The learned High Jewish leadership, the Sarim/Sanhedrin, considered that the Son of David, even the 'Christ/Messiah', could be addressed as beinging technically as a Samaritan in the same sense that the Samaritans were so addressed and considered. Was not David of the 'covenant' of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph and Ephraim, of the birthright from Elimelech and Mahlon, Ephrathites/Ephraimites as to whom Boaz did raise up Obed, the first son seed of Ruth, up to the dead and the birthright of Joseph? And had not the kings of Jerusalem, beginning with David, so mingled the seed of Israel in and among the strange 'women' of other peoples beginning with Bathsheba?

" . . . Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" ~ John 8:48

Jesus would say of the Pharisees and Saducees that their father was the Devil. It is one of the most used tactics of Satan to shade the truth or half truth by couching it in lies and with malicious intent. Yet the Pharisees would have to maintain some simblance of integety before the people. Thus they were so prone to stage and state things which were true and then to skew that truth by twisting it by and into a lie. This is all used here as the Pharisees accuse the Savior as being a 'Samaritan'. That is technically the truth of their accusation though it was said in a tone of slander and degradation. The other part of their accusation is to give reason for why the Savior could show forth miracles with power, and that is that he worked them by the power of the Devil. This was in fact the out right out lie of the matter as it was by the power of God that the Savior performed his miracles.

Only as David being the seed of Mahlon, that Ephrathite or Ephraimite, could the Pharisees so claim in technical truth that 'say we not well that thou art a Samaritan'. Stated in that slanderously denoted tone which placed the seed of David into the same category of the hated Samaritans by the Jews, it was the intent of the Pharisees that Jesus could not deny that he was technically a Samaritan, that is of mixed international blood mixed with those associated with Ephraim. And how could the Jews ever conceive of a Samaritan to perform mircles other than by the power of Satan?

Jesus does not deny, nor does he admit, nor does he directly address the first part of the accusation; though he does give his answer to it. Instead he first answers the second accusational part as being an out right lie, and then he further truly indirectly addresses the 'slanderously spoken label', the 'truthful accusation' as slanderously 'dishonouring' himself and logically following also God, whose son he had set out he was. This places truth spoken in a slanderous tone in that same category as blasphmy against God. That is, even a truth, if it is spoken with malicious intent, such as to slander a person's character or person, is still of the category of performing a sin. And this is true in that we are to love our neighbor and apply the golden rule. This places an additional requirement of speaking truth, that it is not done in a tone or matter to maliciously destroy or discount the character of a person.

"Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me." ~ John 8:49

The scribes and Pharisees were the educated and legal minds of the people. They where the recognized religious scholars of their day and they knew the Law of Moses. Just like the lawyers in the days of Alma and Amulek tried to catch Alma and Amulek out in their words, so did the scribes and Pharisees so attempt to out wit Christ and to catch him in his words before the people in order to discredit him in the eyes of the people and his followers. Such is the case in the great discussion held between Christ and those scribes and Pharisees in the temple as recorded by John in chapter 8 of his gospel. There Christ proclaims himself clearly as the 'light of the world' and fully sets forth in a manner that no educated Jew could mistake that he was the promised Messiah sent by the Father.

In a 'game of wits or minds' the Pharisees attempted to know more about the Messiah than Christ did or that Christ would be welling to admit to before the uneducated masses. During that discussion Christ states that if the scribes and Pharisees were of God they would hear and believe what he told them, but since they did not they were not of God (verses 42-47). In retaliation the Pharisees retorted with what they knew to be a tenent of discussion even among themselves. They understood that the common people's mind set upon King David and the promised Messiah was that they were of the bloodline of Judah. But the Pharisees, the scholars, knew well of the dual ancestry of Obed being legally of Ephraim via Mahlon but also of the blood of Judah by Boaz, so they attempted to catch Christ in this web of conversation before the Jewish people who hated the Samaritans.

