The necessity of Jn 4.4

I received an email from Logos Pro regarding the use of the atlas tool which included a reference to Jn 4 where it is noted that Jesus had some necessity to pass through Samaria. It is noted that the Jews generally avoided Samaria since they considered the Samaritans as unclean.

*4　Ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν διέρχεσθαι διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείας.

The question is "What kind of necessity is involved here?" BDAG lists two uses of δεῖ: (1) denoting compulsion of any kind and (2) something that should happen or is fitting.

When something is fitting it is (at least sometimes) accompanied by a statement indicating why it is appropriate.

[ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι καὶ ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν εὐαγγελίσασθαί ⸉με

ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι καὶ ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν εὐαγγελίσασθαί ⸉με δεῖ⸊ τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ,* ⸂ὅτι ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἀπεστάλην⸃.

If it is simply appropriate that he pass through Samaria, why is it appropriate? If it is under compulsion, what is compelling him to pass through Samaria.

A comment from some of the NT people would be appreciated.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Tes

I think nobody will be offended being non of the experts, if I could express my understanding. I think the bottom line is as Jesus said it: in John 4:32" I have food to eat that you do not about" and John 4:34. My food is to do the will of Him Who sent me and to accomplish His work. His priority is what he said it here. He had to do the will of the One who sent Him. He had to do the Will of God.He is under compulsion, because it was the will of God to tell them whom and how they have to worship. Besides that Jesus wanted to break the discrimination of the Jews to the Samaritans.

Lew Worthington

A comment from some of the NT people would be appreciated.

I've actually done some narrative studies on this before, but my notes are not with me.

However, I'll just check my interlinear.... [:D]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728465#Comment_728465

A comment from some of the NT people would be appreciated.

I've actually done some narrative studies on this before, but my notes are not with me.

However, I'll just check my interlinear....

Yuck, yuck [:D]

Plummer (in 2 separate commentaries) and Haenschen opt for an attempt to avoid molestation though I see no indication that the rumor that Jesus baptized more disciples than John led to any opposition. Most commentators fail to deal with it though it is simply said to indicate God's plan.

Allen Browne

You're right: it wasn't a geographical necessity, so it must Jesus must have found it necessary for other reasons.

You might consider searching the gospels for other instances where Jesus found something to be a necessity, i.e. <Lemma = lbs/el/δεῖ>

You'll find a couple of other references about Jesus' purposes in regard to travel, e.g. Lk 4:43.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728628#Comment_728628

I was going to support Tes's comment earlier today but I wasn't on my computer. I was going to add, though, that I'm sure there is more to it than just that. Often YHWH has multiple goals in mind when doing anything. I think Allen is touching on something with his verse. Regardless of who the Samaritans were, they were "in the land", and that fact alone constitutes sufficient reason for Yeishuu`a to feel compulsion to "visit" them. They constitute geir, or alien sojourners, and they are afforded a certain amount of acknowledgment if not respect. The Israelites had been "strangers in a strange land" and so YHWH commanded that non-Israelites dwelling in peace (who weren't of the nations already in and around the land as they were to be exterminated) were to be well-tolerated.

it wasn't a geographical necessity

So, in a sense, it was a geographical necessity, but not because there was no way to get around them, but rather that they just happened to be in the geographical region Yeishuu`a was responsible for shepherding.

Gordon Jones

You raise an interesting point, George. I have looked at a number of commentaries and several echo the narrator's line without providing supporting evidence.

Yes, John 4:9b says that Jews did not associate with Samaritans and, while this is highly plausible, can anyone point me to an ancient source which states that Jews (any of them) avoided travelling through Samaria?

"It was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city at the festivals, to take their journeys through the country of the Samaritans"

Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).

"Popular commentators have sometimes insisted that the longer route through the Transjordan was the customary route for Jewish travellers, so great was their aversion to Samaritans; this in turn suggests that the ‘had to’ language (edei) reflects the compulsion of divine appointment, not geography. Josephus, however, provides ample assurance not only that the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans was strong, but also that Jews passing from Judea to Galilee or back nevertheless preferred the shorter route through Samaria (Ant. xx. 118; Bel. ii. 232; Vita 269). This does not mean that the meeting between Jesus and the Samaritan woman was outside the sweep of divine providential appointments (indeed, the ‘had to’ may refer to God’s will for Jesus), but only that Jesus’ travel arrangements cannot be marshalled as evidence of divine compulsion."

