The Jewish-Samaritan Conflict as a Model for Ethnic Reconciliation

In 722 BC, the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel after capturing Samaria, its capital city (2 Kgs. 17:6). The policy of Israel’s oppressors was to exile a portion of the population of each country it controlled and settling foreigners in their place. The short-term purpose of this forced colonization was to erode any potential resistance against Assyria by intermingling groups that did not trust each other. The long-term result of this program was the emergence of the Samaritans, a polytheistic ethnic group that possessed both Israelite and Gentile ancestry.[1]

The enmity between the Jews and the Samaritans was well established by Jesus’ day. The feud appears to have stemmed from an episode that occurred when the first group of exiles returned from captivity and began to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple (ca. 538 BC). Soon thereafter, the Samaritans offered to assist them in this important religious task.

In response, the Jewish governor Zerubbabel and the high priest Jeshua rejected the offer because of the Samaritans’ syncretistic approach to religion (cf. Ezra 4:1-3; cf. 2 Kgs. 17:24-41).[2] As a result, they revealed their true intentions by attempting to derail the Temple project (Ezra 4:4-6). Later, they also ridiculed Nehemiah’s restoration of Jerusalem’s wall (Neh. 4:2).

An event that occurred one hundred and fifty years before the dawn of the New Testament era damaged relations even further. According to Josephus, the Maccabean leader John Hyrcanus destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim because of its pagan associatians.[3] The loss of their worship site intensified the resentment the Samaritans had for the Jews.[4] Perhaps in remembrance of Hyrcanus’s provocative deed, over a century later,[5] a group of Samaritans infiltrated the Jewish Temple. They scattered human bones in the porticoes and the courtyard during the Passover celebration so as to render the area unclean.[6] This act prompted the Jewish religious leaders to ban all Samaritans from the Temple complex, setting the tone for the remainder of the first century.

Considering these troubled relations, Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at Sychar was atypical (cf. John 4:1-42). Their midday conversation about religion not only broke the gender barrier and the moral barrier (because of her sinful lifestyle), but also the ethnic barrier.[7] The woman expressed disbelief when Jesus approached her: “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” (John 4:9a). Jesus’ disciples also were astonished by His actions (John 4:27). John provided his readers with a contextual clue that explains their bewilderment: “For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (John 4:9b).

The content of Jesus’ dialogue is remarkable for at least two other reasons. First, after telling the woman that the Samaritans worshiped God imperfectly (John 4:22),[8] He unexpectedly refused to take sides in the ongoing argument of whether Mount Gerizim or Jerusalem was the proper place to revere God (John 4:20). After emphasizing salvation truly was of the Jews, Jesus explained one’s physical location was not as important as worshiping the Lord in spirit and in truth (John 4:22-23).

In other words, the Jewish religion as expressed in the Old Testament was the only system of faith acceptable to God. Jesus revealed, however, that countless believers soon would originate from outside the geographic and ethnic bounds of Israel. This international recognition of Yahweh as the only true God was a feature of the messianic age (e.g., Isa. 49:6; 52:10), and Jesus invited the ethnically mixed Samaritans to take part in the movement. As a result of the Samaritan woman’s testimony, many other residents of Sychar believed Jesus’ message. They began to refer to Him as “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42).

Second, interpreters sometimes overlook the fact that Jesus’ appeal for the disciples to realize the fields were ready to harvest is a reference to the residents of Sychar (cf. John 4:35). Undoubtedly, His disciples, along with most Jews, “regarded [the Samaritans] as despised half-breeds,”[9] but Jesus saw them differently. He taught one’s commitment to Him was more important than one’s ancestry, which is why John 3:1-21 and John 4:44 contrast unbelieving Jews with the repentant Samaritans whom God supposedly abhorred.[10]

