Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The Scriptures teach that God’s servants are to defend the truth. Consider the following texts:

But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel (Phil. 1:17). But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3:15).

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do (1 Tim. 1:3-4).

Throughout the ages, men have tried to deter the servants of God who were busy defending the truth against the assaults of unrighteous-  ness. Ahab accused Elijah as the “troubler of Israel” (1 Kings 18:17-18). Ahab hated Micaiah because he prophesied only evil against him (1 Kings 22:8). The false prophets who preached smooth things resisted Jeremiah because he preached the truth (Jer. 11:21; 23:25-26; etc.). Men have always opposed those who call men back to the word of God.

One of the marks of movement away from the Lord’s revelation is one’s reaction to the preaching of the word of God. John wrote,

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error (1 John 4:1-6).

When men react to the preaching of the truth by trying to silence the man who is preaching the truth instead of calling on the brother to repent who is preaching error, one knows that this is “the spirit of error.”

In the last decade we have had a sad spectacle to occur among brethren, a series of events that is a reflection of the spirit of our own age. As the influence of the world has spilled over into the church, we had to fight such issues among us as divorce and remarriage, immodest dress, and a unity-in-diversity approach to fellowship. Several books have been published among us on some of these issues including the following:  Homer Hailey’s The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God; Jerry Bassett’s Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage; Sam Dawson’s Fellowship: With God and His People.

Concerned brethren have risen up to reply to these false doctrines. Brother Weldon Warnock wrote a response to brother Hailey entitled A Review of Homer Hailey’s The Divorce and Remarried Who Would Come To God. Brother Ron Halbrook has published two booklets addressing these and other subjects entitled Trends Pointing Toward A New Apostasy and Understanding the Divorce and Remarriage Controversy. While a number have expressed appreciation for these answers to the false doctrines being taught, a rather strong reaction has come against the men who opposed the false doctrines. They are been branded as “jeremiad” zealots who have unmercifully attacked an aged warrior; radicals who are dividing the church; men who are without integrity; snarling dogs, and similar such vicious criticisms. These criticisms are aimed at conscientious brethren who were defending the truth against what even their critics identify as false teachings (although these critics nearly choke when asked to call those who teach those doctrines “false teachers”).

Another incident with remarkably similar results has occurred with reference to a discussion of the “days” of Genesis 1. Some brethren wrote articles and conducted lectureships or workshops around the country asserting that the days of Genesis 1 were long ages, in order to bring their interpretation of Genesis into harmony with late twentieth century “science.” When brethren replied to those preaching that the days of Genesis 1 were “long ages,” they were attacked as “troublers of Israel.” Mind you, those who preached what most admitted were false doctrines were not rebuked or condemned, only those who opposed them.

What is the long lasting impact of this criticism? Of course, none of us can know the future with certainty, but I can assure you of this one thing — these criticisms have the effect of discouraging younger brethren from opposing what they perceive as false doctrine! Who among us wants to have his name assaulted and slandered like those who have opposed the false doctrines of divorce and remarriage? Who would want his name attacked as has occurred toward brother Ron Halbrook who had the audacity to warn brethren about trends toward a new apostasy? The effect of this criticism is very clearly perceived: The critics have attacked those who are defending the truth and have thereby discouraged others from rising to the defense of the gospel in the future. Such criticisms stifle the defense of the gospel.

What will the future hold? As the spirit of liberalism continues to develop among us, these very critics who have been so vociferous in their criticism of others who opposed false doctrine are likely going to find themselves having to defend the truth against some issue facing the church in their area (provided that they live long enough). The very words that they have used to attack those who defended the truth against those who were teaching false doctrines on divorce and remarriage will be used against them.

The sadder thing, however, is this: The unity-in-diversity approach to fellowship that they preached with reference to divorce and remarriage will be applied to that future issue also, whatever that issue might be. I can almost hear the argument now on “baptism” at some future date: “Brethren have always disagreed throughout the restoration movement on the purpose of baptism. Brother Lipscomb and brother McGary debated the issue in the Firm Foundation and Gospel Advocate. If they could disagree and continue in fellowship with each other, so also should we today.” If that argument has validity as a defense for an on-going fellowship with those who are wrong about divorce and remarriage, why won’t it work with those who are wrong about baptism? If the argument has any validity, it will work for both of these issues and a hundred more just like them. The ones who will be judged to be the “troublers of Israel” in that case will be those who are calling for an adherence to the teachings of Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21, just like those who are judged to be the “troublers of Israel” today are those calling for an adherence to the teachings of Matthew 19:9.

