The Samaritan Woman

[veteran]

John 4:15-20
15 The woman saith unto Him, "Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw."
16 Jesus saith unto her, "Go, call thy husband, and come hither."
17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said unto her, "Thou hast well said, 'I have no husband':
18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."
19 The woman saith unto Him, "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and Ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."
(KJV)

Why did the subject immediately change there from the woman's past five husbands to her bringing up the matter that Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship?

 

[Isreal]

She changed the subject on the "thou art a prophet" and she would certainly like to change the subject matter off her sinful life.

The small group of Samarians today still believe that the mountain is in Samaria and the Samarian scriptures has replaced Jerusalem with the mountain in Samaria from what I've read..
Since she thought he was a Jew she would have expected him to claim Jerusalem as the holy city.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Jesus informed the woman of a special kind of water at John 4:7-14. He
spoke of another special water at John 3:5. Are perchance the two waters
one and the same water?

Buen Camino
/

 

[Isreal]

.
Jesus informed the woman of a special kind of water at John 4:7-14. He
spoke of another special water at John 3:5. Are perchance the two waters
one and the same water?

Buen Camino
/

No they are not the same. Living water is a metaphor.
"Born of Water" was a description of natural birth and the spiritual birth must take place in order to be heaven bound.
So John 3.5 is talking about the two births one must go through.

Living water is of the spiritual kind.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

"Born of Water" was a description of natural birth and the spiritual birth
must take place in order to be heaven bound.

And of course your statement is infallible; and speaks for God ex cathedra?
(chuckle) I just love the way people don their holy robes and pontificate
online.

So John 3.5 is talking about the two births one must go through.

According to the grammar and syntax of John 3:3-8, the Lord was speaking
of just one birth that people "must" go through-- not a first and a second;
but a second only.

†. John 3:7 . .You should not be surprised at my saying you must be born
again.

One's first birth is neither a must, nor is it of water-- it's of the flesh rather than water.

†. John 3:6 . . Flesh gives birth to flesh

Don't you think it might be sort of redundant to instruct already-alive people
that they must first undergo a birth via the flesh before they can undergo a
birth via the Spirit? I mean: wouldn't they know that already? It would be
like instructing people that before they can stand up straight; they first have
to stand up, when standing up would be a given.

Is it absolutely impossible that the "water" of John 3:5 might be eternal life?

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

Note the grammatical tense of the "have" verb in the Lord's statement. It's
present tense rather than future, indicating that people who listen to his
message, and believe in God, have eternal life right now-- no delay and no
waiting period.

John 5:24 also indicates to me that human life is a walking-dead kind of life;
and it's only when people have eternal life that they can be seen by God
otherwise.

Water in the New Testament never speaks of amniotic fluid. It often speaks
of water as life; for example:

†. John 7:37-39 . . On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood
and said in a loud voice: If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.
Whoever believes in me, as the scripture has said, streams of living water
will flow from within him. By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who
believed in him were later to receive.

†. Rev 21:5-6 . . I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.
I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without
cost.

†. Rev 22:1 . . And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal,
proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

†. Rev 22:17 . .The Spirit and the bride say: Come! And let him who hears
say: Come! Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him
take the free gift of the water of life.

†. John 4:10 . . If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that asks you for a
drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.

†. John 4:14 . .Whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst.
Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up
to eternal life.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Isreal]

.


And of course your statement is infallible; and speaks for God ex cathedra?
(chuckle) I just love the way people don their holy robes and pontificate
online.




According to the grammar and syntax of John 3:3-8, the Lord was speaking
of just one birth that people "must" go through-- not a first and a second;
but a second only.

†. John 3:7 . .You should not be surprised at my saying you must be born
again.

One's first birth is neither a must, nor is it of water-- it's of the flesh rather than water.

†. John 3:6 . . Flesh gives birth to flesh

Don't you think it might be sort of redundant to instruct already-alive people
that they must first undergo a birth via the flesh before they can undergo a
birth via the Spirit? I mean: wouldn't they know that already? It would be
like instructing people that before they can stand up straight; they first have
to stand up, when standing up would be a given.

Is it absolutely impossible that the "water" of John 3:5 might be eternal life?

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

Note the grammatical tense of the "have" verb in the Lord's statement. It's
present tense rather than future, indicating that people who listen to his
message, and believe in God, have eternal life right now-- no delay and no
waiting period.

