These 7000 men Symbolise the Northern Kingdom of Israel

HannibalFlavius said:

Jesus and the Samaritan Woman
…8For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. 9Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)


They have no dealings with Samaritans because Samaritans always claimed to be Jews.

To give a story of a good Samaritan is to show a bitter gentile enemy helping a Jew.

A famous rivalry.

2 Kings 17 show exactly where the Samaritans began when one priest was brought back to teach them the corrupt way of Ephraim in which Ephraim was exiled for. So they have always lied, and always made the claim. The truth is simply that the king of Assyria put them there, and they became the new Israel by their own choice. Buit they did the exact thing that made the ten tribes ,'' Gentiles.''

The Samaritans themselves claim to be descended from the original Israelite inhabitants of northern Israel. The biblical account (II Kings 17:24ff) states that they are descended from foreigners imported into the land by Sennacherib after he had destroyed the northern Israelite state and exiled its people, but who learned the Torah from Israelite priests whom Sennacherib brought back at their request. Either way, then, the Samaritan scriptures must derive from earlier Israelite originals.

Click to expand...

Yeshua, who is known in some circles as the living water, was asking a Samaritan woman for a drink from Jacob's Well, of which, the water is known as mayim chayim - Living Water. He asked her for a drink of the living water. That's interesting...
The point of the story of the good Samaritan is not one of a bitter enemy helping a Jew, but to teach the Jew, and all who will listen, to love his neighbor. This is not a love your enemy story, but a love your neighbor story. The moral of the story: who is your neighbor? The Samaritan is your neighbor.

Leviticus 19:18 You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

What is the meaning of "neighbor"?

H7453
ריע רע
rêa‛ rêya‛
ray'-ah, ray'-ah
From H7462; an associate (more or less close): - brother, companion, fellow, friend, husband, lover, neighbour, X (an-) other.


Luke 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how read you?
10:27 And he answering said, You shall love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.
10:28 And he said unto him, You have answered right: this do, and you shall live.
10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Yeshua, And who is my neighbor?

Yeshua went on to say "neighbor" is referring to Samaritans.

You're talking about 2 Kings 17. The Levite was sent to teach Torah to the planted people of Assyria because they were being attacked by lions. If you'll read the text carefully, there is always a distinction made between Israelites and "inhabitants". Anytime "inhabitants" is read in the text, it is NOT talking about Israel/Israelites/tribes of Israel. "Inhabitants" are those who lived there before, such as Canaanites, Jebusites, Amorites, etc., those who had not been expelled, or those who were planted there by other nations. These planted people of Assyria were never called Israelites. There's always a distinction made. Less than 30,000 people were carried off to Assyria. The way a conquering people usually work is to take the most wealthy out and put their own people in to assimilate the rest.

Carefully read the text to know who's who.

sevengreenbeans said:

Yeshua, who is known in some circles as the living water, was asking a Samaritan woman for a drink from Jacob's Well, of which, the water is known as mayim chayim - Living Water. He asked her for a drink of the living water. That's interesting...
The point of the story of the good Samaritan is not one of a bitter enemy helping a Jew, but to teach the Jew, and all who will listen, to love his neighbor. This is not a love your enemy story, but a love your neighbor story.

Click to expand...

Concerning what you have said - and have been saying throughout the thread - I have to agree when it comes to understanding contextually/Biblically who the Samaritan people were. There's really no evidence showing at any point that they were not deemed to be a part of Israelite heritage when looking at the way Christ treated them - and historically, there were always ties....not people "pretending" to be of Israel.

There were others from Israel who were left during the Deportation era - who intermingled with the people themselves whom the Assyrians chose to bring over - and consequently, this led to a lot of other problems later on...one of the reasons why Yeshua had a huge heart for them due to how they were discriminated against - even though they were looking for the Messiah as well. He often seemed to make distinction between those of Israel and those who had a heritage in Israel genetically/in many practices.

It's not logically consistent according to many to claim all of Israel (as in EVERY Israelite inhabitant) was taken away by Assyria - and for more, one can go to the following:

• Matthew's Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of 'The Lost Sheep of
• The Assyrian Invasions and Deportations of Israel, by J. Llewellyn ...

And of course, there've already been several other dialogues on the issue where you or others have spoken in-depth.

• Hi (here)
• Just Jewish
• Remain as you are?
• Identity Chrisis: Slander
• Manasseh & Ephraim - the two Gentile houses of Israel?
• Qumran scrolls more closely match the Samaritan text of the Torah

As said before:

HannibalFlavius said:

The bitter enemy state between Jew and Samaritan was well known..

Click to expand...

Has zero to do with showing contextually where Samaritans did not have Israelite heritage - just as there were enemies between differing tribes of Israel and yet that didn't show that a tribe was NOT of the Lord.

No way around that if being faithful to the actual text and what has been noted historically rather than reading into it (As often done in the Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum
by taking a text past it's context). We have to be faithful to what the text notes - not to our own ideas we wish to import into it.

The Samaritans were not taught the Torah Gxg.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, seeing what was noted in early Judaism of the day and the many versions of Torah that WERE present in the time of Christ - just as the Jewish people had. Gotta be faithful to the actual text and what was noted historically rather than making it up as one goes along, Hannibal.