We are being treated to a steady stream of dogma coming from sources who paint as villains those who stand for the truth against those who introduce unauthorized teachings and practices. Foy E. Wallace, Jr.’s role in opposing premillennialism, Roy E. Cogdill’s role in opposing institutionalism, and a number of brethren’s role in opposing Oral Roberts faith healing have been subjected to criticism. In all of these examples, those who stand foursquare for the truth are depicted as the “bad guys.” There is no doubt in my mind what impact such a characterization of those who rise to the defense of the gospel in the face of a serious threat of false teaching has on those who are developing their ideas of what it means to be a preacher of the gospel.

I remember distinctly the impact on my life that the reading of the biographies of men such as J.D. Tant, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Campbell, W.W. Otey, and other gospel preachers whose lives were extolled  by their biographers. What change would have occurred in my concept of what a gospel preacher’s work is had their biographers condemned them as negative, rancorous men? I am confident that holding such men up as esteemed brethren influenced in a positive way my understanding of the work of a gospel preacher in resisting false doctrines that face the church. What impact will occur when such men are contemned, belittled, and castigated?

Already a mind set has developed among us that identifies debating an issue of truth as a “work of the flesh” to be avoided. Those preachers who engage in public debates are less spiritual than those who refuse to participate. The end result of this mind set is obvious: We stifle the defense of the gospel! That is the result whether or not that is the intention of the critics of those who oppose false teaching.

When we effectively destroy the influence of those who stand up to resist false doctrines, the spread of false doctrine will mushroom. After all, there is no way to oppose it. You can’t preach against it or you may be branded as a jeremiad zealot and destroy your reputation among brethren. So, what do you do? You keep your mouth shut and bury your head in the sand while the false doctrine spreads. You will be counted an honorable brother who has done the cause of Christ much good, but the things you believe as fundamentals of the faith will soon become ancient relics of a bygone faith. If you think I am misrepresenting what has happened, visit a good restoration library and read through the pages of some of the journals that once were so welcomed among those who are now liberals.

If that is what we wish to happen among us, we are in a good position to have that occur. However, if we judge that would not be good for the cause of Christ, we need to be re-thinking our attitudes toward those who are courageous enough to lay their reputations on the line for a defense of the faith.

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com

By Alan Jones

“Has Ezekiel gone mad?” This may have been the reaction of some after they watched Ezekiel shave his head and beard, weigh the hair, divide it into thirds, and then burn a third, strike a third with a sword, and scatter the remaining third to the wind. However, Ezekiel was not mad, but he was signifying the punishment soon to fall on Jerusalem, a punishment which would pave the way for the salvation of the world (Ezek. 5:1-12).

When Ezekiel tossed his hair into the wind, he was not telling God’s people anything new. In giving the blessings and curses of the Law (Deut. 28-30), God had sworn that if Israel disobeyed him, he would scatter them among all the peoples from one end of the earth to the other (Deut. 28:64; Ps. 106:26-27). Soon after Ezekiel’s hair was swept away by the wind, Jerusalem fell and the Diaspora or Dispersion began.

Against the Word of the Lord through Jeremiah, a remnant from Jerusalem went to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with them (Jer. 43). When the Persians gave the order that those taken captive by the Assyrians and Babylonians could return to their homes, only a small proportion chose to do so. The sons of Korah wrote that God had scattered them among the nations (Ps. 44:11). Haman described the Jews to the Persian king as “scat­tered and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom” (Esth. 3:8).

In the 400-year period of silence between Malachi and John the Baptist, the dispersing of the Jews continued both by force and free will. Ptolemy I of Egypt (322-285 B.C.) captured Jerusalem and took home captives, adding greatly to the Jewish population of Alexandria. Antiochus the Great of Syria (223-187 B.C.) removed 2,000 families from Jewish communities in Mesopotamia and Babylon and settled them in Phrygia and Lydia. Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 B.C. and carried away hundreds of Jews to Rome. During the period “between the Testaments,” the Jews also voluntarily emigrated for the purpose of trade and commerce, as well as colonization, which was encouraged by the Greek kings who sought to “Hellenize” or to bring Greek culture to all of the peoples under their control. The Sibylline Oracles (mid-second century B.C.) say of the Jewish people, “every land and every sea is full of thee.”

