Religious Conservatives Don't Fully Understand the Good Samaritan

[Dale]

A "Christian" is by definition "a follower of Christ". However, if someone who makes no attempt at following Christ, and makes every attempt to do what he taught against qualifies as a Christian simply because they confess it, then the term is meaningless. Categories are useful tools that convey information to us about what is in that category, but if such a person is within the realm of possibilities when you confess to be a Christian, then you aren't conveying any information to me, so to be useful it must distinguish between what does and does not belong in that category. So if you refuse to distinguish between who is and who is not a Christian, then it is meaningless for you to confess to be one. If there is any information that you want to convey to me when you confess to be a Christian, then I should be able to distinguish that someone for whom that information is false is not a Christian. Again the Bible contains guidelines for expelling people from the community, so it is unbiblical to refuse to judge people like that, and this standard is not one that would require everyone to be expelled from the community.

I'm nor sure where you are going with this but I share FireDragon's concerns.

Jesus said: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged." -- Matthew 7: 1 NIV
Yet you tell us that "it is unbiblical to refuse to judge..."

The New Testament does indicate that excommunication or disfellowshipping or expulsion or whatever you want to call it may be necessary at times. I don't agree that the NT contains any clear guidelines on the subject.

I'm not sure it is reasonable to judge someone on the basis of CF posts. Some would condemn others without knowing how many hours they have spent in church, how many hours they have spent reading the Bible, how many hours they have spent in prayer, without knowing who they associate with, and without knowing what charities they contribute to or volunteer for. I urge caution.

 

[Dale]

Dale, do you agree with Hank on this? :

The parable implies that he was a Jew. First, consider the audience, the questioner was a Jew. Second, the first man mentioned in the parable, started from Jerusalem. Samaritans generally lived in Samaria, some distance away, although I'm sure there were exceptions.

The priest and the Levite passed by because they were in a hurry and lacked compassion.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The Samaritan's identity is important partly because he had more barriers to overcome. Not only did have things to do, as the others who passed by did, but people would be surprised that a Samaritan would help a Jew. Other Samaritans may not like it, so it might make him unpopular.

I doubt barriers a Samaritan might have encountered had anything to do with the story - certainly Jesus doesn't point to any.
Do you know that there were any other Samaritans around at all? Seems to be a made up story where that detail is completely left out.

Would not a Samaritan in a predominantly Jewish setting (between Jerusalem and Jericho), possibly be "on his best behavior"? So is it all that amazing if he would even make a show with provisions in the inn and all that? Act even Christian!

Did Jesus thereby display how he might have gotten some of the elements of the story, that it was necessary for it to be a Samaritan, somewhat a foreigner, to make the idea of acting outside of the norm seem understandable?

 

[Hank77]

the first man mentioned in the parable, started from Jerusalem.

Many people that were Gentiles lived around and traveled to and from Jerusalem. Remember the Gentile woman who's daughter was sick and she pointed out to Jesus that even the little dogs ate the crumbs from under the master's table.

 

[Soyeong]

I'm nor sure where you are going with this but I share FireDragon's concerns.

Jesus said: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged." -- Matthew 7: 1 NIV
Yet you tell us that "it is unbiblical to refuse to judge..."

The New Testament does indicate that excommunication or disfellowshipping or expulsion or whatever you want to call it may be necessary at times. I don't agree that the NT contains any clear guidelines on the subject.

I'm not sure it is reasonable to judge someone on the basis of CF posts. Some would condemn others without knowing how many hours they have spent in church, how many hours they have spent reading the Bible, how many hours they have spent in prayer, without knowing who they associate with, and without knowing what charities they contribute to or volunteer for. I urge caution.

You need to take that verse out of context in order to end up a full prohibition against judging because the next thing he said was that we should first take the plank out of our own eye so that we can see clearly to take the speck out of our brother's eye. None of these verses can be obeyed without judging:

John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

Leviticus 19:15 You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.

Ezekiel 33:8 If I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.

Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Matthew 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

Proverbs 31:9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Galatians 6:1 Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.

You did grant that the NT does speak about expelling people from the community and that is again impossible to do without judging. The truth is that we can't go through life without making judgements every day and we need to judge righteously, not hypocritically because the same standard that we use to judge others will be used to judge us.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The parable implies that he was a Jew. First, consider the audience, the questioner was a Jew. Second, the first man mentioned in the parable, started from Jerusalem. Samaritans generally lived in Samaria, some distance away, although I'm sure there were exceptions.

The priest and the Levite passed by because they were in a hurry and lacked compassion.

Well it's certainly the case that if it was reasonable to think there was a Samaritan journeying in the area, there could have been a second such.

If Jesus was so keen to make a point about ethnicity, might he not at least have said at some point of the man who fell among the thieves that, "he was a Jew not a fellow Samaritan."?

Also, if Jesus was attempting to counter some business about ethnic distinctions, might he not rather have made some story that included Jews helping their own (rather than that one of his main points was that the more elite and powerful (of one's fellow Jews?) simply passed by?

 

[Soyeong]

I'll give the same answer Luther would. I am a Christian because I am baptized. Does that imply perfection? No. Then why would I demand perfection of others? You don't get to corner the market on definitions of "Christian". By the standards of the forum, I am a Christian. Being a Christian is not defined by ones morality. The morality, or ethics, rather, follows from being freely justified by God, apart from works, to lovingly serve our neighbor. Our belonging does not follow from our obedience.

Who said anything about needing to be perfectly obedient or else someone is not a follower of God? That standard is found nowhere in the Bible, yet there is a standard of who and who is not a follower of God. The word "Christ-ian" literally means "Christ-follower", so it is straightforwardly the standard of who is or is not a Christian, not me cornering the market with my own definition.

