CHAPTER 2

When the Bride Broke the Vow

The Unfaithfulness of Samaria

“They feared the LORD and served their own gods.”— 2 Kings 17:33

“For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name.”— Isaiah 54:5

Chapter 1 brought us to the Shema and its call to love the LORD with an undivided heart. Through the prophets’ marriage imagery, we considered the tenderness and seriousness of covenant faithfulness. Now we must face what happened when that faithfulness was broken. The confession of one LORD remained, but other loyalties were allowed to govern the life of the people.[ER1] 

Betrayal is painful because it wounds a relationship in which trust has been given. Those who have experienced it may feel the force of the prophets’ language with particular intensity. Yet Scripture’s marriage imagery reaches beyond our individual experiences. It reveals the seriousness of Israel’s covenant with God, the damage caused by misplaced worship and the mercy of the One who continues to call His people to return.

As we follow this history towards the well in Samaria, we must keep its different voices clear. The prophets address communities through the image of an unfaithful wife. John introduces a particular woman whose personal history Jesus knows. The national story helps us explore the theme of worship; it does not give us permission to pronounce a verdict on her life before we have listened to her conversation with Christ.

1 The Covenant and the Pain of Betrayal

God’s relationship with His people begins with His love and care. Hosea remembers Israel as a child whom God loved and brought out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1). Ezekiel uses a different image: a vulnerable girl whom God preserves, clothes and brings into covenant. In that passage, the girl represents Jerusalem (Ezekiel 16:2). The family and marriage images belong to their own settings, but both reveal a relationship sustained by God’s initiative.[ER2] 

Ezekiel gives the covenant its unmistakable place within the marriage picture:

“Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.” Ezekiel 16:8

The spreading of the garment communicates protection and covenant commitment. A related image appears when Ruth asks Boaz to spread his garment over her, appealing to him as a near kinsman (Ruth 3:9). In Ezekiel, the meaning is made explicit by God’s oath and declaration of covenant. The picture asks us to recognise the care that had been offered and the faithfulness to which the people were called.

This is why the prophets speak so strongly about idolatry. Israel’s worship was bound to a relationship with the God who had delivered her. To turn to other gods was to betray that covenant. Jeremiah names the breach:

“Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.”

— Jeremiah 3:20

The Hebrew verb bagad (Strong’s H898) means to act treacherously or deal faithlessly.1 In this passage, the word exposes a failure of loyalty within a relationship. The people had received God’s care, yet had turned away from the One who gave it. The severity of the language helps us understand why divided worship could never be treated as a harmless addition to covenant life.

Exodus expresses the claim upon Israel’s worship directly:

“For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.”

— Exodus 34:14

God’s jealousy belongs to His holy commitment to the covenant and His refusal to share the worship due to Him with rival gods. The prophets’ language of grief and betrayal helps us recognise the seriousness of departing from the One who has offered faithful love. His righteousness and mercy give us the setting in which to understand that jealousy.[ER3] 

Jeremiah 2:5 asks what wrong the people’s ancestors had found in God that justified their turning away. The question exposes the absence of any fault in His faithfulness. It also searches us. When our devotion begins to wander, what are we seeking elsewhere that we have decided we cannot entrust to Him? The answer may reveal a loyalty we have defended for so long that we have stopped examining it.

2 Samaria and the Gods of the Incoming Peoples

The history in 2 Kings 17 must be read in sequence. The chapter first describes the northern kingdom’s own rejection of God’s commandments and the warnings brought by His prophets. This disobedience precedes the Assyrian resettlement (verses 7–23). The incoming peoples did not introduce unfaithfulness into an otherwise faithful nation. They entered a land whose covenant history was already marked by rebellion.

After the exile of the Israelites, the Assyrian king settled people from five places in the cities of Samaria: Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath and Sepharvaim (2 Kings 17:24). Verses 29–31 then describe the gods associated with these groups. The account names seven deities across the five peoples:2[ER4] 

The gods named in 2 Kings 17

Incoming people or place

Named deities

Names listed

Babylon

Succoth-benoth

1

Cuthah, called Cuth

Nergal

1

Hamath

Ashima

1

Ava, whose people are Avites

Nibhaz and Tartak

2

Sepharvaim

Adrammelech and Anammelech

2

Total

Five incoming peoples

7

Source: 2 Kings 17:24, 30–31.

That distinction matters. Five peoples and seven divine names are different counts. We can recognise the five groups without combining two named gods into a single deity. The biblical account also identifies a terrible practice among the Sepharvites: the burning of children in the worship of Adrammelech and Anammelech (verse 31). The damage of idolatry reached into the life of the community and the lives of its children.