God promised Abraham that he would bless all nations through his seed (Gen. 12:3). In his providence, he used the punishment of dispersion as part of the “fulness of the time” (Gal. 4:4) so that the good news of salvation through his Son might be readily presented and accepted throughout the world.

The large Jewish population in Alexandria led to the translation of the Old Testament in Greek. The Septuagint or LXX (named so because of its 70 translators), began to be translated between 300 and 200 B.C. and was the “Bible” of Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians. More importantly, this translation made what was once only a Jewish book, not only accessible to the world, but an influence upon it.

Wherever the Jews went, if ten men were present in a city, they set up synagogues for the teaching of the Old Testament. Some Gentiles were proselytized to the Jewish religion. Other Gentiles became “God-fearers,” those who accepted Judaism, but were not fully proselytized. As Paul and others evangelized throughout the Roman world, they first sought out the synagogues (Acts 13:14-15; 14:1; 17:14; 10-12 etc). In the midst of the desert of an idolatrous and immoral world, the preachers of the gospel found an oasis, an audience who believed in the one true God, who believed in the Scriptures, who had concern for moral living, and who had Messianic hopes. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, all wrote of widespread expectation that from Judea would rise a ruler whose dominion would be over all the world. Therefore, as the result of teaching in the synagogues, many converts were made, especially among the Gentiles.

The gospel had its beginning when the dispersed had gathered from around the world for the feast of Pentecost (First-fruits) (Acts 2:9-11). That the gospel was preached on this occasion was no accident. The first-fruits were gathered unto God from those around the world, who later would scatter because of persecution and take the gospel home with them (Acts 11:19-20). The Diaspora certainly was the key to the spread of the gospel to all the nations, leading to the obedience of faith (Rom. 15:26).

As Christianity was accepted by the Diaspora and they received the blessings of the gospel, God fulfilled in a spiritual way his promise “to bring His scattered ones back together, to give them the land of Israel and a new heart and a new spirit” (Isa. 11:11-12; Ezek. 11:16-20; Zeph. 3:9-10; Matt. 24:31). And, this restoration of Israel was too small. Through God’s use of the Diaspora, his Servant became a light of the nations so that his salvation might reach the end of the earth (Isa. 49:6). Aren’t we thankful for the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s hair scattered to the wind?

1022 Shadowridge Dr., Elsmere, Kentucky 41018 alanandjill@

By Rick Billingsley

In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever (Dan. 2:44). 

Daniel is prophesying to the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, that God will establish his kingdom (church) in the time of the fourth kingdom (Roman Empire). It will not be by accident, but by God’s providence that Rome will be a major world power that God will use to establish his kingdom. “. . . Daniel blessed the God of heaven: Daniel said, “Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, For wisdom and power belong to Him. It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to the wise men. . .” (Dan. 2:19-22).

To fully understand the political scene of the New Testament it would be beneficial to study the past political history of the New Testament (Inter-Testamental History). Neither time nor space will allow me to give a complete historical analysis of the political scene before the writing of the New Testament. It would be good for one to study the reign of Alexander the Great, Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ reign, the Maccabean Revolt, and the Hasmonean era. 

The Seleucids, Ptolemies, Hasmoneans, Herods, and Caesars all made their contributions to the prologue of history that introduced the coming of Christ. It was in the Roman world that Jesus Christ lived and did his work, and it was during this world that the church began and flourished, and the apostles lived and wrote their letters. A study of the political background of the New Testament gives us a deeper appreciation for the New Testament and the men who penned it (under the influence of the Holy Spirit) and the people who lived by it. Hopefully, by this study, our faith will be deepened, and our knowledge of the scriptures widened. 

