"Love thy neighbor" - what conditions are implied in this statement??

[Oberon]

I have no idea why you are picking this nit. Jesus gave us the parable as an answer to the question, "Who is my neighbor?" He is therefore quite clearly saying that our enemies ARE our neighbors. We are to love our enemies as we love ourselves. No conditions.

It is not nit picking. It is an extremely important part of understanding Jesus' message. (See below)

If you love your "enemy", your "enemy" becomes part of your community (using your words here - a community is generally the people in your nearby area, but hey).

Not quite. In order for your enemy to be part of your community, she/he has to have a change of heart and enter (or re-enter, in the case of the prodigal son) the community. This is at the heart of both Jesus' community and early christianity. Jews who had fallen astray from God could become a part of the chosen community by changing their life, but they had to do things to enter the community (i.e. a radical change of lifestyle). They did not belong to it by default. For all those who were actively hostile, i.e. enemies, Jesus' offered the radical philosophy to members of his community of "turning the other cheek" and "loving ones enemies."

At the heart of Jesus' message was a redefinition of just what "community" meant. To the Jews, the ultimate community, and the natural extension of the neighborhood, was Israel. Just how this community was to be defined, and what exactly constituted Israel, was of extreme importance in 1st century palestine, where all kinds of apocalyptic and messianic hopes were raging. Jesus offered one definition of just what Israel was supposed to be. The "love your neighbor command," which originated from Leviticus, was given a specific meaning by him, in that he (unlike many other Jews) allowed lepers and such into the new Israel. He asked his followers to actively recruit among the "rejected" Jews (prostitutes, tax-collectors, poor, etc) rather than just the righteous.

However, in order for these to "become" neighbor, they had to join the community, and not remain outsiders. And interesting point here is that Jesus never actually says the samaritan "became" a neighbor to the robbed man. He said he "seemed" to become a neighbor. In other words, his behavior was how neighbors ought to act, and by acting this way, new members could be incorporated into the fold. Enemies, or people who willing remained outside the community (or actively persecuted it), were not, and could never be, neighbors. Jesus, unlike both the Jews and pagans, advocated love for these enemies, but that did not make them neighbors/community members/insiders. They remained outsiders.

So it remains very important to understand that, although Jesus did in fact advocate "loving enemies," to love ones neighbor remained for him a obligation on intra- (not inter) community action.

 

[emiliano]

When the Bible says "Love thy neighbor as thyself" what are the implied conditions to this statement?

I am reading the City of God and found an online site with it that I find interesting:
For He is the fountain of our happiness, He the end of all our desires. Being attached to Him, or rather let me say, re-attached,— for we had detached ourselves and lost hold of Him—being, I say, re-attached to Him, we tend towards Him by love, that we may rest in Him, and find our blessedness by attaining that end. For our good, about which philosophers have so keenly contended, is nothing else than to be united to God. It is, if I may say so, by spiritually embracing Him that the intellectual soul is filled and impregnated with truevirtues. We are enjoined to love this good with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength. To this good we ought to be led by those who love us, and to lead those we love. Thus are fulfilled those two commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your soul; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:37-40 For, that man might be intelligent in his self-love, there was appointed for him an end to which he might refer all his actions, that he might be blessed. For he who loves himself wishes nothing else than this. And the end set before him is to draw near to God. And so, when one who has this intelligent self-love is commanded to love his neighbor as himself, what else is enjoined than that he shall do all in his power to commend to him the love of God? This is the worship of God, this is true religion, this right piety, this the service due to God only. If any immortal power, then, no matter with what virtue endowed, loves us as himself, he must desire that we find our happiness by submitting ourselves to Him, in submission to whom he himself finds happiness. If he does not worship God, he is wretched, because deprived of God; if he worships God, he cannot wish to be worshipped in God's stead. On the contrary, these higher powers acquiesce heartily in the divine sentence in which it is written, He that sacrifices unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:20
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm
To love one’s neighbour is to guide him/her to God that is the source and sustainers of our happiness, if we love our neighbours we must lead them to God, to seek His mercy, we love ourselves and want to cling to the saviour because of it, if we love others as ourselves, them we want to lead them to God, that is loving your neighbours.

 

[Dunemeister]

It is not nit picking. It is an extremely important part of understanding Jesus' message. (See below)

And your "below" message, although saying true things about how communities function, missed the "extremely important part" of Jesus' message. The question wasn't "who is in my community" but "who is my neighbor." I leave for others the tedious task of determining whether these words denote something different or equivalent in the first century Palestinian mind.

The point that Jesus was trying to make is that Israel had to expand its definition of "neighbor." His parable of the Samaritan depicted righteous Jews (righteous in the community's eyes as a result of their station) passing by a Jewish man in obvious need. The Samaritan, a person not part of the Jewish community, and indeed would have been frequently subject to abuse at Jewish hands because he was considered an enemy of national Israel, helped the distressed man, and Jesus wound up his parable:

Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?’ He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’37
​

And thus he redefined neighbor not as one who simply lives near you or is part of your community. A neighbor is anyone who shows mercy. Who are we to show mercy to? Yes, even our enemies. That's what loving your enemy means; it means to show him mercy.

 

[Oberon]

The question wasn't "who is in my community" but "who is my neighbor." I leave for others the tedious task of determining whether these words denote something different or equivalent in the first century Palestinian mind.

They do.

Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?’ He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.

Your quote is inexact. Jesus did not say "which of these three, do you think, was..." but "which of these three seems to you to have become..." In other words, by loving an outsider of the community, the outsider may be welcomed in. I would argue that the reason Jesus is recorded as saying "seems" or "appears" rather than simply "became" is because there is no indication that after his kind act the samaritian was truly regarded by the robbed man as a "neighbor." In order to truly become an insider into any community, both the community and the outsider must accept the outsider as an insider. Jesus' message, as you said, was that Jews should not consider the old community of kin and "those nearby," or even the traditional standards of just who should be considered God's children, as the only insiders. Rather, Jews should expand the community and welcome anyone willing. The difference between this commandment and loving ones enemy is (as I said) that the "neighbor" must be an insider (even if they were not before), whereas an enemy is not.

I can only reiterate that "love your neighbor" still meant for Jesus a way to treat community members. The difference was that he was willing to accept "fallen" or "wayward" Jews into his community if they were willing to join. The parable of the Good Samaritan ought to be read as a request to bring anyone willing (of Jews) into the new community of Israel, that by showing the care the Samaritan, even to an enemy, they might "become" a neighbor, but only if the wish to. If they remain outisde, Jesus advocated to "turn the other cheek" and "love ones enemies" but their is still a very important distinction between these commands and the command to "love ones neighbor."

 

[Lucius7]

When the Bible says "Love thy neighbor as thyself" what are the implied conditions to this statement?

ACS 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all
the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before
appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

LEV 19:18 ¶ Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children
of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am]
the LORD.

MAT 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

MAT 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.


GOD made of One Blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth.

WHen the Bible refers to neighbors it is generally talking about the foreign people living around you. In the more intimate sense such as in the Law and from prophets it refers to the people in your community and neighborhood, such as the nation of Israel. GOD says that we are to remember that we are one bloodline, one hertiage, and one Origin. He requires us to honor and respect the blood of every human being as our own blood, as prequisites for peace, health, equity, prosperity and love as the rule. We are to respect each others lives and property and to deal with them according to the Law. In times of war, the same principle still applies. We are to show honor and respect to the image of GOD, which HE says HE placed in every one of us, no exceptions. When we hate a man unjustly, we hate the image of GOD in ourselves. When we act with compassion and kindness, we demonstrate our love for GOD in our dealings with HIS image.

This is not a command to love everybody in the world in the social emotional sense. The scriptures also speak of other foreigners, strangers, and wicked men, as well as synagogue of Satan, and those who love GOD also hate what GOD hates. No man is ever to hate his own flesh and blood, which share his same burdons, but the spirit of the flesh can be a wicked and hateful thing. However, there are those who choose to ultimately reject GODs image and hate GOD. To hate what a man does or chooses to become through his own actions and violations is to hate the harm and damage which is done to all of the victims and casualties of wicked men. We have compassion on the vitims around the world of poverty and strvation, sickness and disease, we are not to love the spirits and ways of the men who decieve and burdon them. We are only told to forgive when we are asked by our own blood. Those who dont ask for forgiveness are consumed by their own wickedness. Matthew said to love our neighbours and hate our enemies.

