Buckle up, it’s a long one.

This post is an edited piece from an older piece first published on my old blog, Valid Ambiguity, in January of 2016. This subject made me fall in love with the story. There are pictures of three old artworks I own now in the post. I’ve kept studying her, despite the years and life’s sudden left turns. I made a New Year’s resolution at the end of 2016 to write a book about her. Still working on that but, actually working on it and not just studying her.

When you think of the Samaritan woman from John 4, how do you perceive her? What kind of person do you think she was?

For many, she was a promiscuous woman who had been shunned by her community. For much of church history, this is how she has been taught: a woman whose sexual escapades had been exposed in the public spotlight. This is how I had been taught my whole life, from middle school Sunday school lessons through bible college courses. I’ve heard it preached this way in 2024. You will find no shortage of commentaries and blog posts affirming this conclusion:

“The Samaritan woman at the well is no angel. Mixed up with the wrong crowd, this poor woman from Samaria has quite a reputation. She had been married five times and was living in sin with a man who wasn’t her husband. Through her story comes the lesson that people shouldn’t live by carnal pleasure.”
– John Triqilio and Kenneth Brighenti, Women in the Bible for Dummies

“​She is of mature age, and has had a not altogether reputable past. She is frivolous, ready to talk with strangers, with a tongue quick to turn grave things into jests; and yet she possesses, hidden beneath masses of unclean vanities, a conscience and a yearning for something better than she has.”
– Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture: St John Ch. I to XIV

This conclusion is an incomplete view of this unnamed woman. The text simply doesn’t say it and it’s been a classic case of hundreds of years of humans retelling the story their way. The Samaritan woman at the well has been severely misunderstood. With a preconceived notion from our traditional assumptions of who this woman was, one automatically reads into the story an idea that is not there and, as a result, is distracted from the ideas the Text wishes to communicate. At a minimum, I hope to at least rekindle your intrigue for this story. At most, I hope to show some of the ideas the Text has left for us to discover.

Noon Nymphs & Daytime Divas

The argument that this woman was adulterous or promiscuous is built upon two details in the story. The first premise is developed from the time of day she came to well, which was “about the sixth hour” (​John 4:6​). The general flow of this argument is that the Samaritan woman came later in the day because she was a woman of ill reputation – normal village women would have come to the well during the morning or evening when it was cooler, so she must not have been welcomed by others. Two assumptions lead to this conclusion: the nature of the “sixth hour” and when women come to a well.

The first assumption is that the sixth hour would have been around noon or early afternoon. This assumption has two major flaws. First is that if John was using the Roman method of computing time, which was two sets of twelve equal hours, the sixth hour would either have been approximately 6:00 am or 6:00 pm. In this case, the Samaritan woman would have arrived during the same time when most women would have gone to the well. If John was using Jewish time, which separated the hours from sunrise to sunset into twelve equal parts, the time would have been around noon.

There are two options for when Jesus meets with this woman. Even if it was noon, it does not necessarily imply that it would have been a hot day. It could have been during the winter that she came to the well. If it was a sweltering summer day, then what of the assumption that proper women do not come to the well during the heat of the day? They had no running water and ample need for water from a limited source. People get water all day long. This assumption just holds no water.

While it makes sense to make the long walk to the well and to return carrying a heavy load during a cooler part of the day, does this axiomatically imply that a woman would never go to the well during mid-day? What if she was running low on water? Perhaps she spilled some or a sick friend needed some or she wasn’t able to carry enough during her first trip. An article in ​Christianity Today​ by Lynn H. Cohick discussed similar village cultures in Africa where women must walk to a well to obtain their water and it is not uncommon to find women at the well even in the heat of the day. To assume this Samaritan woman was somehow immoral because on this particular day at a particular time, she happened to be at the well is a large logical leap. It assumes we already know the point of the story.

Past Relationship Baggage

The second premise of the argument that the Samaritan woman was a sexually promiscuous woman is derived from her past marriages and her current living arrangements. In the middle of the conversation Jesus has her, we read,

Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”
John 4:16-18

The assumption is since this woman has been married five times and that the man she is living with now is not her husband, she must be adulterous. This was the view I long held. However, there are some blaring complications with this assumption. The first is that Jesus does not specifically state that she was divorced. It is completely reasonable that some of these past separations from her past husbands could have been caused by the death of her spouse. During this time, it was common for women to have been widowed at a young age. They were often married as young teenagers to men 10 or 15 years older than them. In a time when the average age of death was 20 years earlier than ours, a woman would commonly have been married more than once during her lifetime. I’ve heard people today report relatives who were widowed a handful of times – it happens.