The political arena that surrounded the life of Jesus and the apostles in the first century influenced their social status, their languages, their education, and to some extent, their religion. 
The Roman Empire achieved what previous empires had attempted with only partial success — the welding of many nationalities and peoples into one unified whole. The Roman government was able to maintain a more or less stable civil order for nearly half a millennium. The government was centered in Rome. The two principal authorities were the Emperor and the Senate. The Senate was made up of several hundred prominent leaders who had gained prestige, usually by their wealth. The Senate was supposed to serve as a check to the power of the Emperor. The Emperor had almost absolute authority. The secret of Rome’s success, where others had failed, lay in her wise provision for differing kinds of local supervision and control. Rome did not superimpose a uniform government procedure upon its conquered territories. Rome allowed many localities to govern their own affairs as long as they did not violate Roman directives. These conquered areas were generally organized into provinces. These are mentioned in the New Testament: Bithynia (Acts 16:7), Cyprus (Acts 13:4), Judea (Gal. 1:22), and Spain (Rom. 15:24). The provinces were ruled in two different ways: Proconsuls, who were responsible to the Roman Senate, ruled over provinces better known as senatorial provinces. Secondly, there were governors, better known as Procurators or prefects. Procurators were assigned directly by the Emperor and held their offices only as long as the Emperor wanted them there. The proconsuls held their positions by annual appointment by the Senate. 

Roman Emperors

Augustus (32 B.C.- A.D. 14). At the time of Jesus’ birth Augustus Caesar was the Roman Emperor. He was part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, 27 B.C.-A.D. 68. He transformed the administration of his Empire, establishing a peaceful environment and stability to the whole Roman world. He was responsible for the census roll taken before the birth of Christ. This decree forced Joseph to take Mary to Bethlehem where Jesus was born (Luke 2:1-4). 

Tiberius (A.D. 13-37). Before Augustus died in A.D. 14, he forced his stepson, Tiberius, into a marriage with his daughter, Julia. He then adopted Tiberius as his son and made it quite clear that he was to be his successor. In A.D. 13, the year before Augustus died, Tiberius was made emperor. Tiberius had a nervous breakdown and withdrew himself to the Island Capri. Tiberius died in 37. Tiberius was not directly involved in the life of Jesus, but his presence was felt (Matt. 22:17-21; Mark 12:14-17; Luke 3:1). When Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees and the Herodians about paying tribute, His reply was, “Render therefore unto Caesar (Tiberius) the things which are Caesar’s . . .” (Matt. 22:21). When Jesus was before Pilate, the Jews falsely accused Christ of not paying tribute to Tiberius (Luke 23:2). 

Caius Julius (37-41). Caius Julius is better known as Caligula. Caligula became Tiberius’ successor. He was the great-nephew of Tiberius. He proclaimed himself a god and thus encouraged the idea of Emperor worship. 

Claudius (41-54). After the death of Caligula, the Praetorian Guard stepped in as personal bodyguards to the emperor, and they forced the Senate to accept their choice of emperor. Claudius was not an obvious first choice for emperor. Handicapped as a child and left with a shaking head and a bad limp, he had always been treated with contempt by the imperial household. Much of Paul’s journeys were during the reign of Claudius (Acts 11:28; 18:2). Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because of the uproar the Jews made under the leadership of Chrestus. Among those Jews were Aquilla and Priscilla. 

Nero (54-68). Nero was only 16 when he became emperor. Nero was heavily influenced by his mother and by advisors, one of whom was Sencea, a Spanish philosopher. Nero did not want to be emperor but was manipulated in doing so by his mother. Nero arranged for the murder of his mother and his brother, which contributed to his emotional instability. When a fire devastated Rome in A.D. 64, Nero built an enormous palace in the ruins of the city. He blamed the fire on the Christians and arrested and murdered many of them. Paul and Peter were both killed by Nero. Paul exercised his rights as a Roman citizen and asked to be tried by Nero (Acts 25:9-12). Paul’s appeal took him to Rome where he spent two years in Caesar’s palace (Nero’s palace, Acts 28:16-31). Nero committed suicide and the family of Augustus died with him. 

Vespasian (69-79). After a year of civil strife that saw power change hands four times, the general Vespasian installed himself as emperor and inaugurated a short-lived dynasty (Flavian) which lasted from A.D. 69-138. During this time, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus lived and wrote his monumental work. In A.D. 70 Vespasian ordered his son Titus to destroy Jerusalem and plunder its temple. 

Domitian (81-96). The next prominent Emperor who was significant to the writing of the New Testament was Domitian. Under the rule of Domitian, the relationship between the Senate and Emperor broke down completely. Domitian was far more interested in maintaining efficient administration than in trying to mollify the senatorial aristocracy. Under his rule, Emperor worship intensified, Christians were severely persecuted, and John the apostle lived and wrote the book of Revelation.

