The "woman of Canaan" and the "woman of Samaria".

[OldWiseGuy]

Were they actually Israelites? If Jesus "was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", then many living in the regions of Galilee, Samaria, Sidon, and Tyre were indeed the remains of the Assyrian captivity of the House of Israel alluded to in Isaiah 9:1-8.

 

[miknik5]

Were they actually Israelites? If Jesus "was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", then many living in the regions of Galilee, Samaria, Sidon, and Tyre were indeed the remains of the Assyrian captivity of the House of Israel alluded to in Isaiah 9:1-8.

What was GOD's directives to HIS first chosen Israel after THE PASSOVER and EXODUS out of "Egypt" and into "ISRAEL"?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What was GOD's directives to HIS first chosen Israel after THE PASSOVER and EXODUS out of "Egypt" and into "ISRAEL"?

Where are you going here?

 

[miknik5]

Where are you going here?

The command was not to treat a foreigner as s foreigner

Any foreigner who wished to celebrate the "Passover" needed to be "circumcised"

The first chosen Israel were called out of "Egypt" and into "ISRAEL@ because GOD heard their cries of oppression and took them out by a strong arm of HIS SALVATION

But they in turn were supposed to remember the Passover and teach their children. They were supposed to be a light to all men of the knowledge of GOD

They didnt feed the flock


HE came to do what no one was doing..or had forgotten to do..or didn't care to do

 

[miknik5]

Exodus 12

 

[miknik5]

The woman at the well held up Jacobs well as her only lifeline to an inheritance in the things of GOD

Because her older brothers weren't feeding her

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The command was not to treat a foreigner as s foreigner

Any foreigner who wished to celebrate the "Passover" needed to be "circumcised"

The first chosen Israel were called out of "Egypt" and into "ISRAEL@ because GOD heard their cries of oppression and took them out by a strong arm of HIS SALVATION

But they in turn were supposed to remember the Passover and teach their children. They were supposed to be a light to all men of the knowledge of GOD

They didnt feed the flock


HE came to do what no one was doing..or had forgotten to do..or didn't care to do

Interesting by how does this relate to the subject?

 

[miknik5]

Interesting by how does this relate to the subject?

There's only ONE FLOCK and ONE SHEPHERD over THE FLOCK/HOUSE for GOD

Just as Ezekiel 34 explains
And just as Ezekiel 36 explains why

 

[miknik5]

Were they actually Israelites? If Jesus "was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", then many living in the regions of Galilee, Samaria, Sidon, and Tyre were indeed the remains of the Assyrian captivity of the House of Israel alluded to in Isaiah 9:1-8.

Was Jacobs wives all Israelites?

Or was it because GOD called and renamed Jacob (and his wives joined to him) Israel?


Otherwise the sons of Leah and Rachel's handmaids would not have been counted as heads over the 12 tribes of Israel

 

[miknik5]

A circumcised first born son (from generation to generation) was supposed to b the spiritual head over the house...

But all these shadows and temporary signs were ever and always to point us to CHRIST

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There's only ONE FLOCK and ONE SHEPHERD over THE FLOCK/HOUSE for GOD

Just as Ezekiel 34 explains
And just as Ezekiel 36 explains why

These scriptures reinforce what I'm asserting.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Was Jacobs wives all Israelites?

Or was it because GOD called and renamed Jacob (and his wives joined to him) Israel?


Otherwise the sons of Leah and Rachel's handmaids would not have been counted as heads over the 12 tribes of Israel

All the children were Israelites because their father was...Israel. Natural citizenship in Israel was determined by the father, not the mother. In the Jewish tradition if either mother or father is Jewish the children are considered Jews-by-birth (as oppose to converts).

 

[RDKirk]

Were they actually Israelites? If Jesus "was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", then many living in the regions of Galilee, Samaria, Sidon, and Tyre were indeed the remains of the Assyrian captivity of the House of Israel alluded to in Isaiah 9:1-8.

No, they were not Israelite's and that is the point.

He answered, “It isn’t right to take the children’s bread and throw it to their dogs.”

Now, that statement wasn't for her. It was actually for His Jewish audience. At that statement, His Jewish audience undoubtedly nodded their heads in agreement, because they were bigots against gentiles, particularly Canaanites and even Samaritans (who were not, technically, gentiles). His disciples had already tried to send her away, even though they knew Jesus was in the exorcism business.

But then Jesus did exactly the opposite thing (and this was not the only time Jesus appeared to be leading His audience down the path they expected, then made an unexpected turn).

Then Jesus replied to her, “Woman, your faith is great. Let it be done for you as you want.”

Did Jesus change His mind? No, He didn't.

He demonstrated a principle that Paul explains in detail in Romans 8 and 9: It was never lineage, it was always faith that made anyone a child of Abraham.

From Jesus' point of view, it was always, "If you've come to me in faith, you are a child of Abraham, and I am for you."

 

[JackRT]

Did Jesus change His mind? No, He didn't.

The actual passage from Matthew 15 is:

25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

I think this was a moment of epiphany for Jesus. He had rebuked the woman with a rather gross racial insult by comparing her and her children to dogs, an unclean animal. Perhaps out of her desperation, she had the courage to actually rebuke Jesus in a respectful manner. I believe this might be the only passage in scripture of someone rebuking Jesus. He suddenly realized that his mission was as much to the Gentiles as to the Jews. He accepted her rebuke graciously and granted her request. There is a powerful message for us in this.

