In the enunciation of this second great com- mandment, Christ specifies the love which men are required to show for one another as the love of ones neighbour. Doubtless the word was sug- gested by the precept from Leviticus which He quoted, just as the form of the first commandment is based, as we have seen, upon the language of Deuteronomy. When we inquire as to the wide- ness of the circle denoted by the term ' neighbour,' we seem to find an answer in the parable of the Good Samaritan, Avhich was told, according to Lk., in response to the question that had been put, 'Who is my neighbour?' (Lk 10^"^). But in its present form that parable gives no satisfactory answer to the question. After telling the story of what befell the traveller, how he was maltreated by the thieves and passed by in his miserable plight by the priest and the Levite, and how at last tiie Samaritan took compassion on him, Christ asks, ' Which now of those three, thinkest tliou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?' The answer is, the Samaritan ; and the conclusion of the parable seems to ^ye that it was the travellers duty to love the Samaritan, i.e. that the term 'neiglibour' is wider than the lawyer who had put the question seemed to imagine, and must Ije held to embrace any who by their conduct prove them- selves worthy of the name, whether they be Jews or not (so Wendt, Lchre Jesa, ii. 26S). This is certainly the logical conclusion from the parable as it at present stands, but it is questionable whether tliis can have been the lesson Christ desired to en- force by it. It starts with the object of ])ro\ing who is one's neighbour in the sense of dilifjcmhts (v.^i, and ends by proving who is the traveller's neiglilxjur in the sense of f/iligois, v.^ (Jiilicher, Die Gleichnisredcn Jesu, ii. 596). The nearest approach that it reaches to a definition of the term • neighbour ' in the sense required is contained \\\ the ' Go and do thou likewise ' with which it concludes. The usual method of interpreting the parable is to find the answer to the question in tlie practical lesson enforced by that exhorta- tion, and to conclude that our neighbour is anyone rt ho requires our help. But in view of the immediately preceding statement that the neigh- bour of the traveller was the Samaritan who had compassion on him, it seems utterly incongruous to conclude that the design of the parable is to teach that one's neighlxjur is not one's benefactor, but anyone that one can benefit, i.e. in this case tiiat the traveller was the neighlwur of the Samaritan. So we can only conclude that Lk. is responsible for the introduction of the parable in connexion Avith this question of the lawyers, and that whatever the original purpose for" which it was related, it Avas certainly not designed to give an answer to the question, ' Who is my neigh- bour?' in the .<ense of ' Who is the person I am required to love ? '
But the precise scope of the term ' neighbour ' in the mouth of Christ is of the less importance, as it is only on the occasion of His inter\-iew with the scribe (Mk 12^-»^, Mt 22=»-*') that He thus defines the limits within which one is to show love towards one's feUow-men, and there, as we have seen. He is evidently formulating His answer in the language of the 6T commandment. In opposi- tion to the narrow sense in wliicli the term
VOL. II. — 6
' neighlx>ur ' was interpreted by His contem- jxtraries, who could add to the injunction to love their neighlx)ur a coroUarj- to the effect that they were to hate their enemy (Mt 5^), Christ enjoined a love which was to embrace both friend and enemy (v."*-). The Golden Rule which Christ has given men to guide them in their offices of love takes us far beyond the circle of neighbours in the narrow Jewish sense. The command runs, ' All tilings whatsoever ye would that men (not your neighbours) should do unto you, do ye even so to them' (7^-). We are to show love* to all. ' Whosoever shall smite thee,' ' if any man will sue thee,' " whosoever shall compel thee,' ' he that asketh thee," ' he that would lx)rrow of thee," — these are the phrases with which Christ introduces those to whom He commands His disciples to show love (5^"*^). Sometimes He desc-ribes them as 'brothers' (5-- 2* '^'= IS^^- 2if. ssj^ Q^t ^^ ^jjg j^^gg
of those who are bound to us by natural ties, in which sense brotherly love is practised by the Gentiles as well (5^'), nor in the sense of fellow- citizens of the Kingdom of God (so B. Weiss ; Westcott, Thx: Ejiistles of St. John, note on 1 Jn 2^), in which sense the word would reproduce in a new form the limitation that attached to the Jewish interpretation of the term 'neighbour,' but in the same wide sense as He applies the term 'Father' to God. He is the Father not only of the members of the Kingdom, but of all mankind (5^'), and by using the term ' brother ' to denote the objects of our love, Clirist will suggest that it is to be a love as wide and all-embracing as that of the Father in heaven, who 1>estows His bounties on good and evil, — a love not only of those who are members of the Kingdom of God, but of all who have the right to look up and claim God as their Father in heaven (Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 270 f.). The command to forgive our brother his trespasses (18^) is interpreted in the widest sense in 6^^-, when, in place of forgi\ing our brother, Christ speaks of forgiving men their trespasses.