6

What did Jesus mean in John 4:22, ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε (You worship what you do not know; ESV)? Why is the neuter relative pronoun used in both statements: ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε· ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν, (You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, ESV)?

  • Some good answers and I'm trying to decide which is the best. One thing I'm wondering about. Is there any chance the relative pronoun is neuter because πνεῦμα is neuter? i.e. they are not worshiping God as Spirit or in spirit. – Perry Webb Mar 21 '18 at 20:48
  • 1
    No, πνεῦμα being neuter has nothing to do with the relative pronoun that precedes it. The first mention of spirit is to the human spirit and is in conjunction with truth (feminine noun) and there is too much distance between the pronoun and the mention of spirit related to God in v.24 (and even then, that reference implies it refers to a quality of God, not a reference to His Spirit... though that is open to interpretation). – ScottS Mar 21 '18 at 22:40
5

A use of the masculine pronoun (ὅς) would have been a reference back to "the Father" (τῷ πατρί) immediately preceding as the antecedent. But Jesus is not wanting to say the Samaritans worship the Father who they do not know.

Rather, he is trying to point out that they are caught up in worshiping something else entirely—a false idea, a concept of a god, not the true God. So they themselves do not really have a knowledge of what they are worshiping (which is true of all false religions), and hence the neuter relative pronoun.

Most likely Jesus continues using the neuter when describing what "we" (the Jews) worship for two reasons:

  1. It parallels to the statement he just made to the Samaritan, so it keeps the two ideas on the same plane of thought, which relates to #2...
  2. His focus here is on the conceptual understanding of/relationship to one's deity, which the Jews did have a true(r) knowledge of God (God had set His place of worship in Jerusalem, which is the question she asked [v.19] that elicited the response of v.20).

That some false conceptions are a focus can be found as well in some commentaries (though these do not necessarily mention the neuter):

Jesus did not leave the woman with a vague witness about God. He pushed her to think about the personal God who acts in history. First, he called her to an eschatological reality (the coming hour) that would affect all worship (4:21). Because God has acted primarily through people in the world, he is not basically building-oriented. The mention of “hour” here is a Johannine theme that encapsulates the decisive moment in history of the crucifixion and resurrection that transformed and continues to transform human reality. Second, Jesus reminded her that salvation is directly related to God’s working in history (4:22). The issue was not a matter of national or tribal pride. That was the woman’s perspective on God and religion. ... The issue, however, was understanding how God had chosen to reveal the divine purpose in history. (Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11. Vol. 25A. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.)


Jesus now responded directly to the implied question in 4:20: You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. The plural forms used by Jesus (‘you Samaritans’ and ‘we [Jews]’) show that his remarks related to the Samaritan people and the Jewish people in the same way as the implied question of the woman did. Jesus insisted that Samaritan worship on Mount Gerizim was worship based upon ignorance. Jewish worship in Jerusalem was based on knowledge because it was in line with the revelation of God to his people. They worshipped at the place God himself had chosen. Jesus also insisted that God’s purposes for salvation were being worked out through the Jewish people, not the Samaritans. No matter how much grace Jesus was to show to the Samaritan woman, it would not be at the expense of truth. (Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 4. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.)

One older commentary that does address the neuter more specifically, also giving a summary of various interpreters views (bolding and italics original to commentary):

Ye worship that which ye know not.—The question concerning the where of worship could be resolved only by the what, and this again by the how. The neuter instead of whom is significant. Just because God is not truly known to them, He is a ὅ rather than a ὅς, more impersonal than personal. Meyer supposes that the neuter denotes God in His essence and substance; Lücke, that it denotes τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, which does not suit the term προσκυνεῖν. De Wette: “O refers to the act of προσκυνεῖν; ye worship, and therein do what ye know not. Brückner objects to the correctness of the sentence, that the Samaritans were monotheists. But there are different monotheisms. Tittmann and others explain: Pro vestra ignorantia. Tholuck (after Lücke): “The true knowledge is that which is shaped by the history of redemption; and the Samaritans who were limited to the Pentateuch for their sacred books, knew Jehovah, that is, the historical God of Israel, but partially.” As a whole, in a living growth of knowledge, they almost knew Him not. This accounts also for the ὅτι.
We worship that which we know.—Designating the Jewish fellowship in its living unity, as represented in fact by Himself. [The ἡμεὶς in the mouth of Christ in relation to God, is without example, but is easily explained by the fact that here He speaks as a Jew, defending the Jewish worship as the true one against the Samaritan. Otherwise He always calls God His Father, and puts Himself, as the only begotten Son, in a unique and exclusive relation to Him. In vers. 23, 24 He drops the ἡμεῖς and speaks of the Christian worshippers in the third person.—P. S.] (John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: John, New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1871; elec. edition, Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.)

