greek has supplanted the Semitic name. The ancient Samaritans and modern Druses appear to have had very much in common both in character and origin. The ancient Samaritan was part heathen, part Jew; and the modern Druse of Mount Lebanon is part heathen, part Christian; and some have thought that the modern Druses derive their origin from the very same tribes as the ancient Samaritans. After the second captivity of Israel, Esarhaddon re-peopled the wasted strongholds of Samaria with the tribes whose names are given with so much particularity in Scripture (2Ki 17:24; and Ezr 4:9), races of fierce habit and degraded faith, whose heathen practices, engrafted on the corrupt Judaism which lingered amongst the earlier Samaritans, brought down on the new colonies the especial Nemesis of God. Of these fierce tribes there were some who, Cuthites in name, were of the family of the Royal Scythians, or Gordyans, from the Gordiaean mountains, whom in.subsequent times the Greeks knew by the name of Carduchi (Xen. Anab.), and with whom we are familiar as Koords. Some of these were settled in the Lebanon, and from them it has been said that the Druses spring, and draw the tenets of an ancient but unholy worship. (Lord Carnarvons Druses of the Lebanon.)
The hostility of the Samaritans towards the Jews
The Samaritan sought by every petty annoyance to irritate the Jew. Their country was the nearest road for the caravans of northern pilgrims going to the feasts in Jerusalem. The Samaritans churlishly refused these the poorest rites of hospitality, and compelled them often to avoid maltreament, by taking the circuitous and more fatiguing route by the Jordan Valley. Again, it was one of the few consolations enjoyed by the bands of exiled Jews in Babylon to have announced to them, by means of the only ancient telegraphic communication–beacons on the mountain-tops–the appearance of the paschal moon. The first beacon-fire was lit on the summit of Olivet, and thence caught up from mountain to mountain in luminous succession, until, within sight of the Euphrates, they could, for the moment at least, take down their harps from the willows as they remembered Zion and its holy solemnities. But the Samaritans indulged the mischievous delight of perplexing and putting them out of reckoning by the use of false signals. Another wicked and successful exploit is recorded; and occurring as it did under the government of Coponius only a few years previous to the gospel era, may have tended at this time to deepen these animosities. A band of Samaritans succeeded in stealing to the courts of the Temple of Jerusalem during the Passover season, and defiling the sacred precincts by scattering them with dead mens bones; thus incapacitating the Jews that year from celebrating the great feast of their nation. (J. R. Macduff, D. D.)
Samaritan churlishness
On asking drink from a woman near Nablus who was filling her pitcher, we were angrily refused–The Christian dogs might get it for themselves. (Canon Tristram.)
The hatred of the Jews for the Samaritans
The Jew was no way behind in his manifestation of malevolence. The son of Sirach says, There be two manner of nations which my heart abhorreth, and the third is no nation; they that sit upon the mountain of Samaria, and they that dwell among the Philistines, and that foolish people that dwell in Sichem. So that this false race dwelling at Sichem is more offensive to the pious Sirach than apostate Israel, with its worship of the golden calves on the mountains of Samaria (Sir 47:23-24), or even than the Philistines themselves, those hereditary enemies of Gods people. He abhors an Israel which demeans itself as if it were no Israel; he abhors the no-Israel which persists in its hostility and defiance to the true Israel; but most deeply of all does he abhor the no-Israel which demeans itself as if it were Israel, the heathen wearing the mask of Israelite. To eat with them was for a Jew as if he did eat swines flesh. He denounced the Samaritan as a base time-server who would not hesitate to purchase immunity from pains and penalties by forswearing Jehovah and kissing the impious shrine of Baal or Jove. He regarded him as unclean as the evaded leper; to harbour him in his house would entail a heritage of judgments on his children. The name Samaritan became a byword of reproach. He was publicly cursed in the synagogue–cursed in the name of Jehovah, by the writing on the two tables of the law, by the curse of the upper and lower house of judgment. He was pronounced unworthy of eternal life–excommunicated alike from the Church on earth and the Church in heaven. The bitterest word of scorn the Jew could hurl at the Infinitely Pure One was this, Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil. The yet untutored apostles shared the same exasperated feelings when they asked their Lord to call down fire from heaven on some Samaritan village. All worthy of remembrance is His gentle but sharp reproof, Ye know not what spirit ye are of. (Canon Tristram.)
