THE LAW OF GOD PART 2: Leviticus 19:17-18

[jeremiah1five]

Good.

Do you think a neighbor is defined by genetics or bloodline?

RESPONSE: Neighbor is defined by its original meaning: The tribes were situated by God around the Tabernacle. three tribes to the north, three tribes to the east, three tribes to the west, three tribes to the south. There were no Gentiles in the Promised Land as Joshua with God's help destroyed these people.

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother [member of the same tribe] in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour [member of another tribe], and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people [member of any tribe], but thou shalt love thy neighbour [member of another tribe] as thyself: I am the LORD. Lev. 19:17–18.

We know from Paul that not all who are descended from Abrahm are his descendants. Does that same principle apply to the descendants of Jacob? If so, then she claimed to have Jacob as her father but because of her idolatry did not. The same thing was previously evidenced in my earlier commentary pointing out the fact the father of the Jewish leaders was the devil, NOT Abraham.

The event between Jesus and the Samaritan woman took place while still under the Law.
Not all "Jewish" leaders were 'of the devil.' Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were believers awaiting the Christ. You can't put all of them in the same box. God didn't. You're ignoring context and WHO Jesus was speaking to. Not all 70 priests of the Sanhedrin were there when Jesus said that.

You cannot use scripture selectively. Just because someone claimed ancestry does not mean they were correct.
LOL you're digging you hole bigger. You said to take scripture as written. Then you claimed an implication. Now you're openly explaining how an implication is a strong suggestion of the truth. It is NOT as written.
You cannot have this both ways.
Irrelevant.

Jesus did not discount or correct the woman's statements of both of them sharing the same father: Jacob.

12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. 15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Jn 4:12–15.

Jesus gave her Living Water.

You have claimed the Samaritan had the same father as the priest and the Levite. That is the only point you have been asked to prove. The case being attempted uses scripture selectively AND reads implications into scripture rather than reading it as written.
Prove the Samaritan had the same father.

Scripture makes the claim. Priest and Levite and Samaritan were under the same Covenant: Abraham's.
Abraham was their father. They were all under the Law of Moses [God.]

 

[Josheb]

RESPONSE: Neighbor is defined by its original meaning: The tribes were...

The fundamental problem in this thread, jeremiah1five, is that your case emphasizes the OT over the NT when the emphasis should be in reverse. Then, as far as the exchange between you and I is going, you are not dealing with the many things I have brought to bear on this op. I haven't yet broached this but the term "father" is used quite diversely in scripture. Not once in the OT is God called a "father" in the "abba" or "daddy" sense of the term. This aspect of His fatherhood, or paternity is part of the newer revelation, a revealing of what had previously been hidden from or veiled to the Jews, or a meaning they failed to grasp in their hard-hearted, often-idolatrous, legalistic blindness. That's one of the reasons Jesus chose to use the Samaritan in his parable; the Samaritan would have been considered an apostate to Jesus' audience and in no way superior to the priest or the Levite. They would have walked around the Samaritan if he'd been alive and well handing out denarii for free. To Jesus' audience it would have been understandable the priest and Levite avoided the injured man because in their mind they could not have touched him had he been dead. They would instantly have been rendered ceremonially unclean and unfit for their service to God until the period of ritual cleansing had passed. It wasn't worth the risk in a legalistic Jewish mindset. In other words, Jesus was indicting their understanding of the Law.

He did that quite often.

By selecting the parable of the Samaritan to support this op an error has occurred because Samaritans were not considered fellow countrymen. Furthermore, the aforementioned possibility the victim might be dead would have applied to Leviticus 19:17 because they could not incur sin by touching a corpse. The one part of the Leviticus 19:17-18 text you could have leveraged, and should have, imo, is the part about vengeance or grudges. THAT was the problem with Jesus' audience that day. They held a centuries old grudge against the Samaritans, partly justified but partly not. The inter-marriage was reprehensible, but the slight against their ancestors during Ezra and Nehemiah's days had long since passed.

Paul summarizes what they should have done in Romans 12.

Romans 12:9-21 ESV
Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Venegance is God's job, not ours. We're mandated by God to owe no one anything but love and as far as it is possible for our part, be on good terms with all others.

Even Samaritans.

