Religious Conservatives Don't Fully Understand the Good Samaritan

[Dale]

The point of the story is given by Jesus in the last statement of the story: "Go and do likewise," very much in the context about showing mercy.

Note that the lawyer who was questioning Jesus and to whom Jesus was talking, was probably a Jew. It was instruction to him in the context of his Jewish society; had it been much about ethnicity, would not Jesus at the end (v.37 of Luke 10) has said something like, "Go and do likewise, even (or especially) in the case of someone of another ethnicity." Jesus did not particularly want it to be about ethnicity; he did not do like he did with the mercy and compassion element, point to ethnicity at the end of the Parable and say that it was about that.

The one who responded to the person in great need, the helpless one, unable on his own to get out of the ditch he was in, his ethnicity is mentioned, yet only as a sub-point, that being a true neighbor is something for which ethnicity does not matter.
It is even conceivable (since he did not point to it), that he did not mean to say anything about ethnicity, with making one character Samaritan (to set him apart, which it certainly did), gave us the more or less official name of the Parable.
Perhaps that setting apart is why Jesus spoke of a Samaritan in the first place?

Might it be that a Samaritan happened to pass by just when Jesus was needing to name the neighbor character, and a seemingly contingent happening was all that was behind his usage of the "Samaritan" name? Except he would recognize it was a good neighbor name for recognition of the fact the neighbor could be anybody that one happened to pass by who was in great need ... Note how all elements of this identification of "neighbor" (point of Jesus story) are necessary.

It is only a liberal who makes much of ethnicity, i.e. is often blatantly racist.
Seems a lot of minorities are encouraged to, and pretty much do, see everything in terms of race.

It appears perhaps liberals want to add to Scripture with such a reference to ethnicity, which Scripture does not explicitly claim.

Does your Paschall and Hobbs, which I don't have, happen to have a Biblical defense of the claim, "Jesus taught that service for God involves serving people who are deprived, hurt, and avoided by others"?
I would sure appreciate, if there is anything of that sort (around p.648...), that you would pass some of it along to us. I doubt there's much to be pointed to, but would welcome it if there is anything...
I incline to the view of Jesus that, "The poor you always have amongst you," that the poor are not to be particularly singled for special consideration, and certainly not rise above service to Christ. You might point to it being a special case of the Christ man himself, but I think the answer of Christ represents a general God attitude.

In the Parable at hand, it appears to me that he is not talking about the generally "deprived, hurt, and avoided by others" people, but the person in the extreme condition of requiring temporary immediate assistance. Two quite different things, especially if the serving other people pointed out here is some sort of state enterprise.
Seems to me the definition of neighbor put forth by Jesus was the usual understanding, those in the neighborhood, those one comes across in the course of one's activities. But not only is it someone rather local, where one is, it is someone in dire need, one half dead, that is the sample Jesus puts before us.
Not some one in a distant land where everyone is poor, as would be the distortion of the Parable to be some sort of justification for immigration and welcoming refugees.

"The lawyer had asked the wrong question. He should have asked: To whom can I be a neighbor? Only with this attitude could he fulfil the commandment of love."
This shows how much the one who wants this to be all about accepting another ethnicity is raising and answering another question. Jesus constructed the parable to be an occasion to highlight not "who" one should be showing mercy to in terms of ethnicity, but that there should be mercy in the case of critical aid needed by someone one comes upon.

I just noticed that there is a possibility it was NOTHING about ethnicity in terms of lessons from Jesus, at least not in his mind, because the "certain man" attacked by thieves may also have been a Samaritan. Do you not think if the point for Jesus was ethnicity he would have been sure to point out that the person being helped was NOT of the same ethnicity as the one being neighbor to him?

Douglas,



In Post #5 you say that ethnicity is tangential to the meaning of the Good Samaritan. In post #16 you say that Jesus relied on "the usual understanding" of "neighbor" and that the parable told us "NOTHING about ethnicity." You also say that the commentary I cited isn't available to you.



