We continue our series here from Charles A. Weisman’s book Is Universalism Of God? — in this instance we will look at how universalists mis-characterize and misappropriate episodes involving the Samaritan people in order to help promote their Marxist multi-racial agenda. Weisman writes,
The Samaritans
In the New Testament there are several different verses involving the people called Samaritans, who are often used to support the idea that Jesus was promoting the concept of a multi-racial church, and was condemning ethnocentrism. This is so, it is said, because the Samaritans were [allegedly] a mixed-blood people not of pure Hebrew stock — or non-Israelites. These universalists will refer to the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-36); to Christ’s conversation with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (John 4:5-26); the healing of the Samaritan leper by Jesus (Luke 17:ll-19); and the preaching of the disciples in Samaria (Acts 1:8; 8:5,14). These verses are used to show that God is now [supposedly] changing His plan to include all races in the New Covenant.
Before we examine these verses, we need to first ascertain the racial identity of the Samaritans at the time of Christ by examining the history of the people and land of Samaria.
The History of the Samaritans
Scripture states that Samaria was an Israelite province, which was formed by the ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel. It was conquered by Assyria in721 B.C., who had then deported its inhabitants and replaced them with aliens:
The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthat, Ava, Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of Israel; and they took possession of Samaria and dwelt there. (2 Kings. 17:24).
Although the king of Assyria (Sargon) deported a great portion of the population, it is evident that he left many Israelites in the land [see John D. Davis, A Dictionary of the Bible, 1935, p. 671]. On the walls of the royal palace at Dur-Sarraku, Sargon of Assyria recorded the fact that he deported 27,290 inhabitants from the “city” of Samaria, which he rebuilt and repopulated with other peoples. It says nothing about a de-portation of all the cities or region of Samaria. Speaking on this matter the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary states:
“It seems clear that the policy of deportation applied particularly to Samaria as a city and not as a region. Jeremiah 41:5 for example, seems to imply that a remnant of true Israelites remained in Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria a century later, so a substratum, or admixture of Hebrew stock in the later composite population must be assumed.”
Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed., M.C. Teuney, Zondervan Publishing House, 1967, p. 746.
The policy of deportation was to take the more prosperous citizens. The total number of Israelites deported from the northern kingdom is unknown, but it probably was a majority as seems to be indicated by 2 Kings 17:18-23. [One Bible authority says, “It has been calculated that not more than one in twenty was taken captive.” Peake’s Commentary, p. 353. However this amount seems to be too small].
This could be numbers up to a few million. However the number of Israelites left in Samaria was also significant. After the Assyrian captivity king Hezekiah of Judah (c. 710 B.C.) sent runners “Throughout all Israel and Judah” asking them to come to Jerusalem to keep
the Passover and return to the LORD God, and “then He will return to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria” (2 Chr. 30:6). The messengers went through regions of Ephraim, Manasseh, Zebulun, and Asher (vv. 10,1 1). In the reign of king Josiah (c. 612 B.C.) various tribes of Israel in Samaria still existed (2 Chr. 34:6,9). Thus a significant portion of Israelites remained in Samaria along with the alien people. Regarding this mixed population, one Bible authority states:
“These [alien peoples] intermarried with the Israelites left, and were joined by another group in the reign of Asshurbanipal (650 8.C., Ezr. 4:10). The Israelite element, however, proved the strongest in influence and was possibly the strongest in number.”
A New Standard Bible Dictionary, ed., M. Jacobus, Funk & Wagnalls Co., N.Y., 1936, p. 805
The mixed population resulted not only in some mixed blood types, but a mixed religion. At first the people “did not fear the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which
killed some of them” (2 Kgs. 17:Z). This is a punishment which God would only bring upon Israelites. So later they asked the king of Assyria to send them an Israelite priest to teach them the ways of God. The king (Esarhaddon) granted the request, and also sent some of the other Israelites and foreigners (Ezra 4:2). When Babylon conquered Jerusalem and took the people captive, they also left Israelites in Judah (2 Kings 25:12).