Interestingly, John 4:1-42 contains the only preserved account of extensive contact between Jesus and the Samaritans. The reason for this intermittent interaction likely was His directive to the disciples not to enter the cities of the Samaritans and Gentiles during His earthly ministry because He desired to provide the house of Israel an opportunity to hear His message first (cf. Matt. 10:5-6). However, the general tenor of Jesus’ teachings reveals His indifference to the Samaritans’ non-Jewish roots.[11]

For example, of the ten lepers whom Jesus healed, the only one who returned to thank Him was a Samaritan (Luke 17:11-19). Additionally, in His lesson concerning what constitutes a neighborly attitude, Jesus depicted a priest and a Levite as self-absorbed and callous. A Samaritan, on the other hand, served as the protagonist of the story because he stopped to help the traveler whom robbers had beaten (Luke 10:30-37). Finally, the resurrected Jesus instructed His representatives to preach the gospel in Judea (i.e., the people of Israel) before moving on to Samaria (i.e., Israelite-Gentile descendants) and then to the rest of the world (Acts 1:8).[12] In obedience to this command, Philip, a deacon, journeyed to the region of Samaria to proclaim Christ and enjoyed an overwhelmingly positive response (Acts 8:4-24).

Jesus’ teachings challenged the enduring resentment Jews and Samaritans had for one another. His loving attitude toward an ethnically amalgamated people also set the tone for the early church’s outreach to non-Jews. By extension, Jesus implied multiethnic relations should not be a point of contention for His followers.

The Jewish-Samaritan conflict provides a helpful model for ethnic groups who experience tension and need reconciliation. Below are a few ways in which the Jewish-Samaritan conflict mirrors the ethnic tensions that exist in the United States. Since believing first century Jews and Samaritans experienced and enjoyed reconciliation, there is true hope for twenty-first century Christians of varying ethnicities who want to experience reconciliation. Besides the points below, what other parallels do you see between the first and twenty-first century?

A Few Observations

The Jews and Samaritans were related because the Samaritans were part-Jew and part Samaritan.	Many African Americans and Anglos are related because as many as 70-75 percent of African Americans have Anglo ancestry. (The point of this comparison is not to equate either African Americans or Anglos with the Jews, only that the two people groups have a a shared heritage).
Jews and Samaritans experienced over 500 years of ethnic tensions.	Anglos and African Americans have experienced over 400 years of ethnic tensions in the United States.
“Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (John 4:9b).	By and large, Anglos and African Americans often do not interact in meaningful ways. This must change!
Oneness in Christ demanded the reconciliation of Jews and Samaritans.	Oneness in Christ demands the reconciliation of African Americans and Anglos.
Jesus taught Jews and Samaritans to love one another.	Jesus teaches Anglos and African Americans to love one another.

---

[1]Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, rev. ed., in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse, et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 226-27.

[2]Mervin Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, vol. 10 in The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, et al. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 97.

[3]Flavius Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus, rev. ed., trans. William Whiston, with commentary by Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 438.

[4]Alan D. Crown, “Redating the Schism between the Judeans and the Samaritans,” Jewish Quarterly Review 82.1/2 (July-October 1991): 30.

[5]Rodney A. Whitacre, John, in The IVP New Testament Commentary, ed. Grant R. Osborne, et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 101-2.

[6]Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus, 588.

[7]Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Volume 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 585.

[8]Morris, The Gospel according to John, 238. The Samaritans rejected all Old Testament books except the five Moses penned.

[9]Gerald L. Borchert, John 1-11, vol. 25a in The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, et al. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 199-200.

[10]Robert Kysar, John, in the Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publish House, 1986), 61-62; Gerard S. Sloyan, John, in Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, ed. Grand R. Osborne, et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 52.

[11]Kysar, John, 71.

[12]John Marsh, Saint John, in the Westminster Pelican Commentaries, ed. D. E. Nineham (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 204. Marsh correctly surmised the significance of Acts 1:8: “Samaria had some special category in the theology of missions in the early Church.”