The same faith that justifies us also requires our obedience. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience that faith requires, in Romans 1:8, it speaks about their faith being reported all over the world, and how else do you report someone's faith if not by speaking about the good works that they have because of their faith? In James 2:24, the way to discern that that someone is justified is by looking at their works. In Romans 2:26, the way to discern that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by looking at their obedience to the Law.

 

[Hank77]

(rather than that one of his main points was that the more elite and powerful (of one's fellow Jews?) simply passed by?

To me it's not about them being elite and powerful rather that they were the religious leaders who should have been setting a righteous example.

Do you think that there are Christians who act the same way? That they are willing to help other Christians but not so much others.

 

[RDKirk]

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?

The same OP fifty years ago would have heard, "religious conservatives" and thought, yep, those Pharisees again.

Umm...why did the phrase "religious conservatives" bring to your mind American politics rather than Pharisees?

 

[RDKirk]

To me it's not about them being elite and powerful rather that they were the religious leaders who should have been setting a righteous example.

Do you think that there are Christians who act the same way? That they are willing to help other Christians but not so much others.

The had the rationale of the Mosaic Law on their side.

Jesus explicitly pointed out that the first two men were not merely Jews but specifically a priest and a Levite. Both priests and Levites are prohibited by the Law from making themselves unclean, such as by touching a dead body, which the injured man appeared to be. So they had a rationale.

As we read the story, we all shake our heads, but very likely Jesus' audience nodded their heads in agreement with the priest and the Levite.

The Samaritan, OTOH, had nothing to lose by helping a Jew (the sense of defilement didn't run in that direction), but the Jew would never thank him for it. He had nothing to lose, but nothing to gain.

There is no evidence that Jesus personally abided the division between the Samaritans and the Jews. Al though He recognized it existed, He preached to Samaritans as readily as to Jews, so His statement of having come first to the lost sheep of Israel included the Samaritans from the start.

 

[RDKirk]

I doubt barriers a Samaritan might have encountered had anything to do with the story - certainly Jesus doesn't point to any.
Do you know that there were any other Samaritans around at all? Seems to be a made up story where that detail is completely left out.

Would not a Samaritan in a predominantly Jewish setting (between Jerusalem and Jericho), possibly be "on his best behavior"? So is it all that amazing if he would even make a show with provisions in the inn and all that? Act even Christian!

Ha, ha, no.

That's how majority folk think minorities ought to act.

 

[Soyeong]

The same OP fifty years ago would have heard, "religious conservatives" and thought, yep, those Pharisees again.

Umm...why did the phrase "religious conservatives" bring to your mind American politics rather than Pharisees?

A religious conservative is straightforwardly a conservative who is a member of a religion, which is predominantly Christian. I don't see what this has to do with Pharisees or why you'd feel the need to use it as slur. If anything, the Sadducees were conservatives and the Pharisees were progressives, who believed that the Law was open to interpretation rather than a strict literal interpretation, who added their own traditions and flexible interpretations of the Law.

 

[RDKirk]

A religious conservative is straightforwardly a conservative who is a member of a religion, which is predominantly Christian.

Does "conservative" to you reference only politics and only American politics? Apparently so.

What about a Christian in China? What do the words "liberal" and "conservative" mean for him?

 

[Soyeong]

Does "conservative" to you reference only politics and only American politics? Apparently so.

What about a Christian in China? What do the words "liberal" and "conservative" mean for him?

I am a religious conservative, and the OP was referring to people today, so I hope that you will excuse me for interpreting it as referring to people like me. I have to admit that the thought of conservatives in China didn't cross my mind, though I find it highly doubtful that is what the OP was referring to.

 

[FireDragon76]

Are you saying MORALITY has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments, conforming (or not) to them, for instance?

You seem to be saying, "it does not matter what I do, so long's I am justified by God?"
And lovingly serve. Would "loving serve" include conformity to the Law?

Our perspective is that God does not need our good works and they do not sway God's attitude towards us, however we should do good works for the sake of our neighbor and their wellbeing. Lutherans are in this sense humanistic.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Ha, ha, no.

That's how majority folk think minorities ought to act.

Very funny?

You know the good Samaritan wasn't even possibly trying to be a good example of his "race"?

No one of a minority would ever do that today, is that the basis of your hilarity?

 

[RDKirk]

I am a religious conservative, and the OP was referring to people today, so I hope that you will excuse me for interpreting it as referring to people like me. I have to admit that the thought of conservatives in China didn't cross my mind, though I find it highly doubtful that is what the OP was referring to.

But there are political conservatives in China who oppress the Body of Christ.

That's why a Christian's first thought should be to the nation of which he is a citizen, the Kingdom of Heaven and what affects his fellow citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, wherever in this world they may be deployed by the Lord.

 

[RDKirk]

Very funny?

You know the good Samaritan wasn't even possibly trying to be a good example of his "race"?

No one of a minority would ever do that today, is that the basis of your hilarity?

The Samaritan would know that a good act would not buy good graces of the bigoted Jews.

So, that's not the reason he would have performed the good act. He would have performed the good act out of a good heart, expecting no gratitude.

And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The Samaritan would know that a good act would not buy good graces of the bigoted Jews.

So, that's not the reason he would have performed the good act. He would have performed the good act out of a good heart, expecting no gratitude.

And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.

So it is untrue that he could have been wanting to provide a good example?

 

[RDKirk]

So it is untrue that he could have been wanting to provide a good example?

Jesus created a parable to present a certain point.

It's His point, not your point.

You're trying to argue that the Samaritan was good to a Jew in order to ingratiate himself and his people to Jews.

Jesus stated that doing good for a good return was not good.

Your point is not His point.