The king of Assyria sought to appease the local deity by reinstating an exiled priest to teach divine customs in Samaria, but this partial, politically motivated approach did not yield the true worship and faithfulness God desires.
Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, “Take there one of the priests whom you carried away into exile and let him go and live there; and let him teach them the custom of the god of the land.” (v.27)
In 2 Kings 17:27, we see the king of Assyria issuing a royal decree that further shapes the spiritual condition of the region. This took place around 722 BC, immediately following the capture and exile of the ten tribes of Israel, whose capital, Samaria, was defeated by Assyria. Historical records indicate that King Shalmaneser V (727-722 BC) originally laid siege to Samaria, though his successor, Sargon II (722-705 BC), also took credit for fully subjugating the northern kingdom. At this time, the indigenous Israelite population in Samaria had been largely deported, and new inhabitants from other regions of the Assyrian Empire were settled in the land (2 Kings 17:24). Many of these foreigners did not follow the LORD’s standards, causing conflict with the local wildlife, culture, and religious practices.
By commanding, “Take there one of the priests whom you carried away into exile…and let him teach them the custom of the god of the land” (v.27), the king of Assyria intended to avert further calamity among these imported peoples. The new foreign settlers experienced troubling events—such as attacks by lions (2 Kings 17:25)—and superstitiously linked these to their unfamiliarity with the local deity. Therefore, one of the former Israelite priests from the northern kingdom was allowed to return, so he could instruct them in “the custom of the god of the land” (v.27)—meaning the worship of Yahweh.
Geographically, this was taking place in the land of Samaria, the mountainous central district of what had formerly been the northern Kingdom of Israel. The aim was pragmatic: to placate the “god of the land,” so that the inhabitants might find peace instead of divine judgment. In effect, however, this situation resulted in a syncretistic faith. The priest who taught the newcomers offered only a partial view of Yahweh. Consequently, these settlers mixed local worship practices with their own native religious customs. This fusion of religious traditions was an early step in the formation of the Samaritan people, who would be at religious odds with the Jews in later centuries (John 4:9).
Yet this verse conveys a deeper narrative about God’s universal sovereignty. Even the Assyrian king, one of the most politically powerful men in the world at that time, recognized that local powers were subject to divine influence. In the Old Testament framework, no nation could ultimately ignore God. This principle echoes throughout Scripture and serves as a precursor to Jesus’ universal call for worshipers in spirit and truth (John 4:23). Here, the pagan king’s approach to the divine is transactional and superstitious; nevertheless, it shows God’s involvement in every corner of the ancient Near East—even within mighty Assyria’s dominion.
This single verse illuminates how Israel’s covenant faith could be fragmented when handled as a mere cultural custom rather than the transforming worship of the one true God. While the Assyrian king sought a quick fix by returning an Israelite priest, the full call to love God exclusively (Deuteronomy 6:5) and do justice (Micah 6:8) was not fully imparted to foreigners who settled in Samaria. This story highlights the repeated biblical theme that knowledge of the LORD, when disconnected from wholehearted devotion, becomes diluted and improperly practiced.
It underscores a theme that resonates with the New Testament presentation of Jesus, who fulfills every element of God’s law by centering worship not on a location or formula (John 4:21) but on a life surrendered to God. True relationship with God depends not on mere cultural assimilation but on personal, covenant-based faith. The Assyrian king’s imperative to “teach them the custom” served more of a political objective than a pursuit of true righteousness, showing how reliance on forms of worship alone can result in crossbred and incomplete devotion.
This verse portrays the pragmatic policies of worldly rulers who try to appease the divine in a way that suits their interests. Yet God desires true worship and obedience, which cannot be procured by a single token gesture or by integrating religious routines from various traditions. As the biblical story progresses, centuries later, Jesus would walk through this very area of Samaria, extending an invitation to drink of the living water that alone can satisfy (John 4:10).
This verse, therefore, points us to a reality beyond merely adopting “the custom of the god of the land.” Instead, it invites us to seek covenant fidelity to the LORD Himself. With God’s ultimate plan in mind, 2 Kings 17:27 recasts our attention to the serious nature of rightful worship, cautioning us not to reduce faith to a localized superstition, but to view it as a personal covenant with the Creator of heaven and earth.
This verse shows how pragmatic political maneuvers meet the divine purposes of the LORD, who remains sovereign whether in Israel, Assyria, or anywhere else. Even as the exiled Israelites learned obedience through hardship, the LORD’s character and His covenant law remained unchanged. The human king’s actions echo the ephemeral solutions of earthly kingdoms, contrasting with God’s enduring call to worship with true reverence.
It conveys that the attempt to co-opt a modicum of the local faith was insufficient. God does not accept partial worship. That principle remains true in New Testament teaching, as Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37). Anything less than wholehearted worship remains incomplete—just as it did in 2 Kings 17:27.
This brief verse thus reminds us that genuine relationship with God depends not on legalistic or superficial protocols but on embracing Him as the one true Lord with total devotion.
It shows how the Assyrian king’s command served a temporary political solution but did not address the deeper covenant requirement to exclusively follow Yahweh in every aspect of life.
