We worship what we know

  • Thread starter Thread starter worldwideweary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

worldwideweary

Guest
Peace be with you. I have a serious question for you.

If, as it is written (John 4:22), Jesus said to the Samaritan woman:
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews,
what information or mode of being did the Jews and Jesus (It is assumed the we referred to is Jesus in conjunction with the true Jews) have that differentiated their relationship with God so as to be able to truly say that they know who they worship? With this in mind, how can it be said that the Triune God is a Christian revelation by way of Jesus’ life and formulated via inspiration through apostolic activity after this statement was made if at that time the Jews already knew who they worshipped, and how is this in relation to what the Samaritans didn’t know? The Samaritans apparently awaited for a Messiah, as did the Magi who also looked for and found Jesus, and they not only found him but fell and worshiped him as it is written in (Matthew 2.11)'s narrative, although it seems they too were not Jews and so don’t fit into the group spoken of as knowing to whom they gave worship. I look forward to any responses from anyone claiming to be in communion with the fullness of truth to give a clear explanation.

Ciao for now.
 
Ver. 22. The Israelites, on account of their innumerable sins, had been delivered by the Almighty into the hands of the king of Assyria, who led them all away captives into Babylon and Medea, and sent other nations whom he had collected from different parts, to inhabit Samaria. But the Almighty, to shew to all nations that he had not delivered up these his people for want of power to defend, but solely on account of their transgressions, sent lions into the land to persecute these strangers. The Assyrian king upon hearing this, sent them a priest to teach them the law of God; but neither after this did they depart wholly from their impiety, but in part only: for many of them returned again to their idols, worshipping at the same time the true God. It was on this account that Christ preferred the Jews before them, saying, that salvation is of the Jews, with whom it was the chief principle to acknowledge the true God, and hold every denomination of idols in detestation; whereas, the Samaritans by mixing the worship of the one with the other, plainly shewed that they held the God of the universe in no greater esteem than their dumb idols. (St. Chrysostom in St. Thomas Aquinas)
 
Thank you for the quote, as it interestingly shows the potentiality, and actuality if true, of people claiming to worship God while continually breaking one of the main, vital commandments while at the same time still expecting a messiah. What a mess :tsktsk:

Still, the question’s main emphasis is on the trinity as it pertains to Jesus’ phrase in relation to the Jews’ knowledge rather than necessarily the sins of the Samaritans, and this is still wanting. Hopefully more is expressed here to shed some light.

Ciao for now.
 
Peace be with you. I have a serious question for you.

If, as it is written (John 4:22), Jesus said to the Samaritan woman:
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews,
what information or mode of being did the Jews and Jesus (It is assumed the we referred to is Jesus in conjunction with the true Jews) have that differentiated their relationship with God so as to be able to truly say that they know who they worship? With this in mind, how can it be said that the Triune God is a Christian revelation by way of Jesus’ life and formulated via inspiration through apostolic activity after this statement was made if at that time the Jews already knew who they worshipped, and how is this in relation to what the Samaritans didn’t know? The Samaritans apparently awaited for a Messiah, as did the Magi who also looked for and found Jesus, and they not only found him but fell and worshiped him as it is written in (Matthew 2.11)'s narrative, although it seems they too were not Jews and so don’t fit into the group spoken of as knowing to whom they gave worship. I look forward to any responses from anyone claiming to be in communion with the fullness of truth to give a clear explanation.

Ciao for now.
Hi!

…you compounded the issue…

The Samaritans–were of the Hebrew ancestry but resolved to cut the middle man (Temple worship) and worship in the mountains (many altars to all sorts of gods including that God worshipped at the Temple).

The Jews–of the Hebrew ancestry who continued to align themselves with the God (Yahweh) of their forefathers: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (the three Patriarchs associated with the Promise and the Faith).

The Magi–unknown characters from the East who were scholars/astronomers and the Coming (Incarnation of the Word) of the Messiah was made Known to them by Yahweh God.

What can be seen is that God is Catholic (yeah, couldn’t help but push the agenda) as He Saw Right to Reveal Himself to the world; He used science and nature to inspire scholars to seek Him out and pay Homage to Him: King of the Jews (1 Samuel 8:7-8), and, after being rejected by His own, He sought the Samaritans and Revealed to them the deepest Truth:

God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in Spirit and Truth!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Peace be with you. I have a serious question for you.