The Herodian Dynasty

 It would be impossible to think of the political background of the New Testament without the mentioning of the Herodian clan. When Julius Caesar supplanted Pompey as Roman leader, Antipater was appointed Roman procurator of Judea and his son, Herod, became military governor of Galilee. Herod’s success in this post led the Roman Senate to appoint him king of Judea in 40 B.C. Herod was a ruthless person. He murdered anyone who dared to question or attempt to remove his authority. He killed his brother-in-law and three of his sons. He declared the decree that all male infants under two years of age should be killed. This forced Joseph to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt.

Since several Herods appear in the New Testament, it is necessary to differentiate between them. In addition to Herod the Great, others so named are Antipas, who dealt with John the Baptist, who tried Jesus, and whom Jesus nicknamed “that fox” (Luke 13:32). Herod Agrippa I, was responsible for the beheading of James the son of Zebedee, and for Peter’s imprisonment (Acts 12:1-2). Another Herodian, was Philip, better known as Herod-Philip (Mark 6:17). His reign was brief and little is known of him. Herod Agrippa II was the one Paul appealed to when he made his defense for his Christian belief. (Acts 21:17-40). With Agrippa II’s death, the Herodian dynasty ended.

Roman Procurators
After the death of Agrippa I, Judea reverted to rule by assigned Procurators. During the period A.D. 6-41, there were seven procurators of Judea: Caponius, 6-9 A.D., Marcus Ambivius, 9-12; Annius Rufus, 12-15; Veler- ius Gratus, 15-26; Pontius Pilate, 26-36 who tried Jesus; Marcellus, 36-37 and Maryllus, 38-41. In the time of Paul, the Roman Procurators were Fadus, A.D. 44-46, Alexander 46-48, Cumanus, 48-52; Felix 52-59 and Festus 59-61. Paul, after his arrest, appealed to Felix (Acts 24:2-23) and Festus (Acts 24:24-26). Under these Procurators the Jews and Christians enjoyed a considerable amount of peace. 

Conclusion 

It is amazing how God used these ungodly political figures to further his cause to redeem mankind to himself. Either directly or indirectly these political figures helped establish our faith in the New Testament. The New Testament is not only God’s will to govern our lives, but also a great historical record of the world’s kingdoms that God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ established so he may establish his kingdom that will subdue all kingdoms.  “. . . God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed . . .” (Dan. 2:44).

Select Bibliography

Alexandria, Virgina. What Life Was Like When Rome Ruled the World. Time-Life Books 1992.
Balch, David and John E. Stambaugh. The New Testament In Its Social Environment. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Westminster Press. 1966.
Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction of the New Testament. New York, NY. Doubleday Publishing Co. 1997.
Bruce, F.F. Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1999.
New Testament History. London: Nelson. 1969.
Deissmann, Adolf. Light From the Ancient East (Translated by Lionel R.M. Strachan). Peabody, Mass. 1995.
Drinkwater, J.F. and Andrew Drummond. The World of the Romans. New York, NY. Oxford University Press. 1993.
Edwards, B.D. Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Philadelphia. J.B. Lippincott & Co. 1867.
Fairweather, William. The Background of the Gospels. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Klock & Klock. 1977.
The Background of the Epistles. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Klock & Klock. 1977.
Gromacki, Robert G. New Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker Book House. 1976.
Harrison, Everett F. Introduction of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1971.
Hester, H.I. The Heart of the New Testament. Liberty, Missouri. The Quality Press. 1963.
Josephus. Complete Works (Translated by William Whiston). Grand Rapids, Michigan. Kregel Publishing. 1978.
Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament. Vols. 1&2. New York, NY. WDEG. 1987.
Lewis, Naphtali and Ronald Meyer. Roman Civilization. NewYork, NY. Harper Torchbooks. 1966.
Levy, Thomas The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York. Facts on File, Inc. 1995.
Matthew, Shailer. A History of New Testament Times In Palestine 175 B.C. – 70A.D. New York, NY. The Macmillan Co. 1902.
Metzger, B.M. The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and  Content 2d ed. Nashville, Tenn. Abingdon. 1983.
Packer, James I. The Bible Almanac. Nashville, Tenn. Thomas Nelson Publishing. 1980.
Porter, J.R. The Illustrated Guide To The Bible. New York, NY. Oxford University Press. 1995.
Stegemann, Ekkehard W. and Stegemann Wolfgang. The Jesus Movement. (Translated by O.C. Dean Jr.) Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1995.
Tenney, Merrill C. New Testament Times. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1965. 
Winter, Bruce W. The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, Vols. 2 & 3. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1993-1994.