John 5:24 also indicates to me that human life is a walking-dead kind of life;
and it's only when people have eternal life that they can be seen by God
otherwise.

Water in the New Testament never speaks of amniotic fluid. It often speaks
of water as life; for example:

†. John 7:37-39 . . On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood
and said in a loud voice: If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.
Whoever believes in me, as the scripture has said, streams of living water
will flow from within him. By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who
believed in him were later to receive.

†. Rev 21:5-6 . . I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.
I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without
cost.

†. Rev 22:1 . . And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal,
proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

†. Rev 22:17 . .The Spirit and the bride say: Come! And let him who hears
say: Come! Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him
take the free gift of the water of life.

†. John 4:10 . . If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that asks you for a
drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.

†. John 4:14 . .Whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst.
Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up
to eternal life.

Buen Camino
/

Pardon me whiler I will just back out of any conversation with you and let you run your mouth off like the ass of Balaam.
You should climb down off your high horse now and go repent.


People like you make others want to participate on forums.

 

[Brother James]

The Samaritans were considered heretical by the Jews. They were descended from the remnant of Israel (not Judah) who remained in the land after the exile to Babylon. Jews very much looked down their noses at the Samaritans. That's why the parable of the Good Samaritan was so powerful. I imagine this woman, perceiving Jesus to be a Jew and a prophet, expected Him to look down on her as a member of an inferior race of people. By mentioning her ancestors worshipping the one true God in that mountain I believe she was trying to connect to what she perceived to be something very holy taking place in her presence.

 

[us2are1]

John 4:15-20
15 The woman saith unto Him, "Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw."
16 Jesus saith unto her, "Go, call thy husband, and come hither."
17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said unto her, "Thou hast well said, 'I have no husband':
18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."
19 The woman saith unto Him, "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and Ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."
(KJV)

Why did the subject immediately change there from the woman's past five husbands to her bringing up the matter that Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship?

Because everyone had made up their own Gospel, even back then, and that was one of the issues. Notice how Christ is not trapped by the challenge but rather brings a new truth to light. Separating God and Himself from those who live in error. Indicating that if both sides don't repent they will all perish.
As it is today.






.

 

[veteran]

John 4:15-20
15 The woman saith unto Him, "Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw."
16 Jesus saith unto her, "Go, call thy husband, and come hither."
17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said unto her, "Thou hast well said, 'I have no husband':
18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."
19 The woman saith unto Him, "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and Ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."
(KJV)


There is no reference in John 4 that Christ said anything about Jerusalem being where one should worship. She was the one who brought that subject of worship up about Jerusalem; our Lord Jesus didn't. To further show that, our Lord Jesus said this back to her...

John 4:21-24
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe Me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.
(KJV)

Jesus pretty much struck down the idea that one must worship in Jerusalem with that reply. So what's this really all about with her? Who really was she, and what is our Lord Jesus teaching us here, for He is covering a deeper matter here for us. And it links back to Old Testament history dealing with that area of Samaria.

What I had hoped others would discover is the woman changing the subject to the idea of worship, out of the blue, is one of those sudden Scripture subject changes our LORD uses to get our attention about a very dire issue.

Per OT history in 1 & 2 Kings, Samaria was the capital city of the northern ten tribed kingdom of the "house of Israel". They fell into idol worship, so God brought the kings of Assyria and took them all captive, out of the holy lands. One of the strategies the kings of Assyria would use was to supplant other peoples in a conquered land instead of the original dwellers.

The king of Assyria took the ten tribes out, but then moved Babylonian peoples from 5 different citites of Babylon into the land instead. Those are who the Samaritans are, and that's why the woman asked our Lord why He being of Israel would even speak with her. Even our Lord's disciples asked Him what He had to do with her. The Jews in the south knew those Samaritans were foreigners from Babylon, and the OT Scripture says those Babylonian Samaritans brought their FIVE different IDOLS in false worship to the land with them.

Do you get it now? Her five husbands symbolize those five pagan idols in false worship. This is WHY the subject there suddenly turned to where or what one should worship, and our Lord Jesus telling her that she didn't even know WHAT she worshipped.

