28. Samaritan Messiah
Like the Jews, the Samaritans also have looked forward to the coming of a
great deliverer—a Messiah. And like the Jew's mixed images of the
expected Messiah, varying Samaritan sources do present him diferently. And
like the Jews, round about the time of the Roman rule over the land, the
people did look for the coming of this 'Messiah' figure to liberate them from
that Roman rule. And like the Jewish nation, during this time there were
'false Messiahs' or 'false Christs.' It seems that the scriptures which warn
against the coming of false Christs/Messiahs were not just particular to the
last days. They were applicable throughout all times. Thus, through this
maize of varied perception, bias and corrupted imagery, one has to pick their
way through all of the various 'false Christs' and various sources to attempt
to understand the true mind set of the people of Jesus' day, both Samaritan
and Jew.
The Samaritans believed in the five books of Moses as did the Jews. And from
the same sources out of those books of Moses, like the Jews, the Samaritans
were also looking for the promised redeemer. Understanding that Jehovah was
that same being as Jesus Christ, called by the Father to act in the name of
the Father, and by that divine invested power of divine investiture, the Lord
did often speak as the God of the Old Testament, God the Father's word as
though it where the Father himself speaking. Thus Jehovah, the appointed
representative of the Father, the God of the Old Testament, would often be
refering to himself in the second person as he would be speaking for and in
behalf of the Father. This makes the following familiar verses from Moses's
prophecies much more understandable. This is the Lord God Jehovah, speaking
from the frame of reference as the Father, our Lord's Lord, but speaking of
himself 3nd person as though he were the Father speaking.
"¶ The Lord thy God [God the Father] will raise
up unto thee a Prophet [the Redeeming Messiah]
from the midst of thee, of thy brethren [out of Israel]
, like unto me [Moses]; unto him [Jesus Christ] ye shall hearken; According to
all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the
assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither
let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said
unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I [speaking as the Father] will raise them up a Prophet
[Jesus Christ the Messiah] from among their
brethren [out of Joseph and Judah], like unto
thee [Moses], and will put my words [Words of the Father] in his mouth [In the mouth of the Son]; and he shall speak unto
them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever
will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will
require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in
my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the
name of other gods, even that prophet shall die [This
death is the spiritual death of not living again with God, it is not physical
death as all die, even Christ once died in order to bring about the
resurrection. Thus the paragraph continues to distinguish futher how to test
the word of 'false prophets' as they will all 'die' at least once as did
Joshua, Isaiah, Samuel and many of the true prophets did die a temporal death
but not the spiritual death of separation from God's presence.]. And
if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath
not spoken? When a
prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come
to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet
hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him." ~
Deuteronomy 18:15-22
Here the 'formula' is spelled out. The prophet who is like unto Moses, who
is Christ, will speak for the Father as though he is the Father. This
devine investature, while being stated here concerning the mortal ministry of
Jesus Christ, is the same anointed calling which Jehovah as the first begotten
of the Father in spirit had been fulfilling ever since the 'beginning' or the
pre-councils of heaven when the Father first selected him to send forth as
his Mediator, Savior and Redeemer. And there are many such Old Testaent and
books of Moses references which can be used to substanciate the coming of
Christ, the shepherd and stone of Israel, even Shiloh which are further
confirmed by latter-day supplied scriptures of the Books of Moses reference..
Depending upon the sources cited, some contend that since many 'A.D.'
rabinical references concerning Messiah ben Joseph as the suffering Messiah,
listing his suffering and his violent death, that he must be but mortal and
not divine. Even some Samaritan Priests and followers who accept their
Messiah ben Ephraim/Joseph as a 'dying' Messiah, set out his being but a
mortal man. Jews today will debate among themselves if even 'Messiah ben
David' is but an ordinary man or devine. But as is often pointed out, there
are Jews who will accept a Messiah ben Joseph and a Messiah ben David, making
the son of Joseph mortal and the son of David immortal in nature. In that
same thought line, there is a belief among many Samaritans that their
promised 'Messiah' prophet will be the immortal Messiah. In that respect it
seems that the Jews wish 'their' Messiah to be the immortal divine Messiah
and the Ephraimite Messiah to be the dying suffering Messiah who is a mere
mortal. And in contrast, the believing Samaritan has the opposite preference,
stating their divine son of Ephraim and Joseph to be the divine immortal
saving Messiah.
Divine or Mortal?