The evils of national rivalry
I do not know anything more ludicrous among the self-deceptions of well-meaning people than their notion of patriotism, as requiring them to limit their efforts to the good of their own country–the notion that charity is a geographical virtue, and that what is holy and righteous to do for people on one bank of a river is quite improper and unnatural to do for people on the other. It will be a wonderful thing some day or other for the Christian world to remember that it went on thinking for two thousand years that neighbours were neighbours at Jerusalem, but not at Jericho; a wonderful thing for us English to reflect, in after years, how long it was before we Could shake hands with any one across that shallow salt wash which the very chalk dust of its two shores whitens from Folkestone to Ambletense. One magnificent attribute of the colouring of the late twelfth and the whole thirteenth and the early fourteenth century was the union of one colour with another by reciprocal interference, that is to say, if a mass of red is to be set beside a mass of blue, a piece of the red will be carried into the blue, and the reverse, sometimes in nearly equal proportions. And I call it a magnificent principle, for it is an eternal and universal one, not in act only, but in human life. It is the great principle of brotherhood, not by equality, nor by likeness, but by giving and receiving; the souls that are unlike, and the nations that are unlike, and the natures that are unlike, being bound into one noble whole, by each receiving something from and of the others gifts and the others glory. (John Ruskin.)
The evils of sectarian bigotry
The utter absence of real charity and love among men in the days when our Lord was upon earth ought not to be overlooked. Well would it be if men had never quarrelled about religion after He left the world! Quarrels among the crew of a sinking ship are not more hideous, unseemly, and irrational than the majority of quarrels among professors of religion. An historian might truly apply St. Johns words to many a period in Church history, and say, The Romanists have no dealings with the Protestants, or the Lutherans have no dealings with the Calvinists, or the Calvinists have no dealings with the Arminians, or the Episcopalians have no dealings with the Presbyterians, or the Baptists have no dealings with those who baptize infants, or the Plymouth Brethren have no dealings with anybody who does not join their company. These things ought not so to be. They are the scandal of Christianity, the joy of the devil, and the greatest stumbling-block to the spread of the gospel. (Bp. Ryle.)
The Jews and Samaritans
Josephus writeth that at Samaria was a sanctuary opened by Sanballat for all renegade Jews, etc. The Jews therefore hated the presence, the fire, the fashion, the books of a Samaritan. Neither was there any hatred lost on the Samaritans part, for if he had but touched a Jew he would have thrown himself into the nearest water, clothes and all. (J. Trapp.)
The forbearance of Christ
You may have gone along the road on a hot summer day, tired and thirsty, and have seen the gleam of a cottage in the distance. Suppose you went to the door and asked for a drink of water, exactly as our Lord did; but your speech betrayed you, and you were asked, How do you, being a Protestant, ask drink of me, a Roman Catholic; or, How do you, being Scotch, ask of me who am Irish, for the Scotch have no dealings with the Irish? You would have ground your heel on the gravel, and vowed never to give any one the chance of so speaking to you again. But insults are just as they are taken; and you cant insult a man who wont let you. Jesus bows His head, and lets your ignorant speeches fly past Him. (John McNeill.)
Christ cares not for classes or races, but for souls
People when they talk of the working classes think that they have described the whole thing with one touch. They imagine that, like the enter such and such a one in Shakespeares stage directions, when they have said the working classes, then everything by way of definition that is to be said, is said. They label the article, so to speak, and then expect you to understand all about it. How difficult it is indeed to bridge across the chasm between class and class I But more difficult it is to remember that the working class, or any class, is made up of individual souls. Our dear Lord did not speak to classes only. Jesus spoke to souls. He took men one by one, and each finite creature with his infinite future, each immortal being with his own history, his own work, his own sins, his own feelings, his own sorrows, was an object of tender interest to Jesus Christ. (Knox Little.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 9. That thou, being a Jew] Probably the inhabitants of Judea distinguished themselves from those of Samaria by some peculiar mode of dress; and by this the Samaritan woman might have known Christ: but it is likely that our Lord spoke the Galilean dialect, by which we find, from Mr 14:70, a Jew of that district might easily be known.
The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.] Perhaps better, Jews have no communion with Samaritans. These words appear to be added by the evangelist himself, in explanation of the woman’s question. The original word, , has been variously translated and understood. It comes from , together, and , I use, or borrow: hence it has been understood to mean, the Jews will be under no kind of obligation to the Samaritans-will borrow nothing from them-will not drink out of the same cup or well with them-will not sit down to meals with them, nor eat out of the same vessel-will have no religious connection, no commercial dealings with them. The word communion, I think, fully expresses the sense of the original; and, being as extensive in its meaning as our word dealings, is capable of as general an interpretation. The deadly hatred that subsisted between these two nations is known to all. The Jews cursed them, and believed them to be accursed. Their most merciful wish to the Samaritans was, that they might have no part in the resurrection; or, in other words, that they might be annihilated.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
There was a great estrangement of the Jews from the Samaritans, the Samaritans having a peculiar temple built upon Mount Gerizim, in opposition to that at Jerusalem. It is said that the Jews did buy of and sell to the Samaritans, but were restrained by an order of the sanhedrim from using any familiarity with them, or borrowing or receiving any thing as a gift from them; which was the cause of this reply of the woman of Samaria, knowing our Saviour, either by his habit or by his dialect, to be a Jew: this is thought to be the sense of in this text, though it hath a larger significance, extending to all kinds of commerce.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9-12. How is it that thounotaltogether refusing, yet wondering at so unusual a request from aJew, as His dress and dialect would at once discover Him to be, to aSamaritan.