Josephus retells the arrival of five peoples, each bringing its own gods into Samaria. His account supports the count of the incoming groups; it does not identify them with the woman’s five husbands or establish that the seven names represent five marital units.3 We can use his testimony for the historical point he actually makes while allowing John’s account to speak in its own setting.[ER5] 

The Babylonian Talmud also discusses the names in 2 Kings 17. In Sanhedrin 63b, Nibhaz and Tartak are associated with the images of a dog and a donkey, while Adrammelech and Anammelech are associated with a mule and a horse.4This is a later rabbinic interpretation of the names. The passage does not describe the pairs as husband and wife, and it does not support calling Adrammelech and Anammelech a sun-god and moon-goddess couple. The presence of two names together is insufficient to establish a marriage between the deities.[ER6] 

The grammar does not settle the proposed connection either. The repeated Hebrew verb translated “made” in verses 30–31 is plural, agreeing with the groups of people who made the idols. Two objects governed by one verb remain two named objects.5 The grouping describes the actions of the incoming peoples; it does not create a hidden count of husbands.[ER7] 

Jesus speaks directly about the woman’s history: she has had five husbands, and the man she now has is not her husband (John 4:16–18). A reader may explore a possible symbolic resonance between that history and Samaria’s divided worship. The comparison remains an interpretation; the numerical resemblance and the ancient sources do not establish a one-to-one identification.6 We can reflect on the shared theme of faithfulness while respecting the woman’s personal history.[ER8] 

The spiritual challenge of 2 Kings 17 is already explicit. The people recognised the LORD while continuing to serve their own gods (verse 33). Yet the following verse says that they did not fear Him or follow His commandments (verse 34). The account distinguishes their religious acknowledgement from the covenant obedience they withheld. A form of recognition remained, while faithful allegiance was missing.

That is the divided worship this chapter asks us to examine. We can honour God in our speech while allowing another loyalty to govern our conduct. We can seek His blessing while resisting His authority over the choice we most want to protect. The marriage imagery makes the breach personal: a confession of belonging has been contradicted by the life that follows it.

The chapter closes by describing practices repeated by children and grandchildren (2 Kings 17:41). What one generation normalised continued in the next. That observation calls us to examine the patterns we have learned. It does not establish that the woman in John 4 personally worshipped these seven deities. The history asks us to consider the influences upon worship while remembering that a person can respond faithfully within a difficult inherited setting.

3 Judgment and the Continuing Call to Return

Jeremiah does not soften the consequence of covenant betrayal. He records God describing His judgment upon backsliding Israel through the image of a bill of divorce:

“And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.”— Jeremiah 3:8

The image is severe. It confronts both Israel’s unfaithfulness and Judah’s failure to learn from it. God’s mercy does not make betrayal trivial, and the existence of a covenant does not turn persistent rebellion into faithfulness. The people are called to face the truth of what they have done.

Yet the same chapter contains God’s appeal to return. Jeremiah 3:12 announces His mercy; verse 13 calls for an acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Later, the invitation is expressed in the language of healing:

“Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings.”— Jeremiah 3:22

The call to return stands alongside the judgment. God addresses people whose failure has been named and invites them to answer Him honestly. Restoration begins where the heart stops defending the departure and acknowledges the One it has forsaken. This is why repentance belongs within the story of covenant love: it is a response to truth and to the mercy being offered.

The prophetic warnings had already sounded before the Assyrian exile, as 2 Kings 17:13 makes clear. Jeremiah’s later appeal towards the north continues the call to return. Across the history, the recorded warnings and invitations reveal God’s sustained concern for a people who repeatedly refused to hear.[ER9] 

In the light of that history, Christ’s conversation in Samaria carries particular significance for the Christian reader. The marriage language used elsewhere in the New Testament helps us reflect on His invitation to faithful relationship. Paul speaks to the Corinthian church of being espoused to one husband, Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2). The image calls us to examine our own devotion to Him.

The same care is needed when we examine our families. We may have learned habits that damage trust or divide worship. We may also carry wounds caused by decisions we did not make. Ezekiel 18:14–20 describes a child who sees a father’s wrongdoing and chooses a different path. The sins of an earlier generation do not compel us to repeat them. We can acknowledge what shaped us, take responsibility for our own choices and seek a faithful way forward.

4 The Faithfulness Revealed at the Well

John’s account brings us back from the history of a people to the encounter with a person. Jesus sits beside the well, asks the woman for a drink and continues the conversation across the separation she recognises between Jews and Samaritans (John 4:7–9). He speaks of living water, tells the truth about her circumstances and answers her question about worship. She is given room to ask, respond and learn.