In John Gill's famous commentary, he says about the Good Samaritan and the definition of "neighbor:

"... for by his neighbour he meant only an Israelite; one of the same nation and religion with him. So the Jews commonly interpret the word neighbour, either of one that is related to them in nature, (wbwrq) , that is, near akin to them in blood; or that professes the same religion as they do, and whom they call a neighbour in the law; and so they explain the passage now cited, "and thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself", (hrwtb Ker awhv) ; "that is, who is thy neighbour in the law": for they will not allow a Gentile, no, not even a proselyte of the gate to be a neighbour ..."

Gill gives an example from the writings of the Rabbis, where a Jew was not obligated to save a drowning Gentile.

Gill concludes: "This notion Christ opposes and disproves in the following parable, which is an answer to the lawyer's question. "

John Gill's commentary is available online.

Link:
Luke 10:29 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas,
In Post #5 you say that ethnicity is tangential to the meaning of the Good Samaritan. In post #16 you say that Jesus relied on "the usual understanding" of "neighbor" and that the parable told us "NOTHING about ethnicity." You also say that the commentary I cited isn't available to you.
In John Gill's famous commentary, he says about the Good Samaritan and the definition of "neighbor:
"... for by his neighbour he meant only an Israelite; one of the same nation and religion with him. So the Jews commonly interpret the word neighbour, either of one that is related to them in nature, (wbwrq) , that is, near akin to them in blood; or that professes the same religion as they do, and whom they call a neighbour in the law; and so they explain the passage now cited, "and thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself", (hrwtb Ker awhv) ; "that is, who is thy neighbour in the law": for they will not allow a Gentile, no, not even a proselyte of the gate to be a neighbour ..."
Gill gives an example from the writings of the Rabbis, where a Jew was not obligated to save a drowning Gentile.
Gill concludes: "This notion Christ opposes and disproves in the following parable, which is an answer to the lawyer's question. "
John Gill's commentary is available online.

Link:
Luke 10:29 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

Dale,
I apologize for being SO LONG on this - some things came up that I had to deal with, and this got somewhat lost in the shuffle.

I don't see that Gill has very much to base that "opposes and disproves" claim on.

The example Gill came up with speaks of the drowning being at sea, in other words not in one's neighborhood.

I wish Gill had quoted the actual Jewish law(s);

So one of the same religion was called "a neighbor in the law."
"In the law" would mean God's law, would it not?
So, "a fellow believer" is what this special kind of neighbor was.
That is, a fellow Jew is a special kind of neighbor. That extended use of the term neighbor does not even mean it would have any relation to any other usage of the term "neighbor."

Did Hebrew have a different term for someone in the same neighborhood, I wonder? If "neighbor" as Gill finds it had none of that component, and was only about ... but that is not true, ...

I still find that if it was "all about" ethnicity, would not at least the ethnicity of the waylaid person in the neighborhood of the Samaritan coming by have been indicated, if not Jesus actually pointing to a difference of ethnicity? Mercy and the occasion to show mercy is indicated specifically, seems to me. Not the other supposed ethnicity element.

Seems with making the "Good" character a Samaritan, he was contrasting the "outcast" and one "not normally a neighbor" (is it even a stretch to assume that?), with the ones one would normally expect to be helpful, the priest and the Levite. Not that he scolds them; only that supposedly the best amongst us often do not have the required compassion.

 

[Dale]

Dale,
I apologize for being SO LONG on this - some things came up that I had to deal with, and this got somewhat lost in the shuffle.

I don't see that Gill has very much to base that "opposes and disproves" claim on.

The example Gill came up with speaks of the drowning being at sea, in other words not in one's neighborhood.

I wish Gill had quoted the actual Jewish law(s);

So one of the same religion was called "a neighbor in the law."
"In the law" would mean God's law, would it not?
So, "a fellow believer" is what this special kind of neighbor was.
That is, a fellow Jew is a special kind of neighbor. That extended use of the term neighbor does not even mean it would have any relation to any other usage of the term "neighbor."

Did Hebrew have a different term for someone in the same neighborhood, I wonder? If "neighbor" as Gill finds it had none of that component, and was only about ... but that is not true, ...