And while even among the Jews and Samaritans there are those of varying
opinion as to divinity and whether their Messiah(s) have or have not already
come, we are concerned with the immortal divine Messiah as we know him to
be. Thus the 'believing' Samaritans who understand themselves to be
Ephraimites, hold that their Messiah would be of the seed of Ephraim the son
of Joseph of Egypt. And they refuse to admit the possibility that their
'prophet-hero' could be killed. They like their Jewish counter part desire
that their 'Messiah' be the 'conquering Messiah of glory' who is yet to come
in these last days. The Samaritans call their Messiah, 'TEAL', who is a
'Taheb' or a prophet messiah based upon Deuteronomy 18:15-18(22) just quoted.
The Jewish believers, who have divided Messiah into two, do accept the coming
of such an Ephraimite prophet of Joseph of Egypt. But they contend that he
will die, being mortal only, at the hands of the enemies of Israel. They
often associate the death of this Messiah Ben Joseph to be on the scene
of the battle of Armageddon rather than his death of crucifixion during his
meredian of time work of redemption. And, though this is a sometimes the
generally accepted tradition, in all later literature, it traces to secondary
sources only, meaning Rabinical Medrash, or interpretive statements of
opinion.
The earliest of sources that have survived would be the references to the
Messiah ben Joseph in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. And they affirm
his martyr's death, but do not mention the nature of it while the Bible does
so in its Old Testament 'suffering Messiah' verses. And the suffering Messiah
verses of the Old Testament have always convincingly been clearly associated
with Christ's death at the demand of the Jews during the meridian of time and
not in some battle of Gog and Magog in the latter-days when the Savior does
return gloriously in victory, as according to Christian doctrine.
Is would seem, like the Jews, the Samaritans have confused the issue of
Christ and his first and second coming with other scriptures and traditional
references relating some other events not related to Christ. This only shows
that they were just as much in the dark of corrupted views as were the
supposed learned Jews of the time of Christ, with all their varying opinions
and doctrines about the Messiah. But what is clear is that where the Jews
make the Messiah to be of Judah, which we know his bloodline from Boaz to be,
the Samaritans held to the fact that he would come from Joseph of Egypt
through his son of the covenant, Ephraim as is consistent with Joseph's
and Ephraim's blessings under the hand of Jacob.
Let's now look further at some of the points made by the Samaritan traditions
concerning their perception of Messiah ben Joseph. We will do so from the
expanded understanding that Christ was the Messiah ben Joseph and has
erroneously been confused by the corruption of true tradition mixing with the
known to be latter-day prophet of the seed of Joseph, who is Joseph Smith not
Christ. First, the Samaritans state that
their 'Messeanic Hero' would be a descendant of Joseph of Egypt through
Ephraim. Even the Jews have so stated that there was to be a Messiah ben
Joseph. And we have seen in this presentation that Christ was indeed by
right of the Law of Moses of the seed of Joseph of Egypt.
Second, the Samaritan traditions call
this Messianic figure by the name of 'TEAL" which means 'he who returns'
and/or 'he who causes to return.' Here the Samaritan Messiah is to RETURN,
how can one 'RETURN' if one has not already come once before? Some Jews
contend that their Messiah ben David of the last days, whom many consider to
be 'immortal', will cause that the suffering, Messiah ben Joseph, whom they
also believe in, to 'raise again' and return from the dead in the last days
after he has suffered his ignomanious death of the 'suffering Messiah.' Yet
in understanding Christ to be the one and only Messiah, it must be clearly
seen and understood that the 'RETURNING' Messiah is the Messiah of the Second
Coming of the Lord, which the Jews do not generally adhere to in their
division of the Child, the Messiah into two individuals as coved in item
number 33.
In Judaism, they look for two Messiahs. One is the suffering Messiah which
they identify as Messiah Ben Joseph who is to die. And the scriptures they
chose to associate with his are such as found in Isaiah 53, which prophesy of
the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. And the other Messiah is the
triumphant and glorious Messiah Ben David of the last days, which will save
them from destruction. Now why doesn't it seem surprising that the Jews and
even the Samaritans would prefer to associate themselves with the glorious
immortal Messiah and not the seemingly mortal suffering Messiah whose death
his enemies in Israel causes? In the case of Christ the Jews, do crucify him.
And who wants to be associated with that?
In a similar vein, the Samaritans also want their Messiah Ben Joseph to be
the glorious living Messiah and not the one to be martyred and killed at the
hands of his friends. Now the Talmud, which records what the Rabbis do state
about Messiah ben Joseph, is written after the death of Christ. And it is
there that whatever previous disagreements as the identity of the Messiah,
his dual nature in the roles he would fulfill and his dual ancestry where
divided out into two separate persons This and pushing the now two Messiahs
both to
the last days only, resolved many problems for the Jewish beliefs which were
complicated by the fact that they had just killed Jesus Christ the true one
and only Messiah of Heaven and Earth. Yet the beliefs did stem from ones
held prior to the first coming of Christ and do date back to Old Testament
misunderstandings and corruptions.
