2 Kings 17:24 Commentary: Repopulation and the Legacy of Judgment

2 Kings 17:24 recounts the aftermath of the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel (c. 722 BC). The Assyrian empire, under rulers like Shalmaneser V, Sargon II, and later Esar-haddon, employed deportation and resettlement as a deliberate tool of control. By removing conquered populations from their homelands and transplanting other subject peoples in their place, the empire severed local loyalties, disrupted potential revolts, and created a mosaic of dependent colonies.

The five places named in this verse, Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, represent regions the Assyrians had subdued over decades of expansion. Babylon and Cuthah were in Mesopotamia; Hamath was a Syrian city on the Orontes; Sepharvaim (Sippara) lay on the Euphrates; Avva (or Ivah) is likely a site in the same region. All were under Assyrian dominion, and their inhabitants were now forcibly relocated to Samaritan territory.

This policy explains the mixed character of the population that emerged. The land was not entirely emptied, a remnant of the poorest Israelites remained (cf. 2 Kings 24:14; 2 Chronicles 34:9), but the newcomers became the dominant group. Their initial failure to acknowledge Yahweh led to a divine judgment of lions (vv.25-26), which prompted the Assyrian king to send back an exiled Israelite priest to teach them “the law of the God of the land” (v.27). Yet the colonists continued to worship their own gods alongside Yahweh, creating a syncretistic religion that later biblical writers and Jewish tradition would identify with the Samaritans. This verse thus marks the beginning of a long, complicated relationship between the remnant of Israel and the foreign settlers in Samaria, a tension that persisted into the time of Jesus.

The supplied sources do not note any significant textual variants for 2 Kings 17:24. The verse is stable across the major Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions, with the list of locations appearing consistently. Variant spellings of place names (e.g., Avva vs. Ivah, Cuthah vs. Cutha) reflect common orthographic differences within Hebrew, not textual uncertainty.

In Jewish tradition, this verse was seen as the origin of the Samaritans (Cuthim), who were regarded as foreign converts with an imperfect adherence to the Law. The Talmud and later rabbinic writings frequently debate the status of Samaritans, tracing their mixed lineage to these colonists. Early Christian writers, such as Eusebius, noted the fulfillment of prophecy in the desolation of Israel’s land and the settlement of strangers, viewing it as a judgment pattern that pointed to the need for a new covenant. Throughout church history, the verse has been read as a caution against religious syncretism and as a demonstration of God’s seriousness about covenant faithfulness. Modern commentators continue to use this passage to discuss the theology of exile and the sovereignty of God over the nations.

Three-point outline

1. The completeness of judgment, Israel’s sin led to their removal; foreigners now occupy the land that was once their inheritance (v.24).
2. Human schemes and divine sovereignty, Assyria’s resettlement was a political tactic, but God used it to fulfill His word through the prophets (2 Kings 17:23).
3. A warning against syncretism, The colonists “feared the Lord and served their own gods” (v.33). This mixed worship is a perpetual danger for God’s people.

Five-point outline

1. The king’s strategy, Assyria repopulates Samaria to secure control and prevent rebellion.
2. The places named, Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, Sepharvaim: each a defeated nation, now resettled in Israel’s vacant cities.
3. God’s hand behind the scenes, The exile and resettlement fulfill the judgment pronounced through prophets like Isaiah and Amos.
4. The lions and the lesson, The new settlers’ ignorance of Yahweh leads to divine discipline, prompting the request for instruction (vv.25-28).
5. The birth of Samaritan religion, A priest from Israel teaches them, but they blend Yahweh-worship with their native cults, creating a flawed faith that echoes through later history.

Illustration hooks

• A company relocates an entire office to a new city, then fills the empty desks with new hires from elsewhere. The old team’s fingerprints are gone, and the culture shifts entirely.
• A family moves into a foreclosed home whose previous owners left suddenly. They bring their own furniture, paint the walls, and change the locks, nothing remains of the former occupants.
• When a sports team leaves a city, the stadium is soon filled with a new franchise and new fans. Memories fade; the arena belongs to someone else.

Questions your congregation is asking

• Why did God allow foreigners to take over the Promised Land?
• Does this mean God’s covenant with Israel was broken permanently?
• How does this history relate to the tension between Jews and Samaritans in the New Testament?

This verse describes a political and theological turning point: Israel’s land is given to foreign peoples. As you read, notice the bluntness of the statement, no commentary, just the fact. The writer trusts that readers know the backstory: Israel was exiled because of persistent sin. Now the land has new occupants. How does this change the way we understand God’s justice and mercy?

Discussion questions

1. What does the fact that the king imported colonists “from Babylon, from Cuthah, from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim” tell you about Assyrian imperial strategy?
2. Why might the biblical author include the specific names of these cities? What is gained by this detail?
3. Read 2 Kings 17:7-23. How does the sin of Israel make sense of the repopulation in v.24?
4. The new settlers “possessed Samaria and lived in its cities.” What would that mean for any Israelites left behind?
5. How does God’s sending of lions (v.25) show that He still claims this land as His own, even with foreign occupants?
6. In what ways does the mixed worship that follows (vv.29-41) serve as a warning for Christians today about syncretism in our own lives?
7. How does the history of the Samaritans help us understand Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman (John 4) or the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10)?