for, c.It is thisnational antipathy that gives point to the parable of the goodSamaritan (Lu 10:30-37),and the thankfulness of the Samaritan leper (Luk 17:16Luk 17:18).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him,…. In a scoffing, jeering way,
how is it, that thou being a Jew; which she might know, by his language and his dress:
askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? not that the waters of Samaria were unlawful for a Jew to drink of; for as
“the land of the Cuthites (or Samaritans), was pure, or clean, so, , “their collections of water”, and their habitations, and their ways were clean m,”
and might be used; but because the Jews used no familiarity with the Samaritans, nor would they receive any courtesy or kindness from them, as follows:
for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans: some take these to be the words of the evangelist, commenting upon, and explaining the words of the woman; but they seem rather to be her own words, giving a reason why she returned such an answer; and which must be understood, not in the strictest sense, as if they had no dealings at all with them: indeed in some things they had no dealings with them, and at some certain times; hence that discourse of the Samaritans with a Jewish Rabbi n.
“The Cuthites (or Samaritans) inquired of R. Abhu, your fathers, , “used to deal with us” (or minister to us, or supply us with necessaries), wherefore do not ye deal with us? (or take a supply from us;) he replied unto them, your fathers did not corrupt their works, you have corrupted your works.”
They might not use their wine and vinegar, nor admit them to their tables; they say of a man o,
“because the Cuthites (or Samaritans) ate at his table, it was the reason why his children went into captivity–and further add, that whoever invites a Cuthite (or Samaritan) into his house, and ministers to him, is the cause of captivity to his children.”
And they forbid a man to enter into partnership with a Cuthite (or Samaritan p): and particularly,
“three days before the feasts of idolaters (for such they reckoned the Samaritans, as well as others), it is forbidden to have any commerce with them, to borrow of them, or lend to them q c.”
But then at other times, and in other respects, they had dealings with them they might go into their cities and buy food of them, as the disciples did, Joh 4:8; they might send their wheat to a Samaritan miller, to be ground r; and as it appears from the above citations, their houses and habitations were clean, and might be lodged in, with which compare Lu 9:52; the poor of the Samaritans were maintained with the poor of Israel s; wherefore the sense is, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, that the Jews refused to receive the least favour or kindness at the hand of a Samaritan; and therefore the woman might justly wonder, that Christ should ask so small a favour of her, as a little water. The reason of this distance and aversion, was religion; and so the Ethiopic version, rather paraphrasing than translating, renders the words, “the Jews do not agree in religion, nor do they communicate with the Samaritans, nor mix together”: and this was of long standing, and had been occasioned and increased by various incidents; for when the ten tribes revolted in Jeroboam’s time, the calves were set up in Dan and Bethel, in order to draw off the people from worship at Jerusalem, which gave great umbrage to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; and when the ten tribes were carried away captive by the king of Assyria, he planted the cities of Samaria with colonies in their room, consisting of Heathenish and idolatrous persons, brought from Babylon, and other places; to whom he sent a priest, to instruct them in the manner of the God of the land; but with these instructions, they still retained their idols, and their idolatrous practices; see 2Ki 17:24, which must render them odious to the Jews: and these were the principal adversaries of the Jews, after their return from captivity; and discouraged them, and weakened their hands, in the building of the second temple: but what latest, and most of all had fixed this aversion and enmity, was this; Manasseh, brother to Jaddua the high priest, having married Sanballat’s daughter, governor of Samaria, was for it removed from the priesthood; who applying to his father-in-law, he proposed building for him a temple on Mount Gerizim, and making him an high priest; for which he obtained leave of Alexander the Great, and accordingly built one, and made his son-in-law high priest; which drew a great many profligate Jews over to him, who mixing with the Samaritans, set up a worship, religion, and priesthood, in distinction from the Jews; and this was ever after a matter of contention and quarrel between these people, and the reason why they would have no dealings with them.
m T. Hieros. Avoda Zara, fol. 44. 4. n Ib. o T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 104. 1. p T. Bab. Becorot, fol. 7. 2. Piske Toseph. ib. art. 4. & in Megilla, art 102. q Misna Avoda Zara, c. 1. sect. 1. r Misua Demai, c. 3. sect. 4. s Piske Tosephot Yoma, art. 63.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Samaritan woman ( ). Different idiom from that in 7, “the woman the Samaritan.” The Samaritans were a mixture by intermarriage of the Jews left in the land (2Chr 30:6; 2Chr 30:10; 2Chr 34:9) with colonists from Babylon and other regions sent by Shalmaneser. They had had a temple of their own on Mt. Gerizim and still worshipped there.
Thou being a Jew ( ). Race antipathy was all the keener because the Samaritans were half Jews.
Drink (). Same infinitive form as in 7 and the object of (askest).
Of me (‘ ). “From me,” ablative case with .