Also, just as Jesus did not mention divorce, he doesn’t specifically or generally reference sin as He did with the lame man at the pool of Bethesda and the woman caught in adultery (​John 5:14​, 8:11​). Compared to Nicodemus in the prior chapter, this woman at least seemed to get Jesus. And another serious point: if this woman had such an awful reputation, then why did the whole town listen to her and come out to see this person she spoke of (​John 4:29-30​)? Would it not have been likely just considered the rantings of a desperate woman, just as the kind of woman we assumed she was walked into our potluck fellowship shouting the same nonsense?

Perhaps our assumptions are louder than the story itself, so we don’t know what we’re missing out on. I’m sure that’s not true for anything else, Scriptural or personal.

Divorce in the Middle East

In the Middle Eastern patriarchal society, women did not normally have the option to divorce their husbands. It was the man who decided whether or not the marriage would end. Hillel, one of the two prominent rabbis at the time of the New Testament, taught a husband could divorce his wife even over trivial matters such as the burning of a meal (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Gittin, 90a). While Shammai (the other prominent rabbi) taught that a husband could only divorce over serious matters, the power of divorce still lay almost solely with the male.

The one exception was that a woman could appeal to the courts to force her husband to release her if her husband was abusive. One might point out that this woman in John chapter 4 was not a Jew. While that is true, the ethnic groups of the Middle East shared similar cultures and traditions, especially in the realm of family and marriage. Consider some Middle Eastern states today: divorce initiated by the woman is almost a non-option. The Samaritans and Jews shared borders and common ancestry and the enmity between them wasn’t as severe as it is often made out to be (more on this later). The Samaritans were even devoted to the(ir) Torah. The societal rules governing marriage and divorce would have been extremely similar between the two.

The options to explain the woman’s many marriages can be summarized into three possibilities:

• she was abused or abandoned which led to her suing for divorce,
• she was divorced by her husband and not by her initiation, or
• her husband had passed away.

Since it is unlikely that all five marriages ended the same way, the Samaritan woman most likely experienced at least two of these if not all. If she was divorced by her husband, it would have been doubtful that it was due to adultery since a woman caught in adultery could have been subject to capital punishment or was simply abandoned, and unlikely to find another spouse much less 4 more of them. If one of her husbands had passed away, perhaps she was taken by her husband’s relatives, a practice called the levirate law. It was a common ancient Middle East practice and we see it practiced in Genesis 38 with the widow Tamar.

What would have been a possible cause for her being divorced was that she was barren. In a culture where one’s offspring was the key to passing on your legacy, your wealth, your traditions, and your religion, a woman unable to bear a man a son would often be divorced. However, we have no mention of her children or family beyond her five husbands. While not conclusive, it could suggest she had no lineage, at least not yet.

Given what we know of the culture, it would be more likely that this woman was the victim rather than a woman with a scarlet letter. But what of the man she was currently living with? Literally, in the Greek, Jesus said to her, “whom you have now is not your husband.” To “have”, ἔχω in Greek, simply means that: this woman “had” a male. It could have been a family friend, a relative, a son, a community leader, or a sexual partner.

Most Christians have been taught the last option without being taught there are other options just as likely, if not more so. In this Middle Eastern culture, widows were often assimilated into a patrilocal, patriarchal living space called the ​bêt ‘āb​ (“father’s house”). These patrilocal living spaces commonly housed a few family units as a whole extended family under one patriarch. A woman was utterly dependent on the men in her family: first her father, then her husband, and then her sons. If she was ever without any of these, she would have been in a desperate separation. If a widow was left without some male family member to be housed by, she might be taken in by another family under a different patriarch. The Samaritan woman “having” a not-husband meant she had a male who had taken her in but was not her husband – and that’s it. If the text wanted to say more, it could have.

One possibility is that she was in a “common-law marriage.” This could happen if a widow was past the child-bearing age and no longer had a male representative and/or the financial backing to induce a marriage contract. The couple would live together and after a set period (usually 1-2 years) would be considered married. This was risky because there was no legally binding contract, called the ​ketubbah​, so the male could divorce her without any paperwork or legal obligation to the patriarchal family she came from. Although less than ideal, this type of arrangement was not considered sinful – it was a genuine option for people without family support. If the Samaritan woman, having been married 5 previous times, found herself in this situation, Jesus’ words would have made perfect sense: “The one you now have is not your husband.”