Conclusion

So the neuter pronoun is allowing for a reference to a false conception of God as one's focus of worship, not a reference to worshiping the true God with some lack of knowledge that a use of the masculine would have implied.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    +1 Did you see Dan Wallace's comment on this (p. 337)? "In Jesus’ response to the Samaritan woman about worship, he noted in v 21 that true worshipers will worship the Father (ὁ πατήρ). He continues with the principle articulated in v 22, but this time uses the neuter pronoun to describe the object of worship. The implication seems to be that, since he is aligning himself with his people (not with true worshipers per se), he grants them doctrinal fidelity but not spiritual relationship." – Susan Mar 21 '18 at 23:48
  • @Susan No, I did not think to look at Wallace for a specific example of this verse. That adds another perspective (though I do not think I agree with Wallace on what he feels the implication is). – ScottS Mar 21 '18 at 23:59
2

I think the neuter relative pronoun can be best understood as referring to an implicit demonstrative, along the lines of:

You worship [that] which you do not know. We worship [that] which we do know


In saying ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε - "You worship [that] which you do not know" - Jesus is essentially saying that the Samaritans, being ignorant of the true God, worship Him in name only. Gregory of Nyssa (c 334-395) explained the passage:

Ye worship ye know not what, the Lord speaks to the Samaritan woman, prejudiced as she was by corporeal ideas in her opinions concerning God: and to her the phrase well applies, for the Samaritans, thinking that they worship God, and at the same time supposing the Deity to be corporeally settled in place, adore Him in name only, worshipping something else and not God ...1

But He rather quickly adds that even though the Jews may worship the true God at that particular moment, it has no bearing on the future (v.22-23):

We know what we worship ... but the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth

One modern Orthodox commentary explains:

The Lord did not address the question of who was right, the Samaritans or the Jews, with regard to the proper place of worship. On the contrary, as St. John Chrysostom2 points out: "... having taken away from both of the places priority in dignity, He rouses her soul by showing that neither Jews nor Samaritans possessed anything great in comparison with that which was to be given."3


1. Against Eunomius, III.5
2. Homily XXXIII on John
3. Dmitry Royster, The Holy Gospel According to Saint John: A Pastoral Commentary (St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2015), p.105

| improve this answer | |
0

Here is what I get from the Greek:

You, yourselves, worship one whom you have not known. We worship one whom we have known, as salvation is of the Jews.
-- John 4:22

Details: enter image description here

The relative pronouns are neuter because they are not referring to anything gender specific in the context.

Additional note:
The neuter gender is used in regard to persons (including God) when the gender of the person is immaterial to what is being said. Clearly, the intent of Jesus' use of the neuter gender here is because he knows full-well that the Samaritans believe they worship God, but they don't know/understand/recognise who it is they are worshiping. If they did, they would not be concerned upon which mountain they should worship. Of course, the Jews with whom Jesus had been contending (the leaders and elders and teachers of the people) had no deeper knowledge/recognition/understanding of this God than the Samaritans.

Here is an example of John making use of the neuter gender in regard to those who will be raised up on the last day:

Therefore this is the desire of him who sent me: that of each one he has given me I should lose none of them, but I should raise them up on the last day.
‒ John 6:39

Details: enter image description here

Without this understanding of the neuter gender, one could legitimately conclude that only men will be raised up on the last day.


Back a few verses in John 4:18, Jesus says:

... and the man you have at present is not your husband ...

Details: enter image description here

The relative pronoun here is masculine because it refers to a man/husband in the context.


Skip forward some verses in John 4:32, Jesus says to his disciples:

... I, myself, have meat to eat which you have not known.

Details: enter image description here

Here the relative pronoun is feminine because it refers to the "meat", which is feminine.


What I wonder about this verse is why almost all the versions have gone with "what" instead of "whom". Both are gender neutral, so either is appropriate in the context. Except that, the Jews worship a "who" not a "what" -- Jesus did, at least.

I believe this may have been the issue that gave rise to the OP's question. The NLT translators are on the same page, as they have given:

You Samaritans know very little about the one you worship, while we Jews know all about him, for salvation comes through the Jews.
-- John 4:22 (NLT)

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    -1 The difference between "what" and "whom" in English is that the latter is used almost exclusively to refer to people (including God in some forms of theology). Greek rarely uses a neuter pronoun to refer to a person. Rather, the masculine is used for gender neutral/undefined yet personal referents. The switch from ὁ πατήρ to the neuter ὃ is striking, as noted by the OP and other answers, and as captured in most translations. – Susan Mar 21 '18 at 23:56
  • @Susan your first sentence confirms my choice of "whom" rather than "what". When you say "rarely" in your next sentence, then clearly you are aware of instances where a neuter pronoun is used to refer to a person. So, while I understand the reason for your comment, I am dumbfounded by the need for your downvote. – enegue Mar 22 '18 at 0:10
  • Nope, the "rarely" was just because of a general feeling that there is likely an exception to be found somewhere and I'm not interested in arguing if/when you find it. (And DV is appropriate for something I believe to be incorrect. The comment was a courtesy because I think I recall you being unhappy previously about DV without comment, though I may be misremembering; my apologies if so.) – Susan Mar 22 '18 at 0:14
  • @Susan Nope, the "rarely" was just because of a general feeling that there is likely an exception to be found somewhere and I'm not interested in arguing if/when you find it. Your words need to be preserved in case of they inadvertently disappear. – enegue Mar 22 '18 at 0:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.