Parable of the Good Samaritan is Misunderstood

well I don't know about "being more Jewish" but he certainly was a better neighbor then the other two.
tulc(is just sayn')

cloudyday2 said:

Here is my idea. Tell me what you think.

Start with the golden rule in Leviticus 19:18. I would argue that "neighbor" should be replaced with "fellow Jew". There is a different verse, Leviticus 19:34, requiring love for immigrants/travelers, but it isn't worded quite the same and probably isn't the verse quoted in the parable. Here is how I would translate Leviticus 19:18
"You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your [fellow Jew] as yourself: I am the Lord." ( Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 19 - Revised Standard Version )

Now consider the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 and replace "neighbor" with "fellow Jew". After Jesus quotes the golden rule the teacher of the law asks "who is my [fellow Jew]?" Jesus uses the parable to show that being a Jew is about obeying the spirit of the Law and not about genetics or abstruse legal behavior. The Samaritan is revealed to be more Jewish than the priest or the Levite, because he followed the spirit of the Law by loving. ( Bible Gateway passage: Luke 10 - Revised Standard Version )

The advantage of using "fellow Jew" instead of "neighbor" is that Jesus actually answers the question that was asked of him rather than answering a question that wasn't asked.

Click to expand...

I agree with you.

Jesus while he was in the flesh, called Gentiles dogs and ignored the Cannanite lady at the first instance, so we should regard neighbor as fellow Jew, at least under the Law of Moses.

First, there was no "Judaism" in Jesus' time. Judaism wasn't a religion in the modern sense, a set of beliefs that's in principle separate from nationality and other things. There was Israel, a nation, and their God, who was the only God, not just of them but of everyone. Admittedly, there was a specific covenant with Israel which obligated Israelites to things that (at least according to some) didn't apply to other nations.

There's no question that Jesus was talking about how Israelites should behave, and no doubt he would agree with the connection to various OT principles. But I think both he and others would have said that many of the OT principles applied to everyone. There were some attempts by the rabbis to formulate which obligations did and didn't apply to non-Israelites. I think it's reasonable to say that the obligation to help people apply to us, both in Jesus' teaching and in the teaching of the rabbis who considered these issues.

Just what was the point? Once place to start is to ask why the two people went by on the other side. There's a reasonable chance that they weren't evil or uncaring, but that they were concerned about the possibility that the victim was dead, and were trying to avoid ritual contamination.

If that's true, then this is one of a number of illustrations of Jesus' teaching that core principles like mercy take precedence over concerns about purity. Of course many Jews would have agreed, but not all. After all, his primary opponents were the Pharisees, who were strongly focused on purity, whereas Jesus never set up either purity or holiness as an ideal (despite the insistence of modern Christian Pharisees).

Second, it's an answer to the original question of who the neighbor is. The person who takes care of the victim is from another nationality. That it's a despised nationality adds force, but surely a large part of the message is that your neighbor is the person you have a chance to help, not just the person who lives next door or even your fellow Israelite.

Remember that this parable occurs only in Luke. Like emphasized most Jesus' applicability to Gentiles. The reference to a Gentile woman as dog (which I think Jesus meant more as a demonstration of her faith than an actual teaching) does not occur in Luke.

Guojing said:

I agree with you.

Jesus while he was in the flesh, called Gentiles dogs and ignored the Cannanite lady at the first instance, so we should regard neighbor as fellow Jew, at least under the Law of Moses.

Click to expand...

Jesus was sent only to the Jews and spent very little time with any Gentile.

The Gentiles were not only dogs, they were also not under the law. Gentiles did not know God. They were not offspring of Abraham. They were not circumcised. They dig not drain the blood from the meat that they consumed. Filthy sinners and the Jews had nothing to do with the Gentiles.

Even Peter struggles with visiting Cornelius (Gentile) in Acts.
What God has cleansed no longer consider unholy.

A Gentile could never become a Jew as Jewish genealogy was purely based on bloodline.

klutedavid said:

Jesus was sent only to the Jews and spent very little time with any Gentile.

The Gentiles were not only dogs, they were also not under the law. Gentiles did not know God. They were not offspring of Abraham. They were not circumcised. They dig not drain the blood from the meat that they consumed. Filthy sinners and the Jews had nothing to do with the Gentiles.

Even Peter struggles with visiting Cornelius (Gentile) in Acts.
What God has cleansed no longer consider unholy.

A Gentile could never become a Jew as Jewish genealogy was purely based on bloodline.

Click to expand...

True, many Christians don't realized this and hence try to put themselves in the 4 Gospels and early Acts.

They ignore Matthew 10:5, and only focus on vs 7 and 8 onwards, the most famous being Bill Johnson and his Bethel "signs and wonders are for today" doctrine.

As a result, they downplay the significance of what Paul revealed in Ephesians 2 and 3 regarding the mystery of Jews and Gentiles being equal in the Body of Christ that was revealed to him only later.

Problem #1 - neither the Hebrew nor the Greek words mean "fellow Jew." The Hebrew is "shaken" and means... "neighbor." The Greek is plesios and means "near" or "neighboring" or... "neighbor."

Problem #2 - Why does the lawyer ask the question in the first place? He does so to justify his own behavior - I mean, his purpose in coming to Jesus in the first place was in attempt to trip him up in something He might say.

Problem #3 - Jesus' parable DOES answer the question - in citing the parable, He actually throws the question back at the lawyer who, because of extreme prejudice can't stomach saying "the Samaritan" so he says instead "the one who showed him mercy." Jesus' point to the lawyer was that everyone is his (our) neighbor, not just those who think and behave as we do.