For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans ( ). Explanatory () parenthesis of the woman’s astonishment. Associative instrumental case with (present middle indicative of , compound in literary Koine, here only in N.T.). The woman’s astonishment is ironical according to Bernard. At any rate the disciples had to buy food in a Samaritan village and they were travelling through Samaria. Perhaps she was surprised that Jesus would drink out of her waterpot. The Western class omit this explanatory parenthesis of the author.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The woman of Samaria [ ] . Differently expressed from the same phrase in the preceding verse. Literally, the woman the Samaritan. Here the distinctive character of the woman, as indicated by the race, is emphasized.
Askest [] . See on Mt 14:23.
Have no dealings [ ] . Have no familiar or friendly intercourse with. That they had dealings of some kind is shown by the disciples going into the city to buy provisions. Some authorities omit for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. The Jews treated the Samaritans with every mark of contempt, and accused them of falsehood, folly, and irreligion. The Samaritans sold Jews into slavery when they had them in their power, lighted spurious signals for the beacon – fires kindled to announce the beginnings of months, and waylaid and killed pilgrims on their road to Jerusalem.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then saith the woman of Samaria,” (legei oun auto he gene he Samaritis) “The Samaritan woman therefore replied to him,” responded to His request for a drink of water from her hand, drawn water from Jacob’s well.
2) “How is it that thou, being a Jew,” (pos su loudaios on) “Just how do you, being a Jew;- This she knew by His appearance, speech, accent, and dress, as well as that of John, this gospel writer who was with Him.
3) “Askest drink of me,” (par’emou pein aiteis) “Do you ask of and from me a drink,” a gift of water, water which is universal, free, and necessary to sustain physical life. Just why do you do it? Jesus you see, sought to elicit talk, conversation, openness, and honesty from sinners, that they might be led to a confession with the mouth, as well as an heart belief, Rom 10:9-10.
4) “Which am a woman of Samaria?” (gunaikos Samaritidos ouses) “Being a Samaritan woman?” An half-breed, an heathen to the Jews, with whom the Jews were not to be on terms of intimacy. For their origin see 2Ki 17:1-41
5) “For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.” (ou gar sugchrontai loudaioi Samaritais) “Because Jews associate not with Samaritans,” who were considered as uncircumcised, Act 11:3; Gal 2:12. They have no intimate social or marital intermingling. That is each practiced segregation, as an accepted pattern of social and family life. And they had but little, if any, business exchange with them, Act 10:28.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
9. How dost thou, who art a Jew? This is a reproach, by which she retorts upon him the contempt which was generally entertained by his nation. The Samaritans are known to have been the scum of a people gathered from among foreigners. Having corrupted the worship of God, and introduced many spurious and wicked ceremonies, they were justly regarded by the Jews with detestation. Yet it cannot be doubted that the Jews, for the most part, held out their zeal for the law as a cloak for their carnal hatred; for many were actuated more by ambition and envy, and by displeasure at seeing the country which had been allotted to them occupied by the Samaritans, than by grief and uneasiness because the worship of God had been corrupted. There was just ground for the separation, provided that their feelings had been pure and well regulated. For this reason Christ, when he first sends the Apostles to proclaim the Gospel, forbids them to turn aside to the Samaritans, (Mat 10:5.)
But this woman does what is natural to almost all of us; for, being desirous to be held in esteem, we take very ill to be despised. This disease of human nature is so general, that every person wishes that his vices should please others. If any man disapproves of us, or of any thing that we do or say, (73) we are immediately offended without any good reason. Let any man examine himself, and he will find this seed of pride in his mind, until it has been eradicated by the Spirit of God. This woman, therefore, knowing that the superstitions of her nation were condemned by the Jews, now offers an insult to them in the person of Christ.
For the Jews hold no intercourse with the Samaritans. These words I consider to have been uttered by the woman. Others suppose that the Evangelist added them for the sake of explanation, and, indeed, it is of little consequence which meaning you prefer. But I think it more natural to believe that the woman jeers at Christ in this manner: “What? Is it lawful for you to ask drink from me, when you hold us to be so profane?” If any prefer the other interpretation, I do not dispute the point. Besides, it is possible that the Jews carried their abhorrence of the Samaritans beyond proper bounds; for as we have said that they applied to an improper purpose a false pretense of zeal, so it was natural for them to go to excess, as almost always happens with those who give way to wicked passions.
(73) “ Et qui reprouve ce que nous disons ou faisons.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(9) Woman of Samaria (twice).Better, Samaritan woman. In both cases the Greek has the adjective. It is the religious and national position as a Samaritan which is prominent in this verse.
Being a Jew.This she would know from dress and language. It has been noted that the Hebrew for Give me to drink, Teni lishekoth, contains the letter Sin, or Shin, which was one of the distinctive points in the Ephraimite pronunciation. They did not say Shibboleth, but Sibboleth (Jdg. 12:5-6). They would not say Teni lishekoth, but Teni lisekoth.