If, as it is written (John 4:22), Jesus said to the Samaritan woman:
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews,
what information or mode of being did the Jews and Jesus (It is assumed the we referred to is Jesus …
Hope this helps. agapebiblestudy.com/John_Gospel/Chapter%204.htm. Here is an excerpt:
John 4:16-19 “‘Go and call your husband,’ said Jesus to her, and come back here.’ The woman answered, ‘I have no husband.’ Jesus said to her, ‘You are right to say, ‘I have no husband’; for although you have had five the one you now have [he who is with you now] is not your husband. You spoke the truth there.’” ] = more literal translation.
Jews were allowed only three marriages. We do not know enough about the practices of the 1st century Samaritans but if they had the same rule then the woman’s life was immoral. It is interesting that the woman does not challenge Jesus, nor does she call Him to task for being a “Jewish busy-body.” Since earliest times Christian scholars have found a symbolism in the reference to “husbands” in this passage. In Biblical times a legal wife in a covenantal union with a man called her husband “Lord” which is in Hebrew is the word “adon.” But a concubine, who was considered to be property, called her “husband” “lord” or “master” but used the Canaanite word for “lord/master” which was the word “baal”. Sarah could call Abraham “adon” but Hagar, the slave, could only call him “baal”. The word baal had a dual meaning. Baal meant “lord” or “master”, but “baal” also meant “god” as in the sense of pagan gods to the Hebrews. Each of the Canaanite gods were called “baal” along with the city name or place name; for example Baal of Peor in Numbers 25:1 ff was the baal of the plains of Peor in Moab. Also see Judges 6:28; 1 Kings 18:19ff, etc. Christian scholars have always seen a play on words or a dual meaning with the word “husband” in the passage referring to the woman’s 5 “husbands” and the baals {baalim) of the 5 pagan peoples who were the ancestors of the Samaritans. Remember Yahweh and Christ both symbolically unite with the Church in the imagery of Bridegroom to Bride or perhaps more correctly stated, Bridegroom to the Covenant Bride!
Question: In this context, what could Jesus mean by the statement “You have had 5 husbands and he who is with you now is not your husband.”
Answer: More than commenting on the woman’s life Jesus could be referring to the 5 different groups of people who became the Samaritans and who brought the worship of each of their principal baals (false gods) with them and then adopted the worship of Yahweh. **Jesus could be saying that Samaria has had 5 different false gods and the god they worship now is not their own because although they adopted the worship of Yahweh they had reinterpreted the covenant into their own idea of worship, therefore, their covenant is not legitimate. They had even rewritten passages of the Torah to reflect these changes, for example designation the place of worship not as Jerusalem but as Mt. Gerizim.
**
Jesus could also be saying that the woman, like the people of Samaria, has had 5 different “Lords” / gods/ baals, and “he,” meaning Himself, “who is with you now” (Jesus is literally with her now) is not your own, He is God but He is not their God. Considering the use of double meaning words in the fourth Gospel, St. John could also be using all these symbolic meanings. (Note 2 Kings chapter 17:30-31 actually lists 7 different gods but Josephus writing in the 1st Century records the ancestors of the Samaritans brought in 5 principal baalim (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book 9,14.3).
This connection between Jesus’ message to the woman of Samaria, the husband-baal references and Samaria/Israel’s relationship to Yahweh is prophesied in the book of Hosea. God has given Hosea the prophecy of the day when Israel would again become the bride of Yahweh. Please read Hosea 2: 18-19 (in some translations this passage is vss.16-17) ‘When that day comes’ declares Yahweh ‘you will call me, “My husband”, no more will you call me, “My Baal”. I shall banish the names of the Baals from her lips and their name will be mentioned no more.’ Jesus’ witness to this woman is an amazing fulfillment of this prophecy written after the destruction of Israel in the 8th century BC…
John 4:21-24 "Jesus said: 'Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. Your worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know; for salvation comes from the Jews. But the hour is coming, indeed is already here, when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth: that is the kind of worshipper the Father seeks. God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth.
God established the center of worship for the Church at His Temple in Jerusalem ( 1Kings 7-8). When the 10 Northern tribes of Israel broke away to form a divided kingdom they established worship in a Temple on Mt. Gerizim, forming two centers of worship of Yahweh. Jesus confirms that there is One Church established by God in a holy Covenant, and salvation is through that One Church. That One Church had one geographic center and one man as mediator between men and God. That center was Jerusalem and the High Priest in Jerusalem who sat on the chair of Moses was the mediator between God and man. But the Old Covenant Church was founded upon the physical rock of Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem and through physical descent to the children of Israel.
 
The interpretation of husbands as lords is interesting. Thanks for the link and extract, Duane.

The point of compounding the question with the Magi was to interrogate whether they did not know to whom they gave worship, even though it is written that they worshiped Jesus and brought gifts. Did they do this due to their considering him an earthly King, or as what the Catholic would call the wrong interpretation of who the Messiah really was, or as the Son of God as the demons exclaimed him to be to whom He gave commands to shut up, or the Second Person of the Trinity incarnate? Either way, it seems that their hearts were in the right place, especially as it is said that they were excited and rejoiced over seeing the star and believed it to be a true sign. Anyone rejoicing over an act of God seems to be on the right path to a certain extent, and yet many who rejoiced were the ones who betrayed Him.

