When Jesus said “neighbor” he wasn’t talking to a modern audience. He was talking to people that understood that to mean more in the way we’d understand “kin”.
He also had more to say about paying taxes to one’s oppressors than he did about slavery; and literally used a law that called for stoning unruly children to criticize the Pharisees.
No offense, but as someone who was raised Christian but no longer believes, this is the first time in over 40 years that I’ve heard that explanation/definition of neighbor when referring to that commandment. Do you have any source to back that up?
Also, there are numerous other references throughout the bible that tout kindness to strangers/visitors/outsiders, including lepers and prostitutes. Your definition seems to be at odds with not just the commandment but all the other parables of kindness and tolerance that Jesus spoke of.
Luke 10:25-35, “The Parable of the Good Samaritan” is completely unambiguous and proves them in error. I’m in the same boat as you. Former Christian that refuses to be associated with the ghouls of today’s Christianity.
This is going to get long winded. the TL/DR is that the people at that time understood there were classes of people, and jesus never said anything about it… we are putting our modern understanding on his words. There are strangers who happen to be the same as you, and they’re the ones you care for, and there are the strangers who are not… and they’re the ones you take as slaves. Part of why that’s not really taught much at all is because we would be part of those people who could be taken as slaves and that’s just awkward.
Ultimately, having multiple classes and making racial distinctions was just how everyone thought. Just like how slaves were an institution, and nobody spoke against it until the very late 1700’s. You cannot sit there and apply your modern understanding of ‘neighbor’ to what jesus was saying. You have to understand the culture he was in and speaking to.
Jesus was in a culture that explicitly allowed slave owners to beat the shit out of their slaves, so long as they didn’t die that day. (and no, that wasn’t any more kind or loving or protective of slaves than the assyrian codex the Law of Moses was kinda sorta based on)
Jesus was in a culture that explicitly allowed the taking of slaves from the foreigners. And yes. by force. Jesus was in a culture that allowed men to sell their own fucking daughters as sex slaves.
if the gospels are to be believed, Jesus taught that this was appropriate.
Mat 5:17-20 is pretty clear:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
(emphasis was mine.)
it wasn’t until Paul that we have any church leader saying “well maybe beat your christian slaves a little less.” and even then, he was only speaking of slaves who were also christian.
So no. Jesus didn’t preach universal kindness. Or universal love. Or anything we say he does today because that makes us pretty fucking uncomfortable.
Jesus taught the Law of Moses and the Prophets. His beef with the Pharisees was that they taught the Tradition of the Elders, which was significantly less offensive. For example, one of the distinctions was that the Tradition of the Elders didn’t stone kids for being unruly. (he actually took a direct shot at the pharisees for this in mark 7, ostensibly because the pharisees were allowing people to make offerings instead of supporting their parents. but he’s citing the law saying unruly children should be stoned.)
Another distinction comes from having realized that 60% of women did not (and today still do not) bleed the first time they had sex, and therefore, stoning women because they did not bleed on their wedding night meant killing 60% of young women just as a matter of biology.
also more to the general racism of Jesus, just ask yourself what The Messiah was supposed to do.
That is, the Messiah was supposed to be a king, of the direct line of David, who would rule in Israel, and lead them to a gold age of world domination, where every one would come to the worship of the israelite god, and then we shall have peace. And if you read anything in the Prophets, you would know that it wasn’t going to be accomplished by lubby-dubby warm fuzzies.
I can’t say I necessarily agree with your interpretation of the verse you quoted, but I do see the validity of the argument. The wording is a bit ambiguous, but regardless, it’s not something I’m hugely invested in as I’m no longer a believer.
Thanks for taking the time to write up your post. Have a good one.
"25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” 27 He answered, " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[1] ; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[2] " 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” 29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[3]and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’” (Luke 10:25-35)
For context. The injured man was Jewish and Samaritans were hated by the Jews.
You realize, of course, that samaritans were also Israelites?
Just as that one uncle who married someone the rest of the family did not like is still family. Or perhaps more acutely, like how Catholics and Protestants more or less hate each other but are still both Christians
I’m confused why a story Jesus literally just scraped off the wall to aggravate the Pharisees is in any way altering his selective understanding.
Or are you saying Jesus didn’t see slaves as people, and therefore not worthy of kindness and hospitality … or you know. Freedom.
Cuz he would have seen slaves on a daily basis. Yet we literally have more on paying taxes.
Lol, you can try to strawman your way out of this, but I’m not falling for it. All I’m saying is that it’s widely understood “neighbors” refers to everyone “God puts in one’s path.” And that “loving your neighbor” is fundamental to Christianity.
You must assume I’m a Christian or something. I’m not, and it’s directly because of people like this priest. I will say I respect Jesus’ humanist tendencies and he was mostly a noble man, if he ever existed.
Does “any one god puts in your path” include… Idunno. Slaves?
Show me the verse Jesus overturns that set of laws? Show me the verse where Jesus tells you not to beat your slaves? or the one where he beats the shit out of a dealer in slaves.
Jesus would have encountered slaves regularly. It’s incomprehensible that in that time and place, he did not have occasion to speak about it, or do something about it. yet not a peep.
you cannot tell me that Jesus had the same understanding of neighbor you and I do, because he didn’t. His understanding of “neighbor” was definitely not all-inclusive, because it didn’t include slaves.
as much bad blood as there was, Samaritans were still israelites. even if some of the shit they pulled was quite metal.
Samaritans weren’t Israelites to the Jews, because they had lost their lineage and intermarried with the surrounding peoples. Just look at Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well.
And then look at how Jesus’ disciples interpreted the command in relation to Greeks, Ethiopians, and… even slaves (the entire letter to Philemon deals with exactly this point, instructing the non-Jewish Philemon to treat his escaped slave Onesimus as a brother/kin, not as Romans treated their slaves).
And then look at how Jesus’ disciples interpreted the command in relation to Greeks, Ethiopians, and… even slaves (the entire letter to Philemon deals with exactly this point, instructing the non-Jewish Philemon to treat his escaped slave Onesimus as a brother/kin, not as Romans treated their slaves).
the letter to Philemon says nothing about how to treat slaves, only a request that Philemon spare’s Onesimus’s life. Onesimus was a run-away slave, and was to be executed for that. Onesimus had been serving with or for Paul, and Paul didn’t want to steal from Philemon (Lets be honest here, a large part of that decision was probably that if he was caught harboring an escaped slave… he’d be executed too.)
The fucked up part here is that Paul didn’t send just the letter back. He made Onesimus carry it to face Philemon’s decision.
At no point does the letter tell or ask or even suggest that Philemon release his other slaves (of which, Philomon had many, many more. Most of his workforce was likely slaves, in point of fact.
As for in other letters, every time slavery is addressed, it’s in the context of “Slaves: obey your masters.” (Eph 6:5-9, Col 3:22-25, 1 Tim 6:1-2, Titus2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18-20). These are all the verses I can find directly instructing people on slavery- both slaves and masters. (there’s loads of “slaves in christ” imagery, but whatever. these are direct instructions.)
Ephesians is the only one that contains instructions to masters- and it’s not to free the slaves. It’s “Treat them fairly”. It’s not even “don’t beat them.”. I’ll remind you: that you have to instruct people to not beat the shit out of your slaves unfairly… they’re still beating the shit out of them on occasion.
Ultimately, it’s clear that early christians never condemned slavery, and preferred to work with in the social structure it provided. There is no reason to believe Jesus saw anything wrong with slavery as an institution, because of the glaring silence. Which, you would expect of pretty much anyone living in the Near East during the Iron age (or most the world during that time, for that matter.
Samaritans weren’t Israelites to the Jews, because they had lost their lineage and intermarried with the surrounding peoples. Just look at Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well.
yeah. so like. they were all interbreeding like fuck bunnies during the babylonian exile. And after. if you’re going to hold the samaritans to that standard, gotta hold it to the rest, too, right?
unless of course the idea that they had somehow become “corrupt” was less about any one thing and more about just shitty propaganda to justify crap like destroying the temple at Mount Gerizim. (happend in 128bce.) or, when the samaritans retaliated by desecrating the temple in jerusalem in 6 ce. (talk about holding a grudge.)
There’s a lot of shit that happened between them. it’s complicated. but they were still israelites. Kind of like how there’s a lot of shit that happened between catholics and protestants, but they’re all still christians. except I don’t know that any one that desecrated the cathedral in rome with skulls. details, amiright?
When Jesus said “neighbor” he wasn’t talking to a modern audience. He was talking to people that understood that to mean more in the way we’d understand “kin”.