The only covenant that matters is the one found in Christ, the seed promised Abraham (Gal. 3:16). Anyone not found in that covenant by which we have God as our Abba Father get fried up in a fiery lake. Jew, Samaritan, and Gentile alike. Anyone not found in that covenant does not have God as their Father.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The fundamental problem in this thread, jeremiah1five, is that your case emphasizes the OT over the NT when the emphasis should be in reverse. Then, as far as the exchange between you and I is going, you are not dealing with the many things I have brought to bear on this op. I haven't yet broached this but the term "father" is used quite diversely in scripture. Not once in the OT is God called a "father" in the "abba" or "daddy" sense of the term. This aspect of His fatherhood, or paternity is part of the newer revelation, a revealing of what had previously been hidden from or veiled to the Jews, or a meaning they failed to grasp in their hard-hearted, often-idolatrous, legalistic blindness.

The only covenant that matters is the one found in Christ, the seed promised Abraham (Gal. 3:16). Anyone not found in that covenant by which we have God as our Abba Father get fried up in a fiery lake. Jew, Samaritan, and Gentile alike. Anyone not found in that covenant does not have God as their Father.

You have a man-centered view of Scripture where Samaritans are concerned. As you can see Jesus didn't care about what men thought about the Samaritan. When the disciples returned they didn't question Jesus talking with this woman.
Neither should you. This woman was a daughter of Abraham.

QUOTE: That's one of the reasons Jesus chose to use the Samaritan in his parable; the Samaritan would have been considered an apostate to Jesus' audience and in no way superior to the priest or the Levite.

RESPONSE: Weren't you an idol-worshiping, sin-loving enemy of God before you became a Christian? How many Laws of God were you guilty of breaking? But here there is no indication this Samaritan woman was an apostate as you say. Let's take another look at this woman and Jesus' interaction and let's not add to the Bible above what is revealed, please. You do that:

5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
6 Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.
7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.

In the course of a typical day this woman who draws - NOT STEALS - water from Jacobs well which indicates she along with others in her 'half-tribe or tribes OWN the well.

9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

Jews that held this attitude and prejudice were hypocrites. In today's English they were 'haters.'

10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Jesus ministers to the woman on the way to her salvation.

11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

She identifies herself as a daughter of Jacob and Jesus as a son of Jacob who was a son of Isaac, who was a son of Abraham and one who was awaiting the Christ. They are called Christians who waited for their Messiah/Christ.

13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

Hook, line, and sinker. Jesus knows how to fish.

16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

This was a woman of integrity and honesty. But of course, she was a daughter of Jacob and observed the Mosaic Law about telling the truth in dealings with others. She was not a false witness, but a truthful witness. Jesus honored this.

19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

This Samaritan woman understood the office of prophet and ascribed Jesus as Prophet. She went from a respectable "Sir," to "Prophet," and soon calls Him "Messiah/Christ."

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

Again she identifies Jesus and herself as descendants of Jacob. She knew her stuff.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

This Samaritan woman receives correct doctrine from the Word of God Himself.

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,
29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.

One of the first evangelists in the coming Church Age.

39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.

Talk about sowing and reaping a harvest in one day!

40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
41 And many more believed because of his own word;
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
Jn 4:5–42.

What an incredible woman to be excommunicated and an outcast and STILL maintain a faith in the prophecies of the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets concerning Israel's Messiah.

 

[Josheb]

You have a man-centered view of Scripture...

Start over. Keep your personal opinions about my person out of the posts. .

 

[jeremiah1five]

Start over. Keep your personal opinions about my person out of the posts. .

Resistant to counsel.
So be it.

 

[Manfred]

Show me where scripture states the Samaritan and the victim shared the same Father.

The context of the premise is the Samaritans as a people, are/were in covenant with God as were/are the Israelites.

The context of that passage shows, that even the Priest and Levite who were in covenant with God, did not follow the command of love thy neighbor as yourself.
So the context shows that the Samaritan who is in covenant with God was obeying His law whilst the other two did not.

So your bringing in John 8:44 most likely points to the Samaritan having God as His father and the other two, whilst still in covenant could be charged by Jesus as He did the Pharisees as per John 8:44.

The other poster is pointing out that the Samarians were/are in covenant with God by referring to the Samaritan woman at the well, and what was said by her, and by Jesus acknowledging her and not correcting her.

