General Conference

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good morning from Chihuahua. You have chosen a wonderful passage to make your point. As might be expected, I interpret it a bit differently from you. A quick perspective:

This is the longest conversation in the New Testament between Christ and a woman. It is extremely important as Christ probably reveals more of himself to this Samaritan woman that he had to anyone else up to this point: Jew, Gentile or Samaritan.  That is not an unimportant point. They meet, he talks to her (unusual in and of itself) and asks for water. Yes, he was thirsty, but he also wanted to minister to her and give her the water that would quench her thirst forever. He asks her a question that gets to the heart of her need, about her husband. Uh oh! She responds in the typical manner; she tries to change the subject. To this day, that happens all the time!

She tries to distract Christ by getting into a religious debate. Again, this happens all the time in our discussions, even here on the forum. He doesn’t bite. He never answers which worship place is right. He simply tells her that salvation comes from the Jews. No debate about the Samaritans failure to follow the prophetic literature of the OT, thus they were not aware of the truth of the Messiah coming from the Jews. No mention of their worship of idols on the mountain. No castigation at all. In fact, he shifted the conversation quickly in two ways. He told her point blank the truth – that salvation in the person of himself, the Messiah comes from Judaism. The Greek preposition used here is “ek.” It means from, not of. He is pointing to the source of himself and quickly then moves on.

Christ’s intent was not to debate. His intent was to convert the lady and perhaps through her, other Samaritans to be followers. You noted only a few verses of the conversation. You left out the meat of it. He quickly, within one verse tells her that true worship from that time forward would be in spirit and in truth. That could happen anywhere – in the temple or on the mountain or anywhere. The mountain versus temple debate was irrelevant. So Christ’s intent was not to straighten her out about Samaritans or Jews, mountain or temple. It was to show her that true worship, the living water from which she would never again thirst came in the form of worship in spirit and truth. Christ didn’t play her game. He was a Jew. The prophetic literature of the OT, which the Samaritans rejected as canonical taught that the Messiah would come from the Jews. Christ was the Messiah. Christ was a Jew. Ergo salvation came from the Jews. He merely stated the fact. He didn’t say she was wrong. He didn’t point out anything of the sort. In fact, in her desire to quickly change the subject she simply brought up a doctrinal debate issue. Christ did not bite. He never said the Jews were "right." The debate about the mountain was irrelevant to Christ’s purpose. Verse 23 and 24 are the keys to understanding the entire conversation. You ended your quote a few verses too soon to try and make a point that somebody was right and somebody was wrong! The truth in the passage is found in the living water, not in the temple versus mountain debate.  

Perhaps the greatest significance for this forum is to understand the anger and rancor sometimes bordering on hatred that existed on both sides between the Jews and the Samaritans. I would hesitantly compare it to the rancor between the LDS Christian and the non-LDS Christian. Many of the debates are the same – this mountain or that one? This baptism or that one? This priesthood or that one? And on and on. If Christ were to post on this forum, I think he would not bite. I think he would scold both and remind us to consider him as the true object of worship that is only correctly done when it is done in spirit and in truth.

Yes, Christ quickly and in a few words indicated that salvation came from the Jews in the form of his person. But time and again when he was in the presence of those very same Jews, he was not so positive about them. He excoriated them more directly than he did the Samaritan woman or the Samaritan people in this passage. Oh, and if you read farther, you will find out that Christ’s was the correct response – Many of the Samaritans, according to verses 39-41 responded by following Him. In fact, He changed plans and stayed with them (sleeping in a Samaritan village! Horrors!) and taught them. After two days of teaching and making them his disciples he had accomplished his purpose in speaking with the woman. Salvation may have come from the Jews, but it went to the Samaritans, and most likely from them via an imperfect Samaritan woman who both offered and took water from the Master.

Yeah, I had a more involved answer involving the following scriptures but it got rambly (should be a word). Probably should have kept it.

I don't think she was trying to start a religious debate. Why would she pick a theological fight with someone she just acknowledged is a prophet? I suspect it was more a question. We worship in the mountain but you say we should worship at Jerusalem (she make a presumption because he was a Jew since Jesus had said nothing of Jerusalem). It is more that she is looking for equivalency which Jesus does not give her. In the schism between the Samaritans and the Jews Jesus favors the Jewish model even though (as you pointed out) they were collectively failing in their role. Then Jesus acknowledges that things will soon change. As God considered Gerizim inferior to even the corrupted temple soon both will be cast aside for a better way with greater spiritual strength and greater truth. She correctly expects the Messiah to bring that and Jesus identifies Himself to her.

In a way this proves my point even more. It is not unkind or unChristlike to suggest there are degrees of truth nor is it deliberately insulting to say so. Saying so also does not demean the spiritual strength of those outside that purer truth or diminish what they have in any way.