Yeshua never said that the Samaritans were not taught Torah - nor was it the case historically that Samaritans didn't know Torah (just as it wasn't the case that all who were Jewish knew Torah by virtue of the fact that they were Jews).

They were cast off because they REJECTED the feasts of Jerusalem.

They were cast off because they REJECTED the Levitical priesthood and appointed their own Priests.

Click to expand...

And none of those things ever occurred BIBLICALLY in history when it comes to the bottom line reality of where they celebrated the Feasts - accepted the Torah and noted where the priesthood in Jerusalem was corrupt since many other groups in Judaism itself (such as the Essenes) also noted that the priests themselves in Jerusalem were not descended from the line of Aaron ....something that occurred during the Maccabees account

Most Samaritans are Israelites and many are Priests who descended from Itamar son of Aharon of the tribe of Levi. ...

• Ancient Samaritans Live On - CBS News Video
• Sowing the Seeds: THE SAMARITAN PASSOVER
• What is a Samaritan? A Look at History and Today ...

The Samaritan religion resembles the Karaite Jewish tradition in that Samaritans and Karaites are both outside the mainstream of Israeli Judaism, which mostly follows the Rabbinite tradition. Samaritans believe in one God, that Moses is the only Prophet, that only the first books of the Bible (the Torah) are authoritative, that Mount Gerizim is sacred, and that there will be a future time of messianic revival. They celebrate most major Jewish Holy Days and festivals, although their practices, such as the ritual slaughter of a lamb at Passover (Pesach) and kneeling in prayer, do not conform to those of modern Judaism. In short, Samaritan religion resembles contemporary Judaism in many ways, but also includes various beliefs and practices characteristic of early Judaism. There is a priestly class among the Samaritans, which consists of only a few priests and one high priest.

ALthough it's saddening seeing alot of the beef between those who are Jews and those who are Samaritans today, it is interesting studying the history behind things and seeing how it got to where it was today. Especially when studying John 4 in the meeting with Christ/the Woman at the Well....as there are alot of fascinating dynamics that often make the text come alive.

The rift between the Samaritans and the Judeans was already ancient before Christ ever came on the scene....but what's really interesting is seeing the reasons behind the construction of a Samaritan Temple to Yahweh on Mount Gerizim and the establishment of a rival, hereditary priesthood from the fourth century B.C, as Josephus reported that the high priest Manasseh was threatened with expulsion from Jerusalem on account of his foreign wife, Nikaso, the daughter of the Samaritan Sanballat. Sanballat in turn promised to preserve the priesthood for Manasseh, to appoint him as governor over his lands and to build a temple similar to that in Jerusalem on Mount Gerizim, provided Manasseh would remain with his daughter (Josephus, Antiquities, 11.8.2).

The Samaritans, however, viewed themselves as the faithful descendants of Israel and saw the Judeans as apostate. They accepted only the Pentateuch as Scripture...and in their version, Mount Gerizim is described as the chosen place for the sanctuary (Deuteronomy 11:29-30, John 4:20). The history of the temple site is full of turmoil:

• From the time of the building of the Samaritan temple (often dated to 388 B.C), Samaria functioned as a temple-state under the leadership of its own priestly aristocracy.

• During a period of Greek domination, the Samaritan temple was renamed as the temple of Zeus, the Fried of Strangers (II Maccabees 6:2).

• After the Maccabean success the Samaritan temple was attacked and destroyed by the Hasmonean priest-king John Hyrcanus in 128 B.C (Antiquities, 13). This act sealed a permanent rift between the two communities and to a large extent underlies the hostility between Jews and Samaritans reflected in the New Testament (Luke 9:52-55, John 4:9)

• Emperor Hadrian built another temple to Zeus there (second century A.D.)

• The Christian emperor Justinian constructed a church on this spot (sixth century), which was later destoryed by Arabs (seventh century).

Sadly, Samaritans scattered bones in the Jerusalem temple during Passover in A.D. 6-7 and in A.D 52 massacred a group of Galilean pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem (Josephus, Antiquities, 20 6.1 and Wars, 2.12.3 ). Typically, due to immense hostility shown by Samaritans to Jews when they traveled through their territories---especially toward Jews who were on their way to observe religious festivals in Jerusalem---Jews would typically choose to travel on the East side of the Jordan....and they would avoid passing through Samaria when traveling between Judea and Galilee.

The Samaritans, like the Jews, expected a Messiah to come. They revered Moses as the true prophet and based upon Deuteronomy 18, cherished hopes that a prophet like Moses would one day restor themsevles and their sanctuary. They described this Messianic figure as the Restorer. A Samaritan document called the Memar Marqah , though written in the fourth century A.D., contains earlier Samaritan traditions. It states, "Let the Restorer come safely and sacrifice a true offering. The Restorer will come in peace and reveal the truth and will purify the world and establish the heads of the people as they once were" ( Memar Marqah, 2:33, 70, 180). The Samaritan woman reflected this expectation when she declared "I know that Messiah...is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us" (vs. 25). Jesus' reply was, as was frequently the case, understand: "I who speak to you am he" (v. 26).

