Who is my neighbor?

[Robert]

It was a parable, and could have been a real story. The scribe didn't contest that the story was at least true to life.

But was it real or was it hyperbole, a parable?

But here were two men who were natural enemies.

I had understood them to be enmities, not enemies. Mostly the Isrealites saw them as outcast and unpure. They were the Jews that did not go to Babylon and return. They married into some of the other tribes still in the area. Genetic testing show that they do carry a lot of Jewish DNA, and set themselves apart some since their DNA did not blend as much with the tribes in the area.

Jesus challenged the scribe to obey the Law, and love his neighbor as himself. This was a bit hard on the scribe, and in true dialectical fashion, he rebutted with the question, "who is my neighbor".

I agree, this is very key to the story.

He may hate you to start with, but by the time you show genuine love to him, he will probably love you too.

I see it more a call to do what is right no matter how the other person reacts. We do not have anything in the story that the beaten man ever returns kindness. I think we can assume this because of other verses, but not easy in this story.

Loved your post Lester. Gets me thinking.

[lesterb]

It was a parable, and could have been a real story. The scribe didn't contest that the story was at least true to life.

But was it real or was it hyperbole, a parable?

There isn't anything here that had to be hyperbole, but I suspect that priest and the levite passing by like they did probably were there to make a point. Maybe it happened but probably it was to make the story hit home to the scribe.

But here were two men who were natural enemies.

I had understood them to be enmities, not enemies. Mostly the Isrealites saw them as outcast and unpure. They were the Jews that did not go to Babylon and return. They married into some of the other tribes still in the area. Genetic testing show that they do carry a lot of Jewish DNA, and set themselves apart some since their DNA did not blend as much with the tribes in the area.

Well, maybe, but the Jews were really nasty to the Samaritans.

Jesus challenged the scribe to obey the Law, and love his neighbor as himself. This was a bit hard on the scribe, and in true dialectical fashion, he rebutted with the question, "who is my neighbor".

I agree, this is very key to the story.

He may hate you to start with, but by the time you show genuine love to him, he will probably love you too.

I see it more a call to do what is right no matter how the other person reacts. We do not have anything in the story that the beaten man ever returns kindness. I think we can assume this because of other verses, but not easy in this story.

Loved your post Lester. Gets me thinking.

I like your approach. To often we read things into parables that aren't intended to be understood that way.

Jesus wanted the scribe to come up with his own answer. He knew he would have done what the priest and levite did. So he had his answer. Which was what Jesus was after.

Like you said, the rest is peripheral. What the Jew thought of the Samaritan is moot. That wasn't the point. The point was that here was a hated Samaritan that did a better job of being true to the natural interpretation of the Law that the Scribe was.

[KingdomBuilder]

Wonderful thread, fellows.

[Josh]

I'm still not getting from this parable to "the universal brotherhood of man is my neighbour, and every commandment to treat my neighbour a certain way applies to the entire world population".

I won't be able to have a useful discussion with someone who thinks that's the case. It will just descend into accusations that I "hate my neighbour" and "why won't you obey what the Bible says to do to your neighbour", because we can't even agree on what a neighbour is. Cue comparing me to the Pharisees as well.

Ultimately, the end path of this is that not voting Democratic = not loving my neighbour. That's essentially the posture taken at MennoNerds. It's a line of discussion I find completely unfruitful.

[Robert]

Jesus wanted the scribe to come up with his own answer. He knew he would have done what the priest and levite did. So he had his answer. Which was what Jesus was after.

I agree. This was the purpose.

What the Jew thought of the Samaritan is moot. That wasn't the point. The point was that here was a hated Samaritan that did a better job of being true to the natural interpretation of the Law that the Scribe was.

Yep. Exactly how I see it.

I'm still not getting from this parable to "the universal brotherhood of man is my neighbour, and every commandment to treat my neighbour a certain way applies to the entire world population".

Because, for me, it is more about Jesus opening our eyes to see others as a human, not as an Israelite or Samaritan. We can do what the Law requires and still miss the mark. The rest is not in the text.

