The meaning of a word usually depends on the context in which it is used. In this instance the context of the word “neighbor” was the commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself.” This commandment forms the second half of the essence or summation of all the commandments. In this broad context, the meaning of “neighbor” likely goes beyond the traditional ...
This teaching is not about geographical distance. You can only be a neighbor to people who are physically near you, at least in the time of Christ, before skype, email, etc, it was not even a consideration that you could transcend distance.
The idea that distance was unimportant comes, I believe, from the fact that all four people were travelling to Jericho ...
Jesus does indeed reverse the perspective by showing someone receiving neighbourly kindness and asking "Who was a neighbour to him?" instead of answering "Who is my neighbour?"
But his point is not necessarily that you should avoid thinking of the question in favour of "Who will be a neighbour to me?" Rather, he holds up the ...
The answer to that question is given by the lawyer / legal expert in Luke 10:37
And he said, “The one who showed compassion to him.” Then Jesus said
to him, “Go and do the same.”
So instead of thinking "who is my neighbor" we ought to think what it means to be a neighbor for someone (= showing compassion).
Below is a summary from 3 different angles; included are 3 links to videos I've created for more extensive arguments for each section, as well as a link to the work of David Barrett Peabody who explored this question in detail.
The Negative Case:
(counterpoints to arguments that Mark was first)
A review of shortfalls in major arguments for Markan Priority ...
There may be biblical warrant for saying Jesus referred both to an action of the devil, and specific results of his work of deception. Further, that the deceiver had to do something first, before what he did resulted in actual murder. I take the meaning of murder to be premeditated action that leads to the death of another, who otherwise would not have lost ...
The Serpent approached the woman, without authorisation. This was not an angelic messenger sent from God. This was an unwarranted approach to someone not under his direct authority. God instructed the man regarding a warning of that which was inherent in creation (the matter of a certain kind of knowledge which existed but which was not the way that humanity ...
This is now NIV shows the parallelism structure in context:
If only there were **briers and thorns** confronting me!
I would march against them in battle;
I would set them all on fire.
Or else let **them** come to me for refuge;
let them make peace with me,
yes, let them make peace with me.”
Briars and thorns are symbols of the unrighteous ...
Like many others, I find the first answer very helpful.
Let me just add a bit:
The most interesting book about the synoptic problem that I have read is by John Wenham: "Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke".
He shows that it is most likely that Matthew was written first with a date around 40, then Mark around 45, Luke in the mid 50's and Acts about 62....
When I approach a passage, I try to picture each word. If it is a noun, I try to picture the thing and when it is a verb I try picture the action, often engage my body to actually go through the motions. I figure that if I can't picture it then I probably don't understand it.
When I first tried to picture this, what came to my mind was something like this: