Religious Conservatives Don't Fully Understand the Good Samaritan

[Dale]

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.

 

[Saucy]

Can you show us what you mean specifically?

 

[Soyeong]

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.

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.

 

[tdidymas]

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.

This simply shows your prejudice, since you stereotype "religious conservatives," whatever you mean by that. And since you don't define "ethnic barriers" in any context, it seems more evidence of stereotyping. Why couch your agenda in generalities? Why not be specific about your issue? Do you want to solve anything, or just griping?
TD

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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.

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.

 

[Dale]

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.

I didn't have the Democratic Party in mind when I wrote the OP. I am simply amazed at what people who have gone to church for decades don't know about the Bible.

 

[Soyeong]

I didn't have the Democratic Party in mind when I wrote the OP. I am simply amazed at what people who have gone to church for decades don't know about the Bible.

If you are simply amazed at what people who have gone to church for decades don't know about the Bible, then why single out religious conservatives?

 

[Dale]

This simply shows your prejudice, since you stereotype "religious conservatives," whatever you mean by that. And since you don't define "ethnic barriers" in any context, it seems more evidence of stereotyping. Why couch your agenda in generalities? Why not be specific about your issue? Do you want to solve anything, or just griping?
TD

You assume that I have a hidden agenda. I don't.

I didn't expect the definition of "religious conservative" to be a problem. Where I live, we have people who wrote two letters to the editor a month, the maximum the paper will allow, advocating prayer in schools for thirty years. Does that qualify as a religious conservative?

Since you seem to think that "ethnic barriers" needs defining, I'll give you an example of those barriers being overcome. I have visited a Baptist church, in the Atlanta area, where almost a third of the congregation are Cambodian refugees. They were Buddhists when they came to the US, until they became Christians, specifically Baptists.

It is fair to say that not all churches have made such a strong effort to share the Gospel with immigrants or others born into a quite different religion.

 

[Dale]

If you are simply amazed at what people who have gone to church for decades don't know about the Bible, then why single out religious conservatives?

Soyeong,

You have to start somewhere. Where I live, I am surrounded by religious conservatives, so I am frequently reminded that there is such a group. The event that reminded me of the Good Samaritan is that a religious conservative, a member of the Church of Christ, did a newspaper column on the Good Samaritan. I found it rather clueless, on the ethnic and historical aspect of the parable.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Soyeong,

You have to start somewhere. Where I live, I am surrounded by religious conservatives, so I am frequently reminded that there is such a group. The event that reminded me of the Good Samaritan is that a religious conservative, a member of the Church of Christ, did a newspaper column on the Good Samaritan. I found it rather clueless, on the ethnic and historical aspect of the parable.

Why would one go out on a limb and say that's what it was about, when not even Jesus claimed that is what it was about?
edit: And He even had a habit of interpreting his own Parables, right?

You can like history and all that, don't mean you have to shove it down anybody's throat.

 

[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.

It is interesting that the parable of the Good Samaritan was an answer to a question that someone asked Jesus. Jesus did answer questions.

Here is the question that Jesus was answering:

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
-- Luke 10: 29 NIV

I have a book intended as an introduction to logic from a Christian point of view. At one point the author improvises the answer that the man who asked the question expected, or perhaps wanted.

What the questioner expected for a definition of neighbor:

"A neighbor (hereinafter referred to as the party of the first part) is to be construed as meaning a person of Jewish descent whose legal residence is within a radius of no more than three statute miles from one's own legal residence unless there is another person of Jewish descent (hereinafter referred to as the party of the second part) living closer to the party of the first part than one is oneself, in which case the party of the second part is to be construed as neighbor to the party of the first part and one is oneself relieved of all responsibility of any sort or kind whatsoever."

--A.J. Hoover, Don't You Believe It!, Chicago: Moody Press, 1982, p. 115


Hoover's view of the parable is similar to mine. The questioner wanted to restrict the meaning of "neighbor" to people of Jewish descent, and probably to restrict the meaning in other ways as well. Jesus gives a much more open-ended answer. It's not a matter of descent or where your legal residence is. Wherever you are, the people nearby are your neighbors. Instead of reinforcing ethnic and denominational barriers, Jesus tears them down.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

It is interesting that the parable of the Good Samaritan was an answer to a question that someone asked Jesus. Jesus did answer questions.

Here is the question that Jesus was answering:

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
-- Luke 10: 29 NIV

I have a book intended as an introduction to logic from a Christian point of view. At one point the author improvises the answer that the man who asked the question expected, or perhaps wanted.

What the questioner expected for a definition of neighbor:

"A neighbor (hereinafter referred to as the party of the first part) is to be construed as meaning a person of Jewish descent whose legal residence is within a radius of no more than three statute miles from one's own legal residence unless there is another person of Jewish descent (hereinafter referred to as the party of the second part) living closer to the party of the first part than one is oneself, in which case the party of the second part is to be construed as neighbor to the party of the first part and one is oneself relieved of all responsibility of any sort or kind whatsoever."

