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.

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 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.