This shows that the Samaritans were in covenant with God as offspring of Jacob later renamed Israel.
12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jn 4:12.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Christ fulfilled the Law. Thus, when Christ is in us, we through Him fulfill the Law. This is the basis of our justification and God declaring us in Christ "Not Guilty!" In this we also have fulfilled the Law.
The Law is type and shadow of the Holy Spirit. It is HE whom God puts in our hearts:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel;
After those days, saith the LORD,
I will put my law in their inward parts,
And write it in their hearts;
And will be their God,
And they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying,
Know the LORD:
For they shall all know me,
From the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD:
For I will forgive their iniquity,
And I will remember their sin no more.
Jer. 31:33–34.

"Every man his neighbor and every man his brother" are identified as Covenant believers, NOT the world of unbelievers.
The Word of God is TO and FOR believers ONLY.

 

[Josheb]

The context of the premise is the Samaritans as a people, are/were in covenant with God as were/are the Israelites.

Prove it.

The context of that passage shows, that even the Priest and Levite who were in covenant with God, did not follow the command of love thy neighbor as yourself.

Yep. Not a point in dispute.

So the context shows that the Samaritan who is in covenant with God was obeying His law whilst the other two did not.

Nope. The Samaritan is an antithesis of the priest and Levite, NOT in any way synonymous with or a like-comparison. The Samaritan is included in juxtaposition of those who should have been the most covenantal, the most obedient to the covenant and the Law. I have already provided evidence of this fact.

So your bringing in John 8:44 most likely points to the Samaritan having God as His father and the other two, whilst still in covenant could be charged by Jesus as He did the Pharisees as per John 8:44.

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear: all humans have God as their Father simply because God is the Creator of all creatures, but that is substantively different than God being the Father of those adopted in Christ. The term "father" is applied to God diversely in scripture and failing to discriminate the inherent (and often limiting) context of how scripture uses the term (not how post-canonical doctrines use and/or abuse the term) is a mistake. The Samaritans had long-ago broken the Law of God. They persisted in doing so and eventually created their own alternative religion. Those among the Samaritans who wished to remain "faithful" to the God of the patriarchs from which they were genetically descended did NOT repent and return as the Law stipulated. Instead, they worshipped in a different place, a place of their own. Rather than be reconciled to the assembly (the "qahal"), they remained separated, and willfully so. They did NOT have God as their "Abba" Father. That is found only in Christ.

None of the three people in the parable of the good Samaritan are said to have God as their Father in any way remotely related to Christ. The Law testified to and about Jesus. What the Samaritan did was obey the Law in spirit. What the priest and Levite did was to appear to have obeyed the Law in its letter (they were prohibited from touching a dead body). Their intent may have been good; they may well have been motivated by obedience. They were wrong. By including a Samaritan, someone already lawless in the eyes of Jesus' Jewish audience, Jesus was implying that already-estranged person was willing to break the letter of the Law to verify the need for care. Only upon discovering the battered man was still alive did the parable turn into an indictment of EVERYONE listening.

It is wrong to assume the Samaritan had God as his Father when it comes to Leviticus 19:17-18. Go back to the opening post in this thread and examine how much is being added to scripture, beginning with all those parenthetical comments added to the Leviticus text.

The other poster is pointing out that the Samarians were/are in covenant with God by referring to the Samaritan woman at the well, and what was said by her, and by Jesus acknowledging her and not correcting her.

LOL! No, the other poster is adding eisegetically personal opinion to what the text of John 4 actually states. The word "covenant" is completely absent from the John 4 narrative. The woman makes claims about herself and her fellow Samaritans but Jesus corrects, not affirms, every single statement she makes.

• She does not know the gift of God.
• She does not know who Jesus is.
• She thinks Abraham is greater than Jesus.
• She thinks the well came from Abraham (not Christ first).
• She thinks the water Jesus offers will make it unnecessary for her to walk to the well.
• She is a liar; she lies directly to Jesus.
• Unless her husbands all died, he is an adulteress (and even if they did die, she is a harlot).
• She calls Jesus, "You Jews..." thereby indicating she does not self-identify herself as a Jew.
• She openly justifies her worship of God on Mount Gerizim and Ebal in direct contradiction to the prophecies of Isaiah and Zechariah declaring God will be worshiped in Jerusalem, the city of peace (jeru = city, salem = peace).
• She believes in a coming Messiah but - like the Jews - she denies him even as he sits right in front of her speaking truth to her.
• Even when she tells her townspeople about Jesus she is not sure he is the Messiah.

Jesus was NOT acknowledging her as a covenant member. Go back and read the John 4 text. The other poster is incorrect.

This shows that the Samaritans were in covenant with God as offspring of Jacob later renamed Israel.