I believe it is a parable. I do not think it happened, or happened like the story. It is a story to make a point. Jesus does this often.

Thanks to Lester, I think we dug down to the core of the text.

Now I would love to open things up to additional scripture that comes to mind and helps us understand or expand on the core idea. This can help us in ways, but we also have to remember that the ones hearing it only know the Torah. There was no NT written. Much of it had not even been spoken. We have to be careful not to take the text further than its purpose, but we can blend it with other text to develop a fuller picture of Jesus' teachings and vision for us.

Wonderful thread, fellows.

Yea, I think I need to work on doing this more.

[Bootstrap]

Ultimately, the end path of this is that not voting Democratic = not loving my neighbour. That's essentially the posture taken at MennoNerds. It's a line of discussion I find completely unfruitful.

That would be silly, and I'm definitely not saying that. This is not a parable about politics or who to vote for.

I'm still not getting from this parable to "the universal brotherhood of man is my neighbour, and every commandment to treat my neighbour a certain way applies to the entire world population".

There's no concept of "the universal brotherhood of man" in this verse. On the other hand, the Samaritan is someone whose religion, ethnicity, and nationality are offensive to the Jews, and the parable does seem to call us to be neighbors across lines of hostility. Jews do not even talk to Samaritans. Calling a Jew a Samaritan is an insult like calling a Jew a demon.

The Jew lying in the ditch was not a neighbor to the Samaritan, the Samaritan was a neighbor to the Jew lying in the ditch. We are called to be neighbors in the same way that the Samaritan was. Not only to people who have earned the right by being neighbors to us. The Jew lying in the ditch might not even have been willing to talk to the Samaritan on the street.

[Wayne in Maine]

I'm still not getting from this parable to "the universal brotherhood of man is my neighbour, and every commandment to treat my neighbor a certain way applies to the entire world population".

The Hebrew behind the commandment Jesus cites implies that a "neighbor" is a member of one's community. It is a misinterpretation of this parable to suggest that Jesus is here teaching that all men must treat all other men as neighbors. I read it as Jesus telling the Jews to treat fellow Jews with mercy, - that is, treat your neighbor as your neighbor.

I won't be able to have a useful discussion with someone who thinks that's the case. It will just descend into accusations that I "hate my neighbor" and "why won't you obey what the Bible says to do to your neighbor", because we can't even agree on what a neighbour is. Cue comparing me to the Pharisees as well.

A true observation as illustrated by the reaction to the can of worms I opened up in asking t look more closely at what the terms "brother, neighbor, foreigner and sojourner" mean in their context: Matthew 25 - limit our love to obedient Christians?. The same issue of the "universal brotherhood of man is illustrated in how most people interpret Jesus when He said ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me’, and how some react when one tries to actually find out who Jesus's "brothers" are by looking at what else Jesus said.

Ultimately, the end path of this is that not voting Democratic = not loving my neighbour. That's essentially the posture taken at MennoNerds. It's a line of discussion I find completely unfruitful.

I think there is a lot more partisan political influence (maybe even a form of Menno Political Correctness) in these discussions than many would like to admit.

[Bootstrap]

The Hebrew behind the commandment Jesus cites implies that a "neighbor" is a member of one's community. It is a misinterpretation of this parable to suggest that Jesus is here teaching that all men must treat all other men as neighbors. I read it as Jesus telling the Jews to treat fellow Jews with mercy, - that is, treat your neighbor as your neighbor.

Wouldn't the expert in the law have understood it the same way you do before Jesus told the Parable? If not, what new thing is Jesus confronting him with?

And why is this not "the Parable of the Good Jew?" Choosing to use a Samaritan in this is striking, and would have been in-your-face to Jews. How do you understand this aspect of the Parable?

The same issue of the "universal brotherhood of man is illustrated in how most people interpret Jesus when He said ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me’, and how some react when one tries to actually find out who Jesus's "brothers" are by looking at what else Jesus said.

There's a huge difference between "a Christian is called to serve all men" and "there is a universal brotherhood of man". I think the parable says "go be a neighbor!" Not just to fellow Jews in your community who are on the same path - the Samaritan was not doing that, he was being a neighbor to someone from a group that hated him.

