Have We Added a Commandment?

[Sissy]

This example Jesus chose of 'the good Samaritan' as in other examples of loving our neighbor is one that is demonstrated in real life and not just requiring a mental attitude of demonstrating love. Jesus is emphasizing love expressed in action, spontaneous heartfelt love that required very little mental debate. In fact hesitation many times is a sign of fake and a type of resistive love. It must come from the heart to action. The highest form of love as we know is agape sacrificial love.

No argument with that.

But the fact still remains that the command was to love your neighbor, and only 1 of the 3 men was a neighbor.

And we cannot know the love of that man for the other two men who never offered him assistance. We would know if the shoe was on the other foot and his turn came to help someone however. Would he hesitate and especially if others were standing in front of him who saw another person on the street in need. Would he say to himself, 'well if that person if front of me does not help then maybe that other person will. I'll just wait and maybe I will help or just leave the scene right now.'

According to the story, the provider is the only one said to be a neighbor because he is the only one that provided the needs of the man without any expectation of the man paying him back.
So the "love" the man (the fallen one) should show his neighbor (the one that provided his need) is not about returning deed for deed.
Whether the fallen one loved the provider or not is not revealed to us.
It's only revealed that the provider is the one that should be loved according to the command.

I don't think the moral of the story was to pay it forward.
I think the moral of the story is that you should love the one that provided (paid for) your needs to be healed in order to fulfill the command.

So if the "love" that was supposed to come from the fallen man was not deed for deed, then it is a love shown without deed.
In other words, it's not a tit-for-tat love.
And if the love is not tit-for-tat, then what is left besides gratitude from the heart?


It reminds of the story in Luke 17 where Jesus heals 10 lepers but only one shows Jesus gratitude.

 

[patience]

With the difference of status in the three men, two involved in religious duties, one held in low esteem - maybe Jesus is teaching us that our neighbor is any other person regardless of race, religion, position with whom we live or with whom we chance to meet.

 

[APAK]

No argument with that.

But the fact still remains that the command was to love your neighbor, and only 1 of the 3 men was a neighbor.

Of course

According to the story, the provider is the only one said to be a neighbor because he is the only one that provided the needs of the man without any expectation of the man paying him back.

again, for sure

So the "love" the man (the fallen one) should show his neighbor (the one that provided his need) is not about returning deed for deed.

Well no, I never thought of him performing another deed, either for this same man that aided him, or to another to pass it on, so as to keep the deed ledger balanced. And as I just pointed out, this might also run the risk of just being a mental exercise of loving a neighbor, not one of spontaneity from the heart.

Whether the fallen one loved the provider or not is not revealed to us.

well true. Although as I said up top, if the other shoe was on the other foot you might know very quickly.

It's only revealed that the provider is the one that should be loved according to the command.

The 'provider' of the aid? I'm not sure if this is always the case. And then I do not understand when you say 'should be.' And then by who, the victim of the attack, or by anyone as a standing rule or command. I do not know where you are going with this line of thought Sissy. It might be too close to my face to see it.

I don't think the moral of the story was to pay it forward.

I agree and as I already said it.

I think the moral of the story is that you should love the one that provided (paid for) your needs to be healed in order to fulfill the command.

Now if we expand this thought out to Christ as we speak of the moral of the story, and what he accomplished on the Cross, then I will say definelty yes, all mankind should love our Christ from what he did for us. We had a death sentence he remedied it with his life.
This is a key point of loving our neighbor and as ourselves, Sissy!

So if the "love" that was supposed to come from the fallen man was not deed for deed, then it is a love shown without deed.

Without a work or deed for sure. Again as a true believer it is shown within, in love and faith in that person from the heart. Sounds logical and spiritual.

In other words, it's not a tit-for-tat love.

Correct

And if the love is not tit-for-tat, then what is left besides gratitude from the heart?

I kind of said this thing of a similar conclusion...good job

It reminds of the story in Luke 17 where Jesus heals 10 lepers but only one shows Jesus gratitude.

Great support for this post of yours...

 

[Sissy]

Of course

again, for sure

Well no, I never thought of him performing another deed, either for this same man that aided him, or to another to pass it on, so as to keep the deed ledger balanced. And as I just pointed out, this might also run the risk of just being a mental exercise of loving a neighbor, not one of spontaneity from the heart.

well true. Although as I said up top, if the other shoe was on the other foot you might know very quickly.

The 'provider' of the aid? I'm not sure if this is always the case. And then I do not understand when you say 'should be.' And then by who, the victim of the attack, or by anyone as a standing rule or command. I do not know where you are going with this line of thought Sissy. It might be too close to my face to see it.

I agree and as I already said it.

Now if we expand this thought out to Christ as we speak of the moral of the story, and what he accomplished on the Cross, then I will say definelty yes, all mankind should love our Christ from what he did for us. We had a death sentence he remedied it with his life.
This is a key point of loving our neighbor and as ourselves, Sissy!

Without a work or deed for sure. Again as a true believer it is shown within, in love and faith in that person from the heart. Sounds logical and spiritual.

Correct

I kind of said this thing of a similar conclusion...good job

Great support for this post of yours...

I think we are on the same track.

And then I do not understand when you say 'should be.'

I said "should be" because not everyone has a heartfelt gratitude.
Some have the attitude they are entitled to be provided for. ("Why show my love and gratitude when that is what you were suppose to do?")

 

[Sissy]

With the difference of status in the three men, two involved in religious duties, one held in low esteem - maybe Jesus is teaching us that our neighbor is any other person regardless of race, religion, position with whom we live or with whom we chance to meet.

Right.
Some thought "religious duties" were of the Torah written on stone.
But Jesus explained several times that mercy trumps law.

A priest gave David the temple shewbread which was unlawful, but merciful, and they were guiltless.​

Work on the Sabbath to rescue a sheep from a well was unlawful, but merciful, and they are guiltless.​

etc.​

The priest and the Levite in the story may have been unmerciful and avoided the man because he was "unclean" and they were to avoid unclean things.
However, Jesus says in Matthew 12:7 that mercy even trumps the law of sacrifice.

Some try to achieve by the check-list of the Mosaic law, and by doing so can cause them to unachieve mercy which is superior.
They followed Moses, but refused to follow Christ.

Christ is superior to Moses, superior to Torah, superior to Sabbath.

 

[patience]

Right.
Some thought "religious duties" were of the Torah written on stone.
But Jesus explained several times that mercy trumps law.

A priest gave David the temple shewbread which was unlawful, but merciful, and they were guiltless.​

Work on the Sabbath to rescue a sheep from a well was unlawful, but merciful, and they are guiltless.​

etc.​

The priest and the Levite in the story may have been unmerciful and avoided the man because he was "unclean" and they were to avoid unclean things.
However, Jesus says in Matthew 12:7 that mercy even trumps the law of sacrifice.

Some try to achieve by the check-list of the Mosaic law, and by doing so can cause them to unachieve mercy which is superior.
They followed Moses, but refused to follow Christ.

Christ is superior to Moses, superior to Torah, superior to Sabbath.

The priest and the Levite were more concerned about their religious duties than in showing mercy because, true, if the injured man died, they would be considered unclean for 7 days (Num. 19:11-16) and unable to minister.
Yes, Matt.. 12:7 . . . I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.

I agree.

 

[Bradley D]

Also interesting was that the good neighbor the Samaritan was a person whom the Jews would not associate with.

 

[meshak]

Some have the attitude they are entitled to be provided for. ("Why show my love and gratitude when that is what you were suppose to do?")

How did you get that idea?