Maybe they did know, but if they did, then their knowing wasn’t contingent upon being Jewish, which is why it was included in the question because it sounds as if Jesus is saying those who know who they worship is due to their being Jews. It’s akin to saying the demons are said to say “You are the Son of God!” yet they didn’t say “You Are God!” The Roman soldier at the crucifixion said “Surely this was the Son of God,” but does this mean he understood it in the way the demons understood it, or in the modern Catholic way of being the Second Person of God’s Triunity Incarnate ?

Again, the crux of the issue still remains: if the doctrine of the Trinity is true, and the question does not imply an a priori position prior to positing, how can it be said that the Jews and Jesus know to whom they give worship if the revelation of the triune God has yet to be known by the Jews? This is the question. A Catholic might say that this knowledge of which Jesus speaks of is partial and not full, but then it seems to neglect a certain fulness implied in the expression that We Know, or so it seems.

To rephrase it another way: was the Jew at that time capable of λατρεία, the worship of the Holy Trinity? If not, how can Jesus say the Jew knew to whom they gave worship? At what point in time is λατρεία a viable act of man?

Ciao for now.
 
The interpretation of husbands as lords is interesting. Thanks for the link and extract, Duane.
Yw
The point of compounding the question with the Magi was to interrogate whether they did not know to whom they gave worship, even though it is written that they worshiped Jesus and brought gifts. Did they do this due to their considering him an earthly King, or as what the Catholic would call the wrong interpretation of who the Messiah really was, or as the Son of God as the demons exclaimed him to be to whom He gave commands to shut up, or the Second Person of the Trinity incarnate? Either way, it seems that their hearts were in the right place, especially as it is said that they were excited and rejoiced over seeing the star and believed it to be a true sign. Anyone rejoicing over an act of God seems to be on the right path to a certain extent, and yet many who rejoiced were the ones who betrayed Him.

Maybe they did know, but if they did, then their knowing wasn’t contingent upon being Jewish, which is why it was included in the question because it sounds as if Jesus is saying those who know who they worship is due to their being Jews. It’s akin to saying the demons are said to say “You are the Son of God!” yet they didn’t say “You Are God!” The Roman soldier at the crucifixion said “Surely this was the Son of God,” but does this mean he understood it in the way the demons understood it, or in the modern Catholic way of being the Second Person of God’s Triunity Incarnate ?

Again, the crux of the issue still remains: if the doctrine of the Trinity is true, and the question does not imply an a priori position prior to positing, how can it be said that the Jews and Jesus know to whom they give worship if the revelation of the triune God has yet to be known by the Jews? This is the question. A Catholic might say that this knowledge of which Jesus speaks of is partial and not full, but then it seems to neglect a certain fulness implied in the expression that We Know, or so it seems.
I have read that it was because the Jews had the right notion of what God’s relationship to them, and the world was, whereas the Samaritans, while worshiping YHWH, had a distorted notion of what His relationship to the world was. The Samaritans notion of just what God is had been perverted by the other gods that Samaria had worshiped over the years.
To rephrase it another way: was the Jew at that time capable of λατρεία, the worship of the Holy Trinity?
Doubtful.
If not, how can Jesus say the Jew knew to whom they gave worship? At what point in time is λατρεία a viable act of man?

Ciao for now.
Here you are conflating the word know, which in this case is knowing all that had been revealed, for know as knowledge of everything about God. That is why this verse is sometimes translated as we understand what we worship. Meaning they understood what had been revealed. This makes sense. The Jews understood what had been revealed, while the Samaritans didn’t. As to an understanding of that which had not been revealed, it would have been impossible for a Jew, just as it is a Christian even today, to know God as you seem to think the text is saying, without having the beatific vision. Until we have that vision, we will never truly understand the Trinity.
 
I think it’s fairly simple. God revealed Himself specifically to one people. This doesn’t mean that all individuals don’t already possess an innate albeit dim idea of and desire for the Deity whose mage they were made in and whom union with they were made for.

Also it’s only natural that some of the knowledge of God gained by the Jews by His grace would’ve influenced others who had contact with them, just as others influenced the Jews with their pagan beliefs.
 
Until we have that vision, we will never truly understand the Trinity.
It seems then that it is true to say Jesus’ worship of the Father in Spirit is filled more with what we call knowledge than with he who performs latria in communion with Catholic doctrine until, God willing, he has the vision.

An interesting question comes to mind which is off the post’s topic: if the scriptures can be opened up to explain the Christ, and Christ-ianity reveals the triune nature of God in whatever little degree is capable of being understood by man, is it possible that someone back then besides Jesus knew this in the same or similar way as it is defined in Catholic teaching? Or, for instance, did someone like Melchizedek know something the average worshiper didn’t know regarding the nature of God? Just a thought.
 