For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.The original has not the articles, For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. This is a remark made by the writer to explain the point of the womans question. She wondered that a Jew, weary and thirsty though he might be, should speak to her. For the origin of the Samaritans, see 2Ki. 17:24-41, and Note on Luk. 9:52. The later Jewish authors abound in terms of reproach for theme.g., He who eats the bread of a Samaritan is as he who eats swines flesh; No Samaritan shall be made a proselyte; They have no share in the resurrection of the dead (Pirke, Rabbi Elieser, 38; comp. Farrar, Life of Christ, i. 209, note). Jesus Himself speaks of a Samaritan as an alien (Luk. 17:16; Luk. 17:18; comp. Luk. 10:33), and is called a Samaritan and possessed of a devil (comp. Joh. 8:48). But the strictest Jews allowed exceptions to the forbidden intercourse. If bread was interdicted, fruit and vegetables were not; if boiled eggs were forbidden, fresh ones were not. At no time probably did the Galileans follow the practice of the Judans in this matter, and hence they go to the city to buy food, while the woman asks this question of a Jew whom she met on the road from Jerusalem. Later, it was only because His face was as though He would go to Jerusalem that the Samaritan village did not receive Him; and it is the Evangelist of the Jerusalem ministry, who would have called down fire from heaven then, who adds this note of explanation for his Greek readers now (Luk. 9:52-53).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
9. Being a Jew Jesus presents himself to her first as a Jew. If he shows himself by needing drink to be a man, doubtless, in his dress, his dialect, and his physiognomy, this Lord of all was
a Jew. Askest drink of me Some feeling of gratification there doubtless was in the woman’s mind, that a Jew should be obliged to ask a favour of a Samaritan. Yet this very fact both called attention to their religious differences and prepared her mind to listen with complacency. Moreover, his bland voice, serene aspect, and calm dignity, even in petitioning, present to her insight something of divine, and prepare her heart for faith.
Jews have no dealings It was the Jew who was the most positively hostile, and with some justice; for it was the Samaritan who was the mean and mendacious offender. See notes on Mat 10:5; Luk 9:52-54. His religious system was an imitation and a mockery of Judaism, and yet claiming to be the genuine reality. He first plagiarized the Jew, and then audaciously boasted of being the true original. This woman has her misgivings that the Jew may be right, (Joh 4:20😉 and this, joined to the impression which the Lord’s appearance has made upon her, induces her to ask, not without surprise, the reason of his condescension.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘The Samaritan woman therefore says to him, “How is it that you, being a Jew, ask drink of me who is a Samaritan woman?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.’
Amazed the woman asks the pertinent question. Why should such as He have dealings with her? Why would a Jew ask for a drink at the hands of a Samaritan woman?
‘For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans’, possibly better rendered ‘for Jews do not use with Samaritans’ (with ‘vessels’ understood). Jews had certain levels of dealings with Samaritans but would not drink from the same vessel, as they would look on it as probably ceremonially ‘unclean’. It could, however, signify ‘generally prefer not to have dealings with’. Either way Jesus is overcoming prejudice.
That Jesus followed strict practices of avoiding uncleanness generally is apparent from the fact that He Himself is never attacked by the Pharisees for failing to follow the correct procedures. They seemed to recognise that He was punctilious in His observance of what were seen by them as the necessary requirements with regard to cleansing. But here, away from Judea, Jesus shows no regard for such practises. It is clear that He observed them in order not to cause unnecessary offence, not because He saw them as basic.
No Jerusalem Rabbi would even have spoken with a woman, but the Galilean Rabbis were not so closed minded so that there would be no reason for Jesus to differ from them. It appears that the writer is fully aware of the distinctions that applied in Judaism.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 4:9. For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Have no friendly intercourse, &c. This must be the meaning of here; for it is evident from Joh 4:8 that the Jews had some dealings with them. It has been frequently observed, that many causes concurred to occasion this inveterate hatred of the Jews towards the Samaritans; such as their foreign extract,and the early mixture of superstitionandidolatryintheirreligion, 2Ki 17:24; 2Ki 17:41.the injurious manner in which they treated the Jews after their return from the captivity, Ezr 4:1-6. Neh 6:1-14, and especially their building a temple on mount Gerizim, which they made the centre of their worship, in opposition to that at Jerusalem: and perhaps nothing contributed more to expose them to the contempt and abhorrence of the Jews, than the infamous offer which they made to Antiochus, of dedicating that temple to Jupiter, and admitting the rites of his idolatrous worship, at a time when the Jews were suffering the utmost extremities in defence of theirreligion. We may observe, it is not said, that the Samaritans had no dealings with the Jews, but that the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans; whence it is natural to conclude, that the enmity was greatest on the side of the Jews. As a proof of this, see a remarkable passage in Sir 50:25-26.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
Ver. 9. Askest drink of me? ] The Samaritans knew that they were slighted by the Jews, and took it ill, Gens haec (saith Giraldus Cambrensis, of the Irish) sicut et natio quaevis barbara, quanquam honorem neseiant, honorari tamen supra medam affectant. No man would be slighted, how mean soever.