--A.J. Hoover, Don't You Believe It!, Chicago: Moody Press, 1982, p. 115


Hoover's view of the parable is similar to mine. The questioner wanted to restrict the meaning of "neighbor" to people of Jewish descent, and probably to restrict the meaning in other ways as well. Jesus gives a much more open-ended answer. It's not a matter of descent or where your legal residence is. Wherever you are, the people nearby are your neighbors. Instead of reinforcing ethnic and denominational barriers, Jesus tears them down.

Good explanation of one different way of understanding some of the cash value (usefulness) of Jesus making the main character of his story a Samaritan.

I was more into explaining how that might have come about, and that the story itself emphasizes that it is about mercy or compassion.

My translation's, "willing to justify himself," I suppose might mean wanting to restrict the meaning of "neighbor"?
I incline to the view that he wanted to at least appear to be just, so needed to know what Jesus had in mind with "neighbor."

And we see it extended to rescuing someone in dire need by the way side, and certainly nothing of a socialist paradise or anything like that.
Go, and do thou likewise.
Neither is it that he was trying to say all priests and Levites are bad people, or anything like that.

 

[Dale]

Good explanation of one different way of understanding some of the cash value (usefulness) of Jesus making the main character of his story a Samaritan.

I was more into explaining how that might have come about, and that the story itself emphasizes that it is about mercy or compassion.

My translation's, "willing to justify himself," I suppose might mean wanting to restrict the meaning of "neighbor"?
I incline to the view that he wanted to at least appear to be just, so needed to know what Jesus had in mind with "neighbor."

And we see it extended to rescuing someone in dire need by the way side, and certainly nothing of a socialist paradise or anything like that.
Go, and do thou likewise.
Neither is it that he was trying to say all priests and Levites are bad people, or anything like that.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

-- Matthew 5:3 NIV

Looking at his disciples, he said:
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God."

--Luke 6: 20 NIV


Among Gospel writers, and New Testament writers, Luke has a unique perspective. Luke is the only one of the Gospel writers who was Greek. The others are Jewish. If you believe that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by Peter (scholars doubt it), then Luke is the only Biblical author who is Greek instead of Jewish by birth.

Luke seems to have a different perspective from Matthew. In the quote above from the Beatitudes, when Jesus sympathizes with the poor, Matthew spiritualizes it, saying "poor in spirit." It is an attitude of poverty, a lack of attachment to material things, that is important. Luke simply says that the poor are blessed, there is a spiritual advantage to being poor. Luke does not spiritualize poverty.

Luke understood that Jews often looked down on non-Jews. He probably knew it firsthand. It is Luke who preserved the parable of the Good Samaritan. The other three Gospels don't include it. This is one reason to believe that the message of avoiding ethnic prejudice in the parable is deliberate.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

-- Matthew 5:3 NIV

Looking at his disciples, he said:
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God."

--Luke 6: 20 NIV


Among Gospel writers, and New Testament writers, Luke has a unique perspective. Luke is the only one of the Gospel writers who was Greek. The others are Jewish. If you believe that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by Peter (scholars doubt it), then Luke is the only Biblical author who is Greek instead of Jewish by birth.

Luke seems to have a different perspective from Matthew. In the quote above from the Beatitudes, when Jesus sympathizes with the poor, Matthew spiritualizes it, saying "poor in spirit." It is an attitude of poverty, a lack of attachment to material things, that is important. Luke simply says that the poor are blessed, there is a spiritual advantage to being poor. Luke does not spiritualize poverty.

Luke understood that Jews often looked down on non-Jews. He probably knew it firsthand. It is Luke who preserved the parable of the Good Samaritan. The other three Gospels don't include it. This is one reason to believe that the message of avoiding ethnic prejudice in the parable is deliberate.

ANYBODY "in spirit" is blessed ! (I just noticed.)
Whether poor or not - those he was talking to, had His presence.

So there is NO "spiritual advantage" to being poor (your construction); being in spirit is being in spirit.
In other words, what he didn't say, obviously to be rich (and) in spirit is even better!

So "poor in spirit" does NOT mean "there is a spiritual advantage to being poor."
It only means those who are poor and also in spirit are also blessed.
BEING POOR DOES NOT MATTER, MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. (To God and the Spirit of God.)

Not so much the tables are turned on the rich and the poor, they each becoming the other; instead, rather that there are no guarantees in life and the rich today may be poor tomorrow and vice versa.

On the supposed message of avoiding ethnic prejudice in the parable, there are all kinds of particular reasons, may have been, for Luke being the only one to record for us the Samaritan story. May not at all have related to Luke being a, "more of the poor," kind of guy. (If he was.)

edit: "He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil." Luke 6:36

 

[Dale]

ANYBODY "in spirit" is blessed ! (I just noticed.)
Whether poor or not - those he was talking to, had His presence.

