H​ow many times, if ever,  have you heard someone say “white and black” for “black and white” or “potatoes and meat” instead of  “meat and potatoes”?   There are unwritten laws of how we speak, and even though we don’t consciously think about them – and no one ever really taught them to us –  we say what we have heard others say and what sounds natural to us. 
​
We say “Ladies and gentlemen” and never “gentlemen and ladies,” even though we say “men and women,” not “women and men.”  In the same way, it’s always “bread and butter,” “thunder and lightning,” or “highs and lows” – never the other way around.

In some expressions we can see a certain kind of logic in the way we place one word before another – as with time order (“cause and effect,” “crime and punishment,” etc.); most important first (“bread and butter,” “fish and chips,” etc.); better first (“good and bad,” “pros and cons,” etc.). But often there is no seeming reason  for putting one word before another, yet it’s always “salt and pepper,” “cloak and dagger” – and countless other expressions where we naturally place one before the other.

The clearest example of this  kind of unwritten law of what we say is probably found in pairs of words containing the letter “I” where we always put the “I” first. That’s why we always say “hip hop” and not “hop hip,” or “tittle-tattle” and not “tattle-tittle,” “flip-flop” and not “flop-flip,”  “drip-drop” and not “drop-drip,” etc.  It’s hard to think of an exception to this tendency – we put “I” before other letters in dozens of pairs of words probably for no other reason than it seems natural, easy, and comfortable to us.

The actions in our lives can be a lot like that, too.  Although we may not consciously think about it and were never taught to do so, we tend to place “I” before other people in our interactions and relationships.   We may not mean to do so, but we often just naturally stress our own needs before those of others whether it is in the grocery store, or driving on the roads, in office meetings, or in talking with friends.  In countless ways we all tend to put “I” first. It’s just the natural thing to do. 

But the Bible turns life around in this regard and shows us that it is actually a whole lot better to resist what comes naturally in our attitudes and actions towards others. For example, the apostle Paul reminds us that we should “count others more significant than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3), and that is definitely an attitude of putting others before ourselves.

It’s one of the most basic principles of Christianity, but especially in difficult times of social upheaval and difficulties –  when we may be particularly tempted to put our own needs ahead of those of others – we have to make a conscious effort not to place the naturally preferred “I” first.

When supplies are short in stores, when people are tempted to hoard more provisions than they actually need at this time, Paul’s continuing advice applies more than ever:  “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Philippians 2:4).

It may be natural to put ourselves first, but Christianity calls us to a much better way in which we do not do things because they are the “natural” thing to do – but the way that ultimately is the best for us and for everyone else.

Although we may know the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) well, there is an aspect of that story that is easy to miss – one that lies at the very heart of the parable’s message.

Luke tells us that when an expert in the law of Moses asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus confirmed that he should follow the biblical injunction to love God and to “Love your neighbor as yourself.”   This prompted the lawyer to ask Jesus “And who is my neighbor?”  – setting the stage for the parable of the Good Samaritan that Jesus then gave.

In this parable, of course, Jesus related that when a traveler was attacked by robbers and left naked and almost dead at the side of a deserted road, a priest and later a Levite traveling the same road both ignored the injured man and continued on their ways.  Only a Samaritan – one of the neighboring group of people hated and despised by many Jews –  who had pity on the injured man and helped him.

At the conclusion of the parable Jesus asked the lawyer “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” (vs. 36), to which the lawyer correctly replied “The one who had mercy on him.”  We read that Jesus then told him, “Go and do likewise.”

But as we finish our own reading of this parable and move on to the following story in Luke’s Gospel, it is likely that we will miss a profound aspect of this final exchange between Jesus and the lawyer.  Remember that at the beginning  of the story we are told the lawyer asked “who is my neighbor,” but if we look carefully we see that what Jesus asked at the end of the story changes the wording of this question.

It is hard to see this subtle change because it is obscured in most English translations of the Bible.  For example, the NIV –  which we have quoted here –  has ““Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”   By translating this question with “was” –  the verb to be –  the translators made it match the lawyer’s original question “who is my neighbor?”

However, that is not what the Greek of the New Testament actually says.  The word (gegonenai)  used by Luke to record Jesus’ reply to the lawyer literally means “to have become,” and the question should be translated “who became a neighbor to the man?”   This literal translation is found in some carefully done recent Bible versions such as the New English Translation which has “Which of these three do you think became a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” (10:36 NET, emphasis added).