Thats my take.

 

[Oberon]

WHen the Bible refers to neighbors it is generally talking about the foreign people living around you.

When you say "neighbor" in the bible refers to foreign people, what passages are you talking about? The hebrew for neighbor in Lev. (reaka) means "friend" or "companion." It refers to your "friends" around you, i.e. neighbors, not foreign people. The LXX, like the New Testament, uses the greek plesion, meaning literally those living around you, but it refers again to friends and kin in your community, not foreigners. So I am unclear what you mean.

 

[Dunemeister]

They do.

Do you have more than your word for that?

Your quote is inexact. Jesus did not say "which of these three, do you think, was..." but "which of these three seems to you to have become..." In other words, by loving an outsider of the community, the outsider may be welcomed in. I would argue that the reason Jesus is recorded as saying "seems" or "appears" rather than simply "became" is because there is no indication that after his kind act the samaritian was truly regarded by the robbed man as a "neighbor."

Here I think you're reading too much in. The point of the parable is clearly to liberalize the command to love your neighbor. One's neighbors are not merely fellow Jews, although they include them, obviously. Neighbors are any people around you who are needy.

Your be/become distinction seems to hang on your point about whether the helped person becomes part of the same community as the Samaritan. That's not Jesus' point at all. He was talking to fellow Jews and asking them to expand their understanding of who the neighbours are they they are to love. Bottom line: it's everyone. If you see a person in need, even if that person is your sworn enemy, you are to minister to his needs. You are not to pass him by. Your helping the person may or may not eventuate in his joining your community. But that's not Jesus' point. His point was similar to the Sermon on the Mount, where he instructed his hearers to be perfect just as God is, which is to say, love indiscriminately (without conditions) as God does.

The difference between this commandment and loving ones enemy is (as I said) that the "neighbor" must be an insider (even if they were not before), whereas an enemy is not.

And I hope I've shown how you're mistaken here. We are to love our enemies and our neighbors, just as God does: indiscriminately. We don't return evil for evil, but we pray for those who persecute us. If our enemy is hungry, we feed him. And so on.

The parable of the Good Samaritan ought to be read as a request to bring anyone willing (of Jews) into the new community of Israel, that by showing the care the Samaritan, even to an enemy, they might "become" a neighbor, but only if the wish to. If they remain outisde, Jesus advocated to "turn the other cheek" and "love ones enemies" but their is still a very important distinction between these commands and the command to "love ones neighbor."

Again, I'm not sure this is the best reading of the parable. It makes more sense, I think, to see it as a straightforward liberalization of "neighbor" and telling people to minister to them. Whether they join the community is irrelevant.

 

[Oberon]

Do you have more than your word for that?

A Neighborhood generally consisted of an entire small village, wherein large families lived in close proximity, and everyone knew everybody else. By Jesus’ time, the Shema, perhaps the center of the Jewish faith and a frequently repeated prayer, was often paired in Jewish minds with the command from Leviticus to love one’s neighbor (Wright 305). This demonstrates how central to Jewish life the community, and the social rules that dominated it, were. Every individual found her or his place within that community, and defined herself or himself by that placement. It is also why one facet of Jesus’ teachings made him so radical in his day: his redefining of neighborly ties.
In a world where family identity counted for a good deal more than in today’s individualized western culture, the attitude Jesus was urging would result in the disciple [of Jesus] effectively denying his or her own basic existence… Jesus, therefore, challenged his followers to sit loose to one of the major symbols of the Jewish worldview (which corresponded, of course, to the similar major symbol in many non-Jewish worldviews). Contemporary western individualism has, perhaps, made Jesus’ sayings about the family look less striking than they were. (Wright 402-403)
Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh in particular have documented how important community was in ancient Israel and their detailed study demonstrates the close system of kinship groups that predominated. Individualism was virtually non-existent; rather, each individual saw himself as a member first and foremost of a Neighborhood. Ancient Jewish communal organization can be compared with that of the later Middle Eastern given below, and it was hardly unique in the area.
In the Mediterranean world, both ancient and modern… [w]hat one trusts, relies upon, and contributes to willingly is one’s extended family, the primary safety net in peasant society. Ancient Mediterranean society was largely a society of “dyadic personality,” where one’s identity was formed and maintained in relation to other individuals in one’s social unit–the usual unit being the extended family. (Meier 67)
Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Companions and Competitors. Vol. 3. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God.Minneapoli: Fortress Press, 1996.

Bottom line: it's everyone

I'll get to the rest of your points later when I have a little more time.

Yet Jesus, in Matthew (10:5-6), specifically intructs his disciples not to go into Samaria, but "to go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

 

[lilithu]

It is not nit picking. It is an extremely important part of understanding Jesus' message.

No, it's your interpretation of his message. For whatever reason, you want to maintain a distinction and say that some people are not your "neighbor." I think it's quite clear that Jesus taught otherwise.

We've state our respective points of view. Beyond this is pointless.

 

[Dunemeister]

A Neighborhood generally consisted of an entire small village, wherein large families lived in close proximity, and everyone knew everybody else. By Jesus’ time, the Shema, perhaps the center of the Jewish faith and a frequently repeated prayer, was often paired in Jewish minds with the command from Leviticus to love one’s neighbor (Wright 305). This demonstrates how central to Jewish life the community, and the social rules that dominated it, were. Every individual found her or his place within that community, and defined herself or himself by that placement. It is also why one facet of Jesus’ teachings made him so radical in his day: his redefining of neighborly ties.
In a world where family identity counted for a good deal more than in today’s individualized western culture, the attitude Jesus was urging would result in the disciple [of Jesus] effectively denying his or her own basic existence… Jesus, therefore, challenged his followers to sit loose to one of the major symbols of the Jewish worldview (which corresponded, of course, to the similar major symbol in many non-Jewish worldviews). Contemporary western individualism has, perhaps, made Jesus’ sayings about the family look less striking than they were. (Wright 402-403)
Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh in particular have documented how important community was in ancient Israel and their detailed study demonstrates the close system of kinship groups that predominated. Individualism was virtually non-existent; rather, each individual saw himself as a member first and foremost of a Neighborhood. Ancient Jewish communal organization can be compared with that of the later Middle Eastern given below, and it was hardly unique in the area.
In the Mediterranean world, both ancient and modern… [w]hat one trusts, relies upon, and contributes to willingly is one’s extended family, the primary safety net in peasant society. Ancient Mediterranean society was largely a society of “dyadic personality,” where one’s identity was formed and maintained in relation to other individuals in one’s social unit–the usual unit being the extended family. (Meier 67)
Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Companions and Competitors. Vol. 3. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God.Minneapoli: Fortress Press, 1996.

I'm not sure whether you're trying to argue that there is a deep conceptual difference between "community" and "neighbor" or a deep similarity. I may be dense, but I don't see how these passages make this distinction clearly.

But I have to say, citing Wright is one of the quickest ways to my heart. I'm a real fan!

I'll get to the rest of your points later when I have a little more time.

I look forward to it.

Yet Jesus, in Matthew (10:5-6), specifically intructs his disciples not to go into Samaria, but "to go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Yes, the eschatological mission pressing on Jesus, for the time being, was directed to Israel. But it was obviously something he intended to be internationalized.

 

[Mister Emu]

Your love for your neighbor is never gunna be any better
than your love for your own Self.

This is not universal, from personal experience...

 

[methylatedghosts]

It is not nit picking. It is an extremely important part of understanding Jesus' message. (See below)



Not quite. In order for your enemy to be part of your community, she/he has to have a change of heart and enter (or re-enter, in the case of the prodigal son) the community. This is at the heart of both Jesus' community and early christianity. Jews who had fallen astray from God could become a part of the chosen community by changing their life, but they had to do things to enter the community (i.e. a radical change of lifestyle). They did not belong to it by default. For all those who were actively hostile, i.e. enemies, Jesus' offered the radical philosophy to members of his community of "turning the other cheek" and "loving ones enemies."

At the heart of Jesus' message was a redefinition of just what "community" meant. To the Jews, the ultimate community, and the natural extension of the neighborhood, was Israel. Just how this community was to be defined, and what exactly constituted Israel, was of extreme importance in 1st century palestine, where all kinds of apocalyptic and messianic hopes were raging. Jesus offered one definition of just what Israel was supposed to be. The "love your neighbor command," which originated from Leviticus, was given a specific meaning by him, in that he (unlike many other Jews) allowed lepers and such into the new Israel. He asked his followers to actively recruit among the "rejected" Jews (prostitutes, tax-collectors, poor, etc) rather than just the righteous.

However, in order for these to "become" neighbor, they had to join the community, and not remain outsiders. And interesting point here is that Jesus never actually says the samaritan "became" a neighbor to the robbed man. He said he "seemed" to become a neighbor. In other words, his behavior was how neighbors ought to act, and by acting this way, new members could be incorporated into the fold. Enemies, or people who willing remained outside the community (or actively persecuted it), were not, and could never be, neighbors. Jesus, unlike both the Jews and pagans, advocated love for these enemies, but that did not make them neighbors/community members/insiders. They remained outsiders.

So it remains very important to understand that, although Jesus did in fact advocate "loving enemies," to love ones neighbor remained for him a obligation on intra- (not inter) community action.

Anything to make the other responsible for how you give love, right?

Your quote is inexact. Jesus did not say "which of these three, do you think, was..." but "which of these three seems to you to have become..."

This, Dunemeister!! Take heed of these words ^^ he was there, he knows!!

 

[methylatedghosts]

This is not universal, from personal experience...

I'd be interested to hear why you think this is so.

 

[Mister Emu]

I regularly hold little to no love for myself

This has never stopped me from loving others...

 

[methylatedghosts]

nothing against you, specifically...

but I do wonder if it's a conditional love. (You may not necessarily be consciously aware of the conditions)

I'm just musing, because I find that people generally love others by the same conditions they love themselves, it's just that sometimes people don't meet their own conditions...

 

[Mister Emu]

but I do wonder if it's a conditional love.

I'm quite sure it is not...

 

[Oberon]

This, Dunemeister!! Take heed of these words ^^ he was there, he knows!!

Actually, I was just looking at the original greek instead of the English translation: "tis touton ton trion plesion dokei soi gegonenai.." which of these three seems (dokei/ δοκε&#953 to you to have become (gegonenai/ γεγονενα&#953..."

I'm not sure whether you're trying to argue that there is a deep conceptual difference between "community" and "neighbor" or a deep similarity.

The problem here is that we are comparing two English words, and asking whether or not they would be the same to a first century Jew. This question is of course impossible to answer. What I am trying to get across is the how the idea of community was understood by the Jews at that time, and then how the words (רֵיעַ / ray-ah in Hebrew, and πλησιον/ plesion in Greek) used to describe "neighbor" were used and conceptualized.
First, for Jews, the community could be understood on the macro-scale as Israel as a whole. On the micro-scale, it was the close-knit units of kin and people living in close proximity to eachother. The words above which are often translated as "neighbor" meant primarily members of the smaller (micro) community, but were also used to describe fellow members of the community of Israel.