I think there is a lot more partisan political influence (maybe even a form of Menno Political Correctness) in these discussions than many would like to admit.

I hear several people dismissing the parallels between Samaritans and Jews back then and Muslims and Christians now. I don't hear them explaining why. To me, the two are strikingly similar. I don't think that comes from political correctness, I think that comes from my understanding of who the Samaritans were back then. Perhaps it would be better to address that directly, rather than wave it off? If I am misunderstanding the relationship between Samaritans and Jews, in what way? If I am misunderstanding the parable, in what way?

The best way to get past our political prejudices is not to bring up partisan politics repeatedly when we try to focus on Scripture. I hope we can let Scripture tell us things that are uncomfortable for us, no matter where we start out. Like the expert in the law, it's easy for all of us to justify ourselves.

[Wayne in Maine]

The Hebrew behind the commandment Jesus cites implies that a "neighbor" is a member of one's community. It is a misinterpretation of this parable to suggest that Jesus is here teaching that all men must treat all other men as neighbors. I read it as Jesus telling the Jews to treat fellow Jews with mercy, - that is, treat your neighbor as your neighbor.

Wouldn't the expert in the law have understood it the same way you do before Jesus told the Parable? If not, what new thing is Jesus confronting him with?

"But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, 'Who is my neighbour?' "

And why is this not "the Parable of the Good Jew?"

I don't get hung up on the heading publishers add to bibles...

Choosing to use a Samaritan in this is striking, and would have been in-your-face to Jews. How do you understand this aspect of the Parable?

Choosing a Samaritan in this context is a great way for Jesus to answer the lawyer. After telling the story Jesus asked the lawyer "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" And the Lawyer answered "The one who showed mercy to him". Jesus replied to the lawyer "go and do likewise". Jesus answered the Lawyers question, he enjoined Jew to treat an injured Jew with mercy - the man who was a natural neighbor by illustrating how an non-Jew treated a Jew in a neighborly way.

None of this in any way precludes us from doing good to all, even to our enemies. There are many other things Jesus taught as relates to how we treat members of our family, community, civil authorities and outsiders. But not everything Jesus taught about how we relate to others is universal, and in fact I think to treat His teachings as universal (as Josh put it "...every commandment to treat my neighbor a certain way applies to the entire world population") actually waters down Jesus' teachings and excuses us from helping our actual neighbor or treating Jesus' brothers and sisters as we would Christ Himself.

[Robert]

I hear several people dismissing the parallels between Samaritans and Jews back then and Muslims and Christians now.

I see some similarities, but some differences. Rome was the power and in control. Israelites and Samaritans were both under Rome rule. They had little power. The power structure was totally different. The Israelites were more the refugees from Babylon. The Samaritans lived there.

Samaritan were disliked greatly by many Jews. Christians do not hate Muslims as a whole. Most can easily tolerate and associate with them. Israelites were told not to at that time.

I don't get hung up on the heading publishers add to bibles...

And the Lawyer answered "The one who showed mercy to him". Jesus replied to the lawyer "go and do likewise".

The dislike for the Samaritans was so great the Lawyer could not even say it. He responded with "The one who showed mercy" instead of naming him. I see this as call to be a neighbor, not to change cultural dynamics. Jesus seemed to really stay away from that. His message was directly towards the Israelites. I do think this verse is about helping your community. I think it says our community is who we are around.

His teachings as universal (as Josh put it "...every commandment to treat my neighbor a certain way applies to the entire world population") actually waters down Jesus' teachings and excuses us from helping our actual neighbor or treating Jesus' brothers and sisters as we would Christ Himself.

And we have to be careful not to cut off the great commission. Israel is supposed to be a light to the nations. They were not. Jesus was reminding them that this was their purpose. Now, the disciples of Christ have been given that responsibility. This does mean we help our neighbors and in a modern context, people around the world can become our neighbors. Finding a balance so we give and do not give out is needed. The US government light does not need to shine. We, as a thousand points of light, need to shine.