D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 216.

"3. The setting is provided in the introductory paragraph of vv 1–6. The Pharisees (of Jerusalem?) learn of the extraordinary success of Jesus in his preaching and baptizing ministry (1–2). This causes Jesus to withdraw from Judea to Galilee, presumably to avoid a conflict which could lead to a premature end to his ministry (Jesus is “under the ‘law of the hour’ which the Father has fixed for him,” Schnackenburg, 1:422). Jesus therefore “had to go through Samaria.” There is an interesting coincidence of language between v 4 and a statement of Josephus: “It was absolutely necessary for those who would go quickly to pass through that country (Samaria), for by that road you may, in three days, go from Galilee to Jerusalem” (Vita, 269). In this Gospel, however, as in the synoptics, necessity laid on Jesus generally hints of the divine will for him: he goes through Samaria not only for safety, but to accomplish the work assigned to him by the Father (vv 32, 34). The mission to the Samaritans was unplanned by Jesus but willed by God."

George R. Beasley-Murray, John, vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 59.

"Verse 4 links the Samaritan text to vv. 1–3; in order to get from Judea to Galilee (4:3), Jesus “had to go through Samaria.” Scholars are fairly evenly divided on whether the necessity of this Samaritan journey is strictly geographical100 or has theological overtones.101 The geographical necessity of the trip is supported by Josephus who notes that the most expedient route from Judea to Galilee during the first century was through Samaria.102 The word translated as “had to” (ἔδει edei), however, usually is associated in the Fourth Gospel with God’s plan (e.g., 3:14, 30; 9:4). It seems best, therefore, to read the necessity of the journey through Samaria as both geographical and theological."

Gail R. O’day, “The Gospel of John,” in New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck, vol. 9 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994–2004), 565.

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728694#Comment_728694

According to my opinion Jesus's trip to Samaria could not be geographical , I think it would be better to understand what is in the heart and mission of Jesus . He wanted to show that the Samaritans are not excluded from Salvation. Jesus showed this by using a parable with the good Samaritan. Both the Jews religious men had different view, but it was the Samaritan who cared for the afflicted man. We could see why Jesus used this parable. Not only by the Samaritans which were despised by the Jews , even He showed the purpose of salvation to all human beings by communicating with a sinful woman. He used the woman as a means of communication to the Samaritans. They were sheep without Shepherd. We can see their response at last.John 4:40–42 " 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his word. 42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” Jesus's mission was to accomplish His Father's will. We can see why Jesus was compelled to go to Samaria from the response of the people and the result. As Jesus is Perfect God and Man, he could see spiritually the state of the people as well.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728704#Comment_728704

George, don't you have access to some good exegetical commentaries on John 4:4? They discuss this question.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728694#Comment_728694

"It was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city at the festivals, to take their journeys through the country of the Samaritans"

Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).

Yes, "it was the custom", but when. If you read the rest of the passage, it would seem that there might have been reason to NO LONGER pass through Samaria.

1. (118) Now there arose a quarrel between the Samaritans and the Jews on the occasion following:—It was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city at the festivals, to take their journeys through the country of the Samaritans; and at this time there lay, in the road they took, a village that was called Ginea, which was situated in the limits of Samaria and the great plain, where certain persons thereto belonging fought with the Galileans, and killed a great many of them; (119) but, when the principal of the Galileans were informed of what had been done, they came to Cumanus, and desired him to avenge the murder of those that were killed; but he was induced by the Samaritans, with money, to do nothing in the matter; (120) upon which the Galileans were much displeased, and persuaded the multitude of the Jews to betake themselves to arms, and to regain their liberty, saying, that slavery was in itself a bitter thing, but that, when it was joined with direct injuries, it was perfectly intolerable. (121) And when their principal men endeavored to pacify them, and promised to endeavor to persuade Cumanus to avenge those that were killed, they would not hearken to them, but took their weapons, and entreated the assistance of Eleazar, the son of Dineus, a robber, who had many years made his abode in the mountains, with which assistance they plundered many villages of the Samaritans. (122) When Cumanus heard of this action of theirs, he took the band of Sebaste, with four regiments of footmen, and armed the Samaritans, and marched out against the Jews, and caught them, and slew many of them, and took a great number of them alive; (123) whereupon those that were the most eminent persons at Jerusalem, and that both in regard to the respect that was paid them, and the families they were of, as soon as they saw to what a height things were gone, put on sackcloth, and heaped ashes upon their heads, and by all possible means besought the seditious, and persuaded them that they would set before their eyes the utter subversion of their country, the conflagration of their temple, and the slavery of themselves, their wives, and children, which would be the consequences of what they were doing, and would alter their minds, would cast away their weapons, and for the future be quiet, and return to their own homes. These persuasions of theirs prevailed upon them. (124) So the people dispersed themselves, and the robbers went away again to their places of strength; and after this time all Judea was overrun with robberies.