The Leviticus command, therefore, basically asks Jews to treat other Jews as themselves (I'm simplifying a bit here). The lawyer who questions Jesus is really trying understand who qualifies as a community member. In other words, who are the "insiders," the true Jews, that I should treat as such, and who are not? Who is really among God's children? This was of course an important question, because it was widely believed in Jesus' day that the reason the Jews were subject to the rule of foreigners was because God had abandoned them due to their lack of keeping his commandments. So, various groups/sects/whatever proposed various conceptions of how to keep commandments, from the "oral torah" of the Pharisees, to the sectarianism of the Essenses, etc. The lawyer was asking for Jesus' conception of who qualified.
Jesus, as was typical, does not answer directly but with a parable.
The interesting thing is that the lawyer is not supposed to identify with the samaritan but with the man in the ditch. The man discovers that those who he thought were members of his community, who were (like him) true members of Israel, were not, but the Samaritan seemed to be the one who, by virtue of his actions, "became" a community member. I will reiterate that it is important to note Jesus did not say "which one was a neighbor," but "which one seemed to become" a neighbor by virtue of his actions; namely that he treated the man in the ditch like a member of his own community. The message then, is two-fold: first, don't take for granted who will be a part of God's new kingdom of Israel. The first two men, who the lawyer would naturally assume to be true Israelites, did not turn out to be so. Second, extend your community to all who are willing to be members. Go and do what the Samaritan did, and hope for the best.

I think it is important at this point to make sure that we understand eachother, because I think perhaps some (not all) of our disagreement is just misunderstanding. So here are a few of my summarized positions:

1. I am certainly NOT saying that Jesus did not ask his followers to love their enemies, and treat everyone, even their enemies, with love and respect.

2. I AM saying that one aspect of the Good Samaritan parable was an exhortation to reach out to anyone in need (with the caveat that it is quite possible, perhaps probable, that Jesus did not advocate reaching out for pagans or even samaritans)

3. I AM saying that Jesus differentiated between neighbors/community members and non-community members, and neighbor to him (like all his contemporaries) meant community members (with the micro- and macro- levels described above). The difference between him and his contemporaries was that Jesus advocated reaching out to people who were usually considered "outisders" by virtue of their social position, disease, etc (possible exceptions are stated in numer 2 above). However, also unlike his contemporaries, Jesus continued to advocate treating non-community members with love.

Hope I am being clear.

 

[Dunemeister]

Actually, I was just looking at the original greek instead of the English translation: "tis touton ton trion plesion dokei soi gegonenai.." which of these three seems (dokei/ δοκε&#953 to you to have become (gegonenai/ γεγονενα&#953..."

Here is how the passage is rendered in several respected translations. The ESV, NASB, AMP, ASV, and HCSB all render the key word as "think...proved to be":

Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" (ESV)

"Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?" (NASB)

"Which of these three do you think proved himself a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?" (AMP)

Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers? (ASV)

"Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" (HCSB)
​

The NLT, KJV, NKJV, KJ21, NRSV, NIV, TNIV, NCV, and DRA render it as "think was (a) neighbor":

"Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?" (NLT)

Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? (KJV)

"So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?" (NKJV)

"Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?" (KJ21)

Which of these three, in thy opinion, was neighbour to him that fell among the robbers? (DRA)

'Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?' (NRSV)

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" (NIV)

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" (TNIV)

"Which one of these three men do you think was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by the robbers?" (NCV)
​

The Wycliffe translation renders it as "seems...was neighbor":

Who of these three, seemeth to thee, was neighbour to him, that fell among [the] thieves? (WYC)
​

The Darby translation renders it as "seems...to have been neighbor":

Which [now] of these three seems to thee to have been neighbour of him who fell into [the hands of] the robbers? (DARBY)
​

The YLT is the only translation I've found that fully agrees with your rendering:

'Who, then, of these three, seemeth to thee to have become neighbour of him who fell among the robbers?' (YLT)


​

This lack of support from published translation is not, in itself, sufficient to say that your rendering is mistaken. There is, after all, a respected translation that uses it. But it does justify my preference for the NRSV, which at least is in good company in its rendering. It seems that there are different ways to render the perfect sense of the verb at issue.

So let's just say that battling this issue over the appropriacy of competing English translations is bound to convince few, certainly not me. I'm sticking with my beloved NRSV.