 

[Brother James]

Yes, remaining Israelites intermarried with the Babylonians who settled in the land, and so they became a mixed people both in race and in religion. Neither was pure, and for that reason they were outcasts to the Jews. The Samaritans were the most despised people in the Jewish mind as they considered them to be a mongrel race and they had adhered to a corrupted, syncretized Judaism when it was convenient for them. But, they abandoned it altogether when it was expedient. The Samaritans were quite conscious of the things that divided the Jews and themselves. Jesus cut through the division from 1000 years of history. Jesus turned the woman’s focus from the outward to the inward because the Kingdom of God is there.

Think of how powerfully Jesus used these Samaritans. In the story of the "Good Samaritan", he took a member of an ignorant half-breed race with a messed-up theology and a history that is humiliating to him, and portrays him in a positive light. The Samaritan stops and looks down at the man who would not hesitate to spit in his face if he were in good health. The Samaritan’s heart breaks over the condition of this his sworn enemy, so he cleans and bandages the man’s wounds and takes him to a place where he can be nursed back to health.

The Samaritans were like the "untouchables" of India. Something you'd scrape off the bottom of your shoe if you stepped in it, so to speak. Yet they provided a powerful teaching tool for the arrogant Jews who outwardly knew God and yet really knew Him not.

 

[us2are1]

It solely relates to Christ teaching Spirit and truth before God. Every one and their beliefs were wrong in that day as it is also today. All who don't ask God for His Spirit and worship Him in that spirit will perish.

 

[veteran]

Yes, remaining Israelites intermarried with the Babylonians who settled in the land, and so they became a mixed people both in race and in religion. Neither was pure, and for that reason they were outcasts to the Jews. The Samaritans were the most despised people in the Jewish mind as they considered them to be a mongrel race and they had adhered to a corrupted, syncretized Judaism when it was convenient for them. But, they abandoned it altogether when it was expedient. The Samaritans were quite conscious of the things that divided the Jews and themselves. Jesus cut through the division from 1000 years of history. Jesus turned the woman’s focus from the outward to the inward because the Kingdom of God is there.

Think of how powerfully Jesus used these Samaritans. In the story of the "Good Samaritan", he took a member of an ignorant half-breed race with a messed-up theology and a history that is humiliating to him, and portrays him in a positive light. The Samaritan stops and looks down at the man who would not hesitate to spit in his face if he were in good health. The Samaritan’s heart breaks over the condition of this his sworn enemy, so he cleans and bandages the man’s wounds and takes him to a place where he can be nursed back to health.

The Samaritans were like the "untouchables" of India. Something you'd scrape off the bottom of your shoe if you stepped in it, so to speak. Yet they provided a powerful teaching tool for the arrogant Jews who outwardly knew God and yet really knew Him not.

What remaining Israelites in those lands of Samaria? God's Word teaches us that ALL the ten tribes of Israel were removed from those lands, captive to Assyria. That's why Judah kept separate from those Samaritans that were supplanted in the northern lands of Israel. The house of Judah south at Jerusalem/Judea were the only Israelites left in the land after the kings of Assyria removed the ten tribes. Only a few priests of Israel were later brought to the Samaritans because of their not being familiar with The God of Israel.

So the Samaritans were not some 'mixed' race; they were Babylonians from five provinces in Babylon with each province worshipping their own false god.

 

[Brother James]

I take my opinion directly from God's word as well. According to 2 Chronicles 15 there had been people from the hill-country cities of Ephriam and manasseh that had been caught by the Judah's king Asa and who had gone into the Judean kingdom population but later returnd to practice the Hebrew belief in God.

Then we read in 2 Chronicles 30 where it seems that at least some people of the Northern Kingdom of Israel were not exiled. We know this because they were invited by Hezekiah to observe Passover at Jerusalem with the Judean population. Hezekiah sent his posts to spread the word among the remnant of the Northern kingdom but his posts were mocked during their visit to the country of Ephraim, Manasseh and Zebulun. However some people of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulun humbled themselves, and came to Jerusalem. This occurred after the exile to Assyria. But in particular, 2 Chronicles 30:6 contains the following from the king's message to those in the north: "People of Israel, return to the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, that he may return to you who are left, who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria." Who were these who escaped from the hand of the Assyrian kings if not Israelites?