Antiquities 20.118-124

So, I don't particularly doubt that the Jews avoided Samaria. Note that the paradigm for neighborliness was a SAMARITAN which is something like portraying Jack-the-Ripper as being a portrait of gentlemanliness. (Or me being a lover of interlinears [;)]).

In this Gospel, however, as in the synoptics, necessity laid on Jesus generally hints of the divine will for him: he goes through Samaria not only for safety, but to accomplish the work assigned to him by the Father (vv 32, 34). The mission to the Samaritans was unplanned by Jesus but willed by God."

So say many, but this is sheer supposition on both counts. We are left in the dark regarding the reason it was NECESSARY for Jesus to pass through Samaria.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728711#Comment_728711

George, don't you have access to some good exegetical commentaries on John 4:4? They discuss this question.

Commentaries are the absolute last thing I look at since they're simply another person's opinion.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728736#Comment_728736

And what will you find here in on the forums? Not opinions? You can still find discussion of exegetical considerations and even semantics in technical commentaries.

Allen Browne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728736#Comment_728736

Commentaries are the absolute last thing I look at since they're simply another person's opinion.

A comment from some of the NT people would be appreciated.

Okay, now I'm really confused about what you were asking for.
Since I'm simply another person, I guess my opinion wasn't wanted. :-)

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728743#Comment_728743

Commentaries are the absolute last thing I look at since they're simply another person's opinion.

A comment from some of the NT people would be appreciated.

Okay, now I'm really confused about what you were asking for.
Since I'm simply another person, I guess my opinion wasn't wanted. :-)

Perhaps someone knows of some ancient supporting evidence or knows of something in the text itself which would provide information. "I think …" is all well and good and are welcome (we all have opinions), but I'm looking for EVIDENCE.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728749#Comment_728749

You will find evidence in commentaries, especially when you compare ones that have different conclusions (and tend to discuss the evidence that support their conclusions). Or don't you have access to good commentaries on John? I guess I am trying to figure out why you are asking others instead of looking it up yourself, but I don't know what resources have access to. It is a curious statement and it IS discussed in thorough commentaries.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728752#Comment_728752

You will find evidence in commentaries, especially when you compare ones that have different conclusions (and tend to discuss the evidence that support their conclusions). Or don't you have access to good commentaries on John? I guess I am trying to figure out why you are asking others instead of looking it up yourself, but I don't know what resources have access to. It is a curious statement and it IS discussed in thorough commentaries.

The problem with commentaries here is that they DO NOT provide evidence — only supposition. I have long suspected that Samaria and the Samaritans played a larger role in the early church than is generally acknowledged. It was to Samaria that the disciples resorted when persecution arose in Judea. It is the Samaritan Simon Magus who was to be such a pain in the tookis to the early church. I think "John", our author, wanted to provide a rationale in the life of the master who provided this story to justify the church's acceptance of the Samaritans. He posited the NECESSITY of going through Samaria, but was unable to provide a reason for the necessity so he simply said it was necessary. It is much like the story of Peter and Cornelius which sanctioned the preaching of the gospel to other nations.

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728736#Comment_728736

Commentaries are the absolute last thing I look at since they're simply another person's opinion.

An interesting confession, to be sure, George. Somewhere along the line I adopted the same attitude. They are great if you are a newbie and haven't worked through your theology yet. They are a necessity if all you have done is memorize the "correct" answers/categories/proof texts/theology of your particular tradition. They are a crutch for many. They are great to scan to see if there are ideas or arguments one hasn't considered yet. But in the end, they are still only another person's opinions (and often wrong at that).