Take that point away, and all you have is another attempt to justify our current behavior - esp prejudices.

cloudyday2 said:

Here is my idea. Tell me what you think.

Start with the golden rule in Leviticus 19:18. I would argue that "neighbor" should be replaced with "fellow Jew". There is a different verse, Leviticus 19:34, requiring love for immigrants/travelers, but it isn't worded quite the same and probably isn't the verse quoted in the parable. Here is how I would translate Leviticus 19:18
"You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your [fellow Jew] as yourself: I am the Lord." ( Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 19 - Revised Standard Version )

Now consider the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 and replace "neighbor" with "fellow Jew". After Jesus quotes the golden rule the teacher of the law asks "who is my [fellow Jew]?" Jesus uses the parable to show that being a Jew is about obeying the spirit of the Law and not about genetics or abstruse legal behavior. The Samaritan is revealed to be more Jewish than the priest or the Levite, because he followed the spirit of the Law by loving. ( Bible Gateway passage: Luke 10 - Revised Standard Version )

The advantage of using "fellow Jew" instead of "neighbor" is that Jesus actually answers the question that was asked of him rather than answering a question that wasn't asked.

Click to expand...

Fellow Jew is correct.
"The entire people of Israel comprise a single soul,
the bodies seperate.

One resoning is, a Jew is commanded to love a fellow Jew because if he don't, who will?

To go beyond the Law is possible but not for the Saducees, they did not accept
Oral Torah.

The Talmud tells that the second Holy Temple was destroyed because of a baseless hate,
if there had been unity among them they would have merited G-d's protection.

So to go beyond the written Law, yeah.

cloudyday2 said:

The advantage of using "fellow Jew" instead of "neighbor" is that Jesus actually answers the question that was asked of him rather than answering a question that wasn't asked.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind that the man asking the question was a lawyer. If we should read it the way you want it read, the question would have never been asked, because he already knew the legal answer. He was asking a philosophical question, which Jesus answered.

Hammster said:

The word in Greek cannot be translated as “fellow Jew”.


Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
— Romans 13:10

Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.

- Ephesians 4:25


There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?
— James 4:12

All the same Greek word.

Click to expand...

The Greeks did not want to kill Jews they just wanted them to forget Torah.

The Greeks were very body focused, which contaminates much of todays thinking.

Consider;
"Those who give major consideration to their bodies while regarding their souls as of secondary importance,
there can be no true-love and brotherhood among them,
but only (love) which is dependent on a transtory thing."

cloudyday2 said:

Jesus uses the parable to show that being a Jew is about obeying the spirit of the Law and not about genetics or abstruse legal behavior.

Click to expand...

I think this is right. Being a "Jew" is about loving the other, whoever that might be. Jesus seems to draw specifically on the tension between Jews and Samaritans to show that loving one's "neighbor" or "fellow Jew" transcends those differences. The way I take your reading is that the sense of the statement, "Love your neighbor as yourself" doesn't change whether one uses "neighbor" or "fellow Jew" or "fellow human." Is that close to what you mean?

cloudyday2 said:

I guess I don't have a clear opinion on what I mean. It was merely an idea I wanted to explore. What if "neighbor" in Leviticus should be "fellow Jew"? How does that change the Parable of the Good Samaritan?

There is a DVD I enjoy watching on the parables of Jesus, and the narrator points-out that Jesus didn't answer the question asked to him. That sort of thing happens when a question is asked of a politician, but it shouldn't happen when a question is asked of a teacher. The only exception would be if the original question is not as enlightening as the new question. When "neighbor" is replaced by "fellow Jew" it seems that Jesus actually answers the original question.

The other impetus is a book I'm reading "The Exodus" by Richard Elliot Friedman. He highlights the number of times that Jews are instructed to be nice to non-Jews living among them because the Jews were once living in Egypt as outsiders. I was thinking about one of these (Leviticus 19:34) and wondering why it would be necessary if the Golden Rule is as far-reaching as "neighbor" would make it. The context of the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18) seems to be talking about fellow Jews, so why would the Golden Rule not also?

Just random ideas I had is all.

Click to expand...

I see the connection you're making. And, maybe the lawyer felt justified in loving only other fellow Jews on account of that Leviticus passage.

His question, "Who is my neighbor?" is an attempt to divide the world into those he must love and those he need not love. Jesus, in a sense, does answer that question with the parable. Any 1st century Judean who heard Jesus tell the parable would have probably put themselves in the place of the man beaten and left for dead. That road was notoriously dangerous and they all knew that no one travelled that road alone. It's like a scary campfire story. You identify with the one in the scary situation.

So, the lawyer is imagining himself as the man in the ditch. He would not have been surprised that the first two went on the other side of the road. There were laws against touching the dead. That's not an excuse for not making sure he was dead, but it's also not surprising. What would have been surprising is that a Samaritan stops to help the Judean in the ditch. Jesus asks, "Who was a neighbor to the (Judean) in the ditch?" The lawyer responds, "The one who showed mercy." Jesus said, "Go and do likewise." In other words, there is no distinction between those I have to love and those I don't.

By showing the lawyer that he was worthy of being loved by anyone (even a Samaritan), the lawyer sees that anyone is worthy of his love. Love your neighbor as yourself. I see Jesus extending the command universally, whereas at that time it may have been interpreted as applying only between Jews.

cloudyday2 said:

There is a DVD I enjoy watching on the parables of Jesus, and the narrator points-out that Jesus didn't answer the question asked to him.

Click to expand...

If, according to the law, "neighbor" means "fellow Jew", why would a lawyer ask a question he would obviously already know the answer to? Jesus did answer the question; the narrator of the DVD just doesn't understand the full scope of the question.