The Samaritans were considered apostates and idolaters (based in part on Genesis 35:4) and were viewed as more likely than Jews to be demonized---as evidenced by what the Jews even said of Christ in John 8:48 when it came to the Jews calling him a "demon-possessed Samaritan). Jesus, however, apparently regarded the Samaritans as a genuine, albeit misguided, subgroup of the covenant people...

John 4 when the woman at the well (Samaritan) made plain (as even Yeshua acknowledged) that she was awaiting the Messiah/looked forward to His coming...and proclaimed Him to other Samaritans once He noted who He was. The woman of Samaria, talking with Jesus at Jacob's well, said, "I know that Messiah cometh (which is called Christ") (John 4:25, Revised Version.) Her people accepted the five books of Moses and from them drew their hope of a coming Messiah. It is indeed a remarkable fact that the Samaritans, who accept only the Pentateuch, should have so strong a belief in the coming Messiah, and adopt the interpretation of Deut. 18:15,18, which the New Testament gives (Acts 3:22; Acts 7:37; John 4:25.) ..

Samaritans did have a concept of an eschatological figure (in this sense a Messiah) called the Taheb, although the term comes from a 4th c. Samaritan text (cf. Marqah Memar 4:7, 12). The word means restorer (when not a proper name "repentant") and is linked with the expectation of a prophet like Moses who will arise (Deut. 18:15, 18; cf. John 1:21). Thus, it is likely that the woman and her community held the belief in a Messanic figure, but did not refer to him as the "Messiah", but perhaps "a prophet" (John 4:19).

Studying up on the issue, there was one good review on the issue that did help to give alot of clarity...entitled Taheb – The Samaritan Messiah | Think Hebrew. In their words (more discussed here)

They were cast off because they were worshippers of Baal.
They ceased being Israel before they were sent into Assyria.

Click to expand...

Incorrect - seeing how even Judah was cast off for worshiping false idols and was redeemed (as were the Samaritans in the ministry of Yeshua) - with the Lord never deeming them to not be a part of Israel (even as he noted many in Judah to not be of him due to their actions against him). Again, we cannot be for making it up as we go along instead of giving actual evidence - for Judah also had times of worshipping Baal just as Israel and those who were dispersed during the Exile (as well as those left behind) - but not all were the same universally. This is a basic fact that's well understood amongst many in Jewish culture....

And again, Paul shows us Ephraim's promise in speaking about how Gentiles become one with Judah, the two become one, those gentiles who believed were no longer gentiles, but heirs according to the promise and they are only two heirs, Judah, and Ephraim

Click to expand...

Again, you are making it up as you go along PAST what the text says - and for that matter, advocating the Two-House view when it comes to noting things that the text never said on Gentiles. Gentiles are grafted in by FAITH in Yeshua as Abraham did (and Judah/Israel were already seen as one from God's perspective when it came to how those who were from the Northern tribes were already called Judah/Jews multiple times). It's the concept of Midrash that Paul was doing with quoting Ephraim's promise - and we have to be faithful to what Jews actually thought in that era.

There are no scriptures saying Gentiles CEASE being Gentiles when they join on with God's Israel - and that has been addressed multiple times. There were believers from Israel (Judah, Benjamin, Issachar, Dan, etc.) - all of the tribes - that were a remnant for the Lord and the Gentiles were added into that...it was not a matter of the Gentiles having to either enter into Judah or Israel - for you're simply made a PART of God's people.

Gene Shlomovich noted it best:

• “Enlightened”: Real stories of former One Law and Two House believers
• Are Christians/Gentile believers &#8220;spiritual Jews&#8221; or &#8220;Israelites?&#8221; &#8211; Part I << Daily Minyan
• Are Christians/Gentile believers &#8220;spiritual Jews&#8221; or &#8220;Israelites?&#8221; &#8211; Part II << Daily Minyan

Additionally, John McKee did a good job covering the issue of being grafted into Israel and examining the ways Gentiles can mean various things...outside of simply saying they're not connected to the House of Israel or other Hebrew dynamics. For more, one can go here to the following:

• Tnnonline - Gentile, Term
• Tnnonline - God Fearers
• Tnnonline - CommonWealth of Israel
• Tnnonline - One New Man (One New Humanity)

Gentiles don't cease being Gentile when they believe in the Lord - as that is a basic error that many parts of Two-House promote alongside other groups (British Israelism as well). For they still - in the covenant we have with Yeshua - are Gentile in their background/called as such and yet they are also deemed to be a part of the Common Wealth of Israel...

sevengreenbeans said:

If the woman at the well were lying, I'm sure she would have been called out on that, but she wasn't. And she was certainly at the location of Jacob's Well.

Click to expand...

Indeed...

HannibalFlavius said:

By any Jewish standards, the people of the Northern kingdom were gentiles.

They built their Temple in Shechem.

They rejected the laws of Moses.

They appointed their own priests who were not the sons of Aaron.

They instituted their own festivals unlike the festivals of Judah.

They built high places, they married into gentiles and had gentile children.

What Jew would say these people are God's people and called of Israel?

God himself said to them,'' You are not my people.''

He promised to make an end of them and to send them into the nations as gentiles.