He also had more to say about paying taxes to one’s oppressors than he did about slavery; and literally used a law that called for stoning unruly children to criticize the Pharisees.
No offense, but as someone who was raised Christian but no longer believes, this is the first time in over 40 years that I’ve heard that explanation/definition of neighbor when referring to that commandment. Do you have any source to back that up?
Also, there are numerous other references throughout the bible that tout kindness to strangers/visitors/outsiders, including lepers and prostitutes. Your definition seems to be at odds with not just the commandment but all the other parables of kindness and tolerance that Jesus spoke of.
Luke 10:25-35, “The Parable of the Good Samaritan” is completely unambiguous and proves them in error. I’m in the same boat as you. Former Christian that refuses to be associated with the ghouls of today’s Christianity.
Bullshit.
Samaritans were still Israelites. Still part of the mosaic covenant.
Which Jesus taught the law of Moses and the prophets, a law that expressly condones the taking of slaves from foreign people.
This is going to get long winded. the TL/DR is that the people at that time understood there were classes of people, and jesus never said anything about it… we are putting our modern understanding on his words. There are strangers who happen to be the same as you, and they’re the ones you care for, and there are the strangers who are not… and they’re the ones you take as slaves. Part of why that’s not really taught much at all is because we would be part of those people who could be taken as slaves and that’s just awkward.
Ultimately, having multiple classes and making racial distinctions was just how everyone thought. Just like how slaves were an institution, and nobody spoke against it until the very late 1700’s. You cannot sit there and apply your modern understanding of ‘neighbor’ to what jesus was saying. You have to understand the culture he was in and speaking to.
Jesus was in a culture that explicitly allowed slave owners to beat the shit out of their slaves, so long as they didn’t die that day. (and no, that wasn’t any more kind or loving or protective of slaves than the assyrian codex the Law of Moses was kinda sorta based on)
Jesus was in a culture that explicitly allowed the taking of slaves from the foreigners. And yes. by force. Jesus was in a culture that allowed men to sell their own fucking daughters as sex slaves.
if the gospels are to be believed, Jesus taught that this was appropriate. Mat 5:17-20 is pretty clear:
(emphasis was mine.) it wasn’t until Paul that we have any church leader saying “well maybe beat your christian slaves a little less.” and even then, he was only speaking of slaves who were also christian.
So no. Jesus didn’t preach universal kindness. Or universal love. Or anything we say he does today because that makes us pretty fucking uncomfortable.
Jesus taught the Law of Moses and the Prophets. His beef with the Pharisees was that they taught the Tradition of the Elders, which was significantly less offensive. For example, one of the distinctions was that the Tradition of the Elders didn’t stone kids for being unruly. (he actually took a direct shot at the pharisees for this in mark 7, ostensibly because the pharisees were allowing people to make offerings instead of supporting their parents. but he’s citing the law saying unruly children should be stoned.)
Another distinction comes from having realized that 60% of women did not (and today still do not) bleed the first time they had sex, and therefore, stoning women because they did not bleed on their wedding night meant killing 60% of young women just as a matter of biology.
Another distinction comes from not stoning young women who were raped in town, but did not call out.
are you really going to tell me that these teachings of Jesus are… loving? kind, compassionate? or even decent? it’s self evident that jesus did not teach compassion to everyone. I mean, it’s totally compassionate, forcing a young girl who was the victim of rape to marry her rapist so he could rape her for the rest of her probably short life.
also more to the general racism of Jesus, just ask yourself what The Messiah was supposed to do.
That is, the Messiah was supposed to be a king, of the direct line of David, who would rule in Israel, and lead them to a gold age of world domination, where every one would come to the worship of the israelite god, and then we shall have peace. And if you read anything in the Prophets, you would know that it wasn’t going to be accomplished by lubby-dubby warm fuzzies.
I can’t say I necessarily agree with your interpretation of the verse you quoted, but I do see the validity of the argument. The wording is a bit ambiguous, but regardless, it’s not something I’m hugely invested in as I’m no longer a believer.
Thanks for taking the time to write up your post. Have a good one.
That’s a wrong interpretation.
"25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” 27 He answered, " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[1] ; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[2] " 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” 29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[3]and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’” (Luke 10:25-35)
For context. The injured man was Jewish and Samaritans were hated by the Jews.
