John Calvin Commentary John 4:20

"Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." — John 4:20 (ASV)

Our fathers. It is a mistaken opinion that some hold, that the woman, finding the reproof to be disagreeable and hateful, cunningly changes the subject. On the contrary, she passes from what is particular to what is general, and, having been informed of her sin, wishes to be generally instructed concerning the pure worship of God. She takes a proper and regular course when she consults a Prophet, so that she may not fall into a mistake in the worship of God. It is as if she inquired of God himself in what manner He chooses to be worshipped. For nothing is more wicked than to contrive various modes of worship without the authority of the word of God.

It is well known that there was a constant dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans about the true rule of worshipping God. Although the Cutheans and other foreigners who had been brought into Samaria when the ten tribes were led into captivity were constrained by the plagues and punishments of God to adopt the ceremonies of the Law and to profess the worship of the God of Israel (as we read in 2 Kings 17:27), yet the religion they had was imperfect and corrupted in many ways, which the Jews could not endure.

But the dispute was still more inflamed after Manasseh, son of the high priest John and brother of Jaddus, built the temple on Mount Gerizim. This occurred when Darius, the last king of the Persians, governed Judea through Sanballat, whom he had placed there as his lieutenant. For Manasseh, having married a daughter of the governor, so that he might not be inferior to his brother, made himself a priest there and procured for himself by bribes as many supporters as he could, as Josephus relates (Ant. 11:7:2 and 11:8:2).

Our fathers worshipped in this mountain. The Samaritans at that time did, as we learn from the woman’s words, what is customary for those who have revolted from true godliness: they sought to shield themselves with the examples of the Fathers. It is certain that this was not the reason that induced them to offer sacrifices there; rather, after they had framed a false and perverse worship, obstinacy followed, which was ingenious in contriving excuses. Indeed, I acknowledge that unsteady and thoughtless men are sometimes excited by foolish zeal, as if they had been bitten by a gadfly, so that when they learn that anything has been done by the Saints, they instantly seize on the example without any exercise of judgment.

A second fault is still more common: they borrow the deeds of the Fathers as a cloak for their errors—and this may be easily seen in Popery. But as this passage is a remarkable proof of how absurdly those act who, disregarding the command of God, conform to the examples of the Fathers, we ought to observe in how many ways the world commonly sins in this respect.

For it frequently happens that the majority, without discrimination, follow those persons as Fathers who are least of all entitled to be accounted Fathers. Thus, in the present day, we perceive that the Papists, while they declaim with open mouth about the Fathers, allow no place for Prophets and Apostles. Instead, when they have mentioned a few persons who deserve to be honored, they collect a vast group of men like themselves, or at least resort to more corrupt ages. In those ages, though so gross a barbarism as now exists did not yet prevail, religion and the purity of doctrine had greatly declined.

Therefore, we ought to carefully attend to the distinction, so that none may be reckoned Fathers except those who were manifestly the sons of God and who also, by the eminence of their piety, were entitled to this honorable rank. Frequently, too, we err in this respect: by the actions of the Fathers we rashly lay down a common law. For the multitude do not imagine that they confer sufficient honor on the Fathers if they do not exclude them from the ordinary rank of men.

Thus, when we do not remember that they were fallible men, we indiscriminately mingle their vices with their virtues. Hence arises the worst confusion in the conduct of life. For while all the actions of men ought to be tried by the rule of the Law, we subject the balance to those things that ought to be weighed by it; and, in short, where so much importance is attached to the imitation of the Fathers, the world thinks that there can be no danger in sinning after their example.

A third fault is—a false, and ill-regulated, or thoughtless imitation. This occurs when we, though not endowed with the same spirit or authorized by the same command, plead as our example what any of the Fathers did. For instance, if any private individual resolved to avenge the injuries done to brethren because Moses did this (Exodus 2:12); or if anyone were to put fornicators to death because this was done by Phinehas (Numbers 25:7). That savage fury in slaying their own children originated, as many think, in the wish of the Jews to be like their father Abraham, as if the command, Offer up thy son Isaac (Genesis 22:2), were a general command and not rather a remarkable trial of a single man.

Such a false imitation (κακοζηλία) is generally produced by pride and excessive confidence, when men claim more for themselves than they have a right to do, and when each person does not measure himself by his own standard. Yet none of these are true imitators of the Fathers; most of them are apes.

That a considerable portion of ancient monachism flowed from the same source will be acknowledged by those who carefully examine the writings of the ancients. And, therefore, unless we choose to err, we ought always to see what spirit each person has received, what his calling requires, what is suitable to his condition, and what he is commanded to do.

Closely allied to this third fault is another: namely, the confounding of times, when men, devoting their whole attention to the examples of the Fathers, do not consider that the Lord has since enjoined a different rule of conduct, which they ought to follow.

To this ignorance ought to be ascribed that huge mass of ceremonies by which the Church has been buried under Popery. Immediately after the commencement of the Christian Church, it began to err in this respect, because a foolish affectation of copying Jewish ceremonies had an undue influence. The Jews had their sacrifices; and so that Christians might not be inferior to them in splendor, the ceremony of sacrificing Christ was invented: as if the condition of the Christian Church would be worse when there would be an end of all those shadows by which the brightness of Christ might be obscured. But afterwards, this fury broke out more forcibly and spread beyond all bounds.

So that we may not fall into this error, we ought always to be attentive to the present rule. Formerly incense, candles, holy garments, an altar, vessels, and ceremonies of this nature pleased God; and the reason was that nothing is more precious or acceptable to Him than obedience.

Now, since the coming of Christ, matters are entirely changed. We ought, therefore, to consider what He enjoins on us under the Gospel, so that we may not follow at random what the Fathers observed under the Law. For what was at that time a holy observation of the worship of God would now be a shocking sacrilege.

The Samaritans were led astray by not considering, in the example of Jacob, how widely it differed from the condition of their own time. The Patriarchs were permitted to erect altars everywhere because the place the Lord afterwards selected had not yet been fixed. But from the time that God ordered the temple to be built on Mount Zion, the freedom they formerly enjoyed ceased. For this reason Moses said:

Hereafter you shall not, everyone, do what appears right in his own eyes, but only what I command you, (Deuteronomy 12:8, 14).

For, from the time that the Lord gave the Law, He restricted the true worship of Himself to the requirements of that Law, though formerly a greater degree of liberty was enjoyed. A similar pretense was offered by those who worshipped in Bethel; for there Jacob had offered a solemn sacrifice to God, but after the Lord had fixed the place of sacrifice at Jerusalem, it was no longer Bethel, the house of God, but Bethaven, the house of wickedness.

We now see what the state of the question was. The Samaritans had the example of the Fathers for their rule; the Jews rested on the commandment of God. This woman, though previously she had followed the custom of her nation, was not altogether satisfied with it. By worship, we are to understand here not any kind of worship (for daily prayers might be offered in any place) but that which was joined with sacrifices and which constituted a public and solemn profession of religion.