Thirdly, the Samaritans believed of their Messiah
ben Joseph, that he would call the people of the world to repentance and
thereby he would bring back better days for all of Israel. Here too the
Samaritans, like the Jews do mix the spiritual and immortal benefits of
Christ's atonement with the more physical and temporal events of delivering
a people from their immediate temporal oppresions and sufferings. Christ
was to suffer for the sins of the people and die, And thus he could forgive
sin of the truely repentant. But much of this clear understanding has been
lost in the corruption of time and disbeleif exhibited by both Samaritan and
Jew alike.
Fourth, the Samaritans state that this
Messiah Ben Joseph of the latter days would 'restore everywhere the true
law to its former validity. And that he would 'covert' all peoples,
especially the Jews, to the Samaritan (Ephraimite) religion. And the
Jews take just the opposite view. They point out that Messiah Ben Judah
will be the means of restoring life to Messiah ben Joseph and will be the
means by which Israel returns and the world forgiven and blessed with the
true religion of Judism. Neither are welling to admit that their various
religous sects are both but corruptions of Jesus Christ's true gospel. Neither
of them recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah. And both stand in their
prideful false position of being God's one true uncorrupted religion. Ironic
that neither are.
It is Jesus Christ who is to restore all things of his gospel, and even
though Joseph Smith was the promised prophet of Joseph who headed and began
the restoration as Christ's servant, that restoration has been and still is
being performed by many Christ's servnants, all working under and according
to His Holy Mind and Will. We often state that Joseph Smith retored the
gospel. It would be better to state that Joseph Smith was the instrument
in the hands of the Lord, who the Lord did use to commence the work of this
restoration. That work of restoration and bring all the world unto Christ
continued on to Brigham Young and all the other prophets who did follow
Joseph Smith and the Apostles and true belivers and servants of Christ and
Christ's Church ever since. We all act in that joint role. But it must
be completely understood, Joseph Smith could have been replaced as the Lord
so told him so. And it only solely and singularly under Christ that the
restoration 'everywhere' is to procede forth and be accomplished. We,
including Joseph Smith, are mere means to this end. Joseph Smith, nor any
other among us is the Messiah. We, nor is Joseph Smith, Messiah Ben Joseph.
Joseph Smith is the latter-day promised prophet of the seed of Joseph of
Egypt, but as in the same manner which Joseph of Egypt so clarified Moses as
NOT being the Messiah, the Messiah Ben Joseph of Joseph's seend,
so neither is Joseph Smith to be considered the Messiah, Messiah Ben Joseph.
Now there is much else that could be said about the 'Samaritan Messiah' as one
would continue to peruse through all the various Samaritan beliefs and
traditions considering him. But the result would be the same. While they
are based in the truth of the Messiah of the world, by their corruption of
disbelief, a true picture cannot be redraw from them alone. They all need be
viewed in the light of the truth of the Gospel. That being 'One Messiah' the
Christ, the Son of God as had and understood in the Gospel of Jesus Christ
today. And attempt to defining Christ via such corrupted traditons is but
putting the cart before the horse. The falsely derived corruptions of tradition
of the Messiah held by the Jew and Samaritan are not to that which defines
who Christ is. True does not come out from half truths and such corruptions.
And such can only be considered by beginning with the truth and seeing how
it is that such 'traditions' have gone astray though have a tint of truth in
them. 'DO NOT DEFINE THE MESSIAH BY LETTING SUCH
TEACHINGS OF CORRUPTED TRADITON TO BE THE GUIDE.'
I AM THAT I AM
Perhaps beyond the corruptions of 'modern' belief systems, the events of
the New Testament hold for a truer picture of the Samaritan Messiah. Just
what did the Samaritans of Jesus day understand. Doctrines not well founded
in scriptural fact but rather upon various scriptural interpretations and
evolution of the thoughts of the philosphies of men, seldom represent what
was or was not believed by those of a past era of belief.
Perhaps from this perspective we can take one sequence of events out of the
pages of the New Testament and try to understand what it may well have been
that the Samaritans of the days of Jesus did believe.
Upon an occation, as recorded in John chapter 4, Jesus traveled towards
Galilee through the land of Samaria. He 'just happened' to stop aat 'Jacob's
Well' at a place named Sychar. This parcel of land had been given to Joseph
by his father Jacob (see John 4:5 & Gen. 48:22). It is interesting to see just
where the land of Samaria did reach and where this land of Sychar was located.