This body of people came to be called “Samaritans” named after Israel’s capital city of Samaria. Upon the return of the Judahite exiles from Babylon, a great amount of antagonism and rivalry existed between the Samaritans and Judahites. This perhaps started with the division of the kingdom with each setting up their own capitals — Jerusalem and Samaria. When the Judahites returned to Jerusalem, the Samaritans wished to help them in the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem, saying:
“Let us build with you, for we seek your God as you do; and we have sacrificed to Him since the the days of Esar-haddon king of Assyria, who brought us here” (Ezra 4: 1f)
But their offer was rejected by the Judahites, to which the Samaritans took offense; and from this time on the Samaritans threw every obstacle in their way:
“In the first part of the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-424 B.C.) the Samaritans obtained permission to destroy the walls of Jerusalem just being constructed by Ezra. Proceeding to Jerusalem, they compelled the builders to cease building (Ezra 4:7-23), and burned the gates (Neh. 1:3). When Nehemiah fortified the city (444 B.C.), he met serious opposition from the Samaritans (Neh. chapters 4, 5); and they tried to assassinate him (ch. 6).”
A New Standard Bible Dictionary, p. 805
Hence arose a deep-rooted enmity between the two peoples which afterwards increased to such a degree as to become proverbial. Since the Samaritans were not allowed to have anything to do with the Temple, they built their own on Mt. Gerizim at Shechem. The Samaritans pointed to passages in their Pentateuch which gave them a strong case over Jerusalem as the proper site of the Temple. The Judahites claimed there were discrepancies and additions in the Samaritan text compared to their own text. Thus for centuries both Judahites and Samaritans firmly believed that their own form of the sacred text was the right one, and the vested interests on either side were fiercely defended [see The Interpreter’s Bible, Abingdon Press, N.Y., 1952, vol. VIII, p.526]
A controversy arose between the two nations when the son of the high priest of Judah, married the daughter of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. For this offense Nehemiah had him expelled (Neh. 13:28):
“In the reign of Darius Nothus [405 B.C.], Manasses, son of the [Hebrew] high-priest, married the daughter of Sanballat, the Samaritan governor; and to avoid the necessity of repudiating her, as the law of Moses required, went over to the Samaritans, and became high-priest in the temple which his father-in-law built for him on Mount Gerizim. From this time on Samaria became a refuge for all malcontent Jews [Israelites]; and the very name of each people became odious to the other.”
The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia, ed., Rev. Samuel Fallows, Howard-Severance Co., 1908, vol. III, p. 1512
Thus from this time on Samaria became a refuge for the Israelites in Judah which were either dissatisfied with the policy of the Israelite leadership, or were rejected by them. These Israelites naturally had animosity toward their former nation of Judah, as did the Judahites toward them. This further added to the reproach and dissension between the two nations.
Around 330 B.C., Alexander the Great had taken over the land of Palestine by defeating Darius, the last king of Persia (1 Mac. l:1). Alexander “had greatly honored the Jews,” and when he “had thus settled matters at Jerusalem, he led his army into neighboring cities.” He visited the city of “Shechem” which was then the “metropolis” or capital of Samaria, which was “inhabited by apostates of the Jewish nation.” [see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, bk. XI, ch. VIII, sect. 6.]
The Samaritans in Shechem — seeing that Alexander honored the Israelites — determined to profess themselves to be Israelites. Josephus says that when the Israelites of Judea were in prosperity or victorious, the Samaritans claimed that they were kinsmen of the Israelites, and derive their genealogy from the posterity of Joseph; but when the Judahites were in adversity, they declared that they had no relationship to them, but were sojourners, that come from other countries [see Josephus, Ibid. bk. IX, ch. XIV, sect. 3; bk. XI, ch. VIII, sect. 6.] This was easy for them to do — for they were made up of apostates, malcontents, and other sorts of Israelites, and well as many mixed blood Israelites and aliens.