I still find that if it was "all about" ethnicity, would not at least the ethnicity of the waylaid person in the neighborhood of the Samaritan coming by have been indicated, if not Jesus actually pointing to a difference of ethnicity? Mercy and the occasion to show mercy is indicated specifically, seems to me. Not the other supposed ethnicity element.

Seems with making the "Good" character a Samaritan, he was contrasting the "outcast" and one "not normally a neighbor" (is it even a stretch to assume that?), with the ones one would normally expect to be helpful, the priest and the Levite. Not that he scolds them; only that supposedly the best amongst us often do not have the required compassion.

"I apologize for being SO LONG on this - some things came up that I had to deal with, and this got somewhat lost in the shuffle."


That's the beauty of message boards!


"I don't see that Gill has very much to base that "opposes and disproves" claim on."


John Gill is highly knowledgeable. That's why his commentaries are widely used and consulted.


"I still find that if it was 'all about' ethnicity, would not at least the ethnicity of the waylaid person in the neighborhood of the Samaritan coming by have been indicated, if not Jesus actually pointing to a difference of ethnicity? "


I never said it was "all about" ethnicity but the difference of ancestry and religious denomination is an important point in the original. It is a point that many Christians today are unaware of. Perhaps some have chosen to overlook it.


The parable is clear that there is a difference of ethnicity. When Jesus is speaking to Jews and says “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho ..." The Jews He was speaking to would assume that the "man" was a Jew. There is no suggestion of any difference of ethnicity when the Jewish priest, descendant of Aaron, passes by or the choir member passes by. When the Samaritan arrives and decides to help, Jesus points out that this man is a Samaritan, of mixed ancestry, who sacrifices at a different Temple from the Jewish one.

 

[disciple1]

I have noticed that religious conservatives don't grasp all aspects of the story of the Good Samaritan. This is certainly important considering that the parables of Christ contain the core of His teaching. It is remarkable considering that conservatives claim that they are the ones who have mastered the Bible.

People tell me that the Good Samaritan is about helping those who are in need, which is true as far as it goes.

Who were the Samaritans? Their origin goes back to the time when the Assyrian Emperor seized Samaria from the northern Kingdom of Israel. The Assyrians deported thousands of Jews but brought in Assyrians and others. These new arrivals intermarried with the Jews and adopted a form of the Jewish religion.

The priests in Jerusalem did not accept them as Jews. Ezra refused to accept their help in restoring the Temple in Jerusalem. The Samaritans built their own Temple.

At the time of Christ, the Jews regarded the Samaritans as low class half-breeds who spoke with a peculiar dialect. They were heretics because they sacrificed at their own Temple, not the one in Jerusalem. The Pharisees considered it illegal to sell a cow to a Samaritan, for instance.

The parable of the Good Samaritan certainly is about helping those who are down, especially victims of sudden misfortune. Yet there is another element here, that ethnic barriers and nominal religion should not stop us from reaching out to a neighbor in trouble. Jesus shows us the supposed heretic doing the will of God by showing compassion, and overcoming all barriers between the two communities in the process.

We still have ethnic barriers today, and Jesus is still breaking them down.

I believe Jesus says it better here.
Matthew chapter 25 verses 31-46
When the Son of Man comes" in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. he will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and got visit you? The King will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me. Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.They also will answer, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you? He will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I believe Jesus says it better here.
Matthew chapter 25 verses 31-46
When the Son of Man comes" in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. he will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and got visit you? The King will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me. Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.They also will answer, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you? He will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Jesus calls them "brothers of mine." In common parlance today, "(true) Christians".

NOTHING ABOUT ETHNICITY .

Though "brothers" indicates of same clan if not family. Those are the one's he is pointing to.
So their "ethnicity" could be their religion, like Jewishness.
In this case it is their Christianity that determines who one can be neighbor to, not Jewishness. And certainly not saying anything about any others than Jews, er Christians.

edit: In other words, Christians if true will go to heavenly places; others like Samaritans, if they are not Christian, will not. (One might well suppose one who is not nominally a Christian can conform to the Jesus definition and be one of his.)