Note that Mt. Gerizim is right next to the city of Sychar where Jacob's Well
is located in New Testament times. If one were to look up Shechem, Mt. Ebal,
and Mt. Gerizim in the Bible Dictionary and pursue a study of them, they
would soon find out that these lands were all part of the lands of Ephraim
as part of the lands of the tribe of Ephraim, though the Bible Map of the Old
Testament fails to show them as such.
In addition to understanding that Mt Gerizim and Shechem were part of the
land of 'Ephraim' and of Mt. Ephraim (perhaps as part of the additional
'hill' country which Joshua extented to Ephraim), it was also in Christ's
day within the Ephraimite lands of Samaria that Jesus was visiting. Thus it
is to be understood that these two mountains where a part of the land of
Mount Ephraim both anciently and in Christ's day. It was Jacob's Well
which still stands today that was Joseph's ancient land given him by Jacob
and likely the 'well' alluded to in Jacob's blessing of Joseph. Further it
was the land which Abraham first came to as the promised land given to him of
the Lord. These were the 'central' lands of Israel which also of interest
included the ancient city of Shiloh, the original site of the temple or tent
tabernacle of the Lord which contained the Ark of the Covenant prior to when
King David relocated it south. Shiloh itself means or is referring to Christ
in Judah's blessing in Genesis 49. And all these lands were the lands of
Ephraim and were originally given to Joseph by Jacob himself. All these
seemingly significant places, being a part of the lands of Ephraim, are quite
consistant with a Messiah coming of the son of Joseph. Sychar is to be
considered the same as Shechem and the Bible Dictionary references Sychar to
Shechem. Joseph of Egypt was buried here in his land which Jacob had given
him near to Sychar/Shechem. Thus from the burial site of Joseph on the north,
Mt. Gerizim and Shechem, to the burial site of Rachel on the south, Ephrath
or Bethlehem, one must consider to be the range of habitation for the children
of Rachael, Joseph and Ephraim which is consistent with our current
considerations of Messiah ben Joseph.
Why Christ selected to take the western mountain route back to Galilee at this
time can only be surmised. To the Jew, the Samarian route was not the most
relished. But with our now additional understanding that Christ was Messiah
ben Joseph, the promised son of Joseph of Egypt, we can consider all the added
significance it would be to the Savior to travel and visit the hill country
of Mt. Ephraim and the sites such as Bethel where Abraham had first built his
altar, where Jacob had his dream and set up his pillar, and then later the
selected king of Israel, Jeroboam rebelled and made a site of calf worship.
Shiloh was the site of the Lord's tabernacle until the wickedness of the
people did cause the loss of the ark of the covenant to invading forces.
Shechem was the site where Abaham first visited upon his arival in the promised
land. It was the site of the burial of the bones of Joseph of Egypt. It was
the place where Rehoboam allienated Israel by promising to increase their
burden and whip them with scorpions as their new king. And Sychar was the
same general land site as Shechem by Mt. Gerizim. These where all sacred
sites and significant lands in the history of the covenant of God with man,
from Abraham to Ephraim and now to the life of the Messiah in Jesus himself.
What understanding and emotions filled our Lord can only be surmised, but this
was no mere 'quick' route to Galilee but a pilgramage of remebrance and
consideration. And Christ would spend two seemingly unplanned days at this
site.
The Samaritan Women
Now back to our current discussion. In John 4, Christ came to Jacob's Well
about the 6th hour of the day. The sixth hour was that hour from noon until
one. The heat of the day would have began and a rest and refreshment waranted.
The 75 foot deep well was no easy draw from which to obtain water. And Jesus
had not with which to draw water with. Thus when a Samaritan woman came to
draw water, the Lord ask if she would give him water to drink.
The woman immediately recognized Jesus as a Jew by the manner of his dress
and perhaps a little dauntingly stated, 'How is it that thou, being a Jew,
askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?' Rather than to take afront
of the woman's snubbing of a Jew, Jesus states, '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.'
Christ has begun to identify himself to the woman, who if she knew to whom
she spoke would certainly have acted as Jesus had said. For she spoke to the
Son of God, the gift of God to the world, the promised Messiah to which both
Samaritan and Jew did look to come. The woman, not yet conprehending and
understanding the words seems to yet mock in her reply. 'Sir, thou hast
nothing to draw with, and the well is deep, from whence then hast thou that
living water?'
Then the woman states an ironic question of him whose creation this is. 'Art
thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof
himself, and his children, and his cattle?' She well could have added that
this was the land which Jacob had given to Joseph, not to Judah, but enough
was already implied. Then Jesus knowning that it was he, God who did give
the land, does not contend but does continue his offer by stating, 'Whosoever
drinketh of this water shall thirst again. 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.'