I now return control of this thread back to the discussion of necessity in Jn 4.4.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728779#Comment_728779

The options that have been proposed are that (in no particular order): (1) Jesus was divinely impelled to pass through Samaria; (2) Jesus wanted to go through Samaria for whatever reason (foreknowledge of a ready harvest, desire to reach out to Samaritans, etc); (3) He was compelled by some other unspecified reason to go through Samaria (the Jordan was flooded, opposition in Perea, wanting to reach Galilee quickly or exit Judea more quickly, etc). Along with that, there is an often repeated belief that it was highly unusual for Jews to take the route through Samaria, but this is contested.

EDIT: removed the opening sentence that refers to philology.

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728784#Comment_728784

(1) Jesus was divinely impelled to pass through Samaria; (2) Jesus wanted to go through Samaria for whatever reason (foreknowledge of a ready harvest, desire to reach out to Samaritans, etc)

That's good Francis!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728784#Comment_728784

Editted to reflect OP's edit.

From Wikipedia:

Philology is the study of language in written historical sources; it is a combination of literary criticism, history, and linguistics. It is more commonly defined as the study of literary texts and written records, the establishment of their authenticity and their original form, and the determination of their meaning.

. . .

Any classical language can be studied philologically, and indeed describing a language as "classical" is to imply the existence of a philological tradition associated with it.

Because of its focus on historical development (diachronic analysis), philology came to be used as a term contrasting with linguistics.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/728735#Comment_728735

Antiquities 20.118-124

So, I don't particularly doubt that the Jews avoided Samaria

In addition to that quotes, you've also got:

Wars 2.232–233: After this there happened a fight between the Galileans and the Samaritans; it happened at a village called Geman, which is situated in the great plain of Samaria; where, as a great number of Jews were going up to Jerusalem to the feast [of tabernacles], a certain Galilean was slain; and besides, a vast number of people ran together out of Galilee, in order to fight with the Samaritans.

Life 269: Moreover, I wrote to friends in Samaria, that they should provide safe passage for them.For Samaria was already subject to the Romans, yet it was absolutely necessary (ἔδει) for anyone who wanted to go quickly to proceed through that region from Galilee, it was possible in this way to be resting in Jerusalem within three days.

A footnote in Mason's translation of Josephus says:

"Indeed, the embassies of Josephus’ narrative prefer the Samaritan route, travelling S via Xaloth (§ 227) or nearby Dabaritta (§ 318), where Galilee meets the central part of the Great Plain. Aside from this direct line S through Samaria, there had been a popular route for pilgrims via the rift valley, alongside the Jordan River, to avoid Samaria. It was the latter, longer and harder but mostly safer, route that Jesus took for his final Passover according to the Marcan tradition (Mark 10:46; Mark 11:1). This longer route may have taken a week or more, for it required first a trip E and then, once past Jericho in the river valley, a difficult and dangerous trek back W, over the hills of the Judean desert and up to Jerusalem. It was in this dangerous leg that Jesus’ famous parable of banditry (the Good Samaritan) is set: Luke 10:29–37. (John 4:4 claims that Jesus had to travel through Samaria; cf. Luke 9:51–6). It is likely that once the revolt had begun, the river route became even more dangerous than the trip through Samaria. One would need to pass through the villages and territory (χώρα) belonging to the major Decapolis cities of Gadara, Hippos, and especially Scythopolis, where anti-Judean sentiment was at a peak (§§ 26, 42, 121; War 2.457–58, 466)."

David Paul

The necessity is straightforward: the law demanded it so He did it...because He had to.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729218#Comment_729218

The necessity is straightforward: the law demanded it so He did it...because He had to.

Apparently I missed it. Which law was that?

Sarel Slabbert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729220#Comment_729220

Perhaps Jesus had the compulsion to go simply because it was always part of God's plan to have the gospel preached there?

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8 - ESV).

Jesus prepared the way for what was to come later.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729220#Comment_729220

The necessity is straightforward: the law demanded it so He did it...because He had to.

Apparently I missed it. Which law was that?

I wouldn't say "a" law, but "the" law, since Tohraah speaks in may ways and places on this subject. Bringing forward what I said before...