 

[disciple1]

Jesus calls them "brothers of mine." In common parlance today, "(true) Christians".

NOTHING ABOUT ETHNICITY .

Though "brothers" indicates of same clan if not family. Those are the one's he is pointing to.
So their "ethnicity" could be their religion, like Jewishness.
In this case it is their Christianity that determines who one can be neighbor to, not Jewishness. And certainly not saying anything about any others than Jews, er Christians.

edit: In other words, Christians if true will go to heavenly places; others like Samaritans, if they are not Christian, will not. (One might well suppose one who is not nominally a Christian can conform to the Jesus definition and be one of his.)

NOTHING ABOUT ETHNICITY .

Is this what you want.
Acts chapter 17 verse 26
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Is this what you want.
Acts chapter 17 verse 26
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

It doesn't tell me that "everyone is my brother," if that is what you take it to say.
That all on earth have a common origin is of particular relevance to things being discussed so far. Seems to me.
CERTAINLY GOD THE CREATOR did not say (and would not say, in my humble opinion) that EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is a neighbor, or brother.
Because absolutely false, both claims (ideas) are blatantly and obviously false.

(I'm trying to get you guys really going, understand?)
Care to actually take a position?

edit: Sorry, I somehow lost a "no" from the second statement of this post. It should read, "That all on earth have a common origin is of no particular relevance to things being discussed so far."

 

[disciple1]

It doesn't tell me that "everyone is my brother," if that is what you take it to say.
That all on earth have a common origin is of particular relevance to things being discussed so far. Seems to me.
CERTAINLY GOD THE CREATOR did not say (and would not say, in my humble opinion) that EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is a neighbor, or brother.
Because absolutely false, both claims (ideas) are blatantly and obviously false.

(I'm trying to get you guys really going, understand?)
Care to actually take a position?

Are you saying your a racist, because everyone on earth, is a brother and sister of mine.

 

[disciple1]

It doesn't tell me that "everyone is my brother," if that is what you take it to say.
That all on earth have a common origin is of particular relevance to things being discussed so far. Seems to me.
CERTAINLY GOD THE CREATOR did not say (and would not say, in my humble opinion) that EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is a neighbor, or brother.
Because absolutely false, both claims (ideas) are blatantly and obviously false.

(I'm trying to get you guys really going, understand?)
Care to actually take a position?

Luke chapter 10 verses 25-37
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher, he asked, what must I do to inherit eternal life? What is written in the Law? he replied. How do you read it? He answered: Love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and Love your neighbor as yourself. You have answered correctly, Jesus replied. Do this and you will live. But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, And who is my neighbor? In reply Jesus said: A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too , a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. Look after him said, and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have. Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers. The expert in the law replied, The one who had mercy on him. Jesus told him, Go and do likewise.

 

[disciple1]

It doesn't tell me that "everyone is my brother," if that is what you take it to say.
That all on earth have a common origin is of particular relevance to things being discussed so far. Seems to me.
CERTAINLY GOD THE CREATOR did not say (and would not say, in my humble opinion) that EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is a neighbor, or brother.
Because absolutely false, both claims (ideas) are blatantly and obviously false.

(I'm trying to get you guys really going, understand?)
Care to actually take a position?

Matthew chapter 23 verse 8
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.


That makes everyone a brother, sister.

 

[FireDragon76]

One doesn't need to be a Democrat in order to have an interest in the historical background of who the Samaritans were, to show compassion, or to overcome racial barriers, especially because the Democratic Party must perpetuate racism, poverty, sexism, and class warfare in order to survive.

What a cynical mind you have...

At the core of many of Jesus teachings is a rejection of tribalism, the exact sort of distinction between "Christian" and "non-christian" that many religious conservatives make.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Are you saying your a racist, because everyone on earth, is a brother and sister of mine.

If anyone is a racist it is the one who points to ethnicity, makes much of the racial origin or characteristics of someone.
Even those who want to make much of the fact the good guy in the tale is a Samaritan.
JESUS DID NOT MAKE MUCH OF THE RACE OR ETHNICITY THING.
Yet some people, leftists I would guess, want to do so. (Contrary to the example of Christ, it would seem?)

