McGrath's Bewitching Interpretation

Remember when the show "Bewitched" changed out Darrins on us? One minute we were watching Dick York and all of a sudden we were watching Dick Sargant. For most, the show went on and no one really cared. For some, however, it ended up changing the show for them. They no longer recognized the couple they had come to love as the same one. This is much of what it's like when I discuss the parable of the Good Samaritan with people. Most people switch the characters around, so that the neighbor ends up being the one who is injured when, actually, it isn't in the story. Others make everyone the neighbor despite the fact that Jesus asks, "Which ONE out of the three became the neighbor?" For James McGrath, he switches out a lot, but the most noticeable is his ignoring of the identity of the characters in the context of Luke and in the parable itself.

McGrath replied to my post concerning the correct interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan because an "anonymous reader" asked him to do so. I expect McGrath to have the interpretation he does. This particular interpretation is at the heart of liberal Christianity, and McGrath is a big proponent of that type of religion, so it does not surprise me that if even evangelicals get this text wrong, he would as well.  Let's take a look at what he says.

The irony is that the post accurately reflects the perspective of the person who asked Jesus “who is my neighbor?” in the story in the Gospel of Luke. The question could be paraphrased as “to whom am I obligated, as a member of the covenant community, and under what circumstances?” The answer was expected to address not only the point that was considered more obvious – a fellow Jew, not a Roman or other foreigner – but also the intersection with other laws – what should one do if purity, Sabbath, or other laws would normally constrain one’s actions in the given context?

First off, I am not in disagreement that this is what is being asked. The problem with what McGrath does here is that he ignores the players on the field and the context in which this parable is given. The parable is unique to Luke. Luke uses it in continuity with what he has been arguing in his Gospel, namely, that those who claim to be "children of Abraham" must back it up by doing good to other "children of Abraham." This is what I mean by "members of the covenant community," and what Luke means by "neighbor." The parable is in that context (see my post below concerning the Argument of the Gospel of Luke). So there is no irony here. McGrath thinks there is one because he has made the parable into a generic moral tale that has nothing to do with Jesus' larger message in the book, and he has done this by ignoring the identity of the characters in the story.

The characters in the parable are three Jews, two elites and one Jew of unknown status (his traveling alone from Jerusalem to Jericho assumes his identity, as well as Luke's larger literary argument), although his traveling without a caravan or servants may indicate that he is poor, and one Samaritan. Samaritans differed with Jews over where to worship YHWH, but they were worshipers of YHWH nonetheless. They too were descendants of Abraham, and followed the laws of the Pentateuch, even the purity laws (cf. 17:11-19). 

All four are believers in YHWH, children of Abraham by name. Samaritans are not pagans, and neither is the injured man. We are dealing first and foremost with an issue internal to these covenant members. To say, then, that a Roman or other foreigner would be addressed in Jesus' rebuke is, again, to add to the story. 

but also the intersection with other laws – what should one do if purity, Sabbath, or other laws would normally constrain one’s actions in the given context?

The purity laws are really not in view. That is a bit midrashic on McGrath's part. Although Luke does address ideas of purity in his Gospel, the emphasis is on those with a higher status versus those with a lower status amongst the "children of Abraham." In order to make this parable about purity laws, McGrath actually has to employ a midrash where he knows what the individual characters are thinking. No thoughts are voiced in the parable, however, and if the parable was emphasizing purity issues, one would think this would be done. Instead, all of that has to be supplied, and the context of Luke, especially the immediate context, which deals with exulting in positions of power rather than in being a member of God's kingdom (10:17-24), is emphasizing social status within the community.  So the parable addresses, specifically, the idea that those who would definitely be considered the elite within the kingdom (i.e., a priest and a Levite) disprove that they are covenant members/children of Abraham/believers by their actions toward another child of Abraham/covenant member/believer. 

Jesus’ parable addresses precisely these concerns – but not in the way that was expected. The protagonist is not merely robbed of money but of his clothing – the things that let you know whether or not he was a “fellow member of the covenant community” had been taken away.

Is McGrath suggesting that he would not be identifiable as a Jew on this road from Jerusalem to Jericho? I find this to be a bit of an odd argument. The two Jews and the Samaritan would have known that he is Jewish without his clothing. This is a very odd argument, and I think one that shows that McGrath is grabbing at straws to keep the modern traditional interpretation.

 Jesus is thus engaging in the classic philosophical exercise of creating a thought experiment that complicates a popular approach to morality.

Actually, according to the context of Luke, and Jesus' own statements, He is merely using the parable as a way of identifying oneself as a covenant member/neighbor. This may sound like splitting hairs, but it is important to note that the emphasis given by Jesus is not on the activity of what any generic person should do, but upon the activity that identifies one as a true covenant member. It is activity that exposes identity versus activity regardless of identity. It is, therefore, important to get the actors and the recipients of their actions correct in the context. That little difference is why McGrath, and many others, miss the point of this story.

The story then has two Jews who may be presumed to be of relatively high status, and thus perhaps of greater means, yet who were also bound strictly by purity rules because of their employment in the temple. And thus the priest and Levite avoid what looks like a corpse, and thus the impurity that they were commanded to avoid.

Again, although I wouldn't disagree that these would be reasons priests and Levites would avoid someone like this, McGrath is adding to the story by adding to their thought process. The parable doesn't voice their thought process, and if we interpret the parable in such a way that it needs our midrashic elements emphasized, we have likely missed the point of the text, which McGrath has. The story is not about purity laws, even though we might surmise that as a possible reason for their not taking care of a fellow covenant member. The story is just about their true status in the covenant community as it is evidenced by their lack of compassion on a fellow covenant member. The lawyers original question has to do with whether he is saved. Jesus answers that question by means of the parable. That is why he ignores the second question. He is still answering the first. The Scripture from which the command is taken already answers the second.

This all seems like the set-up for a joke at the expense of clergy – their religious scrupulousness put them at a distance from ordinary people, and the listener would expect an ordinary Jew to come to the rescue.

Again, now McGrath is telling us the thoughts of the listener. Again, I might agree that one might think this in that context. The problem is that he, again, is emphasizing something as his interpretive framework that the parable doesn't even mention. If the story had a parenthetical statement like, "they all stood in anticipation, thinking he would say that another Jew would come along . . .". but it has no such element. It is a dubious methodology in coming to the real interpretation of the parable.

The introduction of the Samaritan throws the listener a curve ball. Unlike the priest and Levite, the Samaritan could easily have said that the man by the side of the road is in all probability not part of his community – odds were that he was Jewish and thus not a “neighbor” from the perspective of the Samaritan.

He could have said it, but he doesn't. Again, McGrath's interpretation relies on all of these unvoiced thought processes. Jesus doesn't emphasize any of this. The background we know we can absolutely take are the unalterable facts, which are that the Samaritans would have been considered the lowest of the children of Abraham and the priest and Levite the highest/the elite among them. Luke's overall context confirms this, and this is what we need to secure that background information is legitimately applied. Beyond that, it is merely speculation, ones with which I may agree, but ones that should not control our interpretation of the text. That's just good exegetical methodology. The text is not about the religious taking care of the non-religious, which is where McGrath's purity interpretation seems to be driving him.

It is a curve ball, but not the curve ball McGrath seems to think.

And yet the Samaritan helps him even so. And we are challenged to do likewise. The parable Jesus told thus reverses the question, asking “to whom are you and should you be a neighbor?” And the implied answer is “to anyone in need, to anyone who, if the situation were reversed, you would desperately want their help.”