But as gentiles he would call them back, and they would leave their Paganism and come back to the Torah which they had refused before.

If they ever do come back, they are gentiles right now.

Gentiles becoming Jews.

Click to expand...

I agree with all but the last line here. They will be brought back as Israel, not Judah, and not as Jews. In the millennial reign, there will be no need for the traditions that we keep today, and that keep us apart.

HannibalFlavius said:

I have seen all that stuff, but I know the history and the history is that they have been famous liars from the beginning
.

Click to expand...

None of that deals at any point with addressing history properly - just as it means nothing when people claim the Jewish people in Israel are automatically Khazars and somehow liars.

Scripture/historical documentation is the focus and we cannot make it up as we go along....happens all the time in the Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum (which I know you used to be in a lot before being Messianic since you brought up the same claim as the OP saying The 7000 man remnant is of the northern Israel... )

A priest was brought back and from then on they have made a claim of being of Israel.

Click to expand...

Incorrect - seeing what was already noted earlier when it came to the history.

Either the Word of God IS the standard - or one is making it up as they go without addressing Biblical history

At no time during their 700 year history before Christ were they ever accepted by the Jew or anyone else as being Israel although they claimed to be.

God promised to end the kingdom, he promised to sow them in the nations, he promised that they would be strangers among the nations until the last days and Gopd himself called them gentiles, because they were gentiles.

The Samaritans also were gentiles but they were not gentiles because they were originally from Babylon and planted there by the king of Assyria.

Click to expand...

Again, there's no verification of such and it is spurious to claim such without real backing.
Of course they have ancient writings and many things, this does not make them of Israel.


Again, it's generally not wisdom speaking of them being Gentiles and yet not dealing with how the Lord interacted with them and what was present historically in their culture.
True Worship is found in the Messiah, something that the Samaritans didn't know fully and NEITHER did the Jews whom Christ often corrected/noted as not truly knowing the Lord (John 5:16-47, John 8:12-59 , John 10:18-42, etc ).


And HISTORICALLY - on the Samaritans - in regards to 2 Kings 17:4, Sargon carried off 27,290 people, as he recounted in his annals, probably mostly influential people from the city of Samaria itself. Yamauchi estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 people lived in Israel at this time. Thus Sargon neither desolated nor depopulated the land; he merely took away its independence and its leading citizens. In 720 B.C. Samaria, together with Arpad, Simyra, and Damascus, joined in a revolt against Assyria headed by Hamath. It is likely that large-scale deportations were carried out by Sargon as a result of this andsimilar revolts.

Many scholars have noted how it is most likely that some native Northern Israelities of poor status were left in Israel when Assyria invaded/deported the Israelites because the Babylonian King (Nebuchadnezzar) who defeated Assyria utilized the deportation system made famous by the Assyrians, invading Judah and seizing 10,000 of Jerusalem's leaders from every walk of life while leaving only the poorest, least skilled people of the land remaining so that Jerusalen could be of no further trouble (2 Kings 24:2 ). There's also the thought that what occurred with foreign people being brought into the Northern Kingdom would have eventually involved intermarriages of Hebrew/pagan occurring anyhow.....as Judah later experienced people coming into their land for refuge and one king (Josiah) even went into the Northern Kingdom and sought to clean it up---as seen in 2 Kings 23:18-20

2 Chronicles 34:33
Josiah removed all the detestable idols from all the territory belonging to the Israelites, and he had all who were present in Israel serve the LORD their God. As long as he lived, they did not fail to follow the LORD, the God of their ancestors.


2 Chronicles 35:18
The Passover had not been observed like this in Israel since the days of the prophet Samuel; and none of the kings of Israel had ever celebrated such a Passover as did Josiah, with the priests, the Levites and all Judah and Israel who were there with the people of Jerusalem.
​

Although there was enmity between the Israelites and Judeans, there was a time of reconciliation during the days of Josiah, king of Judah. The Israelites who were left behind in Samaria were allowed to join together with the Judeans in the celebration of Passover. (II Chr. 35:17-19). The fact that they were present also deals with the reality of how the 10 tribes that were messed with by Assyria were not "lost" (as many claim)--but simply scattered. On II Chronicles 34:3-9

2 Chronicles 34:3-9
4 Under his direction the altars of the Baals were torn down; he cut to pieces the incense altars that were above them, and smashed the Asherah poles and the idols. These he broke to pieces and scattered over the graves of those who had sacrificed to them. 5 He burned the bones of the priests on their altars, and so he purged Judah and Jerusalem. 6 In the towns of Manasseh, Ephraim and Simeon, as far as Naphtali, and in the ruins around them, 7 he tore down the altars and the Asherah poles and crushed the idols to powder and cut to pieces all the incense altars throughout Israel. Then he went back to Jerusalem.

8 In the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, to purify the land and the temple, he sent Shaphan son of Azaliah and Maaseiah the ruler of the city, with Joah son of Joahaz, the recorder, to repair the temple of the LORD his God.