The Leviticus command, therefore, basically asks Jews to treat other Jews as themselves (I'm simplifying a bit here). The lawyer who questions Jesus is really trying understand who qualifies as a community member. In other words, who are the "insiders," the true Jews, that I should treat as such, and who are not? Who is really among God's children? This was of course an important question, because it was widely believed in Jesus' day that the reason the Jews were subject to the rule of foreigners was because God had abandoned them due to their lack of keeping his commandments. So, various groups/sects/whatever proposed various conceptions of how to keep commandments, from the "oral torah" of the Pharisees, to the sectarianism of the Essenses, etc. The lawyer was asking for Jesus' conception of who qualified.
Jesus, as was typical, does not answer directly but with a parable.
The interesting thing is that the lawyer is not supposed to identify with the samaritan but with the man in the ditch.

Why assume this?

The man discovers that those who he thought were members of his community, who were (like him) true members of Israel, were not, but the Samaritan seemed to be the one who, by virtue of his actions, "became" a community member. I will reiterate that it is important to note Jesus did not say "which one was a neighbor," but "which one seemed to become" a neighbor by virtue of his actions; namely that he treated the man in the ditch like a member of his own community. The message then, is two-fold: first, don't take for granted who will be a part of God's new kingdom of Israel. The first two men, who the lawyer would naturally assume to be true Israelites, did not turn out to be so. Second, extend your community to all who are willing to be members. Go and do what the Samaritan did, and hope for the best.

So are we really coming to a different conclusion because we accept different translations?

1. I am certainly NOT saying that Jesus did not ask his followers to love their enemies, and treat everyone, even their enemies, with love and respect.

Okay.

2. I AM saying that one aspect of the Good Samaritan parable was an exhortation to reach out to anyone in need (with the caveat that it is quite possible, perhaps probable, that Jesus did not advocate reaching out for pagans or even samaritans)

Not okay. Although Jesus' mission was to Israel, he certainly intended it to have international implications. He gave hints of this at several points in his ministry. But he was anxious that Israel have first crack at the gospel, have a first crack at reformation.

3. I AM saying that Jesus differentiated between neighbors/community members and non-community members, and neighbor to him (like all his contemporaries) meant community members (with the micro- and macro- levels described above). The difference between him and his contemporaries was that Jesus advocated reaching out to people who were usually considered "outisders" by virtue of their social position, disease, etc (possible exceptions are stated in numer 2 above). However, also unlike his contemporaries, Jesus continued to advocate treating non-community members with love.

If that's the case, I'm not sure why we are having this debate. This doesn't seem to address the OP, which asks whether we are to attach conditions on loving our neighbor. Even if we get clear on the distinction between neighbor and community, a distinction I still don't buy (and I agree with you that these English concepts may have meant little to first century Jews), it seems there are no conditions. We are to show them love without partiality as God does. Would you agree with that?
Hope I am being clear.
[/quote]

 

[Oberon]

Here is how the passage is rendered in several respected translations. The ESV, NASB, AMP, ASV, and HCSB all render the key word as "think...proved to be":

That's why I studied Greek, so that I wouldn't have to use the translations (well, that and it is required for my Phd). Think is a fairly accurate translation of "seems to you." My problem is with the "prove to be." All translations are inexact (by necessity) and require the translater to make judgements based on preconceptions. For example, compare the modern King James with the Jesus Seminar's translations. They translate very differently because they are using from two very different views on what the New Testament represents.

However, lets go into the greek itself (again, tis touton ton trion plesion dokei soi gegonenai..." First, just to get it out of the way, the "tis" is obviously the interrogative nominative masc/fem pronoun, and "touton ton trion" is a partitive genitive with "tis." "Plesion" is the object of the the perfect infinitive "gegonenai," itself being a complementary to "dokei."
Now, obviously the verb and the infinitive are at the heart of this particular aspect of our disagreement. Lets start with the indicative third person singular "dokei": according to the standard lexicon used by students of greek (Liddell and Scott) the verb (δοκεω/ dokeo, related to dokos, or opinion) means "to think, suppose, imagine, expect." Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament Abbot-Smith's A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament has "to seem" or "to appear." has "to be of the opinion, suppose."