Regardless of who the Samaritans were, they were "in the land", and that fact alone constitutes sufficient reason for Yeishuu`a to feel compulsion to "visit" them. They constitute geir, or alien sojourners, and they are afforded a certain amount of acknowledgment if not respect. The Israelites had been "strangers in a strange land" and so YHWH commanded that non-Israelites dwelling in peace (who weren't of the nations already in and around the land as they were to be exterminated) were to be well-tolerated. So, in a sense, it was a geographical necessity, but not because there was no way to get around them, but rather that they just happened to be in the geographical region Yeishuu`a was responsible for shepherding.

...there are a few verses to consider. Gen. 15:13, Exo. 22:21, Exo. 23:9, and Lev. 19:33. The verse that follows after is particularly pertinent, Lev. 19:34 NASB. Notice in particular that those who guard the Tohraah are to love the geir "as they love themselves". This should get our "spidey-sense" tingling and remind us of something that is stated just a few verses earlier, Lev. 19:16, 17, 18, particularly the last verse, although the other two are pertinent as well. See the triangulation? Very common prophetic mechanism in play here: "loving as you love yourself" is attached to both the sojourner and the neighbor. That means that Samaritans, who live in the land, are both sojourners and neighbors. Now, that awareness should increase the tingling of our spidey-sense even more...right?

Where did He "have" to go? Samaria. Do we have anything that will allow us to connect to a fourth point in our prophetic web? Of course, and I'm sure you see it now. Lk. 10:33, 34, 35, 36, especially the last verse. In His parable, a Samaritan, already a sojourner, acts like a neighbor and thus establishes himself as one. The rather interesting thing about this parable is that Yeishuu`a concocts it right after the Samaritans rebuffed an opportunity to act as neighbors in the previous chapter (Lk. 9:52, 53).

In order to love His neighbor, Yeishuu`a had to practice the law toward him, since that is the Biblical definition of love. Gal. 5:14, 1 Jn. 4:7, 1 Jn. 5:3, Jn. 12:50, Mt. 22:36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and, of course, just prior to the parable of the good Samaritan, Lk. 10:25, 26, 27, 28. At this point our web looks more like a loom, and we now have a tapestry that portrays an increasingly clear picture. Yeishuu`a, whose yoke of keeping His Father's law was light (Mt. 11:29, 30, Jer. 6:16) and not a burden (1 Jn. 5:3), because He delighted to do it (Psa. 40:8, Heb. 10:7), nevertheless "had" to keep, guard, and practice Tohraah because it was His Father's will (Jn. 7:16, Jn. 8:26, 27, 28, 29, ) and as a slave to His Father's will (Rom. 6:16), He nevertheless acts without resistance and therefore without compulsion (Jn. 10:17, 18, Jn. 12:49, 50).

Even though the events in Luke 9 & 10 almost certainly follow chronologically the "need" scene of John 4, they describe the reason for the need in a sort of broad scale version of the Bible's common "conclusion therefore cause" motif. Yeishuu`a speaks in this manner constantly, but you don't see it as often in whole scenarios. The parable of the good Samaritan shows a principle that incorporates a number of other principles.

nearness (being in the land) vs. distance (expulsion and exile from the land)

obedience (being in the land) vs. disobedience (expulsion and exile from the land)

obedience (good seed/good fruit) vs. disobedience (bad seed/bad fruit)

good fruit (true sons of true vine) vs. bad fruit (false sons of true vine)

Because the Samaritan in the parable did what the law commands, he and not the priest or Levite demonstrated he is (i.e. is recognized by YHWH as being) good seed and a true son, while the priest and Levite are bad seed and false sons. That is the ultimate point of the parable, that obedience from whomever (regardless of "background") demonstrates "trueness" as depicted by the symbols of "good seed" and "true sons". The quality of fruit determines the tree source and nothing else. If the fruit (works) is good (according to YHWH's word, i.e. Tohrahh), then the tree/vine is YHWH/Yeishuu`a, regardless of whether the worker is Israelite, Samaritan, or Gentile. If the fruit (works) is bad (not according to Tohraah), then the tree/vine is degenerate and will be uprooted and burned whether the worker is Israelite, Samaritan, or Gentile. The Samaritan in the parable, because of his behavior, is a son of Abraham and Israel, because he has the works (Jn. 8:39) and obedience (Heb. 11:8) of Abraham.

Because the Samaritans were physical neighbors, in the land, they must be treated (i.e. loved) as native born (Lev. 19:34). How does one love? By conveying the Tohraah to those who do not have it, since it is the mechanism that inculcates the "genetics" of good fruit, which will result in life and nearness rather than expulsion and exile.

