Were the Samaritans Jews?

Dispensationalists insist that God owes promises to ethnic Jews, those who are blood descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.

However, defining an ethnic people is never an easy task, especially when dealing with intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles.

Some Dispensationalists have asserted that lineal descent defines Israel/Jew. At least one Jewish parent means that the children are Jewish.

In previous posts, I have explored some of the problems of using lineal descent to define an ethnic group. See here and here.

Let’s look at a real example, pertinent to both ancient and modern society: the Samaritans.

The Samaritans are generally regarded as the descendants of those Jews who survived the Assyrian attack on the Northern Kingdom. They inhabited Samaria, which is why they are called Samaritans.

The Samaritans were despised by the Jews because they may have intermarried with the other nations. Some considered them to be half-breeds. It is clear from the gospels that Jews hated Samaritans and did not consider them to be Jews (cf. John 4:9; 8:48).

However, if lineal descent defines Israel/Jew, then the Samaritans were still Jews. Dispensationalists insist that blood alone determines who is Israel/Jew. The Samaritans were still Jews and heirs of the promises to Abraham, regardless of what the Jews of that day thought.

The problem with this is that Jesus did not consider the Samaritans to be Jews. Jesus did not regard them as part of Israel. This is obvious from what Jesus said to his disciples:

“Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6).

Jesus was often kind to the Samaritans (cf. Luke 10, John 4) and went out of his way to help them, but he did not regard them as Jews or part of Israel. They were in a different category.

All of this points to the fact that Israel/Jew was never defined strictly by blood. The Samaritans were blood descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet Jesus declared that they were not part of Israel. They were not Jews.

How do we explain this?

This is the “pruning” principle. The Samaritans were pruned off of Israel. They were cut off and no longer consider Jews.

What caused the Samaritans to be pruned? Were the Samaritans pruned off because they intermarried with non-Jews? Did the dilution of Jewish blood result in their pruning?

No, many Jews intermarried, and they, and their children, retained their status as Jews and part of Israel. Many Jews lacked pure Jewish blood, including Boaz and Jesus.

The Samaritans were pruned off when they abandoned the worship of the true God. They worshiped at their own place and in their own way (cf. John 4). They did not worship the one true God.

The Samaritans were not considered Jews because of their religious apostasy, not because of any dilution in their Jewish blood.

Interestingly, there are still Samaritans alive today. They are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jewish blood runs through their veins. Ethnically, they have just as strong of a claim to the promises to Abraham as Modern Israel.

But, it was never about the blood. It was always about religion. The promises were not made to the blood descendants of Abraham but to the spiritual descendants.

Galatians 3:29 is not merely a truth for the church age. It is a truth for all ages.

How Jewish Is Jewish Enough?

Every Christian believes that God made promises to the descendants of Abraham (Genesis 12, 13, 15, etc). Every Christian also holds that believing Gentiles are descendants of Abraham (Galatians 3:29).

However, Dispensationalists insist that God still owes promises to ethnic Jews. Only the blood descendants of Abraham qualify as the true heirs to these promises, and so God must fulfill his promises to those who are blood descendants of Abraham, the ethnic Jews.

Who are these ethnic Jews? This seems like an easy question, but not so! It is complicated. There are a lot of moving parts.

Specifically, what happens in a mixed marriage between a Jew and a Gentile? Are the children Jewish? Are the children going to be part of the Israel who will inherit the promises made to Abraham?

In recent posts, I have showed the failure of defining Israel/Jew by matrilineal or patrilineal descent. See here and here.

In response, some Dispensationalists have emailed me and asserted that lineal descent is the answer. As long as one of the parents is Jewish, then the children are Jewish.

In my previous post, I began to explore the problems with using lineal descent to define Israel/Jew. Lineal descent works in a relatively closed community, but when the community is opened up or abandoned, then dilution renders lineal descent irrelevant.

Dilution of the blood pool is a real issue in defining an ethnic people. For instance, most Native American tribes have blood quantum laws requiring between one-half (1/2) and one-sixteenth (1/16) tribal blood for membership.

In the episode “Diversity Day” on The Office, Michael Scott claims he is two-fifteenths (2/15) Native American. When told that this is impossible, Michael replies, “It’s too painful to talk about.”

For those Dispensationalists who argue that lineal descent makes someone a Jew, is there ever a point at which the bloodline become too diluted to be of significance?

Consider the case of a Jew who marries a Gentile and then joins a Gentile community, so that all of their descendents marry Gentiles. According to lineal descent, all of their descendants would still be considered Jewish.