The population of the Samaritans was also enlarged by Israelites who converted to paganism under Antiochus:
“The [Samaritan] sect was later reinforced by the accession of converted Jews [Israelites] under
A New standard Bible Dictionary. ed., M.w. Jacobus, Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1936, p. 805.
Antiochus Epiphanes [175 B.C.], when, by denying their affinity with the Jewish religion, the Samaritans were exempted from persecution.”
Around 168 B.C., King Antiochus made an expedition against Jerusalem, and pretending peace, got possession of the city by treachery. He slew many of the inhabitants, plundered the Temple, burnt down the finest buildings, and built an idol altar upon God’s altar, and sacrificed a swine upon it. He also issued a decree requiring the Judahites to worship the pagan gods and to abandon their law (I Mac. 1:20-64). The Samaritans, seeing the sufferings of the Judahites, no longer confessed they were kindred to them, but told Antiochus they were a colony of Medes and Persians. They followed his commands, and thus were spared from his onslaught.
Many Israelites, out of fear of the penalty that was upon them, also complied with the king’s commands and converted to the new religion as did the Samaritans [see Josephus, Antiquities, bk. XII, ch. V, sect. 4-5.] After Antiochus died, these Israelites were rejected by the patriotic Israelites. And so the Samaritan population increased with the addition of these Israelites who converted to the pagan religion.
First Century Samaritans
By the 1st century A.D., the territory of Samaria and Judea increased in size so that the two regions overlapped and had no real definitive boundary between them (see map below). In fact, both Samaria and Judea were one Roman province.
The history of the Samaritans shows that by the time of Christ, a considerable number of them were Israelites — they were not just a mixed blood people. It also shows that the hatred and enmity that the Judean Israelites had for the Samaritans was not just due to their alien and mixed population. There were many centuries of religious squabbles and political disputes between them. However, by the time of Christ their religion became more in line with the Judeans, perhaps due to the Israelite influence among the Samaritans:
“The Samaritans….boasted of being Israelites, and with some degree of justification — for there was probably a considerable Jewish [Israelite] element in the population. Their worship, originally a compromise with heathenism, was now purely Jewish. They kept the sabbath, and the Jewish feasts, and observed circumcision and other traditional ordinances.”
J.R. Dummelow, A Commentory on the Hoty Bibte, Macmillan Co., 1960. p.781
The majority of the population of Samaria was probably of mixed-blood or alien types, but to say it was entirely so is wholly unwarranted. It would not be unreasonable to say that it was composed of 60% non-Israelites and 40% Israelites. It would not be justified to assume one in Samaria was a non-Israelite, any more than it would be to assume that someone from Detroit, Chicago or Atlanta was nonwhite just because 60 to 75 % of the population of those cities is nonwhite. It is also true that Judea, though mostly inhabited by Israelites, contained some mixed-blood people — Canaanites, Edomites and Syrians. Israel had always mixed with foreign people when they were living in the same area, yet the extent of such intermarriages never reduced the population of Israelites to any significant degree. But it always did increase the number of mixed breeds.
When Christ had a debate with the Judean people, they called Him a Samaritan — “thou art a Samaritan” (John 8:48). Here these Judean people were looking right at this perfect example of an Israelite and said he was a Samaritan. Obviously the Judeans did not perceive a Samaritan as one of another race or a non-Israelite. To them the use of Samaritan meant “heretic, a person unworthy of credit” [see Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible, vol. 5, p. 581] The term Samaritan was not used in a derogatory manner due to one’s racial status, but rather as to one’s religious status. The Judean people did not like Christ’s preaching or theology — and that was the basis for the schism between them. Thus the presumption or insinuation that Samaria in the 1st century A.D. was composed of l00% mixed-blood and non-Israelite types is a rather unsound and outlandish notion.