In order for the neighbor (back to woman at the well in Jn. 4) to be "loved", the neighbor must learn what love is (1 Jn. 5:3, Rom. 13:8, 9, 10), but to learn of love, one must be introduced to it and come to know it. Yeishuu`a, the living personification of Tohraah (Psa. 40:7, Heb. 10:7, Jn. 5:46), is the prophesied mechanism of the law for communicating the law to those who don't know it, and so in order to love the woman at the well and the rest of the Samaritans, He had to "make Himself known" to them (1 Jn. 2:3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Did the revelation take? Luke 9:52, 53 seems to say "no", but that isn't surprising. Most don't respond to this revelation. The revelation "has to" be made nonetheless. Yeishuu`a made the revelation in Jn. 4.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729321#Comment_729321

The Samaritan of the parable was a sojourner since he was in Jewish territory. Those in Samaria are not. That is partly the point of the parable — the "neighbor" is someone who is nearby.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729323#Comment_729323

Samaria IS Israel, George. It IS the land.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729326#Comment_729326

Samaria IS Israel, George. It IS the land.

If Samaria were Israel, it would not be Samaria.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729329#Comment_729329

I strongly recommend the recently shipped volume (sans readable maps):

https://www.logos.com/product/49592/galilee-in-the-late-second-temple-and-mishnaic-periods-volume-1-life-culture-and-society

Excellent, since it has a bad habit of pointing out the absence of much data surrounding Galille and its relation to Samaria and Judea. Basically Josephus and the much later Talmud. And indeed it debunked much of the discussion on this thread (except for George).

Also interesting is the 'land' with the absence of Israel-ites for all but a few centuries (Samaria / Galilee).

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729337#Comment_729337

I strongly recommend the recently shipped volume (sans readable maps):

https://www.logos.com/product/49592/galilee-in-the-late-second-temple-and-mishnaic-periods-volume-1-life-culture-and-society

Thanks for the recommendation — it looks interesting.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729329#Comment_729329

Samaria IS Israel, George. It IS the land.

If Samaria were Israel, it would not be Samaria.

I'm not even going to bother providing the Bible verses, George, since you are apparently being deliberately obstinate and oppositional--I don't think evidence and proof really matter, despite your earlier attestation that it was what you were looking for. Suffice to say that the area or district called Samaria was part of the land apportioned to the Joseph clans (Ephraim and Manasseh) and the city called Samaria was the capital of the Kingdom of Israel (the Northern kingdom). In the sight of YHWH it is the land of Israel despite whatever opinion you or Denise or anyone else may hold on the matter. And all that I said before holds true. If you are comfortable ignoring it, that's fine. So be it.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729389#Comment_729389

Suffice to say that the area or district called Samaria was part of the land apportioned to the Joseph clans (Ephraim and Manasseh) and the city called Samaria was the capital of the Kingdom of Israel (the Northern kingdom).

Not since Ezra.

Allen Browne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729323#Comment_729323

The Samaritan of the parable was a sojourner since he was in Jewish territory. Those in Samaria are not. That is partly the point of the parable — the "neighbor" is someone who is nearby.

Do you think Jesus was taking the Samaritan's perspective in this story? The Samaritan is behaving as a true neighbor to his neighbor (a Jew), ii.e. the lawyer's question isn't that difficult to answer at a practical level (i.e. you know what it's like when a "neighbor" treats you right, so go and do likewise).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729392#Comment_729392

Suffice to say that the area or district called Samaria was part of the land apportioned to the Joseph clans (Ephraim and Manasseh) and the city called Samaria was the capital of the Kingdom of Israel (the Northern kingdom).

Not since Ezra.

Just came across this...Obad. 19, Obad. 20, Obad. 21...verses 19 & 21 show that Samaria will be included in the kingdom of YHWH. This only makes sense considering Gen. 15:18.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/732540#Comment_732540

Suffice to say that the area or district called Samaria was part of the land apportioned to the Joseph clans (Ephraim and Manasseh) and the city called Samaria was the capital of the Kingdom of Israel (the Northern kingdom).

Not since Ezra.

Just came across this...Obad. 19, Obad. 20, Obad. 21...verses 19 & 21 show that Samaria will be included in the kingdom of YHWH. This only makes sense considering Gen. 15:18.