Here is where the sleight of hand occurs. Everyone agrees that Jesus has flipped the script and argued to the lawyer that it is about his being the neighbor; but the interpretation McGrath wants is not warranted by the characters used in the parable, nor is it warranted by the larger context of Luke, nor is it warranted by my study of the word "neighbor" in the New Testament, which was the point of that study. Where does the parable say that the injured Jewish man represent all people, regardless of covenant status? Where does it say that he represents only my fellow man, regardless of religion, and not specifically another covenant community member? Because the man is a son of Abraham, a covenant community member.

McGrath has to stretch here in order to get to the modern traditional interpretation of the passage. What he needs is a Gentile here. He needs a pagan. Then one could interpret this text as saying such a thing. Otherwise, his interpretation is a non sequitur. To say that one is a fellow covenant community member/neighbor because he takes care of a fellow covenant community member/neighbor does not in any way logically entail that people outside the covenant are also included. This may sound like a nicer interpretation, but it isn't a textually or logically sound one. His interpretation, therefore, is without merit.

And so the blog post mentioned at the beginning of this post misses the fact that, while both Jews and Samaritans were (for the most part at least) descended from the people of ancient Israel, each denied the legitimacy of the other’s claim to be part of the covenant people.

Actually, I didn't miss that fact. That was the whole point. They did not consider themselves neighbors because of their ethnic status. Jesus is arguing that ethnic status is irrelevant. It is one's religious status evidenced by his treatment of the disadvantaged in the covenant that confirms one's covenant status. This is Luke's entire point from shepherds to Samaritans, and even believing Gentiles, in his Gospel. McGrath wants to make this parable about an externally directed moral to just help anyone in need, but this drowns the point that Luke has Jesus make both here and throughout his work. 

 Indeed, it seems to be trying very hard to argue against the very point that Jesus made through the parable! The question posed to Jesus shared the assumptions about the definition of “neighbor” that are expressed there. 

It actually wasn't very hard at all. I just used sound principles in interpreting the text rather than ignoring them. McGrath wants to say that the post shares the assumptions of the lawyer in the passage. Of course, it absolutely does not. The lawyer is trying to justify himself. This statement evidences that he thinks he already does this. Throughout Luke's Gospel, those who are the elite do not associate with those who are seen as sinners, prostitutes, lepers, etc., even though they are all children of Abraham, not even to call them to repentance or to seek their cleansing. His "neighbors" are likely the elite, as the term was often interpreted in terms of one's friends. Hence, he would have read it as loving one's friends, which he thinks he did. Jesus makes it about loving anyone in the covenant community who is in need. To love one within the covenant community is to love God who that community represents; and loving God and neighbor confirm one's status in the covenant as a saved individual, which is what the original question was all about (10:25). McGrath wants to turn the lawyer into a modern person asking the question in a larger society of unbelievers, and in doing so, has changed every character involved. But this is not the story Jesus told.

But the story Jesus told challenged them. And it is disheartening to find a Christian attempting to use linguistics to avoid the uncomfortable and challenging implications of Jesus’ teaching.

It is disheartening to find a New Testament scholar employing such anachronistic methodologies to get the parable to speak to his modern sensibilities instead of just interpret the ancient text in its own context. McGrath, as a liberal who has affection for the social gospel, wants this to support his modern inclusivism, but it frankly does no such thing. The text simply is not addressing what one does with those outside the covenant. Other texts do that, but this is not one of them. 

To sum up that context, the parable is sandwiched in between two scenes. The first is one where Jesus warns the disciples not to exult in their authority, but rather in their identity as truly saved individuals in the covenant community. We are told that God has revealed these things to the lowly described as "little children." He then affirms to the poor apostles that many kings and prophets, those with high status, have longed to see what they see and hear what they hear and never heard it, placing a greater importance on one's hearing the gospel and Jesus' teaching than being in a high position.

He, then, tells the story of Mary and Martha, a contrast between one doing works apart from sitting at Christ's feet with one doing no works but sitting at Christ's feet. Again, this emphasizes the primacy of being a believer in Jesus over being concerned for works. 

What this does is help us further with the interpretation of what is sandwiched in between, the parable of the Good Samaritan. The parable is meant to say the same thing. One should care most about his own covenant status, and this is evidenced by his following Jesus and taking care of others who follow Jesus. This is Luke's intent of the parable. McGrath has simply missed it because he, and many in our modern day, are busy turning the parable into a modern Aesop's fable. 

One might also confirm what Luke has taught by how Matthew uses it (i.e., the one in need is among the least of these brothers of Mine, not people outside of Jesus), or the New Testament in general, which was my original point with the word study. The New Testament uses it in the same way that the parable here does. It refers to covenant status,

And I do want to point out that there is nothing in McGrath's post that negates what I said. The parable doesn't actually ever define the word "neighbor." That's a mistake left over from not paying attention to Jesus' flipping the question. A neighbor is not whoever is injured or needs help because Jesus never assigns that term to the injured man. It's assigned to one, and only one, of the three men. What I was attempting to do in the post, and apparently even McGrath's readers didn't get it, since I was accused of some absurd diachronic fallacy, is to show how the New Testament defines the term based upon the original passage in Leviticus, which is internally covenantal. That was all ignored so that those who want this parable to say something else could go off on some diatribe that both begged the question and created a straw man argument out of what I actually argued. 

Instead, McGrath has changed the characters and the context of the parable in order to get a different point the parable is making, one that suits his modern sensibilities better. In short, he's given us another Darrin, even a Derwood. Most don't mind, but I'd personally rather go with the original. 

Is God a Neighbor?

I do have to ask, "Is God a neighbor according to the definition of the social gospel?" In other words, if being a neighbor is giving to those in need, regardless of whether they are haters of God and separated from the covenant, then is God a neighbor when He punishes people? Is He loving them as He loves Himself?

The Neo-Marcionites would surely agree that God is not a neighbor in the OT. They would just argue that the God of the New Testament, at least in the parts they like, becomes a neighbor. The problem with that is that judgment of the wicked is not lessened, but intensified in the New Testament. God doesn't just kill people and burn their cities to the ground. He doesn't just kill their livelihood and livestock. He doesn't just kill their children. He sends them off to an eternal punishment.

But even the Old Testament God is not a neighbor according to the definition often given to the word. Not only would we have to conclude that God would not help a Canaanite who was injured, we would have to conclude that God was the One who sent the ones to injure him.

This is one of the many theological absurdities of this false claim that everyone is a neighbor or that God wants us to be the neighbor of everyone. So God wants us to be better than He is? God wants us to do what He does not do? And He wants us to do it because it's loving? Is God not loving?

Again, if we understand that neighbor refers to the covenant member, then we see that God in the OT, and Jesus in the New, is calling us to love as He loves. In other words, He is calling us to love His covenant people as He loves them. He is calling us, not to be unlike Him, but to be like Him.

John makes this clear when He quotes Christ as interpreting the command as, "Love one another as I have loved you." The "one another" are other believers. Christ gave Himself up for His people, He sacrifices all things for them. Hence, He calls His true followers to do as He does. He does not call them to do what He does not.

Instead, the love we have for unbelievers is to call them into the kingdom through the Gospel. We don't communicate to them that they are already kind of kingdom people by virtue of their having access to kingdom resources that are reserved for His people alone. Christ does not give them this and neither are we to do so.

Any claim that it is selfish not to share these things with unbelievers is simply a rebellious man's claim that God is selfish. But the road of selfishness and cruelty is evidenced by the destination to where the road leads. If I contribute toward the damnation of an unbeliever by communicating to him a false acceptance by God that he does not have, and I use those resources that could have shown love to believers in Christ in need, but now cannot, simply because I desire to feel better about my goodness and work for Jesus, then it is I who am selfish and cruel. It really depends upon what you think the end game is.