9 They went to Hilkiah the high priest and gave him the money that had been brought into the temple of God, which the Levites who were the gatekeepers had collected from the people of Manasseh, Ephraim and the entire remnant of Israel and from all the people of Judah and Benjamin and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

​

According to the text, the Chronicler identifies the Levites as collectors of the temple contibution and includes both the Northern and Southern tribes amongst the contributers. Additionally, because Assyria's power was rapidly deteriorating, Josiah's reforms, as in the book of II Kings, extended into the Northern Kingdom. Josiah's territory in Chronicles nearly equaled that of David and Solomon---from Simeon to Naphtali. As it stands, it would make no sense for God to take away those of the other 10 tribes who were faithful in serving the Lord INTO Exile/out of the prescence of Judah when a remnant was faithful to the Lord while their own nations were seeking to serve him.

It never says at any point that those within Judah from other tribes were ever exiled alongside the rest of the nation of Israel/Northern Kingdom.

On the EXILE of the Northern Kingdom referenced in Jeremiah 7:15 ("I will cast you out of my sight, just as I cast out all of your kinsfolk, the Offspring of Ephraim"), the fall of the Northern Kingdom to the Assyrians in the eight century BCE. had already occurred WAY before King Josiah had appeared on the scene....be it in II Chronicles 34:8-9 or any other time of the reign of Josiah. Chronologically, this can be seen since the exile of the Northern Kingdom occurred in II Kings 17 whereas Josiah's reforms happened much later in the life of Judah--after the reigns of his great-grandfather (Hezekiah in II Kings 18-20, II Chronicles 29-32) and grand-father (Manasseah in II Kings 21, II Chronicles 33).

The rejection of the Samaritans by Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah because of their heathen ancestry and the beginning of the worship on Gerizim because of the same kind of rejection by the Jews are but two milestones in the process of the development of the Samaritan sect.

That the Samaritan people did have their origin with these im-
portations of foreigners by Assyria into the region of Samaria is
shown conclusively by three statements made by Jesus:

(1) Matt 10:5-6: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The promise of salvation was first to the entire seed of Abraham, to the whole house of Israel. Clearly Jesus did not consider the Samaritans (perhaps the "cities of the Samaritans" were not synonymous with the province of Samaria, but were certain cities which were predominantly Samaritan--cf. Luke 9:52) to be part of the "house of Israel" (though not quite Gentiles, either). And this was despite the fact that they then worshiped the God of Moses and kept the pure Law even more stringently than the Jews. This fits well with taking 2 Kings 17 as the description of their origin.
​

(2) Luke 17: 18: Jesus calls the Samaritan who returned to thank him for healing him a "foreigner" . In view of Jesus'
comments elsewhere concerning the Samaritans, it is doubtful that he would use such a designation simply to accommodate popular Jewish opinion. He obviously considered Samaritans to some extent non-Israelites, not simply sectarians or heretics.

(3) John 4:22: "salvation is from the Jews." This statement was intended to show the accuracy of genuine Jewish faith as against the Samaritan system. But it also shows that Jesus distinguished between the national origins of Jews and Samaritans, for he would never have made such a distinction with Galileans.

​

Concerning the history of the Samaritans in how they developed, it seems to follow some steps:

• (1)At first the Israelites and the foreigners co-existed side by sid
• (2) when the teaching priest arrived (2 Kgs 17:28), the religion of the colonists almost immediately became syncretistic with the way of the Lord
• (3) During the religious campaigns of Hezekiah and Josiah and there-after, the bulk of the population of Samaria became more and more Yahwistic in the Jewish sense, although much of the foreign element failed to give up its gods (2 Kgs 17:41)
• (4) When the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim was built (ca. 332 B.C.), the priest Manasseh actively began to teach the Samaritan people a strict Yahwism based on the Torah and to develop a more sectarian, but conservative and quasi-Sadducean, religious system, with an active temple worship
• (5) After the destruction of the Samaritan temple about 128 B.C., the Samaritans put even more emphasis upon the Law, and their particular brand of theology began to solidify in conjunction with the Samaritan Pentateuch and their anti-Jewish attitudes and conduct.

According to 2 Kgs 17:24, "the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon and from Cuthah and from A vva and from Hamath and Sephar-vaim, and settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the sons of Israel." If these were limited mainly to the vicinity of the city of Samaria, this would account well for the fact that the Galilee of NT times remained a Jewish region.


Additional colonists were imported by Esarhaddon about 680 B.C. and by Ashurbanipal about 669-630 B.C.53 Many of these peoples kept their separate identities for several generations, as is shown by their statement to Zerubbabel (ca. 535 B.C.) that "we have been sacrificing to Him [Yahweh God] since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us up here" (Ezra 4:2).

It is important to recognize that the question of the national heritage of the Samaritans is to some extent distinct from the question of their religion

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Our father Jacob - The ancient Samaritans were undoubtedly the descendants of Jacob; for they were the ten tribes that revolted in the reign of Rehoboam: but those in our Lord's time were not genuine Israelites, but a corrupted race, sprung from a mixture of different nations, sent thither by Salmanezer, king of the Assyrians. See 2 Kings 17:24.
​

G..

Do you know what made them gentiles?

They refused the ways of God, God's Torah, God's feasts, God's people, God's Holy city, and they continually involved themselves in Paganism.

Click to expand...