The final point of evidence that this woman was likely not immoral was the teachings of the early church fathers. I have yet to find one church father who taught this woman as an immoral person (that is not to suggest that there is not one). Instead, they consistently taught her as an honorable and honest woman who treated Jesus with respect. She was the first to recognize him as the messiah in the Gospel of John, before the Jews.

John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) highlighted the great respect and patience she extended to this member of the Jews, with whom her people had a centuries-long feud. He contrasts her openness with Jesus to the oft closed-mindedness of Jesus’ people. For Chrysostom, this woman was one to be emulated for her evangelical work and spiritual sensitivity.

Early to teach her as possibly being immoral was Augustine (354 AD). He suggested that she might be in an illegitimate marriage, which is much different than saying she was adulterous. Augustine also elevated her as a symbol of the church and “equal to the apostles”. While he spoke of her being ignorant, he also spoke of Nicodemus, the Teacher of Law, being the same.

Perhaps it was divine providence that the woman was at the well that day. The household she was living in could have been running low on water and, as a widow with no other responsibilities, she volunteered. It could have been that at an older age and no longer being able to bear children, she had been adopted into another ​bêt ‘āb​ and she was simply doing her best to be useful. Maybe the reason she came to the well was in search of hopefully the last marriage she would need.

This woman’s past marriages were full of abuse, abandonment, barrenness, and/or death. We can safely wager her own mistakes and guilt were in there too. Perhaps her last hope of security was to enter into a two-year living arrangement to obtain a common-law marriage. Even if all these other possibilities were not true and she was indeed living in an immoral relationship, it would have been likely that she felt her only option to obtain some income to live by was to prostitute herself. I doubt she would have been worth much. What is true no matter what the real situation was is that this woman had experienced years of brokenness, abandonment, and loss.

As she set out to draw one last bucket of water, she passed a group of Jewish men heading into town. They too, like all the other men, having skirted to the side of the path, stared at the ground, refusing to even acknowledge her existence. When she approached the ancient well of Jacob, there was yet another Jewish male sitting on the well’s wall. Surely he too would excuse himself from her presence. Little did she know that this man would not just acknowledge her but, rather, this single Jewish male would give her the fulfillment from relationships she had thought impossible.

John’s Gospel

For the rest of this, I would like to focus on what John 4 is about. We often make the character of the Samaritan woman to be of such significance that we miss the real riches of John’s story. Jesus giving life to an ostracized widow/divorcee is a great message and one that is real…BUT WAIT, there’s more!

The Gospel of John is beloved for its beautiful simplicity and straightforward narrative. It is often the first book suggested for people who are just starting to read the Bible. However, the simplicity of John is just a mirage of his intertextual references, his literary complex structure, his allegorical themes, and his wide use of symbols and allusions. John writes his gospel so that the common bystander can understand it but also that scholars will study his literary genius and message for thousands of years.

​John 4:1-45 is a great case study of John’s employment of threading several ideas into a simple narrative. While I hope to pull on some of the major threads, a book could be written on all of the literary devices and implications of the fourth chapter of John. So, we will have to focus just on a few. My goal is to set John 4 in the greater context of the book of John, its societal culture, and biblical history so that one might be able to see for themselves the 4K resolution of all John is illustrating.

In The Shadow of Nicodemus

So, let’s set the scene a little heading into John 4 since Jesus’ interaction is part of a larger narrative. We will find John’s first thread he wove into the narrative. John 3 begins with Nicodemus, the teacher of the Law, coming to Jesus secretly at night to investigate further. There is a dialogue back and forth which finishes with a monologue from Jesus. The scene with Nicodemus ends without a conclusion. In Jesus’ monologue, Jesus uses the bronze serpent being lifted by Moses as an allegory for the Son of Man being lifted up. He states, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (​John 3:16​) and following. Yet, Nicodemus doesn’t respond.

What is striking about setting the Samaritan woman in the context of Nicodemus is the many correlations and contradistinctions between the two (reference the chart below). One chapter centers on a male, “the teacher of the Law,” a highly respected Jewish leader, a Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin, and one skilled in the ​Tenahk​ (the canonical Hebrew scriptures). The next chapter centers around a common female of the Samaritans, a fringe people group. John juxtaposes these two characters so closely together that it is no surprise there might be some similarities in the discussions Jesus has with these two.