 

[miknik5]

All the children were Israelites because their father was...Israel. Natural citizenship in Israel was determined by the father, not the mother. In the Jewish tradition if either mother or father is Jewish the children are considered Jews-by-birth (as oppose to converts).

No, they were not Israelite's and that is the point.

He answered, “It isn’t right to take the children’s bread and throw it to their dogs.”

Now, that statement wasn't for her. It was actually for His Jewish audience. At that statement, His Jewish audience undoubtedly nodded their heads in agreement, because they were bigots against gentiles, particularly Canaanites and even Samaritans (who were not, technically, gentiles). His disciples had already tried to send her away, even though they knew Jesus was in the exorcism business.

But then Jesus did exactly the opposite thing (and this was not the only time Jesus appeared to be leading His audience down the path they expected, then made an unexpected turn).

Then Jesus replied to her, “Woman, your faith is great. Let it be done for you as you want.”

Did Jesus change His mind? No, He didn't.

He demonstrated a principle that Paul explains in detail in Romans 8 and 9: It was never lineage, it was always faith that made anyone a child of Abraham.

From Jesus' point of view, it was always, "If you've come to me in faith, you are a child of Abraham, and I am for you."

And if the Jews as per John 8 had understood that HE, as the TRUE SON (THE SEED through whom THE PROMISES of GOD had come) over HIS FATHER's HOUSE is the one and only HEAD and one and only LIGHT leading all men (regardless of their natural birth line) to know GOD

 

[miknik5]

The actual passage from Matthew 15 is:

25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

I think this was a moment of epiphany for Jesus. He had rebuked the woman with a rather gross racial insult by comparing her and her children to dogs, an unclean animal. Perhaps out of her desperation, she had the courage to actually rebuke Jesus in a respectful manner. I believe this might be the only passage in scripture of someone rebuking Jesus. I also think this was a moment of epiphany for Jesus. He suddenly realized that his mission was as much to the Gentiles as to the Jews. He accepted her rebuke graciously and grant her request. There is a powerful message for us in this.

She cried out to HIM
Something that the supposed learned Jews did not do as they did not and could not acknowledge HIM

Neither as LORD
Or as THE SON of GOD
Or as MASTER
(As John 8 shows-"we are not a servant to any man")

But she did
And because she did she received THE PROMISE which the learned men of the WORD and LAW of GOD hadn't


Similar to what was said to the woman at the well:

If you knew THE GIFT OF GOD, you would have asked ME and I would have given you living water

The fields were white for the harvest
(Just as THE LORD said in John 5)

But no one was really doing the work for those who were thirsty and hungry )

 

[Hank77]

There's only ONE FLOCK and ONE SHEPHERD over THE FLOCK/HOUSE for GOD

Just as Ezekiel 34 explains
And just as Ezekiel 36 explains why

John 10:16

 

[miknik5]

John 10:16

Yes

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The actual passage from Matthew 15 is:

25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

The 'setup' for the narrative is this,

21 "And Jesus went out thence, and withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon.

22 And behold, a Canaanitish woman came out from those borders, and cried, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a demon.

Jesus then waits for the disciples to gather and express their ignorance of what they were doing there in the first place.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

Jesus then lowers the boom on them by revealing that those living in that region were Israelites of the past Assyrian captivity, and reiterates his statement that he, and they, were "sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", and that he was sent to teach and to heal them according to the prophecy.

24 But he answered (the disciples) and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

What followed was the mutual recognition, and celebration, by Jesus and the woman that she was indeed a long lost Israelite, one of many who had heard of Jesus, knew who he was, and possibly expected him.

 

[SolomonVII]

Were they actually Israelites? If Jesus "was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", then many living in the regions of Galilee, Samaria, Sidon, and Tyre were indeed the remains of the Assyrian captivity of the House of Israel alluded to in Isaiah 9:1-8.

From what I understand, 'Samaritan' derives from the word Samaria, which was the capital of the northern state of Israel after the Kingdom of David and Solomon split into two halves after Solomon's death. Samaria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel were in particular plagued by polytheistic idolatry and spiritual infidelity to the Lord. the Northern Prophet Hosea and the symbolism of him marrying a prostitute is a good depiction of this infidelity.
Eventually the tribes that made up Israel were militarily defeated by the Assyrians (Jonah was a northern prophet too, and he was deeply bitter about bringing a message of salvation to the people that a prophet would foretell would be the doom of his people). this led to the dispersal of the ten lost tribes to the far reaches of the world.

This though is only part of the story. Even if the Israeli tribes were dispersed, and lost to history, the fact is that a leaderless hoi polloi of Israelis remained to work the land under their new Assyrian overlords. A serf is a serf, and people to pull the plow and work the land were all part of the spoils of war for the Assyrians.
So yes, the Samaritans were the very same hoi polloi Israelis that were lost to their Judean brother tribes, as they came under the control of new masters. They were the lost tribes who were hiding in plain sight, inhabiting the lands that they always inhabited.
The Judeans of course despised the Samaritans not because they were so foreign, but because they were so familiar. There was even a Samaritan version of the Pentateuch.
So yes, I think that your insight is a historically valid one too. In a very real sense, Samaritans were the lost sheep of Israel, and Jesus uniquely recognized them as such.