1. The child of a full Jew (100% Jewish) and a Gentile is 1/2 Jewish (50%). 
2. The child of a 1/2Jew (50% Jewish) and a Gentile is 1/4 Jewish (25%).
3. The child of a 1/4 Jew (25% Jewish) and a Gentile is 1/8 Jewish (12.5%).
4. The child of a 1/8 Jew (12.5% Jewish) and a Gentile is 1/16 Jewish (6.25%).
5. The child of a 1/16 Jew (6.25% Jewish) and a Gentile is 1/32 Jewish (3.125%).
6. The child of a 1/32 Jew (3.125% Jewish) and a Gentile is 1/64 Jewish (1.5625%).
7. The child of a 1/64 Jew (1.5625% Jewish) and a Gentile is 1/128 Jewish (0.78125%).

By the seventh generation of intermarriage, the children would have less than one percent Jewish blood, yet they would still be considered Jewish according to lineal descent.

In the one hundredth generation of intermarriage (3000-4000 years?), the children would have 0.000000000000000000000000000158 percent (1.58 x 10-30) Jewish blood. Yet, according to lineal descent, they would still be considered ethnic Jews who are going to inherit the promises.

Of course, this is ridiculous. No one would seriously consider such a person to be an ethnic Jew. No one … except those Dispensationalists who define Israel/Jew by lineal descent.

Because the Bible gives us no blood quantum law to govern mixed marriages, lineal descent fails as a mechanism to define Israel/Jew. Dilution of the blood pool renders lineal descent deficient in determining who is and is not a Jew.

All of this points to the fact that Israel/Jew was never defined strictly by blood. Being Jewish was never strictly a matter of ethnicity.

Dispensationalists are wrong on this foundational issue, and their whole system collapses under the weight of this miscalculation.

Galatians 3:29 is not simply a “New Covenant” truth. It was always true, even in Genesis 12.

Who Are the Descendants of Abraham?

Dispensationalists routinely insist that God made promises to the Jews, and these promises must be fulfilled for the Jews.

However, who are these Jews who will inherit the promises?

Dispensationalists dogmatically maintain that such a Jew is only someone who is ethnically descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. Blood alone defines Israel.

However, what happens in a mixed marriage between a Jew and Gentile? Are the children Jewish? Who are the descendants of Abraham?

Some Dispensationalists have emailed me and asserted that, in a mixed marriage, as long as one of the parents is Jewish, then the children are Jewish. This is known as lineal descent.

Lineal descent avoids the problems of strict matrilineal descent. Boaz was a Jew because his father was a Jew.

Lineal descent also avoids the problems of strict patrilineal descent. Jesus was a Jew because his mother was Jew.

Lineal descent appears to be the answer to the Dispensational dilemma. As long as one parent is Jewish, then the children are Jewish.

However, lineal descent has an inherent problem: dilution through intermarriage. Lineal descent works in a relatively closed community, but it collapses when the community opens up or is abandoned.

Consider the case of a Jew who marries a Gentile and then joins a Gentile community, so that all of their descendants marry Gentiles. According to lineal descent, all of their descendants would still be considered Jewish, no matter how little Jewish blood ran through their veins.

By the seventh generation of intermarriage, the descendants would have less than one percent Jewish blood, yet they would still be considered Jewish according to lineal descent, and therefore, they would inherit the promises made to the descendants of Abraham.

This exposes the fatal flaw of Dispensationalism: insisting that God made unconditional promises to an ethnic group. God did no such thing.

Ethnic descent was a factor, but it was never the factor. Dispensationalism completely unravels when this fatal flaw is exposed.

Was Jesus a Jew?

Dispensationalists consistently emphasize that God made promises to the Jews, and these promises must be fulfilled for the Jews.

This raises the question: Who are these Jews who will inherit the promises?

Dispensationalists insist that a Jew is someone who is ethnically descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. Blood alone defines Israel.

This raises the question: Is Israel defined by matrilineal descent (through the mother) or by patrilineal descent (through the father)?

In my previous post, I demonstrated that matrilineal descent alone is an invalid way to define Israel/Jew. This eliminates Boaz, Obed, and technically, even Judah, from Israel because their mothers were not Jewish.

Patrilineal Descent?

What about patrilineal descent?

This seems to make more sense. All genealogies in the Bible trace the male line. The promises were given to males and renewed with males. The male descendents were circumcised. Patrilineal descent seems more Biblical.

However, patrilineal descent alone is insufficient to define Israel/Jew because of one obvious exception: Jesus.

If being a Jew is defined by one’s father, then Jesus is not Jewish because his Father is not Jewish.

As Archie Bunker once retorted when reminded that Jesus was Jewish: “Yes, but only on his mother’s side.”

This one enormous exception means that patrilineal descent alone cannot be used to define Israel/Jew.

Was Boaz a Jew?