No, it shows they were covenant breakers. Their long history as covenant-breakers is the reason a Samaritan was included in the parable. Covenant-keepers, or at least legalistic covenant-keeper wannabes, left the man to die. A covenant breaker from a long line of willful covenant-breakers bothered to risk more disobedience to verify whether man was alive and in need of aid.

12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jn 4:12.

I'm not sure why that verse is imagined to prove common divine fatherhood or covenantal relationship. She is implicitly denying the greaterness of Jesus!

John 8:53, 58 KJV
Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? .....Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

She cites Jacob, NOT Abraham (who is greater than Jacob).

Matthew 22:41-46
Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

Jesus is the Lord greater than David. He is the seed promised Abraham. Her appeal to the greatness of Jacob is an implicit testimony to her ignorance, not any veracity of truth she may be implying. Everything out of the woman's mouth is a false!

 

[jeremiah1five]

Prove it.

Yep. Not a point in dispute.

Nope. The Samaritan is an antithesis of the priest and Levite, NOT in any way synonymous with or a like-comparison. The Samaritan is included in juxtaposition of those who should have been the most covenantal, the most obedient to the covenant and the Law. I have already provided evidence of this fact.

Antithesis?
The obedient one was the Samaritan who had compassion on the man. Shamed the priest and Levite.

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear: all humans have God as their Father simply because God is the Creator of all creatures,

God describes two seeds on the planet:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; Gen. 3:15.

but that is substantively different than God being the Father of those adopted in Christ. The term "father" is applied to God diversely in scripture and failing to discriminate the inherent (and often limiting) context of how scripture uses the term (not how post-canonical doctrines use and/or abuse the term) is a mistake. The Samaritans had long-ago broken the Law of God. They persisted in doing so and eventually created their own alternative religion.

Try keeping up your Christianity without falling into doctrinal error being outcast from Christian fellowship and the possession of the Scripture.

Those among the Samaritans who wished to remain "faithful" to the God of the patriarchs from which they were genetically descended did NOT repent and return as the Law stipulated. Instead, they worshipped in a different place, a place of their own. Rather than be reconciled to the assembly (the "qahal"), they remained separated, and willfully so. They did NOT have God as their "Abba" Father. That is found only in Christ.

None of the three people in the parable of the good Samaritan are said to have God as their Father in any way remotely related to Christ. The Law testified to and about Jesus. What the Samaritan did was obey the Law in spirit. What the priest and Levite did was to appear to have obeyed the Law in its letter (they were prohibited from touching a dead body). Their intent may have been good; they may well have been motivated by obedience. They were wrong.

The man was half-dead. Not dead. You suppose too much by way of interpreting what the priest and Levite were thinking. But Jesus is teaching about actions and the actions that were sanctioned were those of the Samaritan. His actions were held up by Christ those to emulate.

By including a Samaritan, someone already lawless in the eyes of Jesus' Jewish audience, Jesus was implying that already-estranged person was willing to break the letter of the Law to verify the need for care. Only upon discovering the battered man was still alive did the parable turn into an indictment of EVERYONE listening.

The indictment was upon the priest and Levite who had the Law of Leviticus 19:17-18 and disobeyed. Hence, this instruction in Luke 10.

It is wrong to assume the Samaritan had God as his Father when it comes to Leviticus 19:17-18. Go back to the opening post in this thread and examine how much is being added to scripture, beginning with all those parenthetical comments added to the Leviticus text.

The lawyer asked Jesus:
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? Lk 10:29.

According to Leviticus 19:17-18 his neighbor was a member of another tribe. So, since Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (twelve tribes) everyone in this narrative were Covenant members. Even the Samaritan.

LOL! No, the other poster is adding eisegetically personal opinion to what the text of John 4 actually states. The word "covenant" is completely absent from the John 4 narrative. The woman makes claims about herself and her fellow Samaritans but Jesus corrects, not affirms, every single statement she makes.

• She does not know the gift of God.
• She does not know who Jesus is.
• She thinks Abraham is greater than Jesus.
• She thinks the well came from Abraham (not Christ first).
• She thinks the water Jesus offers will make it unnecessary for her to walk to the well.
• She is a liar; she lies directly to Jesus.
• Unless her husbands all died, he is an adulteress (and even if they did die, she is a harlot).
• She calls Jesus, "You Jews..." thereby indicating she does not self-identify herself as a Jew.
• She openly justifies her worship of God on Mount Gerizim and Ebal in direct contradiction to the prophecies of Isaiah and Zechariah declaring God will be worshiped in Jerusalem, the city of peace (jeru = city, salem = peace).
• She believes in a coming Messiah but - like the Jews - she denies him even as he sits right in front of her speaking truth to her.
• Even when she tells her townspeople about Jesus she is not sure he is the Messiah.