For the Jews have no dealings, &c. ] Josephus writeth, that at Samaria was a sanctuary opened by Sanballat for all renegade Jews, &c. The Jews therefore hated the presence, the fire, the fashion, the books of a Samaritan. Neither was there any hatred lost on the Samaritan’s part; for if he had but touched a Jew, he would have thrown himself into the next water, clothes and all; both of them equally sick of a noli me tangere. Do not touch me. (Epiphanius.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
9. ] She knew this perhaps by his dress, more probably by his dialect. There seems to be a sort of playful triumph in the woman’s question, q. d. ‘even a Jew, when weary and athirst, can humble himself to ask drink of a Samaritan woman.’
are the words of the Evangelist to explain her question. is properly spoken of trade , but here is in a wider signification. Wetstein quotes from Polybius, .
Notice, 1) that this explanatory clause is omitted by [59] [60] , and certainly may have been a gloss originally: but the authority is not enough to justify us in bracketing it: 2) that . and . are both anarthrous ‘Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.’ The fact is abundantly illustrated in the Rabbinical writings: see Schttg. h. l. The question of the woman shews a lively nave disposition, which is further drawn out and exemplified by Him who knew what is in man, in the following dialogue.
[59] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ, so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history; but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century .
[60] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century . The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are: A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr 1 ; B (cited as 2 ), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; C a (cited as 3a ) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1 , it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that C a altered it to that which is found in our text; C b (cited as 3b ) lived about the same time as C a , i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here 6 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 4:9 . . How did she know He was a Jew? Probably there were slight differences in dress, feature and accent. Edersheim says “the fringes on the Tallith of the Samaritans are blue, while those worn by the Jews are white”. He also exposes the mistake of some commentators regarding the words uttered by Jesus: “Teni li lishtoth”. The reason of the woman’s surprise is given by the Evangelist in the words . “For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.” literally signifies “to use together with,” so that the sense here might be that the woman was surprised that Jesus should use the same vessel she used; rather it has the secondary meaning “to have intercourse” or “dealings with”; similarly to the Latin utor , see Hor., Ep. , i. xii. 22, “utere Pompeio Grospho,” and xvii. 13, “regibus uti,” to make a friend of, or “be on terms of intimacy with”. The classical phrase is , Eurip., Helena , 440. The later tradition said: “Samaritanis panem comedere aut vinum bibere prohibitum est”. Of course the hostile feeling ran back to the days of Nehemiah. And see Sir 50:25-26 . “With two nations is my soul vexed, and the third is no nation: they that sit upon Mount Seir and the Philistines, and that foolish people that dwelleth in Sichem.” For the origin of the Samaritans see 2Ki 17 , and cf. Farrar’s Life of Christ in loc. Tristram, Land of Israel , 134.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
How, &c. See note on Joh 3:4.
askest. Greek. aiteo. App-134. 4, as in Joh 4:10.
of = from. Greek. para. App-104.
which am = being.
the Jews . . . the. No articles.
have . . . dealings = have . . . familiar intercourse. Greek. sunchraomai. Occurs only here.
no. Greek. ou. App-105.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
9. ] She knew this perhaps by his dress, more probably by his dialect. There seems to be a sort of playful triumph in the womans question, q. d. even a Jew, when weary and athirst, can humble himself to ask drink of a Samaritan woman.
are the words of the Evangelist to explain her question. is properly spoken of trade,-but here is in a wider signification. Wetstein quotes from Polybius, .
Notice, 1) that this explanatory clause is omitted by [59] [60], and certainly may have been a gloss originally: but the authority is not enough to justify us in bracketing it: 2) that . and . are both anarthrous-Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. The fact is abundantly illustrated in the Rabbinical writings: see Schttg. h. l. The question of the woman shews a lively nave disposition, which is further drawn out and exemplified by Him who knew what is in man, in the following dialogue.