The Samaritan Woman at the Well
The Samaritan woman whom Jesus conversed with at Jacob’s well is a particular revealing story. Jesus not only asked her for a drink from the well, but explained to her things about eternal life and how to worship God.
When Jesus spoke of giving the woman “living water” instead of the water in the well, her response indicates she was an Israelite. She said to Jesus, “Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well?” (John 4:r2). She not only asserted that she was descended from Jacob — referring to him as her “father” — but by the use of “our” she was acknowledging that she was of the same racial stock as Jesus. These are not words that a mixed-blood person could make. Note that Jesus did not rebuke or correct her in this regard, nor did He refer to her as a “dog” as He did concerning the Canaanite woman (Matt. 15:26).
The woman of Samaria is “not a reference to the city of Samaria, which was too far away, but to the territory of the Samaritans” [see The Wycliff Bible Commentary, ed., C.F. Pfeiffer, Moody press, I966, p. 1080]. The city of Samaria probably had a greater portion of mixed race and alien races in it than the smaller villages and rural areas. Just as is the case with many of our major cities in America today — cities such as Atlanta, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Chicago — are predominately nonwhite. But the outer suburbs and rural areas are mostly white. Likewise there was a difference between the city or cities of Samaria, and Samaria itself (compare Matt 10:5 and Acts 1:8).
When the woman came to the well to pull out water, Jesus asked her for a drink. The woman is surprised by the request on account of the tension and schism between Judeans and Samaritans (John 4:9).
The Good Samaritan
In Luke 10, a lawyer asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life, so Jesus asked him what is written in the law. The lawyer read the law (Deut 6:5; Lev. 19:18) which says to love God with all of your heart and soul, and your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said he had answered correctly. But not being satisfied, the lawyer asked, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus proceeds to tell the parable of the good Samaritan, in which a man traveling falls among thieves, is robbed, stripped of his clothes, wounded, and left half dead. A priest came by and walked around him — a Levite did the same. But a Samaritan man bandaged his wounds, put him on his own animal, and took care of the man Jesus then asks,
“Which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” The reply was, “he who showed mercy on him.” Then Jesus said, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke10:30-37).
This parable is often used by universalists and humanists to promote the idea that Christ viewed all races as standing on the same footing — and that a person of any race can be our neighbor. The basis of this idea rests upon the erroneous belief that the Samaritan man was a non-lsraelite or person of mixed blood. There are several problems with this interpretation. The first is the false assumption that the Samaritan was of a non-Israelite race. Christ knew of the age-long conflict and enmity between the Judeans and Samaritans. He knew that a Samaritan could be a non-Israelite or an Israelite. He thus used the Samaritan as the one who was a neighbor, knowing that the lawyer would not normally pick him as such over a priest or Levite.
Secondly, the concept of neighbor that was being discussed was originally derived from Levitcus 19:18, which qualifies a neighbor as a kinsmen:
“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD” (Lev 19:18).
The concept of neighbor included only those who were of “thy people.” The previous verse says, “‘Thou shall not hate thy brother.” Christ was further qualifying the concept by showing that status alone is not what makes one a neighbor. The lowest and most degraded Israelite who is helpful to others is a neighbor; however, one is not a neighbor just because of their high-class standing in the community.
Another problem with the universal perspective on this matter is that it disregards or transcends other conditions, circumstances or qualifications prescribed by the law of God. The universalist, in effect, says that anyone under any circumstances can be our neighbor, as long as they do a good deed or even has the potential to do so. And so a person of any race, creed, religion, or moral character can become your neighbor since doing a good deed is the only condition or qualification to be considered.
Based upon this position, a murderer, rapist, arsonist, prostitute, burglar, sodomite or pirate who does a good deed or is helpful to others would be our neighbor. A Buddhist, idolater, witch doctor, communist, or Satanist will at times do good deeds. It could then be said by Universalists that they are our neighbor, and we should not be bothered by their presence among us. They should be welcomed as part of our congregation or community.