Still not understanding and still of her bantering mode the woman says, 'Sir,
give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.' To this
likely sharp comment, the Savior offers a challenge to the woman which the
Savior knows will catch her off gaurd. He states, 'Go, call thy husband, and
come hither.' Consider what may have been inferred to the woman's mind, for
the Jew to call upon the woman to bring her husband who she would be subject
to and represented by after so inappropriately, sasingly and contintuously
speaking to a man a Jew. What can be guessed at? Yet the woman still
thinking to remain one up, immediately comes back with, 'I have no husband.'
Now the Lord is ready to reveal that he is all knowing and of a divine origin.
as he states surprising knowledge concerning the woman and her circumstance.
He states, 'Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five
husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou
truly.' Christ has now gotten through to the woman and beyond her smug retorts.
And she now recognizes that at least Jesus is a prophet as she perhaps a little
more subduedly states,'Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.'
But she is not finished with the concept of separation between Jew and
Samaritan. She still perceives that Jesus is a Jewish prophet and not a
Samaritan one as she then continues to state, 'Our fathers [Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob] worshipped in this mountain [Mt. Gerizim had been the site of a
Samaritan temple as late as about 1 B.C. when the Macabees destroyed it]; and
ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.' Her point
being here that he is a Jewish prophet and not a prophet of the 'true people'
of Israel and Ephraim, who follow the true traditions of the fathers of
worshipping at Mt. Gerizim rather than at Jerusalem. Thus she still persists
in her division between Samaritan and Jew for it was the tradition of the
Samaritans that when the Messiah (Taheb) would return he would locate the
artifacts of the tabernacle and establish the proper final offering and
sacrifice of the tabernacle there at Mt. Gerizim and not at the temple of
Jerusalem.
Then Jesus makes another attention getting statement as he says addressing
her with the common title of high honor and esteem, 'Woman, believe
me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at
Jerusalem, worship the Father.' [This is an actual allusion to the latter
days when the House of the Lord would not be in the Old World at all but
in the tops of the mountains of the land of Joseph in America.] And then for
the first time, Jesus directly addresses the distinction between Jew and
Samaritan in who they consider the Messiah to be. He states, 'Ye worship ye
know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews [this
clarification is in respect to birth nationality and the fact that Christ was
born of the mortal bloodline of the Jews. It does not address the matter of
heirship to the covenant linage of the firstborn that is through Ephraim,
which would only confuse the woman more to discuss].' Then the Savior takes
it beyond the appearance difference of 'Jew' or 'Samaritan' by stating, '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.
God is a Spirit [God is a being of Spirit and Body that is Spiritually led
and controlled by the Spirit]; and they that worship him must worship him in
spirit and in truth.'
Now with the understanding that the Samaritans did look to the coming of
Messiah, just as the Jews did, but that the Samaritans understood that the
Messiah was to be the Son of Joseph by way of Ephraim, this next statement
of the woman takes on a great deal of significance. She states, 'I
know that Messias [Taheb] cometh, which is called Christ: when he is
come, he will tell us all things.' This is New Testament evidence that the
Samaritans did know of and did also look forward to the coming of Messiah.
The Samaritan women even used the Old Testament reference to 'Messias', which
in the Greek she also knew to be 'Christ'. And here the Samaritan women has
upped the anty by declaring her Samaritan belief in her coming Samaritan
Messiah who would be Messiah ben Joseph, not of Judah. This was a basic
separating point between kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Now it does appear
that even the Samaritans had an understanding that David who was legally of
the house of Ephraim though he seemed to select Judah over Israel, that is
Ephraim. And that the Messiah was to come of the Davidic linage but he would
lay claim to his right in Ephraim to being the Messiah, Son of Joseph. And
now herein comes the evidence that Christ was known to be of the house of
David, which house was known by both Jew and Samaritan, as being legally of
the house of Ephraim though of the blood of Judah.
Jesus now makes what appears in the English a simple statement in the King
James version as he state, 'I that speak unto thee am he.' This open
declaration or Jesus pronouncing himself to be the Messsiah is made even
more definiate in the JST as it states the that 'Jesus said unto her, 'I who
speak unto thee am the Messias.' (JST John 4:28) The sheer power of that
direct statement made by Jehovah standing fully facing the women was taken to
the every heart and soul of the women by the power of the Holy Ghost and she
at that instant knew that this man was indeed the promised Messiah. And even
beyond the fact that Jesus is stating to the woman that he is the promised
Messiah, that he is the Messiah ben Joseph looked for by the Samaritans, that
he is the Son of David, the very Messiah ben David, that he is the shepherd
and stone of Israel; there is more to the statement here made by Christ. And
it takes an understanding of Greek and Hebrew to comprehend it.