And as said before, making a claim isn't the same as dealing with scripture fully - and comprehensively, as there's plenty of evidence where they kept Torah, Feasts and looked for the Messiah. One cannot deal honestly with the text of scripture and history while saying otherwise..

They began as gentiles and it wouldn't matter if they kept the marriage amongst their own people.


Now a Christian thinks he is of Israel but he calls the Torah a strange thing, he has refused the city of Jerusalem and he has invented his own Sabbath and his own festival and yet he will argue that he too is Israel.


He is not, and neither were these Samaritans with their own worship system.

Click to expand...

Again, this is a matter of speaking without evidence (seeing that never has it been the case that Christians universally call the Torah a "strange thing" - lest one has talked to all Christians throughout history and in existence today - and it's a false scenario when it comes to claiming Christians refuse the city of Jerusalem since they already have prayer for Jerusalem/recognize it continually. This also goes for Jews who worship on days outside of Saturday - traditionally deemed to be Sabbath - just as Christians do ....and thus, it is spurious talking on what all Christians do).


That - and the fact that it is already something which was said when it comes to claiming Christians are not part of Israel/God's people since that's against the rules

You can only go so far when you have no real evidence outside of making claims on the Samaritans or Christians.

Click to expand...

HannibalFlavius said:

It wouldn't matter if 7 billion people agreed with the claims made by these so called Samaritans, in fact the United nations would probably help them.

But they still were deported to Israel from Babylon, and their history is long and Josephus says a great deal about them..

Click to expand...

None of that, again, deals at any point with showing where the Samaritan people were not descended from the Northern Tribes - and is a matter of begging the question where an assumption is held despite what the text of scripture says.

Scripture never shows all of the Samaritans deported from Israel - which is flatly against the text - and it never says at any point that all of the Northern Kingdom was kicked out since plenty were left over. Moreover, Yeshua himself never demonizes or calls the Samaritans to not be followers of Him as the episode with the Woman at the Well/their expecting a Messiah shows in John 4 - as well as Luke 17 with the lepers healed and many other passages.

More can be studied at Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: Reading a Familiar Story Differently

But the New Testament alone shows the difference

Click to expand...

And as already noted, one has gone past what the NT says by avoiding what Yeshua did in interacting with them, celebrating them and having them saved. The same goes with Acts 6-7 when it came to Stephen referencing the Samaritan version of the Torah (seeing how there were multiple versions of it) when he preached on the Messiah.

If they are worshipping on mount Shechem, what does that say?

If they are making sacrifices on mount Shechem, and have different feast days, then what does that say?

Click to expand...

None of that deals with the issue already addressed earlier when it comes to the bottom line reality that not all things done in Jewish culture or Jerusalem were fully accurate even Yeshua's time since many things (from the synagogues to the actual high priesthood itself - NOT descended from a Levite) developed during the Babylonian exile and the Maccabean account...one of the reasons other groups in Judaism LEFT Jersualem such as the Essenes since they saw much corruption biblically. Shechem was the original place and it's an issue which has been debated frequently in Judaism when it comes to realizing where the Samaritans were more accurate than others gave them credit for.

In example, have you ever heard of the late Moses Gaster? He was the Chief Sephardic Rabbi in Great Britain at one time and spent many years of his life researching the Samaritans. He purchased a collection of Samaritan writings and artifacts. Additionally, he also authored books about the Samaritans and their customs. Gaster was truly a revolutionary... as his knowledge of Samaritan culture was amazing (more shared here and here ) I always found it cool to see the level of correspondance he did with the Samaritans

People claiming the Samaritans don't celebrate the feasts leave a lot of things needing explanation. For the Samaritan Seder and their preparation including their liturgical practices appear to be a day apart from the Jewish. Both the Samaritan and Jewish Torah define the Passover preparation to begin on the 14th day of the Jewish month on Nissan (EX. 12:6); the eating the following day. The Samaritans define the Jewish day beginning after midnight when they eat their Passover sacrifice it is already April 1th and 15th day of Nissan according to their definition. The Jews define the day as starting after dusk thus the 15th day of Nissan begins in the eve of April 2th thus despite the apparent one day difference both eat their meal on the 15th day of Nissan as defined in Exodus.

And as it concerns seeing where even the Samaritan culture was referenced - again - one should consider the Samaritan Torah since a lot of what is seen in Samaritan practice has led to many good dialouges on the reliability of the Samaritan texts and led to many scholars/supporters of Judaism accepting the Samaritan Torah. For a good discussion on it:

• Variants in the Samaritan Pentateuch of the Hebrew Bible as ...

Some of this wass shared elsewhere (as seen here or here/ #53 )...but as shared there for some examples of Samaritan accuracy, Acts 7:4 is a text that many have had issue with and have said is inaccurate. In Stephen's speech, it is in reference to Genesis 11:31-32...and in Genesis 11:31-32, by way of completing this short intro to Terah's family, the narrative records his death at the age of 205. If Abram was born when Terah was 70---as seen in Genesis 11:26--and if Abram was 75 yrs old when he departed for Canaan (as seen in Genesis 12:4), then Terah died 60yrs after Abram's depature (70+75+60=205), In Acts 7:4, however, Stephen says that after Abram left Haran after the death of Terah.