So there is NO "spiritual advantage" to being poor (your construction); being in spirit is being in spirit.
In other words, what he didn't say, obviously to be rich (and) in spirit is even better!

So "poor in spirit" does NOT mean "there is a spiritual advantage to being poor."
It only means those who are poor and also in spirit are also blessed.
BEING POOR DOES NOT MATTER, MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. (To God and the Spirit of God.)

Not so much the tables are turned on the rich and the poor, they each becoming the other; instead, rather that there are no guarantees in life and the rich today may be poor tomorrow and vice versa.

On the supposed message of avoiding ethnic prejudice in the parable, there are all kinds of particular reasons, may have been, for Luke being the only one to record for us the Samaritan story. May not at all have related to Luke being a, "more of the poor," kind of guy. (If he was.)

edit: "He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil." Luke 6:36

You are still resisting the idea that the Good Samaritan teaches "avoiding ethnic prejudice."

"The Samaritans occupied the territory between Judea and Galilee. They accepted the Pentateuch as their Scriptures. They had their own priesthood and built a rival temple on Mount Gerizim, which had been destroyed by the Jewish ruler John Hyreanus. Bitter hostility existed between the Jews and Samaritans."
--p.647 col 1

"The limits of a person's obligation to love would be determined by his definition of 'neighbor.' As generally interpreted, a neighbor was a fellow Jew. Pharisees might even exclude people like tax collectors and sinners. The parable of the good Samaritan teaches that such limitations are wrong. 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."
--p.648 col 1

As the commentatry says, "a neighbor was a fellow Jew." Jesus corrects this.
The shows the importance of an extensive definition of "neighbor."

"Jesus taught that service for God involves serving people who are deprived, hurt, and avoided by others."
--p.648 col 2

Note "deprived" and "avoided by others."

Source:
H. Franklin Paschall & Herschel H. Hobbs, New Testament
Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1972

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You are still resisting the idea that the Good Samaritan teaches "avoiding ethnic prejudice."

"The Samaritans occupied the territory between Judea and Galilee. They accepted the Pentateuch as their Scriptures. They had their own priesthood and built a rival temple on Mount Gerizim, which had been destroyed by the Jewish ruler John Hyreanus. Bitter hostility existed between the Jews and Samaritans."
--p.647 col 1

"The limits of a person's obligation to love would be determined by his definition of 'neighbor.' As generally interpreted, a neighbor was a fellow Jew. Pharisees might even exclude people like tax collectors and sinners. The parable of the good Samaritan teaches that such limitations are wrong. 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."
--p.648 col 1

As the commentatry says, "a neighbor was a fellow Jew." Jesus corrects this.
The shows the importance of an extensive definition of "neighbor."

"Jesus taught that service for God involves serving people who are deprived, hurt, and avoided by others."
--p.648 col 2

Note "deprived" and "avoided by others."

Source:
H. Franklin Paschall & Herschel H. Hobbs, New Testament
Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1972

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?

 

[Dale]

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?

The Teachers Bible Commentary that I referred to is pretty conservative. It is used in Southern Baptist Churches. As far as defending TBC's interpretation, it is pretty obvious from the parable, when you understand the state of relations between orthodox Jews and Samaritans at the time.

You say "the definition of neighbor put forth by Jesus was the usual understanding." It would be the usual understanding for us but it wasn't the usual understanding among devout Jews at the time of Christ.

On the question of whether the man who was attacked could also have been a Samaritan, all interpretation of the parable has always taken it to mean that there was only one Samaritan in the story. Otherwise it would be "The Good Samaritans" or "The Good and Injured Samaritans." When Jesus is speaking to Jews and He says that "a man" went down the road to Jericho, those listening would see the "man" as one of them, a Jew.

 

[Dale]

Douglas,

You resist the notion that it is easier for the poor to understand what the Kingdom of Heaven is about, or harder for the rich or affluent to make up their mind to be a part of it. Take a look at the "eye of the needle passage," which appears in all three of the synoptic Gospels.


23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
--Matthew 19: 23-26 NIV

23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”
--Mark 10: 23-26 NIV

23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.
--Luke 18: 23-27 NIV

 

[FireDragon76]

Good point. The Good Samaritan is not just about racial barriers, but religious barriers. Jesus makes it clear that doing God's will is not necessarily a matter of belonging to a particular religious sect or creed. Yet many religious conservatives have an un-Christ-like love for tribalism and sectarianism.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas,

You resist the notion that it is easier for the poor to understand what the Kingdom of Heaven is about, or harder for the rich or affluent to make up their mind to be a part of it. Take a look at the "eye of the needle passage," which appears in all three of the synoptic Gospels.


23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
--Matthew 19: 23-26 NIV

23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”
--Mark 10: 23-26 NIV

23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.
--Luke 18: 23-27 NIV

I have not resisted any such notion.

WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED IT.

The rich are too busy with other things. What's the big deal? (I mean, why is that so hard to figure out?)

They might, and only might, decide to divest themselves of many of their concerns.