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What a cynical mind you have...

At the core of many of Jesus teachings is a rejection of tribalism, the exact sort of distinction between "Christian" and "non-christian" that many religious conservatives make.

It is not "religious conservatives" that originate that distinction.
That is the crucial distinction of the Bible, believe it or not.
Between those who are followers of Christ, believers, and those who are not.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Matthew chapter 23 verse 8
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.


That makes everyone a brother, sister.

NO.
Those in Christ are all brothers and sisters, in the sense Jesus claimed.
NOT everyone!

 

[Hieronymus]

Neighbour means fellow human.
You help one who needs help, out of love (agape).
That's the idea behind the parable of the good Samaritan.
It is indeed true many Christians try to make neighbour mean "people you like".

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Neighbour means fellow human.
You help one who needs help, out of love (agape).
That's the idea behind the parable of the good Samaritan.
It is indeed true many Christians try to make neighbour mean "people you like".

Not true. (Your first statement.)
Your second statement is true of the Christian, I would think, with a couple of provisions. One of course is the ability to love in that manner, to help, and that if it is about your neighbor and being neighbor unto, is that you are in the neighborhood.

We are NOT neighbor to, and cannot even be neighbor to in the definition of Jesus, without being in the neighborhood.
Not good to totally disassociate "neighbor" from "neighborhood," in my opinion. The corruption of language itself lies in that direction.

It is no more in accord with the Parable to say "Neighbor means fellow human," (a pretty obvious falsity) than it is to claim something like "people like you."
Check a dictionary. I don't think you'll find one that has your definition or anything close, although there is a lot of extending a term like that "going around," so a bit of it might have crept into an official definition, I wouldn't be too surprised.

 

[Soyeong]

What a cynical mind you have...

At the core of many of Jesus teachings is a rejection of tribalism, the exact sort of distinction between "Christian" and "non-christian" that many religious conservatives make.

The sad reality is that there are Democrats who have the goal of perpetuating racism, who make a profit off of it, and who would get less votes if less people were perceived as being racists. There needs to be a standard to differentiate between who is a Christian and who is not, otherwise the term is meaningless, and I suspect even you have such a standard. The Bible contains guidelines for expelling people from the community who do not meet that standard.

 

[FireDragon76]

The sad reality is that there are Democrats who have the goal of perpetuating racism, who make a profit off of it, and who would get less votes if less people were perceived as being racists. There needs to be a standard to differentiate between who is a Christian and who is not, otherwise the term is meaningless, and I suspect even you have such a standard.

Being a Christian is defined by what you believe. That is not necessarily related to what you do.

The Bible contains guidelines for expelling people from the community who do not meet that standard.

Standards that, if upheld, would leave churches empty.

 

[FireDragon76]

If anyone is a racist it is the one who points to ethnicity, makes much of the racial origin or characteristics of someone.
Even those who want to make much of the fact the good guy in the tale is a Samaritan.
JESUS DID NOT MAKE MUCH OF THE RACE OR ETHNICITY THING.

All caps won't help a weak argument.

 

[Dale]

It doesn't tell me that "everyone is my brother," if that is what you take it to say.
That all on earth have a common origin is of particular relevance to things being discussed so far. Seems to me.
CERTAINLY GOD THE CREATOR did not say (and would not say, in my humble opinion) that EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is a neighbor, or brother.
Because absolutely false, both claims (ideas) are blatantly and obviously false.

(I'm trying to get you guys really going, understand?)
Care to actually take a position?

edit: Sorry, I somehow lost a "no" from the second statement of this post. It should read, "That all on earth have a common origin is of no particular relevance to things being discussed so far."

You seem to be trying to restrict the meaning of neighbor.

In the Old Testament, the Sabbath Commandment applied to foreigners as well as Jews. In other words, they also deserve a day off.

If Christians treat everyone with fairness and compassion, isn't that the best way to show the world that Christians are a force for good? Isn't that a great way to get people interested in knowing more about Christianity?

As far as all men being brothers, if everyone is descended from Eve, then we are all cousins.