8103 Leawood Ln., Woodridge, Illinois 60517

By Stan Cox

While the Son of God walked on earth, he expressed his love for all men. Jesus even loved the “unlovable.” A wonderful example of this compassion is seen in John’s record of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well in John 4.  Despite a national disdain the Jew felt toward Samaritans, Jesus started a conversation with the woman by requesting of her a drink of water. The woman recognized the singular nature of this and said, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman? For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (v. 9).  Jesus was the Christ, and his saving work went beyond national boundaries and prejudices to include all men. “The woman said to Him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When He comes, He will tell us all things.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am He’” (vv. 25-26). The grace of God was extended even to the despised Samaritans, indeed to all men (cf. Acts 11:18).

A Despised People

To understand the animosity that existed between the Jew and the Samaritan, it is necessary to go back in history to the days of Israel’s judgment at the hands of Assyria. The event is recorded in 2 Kings 17. Israel had grieved God repeatedly with her rebellion. So, using the Assyrians as his instrument of judgment, he dealt with her. “Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them from His sight . . .” (v. 18). The king of Assyria took many of the Israelites into captivity, and settled the land with other peoples. “Then the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah (Samaritans are also known as Cuthaeans), Ava, Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they took possession of Samaria and dwelt in its cities” (v. 24). The Jews who remained, already rebellious toward Jehovah, were further corrupted in their religion. It is generally accepted that intermarriage between the peoples took place.

The Samaritans’ religion was “syncretistic” (the combination of different forms of belief or practice, Websters). Shortly after inhabiting the land they began to suffer at God’s hand. 2 Kings 17:25 reveals “they did not fear the Lord; therefore the Lord sent lions among them, which killed some of them.” Chastened by the Lord’s punishment, they determined to serve Jehovah, and brought back a priest who taught them how to fear the Lord. However, while they embraced worship of Jehovah, they retained an adoration of their own deities. “They feared the Lord, yet served their own God’s — according to the rituals of the nations from among whom they were carried away” (v. 33).

Conflicting Religions

When the remnant of Israel returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and temple, the Samaritans approached them with an interesting proposal. “Let us build with you, for we seek your God as you do; and we have sacrificed to Him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here” (Ezra 4:2). Whether this request was made in good faith or not is irrelevant, it was completely unacceptable to the Jews. The Samaritans had a completely different concept of worship to Jehovah, which could not be reconciled with the Jew’s desire to restore pure worship before him. 2 Kings 17:41, “So these nations feared the Lord, yet served their carved images; also their children and their children’s children have continued doing as their fathers did, even to this day.” In response, the Jews said, “You may do nothing with us to build a house for our God; but we alone will build to the Lord God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us” (Ezra 4:3). The Jew’s disdain of this mongrel people, coupled with their rejection of the proposal, served to entrench the animosity between them and the inhabitants of Samaria. From that point on, “. . . the people of the land tried to discourage the people of Judah. They troubled them in building” (Ezra 4:4).

Subsequent History

Understanding the history of the Samaritan people helps us both to recognize why the tension between Jew and Samaritan existed, and why Jesus responded to the woman at the well as he did. The Samaritans, having been rejected by the Jews, determined to worship Jehovah in their own way. A short quote from Unger’s Bible Dictionary serves to encapsulate the conflict between Jews and Samaritans. 

The relation between Jew and Samaritan was one of hostility. The expulsion of Manasseh by Nehemiah for an unlawful marriage, and his building of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim by permission of Darius Nothus, took place about 409 BC. The inhospitality (Luke 9:52, 53) and hostility of the Samaritans induced many pilgrims from the north to Jerusalem to go on the east of the Jordan . . . The Jews repaid hate with hate. They cast suspicion on the Samaritan copy of the law, and disallowed the steadfast claim of the Samaritans to Jewish birth (John 4:12). Social and commercial relations, though they could not be broken off (4:8), were reduced to the lowest possible figure (959).

Our Lord’s Response to the Samaritans

“Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:21-24). In one act of sacrifice, Jesus swept aside the animosity and division which had existed between the peoples for hundreds of years. “Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:14).

4825 Almena Rd., Ft. Worth, Texas 76114 stancox@watchmanmag.com