Immediately after Jesus’ monologue with Nicodemus, we read about a discussion among John the Baptist’s disciples and another Jew over purification. They go to John and point out all the people going to Jesus to be baptized, concerned. John then replied,

“A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’ The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.”

John 3:27-30

John the Baptist then finished his response with, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (​John 3:36​), which echoes Jesus’ previous statement in verse 16 to Nicodemus. A central message in John 3 is that eternal life belongs now to those who have faith in the Son, and that judgment is self-induced because we hide in darkness from the light. Wouldn’t it be surprising if eternal life came up again in Chapter 4?

Jewish & Samaritan Civil Interactions

John 4 starts with an allusion that Jesus was under threat from the Pharisees because he was baptizing people. So fleeing Galilee, “he had to pass through Samaria” (​John 4:4​). As has been frequently discussed in many a sermon, no Jew ever “had” to go to Samaria. The Jews and Samaritans had hundreds of years of religious and ethnic dirt-throwing. The Samaritans weren’t viewed by the Jews as half-bred or inbred, but more like a “less pure” fringe group who didn’t exactly meet the unique Jewish specifications of purity and practice. The animosity between the two parties permeated their cultures and hailed from the time when the united kingdom of Israel fractured into two (1 Kings 11:31-35).

It’s worth noting that the schism between Jews and Samaritans was not as bad as hyped from pulpits. There were plenty of Jews who probably hated them as we talk about. For example, “Whoever eats bread [made] by Samaritans is like one who eats the flesh of a pig” (Mishnah Sheviit 8:10). We know they shared meals and exchanged in commerce. The two groups had had plenty of bad blood between them. Around 110 BC, by order of John Hyrcanus, the Jews destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, under whose shadow a Jewish rabbi would meet a Samaritan woman.

Could Jews Marry Samaritans?

Exploring Jewish law reveals significant insights into the complexities of the relationship between Jews and Samaritans, particularly regarding intermarriage. The Mishnah and Talmud, central texts in Jewish tradition, provide a nuanced view of this issue.

Samaritans, referred to in rabbinic literature as “Kutim” or “Cutheans,” are discussed extensively in these texts. For instance, in Kiddushin 75a, the Talmud debates the legitimacy of marriages involving Samaritans, illustrating the uncertainty and caution with which rabbinic authorities approached such unions (Talmud Kiddushin 75a). This passage reflects the broader ambiguity surrounding the Samaritan status in Jewish law.

The Talmud also addresses this ambiguity in Yevamot 47a, noting that while Samaritans were often viewed with suspicion, their status fluctuated between being considered Jews or non-Jews depending on context and adherence to Jewish laws (Talmud Yevamot 47a). Historical tensions, such as the destruction of the Samaritan temple by Hyrcanus and the conflicts described by Josephus, further prevented integration into Jewish society.

Despite the general rabbinic stance against intermarriage with Samaritans, individual exceptions might have occurred, especially in regions with significant Samaritan populations. However, these instances were not reflective of the general rule. We know of pagan conversions for marriage, as well as other scriptural examples of non-Jews marrying into the family. Just check out the women in Jesus’ family tree. Still, the Talmud suggests that conversions by Samaritans were often scrutinized and not always accepted, influencing the broader view on intermarriage (Talmud Kiddushin 75a).

The Halakhic texts emphasize a prohibition against intermarriage with Samaritans, reflecting concerns about maintaining religious purity and Jewish identity. The rabbis were cautious about preserving the integrity of Jewish law and preventing potential religious syncretism. In John, a Jewish rabbi would be offended if a single Samaritan woman casually approached him. Marriage would have been off the table and done the garbage disposal.

Historical Samaritan & Jewish Conflicts

While we know they had times of peace just as the Jews and Samaritans each had peace with some nations they neighbored. Jews did interact with heathen gentiles and could share more with Samaritans than most. Yet, it’s often the people closest to us that we fight the hardest with. Josephus recounts two significant conflicts involving Samaritans and Jews during the Roman Procuratorship. These events happen at the same time as Jesus, so highlight how tense the tension could be.