While this may seem like a small difference in meaning, it is actually a very important one. Jesus changes the lawyer’s question of “who is my neighbor” –  meaning “ who must I regard as my neighbor”–  to “who became a neighbor” –  meaning “who did something that made him a neighbor?”   Consider this difference. “Who is my neighbor” implies only theoretical acceptance of the person. “Who became his neighbor” implies an action that resulted in a relationship being established.  The difference is that of what we believe as opposed to what we do.

To really understand this difference, we must go back to the parable itself.  It is easy to presume that any priest who passed by the injured man must be callous and uncaring, but that is a judgment that may not be true. In the circumstances described in the parable it may be that a priest could accept the injured man as a neighbor but be afraid to do anything to help him.  Even apart from the possibility of being attacked himself, a priest might well have considered the fact that if he touched a dead or dying man he would have been rendered ceremonially unclean for a whole week (Numbers 19:11).   That would have resulted in him having to return to Jerusalem to undergo lengthy purification rituals – leaving his wife and family not knowing why he had not returned home when expected.  According to the priestly system in place at that time, it would also mean that he and his family would lose expected income.  
​
So, under such circumstances, it is perfectly possible that a priest could have viewed the injured man as a “neighbor,” and still not have done anything about the situation through selfishness or fear.   Seen this way, we realize that the change of wording Jesus insisted upon in the lawyer’s question was one that taught him –  and all of us who will listen –  that in our relations with others we must be willing to move beyond acceptance to action.  The changed wording teaches us that acceptance alone is not enough –  our neighbor is anyone in need to whom we extend help, anyone to whom we actually become a neighbor.

The word empathy doesn’t appear in most translations of the Bible (although the concept is certainly there), so we don’t tend to think of it as a powerful biblical idea like faith, hope, or love. But empathy may be a vital virtue you are neglecting  –  a biblical super-weapon that every Christian needs.

Our new article looks at empathy in a way that may be new to you – as a tactical spiritual weapon that can help us both to do what is right and not to do what is wrong.   You can read this new article –  and find out why empathy is so important to you personally, here.
​

“Only the lonely …. know the way I feel tonight…” 

So began Roy Orbison’s 1960 rock ballad which propelled the previously unknown singer to sudden fame.  Orbison’s song struck a psychological note with many people, although it referred only to a limited kind of loneliness – that experienced by someone cut off from a romantic relationship.  Ultimate loneliness, of course, is experienced by those who have lost most or even all of their friendships and relationships. For many people, that kind of loneliness can be psychologically devastating.

Interestingly, the Bible has something to say about the lonely of this world – but far less than you probably expect.   The word “lonely” only appears a few times in the Old Testament and does not appear in the New Testament at all relative to people – only “lonely” places!  This is probably because in the society of biblical times people lived in more tightly knit extended families, and loneliness was far less common.  We can see this in one of the few scriptures in the Bible that does mention loneliness.  When King David wrote “God sets the lonely in families …” (Psalm 68:6), he does not say that God gives the lonely new friends, but sets them back in a family setting where loneliness is not an issue.

Today, especially in the Western world, where children commonly move away from their homes as they get older, individuals of both the younger and older generations are much more likely to experience loneliness.  Psychological and medical studies have shown that under these circumstances loneliness can become a severe psychological discomfort affecting not only happiness, but also health and even life expectancy. 

The problem is compounded because loneliness is often difficult to diagnose or for others to recognize.  We soon become aware if our neighbors are injured or ill, but even extreme loneliness may not be noticed by others, especially because lonely people often keep to themselves and may even hide their loneliness because of pride or other factors.

As Christians, we have a responsibility to reach out to the lonely just as we have a responsibility toward those who are hurting in any other way.  The psalmist’s comment that “God sets the lonely in families…” needs individuals and families who are willing to make that possible.  We can be the family that God wishes to use by inviting a lonely neighbor to dinner occasionally, stopping by to see if an aged neighbor needs help with anything, including widowed neighbors in home Bible study invitations, or in many other ways.

But we should also remember that any lonely neighbors we may have are only the tip of the iceberg of loneliness. Many of our Christian brothers and sisters around the world suffer loneliness because they are rejected and cut off from their own families because of their faith. Others suffer extreme loneliness in situations where they are imprisoned for their beliefs and cut off from all meaningful fellowship or friendship. 
 
It is probably true that only the lonely can fully understand the extent of the problem of loneliness, but through any action we can accomplish and through prayer we can set the lonely in families they otherwise would not have.