2 Kings 17:28 Commentary: Bethel's Syncretistic Teaching

After the Assyrian conquest of Samaria in 722 BC, the king of Assyria resettled the northern kingdom with conquered peoples from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim (2 Kings 17:24). These colonists brought their own deities and sacred practices. At first they did not fear Yahweh at all, and lions began killing them, an event the colonists interpreted as the anger of the local deity whose law they did not know (vv.25-26).

The Assyrian king adopted a pragmatic policy: send back one of the exiled Israelite priests to teach the colonists how to fear the god of the land. The priest in question was quite literally one of the priests from Samaria, still alive, still vigorous enough for travel and teaching (Cambridge Bible). He chose to settle in Bethel, the very city where Jeroboam had set up the southern golden calf (1 Kings 12:29). There, at that compromised sanctuary, he began to teach. The Hebrew text emphasizes his activity as ongoing: a participle (מוֹרֶה, moreh) describing continuous instruction. But what exactly did he teach? The phrase "how they should fear Yahweh" uses the verb יָרֵא (yare), which carries a range from simple awe to covenant loyalty. The priest almost certainly taught the basic law of the God of Israel, perhaps the stories of the patriarchs, the exodus, the covenant, but without the exclusive demand that would have required the colonists to abandon their own gods. His own background as a calf-priest (Barnes, Gill) would have made him comfortable with a worship that looked like devotion to Yahweh but tolerated other altars.

This historical moment marks the birth of a syncretistic religion that would later develop into Samaritan worship, a faith the author of Kings evaluates with repeated disappointment: "So they feared Yahweh, and also made for themselves priests of the high places" (v.32), and ultimately "they feared Yahweh, and served their own gods" (v.33).

The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for this verse. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts. One point of interest: the verb “taught” appears as a participle (מוֹרֶה, moreh) in the Masoretic Text, emphasizing continuous or habitual action, the priest was repeatedly engaged in this instruction. Some versions (e.g., BSB) render it with an inceptive “began to teach,” which captures the initiation of an ongoing role. The underlying grammar supports both the start and the sustained nature of his teaching.

This verse has been read across Christian history primarily as the origin point of Samaritan religion. Early church writers viewed it as a story of compromise: a priest from a corrupt lineage teaching a half-obedience that foreshadowed the divided worship of the Samaritans. The Reformers, particularly Matthew Henry and John Wesley, used it to warn against adding human traditions to divine worship. Medieval Jewish commentators like Rashi connected it to the imperfect conversion of the nations brought into the land. In modern scholarship, the passage is studied for what it reveals about Assyrian imperial strategy, using local religious personnel to pacify conquered peoples, and for its critique of religious syncretism that claims to honor God while retaining idols.

Three-point outline

1. The priest they sent: a compromised teacher. The Assyrian king chose practicality over orthodoxy. He sent a priest who knew something of Yahweh but whose own worship was already mixed. The result was instruction that stopped short of demanding exclusive loyalty.
2. The place they chose: Bethel. Not Jerusalem, not Mount Gerizim, but the site of Jeroboam's golden calf. Geography echoes theology: this was a place where Yahweh was worshipped in a form He had forbidden. The location shaped the message.
3. The outcome they produced: a partial fear. The colonists learned to fear Yahweh, but they also kept their own gods. Their religion added Yahweh alongside Moloch, Nergal, and Ashima. It was reverence without repentance, worship without surrender.

Five-point outline

1. A policy of spiritual pragmatism (v.24-27). The king's solution to the lion problem was a religious consultant, not a call to conversion.
2. A priest of mixed credentials (v.28a). He was an Israelite priest, but from the corrupt northern system. His legitimacy was questionable.
3. A location with a history (v.28b). Bethel meant "house of God," but it had become a center of idolatry. The setting reinforced the mixed message.
4. Instruction that informed, but did not transform (v.28c). The grammar, a participle of continuous action, suggests ongoing teaching. But it never called the people to forsake their gods.
5. The fruit of half-hearted fear (v.29-33). Syncretism: Yahweh on the altar, idols in the pocket. This is the outcome when God is added to life, not enthroned over it.

Illustration hooks

• The rennovated house. A family moves into a fixer-upper. They paint the living room and replace the kitchen counters, but leave a load-bearing wall dangerously cracked. The house looks improved, but the foundation is unstable. So was the religion built at Bethel.
• The employee handbook. A company hires a new manager from another firm where the rules were relaxed. He teaches the team how to do the job, mostly right, but he skips the safety protocols that would slow production. The work gets done, but someone gets hurt. Partial obedience still carries risk.

Questions your congregation is asking

• How do I know if the teaching I receive is truly from God, or mixed with human traditions?
• Can I fear God and still hold onto my favorite sins? Where is the line?
• What does it look like to worship God exclusively in a culture that encourages me to "add" Him to my life without subtracting anything?

This verse is the hinge of a tragic story: the Assyrian king's practical answer to a spiritual problem, and the start of a centuries-long pattern of mixed worship. As you read, notice the details, who the priest was, where he settled, what his teaching produced. The text does not condemn him openly, but the surrounding verses show the disappointing fruit. Discuss together what this passage says about the importance of pure teaching and exclusive devotion.

Discussion questions

1. What do we learn about the priest from his background (an exiled priest from Samaria) and his choice of residence (Bethel)?
2. Read 2 Kings 17:25-26. Why were the colonists being killed by lions? How did they interpret the problem?
3. The king's solution was pragmatic: send a priest. But what assumptions did the king and the people make about the God of Israel? How does that compare with how God wants to be known?
4. The Hebrew verb for "teach" is a participle (מוֹרֶה, moreh), showing ongoing action. What might that imply about the kind of instruction the colonists received, and what it lacked?
5. Compare the priest's teaching with what Jesus says in Matthew 15:14 about blind guides. In what sense was Israel's religion prior to exile already a form of blindness?
6. Why is it so tempting to add God to our existing beliefs rather than letting Him displace them? What cultural "other gods" do we most easily retain alongside our faith?
7. How can we ensure that the teaching we receive and pass on demands exclusive loyalty to Christ, not a comfortable compromise?