The most fundamental error that Dispensationalists make is in restricting their definitions of Israel and Jew to ethnicity. One who is born a Jew is always a Jew, and nothing can change this. Likewise, no one can become a Jew because blood alone determines whether one is a Jew. Blood alone defines Israel.

Dispensationalists continually pound this pulpit, yet they show little awareness of the difficulties surrounding such a definition. Specifically,

• How much Jewish blood makes someone a Jew?

• In a mixed marriage (Jew + Gentile), does it matter which party is Jewish?

I will deal with both of these questions in the next few posts.

Matrilineal Descent?

In a mixed marriage, does it matter which party is Jewish?

Some branches of Modern Judaism define Israel/Jew partly according to matrilineal descent. That is, one is a Jew if their mother is a Jew. Thus, a Jewish mother begets Jewish children, regardless of the ethnicity of the Father.

The problem with defining Israel/Jew according to matrilineal descent is that this excludes some famous Jews, such as Boaz.

Boaz’s mother was Rahab, who was a Canaanite. She was not Jewish, and thus, according to matrilineal descent, Boaz was not a Jew.

Also, Boaz married Ruth, who was a Moabite. Thus, their son, Obed, was not a Jew, according to matrilineal descent.

Technically, neither Judah nor any of the other sons of Jacob would be Jews, as Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah were not Jewish. Thus, according to strict matrilineal descent, none of the twelve sons of Israel were Jewish.

Of course, Modern Judaism has an answer for this dilemma, which I will explore in a future post.

Also, I know of no Dispensationalist who defines Israel/Jew according to matrilineal descent. I am not suggesting or implying this in any way.

I am simply ruling out defining Israel/Jew according to strict matrilineal descent.

Was Ruth a Jew?

In my previous post, I argued that the fatal flaw of Christ’s Prophetic Plans is that the authors assume that Israel/Jew is defined strictly by ethnicity. In the next few posts, I want to explore the ramifications of such a presupposition.

If Israel is defined strictly by ethnicity, then no one could ever become a Jew. You were either born a Jew or you were not. Nothing that you ever did would change that.

What about Ruth? Ruth was a Moabite; she was not born a Jew. If Israel/Jew is strictly an ethnic designation, then Ruth could never become a Jew because no one can become a Jew. She was a Gentile who got in on the promises.

However, this is not what the Scriptures teach. Ruth herself claimed, “Your people shall be my people” (Ruth 1:16). She saw herself becoming part of Israel. She became a Jew.

The only way this is possible is if Israel/Jew is not strictly an ethnic designation. In the Bible, Israel/Jew is a religious designation with ethnic implications.

Was Ruth a Jew? Not by birth, but by conversion, Ruth became a Jew. She was grafted into Israel, and both she and all of her progeny became Jews.

The Fatal Flaw in "Christ's Prophetic Plans"

Okay, so I just finished my read/skim of Christ’s Prophetic Plans (CPP). This is not a full review but just a few thoughts on one aspect of the book.

CPP is a good primer on John MacArthur-styled Dispensationalism. MacArthur has carved out his own niche in Dispensationalism somewhere between Revised (Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost) and Progressive (Blaising, Bock, Saucy) Dispensationalism.

I mostly skimmed the chapters on eschatology because I quickly grow weary with detailed explorations of the pre-trib rapture, gaps in Daniel 9, a Jewish Millennium, etc. I did read the chapters on ecclesiology a little more closely.

When I was leaving Dispensationalism, it was ecclesiology, not eschatology, that kept me up at night. Distinguishing between Israel and the church had been drilled into me, and it took a lot of study to untangle the flaws in this presupposition.

CPP consistently appeals to the promises that God made to Israel. God made promises to Israel, and these promises must be fulfilled for Israel. Otherwise, God is a liar.

But, who is Israel? How do we define Israel? CPP gives little, if any, thoughtful reflection to this crucial question. Instead, CPP operates under the presupposition that Israel is defined strictly on the basis of ethnicity; God must fulfill his unconditional promises to ethnic Israel (p. 170).

However, this is the fatal flaw in Dispensationalism. God never made unconditional promises to ethnic Israel. Ever. Most of Dispensationalism is built upon this fatal flaw.

This fatal flaw causes Dispensationalists to suppress Biblical evidence, as I recently noted here, where I pointed out that in Acts 7:38, Stephen calls Israel the church (Check the Greek or the KJV or the ASV).

For this reason, most accusations of "Replacement Theology" and "Supersessionism" miss the mark. Instead, they simply reveal that the accuser is a Dispensationalist, or at least one who presupposes a fatally-flawed ecclesiology.

I have some more thoughts on this topic that I hope to unleash soon.