It seems then that it is true to say Jesus’ worship of the Father in Spirit is filled more with what we call knowledge than with he who performs latria in communion with Catholic doctrine until, God willing, he has the vision.

An interesting question comes to mind which is off the post’s topic: if the scriptures can be opened up to explain the Christ, and Christ-ianity reveals the triune nature of God in whatever little degree is capable of being understood by man, is it possible that someone back then besides Jesus knew this in the same or similar way as it is defined in Catholic teaching? Or, for instance, did someone like Melchizedek know something the average worshiper didn’t know regarding the nature of God? Just a thought.
In Melchizedek’s case, I would say definitely yes. You might find this about Melchizedek interesting, from matt1618’s website.
Before I go further, I would bring up a few things on the Jewish tradition on Melchizedek. Rabbi Juday bar Simon held that the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob received blessing because of the merit of having Abram’s having given Melchizedek a tithe. Philo and Josephus note that Melchizedek is the first priest mentioned in the Torah. They saw Melchizedek as not just a priest, he was the progenitor of all priesthood. For Rabbinic Judaism, the priesthood was passed on to Abraham and his offspring recorded in Genesis 14:18. Jewish tradition held that Melchizedek was identified as Shem, the Son of Noah. According to the age laid out in Genesis, Shem lived 210 years after the birth of Abraham, 35 years longer than Abraham lived. [19] That would make sense since he offered sacrifice to the true God, and Abraham respected that belief. If he was merely a Gentile king, why would Abraham offer tithes to a man who worships a false God? Scott Hahn, in his tape series, saying he is drawing upon Jewish Tradition, argues that it went without argument that Shem actually was Melchizedek. He argued that the early Christians assumed that was so, including St. Jerome and St. Ephraim. This would in fact explain why Melchizedek could be the source of blessing. Shem was the one blessed by Noah (Gen. 9:26). Noah would be the Father, and priest, of all the earth. Thus, Shem received the blessing from Noah, and thus now would be the priest over all the earth. That indeed shows how since Shem is priest-king, and would thus be a priest-king over all the earth, not just Salem. This shows even further how the type of the figure of Melchizedek (Which is a Title, not a Name, per se) is fulfilled in Jesus being a priest-king over all the earth. [19B] Therefore, that is how he could be the source of blessing for Abraham, who would therefore accept it.
 
The interpretation of husbands as lords is interesting. Thanks for the link and extract, Duane.

The point of compounding the question with the Magi was to interrogate whether they did not know to whom they gave worship, even though it is written that they worshiped Jesus and brought gifts. Did they do this due to their considering him an earthly King, or as what the Catholic would call the wrong interpretation of who the Messiah really was, or as the Son of God as the demons exclaimed him to be to whom He gave commands to shut up, or the Second Person of the Trinity incarnate? Either way, it seems that their hearts were in the right place, especially as it is said that they were excited and rejoiced over seeing the star and believed it to be a true sign. Anyone rejoicing over an act of God seems to be on the right path to a certain extent, and yet many who rejoiced were the ones who betrayed Him.

Maybe they did know, but if they did, then their knowing wasn’t contingent upon being Jewish, which is why it was included in the question because it sounds as if Jesus is saying those who know who they worship is due to their being Jews. It’s akin to saying the demons are said to say “You are the Son of God!” yet they didn’t say “You Are God!” The Roman soldier at the crucifixion said “Surely this was the Son of God,” but does this mean he understood it in the way the demons understood it, or in the modern Catholic way of being the Second Person of God’s Triunity Incarnate ?

Again, the crux of the issue still remains: if the doctrine of the Trinity is true, and the question does not imply an a priori position prior to positing, how can it be said that the Jews and Jesus know to whom they give worship if the revelation of the triune God has yet to be known by the Jews? This is the question. A Catholic might say that this knowledge of which Jesus speaks of is partial and not full, but then it seems to neglect a certain fulness implied in the expression that We Know, or so it seems.

To rephrase it another way: was the Jew at that time capable of λατρεία, the worship of the Holy Trinity? If not, how can Jesus say the Jew knew to whom they gave worship? At what point in time is λατρεία a viable act of man?

Ciao for now.
Hi!

…you have presented several issues as one… it boils down to: Revelation.

Yahweh God Revealed Himself to the Hebrew people; from Abraham the Promise was Revealed; in Jesus the Promise is Fulfilled.

…yet, we have Abel offering Sacrifice to Yahweh God prior to Moses Receiving the Instruction on how to Worship/Sacrifice.