During Pilate’s rule (26–36 CE), Samaritans desecrated the Jerusalem Temple with human bones. In response to later disturbances, Pilate ordered a massacre on Mount Gerizim in 36 CE (Antiquities 18:85–89). Then, a man promised to reveal sacred vessels from the Mishkan, attracting a large group of Samaritans. Pilate viewed this gathering as a potential revolt, leading to Roman troops killing or capturing the Samaritans. The Samaritan council’s complaint led to Pilate’s recall to Rome for trial, but Tiberius’ death halted the proceedings (Grabbe 1994, 424; Isser 1999, 576). I think there was another thing that happened in the middle of it too.

Under Procurator Cumanus (48–52 CE), Samaritans attacked Galileans en route to Jerusalem, resulting in debated deaths (Antiquities 20:6:1, 118; Tacitus, Annals 12:54). Cumanus did nothing, allegedly due to bribery. Jews retaliated by attacking Samaritan villages, prompting Roman intervention. Both groups appealed to the Syrian governor, Quadratus. Following an investigation, Quadratus sent Cumanus and others to Rome for trial before Emperor Claudius. Claudius found in favor of the Jews, executing the Samaritan delegation and exiling Cumanus. The tribune Celer was publicly executed in Jerusalem (Isser 1999, 574–75).

Samaritans in Jewish Law

We know that the Jews in their Talmud and traditions had instructions about letting a Samaritan pray over a meal, how to say a blessing for them, or how to interact around ceremonial uncleanliness. Oftentimes, these teachings include the Samaritans under the collective title of “Jewish.” For example, “One responds ‘Amen’ to an Israelite who recites a blessing, but one does not respond ‘Amen’ to a Samaritan who recites a blessing, unless he has heard the entire blessing” (Mishnah Berakot 8:8).

While ugly stories and division were real, the animosity between the two was more akin to feuding denominations than feuding races. Their disagreements often centered around how to stay pure and clean according to their religious codes, especially in their dealings with one another. Yet, for the most part, they viewed each other as having something in common heritage.

Samaritans were granted some access to the Temple grounds that was not extended to Gentiles. Gentiles were restricted to the outermost part of the Temple area, known as the Court of the Gentiles, which was the only part of the Temple they could enter. In contrast, Samaritans had a more nuanced status.

The Talmudic texts reflect this nuanced access. While Samaritans were not allowed into the most sacred areas, such as the Inner Court or the Holy of Holies, they had access to areas that Gentiles did not, including possibly the Court of the Women (Talmud Kiddushin 75a). Samaritans, due to their partial acceptance, were sometimes allowed to enter further into the Temple grounds than Gentiles. They could enter the Court of the Women, which was an area inside the Temple Mount but still outside the Court of the Israelites and the inner sanctum of the Temple (Josephus).

Jewish Travel Through Samaria

Though Israel was only about 120 miles from north to south, Samaria was smack in the middle of it. If a Jew wanted to go to the northern part of their state, sometimes they would take the journey around Samaria, even though it doubled their travel time, in the name of purity or to avoid possible danger. However, Jews still did travel through Samaria. For example, Rabbinic literature confirms that ancient rabbis, such as Rabbi Shemon ben Eleazar, traveled through Samaria Jerusalem (Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:4). Josephus talked about Jews traveling through Samaria being “standard operating procedure” (Antiquities 20:118).

The difference in John’s Gospel, however, is Jesus “had” to go through Samaria. John made it clear there was either intent or no other option, but the latter doesn’t feel like Jesus. So, why is Jesus, a Jew, purposefully going to Samaria? It’s conceivable that his disciples assumed that he might pronounce judgment against them (c.f. Luke 9:54), to rest, or to hide from the Pharisees. Why else would their rabbi be so intent on going to Samaria?

Sychar & Jacob’s Well

Coming to the town of Sychar, Jesus sat on Jacob’s Well. Sychar was the ancient town of Shechem, nestled in the valley between the mountains (large hills if you’re from the Rockies) of Ebal and Gerizim. It was at Shechem that Abram made his first stop in Canaan and received the promise from the Lord, “To your offspring I will give this land,” and built an altar (​Genesis 12:6-7​). It was in Shechem that Joseph’s bones were buried on a parcel of land purchased by Jacob (​Genesis 33:19​; ​Joshua 24:32​). Hence, John reminds his readers in 4:5 that Jesus came “near the field that Jacob had given to his son Joseph.”