Jesus was NOT acknowledging her as a covenant member. Go back and read the John 4 text. The other poster is incorrect.

5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. 6 Now Jacob’s well was there. Jn 4:5–6.
The Samaritan woman was inheritor and possessor of Joseph's land.

Verse 10: Jesus offers her Living Water.

12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well Jn 4:12.
The woman includes Jesus as a relative, a Covenant member of the twelve tribes. Jesus does not correct her.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jn 4:20.
Again she makes a relational claim and again there is no correction from Jesus. But there is correction as to the place of worship that He does clarify.

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jn 4:25.
The woman was a Christian awaiting Christ/Messiah. A woman of faith expecting her Messiah regardless of the cold-hearted Jews who refused Samaritans as brethren.

26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. Jn 4:26.
Jesus reveals Himself to her.

15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, Jn 4:15.
The woman asks Jesus for Living Water. And being a member of the twelve tribes He did.

No, it shows they were covenant breakers. Their long history as covenant-breakers is the reason a Samaritan was included in the parable. Covenant-keepers, or at least legalistic covenant-keeper wannabes, left the man to die. A covenant breaker from a long line of willful covenant-breakers bothered to risk more disobedience to verify whether man was alive and in need of aid. I'm not sure why that verse is imagined to prove common divine fatherhood or covenantal relationship. She is implicitly denying the greaterness of Jesus!

John 8:53, 58 KJV
Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? .....Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

She cites Jacob, NOT Abraham (who is greater than Jacob).

Why speak of Abraham when it was Joseph who gave her the land she lived in? Notice she again makes a relational claim of Jesus and her being children of Abraham "our father."

Matthew 22:41-46
Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

Jesus is the Lord greater than David. He is the seed promised Abraham. Her appeal to the greatness of Jacob is an implicit testimony to her ignorance, not any veracity of truth she may be implying. Everything out of the woman's mouth is a false!

Who's being false? She was truthful in saying she had no husband. So, everything out of the woman's mouth was not false. She was as honest as Jesus. But Jesus had the Scripture. She and her people didn't. And still she holds fast her integrity (think Job.)
Methinks thou would have walked past the half-dead man also reading your cold, indignant attitude towards Samaritans.

 

[Manfred]

Prove it.

The context of the premise is the Samaritans as a people, are/were in covenant with God as were/are the Israelites.

Joh 4:6 Jacob's well was there; so Jesus, wearied as he was from his journey, was sitting beside the well. It was about the sixth hour.

The well was Jacob's.

Joh 4:9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)

The woman was a Samaritan

Joh 4:12 Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.”

The woman claims Jacob as a forefather that gave the Samaritans the well.

Jesus does not correct her for making a mistake and mis-labeling Jacob as a forefather of the Samaritans.
Nothing in that text indicates that Jacob was not "the father" of the Samaritans.

Descendants of Levi:
1Ch_6:46 son of Amzi, son of Bani, son of Shemer,

1Ki 16:24 He bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer for two talents of silver, and he fortified the hill and called the name of the city that he built Samaria, after the name of Shemer, the owner of the hill.
1Ki_16:29 In the thirty-eighth year of Asa king of Judah, Ahab the son of Omri began to reign over Israel, and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty-two years.
Mic_1:5 All this is for the transgression of Jacob and for the sins of the house of Israel. What is the transgression of Jacob? Is it not Samaria? And what is the high place of Judah? Is it not Jerusalem?

There is more evidence in the scriptures that Samaritans are offspring of Israelites (fallen away) than otherwise. A quick study will reveal the importance Samaria plays in the history of Israel.

Perhaps Samaria - Samaritans are not synonymous in your opinion?
Some of the more "vile" kings of Israel who allowed for intermarriage with other nations were in Samaria.

 

[Josheb]

Who's being false? She was truthful in saying she had no husband. So, everything out of the woman's mouth was not false.

Not true. She had five husbands, not none. Jesus confirmed the factual correctness of the statement, but corrected the misleading nature of her statement because she had five husbands and was cohabiting with six. In the Law of Moses having sex with a man made her married! She was in fact married to a six husband as far as the Law, the covenant of Moses, was concerned. She was a covenant-breaker, not a covenant maker. The facts of her statement are true but she says them misleadingly.