This topic was not discussed among the common people and even the scribes and Pharisees of the Jews did not often openly speak about it. And that was because it dealt with the ancestry of their great King David who had chosen his Jewish bloodline through Boaz above the legal house of the marriage of vicarious proxy performed by Boaz in raising up seed to the house of Elimelech, Israel and Ephraim. For it was not only known within the house of the scholars of the Jews that the Messiah was to be of the House of David but that David legally was of the House of Elimelech an Ephraimite, being the seed raised up through Mahlon's wife Ruth of that house. This rendered the Messiah as being of the same type of mixed heritage as the Samaritans who where part Ephraimite and part of other nations through such marriages. And this was the same with Obed being the son of the Moabite Ruth and the legal heir to the house of Ephraim or Joseph. Christ was in turth to be considered a 'Samaritan.' Though not often dared to be spoken of as such against the Royal House of David, the ancestry of the Messiah was understood by the Pharisees to be that like unto the Samaritan's own ancestry. And at this instance they threw this in accusation form, most negatively in respect to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God by stating, 'Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan?'

And then they made their own retalitory remark that Christ hast a devil in him. Christ knowing the truth of the matter of his ancestry seemingly ignored the slanderous mode of the first part of the accusation, for it was a truth slanderously spoken and was not open to intelligent debate before the common people. It was not a lie but not well understood and slanderously spoken. He first attacked directly only the part of the statement which was obviously the lie, and he stated, "I have not a devil; ...". And then he continued indirectly to attack the Jewish leadership upon their level of understanding of the sin of the 'slanderously spoken truth' by continuing, " ... but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me." This was the truth of the matter, the Pharisess had slandered the name of God. In their illogical hatred for the Samaritans they had used the ancestry of Christ the Messiah aginst him for being of the House of David, who had descended from just such a mixed house of Ephraim and Moab in Mahlon and Ruth as the legal and legitamate parents under the Law of Moses, Boaz being merely the vicarious performer under the law.

Now the Samaritans, while only accepting the books of Moses or the Pentateuch as scripture and rejecting the rest as having been tainted by the Jewish scribes of compilation, did believe in the coming of Messiah. And as stated in the previous items, they believed that he would be of the House of Joseph not of Judah, or at least in the sense that the Jews held him exclusively to be of such. In Deuteronomy 18:15-22 as referenced by Paul in Acts 3:22-24, such a prophet or Messiah was well established by Moses. And of course the blessing upon the head of Joseph had stated that he would be from Joseph (Genesis 49:24).

What should be understood is that the Pharisees were the legal minds of the day. They gained their victory in judgment by how well they did argue the law. They were the most proficient debaters in the cunningness of their words. They would bate and catch out their opponents by out thinking them and laying mind and word traps for them to fall into. They lived in the shadowy realm of truth twisted into descriptive snares. And they were practiced in setting the stage and manipulating their foes into false conclusions of twisted logic, which they could use against them. They prided themselves on the wit and knowledge of the scriptural law.

Thus when they charged Christ, the proposed Messiah as being a Samaritan, it was not just some groundless slur by which they could readily be labeled as a bunch of sour grape sore losers resorting to name calling. It was not just name calling, the phraseology sets out that they where still playing their mind games based upon the facts of the scriptures, for the scriptures, according to a number of Rabbinical interpretations, did set out that Christ would be descendant of Joseph, that is Messiah Ben Joseph. And while not all believed such to be a true or at least debateable in the minds of the common people, either by taking exception to there even being a divine Messiah or there being two separate Messiahes, the Pharisees knew if they could draw Christ out onto a controversial topic such as this, he would have to take a position and thereby he would at least loose every one who did not believe as he positioned himself in so taking on any such divisive position.