This, combined with historical evidences, is why it seems reasonable to believe that the Samaritans were a mongrel group that had some knowledge of God in their worship. In any case, neither the Samaritans nor the Jews (who still had the temple in Jerusalem) really knew God. If they had, they would not have rejected their Savior.

 

[veteran]

That was about a small remnant of some of the ten tribes that escaped the king of Assyria's hand. The ten northern tribes were not re-established in the land then.

II Ki 17:20-26
20 And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until He had cast them out of His sight.
21 For He rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and Jeroboam drave Israel from following the LORD, and made them sin a great sin.
22 For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them;
23 Until the LORD removed Israel out of His sight, as He had said by all His servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day.
24 And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.
25 And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD: therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which slew some of them.
26 Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria, saying, "The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land: therefore he hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land."
(KJV)

 

[Brother James]

Right. You asked, “What remaining Israelites in those lands of Samaria? God's Word teaches us that ALL the ten tribes of Israel were removed from those lands, captive to Assyria… So the Samaritans were not some 'mixed' race”

I explained how they were in fact a mixed race when I pointed out 2 Chronicles 30, which shows there were plenty enough people left behind for the king to send messengers to invite them to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem. The remnant, which the Bible clearly shows was left, intermarried and disappeared because we never hear about them again. They became the Samaritans, who had a from of worship of Jehovah God, something the Assyrians would not have had. I never stated that the ten tribes were ever re-established in the land after the exile. The Jews were returned to Judea because it was God's plan to fulfill prophecy of the Messiah. The Israelites of the 10 tribes were never returned and, as far as we know, disappeared entirely.

I still believe Jesus' point was that neither the Samaritans nor the Jews really knew God.

 

[Isreal]

Vet if the apostles in Yeshua's day were obviously of the ten tribes then not all Israel was sent away or else some returned..
As the recently freed captives moved NW and sojourned in Anatolia or Asia minor for a short time some must have moved back to Galilee.
Saul/Paul was born in lower Anatolia.

The Scythes settled just below Galilee after helping Babylon capture the Judeans. Possible pay backs since Jews influenced Assyria to enslave the Israelites it is believed. ??
Beth Shan was named Scythopolis by Greeks because the Scythes settled there.
Scythes help send Judeans into Babylonian captivity.... then Idumeans and Kenites move into Hebron according to OT Text.

Scythes were never mentioned in history until after the time the free Israelites were sojourning NW.

 

[veteran]

Right. You asked, “What remaining Israelites in those lands of Samaria? God's Word teaches us that ALL the ten tribes of Israel were removed from those lands, captive to Assyria… So the Samaritans were not some 'mixed' race”

I explained how they were in fact a mixed race when I pointed out 2 Chronicles 30, which shows there were plenty enough people left behind for the king to send messengers to invite them to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem. The remnant, which the Bible clearly shows was left, intermarried and disappeared because we never hear about them again. They became the Samaritans, who had a from of worship of Jehovah God, something the Assyrians would not have had. I never stated that the ten tribes were ever re-established in the land after the exile. The Jews were returned to Judea because it was God's plan to fulfill prophecy of the Messiah. The Israelites of the 10 tribes were never returned and, as far as we know, disappeared entirely.

I still believe Jesus' point was that neither the Samaritans nor the Jews really knew God.

No Biblical evidence that those Samaritans brought from Babylon were a mixed race with Israel. What they did do was 'claim' to be of Israel when things were good with the Jews in the south, trying to win their favor as brethren. But when bad times happened with Judah in the south, they claimed no heritage with them. That's no different today than the many Canaanites of Bible history that were allowed to live among Israel beginning to claim an Israelite heritage when they had none.

 

[Brother James]

Well, first you said there were no Isaelites left behind and I showed you there were. The Israelites were already mixing with Hittites, Canaanites, and all the other "ites" that were in the land, which was part of what destroyed them. They took wives and gods from among the native people. Now, there are many historical facts that are not in the Bible. Alexander the Great is not in the Bible. Not every fact that ever took place in the land of Israel is recorded in the Bible. But clearly the remnant left behind included many who were apostate. That much is certainly in the Bible, and then no further mention is made of them. They either died without reproducing, or they mixed. The only reasonable thing I can believe, given the Bible doesn't directly record their fate, is to believe they mixed. How else would gentiles from Assyria / Babylon acquire a belief in God as opposed to the polytheism of those nations? The Samaritans were trying in their corrupted way to worship God, not gods. That too is in the Bible. Given what is there in the Bible, there are few other reasonable things to beleive about the Samaritans. The Bible does not record what you are asserting about them either. In any case, neither the Samaritans nor the Jews knew God. That part is abundantly clear.