In any case, God/Jesus is in no way a loving neighbor, and therefore, does not fulfill His own law, if neighbor is understood as modern interpreters understand it.

How Does One Become a Neighbor?

If we look at the parable, it is clear that the cynic speaking to Jesus wants to know who his neighbor is. The Jews had taken the technical meaning of the word, which often can be translated in the Old Testament as friend, and applied it only to those they like within the covenant community. This is made evident throughout the Gospels of both Luke and Matthew. They have nothing to do with Gentiles, sinners, prostitutes, Samaritans, etc., even though all are within the visible covenant community. Hence, this teacher likely thinks he only has obligations to his friends, since he was seeking to justify himself (i.e., seeking to affirm that he already does this).

Instead, Jesus flips the script, in accordance with Luke's larger argument, that he should be more concerned about identifying himself as a true covenant member. Hence, Jesus makes the argument that anyone in the covenant that evidences his love for the fellow covenant member evidences that he himself is a covenant member. That is the entire point of Luke's particular emphasis in his Gospel.

But notice, once again, that there is every indication that everyone is not the neighbor. Jesus actually asks, "Who became the neighbor of the injured man?" Notice, that if you become a neighbor, that implies that you were not one before. If everyone is a neighbor, then how does one become a neighbor? One can say, he became a human being; but if he already is a human being, this means that he simply does something that evidences his identity.

It asks, "Who became the neighbor?" This implies that one must actually do something to become the neighbor. One is not intrinsically a neighbor. This means that everyone is not a neighbor, which is why the answer to Jesus' question is not, "Everyone." Perhaps, one can argue that everyone can become a neighbor, regardless of their covenant status, but again, this would ignore Luke's point, which is all about doing the works toward covenant members that show forth covenant status.

It further tells us that if we think the Samaritan is a pagan, rather than a believer/covenant member, then we end up making this parable about becoming a covenant member via a good work. If we argue that he is already a covenant member, and became, in practice, what he claimed in identity, then we have a teaching consistent with all of Jesus' other teaching and the teaching of the Gospel itself. Otherwise, we must conclude that pagans become covenant members by virtue of their helping covenant members (i.e., doing good works toward covenant members), since that is who the injured man is in the story.

In other words, no matter how one slices it, this is not a generic story about doing good to one's fellow man, regardless of his covenant status. That sort of thinking just flips what is said on its head. The person in need in the story is a covenant member. He is a Jew travelling on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem.

He is also ultimately Christ. The Good Samaritan is the One rejected by the Jews, but really is the true neighbor to the true covenant member. He dies for His people. If this imagery is true, as I do think Luke seems at least to hint at it, then everyone is not the recipient of His kingdom blessing of the cross either. He dies only for His elect. He applies that sacrifice only to His elect. According to the neo-Marcionites, however, this makes Christ mean, and by their own warped definition, not a neighbor.

In the end, the story is about proving one's own covenant status by how he treats others in the covenant who are disadvantaged/poor/marginalized. To make it about people in general is simply to add elements to the story that stem from an inclusivistic theology that Luke does not share.

Neo-Marcionism and the Neighbor

The original command to love thy neighbor as thyself was a command given to Israel in Leviticus. It is specifically a covenantal command in the Hebrew Bible. The law bears this out, as Israel was to not covet their neighbor's possessions, and yet were to take all of the possessions of the Canaanites. Were the Canaanites not Israel's physical neighbors? Is taking one's land, killing him, killing his family loving him as one loves himself? We see a massive conflict when moderns interpret the neighbor to be everyone, since God specifically commands that one love neighbor as self, but then commands that Israel drive out the Canaanite and utterly destroy him.

There is no conflict in the original idea, however, because neighbor, as stated before, refers to a member of the covenant community in the context of  the Leviticus passage, which is the command upon which the New Testament bases its directives concerning the neighbor.

All of this is ignored by a modern religious culture that has been steeped in the "fatherhood of God, brotherhood of man" denial of the exclusivity of the kingdom and its physical resources.