…also, we have Abraham meeting with Yahweh God’s High Priest who is King of Salem (Israel) prior to Joseph entering Egypt and prior to the Twelve Tribes entering the Promise Land.

…we have the Promise with the Blessing ordained for the firstborn (Jacob = Israel = Yahweh God’s firstborn)… yet, Abraham took it upon himself to procure the offspring which was promptly rejected as Isaac became the son of the Promise (the selection remained Yahweh’s: Jacob over Esau; Ephraim over Manasseh; to Jesus born of a Virgin).

All of this is about Revelation. God chose Jacob Israel as His own so it is that Salvation comes from the Jews; yet, from the very onset of Israel’s trek to freedom Salvation, though coming from the Jews, was not denied to the foreigner that would Worship Yahweh God as Israel–in deed Israel is Commanded to accept the convert as a natural born Jew, with all the implications that that would command.

…but in the midst of all there’s God’s Warning against Israel who constantly prostitutes herself to non-gods and He makes two vows: a) that He will Raise a Prophet like onto Moses (God, High Priest, King) and that it is in Him that the Gentile will secure/bind their Hope, and b) that He will Keep to Himself a Remnant of Israel–this Remnant will not turn their heart from Yahweh God.

This means that: 1) Revelation is not limited to Israel (as attested to the various examples where God’s Blessing/Knowledge was afforded to non-Jews, and 2) Yahweh God will Reveal Himself more Fully to the Remnant–which is the reason why those chosen to know about the Incarnation did not blink or double backed when the Holy Spirit was mentioned. Consider too that Jesus’ Teaching on the Holy Spirit was not questioned:
31 And so I tell you, every one of men’s sins and blasphemies will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And anyone who says a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but let anyone speak against the Holy Spirit and he will not be forgiven either in this world or in the next.
(St. Matthew 12:31-32)
How much Knowledge was Revealed about the Holy Trinity and who Received that Revelation? …well, just as Abel Knew to Worship Yahweh God, man has been granted Revelation since Creation (Romans 1:1-33); how full/complete? …as God determined it to be.

The Magi were used to Reveal the Messiah to Israel:
  • Where is the King of the Jews? (1 Samuel 8:7-8),
  • They Worshipped Him
  • They brought three gifts: 1) gold (signifying Christ’s Kingship), 2) frankincense (signifying Christ’s Priesthood/Divinity), and 3) myrrh (signifying a prelude to Christ’s Crucifixion/Death–the Lamb of God).
How much did the various parties understand? …it could be said that “everything” and only superficially since even the Eleven would need the Holy Spirit to bring them to the Fullness of Truth:
12 I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now…it is why I said: All he tells you will be taken from what is mine.
(St. John 16:12-15)
Maran atha!

Angel
 
It seems then that it is true to say Jesus’ worship of the Father in Spirit is filled more with what we call knowledge than with he who performs latria in communion with Catholic doctrine until, God willing, he has the vision.

An interesting question comes to mind which is off the post’s topic: if the scriptures can be opened up to explain the Christ, and Christ-ianity reveals the triune nature of God in whatever little degree is capable of being understood by man, is it possible that someone back then besides Jesus knew this in the same or similar way as it is defined in Catholic teaching? Or, for instance, did someone like Melchizedek know something the average worshiper didn’t know regarding the nature of God? Just a thought.
Hi!

Israel’s Remnant, of which the Virgin, Joseph, Elizabeth, Simeon, and Anna (which are addressed by name in Scriptures) did not seem to be conflicted/confused with the interaction of the Holy Spirit… in the Old Testament we also find some Revelation of Yahweh God’s Angel (the Holy Spirit) and in the book of Wisdom God’s Wisdom and function (Revelation) is attributed to the Holy Spirit:
5 For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful, and will withdraw himself from thoughts that are without understanding, and he shall not abide when iniquity cometh in. 6 For the spirit of wisdom is benevolent, and will not acquit the evil speaker from his lips: for God is witness of his reins, and he is a true searcher of his heart, and a hearer of his tongue. 7 For the spirit of the Lord hath filled the whole world: and that, which containeth all things, hath knowledge of the voice.
(Wisdom 1:5-7)
Maran atha!

Angel
 
A little bit about the Samaritans and their origins.

In 722 BC, the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V laid siege to Samaria following the revolt by the Israelite king, Hoshea son of Elah (2 Kings 17:3-6; 18:9-11). Shalmaneser however died shortly after the conquest of the city; it was his successor, Sargon II. who completed the conquest of the region. In his records, Sargon claimed to have exile that he captured the city of Samaria in 720 BC, exiled 27,290 captives, rebuilt the city, and then resettled it with various exiles who were brought to Samaria from various other cities in Mesopotamia in several waves (2 Kings 17:24). Two more additional waves of settlers came during the time of Esarhaddon (reigned 681–669 BC; Ezra 4:2) and in the time of Ashurbanipal (reigned 669-631/627 BC; Ezra 4:10).

