"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." ~ Matthew 15:24

Because of incorrect assumptions concerning 'Lost Israel', this seems to be a curious entry and statement of the Savior. Israel was not 'totally lost' as to 'where' they were located, they were more 'lost' to the 'faith' due to their being 'mixed' or sifted amoung the surrounding nations. This included the Jews, though the Jews would not admit that they too had become corrupted by their own mixed marriage with the Babylonians, as well as others. Many of these 'non-Jewish' Israelites, like the Samaritans knew who they where and like the Samaritans it was known where they were. Thus from the very selective 'Jewish' oriented perspective upon which even traditional Christianity is based, the concept that Jesus 'WAS NOT' particularly solely sent to the 'known' Jews of Judah, seems to never be considered. And many of the 'Jews', which all of such 'fellow Israelites' who lived amid them were called by national association, who were looking for a 'redeeming Messiah', did but gravitate and cling to Jesus for the most part, seeking after the promised redeemer as their deliver from Rome. This was of course their own myopic perceptions of the 'Delivering Messiah' and when Jesus turned out not to the type of Messiah they sought after, many forsook him, including most all of the Jews who might have had once laid claim to him.

Further, because of the obvious facts, such as that he was born in Bethlehem in the land of Jerusalem or Judaea of that day, and that he was of the house of David, the Son of David, who all knew and considered to be the royal 'bloodline' of Judah; he was but presumed to be sent to Judah. Yet Jesus never so states that he is particularlly sent to the 'Jews' but to Israel, and not only Israel but the 'Lost Sheep of Israel'. Further, many of the most pointed confrontations, including those of the Pasion Week, occurs in Jerusalem with the formal Jews, but he is not ministrying to them as much as he is attending his Law of Moses required attencances, and he won't shrink from them, though he is not sent to minister particularly to them at this time. In fact in conveying to the apostles concerning his teaching by parables, Jesus states as much as to say that he does so that the Jews would understand him not.

Further, his 12 disciples or apostles are considered 'Jews' as they are living 'amid' the Jewish and are Israelite Hebrews, and thus were all called Jews, even like were Lehi and Ishmael and their families who were called 'Jews' by national association though they were of the tribes Manasseh and Ephraim. But for Matthew, who is a Levite, NOT a Jew, Judas who is a true Jew by tribal descent, and Jesus who we are establishing to actually be legally and rightfully of Ephraim, the other apostles are but only presumed to be descendants of Judah, being and living amid the Jews. And then 'His Church', once established, seems to begin and to continue its administration out of Jerusalem. Thus what can be meant by such a statement that he is NOT sent to the known Jews who are not lost, but rather he is sent unto the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel'? Certainly the Jews did not consider themselves as 'lost'. And we always hear of the 'Judaean Ministries' of the Savior, which from the time of the 'first passover' of his ministry until he departed back to Galilee through Samaria, he did teach and his apostles did baptize many, even more than John the Baptist had done, during that first early Judaean ministry (John 3:22 & 26; 4:1-3).

Christ's life has been organized into categorized segments. Such a representative categorization can be taken from our own Bible Dictionary Chronology, which does follow much, as most such 'traditional Christian' views do, the traditional 'Jewish' ministries of Christ. The result of such 'Jewish Ministry Oriented' thinking of Christ being sent to the Jews has often skewed the perspective that Christ was in an 'avoidance' mode of confronting the Jews. He was not avoiding the Jews as he 'readitly confront them' when occasion arised. In fact his opening purpose at that first passover of his ministry was to openly confront them as being but a corruption of the truth, as he cleanses the temple and prophesies that they will kill him, that is his temporal temple and that he will raise it again in the three days (John 2:18).

Yet he was not sent particularly to the Jews and was therefore more carrying on his single prescribed minstry to the 'Lost Sheep' who where mingled internationally among the Jews and the surrounding nations. His contact with the 'formal' Jews was caused by the fact that he was living the Law of Moses and therefore lived his life round and about Jerusalem where the temple was. And this that he might follow the Law in all righteousness before he did fulfill the law in himself as being he whom the law did exemplify.

To attempt to realign this thinking of 'Jewish Oriented Ministries', I will first set out a table which states each traditional categorization and which will suggest a 'renaming' of these to reflect a less 'traditional Christian' view which has heretofore been based upon a Jewish perspaect as to what each actually is.