"The Greek text literally reads, 'I am, the one speaking to you.' The words
'I am' (ego eimi) are used in the Septuagint (Ex. 3:14) in connection with
the revelation of God's personal name, Yahweh." ~ (#3 Laney, 97).
The literal translation of (eimi) is 'I am'. And though upon ocassion it has
been translated in the English to just 'I', it is also often translated 'I am'.
Jesus is considered to have announced himself to the Samaritan woman in just
this manner so as not to be misunderstood what it was that he did mean to say.
Jesus frequently used this same expression (ego eimi ~ I AM), which in the
English translation has lost much of it direct implication as to exactly who
Christ was declaring himself to be each time he stated that 'I AM'. (See John
6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51; 8:12, 18, 24, 28, 58; 9:9; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8) Each
time Jesus
stated it, his play on the words were to declare himself openningly as that
great 'I AM' who stood before Moses in the flaming bush and who stated, 'I AM
THAT I AM.' And before the woman of Samaria it now became clear to her
understanding just who it was that she had been speaking with. It was no
mere Jew or even Jewish prophet out of Jerusalem. It was the God of Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. It was the God who had called Moses and the
God of Joshua that ancient Ephrathite, the son of Nun. It was the Messiah the
Son of David, the legal Son of Joseph and Ephraim. It was the Son of God,
the God of the Old Testament, even Jehovah, the Father's selected and anoited
Lord of Creation and Salvation. He had condesended to come to earth as the He,
the prophets and the scriptures had stated he would. And there he was whom
the woman stated that they where looking for to come, the Messias, the Christ.
In such light, even Joseph Smith's 'inspired' translation is by a 'translation
rendering' the same conveyance but without the emphasis upon the Holy Name of
'I AM'. If one were to reform Joseph Smith's translation to include this
divine pronoucement it would read such as, 'I AM, the Messias, who speaks unto
thee.'
While the women stands all amazed by the power of the witness being borne
within her soul by the power of the Holy Ghost, the rest of the deciples who
had been obtaining food from the city came and marveled that Jesus was found
talking to a Samaritan woman. Where once the Samaritan woman stood in all of
her smugness now stand in silence astonded by the clear testimony and of the
witness of the Lord. She leaves her water pot to the use of Jesus and his
disciples and runs to declare the Christ in the city, that the promised
Messiah had come. He of the House of David who in truth was a Samaritan or an
Ephraimite of the House of Joseph, the Messiah expected by the Samaritans,
had come, And they of the city of Sychar came out unto him. Some believing
upon the words of the women and some to see whom the women spoke so gloriously
concerning.
The deciples bid the Savior to eat, but the Savior refuses stating he had
food to eat which they knew not of, meaning the bread of life of the gosepl.
And he states to the disciples that his meat was to do the will of the Father
who had sent him, and that the field was white ready to harvest, meaning that
he was just about to be called upon to reap the harvest of the coming citizens
of Sychar who were at that time being rounded up to come out to see him, the
now declared Messiah. It is quite significant that the first to whom it is
recorded that the Savior did declare himself to was the Samaritans. Yet how
appropriate, for he it was who was also, like them of the House of Joseph.
And many of the Samaritans believed on him and accepted him as the Messiah
for they found in him that he met both prerequisites that he had not denounced
his 'Samaritan heritage as had his ancestor King David, he being of the House
of David and also as he fully confirmed by being the 'Samaritan Messiah, of
the House of Joseph, being both Messiah ben David and Messiah ben Joseph. If
he had not so been there would have been some amoung the Samaritans who would
have divided the people, pointing out that he did not meet the requirement of
being of the House of Joseph. But their silence on this point speaks the
volumes of their acceptance of Him as being such of the House of Ephraim,
of the House of Joseph, of the House of David. They were not divided though
he was dressed as a Jew for they preceived that he was of Joseph through David.
And they requested that he stay with them and tarry which he did, abiding
with them for two days.
It is now this evidence in reverse order or in the negative form of quiet
acceptance of Jesus for what he is not which testifies the Jesus as being
the Son of David was indeed by the Samaritans recognized as thier Messiah ben
Joseph. For the Samaritans did also look forward to the coming of Messiah.
And they knew him to be the promised son of Joseph, the Messiah ben
Joseph/Ephraim. And this Jesus was that anticipated Messiah. Now comes the
question, the Samaritan woman and the citizens of Sychar saw before them a
man dressed in the manner of a Jew with Jewish disciples. 'How did the
Samaritan Woman and the people of Sychar of Samaria reconcile who they knew
to be the Messiah, to be the Son of Joseph? Even though with this Jesus His
Jewish disciples stood before also, they did recognize the legitimate Son of
David, that Ephrathite who stood before them at Jacob's well that day, and
they did invite him and he did dwell with them for two days. And they knew
him to be the promised Messiah, the Son of God.