[59] The CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS, or BEZ,-so called because it was presented by Beza in 1581 to the University Library at Cambridge; where it is now exposed to view in a glass case. He procured it in 1562, from the monastery of St. Irenus at Lyons. It is on parchment, and contains the Gospels and Acts, with a Latin version. Its lacun, which are many, will be perceived by the inner marginal letters in this edition. It once contained the Catholic Epistles: 3Jn 1:11-14 in Latin is all that now remains. It was edited with very accurate imitative types, at the expense of the University of Cambridge, by Dr. Kipling, in 1793. A new edition carefully revised and more generally accessible was published by Mr. Scrivener in 1864, and has been collated for this Edition. In the introduction some ten or twelve correctors are distinguished, whose readings are found in the notes at the end of the volume. The text of the Codex Bez is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other. It appears to have been written in France, and by a Latin transcriber ignorant of Greek, from many curious mistakes which occur in the text, and version attached. It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin: and certainly many of the phnomena of the MS. seem to bear out the idea. Where D differs in unimportant points from the other Greek MSS., the difference appears to be traceable to the influence of Latin forms and constructions. It has been observed, that in such cases it frequently agrees with the Latin codex e (see the list further on). Its peculiarities are so great, that in many passages, while the sense remains for the most part unaltered, hardly three words together are the same as in the commonly received text. And that these variations often arise from capricious alteration, is evident from the way in which the Gospels, in parallel passages, have been more than commonly interpolated from one another in this MS. The concurrence with the ancient Latin versions seems to point to a very early state of the text; and it is impossible to set aside the value of D as an index to its history;-but in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading MSS. Its age has been very variously given: the general opinion now is that it was written in the latter end of the fifth or the sixth century.
[60] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century. The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are:-A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr1; B (cited as 2), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; Ca (cited as 3a) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1, it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that Ca altered it to that which is found in our text; Cb (cited as 3b) lived about the same time as Ca, i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here6.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 4:9. , how is it) Her manifest simplicity shines forth from the very first words of the Samaritan woman.-, a Jew) From His dress or His dialect she inferred that He was a Jew.- , for not) A parenthesis of the Evangelist, expressing the cause why it seemed strange to the Samaritan woman. The Rabbinical maxim accords with this: To eat the bread of a Samaritan man, and to drink his wine, is unlawful.-, use together [have friendly dealings with]) What is denied is, not all intercourse between the Jews and Samaritans (comp. the previous verse; His disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat), but intimacy.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 4:9
Joh 4:9
The Samaritan woman therefore saith unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, who am a Samaritan woman?-The Samaritans would have been pleased to associate with the Jews, so when Jesus asked a favor of the woman and spoke in a kindly social way she was surprised and asked him how he could do so.
(For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans).-They regarded them as unclean and would not accept courtesies at their hands, although they bought from and sold to them. She did not refuse the water, but expressed a surprise that he asked it of her. Jesus came to break down all these partition walls, national and race prejudices, and to unite all who would follow him into one brotherhood.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
askest: Joh 4:27, Joh 8:48, Luk 10:33, Luk 17:16-19
for: 2Ki 17:24-41, Ezr 4:1-24, Neh 4:1, Neh 4:2, Luk 9:52-56, Act 1:8, Act 10:28
Reciprocal: Gen 24:17 – Let Eze 3:14 – General Mat 10:5 – of the Samaritans Luk 9:53 – General Rev 9:6 – shall men
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9
The woman was so surprised at the friendliness of Jesus that she seemed to overlook the subject of water for the moment. She expressed herself to Jesus accordingly, giving as the basis of her astonishment the attitude of the Jews toward the Samaritans, that they had no dealings with them. One of the reasons the Jews had such a dislike for the Samaritans, was their inconsistent claims about their relation to the Jewish nation. Josephus gives us a description of this subject in his Antiquities, Book 9, Chapter 14, Section 3, as follows: “When they [the Samaritans] see the Jews in prosperity, they pretend that they are changed, and allied to them, and call them kinsmen, as though they were derived from Joseph, and had by that means an original alliance with them. But when they see them falling into a low condition, they say they are no way related to them, and that the Jews have no right to expect any kindness or marks of kindred from them, but they declare that they are sojourners, from other countries.”
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
[For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.] I. That translation, the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans; which the French and English follow, seems to stretch the sense of the word beyond what it will well bear: for, 1. Granting the Samaritans were mere heathens, (which some of the Rabbins have affirmed,) yet did not this forbid the Jews having any kind of dealings with them; for they did not refuse merchandising with any of the Gentile nations whatever. See Neh 13:16; etc. 2. But if the Samaritans were true proselytes; as R. Akibah asserts, or ‘as the Israelites in all things,’ as Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith of them; then much more might the Jews have dealing with them.
II. “It is lawful to eat the unleavened bread of the Samaritans, nor is there any suspicion as to their leavened bread neither. This is to be understood, if the Samaritan should knead it in the house of an Israelite.” Now if the Samaritan may knead dough in an Israelite’s house, it is evident the Israelite might use the Samaritan.
“An Israelite may circumcise a Cuthite; but a Cuthite may not circumcise an Israelite, because he is circumcised into the name of mount Gerizim. R. Josah saith, Let him circumcise him, and let him pass into the name of mount Gerizim till he departs this life.” If therefore it was lawful for the Israelite to circumcise the Cuthite or Samaritan, and the Samaritan the Israelite, then the Jews had dealings with; or did use, the Samaritans…
“For three days before the feasts of the idolaters, it is forbidden [the Jews] either to give to or receive from them, to ask, or lend, or borrow of them”: but for any other parts of the year it was not forbidden them. But as to the Samaritans, it was not permitted the Jews to borrow or receive any thing from them at any time gratis. Whereas it was lawful for the Jews to converse with the Samaritans, buy of them, use their labour, answer to their benedictions, ‘Amen,’ as we find in Beracoth; lodge in their towns, Luk 9:52; I would fain know in what sense, after all this, can it be said, For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans; but in this only, that they would not be obliged to them for any kindness? Which may a little serve to illustrate that of Luk 10:33; etc.; and it does very well agree with the matter in hand.