If a neighbor is without any other qualification than that of doing a good deed, it will result in many contradictions with the whole word of God. If God condemns murder, prostitution, theft, idolatry, homosexuality, divination, and witchcraft, then those that engage in such acts cannot be regarded as our neighbor, even if they may do some good deed or help someone.
It also cannot be said that because a witch, a sodomite or Baal priest does a good deed that we should not discriminate against all witches, sodomites or Baal priests. Likewise, if God commands segregation of his people, then other races cannot be our neighbors even if some of them do a good deed.
If — at the time that Israel was entering the promise land — and one Canaanite did some good deed (as did Rahab) — that could not be used as a pretext to leave all the Canaanites in the land and nullify God’s commandment on the matter. [Note: Rahab was allowed in the land by contractual agreement (Josh. 2: 12-14)]. But a Universalist or an egalitarian would use this to establish a new rule to have all Canaanites remain in the land as equals.
To say that the good Samaritan was or could be one of another race is no different from saying he could be a murderer or and idolater. That is not the point Christ was trying to make.
It is interesting to note that this concept of the good Samaritan is used by the anti-Christ Establishment as a psychological ploy to promote and to get white Americans to accept pluralism, integration, equality, and multiculturalism. On nearly every TV or radio talk show, they will at some time have a guest who is regarded or labeled as a “racist” or “white supremacist.” They then will use their good samaritan concept to show the error and foolishness of racial separation and inequality. They will ask the white “racist” guest hypothetical questions such as:
-If you were drowning and a black man saved you, wouldn’t you be grateful?
-If you were injured and the only ones around to help you were a black M.D. or white man not versed in medicine, which one would you want to come to your aid?
-If a Chinese man discovered the cure for a deadly disease you had, would you take his treatment?
-If your wife was threatened to be raped by a white man, and a Mexican came and warded off the white man, which of these two men would you want to live in your neighborhood?
-Would you rather do business with a dishonest white man who has cheated you, or an honest black man?
Of course, in all of these hypothetical cases you are forced to be in favor of the nonwhite person because he is the good Samaritan. He is acting as a neighbor and you must regard him as an equal — one who can marry your daughter, and who can never be the subject of segregation or discrimination.
This distorted universalist perspective on the good Samaritan always leads to integration. After all, how do you tell a neighbor that he has to leave the neighborhood? It can’t be done. He cannot be excluded from the nation — for the concept of a neighbor is similar to that of citizen — one who is a member of a nation.
Just like the Universalist and humanist Christians, the anti-Christ Establishment uses a rare exception to destroy the rule. It is not what one black or Mexican person has done, but what are the average characteristics of each race. How productive or burdensome are they to society? How much crime do they cause? What is the moral and intellectual level of each race? How much does each race support true Christian and American values? The distorted “good Samaritan” argument keeps us from looking at — or even acknowledging — these facts and statistics. The reason for doing so is obvious — as it would show the striking difference between the races, and the higher state of the white race.
The viewpoint that the good Samaritan was a mixed blood individual — and that such a person can or should be our neighbor — always leads to integration and interracial mixture. The mixing of the white race with the colored destroys what the white race has been for thousands of years. That is not just an average — it will happen 100 percent of the time.
The universalist argument will further allow all undesirable individuals to be our neighbor which naturally results in social distress, crime, moral debauchery, socialism and multi-cultural laws which restrict individual rights and free enterprise. The dangers and pitfalls of this distorted perspective of the good Samaritan parable are obvious. It is clearly going far beyond what Christ was trying to teach.
Christ was not trying to teach that the good Samaritan was a mixed blood person — and that as a result of this we should have multi-racial and pluralistic congregations, neighborhoods, communities or nations. The meaning of the story is clear –it is simply inculcating the duty of benevolence we are to give to persons of all kinds, not just friends, but strangers and foreigners as well, as it is to be assumed they are good people until shown to be the contrary.