This has no impact upon whether Samaria was considered a part of Israel (or Judah) post Ezra since Obadiah was somewhat contemporaneous with Jeremiah, i.e., pre-Exile.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/732544#Comment_732544

David, it seems to me that you are trying to make a theological argument, whereas George is looking at the status of Samaria from a geo-political standpoint from post-exillic time on and especially 1st century Palestine.

Even if you wished to argue that the Lord Jesus evangelized Samaria because in His view, it was still part of the Promised Land, this would be a difficult point to make because land and people where inextricably bound up in the covenant. In other words, the remaining pockets of Canaanites or the Jebusites that lived for a while in Jerusalem were not regarded as covenant people merely because they lived within the boundaries of the Promised Land. And since the Lord Jesus did tell the Samaritan woman that "you (Samaritans) do not know whom you worship, but we (Jews) know whom we worship, for salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22), it certainly, at best or the very least, calls into question that His visit to Samaria had to do with it being part of the Promised Land.

I am not writing this to debate so much as to seek to explain the difference between how George and you approach the question (if I understood either of you reasonably well) with a tad of invitation to reconsider the logical basis of your approach.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/732558#Comment_732558

Given that the Bible is the Bible, of the two approaches...

A) a theological argument
the status of Samaria from a geo-political standpoint

...it seems that A) is prima facie the one that will provide the most credible insight as to why the Son of God would "need" to do something. Not only is it self-evident, it is inevitable.

land and people where inextricably bound up in the covenant. In other words, the remaining pockets of Canaanites or the Jebusites that lived for a while in Jerusalem were not regarded as covenant people merely because they lived within the boundaries of the Promised Land.

Just to be clear, the Samaritans, as geir, were sojourners and thus were not covenant people. Also, I already addressed (in my first post) this aspect of what needs to be considered...

Regardless of who the Samaritans were, they were "in the land", and that fact alone constitutes sufficient reason for Yeishuu`a to feel compulsion to "visit" them. They constitute geir, or alien sojourners, and they are afforded a certain amount of acknowledgment if not respect. The Israelites had been "strangers in a strange land" and so YHWH commanded that non-Israelites dwelling in peace (who weren't of the nations already in and around the land as they were to be exterminated) were to be well-tolerated.

The Canaanites and Jebusites were "in the land" and as such had been judged worthy of being "vomited out" of the land by YHWH (Lev. 18:24, 25, Deut. 9:4, 5). It isn't merely that they did "immoral" things, but that they practiced them "in the land" called Chosen and Holy and Beautiful. The difference between near and distant lands is discussed in Deut. 20:10-18. The Samaritans came from a distant land, and so they were not to be treated like the Canaanites or the Jebusites. Additionally, though they did it without full understanding, and their practice was clearly a mixture and not pure, their religious practices were "moving in the right direction" (from pagan to YHWH). As Yeishuu`a said, it wasn't satisfactory, but it was nevertheless an attempt to approach YHWH rather than move away from Him. In contrast, Israelites who did what the Samaritans did would have been guilty of apostasy (moving away). In fact, it was that very set of circumstances (Mic. 1:5, 6) that caused Israel to be expelled and thus led to the Samaritans being set in their place.

And since the Lord Jesus did tell the Samaritan woman that "you (Samaritans) do not know whom you worship, but we (Jews) know whom we worship, for salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22), it certainly, at best or the very least, calls into question that His visit to Samaria had to do with it being part of the Promised Land.

I think what I just pointed out shows why this isn't the case. Samaritans were as a group "on a positive vector". Certainly, as Yeishuu`a says, their practice wasn't satisfactory, but it was a vast improvement from the wholesale paganism they had come from originally. They had (actually, have to this day!) a copy of Tohraah that motivates their religion. The Samaritan of the parable would have been acting on his understanding of the Law when He helped "his neighbor". I came across a verse a couple of days ago that really established my point, but my internet was out at the time. When I come across it again, I will post it.

with a tad of invitation to reconsider the logical basis of your approach.

I think all of the evidence supports my approach. Yeishuu`a was practicing Tohraah toward neighbors by instructing them in Tohraah (Jn. 4:39-43).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/732544#Comment_732544

Suffice to say that the area or district called Samaria was part of the land apportioned to the Joseph clans (Ephraim and Manasseh) and the city called Samaria was the capital of the Kingdom of Israel (the Northern kingdom).