The account in 2 Kings presents these new pagan settlers as not acknowledging the law of Yhwh, the God of the land, hence Yhwh sent lions to kill them until an Israelite priest was sent back to teach them about Him. The result was that these peoples worshiped Yhwh alongside their former gods (2 Kings 17:25-29, 41).

While a literal reading of 2 Kings makes it appear as if Samaria was completely depopulated of Israelites and that the people who subsequently came to live there were all foreigners (hence the later legend about the ‘Ten Lost Tribes’), other Old Testament books such as 2 Chronicles, as well as archaeology and genetic studies, makes it clear that the northern Israelites were not all deported. For instance, 2 Kings mentions the wave of foreign settlers brought in by the Assyrians but neglects to mention the remaining Israelites, but 2 Chronicles does the opposite by focusing only on the “remnant of Israel” while completely ignoring these foreign settlers.

2 Chronicles shows that there were still Israelites from the tribe of Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun during the reign of King Hezekiah (reigned c. 715-686 BC), who attempted to unite these tribes closer to Judah politically and religiously (2 Chronicles 30:1-11, 18; 34:9). Jeremiah also tells of people from northern locations like Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria who brought frankincense and grain offerings to the Jerusalem Temple (Jeremiah 41:5).

Add in to that what we know about the area and its population based on archaeology and genetic studies:
  • Recent DNA studies have shown that modern-day Samaritans (there are currently around 777 Samaritans, representing four lineages) are not very different from Jews: the two groups share a common ancestry.
  • Archaeology shows that while there are sites (mostly strategically-located fortified sites and administrative centers) which show traces of being abandoned and/or destroyed around that time as well as evidence of Assyrian presence here and there, the material culture in other places of the north (rural areas especially) did not significantly change even after the Assyrian conquest: in other words, the population in these areas remained Israelite. While the land was depopulated and while foreigners did come to it (as 2 King says), evidence shows that the foreign settlers brought in by the Assyrians were actually not that many and that there were still Israelites (so much for the ‘Ten Lost Tribes’ story). If anything, it would seem that these foreigners were absorbed by the Israelite remnant rather than the other way around.
  • There are traces of northern dialects of Hebrew (aka Israelian Hebrew) in the Old Testament, which were mostly written in the southern (Judahite) dialect by Judahites (and their later descendants who went to Babylon and back). The continuation of this dialect would have been highly unlikely if there were no longer any northern Israelite presence in the land.
  • We have evidence that around the 8th-7th century BC, the population increase of Judah doubled: the population in Jerusalem increased more than tenfold, and the number of settlements in the hill country south of Jerusalem swelled from thirty in the 9th-early 8th centuries BC to more than 120 in the late 8th century. In the Shephelah, meanwhile, the number of settlements increased from 21 to 276. So you both have new settlements being built and preexisting settlements becoming bigger and more densely inhabited. It is thought that this sudden population bubble was caused by refugees from the north (again, cf. 2 Chronicles). (This is significant because up until this point, the population growth in Judah was sort of slow.)
  • We can also look at the Samaritans themselves. The Samaritan religion is, for as far as we can tell, never polytheistic: they worshiped (and worship) the one same God as the Jews, revered Moses and and observed Torah, just like the Jews. Really, the only point of contention between them and Jews (aside from different interpretations of Torah of course) was the location of the sanctuary. So even if the foreign settlers were polytheists and syncretists, that apparently did not last long: they were soon assimilated by the Yhwh-worshiping Israelites.
In fact, it’s because of this that some people choose to distinguish between the ethnic ‘Samarians’ of 2 Kings and the sectarian Samaritans (the ones we know and which exists today). One was a group of foreign settlers (who may have soon lost their unique identities as they went native), the other was probably originally a religious sect who at some later point, went separate ways with (other) Jews due to certain religious/political issues (i.e. they’re actually more like the Qumran Community or Christianity).
 
(Continued)

We know the Samaritans already had a temple in Mount Gerizim by the middle of the 5th century BC. But we don’t exactly know why it was built, who originally built it, or for that matter, where the Samaritans’ belief in Mount Gerizim being the original Israelite sanctuary came from. In fact, it’s a very complicated issue: the Samaritans consider themselves to be Israelites, they’re really not different from (other) Jews - genetically speaking, they follow much of the same tenets as Judaism (strict monotheism, Sabbath observance, circumcision, obedience to the law of Moses, celebration of feasts as set out in the Torah); it’s only their chosen place of worship that really sets them apart.