After Christ opens his ministry by his first cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem (John 2). Thus with his 'coming out' at this Passover feast, Christ's ministry is begun and his disciples begin to baptize they who had already began to follow after him, but Christ baptized not (John 4:2) for his first ministry would be to a particular group of the Lost Sheep of Israel. Thus upon leaving Judaea, Jesus immediately takes the extraordinary unacceptable route to Galilee through Samaria rather than the common route for Jews who avoid Samaritan contact at all cost. The spirit directed his ministry where he first needed to go, to first take his gospel to the prevailing tribe of Israel of the 'Lost Sheep of Israel' from whence he came, Ephraim, and at the holy site, the well of Jacob near the mountain of the Lord.

"And said unto his disciples, I must needs go through Samaria." ~ JST John 4:6 (See KJV John 4:4)

It would be most interesting to know all that Christ did do from other than the 'Jewish' perspective. His self proclaimed mission to the Samaritans in Samaria has received but one accounting by John. The others from their very Jewish perspectives have left it out entirely. Even Luke's testament, which was designed to go to the 'world' leaves out Christ's first ministry to the highly despised Samaritans. From the Jewish perspective, the Samaritans where worse and lower than even the Gentiles, Gentiles meaning they who where not knows either as being of Judah or as being of the mixed seed of Israel, such as the Samaritans where. Is there little wonder why the Savior's ministry to the 'Lost Sheep of Israel' has gone virtually unaccounted when such ministry would have been to those 'mixed seed of the Lost Sheep of Israel' toward whom the Jews did abound in their hatred towards?

Thus any account of Christ's ministry to the Lost Sheep of Israel, little alone to the Samaritans, the people of his legal and rightful ancestry, has to literally be dragged from the pages of the Jewish bound perspective of the scriptures. Even when the scriptures do state 'first to the Jew and then to the Gentile' the true perspective should make the statement, 'first to Israel and then to the Gentile'. But in that day, the concept was that if you were of 'recognized' Israel from the Jewish perspective, you were a 'Jew' and not first of a more general and correct categorization of 'Israel', which would threaten to include those known to be of Israel who the Jews refused to recognize as such. Thus is the case of the Jewish hatred toward any known 'Lost Sheep of Israel'.

Now, the Samaritans did look for the coming of the Messiah, as did the Jews. But the Samaritans, though their teachings had become corrupted as well, did still look forward to the coming of the Messiah whom they knew to be of Ephraim, their perspective not having been skewed by the Jewish contrivance surrounding the house of David. It is well within reason to suppose that this Samaritan Messian of Ephraim was also understood by them to be of the house of David, for David as we have set out was known as the Ephrathite son of Jesse, that Ephrathite of Bethlehem. And there would be no inconsistency for the woman at the well to both accept Jesus, a Son of David, as being such as the looked forward to Messiah.

Those who make little of the Samaritan understanding of the Ephraimite Messiah, little consider how it was so easily that the woman and all the other Samaritans of such a view, could have so readily accept Jesus as the Messiah, though he dressed after and was of the custom of the Jews. A readily accepting Samaritan following would have been most unlikely in any other such respect than that the Samaritans both knew and understood the Messiah to be the legal and rightful heir of Ephraim, that King David was of such linage, and that the Messiah was also to be of the house of David though legally and rightfully by the Law of God, to be considered as being the heir of the house of Ephraim.

Now, Christ's disciples, who considered themselves Jews, if not by absolute known linage, at least by association of being of the Jewish society, did not as readily warm to the Samaritans, the outcast 'Lost Sheep of Israel', though under Christ's direction, an early branch and congregation of the Church was established among these Samaritans. And there is some evidence throughout the New Testament scriptures that there did continue to be ministry dealings with the Samaritans, it was not that which the authors of the Gospels where prone to report.

But what there is in the New Testament record, I will attempt to present in a laundry list type of presentation. Such a listing is in New Testament textual order and is not necessarily of any set chronological order, thus the concepts may range in relevance to each other back and forth.

"Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and enter ye not into any city of the Samaritans." ~ Matthew 10:4

 1. Enter ye not into any city of the Samaritans.

This first, last and only utterance of Matthew relative to the Samaritains seem quite contradictory to the point being made here. Matthew, though having been snubbed by the Jews himself as a tax collected, was still of a very strict 'Levite' mind upon the matter and his Gospel was written primarily to the Jewish audience which seemed to be his preference to deal with. And one needs to consider the course of events which had already occured upon which Matthew had not taken occasion to report upon but can be somewhat pieced together from other reports. Christ had already performed his first ministry unto the Samaritans, establish his gospel and church among them himself. And they had readily accepted him initially as recorded singularly by John. Now at this particular later time, Christ was restricting the Apostles from 'returning' to the cities of Samaria, not from ever having been there. And he was specifically directing them further to who? The Jews? NOT! The next verse clarifies that Christ was consistent in his mission, sending them to the 'Lost Sheep of the House of Israel'.