Deuteronomy 22:29 KJV
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Furthermore, if any of her prior husbands hadn't died, then she was still married to the man as far as the law of God was concerned. Moses permitted a writ of divorce, not God. Moses permitted it because of the hardness of the human heart, not because God commanded it. She said those words to Jesus and what Jesus taught was,

Matthew 19:6-9
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

So, unless ALL of her husbands were adulterous or dead, she had no authority to be wed more than once and definitely no Law or covenant-based authority to remarry or cohabit with a man not her husband.




More importantly, why are you trying to find fault with what I have posted? Even if she did tell one truth, the fact remains she also told a plethora of falsehoods and lies. Why does she gain any merit in your eyes if she told one truth while lying aplenty? Why would any deceitful person be used an example of truth for telling one truth and many falsehoods and lies? You are trying to prove she had the same father because she was under the same covenant but every word out of her mouth shows she's a covenant-breaker, not a covenant-keeper. One possible (half-)truth does not erase all the many falsehoods. A lie of omission is still a lie. So why are you trying so hard to legitimize her.

 

[Josheb]

The woman claims Jacob as a forefather that gave the Samaritans the well.

Jacob did not give the well to the Samaritans. The Samaritans did not exist in Jacob's time.

Jesus does not correct her for making a mistake and mis-labeling Jacob as a forefather of the Samaritans.

It was not a mistake. It was a blatant falsehood. If said with intent to deceive then it was a lie.

Nothing in that text indicates that Jacob was not "the father" of the Samaritans.

LOL! There were no Samaritans in Jacob's day. The Samaritans arose during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. I have already covered this and encouraged everyone in the thread to examine their history and why the Samaritans were held in contempt, why they were used by Jesus in the parable.

Perhaps Samaria - Samaritans are not synonymous in your opinion?

No, they are NOT synonymous.

Some of the more "vile" kings of Israel who allowed for intermarriage with other nations were in Samaria.

Hmmm... I do hope that is not an appeal to, "Others did it so it's okay." Not only is that a tu quoque fallacy, it's also a false equivalence. Stick to the Samaritans because by the time of the incarnation they were reviled by the Jews for many of the same reasons Jesus indicted the Jews (both were covenant breakers).

 

[jeremiah1five]

Not true. She had five husbands, not none. Jesus confirmed the factual correctness of the statement, but corrected the misleading nature of her statement because she had five husbands and was cohabiting with six. In the Law of Moses having sex with a man made her married! She was in fact married to a six husband as far as the Law, the covenant of Moses, was concerned. She was a covenant-breaker, not a covenant maker. The facts of her statement are true but she says them misleadingly.

Deuteronomy 22:29 KJV
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Furthermore, if any of her prior husbands hadn't died, then she was still married to the man as far as the law of God was concerned. Moses permitted a writ of divorce, not God. Moses permitted it because of the hardness of the human heart, not because God commanded it. She said those words to Jesus and what Jesus taught was,

Try reading it again. This time with your eyes OPEN:

17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: 18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. Jn 4:17–18.

She told the truth. She had no husband. She was not married but was living with a man. Jesus said she was telling the truth.

Matthew 19:6-9
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

So, unless ALL of her husbands were adulterous or dead, she had no authority to be wed more than once and definitely no Law or covenant-based authority to remarry or cohabit with a man not her husband.

She was the offspring of intermarriages by her great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents. Since the exile of both northern and southern kingdoms many generations were born in and around Israel (Samaria.) Given the fact that Samaritans were offspring of Gentile-Hebrew/Jewish relationships (marriage, fornication, rape, etc.) the Samaritans were outcast by the Jews. They were without the Bible (Law, Psalms, Prophets), so of course their doctrine would be somewhat in error. If you were a Samaritan without Scripture and prevented from Judaic religion you'd probably be all messed up in your head not to mention your attempts to worship and know God. But Christ was merciful and went specifically to this well to bring this daughter of Abraham to salvation. She left her waterpot and went into the city to tell her fellow-citizen about this man she identified as the Messiah/Christ. She in effect becomes the first evangelist preaching Christ to her family and friends. Messiah was so welcomed in this Samaritan city that Jesus stayed preaching the kingdom of God for two days.
Talk about "hardness of heart." Why are you so hard against someone whom Christ saved? Hate the brethren, huh?
Shows you hate God.