 

[veteran]

Vet if the apostles in Yeshua's day were obviously of the ten tribes then not all Israel was sent away or else some returned..
As the recently freed captives moved NW and sojourned in Anatolia or Asia minor for a short time some must have moved back to Galilee.
Saul/Paul was born in lower Anatolia.

Some of them may have been of the ten tribes, but what The Gospels reveal is that they were Jews, and linked to the remnant of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, and... a small group of ten tribe Israelites that joined with Judah when God split Israel into two separate kingdoms. This is why Anna of Luke 2 could be of the tribe of Asher, but a Jew living in Judea. Same reason that Apostle Paul claimed to be a Jew while being a blood-born Benjamite. It's because all living in Judea after the return from Babylon took the title of Jew (per the Jewish historian Josephus), including the foreigners that returned with them, and the foreigners that had moved into Judea while Judah was captive to Babylon.

Even though our Lord Jesus was of the area of Nazareth in Galilee that originally belonged to the northern tribe of Zebulun, He was known as a Jew from the tribe of Judah with His Israelite brethren south in Jerusalem. That is shown by the Samaritan woman in John 4 also.

When the 70 years Babylon captivity was over, we are shown just what part of Israel returned to Judea per Ezra 2. The rest of the "house of Judah" chose to stay in Babylon after the captivity had ended. That actually made up the 'majority' of the "house of Judah" that stayed in Babylon. It was from Babylon where the majority of those Jews were later scattered from to other nations, like in Asia Minor where Apostle Paul was from.

The Scythes settled just below Galilee after helping Babylon capture the Judeans. Possible pay backs since Jews influenced Assyria to enslave the Israelites it is believed. ??
Beth Shan was named Scythopolis by Greeks because the Scythes settled there.
Scythes help send Judeans into Babylonian captivity.... then Idumeans and Kenites move into Hebron according to OT Text.

Scythes were never mentioned in history until after the time the free Israelites were sojourning NW.

They Scythians dwelt in lands around the Black Sea, around the 8th century B.C. at the earliest, close to the time when God removed the ten tribes out of the holy land. So that may well be true about their having something to do with fulfilling God's will for the house of Judah to go captive to Babylon later. In the 2nd century B.C., Scythia was conquered by Sarmatians further from the north east of Scythia (not Samaritans, but Sar-matians).

 

[Isreal]

Well, first you said there were no Isaelites left behind and I showed you there were. The Israelites were already mixing with Hittites, Canaanites, and all the other "ites" that were in the land, which was part of what destroyed them. They took wives and gods from among the native people. Now, there are many historical facts that are not in the Bible. Alexander the Great is not in the Bible. Not every fact that ever took place in the land of Israel is recorded in the Bible. But clearly the remnant left behind included many who were apostate. That much is certainly in the Bible, and then no further mention is made of them. They either died without reproducing, or they mixed. The only reasonable thing I can believe, given the Bible doesn't directly record their fate, is to believe they mixed. How else would gentiles from Assyria / Babylon acquire a belief in God as opposed to the polytheism of those nations? The Samaritans were trying in their corrupted way to worship God, not gods. That too is in the Bible. Given what is there in the Bible, there are few other reasonable things to beleive about the Samaritans. The Bible does not record what you are asserting about them either. In any case, neither the Samaritans nor the Jews knew God. That part is abundantly clear.

When Israelties mixed with Kenites and Canaanites they were no longer Israelites, just like Esau and his kin were all mixed up.
A little leaven leaventh the whole lump.

Babylon was full of Paganism and the cult of GAD which was huge in Canaan and Israel too..

GAD was the Canaanite deity of fortune.
GAD was pronounced GAWD/GOD in Hebrew.

Rev 12:9 that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world:

All of Christiandom is serving BAAL-GAD a.k.a Lord God due to the influence of Satans sons.


The El of Abraham is named YHWH - Yahweh forever.
His name shall never change.


.