We do not know why her five marriages ended or what experiences had shaped them. John does not call her a prostitute. The care with which Jesus addresses her should guide the care with which we speak about her. His knowledge of her history becomes part of a conversation that leads towards the revelation of the Messiah.[ER10] 

In that encounter, we see the faithfulness of Christ expressed through truth and mercy. He does not conceal what He knows, and He does not abandon the conversation when her history is brought into the light. He continues to reveal what the Father seeks and, when she speaks of the coming Messiah, identifies Himself to her (John 4:23–26).

The assurance of God’s faithfulness remains central:

“If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.”— 2 Timothy 2:13

This assurance must be heard with the preceding verse, which warns of denying Him. God remains faithful to His character and His word. His faithfulness gives us reason to trust Him and answer His call; it does not give us permission to disregard it. At the well, the invitation to receive living water and the revelation of true worship draw the woman towards a response.

She leaves her waterpot and goes into the city to speak about the One she has encountered. Many believe through her testimony, and more believe after hearing Jesus for themselves (John 4:28–42). The woman whom readers have so often reduced to her marital history becomes a witness through whom her community is drawn towards Christ.

The history of divided worship calls for honest examination, while the encounter at the well opens a way towards a faithful response. The Scriptures reveal the seriousness of the broken covenant and the mercy of the One who calls His people back. His invitation deserves an answer from the heart.

May we recognise the loyalties that have divided our hearts. May we bring our own choices before Christ without placing another person under a judgment the text has not given. And may we answer His truth and mercy with lives increasingly shaped by faithful love.

Workbook

Five Questions for the Reader

Read the suggested passages before answering. Use the space provided to reflect honestly, record what you recognise and identify a practical response to the chapter’s call for faithful devotion.

1 Have you feared the Lord but served your own gods like Samaria?

Read 2 Kings 17:33–35. Consider the difference between acknowledging God and allowing His word to govern your life. What loyalties repeatedly take precedence over obedience to Him? Name the patterns you actually recognise, such as the pursuit of approval or the refusal to surrender a particular ambition. Confess any divided devotion and identify one step towards faithfulness.

2 Which inherited patterns of unfaithfulness need to end with you?

Read 2 Kings 17:41, Jeremiah 3:12–13 and Ezekiel 18:14–20. What patterns in your family or community have shaped your understanding of worship, trust or commitment? Which have you begun to repeat? Describe what you know, and distinguish harm done to you from choices for which you are now responsible. Ezekiel describes the possibility of choosing a different path from an earlier generation. Name a pattern you want to change and a concrete action that would begin that change.[ER11] 

3 Is your relationship with God shaped by commitment or convenience?

Read John 4:16–18 and 2 Corinthians 11:2. Jesus knew the truth of the woman’s circumstances; Paul calls the church to devotion to Christ through the image of one husband. Using that covenant imagery, examine your own motives. Are you seeking God’s gifts while resisting the relationship and obedience to which He calls you? Where have you treated His blessings, His name or His church mainly as a means of obtaining what you want? Write what faithful commitment would look like in that part of your life.

4 Do you understand the covenant appeal of the Jealous Husband?

Read Exodus 34:14 and Jeremiah 3:19–20. Reflect on God’s claim upon His people’s worship and the prophets’ portrayal of covenant betrayal. Write a prayer or letter to God in response to these passages. Acknowledge His faithfulness, confess any competing allegiance you recognise and ask Him to help you respond with love and obedience. Let the words of Scripture guide your reflection on His heart.[ER12] 

5 Are you ready to turn from divided worship and receive living water?

Read John 4:13–14, 28–29 and 2 Corinthians 11:2. Name the loyalties you need to bring before Christ. You are not required to identify exactly five. Reflect on the woman’s departure from the well, leaving her waterpot behind, as a picture of changed priorities. What might change in your life as you answer His invitation? Write one act of obedience you will undertake and pray in your own words, using the following prayer as a starting point.[ER13] 

Lord Jesus, You know my history and the loyalties that divide my heart. Help me to receive Your gift, listen to Your truth and respond with faithful love. Show me what I need to surrender, and lead me in the obedience to which You call me. Amen.

Notes and References

Scripture quotations are from the King James Version (KJV). References in the chapter and workbook identify the relevant passages. “Succoth-benoth” is used in the prose and table; the KJV prints “Succothbenoth”.