After the Israelites finally entered and conquered the Promised Land, Israel reestablished its commitment to the Law by half of the tribes standing on Ebal and shouting the curses of the Law while the other half on Gerizim shouted the blessings of upholding the Law (​Deuteronomy 27:11-13​; ​Joshua 24:23-25​). It was at Shechem that Rehoabam was to be inaugurated as king but instead split the nation (1 Kings 12:1​, ​16​). Afterward, the northern kingdom would build their temple on Gerizim, claiming it to be the true place of worship, not Jerusalem.

As mentioned, later around 110 B.C., after the successful Maccabean revolt against Greece, the Jewish king and priest John Hyrcanus campaigned against Samaria, during which he destroyed the temple on Gerizim and sacked Shechem. It is here that the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman unfolded. In the near distance stood silent witnesses of the conversation that was about to unfold: Abram’s altar, Jacob’s well, Joseph’s bones, Gerizim, Ebal, the ghost of those who first took God’s Promised Land, the ancient capital of the rebellion, and a city reduced to a village by the Jews.

The setting is rich with color, allusions, and nuance. The story is set in contrast to Nicodemus, a Jewish expert in the Law. This discussion would be flowing out of a discussion of eternal life from chapter 3 and Jesus being the bridegroom coming for his bride. If we didn’t already know what would happen, we should be on the edge of our seats.

Well Wife Shopping

As Jesus rested at the well, after sending his apostles into a Samaritan town for food, a woman approached the well. Even without the hints John dropped at the end of the previous chapter, any Jewish reader of John’s gospel would have raised their eyebrow at this scene.

There have been three other stories in the Old Testament of a man coming to a well and meeting a woman: Abraham’s servant and Rebekah, Jacob and Rachel, and Moses and Zipporah (​Gen 24:10-61​; ​29:1-20​; ​Exodus 2:15- 21​). Each one of these ended with someone getting married. The Western reader might shrug this off as much to do about such a little detail. Observe the similarities all of these stories share:

• A male is traveling to a foreign land
• He comes to a well
• He meets a woman there
• Water is provided
• The woman hustles home
• The man is invited to stay.

John drops in some extra details to tie his story to each of the uniquenesses of the others. Jesus was fleeing his people and rested at a well, as had Moses (​Exodus 2:15). It is midday, as it was with Rachel, and the Samaritan woman asked if Jesus was greater than Jacob (​Genesis 29:7​). Jesus asked for a drink, just as Abraham’s servant did (​Genesis 24:17​). Jesus was reenacting the beginnings of all of their stories.

To make it more implicit, John starts Jesus’ seven signs starts with turning water into wine at a wedding in chapter 2. Then John the Baptist calls Jesus a bridegroom looking for his bride in chapter 3. John wants his readers to be thinking of marriage by the time a woman shows up on the scene. Jesus was behaving like he was looking for a bride when he came to this well.

The Used Unnamed Samaritan Woman

Before we get further into the story, we need to discuss the fact this woman isn’t named. Unnamed figures are easy for us to pass over, however, they are meant to be something a bit different in antiquity. It’s a writing tool called character anonymity. It was commonly used, like in Samuel and Greek plays. We use it frequently today. The anonymity of particular characters contributes both to the characterization and plot development of major and secondary characters. It is meant to invite readers in and provide a contrast to the properly-named people we are not in the story. In other words, we could be this unnamed person in this story.

This woman being unnamed is no accident. This will be Jesus’ longest recorded conversation and the first person he reveal his identity to. John had to go out of his way to leave her name out of it. He wants his reader, still with Nicodemus and marriage in mind, to be in this story. He just showed us what a properly educated Jew did with Jesus – nothing (yet). John also will leave himself unnamed but still in the story. It’s the same kind of tool – he wants you in this story as he was, and to feel the tensions and misunderstandings in you so you get his point.

She’s unnamed and none of us would like that for ourselves. That is part of John’s point too. Nicodemus will be a beautiful story too but one that has to wait for him to get over everything associated with his name. This woman had no such attachments, assumptions, or arrogance. Her name doesn’t matter for her legacy. It could have ruined it.

Jesus’ Dating Game

What I would like to do now is to work through the conversation Jesus has with the woman at the well. If Jesus is looking for a bride, Jesus will be using some “pick-up lines.”…

To Be Continued…

This post is over 5000 words and will be a part of the introduction of the Samaritan Woman. My next step is to complete an ebook. This started in 2016. I hope to have it done well before 2032. If you have any questions or comments, please don’t hesitate to reach out.