Jesus was declared as the promised Son of David. He would represent himself
as none other than who he was. What does the Son of David have to do with
the promised Messiah, the Son of Joseph to the Samaritans? The answer does
seem but logical. Even the Samaritans had the understanding that the true
ancestral lineage of the house of David was really legally of the house of
Mahlon son of Elimelech, Ephrathites. They as Ephraim's Israel had stood
that day in protest stating that it was they who had the 'greater claim in
David' the did the Jews. And though King David did select Judah over Ephraim
at that time, they still knew full well that Israel's claim, Ephraim's claim
in the House of David was far greater that the Jews for their claim was by
and according to the Law of God, that Law set forth by Moses in Deuteronomy
25:5-10 and to which Boaz clearly stated he was performing the duty of in
Ruth 4:5 & 10. And just as Joshua, which in the Greek is the same name as
Jesus, was the son of Nun the Ephrathite, so was Jesus as the Joshua before
the Samaritans considered to be that Ephrathite, the son of David who was the
son of Jesse the Ephrathite of the promised linage of Ephraim, even the
Messiah ben Joseph. How else does this question have its resolve? Even the
Jews did recognize Jesus as being a Samaritan as discussed in item number 30 here after discussed.
It should be summarily stated that about this time of the life of Jesus,
there were other 'false Christs.' This tends to confuse some upon the
issue of the Samaritan Messiah. But like the Jews, there were likely just
as many 'false and corrupted' beliefs concerning the Messiah and who he
was or is to be in the Samaritan world as there was and is in the Jewish
world. As stated, Jesus Christ warned of such false Christs. This is but one
of the tools of Lucifer in thwarting acceptance of the Messiah, to confuse
by creating numerous false Christs both in dividing and multiplying the
one single true Messiah into any number of such, past and present. As true
believers in the Messiah as Jesus Christ, it is important to sort out these
false Messiah's from the true beliefs of those who did and do seek the true
Messiah.
Today those who consider themselves as the 'true' Samaritans are extremely
few, only in the hundreds in number. Their
beliefs in a Messiah has crumbled into corruption. No longer is he considered
to be the divine Son of God. There is some debate whether he we of Joseph
of of Aaron, a Levite. While being considered to become the king of the
world to rule from Shechem and to retore the Samaritan people, he is mortal
and only a prophet figure. Hardly can one consider the Samaritan Messiah of
the today's Samaritans to be comparable to the Samaritan Messiah of long
ago as sought after by the Samaritan Woman at the Well of Jacob in the New
Testament record.
Two Day Samaritan Mission
Before leaving this topic one last observation can be made. Of this
apparent 'Samaritan Mission' or the Lord's Mission to the Samaritans, it
is interesting and informative within what factual and/or commentry
statements are made by John the beloved in his gospel. He seems to couch
the events beginning with the statement recorded in John 4:4 where John
simply states that 'he [Jesus] must needs go through Samaria.' Certainly
this was not the only way to Galilee and for a Jew it was not the preferred
way, as the Jews did strive to avoid contact with the Samaritans. It was the
most direct way, but time does not seem to be of the essence since Jesus
spends two days at Sychar, the site of Jacob's Well.
Thus there has been put forth that there was a divine providence, need or
mission to perform by Jesus at this time in Samaria, and that it was not just
a passing through. With the events of Jacob's Well taking center stage, this
'must needs' mission was to present before the Samaritans the Messiah. And
while many of the Samaritans at that moment in time are recorded as accepting
him, much like the Jewish followers, they were quick to fall away into other
paths of disbelief and the majority of them did not accept him as the Messiah.
With that note of the openning statement of a 'needed mission' to fulfill, it
is also worthy to note the ending state within which Christ Mission to the
Samaritans is couched by John. This is found in John 4:44 in the paragraph
in which John reports Jesus departing from Sychar. There he states that Jesus
himself testified that, 'a prophet hath no honour in his own country.' While
some have confined this statement to Nazareth, others do broaden it to include
Galilee or even all of the lands of Israel. Spoken at precisely this juncture
in time, one must consider that it was being spoken of Samaria, the country
they had just passed threw. Certainly at this point it did not reference
Galilee, as in the next verse 45 the Galilaens recieved him at that time.