One theory has it that the Gerizim sanctuary is the continuation of a certain form of a pre-Exilic Yahwism (i.e. worship of Yhwh) that chose Gerizim instead of Jerusalem as its place of worship. This theory traces the origin of modern Samaritans to a what would have back then a small and relatively unimportant community of northern Israelites who were generally like other Yahwists, only they preferred to worship in Gerizim instead of in Jerusalem. (We know from the OT that alongside the ‘orthodox’ temple in Jerusalem, there were other cultic centers like Dan or Bethel or Shechem. It’s possible that in some places, foreign gods were worshiped, but it’s more likely that Yhwh the God of Israel was worshiped in most of these. They were only condemned because they were the ‘wrong’ places of worship from the orthodox POV and because they represented a threat to the central authority Jerusalem was trying to achieve.) When the descendants of exiled Judahites (what we’ll call the ‘Jews’) returned from Babylon, they of course held Jerusalem to be the true place of the sanctuary, which put them in hot water with the Israelite remnant that kept worshiping Yhwh in Gerizim.

Another theory has it the assimilated Samarian upper class first tried to support the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple, but the Exiles rejected them, either because they were Assyrian colonists or they were one of those unexiled Israelites who intermarried with foreign settlers. (Remember that the Exiles thought themselves to be a special people forged by their experiences in Babylon, the ‘holy seed’: therefore, they they must keep the lineage pure and refrain from any relations with … well, anyone who was not exiled to Babylon.) Thus rejected, the northerners began to oppose the project and then attempted to establish their own sanctuary on Gerizim (which also has a biblical/Yahwistic tradition of its own); those who preferred this sanctuary over Jerusalem became the ‘Samaritans’.

Aside from religious issues, there were also political interests involved on both sides: as mentioned, the returning Jews thought of themselves as a special people and tried to disassociate with well, anyone that is ‘not them’. The Samarian aristocrats in the north meanwhile thought of the budding Jerusalem community as a threat to their authority and mini-hegemony.

(At this point in time, Samaria was a large, rich area populated by descendants of the remaining Israelites and the peoples brought in by the Assyrians, while Judea, aka Yehud, was a small and impoverished region because its southern part was seized by the Idumaeans, the Edomites of the OT. So apparently, the northerners were afraid that Yehud might grow to become a formidable rival to them - they want to keep it under their thumb, so to speak.)
 
(Continued)

We know the Samaritans already had a temple in Mount Gerizim by the middle of the 5th century BC. But we don’t exactly know why it was built, who originally built it, or for that matter, where the Samaritans’ belief in Mount Gerizim being the original Israelite sanctuary came from. In fact, it’s a very complicated issue: the Samaritans consider themselves to be Israelites, they’re really not different from (other) Jews - genetically speaking, they follow much of the same tenets as Judaism (strict monotheism, Sabbath observance, circumcision, obedience to the law of Moses, celebration of feasts as set out in the Torah); it’s only their chosen place of worship that really sets them apart.

One theory has it that the Gerizim sanctuary is the continuation of a certain form of a pre-Exilic Yahwism (i.e. worship of Yhwh) that chose Gerizim instead of Jerusalem as its place of worship. This theory traces the origin of modern Samaritans to a what would have back then a small and relatively unimportant community of northern Israelites who were generally like other Yahwists, only they preferred to worship in Gerizim instead of in Jerusalem. (We know from the OT that alongside the ‘orthodox’ temple in Jerusalem, there were other cultic centers like Dan or Bethel or Shechem. It’s possible that in some places, foreign gods were worshiped, but it’s more likely that Yhwh the God of Israel was worshiped in most of these. They were only condemned because they were the ‘wrong’ places of worship from the orthodox POV and because they represented a threat to the central authority Jerusalem was trying to achieve.) When the descendants of exiled Judahites (what we’ll call the ‘Jews’) returned from Babylon, they of course held Jerusalem to be the true place of the sanctuary, which put them in hot water with the Israelite remnant that kept worshiping Yhwh in Gerizim.

Another theory has it the assimilated Samarian upper class first tried to support the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple, but the Exiles rejected them, either because they were Assyrian colonists or they were one of those unexiled Israelites who intermarried with foreign settlers. (Remember that the Exiles thought themselves to be a special people forged by their experiences in Babylon, the ‘holy seed’: therefore, they they must keep the lineage pure and refrain from any relations with … well, anyone who was not exiled to Babylon.) Thus rejected, the northerners began to oppose the project and then attempted to establish their own sanctuary on Gerizim (which also has a biblical/Yahwistic tradition of its own); those who preferred this sanctuary over Jerusalem became the ‘Samaritans’.

Aside from religious issues, there were also political interests involved on both sides: as mentioned, the returning Jews thought of themselves as a special people and tried to disassociate with well, anyone that is ‘not them’. The Samarian aristocrats in the north meanwhile thought of the budding Jerusalem community as a threat to their authority and mini-hegemony.