You realize, of course, that samaritans were also Israelites?
Just as that one uncle who married someone the rest of the family did not like is still family. Or perhaps more acutely, like how Catholics and Protestants more or less hate each other but are still both Christians
I’m confused why a story Jesus literally just scraped off the wall to aggravate the Pharisees is in any way altering his selective understanding.
Or are you saying Jesus didn’t see slaves as people, and therefore not worthy of kindness and hospitality … or you know. Freedom.
Cuz he would have seen slaves on a daily basis. Yet we literally have more on paying taxes.
Lol, you can try to strawman your way out of this, but I’m not falling for it. All I’m saying is that it’s widely understood “neighbors” refers to everyone “God puts in one’s path.” And that “loving your neighbor” is fundamental to Christianity.
You must assume I’m a Christian or something. I’m not, and it’s directly because of people like this priest. I will say I respect Jesus’ humanist tendencies and he was mostly a noble man, if he ever existed.
Does “any one god puts in your path” include… Idunno. Slaves?
Show me the verse Jesus overturns that set of laws? Show me the verse where Jesus tells you not to beat your slaves? or the one where he beats the shit out of a dealer in slaves.
Jesus would have encountered slaves regularly. It’s incomprehensible that in that time and place, he did not have occasion to speak about it, or do something about it. yet not a peep.
you cannot tell me that Jesus had the same understanding of neighbor you and I do, because he didn’t. His understanding of “neighbor” was definitely not all-inclusive, because it didn’t include slaves.
as much bad blood as there was, Samaritans were still israelites. even if some of the shit they pulled was quite metal.
Samaritans weren’t Israelites to the Jews, because they had lost their lineage and intermarried with the surrounding peoples. Just look at Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well.
And then look at how Jesus’ disciples interpreted the command in relation to Greeks, Ethiopians, and… even slaves (the entire letter to Philemon deals with exactly this point, instructing the non-Jewish Philemon to treat his escaped slave Onesimus as a brother/kin, not as Romans treated their slaves).
the letter to Philemon says nothing about how to treat slaves, only a request that Philemon spare’s Onesimus’s life. Onesimus was a run-away slave, and was to be executed for that. Onesimus had been serving with or for Paul, and Paul didn’t want to steal from Philemon (Lets be honest here, a large part of that decision was probably that if he was caught harboring an escaped slave… he’d be executed too.)
The fucked up part here is that Paul didn’t send just the letter back. He made Onesimus carry it to face Philemon’s decision.
At no point does the letter tell or ask or even suggest that Philemon release his other slaves (of which, Philomon had many, many more. Most of his workforce was likely slaves, in point of fact.
As for in other letters, every time slavery is addressed, it’s in the context of “Slaves: obey your masters.” (Eph 6:5-9, Col 3:22-25, 1 Tim 6:1-2, Titus2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18-20). These are all the verses I can find directly instructing people on slavery- both slaves and masters. (there’s loads of “slaves in christ” imagery, but whatever. these are direct instructions.)
Ephesians is the only one that contains instructions to masters- and it’s not to free the slaves. It’s “Treat them fairly”. It’s not even “don’t beat them.”. I’ll remind you: that you have to instruct people to not beat the shit out of your slaves unfairly… they’re still beating the shit out of them on occasion.
Ultimately, it’s clear that early christians never condemned slavery, and preferred to work with in the social structure it provided. There is no reason to believe Jesus saw anything wrong with slavery as an institution, because of the glaring silence. Which, you would expect of pretty much anyone living in the Near East during the Iron age (or most the world during that time, for that matter.
yeah. so like. they were all interbreeding like fuck bunnies during the babylonian exile. And after. if you’re going to hold the samaritans to that standard, gotta hold it to the rest, too, right?
unless of course the idea that they had somehow become “corrupt” was less about any one thing and more about just shitty propaganda to justify crap like destroying the temple at Mount Gerizim. (happend in 128bce.) or, when the samaritans retaliated by desecrating the temple in jerusalem in 6 ce. (talk about holding a grudge.)
There’s a lot of shit that happened between them. it’s complicated. but they were still israelites. Kind of like how there’s a lot of shit that happened between catholics and protestants, but they’re all still christians. except I don’t know that any one that desecrated the cathedral in rome with skulls. details, amiright?