Set to dark mode
2 Kings 17:27 meaning
Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, “Take there one of the priests whom you carried away into exile and let him go and live there; and let him teach them the custom of the god of the land.” (v.27)
In 2 Kings 17:27, we see the king of Assyria issuing a royal decree that further shapes the spiritual condition of the region. This took place around 722 BC, immediately following the capture and exile of the ten tribes of Israel, whose capital, Samaria, was defeated by Assyria. Historical records indicate that King Shalmaneser V (727-722 BC) originally laid siege to Samaria, though his successor, Sargon II (722-705 BC), also took credit for fully subjugating the northern kingdom. At this time, the indigenous Israelite population in Samaria had been largely deported, and new inhabitants from other regions of the Assyrian Empire were settled in the land (2 Kings 17:24). Many of these foreigners did not follow the LORD’s standards, causing conflict with the local wildlife, culture, and religious practices.
By commanding, “Take there one of the priests whom you carried away into exile…and let him teach them the custom of the god of the land” (v.27), the king of Assyria intended to avert further calamity among these imported peoples. The new foreign settlers experienced troubling events—such as attacks by lions (2 Kings 17:25)—and superstitiously linked these to their unfamiliarity with the local deity. Therefore, one of the former Israelite priests from the northern kingdom was allowed to return, so he could instruct them in “the custom of the god of the land” (v.27)—meaning the worship of Yahweh.
Geographically, this was taking place in the land of Samaria, the mountainous central district of what had formerly been the northern Kingdom of Israel. The aim was pragmatic: to placate the “god of the land,” so that the inhabitants might find peace instead of divine judgment. In effect, however, this situation resulted in a syncretistic faith. The priest who taught the newcomers offered only a partial view of Yahweh. Consequently, these settlers mixed local worship practices with their own native religious customs. This fusion of religious traditions was an early step in the formation of the Samaritan people, who would be at religious odds with the Jews in later centuries (John 4:9).
Yet this verse conveys a deeper narrative about God’s universal sovereignty. Even the Assyrian king, one of the most politically powerful men in the world at that time, recognized that local powers were subject to divine influence. In the Old Testament framework, no nation could ultimately ignore God. This principle echoes throughout Scripture and serves as a precursor to Jesus’ universal call for worshipers in spirit and truth (John 4:23). Here, the pagan king’s approach to the divine is transactional and superstitious; nevertheless, it shows God’s involvement in every corner of the ancient Near East—even within mighty Assyria’s dominion.
This single verse illuminates how Israel’s covenant faith could be fragmented when handled as a mere cultural custom rather than the transforming worship of the one true God. While the Assyrian king sought a quick fix by returning an Israelite priest, the full call to love God exclusively (Deuteronomy 6:5) and do justice (Micah 6:8) was not fully imparted to foreigners who settled in Samaria. This story highlights the repeated biblical theme that knowledge of the LORD, when disconnected from wholehearted devotion, becomes diluted and improperly practiced.
It underscores a theme that resonates with the New Testament presentation of Jesus, who fulfills every element of God’s law by centering worship not on a location or formula (John 4:21) but on a life surrendered to God. True relationship with God depends not on mere cultural assimilation but on personal, covenant-based faith. The Assyrian king’s imperative to “teach them the custom” served more of a political objective than a pursuit of true righteousness, showing how reliance on forms of worship alone can result in crossbred and incomplete devotion.
This verse portrays the pragmatic policies of worldly rulers who try to appease the divine in a way that suits their interests. Yet God desires true worship and obedience, which cannot be procured by a single token gesture or by integrating religious routines from various traditions. As the biblical story progresses, centuries later, Jesus would walk through this very area of Samaria, extending an invitation to drink of the living water that alone can satisfy (John 4:10).
This verse, therefore, points us to a reality beyond merely adopting “the custom of the god of the land.” Instead, it invites us to seek covenant fidelity to the LORD Himself. With God’s ultimate plan in mind, 2 Kings 17:27 recasts our attention to the serious nature of rightful worship, cautioning us not to reduce faith to a localized superstition, but to view it as a personal covenant with the Creator of heaven and earth.
This verse shows how pragmatic political maneuvers meet the divine purposes of the LORD, who remains sovereign whether in Israel, Assyria, or anywhere else. Even as the exiled Israelites learned obedience through hardship, the LORD’s character and His covenant law remained unchanged. The human king’s actions echo the ephemeral solutions of earthly kingdoms, contrasting with God’s enduring call to worship with true reverence.
It conveys that the attempt to co-opt a modicum of the local faith was insufficient. God does not accept partial worship. That principle remains true in New Testament teaching, as Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37). Anything less than wholehearted worship remains incomplete—just as it did in 2 Kings 17:27.
This brief verse thus reminds us that genuine relationship with God depends not on legalistic or superficial protocols but on embracing Him as the one true Lord with total devotion.
It shows how the Assyrian king’s command served a temporary political solution but did not address the deeper covenant requirement to exclusively follow Yahweh in every aspect of life.