A simple way to resolve the chronological difficulty is to suppose that Stephan was following an alternative text (represented today in the Samaritan Pentateuch), which says that Terah died at the age of 145 rather than 205. The Samaritan text of the Pentateuch does say 145, so we are not dealing with a deus ex machina. Moreover, there are scholars, Avraham Spero and Jakob Jervell among them, who believe that Stephen himself was a Samaritan. This would also help to explain in Acts 7:16, which says that Abraham was buried in Sh'khem, since this too follows SAMARITAN Tradition. It explains a possible anti-Temple tendency in Acts 7:47-50 (Compare to John 4:40-22 with the Samaritan woman/Jesus) and gives logic to placing the story of the spread of the Gospel to Shomoron in the immediately following passage (Acts 8:4-26).


It truly is interesting seeing how the Samaritan version is much closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX than to the current Masoretic. And Stephen, living withing Judaism, was noted to quote directly from the Samaritan Penteuch and other Jews have noted how it was not counter to Judaism to reference Samaritan culture/scriptures (Samaritaism)...although for camps within Judaism against all things Samaritan, any mention of it will lead to conflict.

Sevengreenbeeans has given lots of good info on the issue of the Samaritan text - as seen here:

Worth studying on...

It says very clearly that they are not Israel by any standard.


They are separated from the Jews by blood and worship systems.

They look nothing alike because they are nothing alike

Click to expand...

Incorrect - and again, claiming a stance isn't the same as addressing what the Bible says fully on it. And when reading past what the text says or reading more into than what's present, one ends up muddying up the history of what actually occurred. There's a reason many Samaritans came to faith in Yeshua and recognized him when he spoke in terms they understood - and later, the same in Acts 8 when it came to understanding where there was Biblical commonality.

HannibalFlavius said:

Were they not lost, then all the prophesies God made of them would be false,

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't - seeing how it's only a matter of prophecy being "false" when not understanding the reality of what terms mean and having a false premise imposed on the text that not all Jews ever agreed to. The Nation of Israel was never "lost" - seeing how many were already present in the Southern Kingdom and away when Israel was ransacked by Assyria.

And way before Assyria was on the scene to exile Israel, many in the North had already joined in with the South (as seen in 2 Chronicles 19:10-11 , 2 Chronicles 23:1-3 and other places):
There's alot of scriptural reference in the NT showing how all within Israel who remained alongside Judah were called "Jews" and there was unity. Paul already mentioned in Acts 26:7 that the 12 tribes were present when speaking about all of them hoping in the promises of God. James also wrote his letter to the 12 tribes, as seen in James 1:1..and the dispersed do show up in scripture as not being lost as a whole. For the New Testament mentions Anna from the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36-37). They were scattered, as it concerns the 10 Lost Tribes, but not destroyed and removed without a trace.

As Messianic Jew, Dr.Brown said best (for a brief excerpt):

Paul explains that there has always been 7000 reserved, at that time, in Paul's time, and this present time.

Click to expand...

Paul never said there were 7,000 reserved - But they are of Judah. The issue of the remnant was never focused on that - even though in Elijah's time in I Kings 18-19 the Lord noted that...and Paul used that analogy when speaking on Israel in Romans 11:4 (as well as Romans 9:26-28) as it concerns those amongst the Jewish people who'd come to faith and why many of the Jewish people were hardened in his day while the Gentiles themselves were being grafted into the camp of believers in Israel ( more shared in #244 / #247 /#250 #49 ).

One can simply begin, for example, in understanding the context of Romans 9 in its original setting as well as what Hosea says. In Romans 9:24 the apostle Paul writes of how God has called individuals unto salvation “not from among the Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.”

Then, in Romans 9:25-26, he continues by quoting from the OT.

Of course, in their original context in Hosea, these verses speak of God’s restoration of ethnic Israel in the last days. And thus, for others, the assumption is that Paul MUST be saying that Gentiles are either Ethnic Israel itself - or that Gentiles coming in are the fulfillment of Hosea's prophecy. Both views miss the mark for a host of reasons...

The NT writers had at their disposal at least three legitimate methods of recording quotations from the OT: (1) they could translate them directly from the original Hebrew text; (2) they could use the existing Septuagint and quote according to this version; or (3) they could simply record quotations made by others (e.g., Luke 4:18-19 and Acts 8:32-33)

It's best to see Paul’s use of Hosea in Romans 9:25-26 as analogical in nature......a matter of Paul drawing a comparison /analogy between the calling of Gentiles from unbelief and the restoration of Israel from exile and judgment. ..for just as God can bring Israel back from the dead, he can also call Gentiles to new life. What is occurring is that Paul is not choosing to go for reinterpreting these verses in Hosea - but rather, Paul is drawing a parallel between the future restoration of the Jews and the present salvation of the Gentiles in order to highlight the graciousness of God toward those who have no claim on His mercy.

It is a matter of the apostle underscoring a point of continuity between these two distinct situations without equating them or suggesting that one fulfills the prediction of the other (a logical fallacy similar to saying that "birds will fly again" in a song when talking on a hurt eagle being nursed back to life must somehow mean that the same phrase of "birds will fly again" in another song MUST have eagles in mind when that new song was talking on pigeons/doves).