More importantly, why are you trying to find fault with what I have posted? Even if she did tell one truth, the fact remains she also told a plethora of falsehoods and lies. Why does she gain any merit in your eyes if she told one truth while lying aplenty? Why would any deceitful person be used an example of truth for telling one truth and many falsehoods and lies? You are trying to prove she had the same father because she was under the same covenant but every word out of her mouth shows she's a covenant-breaker, not a covenant-keeper. One possible (half-)truth does not erase all the many falsehoods. A lie of omission is still a lie. So why are you trying so hard to legitimize her.

Jesus offered her Living Water. You DO know what Living Water is, right? This means she became saved (probably on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit arrived and baptized 3000 souls into the Body of Christ.)
Are you a sinner? Have you betrayed Christ? Are you STILL in a particular sin? Maybe one in which you hate all things God? Because you seem to be blinded to the narrative of the woman at the well and Jesus bringing her into fellowship with God in a more personal level than Samaritans have ever known. I don't have to legitimize her. The Lord did that.
You have a vindictive heart, Josheb, you really do. Tell me, how many lies will YOU tell today besides the ones you post about the woman at the well.

 

[Manfred]

No, they are NOT synonymous.

Why not?

 

[Manfred]

It was not a mistake. It was a blatant falsehood. If said with intent to deceive then it was a lie.

Jesus did not say she was lying when she said the well was Jacobs.

Joh 4:5 So he came to a town of Samaria called Sychar, near the field that Jacob had given to his son Joseph.
Joh 4:12 Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.”
Joh 4:13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again,

A town of Samaria, and a Samaritan woman was at the well.
How you can say that that Samaria and Samaritans are mutually exclusive is beyond me.
Joh 4:7 A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.”
Joh 4:9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)
My previous post stands.

 

[Manfred]

LOL! There were no Samaritans in Jacob's day.

Like there were no Israelites in the days of Abraham, yet Abraham is the Father of the Israelites.
That does not make Abraham "not" their Father, nor does it not make Jacob the Father of the Samaritans.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Like there were no Israelites in the days of Abraham, yet Abraham is the Father of the Israelites.
That does not make Abraham "not" their Father, nor does it not make Jacob the Father of the Samaritans.

Abraham is the father of the Hebrew people.
Moses was the father of the Hebrew nation (the children of Israel/Jacob.)
Samaritans were the offspring of the Israelites who remained behind after the war with Assyria and Babylon 722 and 586 BC, respectively.
But you knew that. I hope.

Here is the gist of my thread:

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother [member of the same tribe] in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour [member of another tribe situated by God surrounding the Tabernacle], and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people [member of any tribe], but thou shalt love thy neighbour [member of another tribe situated by God surrounding the Tabernacle] as thyself: I am the LORD. Le 19:17–18.

God is commanding the children of Israel in Covenant with Himself to love ONLY their fellow covenant brethren.
Christ upheld this command and instructed in its fulfillment.
Christ did not change the Law in Leviticus 19:17-19.
Thus, today, as commanded by Jesus Christ Christians are commanded to love their Christian brethren ONLY.

 

[Manfred]

Abraham is the father of the Hebrew people.

Are the Israelites not synonymous with Hebrew people?

Moses was the father of the Hebrew nation (the children of Israel/Jacob.)
Samaritans were the offspring of the Israelites who remained behind after the war with Assyria and Babylon 722 and 586 BC, respectively.
But you knew that. I hope.

This is how I understand it yes.

Here is the gist of my thread:

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother [member of the same tribe] in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour [member of another tribe situated by God surrounding the Tabernacle], and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people [member of any tribe], but thou shalt love thy neighbour [member of another tribe situated by God surrounding the Tabernacle] as thyself: I am the LORD. Le 19:17–18.

God is commanding the children of Israel in Covenant with Himself to love ONLY their fellow covenant brethren.
Christ upheld this command and instructed in its fulfillment.
Christ did not change the Law in Leviticus 19:17-19.
Thus, today, as commanded by Jesus Christ Christians are commanded to love their Christian brethren ONLY.

I understand

 

[jeremiah1five]

Are the Israelites not synonymous with Hebrew people?

This is how I understand it yes.

I understand

Yes. Synonymous.
Good work.

 

[Josheb]

Why not?

I have already answered that question and done so diversely and firmly couched in scripture.