So was this not a statement refletive of only Samaria? Was it a comment to
the fact that the Messiah's own country, the country of Samaria at that
precise moment, was one in which he would not lastingly be accepted but
dishonoured? Could it be Jesus as Messiah ben Joseph/Ephraim being considered
and that as Messiah ben Joseph/Ephraim, Jesus would not have honour in his
own country of Joseph/Ephraim, that being at that time Samaria? With no
other explanation, it is curious that John inserts this statement just at
this juncture of time with no other direct reference than for it to be
implied back to Samaria, were many for the timebeing had accepted him but for
the most part, most had not and neither would they lastingly proclaim his
name as Jesus Christ with honour. Certainly this was seed sown on bearen
ground.
In Summary ~ Taheb
Among the central Samaritan beliefs is the belief in the coming 'Taheb' or
Messiah. This Messiah or Taheb would be a descendant of Joseph through
Ephraim and he would be like unto Moses or of the order of Moses, meaning
from an LDS enlightened perspective, that he would after that order of the
Melchizedek Priesthood, after the order of the Son of God, rather than the
of the lesser order of Aaron or the Aaronic Priesthood, which is the
Leviticals priesthood of Judaism and the Old Testament Law of Sacrifice.
'Taheb' pronounced [Ta'ib], signifies the Promised Prophet which the
Old Testament prophsies as the savior and redeemer of Israel, as does all the
scriptures, and is often preceded by the article 'El Taheb' just as is 'The
Messiah'.
'Taheb' means to return and has been taken to mean to 'come again', implying
having come before, It also means 'to restore' relative to gospel truth, and
to 'raise again' as from the dead or the source of the resurrection to all.
As a descriptive word, 'Taheb' has reference to Joseph and his sons, Ephraim
and Manasseh, meaning 'he who returns' or 'he who causes to return' and to
the concept of returning or restoring Israel as in gathering
Israel, which is the role of Ephraim and Manasseh in the Gathering of Israel.
But in the formal capitalized form of the word, 'Taheb' references the
'Savior' and 'Messiah'; he that Redeems, Restores or Brings man back to God..
The Samaritan woman at the well would have used the word equivalent word of
'Taheb' with all of its immlications and meanings in her Samaritan mind in
her reference to the Messiah or Christ. And Jesus in turn stated clearly and
plainly to her that he was that 'Taheb', implying that promised son of Joseph
the 'Messiah' or 'Christ' who the Samaritans did look for to come on the Day
of Vengeance and Recompense in the latter days and at the end of days when
the dead would be resurrected by this Taheb. The Samaritans also believe
that the Taheb, the Messiah, will reveal the location of the cave where the
'implements' used in the tabernacle have been hidden which would include the
Ark of the Covenant. They also state that Taheb will bring about repentance
and of course forgiveness and will bring back the 'better days'.
Some LDS scholars who fail to consider the deep historic origin of Tabeb as
the Samaritan Messiah which they understand to be 'The Messiah' son of
Joseph just as much as the Jewish traditions consider 'The Messiah' to be
the son of David. And they attempt to attribute all which belongs to 'The
Messiah', 'The Taheb' as being applied to Joseph Smith. Further they muddle
the waters even further by not fully comprehending the even in Jewish history
that there was but one Messiah until the second century after Christ when the
Jewish Rabbis imagined the division of the Messiah into two figures, dividing
the 'suffering Messiah' scriptural reference to be those which refered to the
'Samaritan' Messiah ben Joseph, and retained only the glorious second coming
Messiah reference to 'their' Messiah ben David. And this primarily because
they had just rejected and crucified the suffering Messiah Jesus Christ. So
in either case of the Samaritan 'Taheb' son of Joseph or the 'Suffering
Messiah' son of Joseph, they do error in attributing such to Joseph Smith and
further aggrivate the problem of making Joseph Smith into a Christ figure in
the eyes of the world when there is but one Messiah, Jesus Christ.
In Samaritan belief 'The Taheb's reign is compared to that of Joseph of
Egypt where comes no suffering or toil and this 'servant' or God will bring
final irrevocable salvation to Israel for all time. And as the administering
'High Priest' he will make final atonement for himself and all the
congreegation. The people will repent and renew their part of the covenant to
its proper status and the promises of old given to the ancient Hebrews will
finally be kept forever. To the Samaritans, this 'Taheb' is that promised
prophet of Deuteronomy 18:15-18 who we know to be identified as Chirst who is
to be raised up like unto Moses. And that he will teach and lead the whole
world to repent of its sins, become converted and purified from all evil and
to walk in the 'good' way of God. The Samaritans also expect him to come at
passover time, which he already has, but will that be the time he comes
again? There is also mention of a Joshua/Jesus figure which correlates with
the days of Joshua, the son of Nun as being a type of this Taheb as was
Joseph of Egypt and as was Moses.