The very manner in which the Pharisees stated the inquiry was vicious. For they knew that the scriptures did state there to be Messiah Ben Joseph. But the debate had been raised of how the Messiah could be of David, who was by then commonly well established as having been of blood birth of the tribe of Judah and did also select Judah over his otherwise legal parentage of Elimelech and Mahlon, and also of Joseph. This later fact had all but been written out of the Jewish developed scriptures as to the exact ancestry of Elimelech and Mahlon and that David 'by right' was the seed of Ephraim by the Law of Moses though of the blood of Judah. Further, the only seed of Joseph and Ephraim about after the Jewish return from Babylon were the hated Samaritans, who like the ancestors of King David where of mixed parentage, thus having mixed their seed with those of other nations. And the Samaritans were totally despised by the Jews as being unfit and unclean because of such a mixture of their seed. Forget that Boaz had done the same by his marriage to Ruth, a Moabitess. And that both King David and Solomon and others had marriages out side the House of Israel bounds. It was this type of 'selective' bias which the Jews had held against the Samaritans but not against themselves to any extent to which they would like to admit.

And further, supporting those denying any Messiah was that Christ could not be considered Messiah Ben Joseph or Messiah Ben David was that Ruth of Moab descent was in the mix of his parentage and like the Samaritans, if in deed there was such a Messiah, would be no better than the highly despised Samaritans. And even then some Jews had long since alienated themselves from having any divine Messiah come of the Samaritans which the Samaritans did contest that he would be of Joseph and Ephraim or from even King David whose ancestors where mixed with the Moabites.

It was a mixed bag of confusion at best and upon which stage the Pharisees desired to draw Christ out upon. And they further premised their question by including that he was of the Devil, which threw together slander by stating the tainted truth and mixing it with an out right lie. For indeed Christ was Messiah Ben Joseph of the legal seed of Ephraim by way of Mahlon and Elimelech. This he could not deny if he chose to speak upon the matter as the Pharisees desired he would. And he would have to admit to being Messiah Ben Joseph which would in the eyes of many of the Jews place him in a totally alienated position as the Jews did hate the Samaritans.

In item 34 we have cover the possible meanings of the various inquiries of the crowds which questioned Christ by asking, 'Is this not the son of Joseph.' And it is there discussed how it may well have been in reference to Christ as being the Messiah ben Joseph. And now we are ready to take the next step into Christ's identity with respect to legally being of the tribe of Ephraim.

In a manner, which was meant to provoke Christ on to a stage, which the Pharisees would control, they attacked the fact that the Messiah was to be the son of Joseph of Egypt. While this was one of the variant beliefs which had been misunderstood and corrupted yet did remain in the minds of many as the fact of the matter that the Christ, being of the House of David would be able to claim both descent by blood from Judah, and by legal right to be of the descent of Ephraim and of the house of Joseph.

And the Pharisees where set to draw the Savior into this controversial topic of whether there be two Messiahes or one Messiah or even none. And those who did not adhere to the notion of one Messiah being of both houses, would use in their argument the chiding of, therefore if you so believe, then you make of the Christ but a Samaritan. While many of the Jewish people did look to the coming Messiah, the son of God; a good many of the Sadducees were already of the opinion that there would not be a divine Christ, there would not be a redeemer of Israel, there would not be any Messiah, and there would be no resurrection. And that the Messiah legends were but of the nature of 'folklore' to many of them considering all the requisites such a Messiah would have to fit in order to be of a true and reliable report.

Thus it was not unusual for them to resort to slandering who they consider to be a character of fiction, the Messiah, with the taunt of him having to be a Samaritan of mixed linage of a Moabitess and a Jew and/or of Mahlon the Ephraimite, to raise up children to the house of Ephraim. And this type of combination, which they viewed but to be a character of fiction, would make of the supposed Messiah but of the nature of the mixed blooded Samaritans. And thus upon at least one reported occasion, the Pharisees did call Jesus a Samaritan in the same most disdainful way in which they had always been treating the mixed blooded Samaritans for hundreds of years. Remember, a good share of the Sadducees did not believe in any type of Messiah though they pretended to follow after the Law of Moses. And Moses was their great prophet of God, thier deliver.

The Subtlety of Deception

Lost amid what was common knowledge, and what is partrayed in an English translation many years removed, is the subtlety of the questions designed to raise controversy and conflict in respect and relation to Jesus Christ. It was the Sadducees who were well known for their conflecting doctrines which did corrupt the mission and prospects of the Messiah. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. And it would be they who would most likely challenge, corrupt and debate the ancestry of the Messiah.