What is done, however, is the typical neo-Marcionite move that argues that God only considered covenant members to be "neighbors" in the Old Testament, but now Jesus has made non-covenant members neighbors in the New Testament. This is mainly argued through the parable of the Good Samaritan and the idea that Jesus changes the law in some way.

The neighbor idea, however, is never expanded to include non-covenant members. Instead, the covenant always included ethnic and non-ethnic Israelites, who are worshipers of YHWH (the latter often described as the "sojourner" or "resident alien," which aren't the best translations). The New Testament simply brings this out all the more, and of course, the Gospels make it clear that the Jews are not the only covenant members, but even Gentiles who repent and evidence their covenant status by how they treat other covenant members should be considered such as well. Again, nothing different here.

So the claim that it has somehow changed is odd. The extension of the gospel is one that reaches to all who repent, Jew or Gentile. The covenant does not stretch to unbelievers. It never has and it never will. So the neighbor command in Leviticus remains the same command in the New Testament. You are to love your believer as yourself. And this is why the New Testament continually exhorts Christians to take care of "one another," to meet the needs of the brother who represents the invisible God, the least of Christ's brothers who stand in his place upon the earth.

The gospel is exclusive. Our religious culture doesn't like that. It is no surprise that it doesn't like exclusiveness of the kingdom and its resources either. But any argument that says God's covenant blessings are exclusive in the Old Testament, but inclusive in the New, is simply arguing for a Bible of two religions, one of the OT and one of Jesus. Marcion would be proud, but it doesn't endure the weight of scrutiny. The only reason why so many put up a fuss about it is not due to the evidence we have, but because one has a theological horse in the race; but that's not scholarship. It's apologetics, and apologetics that ignore the texts involved is always eisegetical and not worthy of our time.

Who Is My Neighbor?

There is a bit of confusion in English translations concerning who is identified as a believer’s neighbor. Unfortunately, completely different words that have no connection whatsoever in Greek are all translated as “neighbor.”

For instance, people who live in the vicinity of others are considered “neighbors” in the modern sense of the word. But this word, in the Greek is geitōn. Another Greek word is sometimes translated as “neighbor,” and can be seen as synonymous with geitōn, and that is perioikos “one who lives by another,” literally, “beside a house.” Neither one of these words is the word used when referring to people we are to love as ourselves, and to whom we ought to give kingdom resources.

Unfortunately, “neighbor” is really a poor translation of the word plēsion, the word that is used to refer to people for whom believers are responsible. It does not help that popular, yet outdated, sources, like Strong’s Concordance, give definitions of plēsion as follows:

1)a neighbour 1a) a friend 1b) any other person, and where two are concerned, the other (thy fellow man, thy neighbour), according to the Jews, any member of the Hebrew nation and commonwealth 1c) according to Christ, any other man irrespective of nation or religion with whom we live or whom we chance to meet

In all actuality, the New Testament never considers a plēsion as “any other person,” one’s “fellow man,” or “any other man irrespective of nation or religion with whom we live or whom we chance to meet.” Such definitions are more indicative of Strong’s theology than it is of anything an actual study of the word bears out.

When one looks at the word plēsion, in the New Testament, the word always evidences the meaning, “fellow member of the covenant community.” The problem is that we do not really have a word in English that fits this definition, and so translators merely look for the closest equivalency. Since the word in the LXX is used to refer both to fellow covenant members and those who are just “neighbors” in the modern sense of the word, it is assumed that the word “neighbor” is a good translation when it used.

What has happened, however, is that these two separate uses of the word in the Old Testament have become conflated. Hence, when the law speaks about loving one’s neighbor, it is assumed that this means anyone within the physical proximity of another person. What it actually refers to in those particular contexts, however, is strictly a fellow covenant community member. It may be that the concept even grew out of the literal neighbor idea, since the only neighbors to worshipers of YHWH in Israel were other worshipers of YHWH in Israel. Pagan worshipers were to be drive out of the land or executed according to the Law. Hence, a “friend/neighbor” in that context was a fellow covenant community member and one who lived in proximity to another.