Essentially, while Paul applies promises of Israel’s restoration to Gentiles in Romans 9:25–26, he does so not to include Gentiles in his concept of “Israel,” but rather to explain something that is true of both the future restoration of Israel and the present salvation of Gentiles.

In the original context these passages from Hosea refer to the spiritual restoration of Israel. But Paul finds in them the principle that God is a saving, forgiving, restoring God, who delights to take those who are “not my people” and make them “my people.” An Paul then applies this principle to Gentiles, whom God makes his people by sovereignly grafting them into covenant relationship

What Paul does here is to take this promise, which referred to a situation within the frontiers of the chosen people, and extract from it a principle of divine action which in his day was reproducing itself on a world-wide scale. In large measure through Paul’s own apostolic ministry, great numbers of Gentiles, who had never been “the people of God” and had no claim on his covenant mercy, were coming to be enrolled among his people and to be recipients of his mercy....


When considering it, several arguments for this understanding of Paul’s use of Hosea are in play.
Paul takes the rejection of Israel so seriously – “not my people,” “not loved,” “not my people” – that he feels justified in using this text as an argument for why God has included the Gentiles as vessels of mercy. For if Jews were really a “no people” and could be declared “my people,” then Gentiles who were “no people” could be declared “my people.” And before, Gentiles were no people. ...tey had no covenant claims on God. But now through the promised seed of Abraham (Yeshua), God has sent his effective call and many of them are saved – meaning they became part of his covenant people.

For more info, I'd suggest investigating the following:

• Did Paul Misinterpret the Old Testament - Audio
• ]Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:25-26

If one wanted to see Gentiles coming to faith in the Lord as connected to the promise of Hosea, there'd need to be very clear qualifications - and to a point, that may be possible. ......if aware of what's known as There is as the “Hidden Israel” view. For as the ten tribes of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) were scattered among the Gentile nations, we still have awareness of where many of them are since much of the Northern people retained their identity - and yet others had it lost to history.

Thus, for many of the Northern Kingdom, they are still around, but no one knows who they are.....and in many ways, when the Gentiles get saved, there is the POTENTIAL for those Gentiles to have possibly been of the tribes that got scattered (as it concerns Ezekiel 37 ). So in that sense salvation for the Gentiles fulfills the prophecy because many of the Israelites are hidden among many Gentiles, and His promise to gather is continually being made will be made complete - anticipated in the Resurrection on the Last Day.

With I Peter 2:10, there's a similar reality at play that must be considered - and as another said best:
To look past that is to argue what you are doing blantantly - Two House Theology claiming Gentiles HAVE to be of Ephraim and Israel in order to be acceptable to the Lord....a view which has never been accepted within Messianic Judaism when it comes to understanding the nature of the Northern Kingdom.

Having said that, millions and millions of Joseph will be suddenly found.


When Judah is strengthened, those will be the days that millions of gentiles will be accounted as Joseph.

Then Joseph and Judah will be as one, This has never happened, do you think it has?

Click to expand...

And as said already, scripture already notes clearly where Jews from the Northern Tribes were present alongside those of the Southern Tribes even after the exile - so we cannot dismiss that flippantly.

One cannot take more from the text that what was noted or go past what was explained. And as said before, what you're doing is essentially what the extreme forms of Two-House do when claiming that none of those from Israel are either present today and were never reconnected with Judah - which goes past the Torah's account. ..and thus, requires one to adjust view in considering another option that harmonizes with what the text actually says.

To be clear, I am sympathetic with the Two-House view in certain variations - there was (in example) one instance I'm reminded of where one poster (pat34lee ) received a lot of hassle over it due to him supporting a strain of Two-House as a Messianic Gentile believer - from the thread entitled Identity Chrisis: Slander. It was taken wrongly at multiple points simply because he believed that there was connection between Gentiles and Israel...even though there's evidence for how many within the Northern Kingdom of Israel got dispersed amongst the Gentile Nations and forgot identity (as shared more in-depth here and here ). As said earlier, John McKee did a good job covering the issue of being grafted into Israel and examining the ways Gentiles can mean various things...outside of simply saying they're not connected to the House of Israel or other Hebrew dynamics. For more, one can go here to the following:

• Tnnonline - Gentile, Term
• Tnnonline - CommonWealth of Israel
• Tnnonline - One New Man (One New Humanity)
• ISRAEL IN FUTURE PROPHECY - TNN Online

Hey Bubba, you know I love you. But it would really help your case if you start with a few scripture references and show us how you came to these conclusions. Sure there will be those that disagree. There always are. But there will be those that have something to contribute too. So share! I'm just sayin'...

Phillip

HannibalFlavius said:

Were they not lost, then all the prophesies God made of them would be false, but they were lost and aliens took their houses.

Paul explains that there has always been 7000 reserved, at that time, in Paul's time, and this present time.

But they are of Judah.

Having said that, millions and millions of Joseph will be suddenly found.


When Judah is strengthened, those will be the days that millions of gentiles will be accounted as Joseph.

Then Joseph and Judah will be as one, This has never happened, do you think it has?

Click to expand...