KJV: Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
YLT: Jesus saith to her, 'I am he, who am speaking to thee.'
Darby: Jesus says to her, I who speak to thee am he.
ASV: Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he .
| Λέγει | Says |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Indicative Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: λέγω Sense: to say, to speak. |
|
| αὐτῇ | to her |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Dative Feminine 3rd Person Singular Root: αὐτός Sense: himself, herself, themselves, itself. |
|
| ὁ | - |
|
Parse: Article, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| Ἰησοῦς | Jesus |
|
Parse: Noun, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: Ἰησοῦς Sense: Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses’ successor. |
|
| εἰμι | am [He] |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Indicative Active, 1st Person Singular Root: εἰμί Sense: to be, to exist, to happen, to be present. |
|
| ὁ | the [One] |
|
Parse: Article, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| λαλῶν | speaking |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Participle Active, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: ἀπολαλέω Sense: to utter a voice or emit a sound. |
|
| σοι | to you |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Dative 2nd Person Singular Root: σύ Sense: you. |
|
Greek Commentary for John 4:26
“I am he, the one speaking to thee.” In plain language Jesus now declares that he is the Messiah as he does to the blind man (John 9:37). [source]
Literally, I am. The less political conception of the Samaritan Messiah made it possible for Jesus to announce Himself to the woman without fear of being misunderstood as He was by the Jews. Compare Matthew 8:4; Matthew 16:20. This incident furnishes a notable illustration of our Lord's love for human souls, and of His skill, tact, and firmness in dealing with moral degradation and ignorant bigotry. He conciliates the woman by asking a favor. Her hesitation arises less from prejudice of race than from surprise at being asked for drink by a Jew (compare the story of Zacchaeus). He seizes upon a near and familiar object as the key-note of His great lesson. He does not overwhelm her with new knowledge, but stimulates question and thought. He treats her sin frankly, but not harshly. He is content with letting her see that He is aware of it, knowing that through Him, as the Discerner, she will by and by reach Him as the Forgiver. Even from her ignorance and coarse superstition He does not withhold the sublimest truth. He knows her imperfect understanding, but He assumes the germinative power of the truth itself. He is not deterred from the effort to plant His truth and to rescue a soul, either by His own weariness or by the conventional sentiment which frowned upon His conversation with a woman in a public place. Godet contrasts Jesus' method in this case with that employed in the interview with Nicodemus. “With Nicodemus He started from the idea which filled every Pharisee's heart, that of the kingdom of God, and deduced therefrom the most rigorous practical consequences. He knew that He had to do with a man accustomed to the discipline of the law. Then He unveiled to him the most elevated truths of the kingdom of heaven, by connecting them with a striking Old Testament type, and contrasting them with the corresponding features of the Pharisaic programme. Here, on the contrary, with a woman destitute of all scriptural training, He takes His point of departure from the commonest thing imaginable, the water of the well. He suddenly exalts it, by a bold antithesis, to the idea of that eternal life which quenches forever the thirst of the human heart. Spiritual aspiration thus awakened in her becomes the internal prophecy to which He attaches His new revelations, and thus reaches that teaching on true worship which corresponds as directly to the peculiar prepossessions of the woman, as the revelation of heavenly things corresponded to the inmost thoughts of Nicodemus. Before the latter He unveils Himself as the only-begotten Son, but this while avoiding the title of “Christ.” With the woman He boldly uses this term; but he does not dream of initiating into the mysteries of incarnation and redemption a soul which is yet only at the first elements of religious life and knowledge” (“Commentary on the Gospel of John”). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for John 4:26
Another word is designedly substituted for λόγον , word (John 4:39, John 4:41). In John 4:39 λόγος , word, is used of the woman, from the Evangelist's standpoint, as being a testimony to Christ. Here the Samaritans distinguish between the more authoritative and dignified word of Jesus, and the talk of the woman. Rev., speaking. Compare the kindred verb λαλέω , in John 4:26, John 4:27; also John 8:43; Matthew 26:73. [source]
Ha, not οσα hosa (as many as), no “ever” in the Greek. But a guilty conscience (John 4:18.) led her to exaggerate a bit. Can this be the Christ? She is already convinced herself (John 4:26.), but she puts the question in a hesitant form to avoid arousing opposition. With a woman‘s intuition she avoided ουκ ouk and uses μητι mēti She does not take sides, but piques their curiosity. [source]
“No longer because of thy talk,” good and effective as that was. Λαλια Lalia (cf. λαλεω laleō) is talk, talkativeness, mode of speech, one‘s vernacular, used by Jesus of his own speech (John 8:43). We have heard Perfect active indicative of ακουω akouō their abiding experience. For ourselves Just “ourselves.” The Saviour of the world See Matthew 1:21 for σωτηρ sōseiused of Jesus by the angel Gabriel. John applies the term sōtēr to Jesus again in 1 John 4:14. Jesus had said to the woman that salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22). He clearly told the Samaritans during these two days that he was the Messiah as he had done to the woman (John 4:26) and explained that to mean Saviour of Samaritans as well as Jews. Sanday thinks that probably John puts this epithet of Saviour in the mouth of the Samaritans, but adds: “At the same time it is possible that such an epithet might be employed by them merely as synonymous with Messiah.” But why “merely”? Was it not natural for these Samaritans who took Jesus as their “Saviour,” Jew as he was, to enlarge the idea to the whole world? Bernard has this amazing statement on John 4:42: “That in the first century Messiah was given the title sōtēr is not proven.” The use of “saviour and god” for Ptolemy in the third century b.c. is well known. “The ample materials collected by Magie show that the full title of honour, Saviour of the world, with which St. John adorns the Master, was bestowed with sundry variations in the Greek expression on Julius Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, and other Emperors in inscriptions in the Hellenistic East” (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 364). Perhaps Bernard means that the Jews did not call Messiah Saviour. But what of it? The Romans so termed their emperors and the New Testament so calls Christ (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; Acts 3:23; Philemon 3:20; Ephesians 5:23; Titus 1:4; Titus 2:13; Titus 3:6; 2 Timothy 1:10; 2 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:2, 2 Peter 3:18). All these are writings of the first century a.d. The Samaritan villagers rise to the conception that he was the Saviour of the world. [source]