However, any conflation is separated by the New Testament, which clearly distinguishes the plēsion “fellow covenant community member” from the geitōn and perioikos “ones who live in proximity or by the dwelling of another.”

In fact, it would be simply odd to take the term as referring to one’s fellow man regardless of religion or status when Jesus addresses the issue in the parable of the Good Samaritan. When asked the question, “Who is my neighbor” in Jesus’ explanation of the command, the correct answer is not “everyone,” or “your fellow man.” Instead, the parable indicates that only the one who takes care of a member of the covenant community is the true fellow covenant community member. In other words, by stating that only the Samaritan, a fellow worshiper of YHWH that the Jews saw as ethnically unclean, is the true neighbor of the Jewish man in trouble. The others were not, even though they had the greatest claim to the covenant community by virtue of their ethnicity and tribal/cultic status. Instead, only the one who proved his covenant status by providing for another fellow covenant member in need is said to be the neighbor. The others are not—thus showing that not everyone, in fact, is the neighbor. Indeed, Jesus Himself indicates that only one of the three is a neighbor to the covenant community member who is injured when He asks, tis toutōn tōn triōn “Which one out of the three” had become the plēsion “neighbor” of the injured man? The answer given, which Jesus also affirms, is not “all of them.” Instead, it is, “the one who showed mercy to him,” In other words, only one out of the three was the neighbor of the injured covenant community member, which corresponds with Luke’s message throughout his Gospel, i.e., the one who has mercy on a fellow covenant community member displays his true covenant status as opposed to the one who merely has that status by virtue of his riches or social and religious prestige.

If everyone is my neighbor, however, this parable is false. Jesus' entire point is that not everyone is the covenant community man's neighbor. That is the entire point of the story. It would, in fact, collapse the entire argument of the parable and the entire argument of Luke, who has been arguing that a major identity marker of one who is truly in the kingdom is how he takes care of fellow covenant community members. If everyone is a neighbor, then there is no way to use this marker to identify oneself as a "neighbor."

Throughout the Old Testament, the term refers to a fellow Israelite/follower of YHWH, and anyone who is a “friend.” But “friend,” although closer to what the term means can be a bit of a deceptive translation, especially in the New Testament, which uses the word philos to refer to a friend.

In the original Old Testament statement in Leviticus, from which the New Testament draws its concept of the plēsion, the “neighbor” refers to those belonging to the people of God, and this is made evident by the parallel between the sons of Israel and one's neighbor.

You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people,

but you are to love your neighbor [LXX plēsion] as yourself. (Lev 19:18)

Notice that the “sons of your people” and “neighbor” are one in the same. If neighbor here meant “fellow man,” inclusive of unbelievers outside the covenant community, why does it limit the definition to just the “sons of your people”? The expression “sons of X” is a gentilic in the ancient Near East. Hence, “sons of your people” refers to fellow Israelites, although the phrase, “your people” likely expands it to anyone within the covenant community who is a worshiper of YHWH, whether ethnically Israelite or not. Clearly, however, only covenant members, and not pagans, are in view. Indeed, the whole passage addresses one’s treatment of a fellow member of the covenant community.

“‘You must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich. You must judge your fellow citizen fairly. You must not go about as a slanderer among your people. You must not stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake. I am the Lord. You must not hate your brother in your heart. You must surely reprove your fellow citizen so that you do not incur sin on account of him. You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you must love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. (19:15-18)

Paul draws from this passage in Romans 12-13, and argues that one ought not to seek out vengeance toward other believers, but instead, to have love for one another that is without hypocrisy (12:9-10), to minister to the needs of the saints (v. 13), and to bless those who treat them poorly (vv. 14-18). Paul states that they should not seek out vengeance on one another for three reasons: (1) the posture of non-retaliation toward a believer might cause that believer to repent (vv. 19-21); (2) the government has been set in place to take care of issues of injustice if a crime has been committed (13:1-7); and (3) to love one’s plēsion “fellow believer” is to fulfill the law.

