The Samaritan Woman’s Story: Reconsidering John 4 after #ChurchToo. By Caryn A. Reeder. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022. 206 pp. Paper, $17.99.
Caryn Reeder challenges a common view of John chapter four’s woman at the well, maintaining that the passage’s usual interpretation––perpetuated by men throughout church history––objectifies women. According to Reeder, faulty interpretations of the Bible, including John 4, have contributed to the abuse of women in the church. The #MeToo and #ChurchToo movements arose in response to this abuse.
Reeder traces how the church, from the post-apostolic period until the present day, has viewed the Samaritan woman.
Tertullian saw her as a prostitute, a picture of a terrible sinner who needed spiritual salvation. Her many husbands point to her numerous sexual sins (pp. 3-4). The emphasis is on the woman’s sexuality and is a warning to the church concerning the dangers of that sexuality. Women are not seen as equals, but are minimalized. Tertullian said that having more than one marriage is adultery (p. 26). The woman is a temptress; women can therefore be dangerous by arousing sexual desire in men. The responsibility for men’s lust falls on women. Sexual assault is therefore the fault of women who do not dress or behave properly (p. 90).
Others from early church history, such as Chrysostom, saw the Samaritan woman as a sexual sinner, but one who was genuinely seeking the truth (p. 38).
From the Reformation onward, most writers have continued to paint her as an evil sinner who shows that even the worst of people can experience God’s grace (p. 49). Calvin said she was a prostitute who mocked Jesus with her questions. Her example shows that women are to be submissive in the church (p. 54). Reeder rebukes D. L. Moody and early Fundamentalists because they used the account of the woman to elevate the position of men in the church (p. 95). Writers who view the woman in a positive light have usually been women.
Because they tempt men, women are often viewed as a danger to men’s salvation (p. 76). Reeder particularly attacks John Piper, saying that he is a white man who minimalizes the Samaritan woman’s intelligence and worth. According to Reeder, attitudes like Piper’s can lead to the abuse of women in the church (p. 85). Reeder states that this “pattern of interpretation develops from and reinforces the reductive sexualization of women,” and is a “microcosm of the dehumanizing, sexualization of women in Christian theology and practice” (pp. 93, 175). As a result, there is a crisis of abuse in the church (p. 94).
Reeder believes that the white, European, male view that has dominated the interpretation of John 4:7-42 has caused the church to seriously misunderstand the point of the account. She takes the account as historical and believes that we need to understand its first-century context in order to properly see this woman for who she was. This is the strongest feature of Reeder’s book.
Citing original sources, Reeder argues that the woman’s multiple marriages and the fact that she is living with a man who is not her husband do not indicate sexual sin or uncontrolled libido on the woman’s part. She is not a femme fatale. In chapters 5–6, Reeder shows that girls in that culture married very young––often at the age of twelve–and often to husbands who were much older. Divorce and remarriage were very common, and multiple marriages were often arranged by a woman’s parents. Women were often involved in businesses, owned property, and had some wealth through dowries. Marriages were most often seen as social and economic contracts. The woman at the well was not looking for romance or sexual conquests in her marriages. Marriage after divorce was most often done out of necessity for all concerned. Husbands would often divorce their wives or die before the woman did (p. 114). Men often married in order to have an heir, but infant mortality was high. If a husband could not have children with a woman, he might divorce her (p. 128). Reeder says that while the husbands of the woman at the well are most often seen as victims, the woman, in fact, probably bore little of the blame for her complicated marital history.
Reeder points out that Jesus does not speak of this woman’s sin when He talks about her many marriages and current living arrangement. Her life was not considered shameful in that culture. Jesus used His knowledge of her life to simply show that He is the Christ (pp. 145, 163).
Because of the importance of women in the affairs of home and business, the Samaritan woman would have conducted various activities outside the home. To say that she drew water at noon because she was considered an outcast in the community is to misunderstand the historical context (p. 162). It is not a commentary on how the people of the city saw her. She was simply busy, and this was the time she found appropriate to draw water.
It is wrong to see this woman as an ignorant, uneducated, sexual temptress. When compared to Nicodemus in John 3, she is seen as an example of discipleship. Nicodemus comes to the Lord at night. She meets Jesus in the brightness of day. Nicodemus is ashamed of being seen with Christ. She goes and tells the people of the city that they need to come see Him. They respect her enough to listen to her (p. 63). Nicodemus does not understand what the Lord says, but she quickly understands that He is a prophet. Then, she understands that He is even more (p. 100). She shows her knowledge of religious and political issues by the questions she asks. She is a partner with Christ in evangelizing the city.
Through her primary sources, Reeder challenges us to reconsider the social circumstances of the woman at the well. We will accept Reeder’s presentation of the woman to the degree that we accept her sources as accurately reflective of the day-to-day lives and marriages of first century women in the Middle East. If nothing else, Reeder’s argument should keep us from superimposing our own culture onto John 4. I found myself wondering whether my understanding of this woman has been based upon modern Evangelical views of marriage and divorce. I particularly enjoyed her comparison of the woman and Nicodemus. I highly recommend this book for these reasons.
However, it is clear to this reviewer that Reeder has an axe to grind. She is rightly disgusted with the sexual abuse of women in Evangelical churches and with the way that men who are guilty of such sins/crimes are often excused. But she swings the pendulum too far. She believes women should be equal in every way in the church, including being pastors. She rejects a complementarian view of the sexes (pp. 8, 180). She believes that white men are to blame for the faulty interpretation of John 4 because they see women as inferior, sexual objects.
But what is the true cause and effect? A faulty view of John 4 may not be nefarious. Most often it is simply because of historical ignorance and the inability to recognize that our culture is not the culture of Jesus’ day. Reeder strongly suggests that faulty interpretations of John 4 lead to, produce, or contribute to the mistreatment and sexual abuse of women in the church. However, while a majority of men may not accurately understand the Samaritan woman’s situation, it seems unlikely that this leads many of them to engage in the abuse of women. I would think that other sinful impulses are the real cause of such abuse.
Kenneth W. Yates
Editor
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