"But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." ~ Matthew 10:5

"And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to got to Jerusalem; And [he] sent messengers before his face; and they went and entered into a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him. And the Samaritans would not receive him, because has face was turned as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples, James and John, saw that they would not receive him, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destory men's lives, but to same them. And they went to another village." ~ Luke 9:51-56

 2. Rejection at a Samaritan Village.

Most of the accounts of the Savior's Ministry gravitate toward and place most of their accounting upon the final days of the Savior's four year ministry. Though it is but chapter 9 of Luke, it seem that time wise the Savior is in his final days preparation for attendance at his last Passover, when he shall be 'lifted up', as he was in the process of calling the seventy and further structuring the Church for when he would not longer be there. Luke states, 'the time was come that he should be received up' alluding to his death. And it was well known and understood that Jesus was 'preparing' to go to Jerusalem. This is likely the sense of the message delivered to the Samaritan village, that the Messiah was preparing to go up to Jerusalem. This to the Samaritans as stated by the Savior's appotles, likely in a manner which denoted 'acceptance' of the Messiah of Jerusalem and the Jews over the Samaritans, accorded an understandable response, they rejected the apostles who were set upon Jerusalem over Samaria. James and John, the likely messengers of the arrangement who were overly enthused concerning the Messiah going to be 'received up' at Jerusalem, were personally offended by the Samaritan rejecttion. And being of a 'Jewish' mind set, having a embedded distaste for the Samaritans, were ready to call down fire from heaven upon them for their inconvience. Of course Christ corrected them redirected that seemingly 'racist' motivated situation. They ended up going to another village, Luke not stating whether it was Samaritan or not. Two point should be made here, first at this point the Savior was still having relations with the Samaritans to have sent his apostles to that village. He had not stopped visiting their 'cities'. Neither had the apostles and whether the occasion of Matthew's cited report was prior to or after this rejection is not totally clear though the 'Harmony of the Gospels' in the Bible Dictionary places this 'rejection' by the Samaritans prior to the Lord commanding the Apostles not to go to the cities of Samaria. Perhaps the Lord was avoiding the temptation for his Jewish minded apostles to wrongly use their authority and call down fire upon the Samaritans in any future confrontation between his 'very Jewish' minded apostles and the people of Samaria over the last months of his life and ministry.

 3. Context of the Good Samaritan.

At this point, Christ's Jewish minded apostles did not well understand nor perhaps accept Christ's own linage which qualified the Messiah as a Samaritan himself. Thus in the next chapter of Luke, shortly after this incident with the rejecting Samaritan, Christ took the opportunity to further defuse the tension and sooth the feelings of his apostles who had shown forth that negative response to the Samaritan village with the story of the Good Samaritan. In that story,the Samaritan was not only the good guy, but for those who would be effected by the spirit, they would have to begin to preceive the Messiah as being himself the 'Good Samaritan'.

"And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee." ~ Luke 17:11

 4. He Passed through the Midst of Samaria.

This hardly sounds like 'avoiding' Samaritan contact, as on his was to Jerusalem, Jesus does as he intended to do and again, apparently for the last time, passes directly through the midst of Samaria, the land of the Samaritans. And he administers to the people's needs, curing 10 lepers, the only one of which who turns to thank him and praise him is pointed out to be a Samaritan (Luke 17:16).

 5. Christ's First Ministry to the Samaritans (John 4).

Though John's account of Christ's first ministry to the Samaritans, all ready discussed, falls in this order in the New Testament, it is actually the first recorded dealings with the Samaritans which followed the Savior's ministry beginning visit to the temple at which time he cleansed the temple the first time. It is thought that the Saviors two cleansings of the temple are actually the two 'bookends' to his ministry. The first came as he began his ministry and the other during the last week, the pasion week of his atonement. Over the three to four year ministry of the Savior much happened though much of it is not recorded. And when we come into the last months of his final year, and he is just them stating for the disciples at that particular point in time not to visit the cities of Samaria can hardly be taken to be a rejection of them as part of his ministry for even after that Christ does continue to visit and administer in the land of Samaria to the Samaritans. This is the 'hard dragging out' of the ministry to the Samaritans. The gospel records just do not present well all the events of Christ four year ministry. Most all of the accounts gravitate to the last few months and even the last week of Christ's life. The Samaritan envolvement is for the most part totally ignored by three of the gospel writes and Johns own record seems to be 'gutted' of it middle as he begins the Savior's ministry in his chapter 2, that very early first ministry to the Samaritans in chapter 4 and then jumps rapidly to the last months and even the last week of Christ's life.

"Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" ~ John 8:48

 6. Say we not well that thous art a Samaritan?

After John's account of Christ's first ministry to Samaria, John does not even mention the name Samaritan until the final week of Christ's life. As already stated John's record is void of most of the 'history' of the four year ministry of the Messiah. But when John addresses the Samaritan issue again, have once thought that he might call down fire from heaven to destroy a Samaritan village, he ironically records the event where Christ himself is being accused of being a Samaritan. Christ does not dispute the charge of being a Samaritan, but rather answers it indirectly, thus confirming when he states 'I seek not mine own glory'. This means that he will not explain the details of his being the 'Samaritan Messiah, the Son of David, thereby setting forth his 'own glory' as being such. Rather he decidedly attacks the Jews for their blasphemy against him as the Son of God, and thus again directly confonts the Jews who he is not sent to, but daily deals with as living in and amongst them.

"Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine own glory: there is on that seeketh and judgeth. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." ~ John 8:49-51

"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." ~ Acts 1:8

 7. Unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Some tend to perceive that this is the 'openning up' of Samaria to missionary work as if it is the first time such ministry had taken place. As already shown with the meager few refernces there are, Samaria had been ministered to by Christ from the beginning of his minstry, he would past through Sameria and abide there. One 'temporay' closure due to some hurt feelings at one time, does not preclude the fact that Samaria had been and was a part of the Savior's ministry to the 'Lost sheep of Israel'. In fact we have shown that after Christ's anuageral cleansing of the temple which openned his ministry, he did immediately seek to go to Samaria where many Samaritans were converted. Because the Jewish slanted gospels do not teach much of Christ ministries over the first years of his ministry and seem to avoid the topic of 'Samaritans' themselves, is not reason to pre-suppose that the Samaritans and Samaria was not a part of such years ministry.

"Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. ... Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had recieved the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: ... And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and [having] preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans." ~ Acts 8:5, 14, 25

 8. Preached the gospel in many of the villages of the Samaritans

Now with this final note, which only displays that the apostles did go to and preach to the Samaritans, my attempt at dragging the Samaritan ministry out of the scriptures is ended. Certainly the gospel was now to go to all the world, but Peter had not yet accepted it to the Gentiles. That does not occur until chapter 10. Thus there seems to be no real restriction imposed upon taking the gospel to the Samaritans as it took no revealing to motivate the apostle to preach to them on their own. And it can only be considered at that one juncture in time when emotions ran high because of one village's rejection of the messengers which motivated the sons of thunder to strive to call down fire from heaven upon it. Perhaps this is where, teasingly, James and John where called the 'sons of thunder', for they were going to destroy a village with 'fire' from heaven, having been caught up in their emotions of the moment and offended by some Samaritans. What missionary has not thought to shake the dust from off their feet against a town because of a few days of bad experiences with door to door tracting?

Now upon final reflection upon this topic, it must seem to be a further testimony that Christ was considered to be of the house of Joseph, a descendant from Ephraim because of this last incident at the village of Samaria which did reject him (Luke 9:51-56). Christ in traveling to Jerusalem for the last time before his death did as likely often did, he passed through Samaria, desiring to stay among that people of the tribe of Ephraim, they who by the right of God's law were of his true ancestral family. That the one Samaritan village did reject him upon one singular basis does not mean that the second village which he did stay at (Luke 9:56) was not still in the way, in Samaria and a village of the Samaritans of Ephraim. The whole reason that the one village did reject him was not that he was the Messiah of the house of Daivd, for they would have understood that the house of David was rightfully and legally of Ephraim, of Israel. And they would have likely had the understanding the true Messiah was to come out of that royal house of Israel, which was the house of David in the same consideration that David's house was of Israel, of Joseph and of Ephraim. And thus that Christ would be acceptable to them as the Ephraimite Messiah which they looked to. What that first village seems to have rejected him upon was not that he was Messiah of the house of David, but that he seemed to have chosen to worship at this particular passover time at Jerusalem and not with them in Samaria (Luke 9:53). Thus while they could accept Jesus as the Messiah of the house of David, that house being of Joseph and Ephraim, what they could not accept was a Messiah who would worship at Jerusalem rather than in Samaria. And this seems to be an added testimony that Jesus was considered by the Samaritans to be of the house of Ephraim and Joseph though of the royal house of David. They would have accepted him in this particular village, even a 'Jew' of the house of David, if he but would honor his Samaritan heritage and not like David of old chose Jerusalem over Israel.