Hidden in the common understanding of the Jews was the fact that the Messiah was of two houses, the house of Judah by the bloodline of Boaz and by the right of the Law of Moses, the Messiah was rightfully and legally the son of Mahlon the Ephraimite (Ephrathite). As we have discussed, the Pharisees pronounced it opening in order to divide the people and make controversy out of Jesus Christ's claim to being the Messiah when they stated, 'Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan?' For surely Christ was legally of the house of Joseph and of mixed linage which included Ruth the Moabitess as a progenitor.

Now the Saducees did come to extract this same conflict and controversy in the minds of the Jewish populous. And the subtlety was almost undedictible by any unsuspecting soul. In Matthew 22:23-33 is the record of the event. And the topic being raise was well understood by any well trained learned 'Master' of the faith. The Levirate Law of Marriage was set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. And it said that a bother would take the wife of the dead to raise up seed to he dead. This is what Boaz had done in raising up Obed to be the son of Mahlon the Ephraimite. (Levirate from the Latin 'levir' meaning 'husband's brother'. Whether it has some connection to the concept of the Levite Law of Marriage is not determined. REL 301 page 230)

Now the Saducees approach was not to question the Saviour's ancestry directly but to merely inquire whose wife the woman would be. And then they would apply that answer to the case of Boaz, Mahlon and Ruth and inciting the controversy over Messiah ben Joseph/Ephraim and Messiah ben David/Judah. Many of the pious Jews were adverse to the consideration that king David was anything but a Jew. Ruth had been so compiled to subtlely remove David's ancestry away from Mahlon and to Boaz who was of Judah. And many would balk at Christ stating that the woman was the wife of the first man who they would then insert Mahlon as being in the case of Boaz, Ruth and Obed.

But Christ was very aware of their subtle disception. The easy and immediate response would have been that the woman was the wife of the first man and the others were but performing under the Law of Moses to raise up seed to that first kinsman. Yet Christ would totally avoid the entrapment which would have set controversy over his ancestry among the Jews. Chirst's answer was levied at turning the tables upon the Saducees, for the Saducees had asked about whose wife she would been in the resurrection and the minority group of the Saducees who posed the question didn't even believe in the resurrection as did the majority of the Jewish populous.

Thus Christ by answering that it was the Saducees who were in error for even asking a question about the resurrection, in which they did not believe, And the sublety of the Lord's answer was above than of the Saducees as Christ did give an answer to their question but certainly not the simple automatic answer they had anticipate from him. Christ didn't even address the question of whose wife she would legally be, as he stated the fact that marriage is not performed after the resurrection. And then he attacked the unpopular Saducee rejection of the resurrection by giving unrefutable evidence that indeed their was a resurrection for 'God is the God of the Living and not the God of the dead.' Jesus had turned the question designed to raise the controversy over the Messiah's ancestry into a popular and winning confrontation over the Saducees not beieving in the resurrection which put him in the controlly offensive position and the Saducees in a total state of failing defense of their own false doctrine of not believing in the resurrection.

Consider the event from the perspective that the saducees were subtlely raising the controvery over the Savior's descent from Joseph and/or Judah. It was not the resurrection they were drawing the savior out upon, as that was the very topic upon which the Lord did subdue the Saducees with.

"¶ The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. [Deuteronomy 25:5-10] Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine." ~ Matthew 22:23-33

It is only from the understanding that the Saducees where so subtlely being up the Messiah ben Joseph controversy that this event can be fully appreciated. Otherwise, in the matter of just the resurrection the Lord had an all too easy win. The Saducees would have clearly anticipated that the Lord would have said the woman was the wife of the first husband. And then they would have raise and applied his answer to Ruth being the wife of Mahlon the Ephraimite and then they would raise up the whole controversy over the matter of whether Obed, Jesse and thus David where of the house of Joseph or the house of Judah. And the Saducees knew that many consider only that Christ was of the house and blood of Judah and many did not understand by whom the rights of Messiahship had come through the Abrahamic Covenant through Joseph and the 'mixed' line of the 'hated' Ephraimites or Samaritans.