Perfect active indicative of ακουω akouō their abiding experience. For ourselves Just “ourselves.” The Saviour of the world See Matthew 1:21 for σωτηρ sōseiused of Jesus by the angel Gabriel. John applies the term sōtēr to Jesus again in 1 John 4:14. Jesus had said to the woman that salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22). He clearly told the Samaritans during these two days that he was the Messiah as he had done to the woman (John 4:26) and explained that to mean Saviour of Samaritans as well as Jews. Sanday thinks that probably John puts this epithet of Saviour in the mouth of the Samaritans, but adds: “At the same time it is possible that such an epithet might be employed by them merely as synonymous with Messiah.” But why “merely”? Was it not natural for these Samaritans who took Jesus as their “Saviour,” Jew as he was, to enlarge the idea to the whole world? Bernard has this amazing statement on John 4:42: “That in the first century Messiah was given the title sōtēr is not proven.” The use of “saviour and god” for Ptolemy in the third century b.c. is well known. “The ample materials collected by Magie show that the full title of honour, Saviour of the world, with which St. John adorns the Master, was bestowed with sundry variations in the Greek expression on Julius Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, and other Emperors in inscriptions in the Hellenistic East” (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 364). Perhaps Bernard means that the Jews did not call Messiah Saviour. But what of it? The Romans so termed their emperors and the New Testament so calls Christ (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; Acts 3:23; Philemon 3:20; Ephesians 5:23; Titus 1:4; Titus 2:13; Titus 3:6; 2 Timothy 1:10; 2 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:2, 2 Peter 3:18). All these are writings of the first century a.d. The Samaritan villagers rise to the conception that he was the Saviour of the world. [source]
Perfect active indicative (double reduplication) of οραω horaō Since his eyes were opened. And he it is that speaketh with thee “And the one speaking with thee is that man.” See John 19:35 for εκεινος ekeinos used of the speaker. In John 4:26 Jesus reveals himself in like manner to the Samaritan woman as Messiah while here as the Son of Man (or the Son of God). [source]
Just “ourselves.” The Saviour of the world See Matthew 1:21 for σωτηρ sōseiused of Jesus by the angel Gabriel. John applies the term sōtēr to Jesus again in 1 John 4:14. Jesus had said to the woman that salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22). He clearly told the Samaritans during these two days that he was the Messiah as he had done to the woman (John 4:26) and explained that to mean Saviour of Samaritans as well as Jews. Sanday thinks that probably John puts this epithet of Saviour in the mouth of the Samaritans, but adds: “At the same time it is possible that such an epithet might be employed by them merely as synonymous with Messiah.” But why “merely”? Was it not natural for these Samaritans who took Jesus as their “Saviour,” Jew as he was, to enlarge the idea to the whole world? Bernard has this amazing statement on John 4:42: “That in the first century Messiah was given the title sōtēr is not proven.” The use of “saviour and god” for Ptolemy in the third century b.c. is well known. “The ample materials collected by Magie show that the full title of honour, Saviour of the world, with which St. John adorns the Master, was bestowed with sundry variations in the Greek expression on Julius Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, and other Emperors in inscriptions in the Hellenistic East” (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 364). Perhaps Bernard means that the Jews did not call Messiah Saviour. But what of it? The Romans so termed their emperors and the New Testament so calls Christ (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; Acts 3:23; Philemon 3:20; Ephesians 5:23; Titus 1:4; Titus 2:13; Titus 3:6; 2 Timothy 1:10; 2 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:2, 2 Peter 3:18). All these are writings of the first century a.d. The Samaritan villagers rise to the conception that he was the Saviour of the world. [source]
See Matthew 1:21 for σωτηρ sōseiused of Jesus by the angel Gabriel. John applies the term sōtēr to Jesus again in 1 John 4:14. Jesus had said to the woman that salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22). He clearly told the Samaritans during these two days that he was the Messiah as he had done to the woman (John 4:26) and explained that to mean Saviour of Samaritans as well as Jews. Sanday thinks that probably John puts this epithet of Saviour in the mouth of the Samaritans, but adds: “At the same time it is possible that such an epithet might be employed by them merely as synonymous with Messiah.” But why “merely”? Was it not natural for these Samaritans who took Jesus as their “Saviour,” Jew as he was, to enlarge the idea to the whole world? Bernard has this amazing statement on John 4:42: “That in the first century Messiah was given the title sōtēr is not proven.” The use of “saviour and god” for Ptolemy in the third century b.c. is well known. “The ample materials collected by Magie show that the full title of honour, Saviour of the world, with which St. John adorns the Master, was bestowed with sundry variations in the Greek expression on Julius Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, and other Emperors in inscriptions in the Hellenistic East” (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 364). Perhaps Bernard means that the Jews did not call Messiah Saviour. But what of it? The Romans so termed their emperors and the New Testament so calls Christ (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; Acts 3:23; Philemon 3:20; Ephesians 5:23; Titus 1:4; Titus 2:13; Titus 3:6; 2 Timothy 1:10; 2 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:2, 2 Peter 3:18). All these are writings of the first century a.d. The Samaritan villagers rise to the conception that he was the Saviour of the world. [source]