For the words which we are handling seem to be what the woman speaks, and not what the evangelist: and they spoke scoptically; or with sarcasm; “Dost thou, who art a Jew, ask water of me, who am a Samaritan?” for you Jews despise all courtesy of the Samaritans to receive the least kindness of them; and do you ask me for water?
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 4:9. The Samaritan woman therefore saith unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a Samaritan woman? for Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. It is evident that Jesus was at once recognised as a Jew, probably through some difference of accent, or language, or dress. We can hardly suppose that the woman was really surprised at the request preferred, so natural from the lips of a weary traveller (comp. Gen 24:17). We may rather imagine her as hastening to procure what was asked for, whilst not failing to point out how inconsistent with Jewish principles it was to ask even for such a favour as this. As has been said above, the maxims of the Jews respecting intercourse with the Samaritan people varied much at different times, and it is not easy to say what rules prevailed at he period with which we are here concerned. One precept of the Talmud (quoted in the Diet, of the Bible, iii. 1117) approves their mode of preparing the flesh of animals; others commend their unleavened bread, their cheese, and finally all their food. Elsewhere, however, we find restrictions; and the wine, vinegar, etc., of the Samaritans are forbidden to every Israelite, their country only with its roads and its other products being regarded as clean. This narrative shows that it was held lawful to bay food in a Samaritan town, so that the words of this verse must probably be understood to mean that Jews avoided all familiar intercourse with the alien people, sought and expected no favours at their hands. It is usually assumed that the last sentence is inserted by the Evangelist in the interest of Gentile readers. It may be so, as such short parenthetical explanations are certainly to be found elsewhere in this Gospel. There seems, however, no sufficient reason for removing the clause from the womans answer. The repetition of the well-known maxim gives a piquant emphasis to her words, bringing out with sharp distinctness the contrast between the principles of the countrymen of Jesus and the request which necessity had extorted. The use of the present tense (have no dealings) adds some support to this view; and one can hardly avoid the conviction that, had John himself given such an explanation, he would have so expressed himself as to avoid all appearance of discordance with his statement in Joh 4:8.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Joh 4:9. Then saith the woman, How is it that thou, being a Jew As it appears by thy habit and dialect thou art; askest drink of me, &c., for the Jews have no dealings Or rather, no friendly intercourse; with the Samaritans They would receive no kind of favour from them. That the expression, no dealings, as Dr. Campbell justly observes, implies too much to suit the sense of this passage, is manifest from the preceding verse, where we are told, that the disciples were gone into the Samaritan city Sychar to buy food. The verb , is one of those called , once used: it does not occur in any other place of the New Testament, or in the Septuagint. The Pharisees were in their traditions nice distinguishers. Buying and selling with the Samaritans were permitted, because that was considered as an intercourse merely of interest or convenience; borrowing and lending, much more asking or accepting any favour, was prohibited; because that was regarded as an intercourse of friendship, which they thought it impious to maintain with those whom they looked upon as the enemies of God.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 9
No dealings; no friendly dealings, of the nature of social intercourse. There was a bitter religious controversy between them, as specified in John 4:20.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews {c} have no dealings with the Samaritans.
(c) There is no familiarity nor friendship between the Jews and the Samaritans.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Jews typically regarded the Samaritans as unclean apostates. [Note: See Edersheim, 1:401.] Shortly after this incident the Jews made a law stating that "the daughters of the Samaritans are menstruants from their cradle" and therefore perpetually unclean. [Note: Mishnah Niddah 4:1.] The Pharisees prayed that no Samaritan would be raised in the resurrection. [Note: Wiersbe, 1:299; cf. Edersheim, 1:401.] When Jesus’ enemies wanted to insult Him, they called Him a Samaritan (Joh 8:48).
"The normal prejudices of the day prohibited public conversation between men and women, between Jews and Samaritans, and especially between strangers. A Jewish Rabbi would rather go thirsty than violate these proprieties." [Note: Blum, p. 285.]
This accounts for the woman’s shock at Jesus’ request. At this point she viewed Him as just a Jew. Ironically later some Jews would call Him a Samaritan (Joh 8:48).
"There was a trace of sarcasm in the woman’s reply, as if she meant, ’We Samaritans are the dirt under your feet until you want something; then we are good enough!" [Note: Tenney, "John," p. 54.]
John explained for his readers who were unfamiliar with Palestinian prejudices that the Jews did not use (Gr. synchrontai) the same objects as the Samaritans. [Note: D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 373-82.] This was so they could remain ceremonially clean.