Not since Ezra.

Just came across this...Obad. 19, Obad. 20, Obad. 21...verses 19 & 21 show that Samaria will be included in the kingdom of YHWH. This only makes sense considering Gen. 15:18.

This has no impact upon whether Samaria was considered a part of Israel (or Judah) post Ezra since Obadiah was somewhat contemporaneous with Jeremiah, i.e., pre-Exile.

It's funny to talk about the contemporary scenario of a prophet when what the prophet says addresses a condition that must be future as it describes a situation that has never existed. You keep referring to whether Samaria was "considered" Israel. What humans "consider to be" is irrelevant. What matters is how YHWH views things. Historical humanized blips are meaningless to Him.

For the sake of staying on track, I repeat that the reasons I laid out above provide a significant explanation for the "necessity" of entering the Samaritan district.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/732635#Comment_732635

It's funny to talk about the contemporary scenario of a prophet when what the prophet says addresses a condition that must be future as it describes a situation that has never existed. You keep referring to whether Samaria was "considered" Israel. What humans "consider to be" is irrelevant. What matters is how YHWH views things. Historical humanized blips are meaningless to Him.

For the sake of staying on track, I repeat that the reasons I laid out above provide a significant explanation for the "necessity" of entering the Samaritan district.

Apparently you live in the realm of wizards and warlocks and crystal balls. I, on the other hand, live in the world of the rest of humans — the real world of "cause" and "effect." Yet this is not the world of blind abstract law which all things must obey. It is the world in which the faithfulness of God determines that things will behave in a certain manner each time — a stone when dropped will always fall to the earth with a certain velocity since God commands it to do so each and every time. There are basically no crystal balls other than the fact that certain people have the ability to see the consequences of actions. Winston Churchill was able to tell that the world would need to oppose Adolf Hitler and that the Soviet Union would bring down an iron curtain on eastern Europe. The Ten Commandments are not arbitrary commands given simply because God felt like saying so (such as declaring that you shall not wear brown shoes on Tuesday — why? Because God said so). The Ten Commandments are a prescription for living well in the world in which God has placed, and continues to place, man. We worship other gods on peril of becoming beastial like them. We overwork ourselves at the peril of wearing out our strength and failing to take pleasure in God's creation. Jesus Christ reveals the love of God for all mankind in the gospels — "alle Menschen warden Brüder." As Karl Barth noted, God can even speak to us through a dead dog (CD 1:1, p. 47). That it was necessary for Jesus to pass through Samaria because of some statement of a prophet is really without merit. Jesus, as depicted in the gospels, passes through Samaria to found the basis for the Church's inclusion of the despised Samaritans within the realm of those loved and accepted by God.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/732634#Comment_732634

The Samaritans came from a distant land, and so they were not to be treated like the Canaanites or the Jebusites.

This is a tenuous statement. The difference being made in the Torah between peoples in the land and those outside of it reflects a different type of situation (Deuteronomy 20:10–18). The Samaritans do not correspond to the category of peoples who sue for peace and their presence in the Promised Land, while no doubt falling within the purposes of YHWH, is abnormal in view of the future envisioned in the Torah if the covenant had been kept. While I agree that YHWH's perspective is what matters, I don't think that His perspective does not take into account the changed situation of the people of Israel in relation to the land in the first century (and hence, what the decision to go through Samaria may or may not entail for the Lord Jesus). For instance, I think it is safe to say that paying taxes to Caesar (was not in the purview of life as it was envisioned in the Torah if the Mosaic Covenant had been kept. However, Jesus' instructions reflect the new situation, abnormal as it may be, from this vantage point (Luke 20:25).

As for your reasoning concerning the 'positive vector,' it is, in my view, a special pleading type of argument. There would be much more to be said about the Samaritan mission in relation to the insistence of Jesus that He was sent first to the lost sheep of the House of Israel but His positive comments about the healed Samaritan leper, the "Good Samaritan", the visits to the Decapolis and the mission to the Greeks (John 12). Of interest here too is how Samaria is conceived in relation to Israel and the rest of the nations in Acts 1:8. However, I am afraid that this discussion has headed in a direction that would make it more suitable for the faithlife discussion groups.