The verb "dokei" in this clause goes with the "soi," a dative singular personal pronoun (you). It is dative because verbs of thinking or perceiving take dative (dative of possessor, Smyth 1477).
So far then, it seems pretty fair to render that part of the clause as "seems to you."
Now for the next part: gegonenai. As I said above, gegonenai is a perfect infinitive, and it is from the verb gignomai/ γιγνομαι. Unfortunately for our purposes, gignomai was a VERY flexible verb. Its standard meaning (see Liddell and Scott) is "to come into being." However, it can also mean "to take place, come to pass, com on, happen, to be." The Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament has "to come into being, be born, arise, come on." The Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament has basically the same meanings. So it seems pretty fair to translate "gegonenai" as "to have become."
However, if for the sake of argument we use "to prove" as a translation, we are still left with the verb "dokei" or "seems." The thrust of the whole clause is that it is neither empathic nor definite, but speculative.
It could be that the translaters are using the sentence they are because they want to make it more easily fit into English. I suspect, though, that I central reason is that modern translation typically build of older ones. Rarely are they overly concerned with a literal or exact rendering of the Greek.

So let's just say that battling this issue over the appropriacy of competing English translations is bound to convince few, certainly not me. I'm sticking with my beloved NRSV

Well, I guess we've both said are peace about it then.

Why assume this?

I'm not. Actually, Wright made a lot of these points in his work. In any case, that's what the word "neighbor" meant to the Jews.

So are we really coming to a different conclusion because we accept different translations?

I'm not using a translation, but no, that is not the only thing. I am using a lot of background on communal life functioned in first century palestine, what community meant to those people, how Leviticus specifically and Gods commands more generally were interpreted, and the concepts behind the Greek/Hebrew words translated as "neighbor."

Not okay. Although Jesus' mission was to Israel, he certainly intended it to have international implications.

Whether Jesus intended to include Gentiles and Samaritans is another but related debate. Unfortunately, the evidence is not definitive. I am willing to allow for the possibility that Jesus did intend to include everyone for the sake of this debate, but I think in total the evidence is against it. I'll be glad to go into it if you want.

We are to show them love without partiality as God does. Would you agree with that?

I would, as long you understand that I am not willing to rule out the exceptions above, given the evidence. Again, we can get into that if you wish, but I will say from the outset that it isn't possibily to know with "historical" certainty.

 

[Dunemeister]

That's why I studied Greek, so that I wouldn't have to use the translations (well, that and it is required for my Phd).

Well AFAIK, the committee members involved in the better English translations all had PhDs, so I'm not going to privilege your exposition of the Greek over theirs. We all have axes to grind, and I'm not willing to pin my understanding of this parable on what appears to be an idiosyncratic rendering of the passage or a techical issue with the original languages, a subject I'm always going to be hopelessly inadequate to comment on.

It could be that the translaters are using the sentence they are because they want to make it more easily fit into English. I suspect, though, that I central reason is that modern translation typically build of older ones. Rarely are they overly concerned with a literal or exact rendering of the Greek.

That's not the impression I get from conversations with those who have been involved in translation work (Gordon Fee among them, for instance). Previous translations are consulted to see how other scholars do the renderings, but each translator is required to justify their rendering on its own merits.

Whether Jesus intended to include Gentiles and Samaritans is another but related debate. Unfortunately, the evidence is not definitive. I am willing to allow for the possibility that Jesus did intend to include everyone for the sake of this debate, but I think in total the evidence is against it. I'll be glad to go into it if you want.

I would, as long you understand that I am not willing to rule out the exceptions above, given the evidence. Again, we can get into that if you wish, but I will say from the outset that it isn't possibily to know with "historical" certainty.

It seems to me that the OP asks about exceptions to loving one's neighbor. But we all know (and I'm sure the OP author had this in mind) that Jesus said to love one's enemies. So I think what's at stake in the OP is whether there are any people that Christians ought not to love. I'm willing to admit that we show love differently to different people. I might not show my enemy love by inviting him into my home, for he may do me or my family serious hurt. But I will still provide for his needs if he is starving. I'm sure there are other practical distinctions. But the point of the OP, I submit is the question whether there is anyone Christians ought not love. IF that's the question, what would you say the answer is?

Obviously, I'll have to re-read those sections of Wright to get a feel for what you're saying. It's been far too long since I've read JatVoG, and you've provided me quite the pretext!