Was the woman at the well in John 4 saved?

I have no problem taking unpopular positions and going against ‘the establishment’ of Big Eva. However, before discussing this further, I must first confess my errors in teaching John 4 over the decades. Where I have formally taught, the woman at the well was saved.

Time and time again, I have spent a great deal of time reading commentaries on John chapter 4. From commentaries I have on my shelves in the 1990s, to the growing number of commentaries and books I have in my Logos digital library today. I am convinced that the story of the woman at the well is perhaps one of the most eisegetically taught stories in the Bible. In case you haven’t heard, an eisegesis, or eisegetical teaching, is bad.

In review, an eisegesis (or eisegetical) teaching of God’s Word is to ‘lean into’ the Text or reading meaning into a Biblical Text. Whereas the preacher or teacher gives his opinions, telling his listeners what he believes the Scriptures are saying. But an exegesis (or exegetical) teaching of God’s Word is to ‘lean from’ the Text or drawing out the meaning that is already there. Whereas the teacher says what God is saying via His Word. And we use the Scriptures to interpret Scripture with the disciplines of proper hermeneutics and Textual criticism.

The Nelson’s Bible dictionary further explains both here.

“The problem is our bias, or our subjectivity. Many times we approach a passage thinking we already understand it. In the process we read our own meaning into the passage. This is called eisegesis. (Eis is a Greek preposition meaning “into.”) But interpreting the Bible correctly demands that we listen to what the text itself is saying, and then draw the meaning out of the passage. This is called exegesis. (Ex is a Greek preposition meaning “out of.”) If we let a passage be defined by what it and the surrounding verses say, then we have taken a large step toward interpreting the Bible properly. Only by watching the context carefully and by letting the passage speak for itself do we give Scripture the respect it deserves.”

Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, Thomas Nelson Publishers, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1995).

Commentators, especially Arminians, lift the Samaritan woman on a pedestal. Every Arminian commentary I studied declared her as being saved at the well. I’d rather speak more highly of Christ than her. Truth is, she was a sexually immoral woman, a repeat offender at that. And there’s no evidence that the Lord granted her a saving faith and repentance.  

There’s evidence she met Jesus, listened to Him, He knew her sins, and she was expecting the Messiah (v. 18,25). Jesus told her He was the Christ (v. 26), but there’s no clear evidence she believed (pisteúō̄) in Him as the Christ. Those who have been chosen and saved by the Lord (God’s elect) have been gifted a salvific belief (pisteúō̄). That Greek word pisteúō̄ is to be entrusted to Jesus as the Christ, and there’s no evidence she did.

There’s evidence she left her waterpot (v.28) and went to the village, telling others what Jesus said about her, asking, “Could this be the Christ?” (v.29). Her testimony about Jesus is noted, but there’s no clear evidence of salvation. Sharing what we know about Jesus is not salvific. An intellectual belief is not salvific.

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” – James 2:19

And what about that waterpot? Every Arminian commentator rendered their opinions (an eisegesis) as to why she left her waterpot behind.

Exegetically, the Scriptures revealed she knew Jesus was extraordinary, and she clearly “perceived” He was a prophet (v.19). Exegetically, the Scriptures showed the Omniscience of the Lord Jesus (v.17,18). Exegetically, the Scriptures showed she raised considerable interest by telling others Jesus knew about her sins, provoking them to further investigate (v.29). But there is no clear evidence she was granted a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus.

Exegetically, the Scriptures reveal that as a result of her telling others about Jesus. Once they investigated the matter, many Samaritans believed (pisteúō̄). As said in verses 41-42,

“And many more believed because of his own word; And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.”

They believed (pisteúō̄) because of what Jesus told them, not her.

And so, if someone asked me today if she was saved. Because the Scriptures do not definitively say, and because I’m not omniscient, I will not say she was, nor will I say she was not. But to err on the side of interpretive restraint, rather than interpretive excess: I must say “I don’t know!”  

It is possible that an eisegesis, our opinions or speculations, can add or take away from God’s Word, and we know what He warned about that.

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” – Deuteronomy 4:2

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” – Revelation 22:18-19

Update 11/01/25: The video version is now available here or below.