The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 304

conooming her hnd been conveyed by some prophet. Thie meant more from a Samari- rumour which thus ho flashed upon her, taness than from a Jewess. The Samaritans 'fhis woulcl suffer from the intolerable sup- accepted the honks of llfosee, and did not position tho.t his 010.im to have prophetio CLclopt the teachino- of the historical or pro- light was a self-conscious fraud, and that phetical books, o~ which the Jewe had by such o. snbterfugo the entire Sam0.ritan built up their exaggerated and carnal views mission bo.d been characterized o.nd con- of the Messiah and his kino-dom. They were trolled, L0.nge thought that the definite not anticipating a King,'"'but a •• Prophet tro.ces of the five mo.rriages were in some mys- like nnto Moses." They place,l the great terious fashion hieroglypbed upon her face. Prophet above the King, as a peer of their 'l'liis is CL great extravCLgance of the working legislature, and 11s superior to their rabbis of 110.tuml law, to avoid the supernatural and priests. The sense of etancling in perception which our Lord exercised when- the presence of One who looked down into ever he oliose to drnw upon the inexhaustible human hearts, justified her in putting the resources and powers at his disposal. Heng- great ease of her people and her own sins stenberg (' Contributions to Genuineness of before him. LPt him speak further. Per- the Pentateuch,' and in hie' Commento.ry '), adventure he will set the relative claims of wbile he recognizes the historical fact here Zion and Gerizim at rest, so far as approach mentioned 9.nd penetrated by our Lord, con- to the Holy One is concerned. More than sidered that there wns a twofold meaning ordinary candour was required to make the in onr Lord's reply. Thou hast had five admission that a Jew might decide the husbands ; i.e. there were five gods-those of agelong controversy. Cuthah, Babylon, Ava, Hamath, and Sephar- Ver. 20.-0nr fathers. The " onr " refers vaim (Josephus,' Ant.,' ix. 14. 3; 2 Kings here to the Samaritans, jnst as the "ye" :xvii. 24), whose worship by spiritual adultery does to the Jews. She may be going back the Samaritan people (of which yon are a once more to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, representative) have tolerated, and HE, who worshipped nnd laboured at Shechem Jehovah, whom thou now hast by surrep- -but the mountain itself was not the site titious claim, is not thy covenanted Lord. of a temple until the days of Nehemiah, Unfortunately, this too ingenious interpre- and the temple in which the apostate tation foils, first of all in this, that to the Manasseh, son of J addua, offered sacrifices five nations seven gods are reckoned (2 Rings had been destroyed for nearly.a hundred and xvii. 30, 31). Ago.in, it is inconceivable that fifty years. .A chronological, if not more the worship of Jehovah should be represented serions, difference is apparent between as on a par with these idolatries, and that Nehemiah and Josephus (Joseplius, 'Ant.,' Jehovah himself should be set forth o.s t1e xi. 8. 2; N eh. xiii. 28). According to the sixtli and worst of the theocratic husbands former, the Samnritan schism which led to of the Samaritan state. Nor can we suppose the erection of the temple was a hundred that Christ, who said such wondrous things years before the period assigned by Jose- about the spirituality and the love of God phus. For whereas Nehemiah so.ys that to mlln, and was in the so.me breo.th o.bont to the apostate priest whnm he chaseu away utter one of the grandest of them, should was son-in-law of Sanbil.llat, the Persian thus have poured contumely on the Samari- so.trap in Samaria, Josephus makes San- tan worship of Jehovah. Thoma practically bnllat contemporary with Alexander, and adopts Hengstenberg's speculative interpre- represents the establishment of the Samari- tation. Strauss (1st and 2nd edit. 'Leb. tan temple as originating with his approval. Jes.') m:i.cle use of Hengstenberg's admission Josephus further (' Ant.,' xiii. 9. l) sRys to find in the whole narrative a mythical that the temple was destroyed by Hyrce.nus, fiction; and Keim has onlv made matters about B.O. 129, and adds that it he.d stood worse by ascribing the entire narrative to two hundred years. The temple was de- the unknown autlior of the Fourth Gospel. stroyed, but "the mountain of blessing'' Christ's own Divine penetration revealed remained for the SCLmaritans as a place of the woman to herself, and sho knew how prayer (' Ant.,' xviii. 4. l; 'Bell. Jud.,' hateful her life must have been in his sight. i. 2. 6). This was conserved, on the She me.de no attempt at denial, or conceo.1- ground that Abraham e.nd Jacob had here ment, or self-justification. T.be events re- bnilt altars (Dent. xi. 26; xxvii. 4--13). ferred to had burnt themselves on her In Dent_ x:xvii. 4, however, Monnt Ebal is memory, e.nd her only refuge is in a bold mentioned as the place where an altar admission of the right of the unknown had been first bnilt to Jehovah. In the Stranger to tee.eh. She concedes his claim Snmnrite.n Pentateuch the word "Gerizim" to solve perplexities, and penetro.te other hnd iu this plCLce been substituted for mysteries as well as the depths of her own • Ebal ; " and so it came to pass that heart. Gerizim had been a place of pray~ Ver. 19.-Sir, I peroeive that thou an a throu1>hout the long interval. When JesUA 168 THE GOSPEL AOCORDING TO ST. JOHN, [err. xv. 1-oi,