(At this point in time, Samaria was a large, rich area populated by descendants of the remaining Israelites and the peoples brought in by the Assyrians, while Judea, aka Yehud, was a small and impoverished region because its southern part was seized by the Idumaeans, the Edomites of the OT. So apparently, the northerners were afraid that Yehud might grow to become a formidable rival to them - they want to keep it under their thumb, so to speak.)
Very interesting, thank you
 
In fact, I should add:

The idea that the “five husbands” Jesus was referring to actually means the gods the foreigners who were imported by Assyria once worshiped is popular (I’ve seen quite a number of commentators and scholars who repeat it), but I don’t really buy it - I think it’s over-allegorizing - for a number of reasons:
  • While 2 Kings do speak of peoples from five nations, the text mentions seven gods, not five (two of them each have two gods, while the rest each have one). So the numbers don’t really match up. You’d perhaps have more of a match if you interpreted ‘husband’ here as ‘nation’ rather than ‘god’ (i.e. the five husbands refer to five nations/ethnicities that came and went to Samaria, the sixth non-husband being Rome).
  • As I mentioned earlier, the Samaritans were and are monotheistic Yhwh-worshipers and Torah observers for as far as we can tell. In fact, the Jewish-Samaritan feud doesn’t center on whether or not they worship the same God as the Jews (both sides accept that they do), but where they worship Him - which was considered to be just an important an issue. Granted, some Jewish sources do try to depict the sectarian Samaritans as originating from the foreign settlers of 2 Kings (thus robbing them of any real ethnic/racial Israelite identity), and generations of Christian commentators sort of just accepted the Jewish story - and the myth of the ‘Ten Lost Tribes’ - uncritically.
    In reality, however, we really shouldn’t be taking these - biased against Samaritans, obviously - sources at face value with what we know from elsewhere (including the Old Testament itself). In reality, Samaritanism most likely originated later, in a different context: northerners (comprised of Israelites and by-now assimilated foreigners) building a temple to Yhwh in Gerizim as a religious-political rival to the Temple in Jerusalem perhaps somewhere around the 5th century BC, not so much the Assyrian conquest of Samaria two centuries earlier.
  • The woman herself says in verse 29: “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done.” So, in context, the ‘five husbands’ more likely just refers to the woman’s personal life (Jesus ‘knew’ that she really had five husbands in the past; cf. John 2:24-25) rather than some kind of allegory. Some scholars do object that if that were the case, then there is a sort of abrupt shift in the topic during the conversation: Jesus was referring to the woman’s marital life in verses 16-18, but the woman in return goes on to speak about her people’s worship life. Others, however, answer that there’s really nothing unnatural about this topic shift: who knows? Maybe the woman just felt uncomfortable that Jesus could ‘read’ her past and so moved the conversation into something less personal. I mean, that happens all the time in real-life conversations.
 
In Melchizedek’s case, I would say definitely yes. You might find this about Melchizedek interesting, from matt1618’s website.
Fun fact: the identification of Melchizedek with Shem only works if you’re using the Hebrew (Masoretic or proto-Masoretic) text or some translation derived from it, say, the Latin Vulgate or most modern English translations. The ages of the patriarchs in Genesis notoriously varies across the three main versions of the text (the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Greek Septuagint): in the Greek version, Shem would have been already dead at the time of Abraham.

This was actually why this belief was unknown among most early Church Fathers (who either used the Septuagint or a derivative translation), and some of those that did know about it either opposed it because that wasn’t what their text said, or tried to square all the conflicting information they had before them. (Melchizedek was so mysterious that Jews and Christians who wanted to know more about him came up with all sorts of stories as to who he really was: him being Shem was just one of these theories.)

In fact, Haydock’s Commentary still opposes the identification:

Ver. 18. Melchisedech was not Sem: for his genealogy is given in Scripture. (Hebrews vii. 6.); nor God the Son, for they are compared together; nor the Holy Ghost, as some have asserted, but a virtuous Gentile who adored the true God, and was king of Salem, or Jerusalem, and Priest of an order different from that of Aaron, offering in sacrifice bread and wine, a figure of Christ’s sacrifice in the Mass; as the fathers constantly affirm. (Haydock)
 
Thank you for the quote, as it interestingly shows the potentiality, and actuality if true, of people claiming to worship God while continually breaking one of the main, vital commandments while at the same time still expecting a messiah. What a mess :tsktsk:

Still, the question’s main emphasis is on the trinity as it pertains to Jesus’ phrase in relation to the Jews’ knowledge rather than necessarily the sins of the Samaritans, and this is still wanting. Hopefully more is expressed here to shed some light.

Ciao for now.
I do not believe it a reference to the Trinity but that it is a reference to the direct relationship and revelation that the Jews had with God beyond the Torah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top