[1] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, entry for bagad, indexed as Strong’s H898. The reproduced lexicon identifies treacherous or faithless conduct in marriage, covenants and other relationships. Online text: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/898.htm.

[2] 2 Kings 17:7–23, 24 and 29–41 distinguish the northern kingdom’s disobedience from the practices of the incoming peoples. Verses 30–31 name seven deities across the five groups in verse 24. Full KJV chapter: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Kings+17&version=KJV.

[3] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 9.14.3, section 288, translated by William Whiston. Josephus describes five incoming peoples bringing their own gods into Samaria; he does not connect them with John 4. Online text: https://lexundria.com/j_aj/9.288/wst.

[4] Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 63b, Soncino English translation, discussion of the deities in 2 Kings 17:30–31. The animal identifications are rabbinic interpretations and do not establish the proposed husband-and-wife pairings. Online text: https://halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_63.html.

[5] Hebrew text and morphological analysis of 2 Kings 17:30–31. The form asu, “made”, is a third-person plural verb. The Sepharvites’ action in verse 31 is expressed by a plural participle. Online texts: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_kings/17-30.htm and https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_kings/17-31.htm.

[6] John 4:16–18 gives the woman’s marital history; verses 20–26 record the discussion of worship and the Messiah; verses 28–42 describe her witness and the community’s response. The text does not expressly identify her husbands as gods or the current man as Rome. Full KJV chapter: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4&version=KJV.

Online sources accessed 5 October 2026.

 [ER1]The opening now follows the edited Chapter 1: the Shema is a command and confession of covenant devotion, explored through the prophets’ marriage imagery. It is not presented as a literal Jewish marriage contract.

 [ER2]Ezekiel 16:2 explicitly addresses Jerusalem. Hosea 11:1 uses a parent-and-child image for Israel. Both passages are retained with their own settings, rather than merged into a literal account of Samaria’s marriage.

 [ER3]The divine jealousy of Exodus 34:14 is retained as a covenant claim. Assertions that every loving spouse must be jealous, and invented descriptions of God’s sleeplessness or insecurity, have been removed. The chapter’s pastoral force is preserved through the biblical language of betrayal and faithfulness.

 [ER4]The deity discussion has been reorganised around the explicit biblical count: five incoming peoples and seven divine names (2 Kings 17:24, 30–31). The table preserves all seven names. The original “five gods” equation is not supported by the passage.

 [ER5]Josephus, Antiquities 9.14.3 (§288), supports five peoples bringing their gods. His testimony does not establish five marital systems or identify the five husbands in John 4. The approximate quotation has been replaced with a faithful paraphrase.

 [ER6]Sanhedrin 63b gives dog/donkey and mule/horse identifications. It does not identify these pairs as male-and-female marriage partners. The asserted sun/moon pairing and the reference to unspecified Assyrian records cannot substantiate a reduction of seven names to five husbands; those claims have been removed.

 [ER7]The form asu is plural, not singular. A verb with two objects does not make the objects one god. The text is in Kings, not attributed to Moses. The grammar has been corrected rather than used as numerical proof.

 [ER8]The possible national echo is retained as an interpretation, consistent with the introduction and Chapter 1. John 4:16–18 describes the woman’s marital history and does not identify the current man as Rome. Repeated fives, including the number of Torah books, do not establish an intended allegorical count.

 [ER9]2 Kings 17:13 places prophetic warnings before the northern kingdom’s exile. The draft incorrectly placed Elijah, Elisha, Amos and Hosea after the Assyrian deportation. The corrected paragraph preserves the theme of God’s continuing appeal without that chronology.

 [ER10]The draft’s statement that the woman was unfaithful because she had never encountered faithfulness is not supplied by John 4. The revised paragraph honours the woman’s individuality and avoids reintroducing the unsupported sexual judgments corrected in the introduction.

 [ER11]Workbook exercise 2 still examines inherited patterns. Its “bill of divorce” premise has been removed: Jeremiah’s national covenant metaphor does not mean the reader is divorced from God because of a parent’s wrongdoing. Ezekiel 18:14–20 supports personal responsibility and the possibility of a different response.

 [ER12]Workbook exercise 4 now asks for a prayer or letter to God, grounded in the cited passages. This keeps the reflection personal without supplying invented divine speech as though it were Scripture.

 [ER13]Workbook exercise 5 retains surrender, living water and the one-husband image as devotional themes. Readers are no longer required to name exactly five ancient gods or perform a waterpot ritual. Exercise 1 likewise avoids treating Nergal, Ashima and Succoth-benoth as biblical definitions of anger, approval or flesh.