This argument is one that Paul has made before, and gets from Jesus Himself. Christ argues that the entire Law and Prophets, i.e., the entirety of all Scripture has the two greatest commandments at its base. Again, in Galatians 5:13-15, Paul makes this statement.

For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom asan opportunity to indulge your flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” However, if you continually bite and devour one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another.

This is an important argument for understanding who the neighbor is. The laws in the Old Testament do not command us to take care of the unbeliever. Instead, all of the laws have to do with preserving the life of one’s fellow covenant community member, doing what is just to one’s fellow covenant member, not defrauding one’s fellow covenant community member. The only thing the law commands about the unbeliever is to not adopt his ways, to reject his gods, and to drive him out of the land. If all of the law is fulfilled in loving the plēsion, however, this means that the plēsion does not include the unbeliever, but instead, only refers to the fellow community member.

Furthermore, this is made evident in the texts cited. Matthew is arguing that Jewish Christians ought to take care of Gentile Christians, as they are included in the “least of these brothers of Mine.” It is not about Christians giving some general welfare toward all men. Indeed, that would destroy Matthew’s point that to take care of the least of these is to take care of Christ Himself, since they are connected to Christ by following Him as their Lord.

Paul is also clear that these neighbors are believers by continually referring the command in Galatians to “one another,” rather than to the world in general. Again, the entire argument in Romans is that Gentile Christians are included in the covenant by faith and not by becoming Jewish. Hence, Jewish Christians ought to receive them as brothers, and vice versa. The concluding chapters of Romans do not change that subject. Chapters 12-15 are all about how fellow believers deal with one another.  

In Ephesians 4:25, Paul commands: “Therefore, having laid aside falsehood, each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.” 

Again, plēsion references fellow Christians, not the world in general.

In James, we see that plēsion “neighbor” clearly refers to the fellow believer. Both in 2:1-12 and 4:11-12, it is the believers who are the neighbors of other believers and are told to fulfill the command, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” by loving other believers.

My brothers and sisters, do not show prejudice if you possess faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. For if someone comes into your assembly wearing a gold ring and fine clothing, and a poor person enters in filthy clothes, do you pay attention to the one who is finely dressed and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and to the poor person, “You stand over there,” or “Sit on the floor”?  If so, have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil motives? Listen, my dear brothers and sisters! Did not God choose the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom thathe promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor! Are not the rich oppressing you and dragging you into the courts? Do they not blaspheme the good name of the one you belong to? But if you fulfill the royal law as expressed in this scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show prejudice, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as violators. For the one who obeys the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.  For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a violator of the law. Speak and act as those who will be judged by a law that gives freedom. For judgment is merciless for the one who has shown no mercy. But mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:1-13)

Do not speak against one another, brothers and sisters. He who speaks against a fellow believer or judges a fellow believer speaks against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but its judge. But there is only one who is lawgiver and judge—the one who is able to save and destroy. On the other hand, who are you to judge your neighbor? (4:11-12)

The idea that everyone is the neighbor is a social gospel tradition that has invaded the modern church. The idea that everyone is not my brother, but everyone is my neighbor is a syncretism of the social gospel and orthodox Christianity. It simply is not what the New Testament teaches. This becomes important, of course, in understanding to whom Christians are obligated in terms of ministering with physical resources.

Duality

His Word is a fire and a sword.
It is not put out,
It is not sheathed,
Until every weed and poisonous tree is cut down and set ablaze.

His Word is water and a plowshare.
It cultivates life out of death,
until all grass is green and every tree is adorned with fruit.