Brother? (Jesus Christ, Earth, Leviticus, beliefs, blood)

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

It is not just wisdom but it is implied that after the resurrection, genetically speaking, we will all be of the same family.

I agree with your statement. I also tend to go one step further (which I think you disagree with) and say that, by grace and design, we are all already of the same family. The resurrection will simply make that plain for us.

[wmam]

Originally Posted by sojourner

According to both the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and The Interpreter's Dictionary, the word "neighbor" and "brother" are used in similar context in the Luke passage. Here, a lawyer is testing Jesus' understanding of the parameters of the Levitican Law, or covenant. Hence, the term "neighbor" used in Leviticus, denotes someone who is part of the covenant -- a "brother." Not simply myunderstanding, but the considered conclusion of Biblical authorities.

Yes........ There are many secular choices out there that one could pull from to either make or break the concept of anyone but I again state that I have yet to see any Scriptural proof of what you state or that of what you say your sources state for that matter.

Originally Posted by sojourner

Jesus' treatment of the word "neighbor," (being used in the same context, as has been shown, as "brother") clearly shows that Jesus is expanding the meaning of "brother" to include all who act like a brother. Jesus here is not so much concerned with either "belief" or "bloodline" as he is interaction.

Again no Scriptural proof of your belief.

[wmam]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

It is not just wisdom but it is implied that after the resurrection, genetically speaking, we will all be of the same family.

Yes, very much so hense the "Until the day of rapture, some of us will have to put up with the like." in the OP.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by wmam

Yes........ There are many secular choices out there that one could pull from to either make or break the concept of anyone but I again state that I have yet to see any Scriptural proof of what you state or that of what you say your sources state for that matter.


Again no Scriptural proof of your belief.

The word, “neighbor” is translated from the Greek word, πλησίου, or “ple‘sion,” which is defined as “neighbor,” or “near.”(2) It is formed from “pl‘esios,” defined as “close by” in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.(3)
“‘Ple‘sion’ occurs some 225 times in the LXX, often with no Hebrew original.”(4) The Theological Dictionary goes on to identify the Hebrew word, “r‘á,” as a Hebrew word often identified with pl‘esion. The Dictionary defines that word as a verb, meaning “to have dealings,” or “to associate.” In the Hebrew Bible, a neighbor, therefore, would generally refer to someone with whom one normally dealt. The word is used extensively in the Law and in covenant language, so, according to the Theological Dictionary, a neighbor would be one who was a worshiper of Yahweh – one of the covenant people. “When the term occurs in the legal texts, it has a relatively general character in view of the general validity of the ordinances. Yet the setting shows that the laws are given specifically to Israel, so that their unequivocal application is to members of the people, with a clear extension only to resident aliens.”(5) The Interpreter’s dictionary corroborates this definition, saying that “‘neighbor’ in the O.T. generally denotes a fellow member of the people of the covenant. It is therefore similar to ‘brother.’ This fellowship...involved the assumption of moral obligation. This obligation is categorically enjoined in Lev.19:18: ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”(6)

2) Analytical Concordance to the NRSV of the New Testament, Richard Whitaker and John Kohlenberger, III, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
3) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprinted 1988.
4) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
5) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
6) Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Abingdon, 1962.

That's the best we can do. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't work in the manner of clarifying its own linguistic idiosyncracies -- that's why Biblical scholars do their scholarship and present their findings in books such as these. The TDNT is one of the best scholarly works in the area of Biblical linguistics. The Interpreter's is also well-respected.

Can you provide scriptural proof that "brother" and "neighbor" are not similar in context, and that Jesus does not intend to extend the meaning of the word to include all who act "neighborly?"

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by sojourner

The word, “neighbor” is translated from the Greek word, πλησίου, or “ple‘sion,” which is defined as “neighbor,” or “near.”(2) It is formed from “pl‘esios,” defined as “close by” in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.(3)
“‘Ple‘sion’ occurs some 225 times in the LXX, often with no Hebrew original.”(4) The Theological Dictionary goes on to identify the Hebrew word, “r‘á,” as a Hebrew word often identified with pl‘esion. The Dictionary defines that word as a verb, meaning “to have dealings,” or “to associate.” In the Hebrew Bible, a neighbor, therefore, would generally refer to someone with whom one normally dealt. The word is used extensively in the Law and in covenant language, so, according to the Theological Dictionary, a neighbor would be one who was a worshiper of Yahweh – one of the covenant people. “When the term occurs in the legal texts, it has a relatively general character in view of the general validity of the ordinances. Yet the setting shows that the laws are given specifically to Israel, so that their unequivocal application is to members of the people, with a clear extension only to resident aliens.”(5) The Interpreter’s dictionary corroborates this definition, saying that “‘neighbor’ in the O.T. generally denotes a fellow member of the people of the covenant. It is therefore similar to ‘brother.’ This fellowship...involved the assumption of moral obligation. This obligation is categorically enjoined in Lev.19:18: ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”(6)

2) Analytical Concordance to the NRSV of the New Testament, Richard Whitaker and John Kohlenberger, III, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
3) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprinted 1988.
4) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
5) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
6) Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Abingdon, 1962.

That's the best we can do. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't work in the manner of clarifying its own linguistic idiosyncracies -- that's why Biblical scholars do their scholarship and present their findings in books such as these. The TDNT is one of the best scholarly works in the area of Biblical linguistics. The Interpreter's is also well-respected.

Can you provide scriptural proof that "brother" and "neighbor" are not similar in context, and that Jesus does not intend to extend the meaning of the word to include all who act "neighborly?"

Are you accessing the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament online?

[angellous_evangellous]

Just FYI - I'm researching Greco-Roman meals, and I've found that in a meal/banquet context, familial language was used. The earliest Christians ate together, and often called eachother "brother" and ""sister." The first readings of the NT were most likely done just after a meal, where unrelated people would call each other brother and sister. From the immediate context, "brother" would likely mean whoever they've just called "brother" or "sister," with "brother" serving as the representative of all relationships.

Another thing to consider is that Greeks and Jews were eating together in a religious context for the first time, and this caused some anger between the two groups (addressed in 1 Corinthians 11 and Romans 14). Jews were now eating with Gentiles, calling someone "brother" who was formerly outside of a covanent with God. Now, when a Jew is angry with a Gentile, he or she is angry with a family member - someone they now eat with and worship with.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I don't think that's in the TDNT.

[wmam]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Can you provide scriptural proof that "brother" and "neighbor" are not similar in context, and that Jesus does not intend to extend the meaning of the word to include all who act "neighborly?"

As I have said more than once........... No Scriptural proof as yet. More secular mumbo jumbo.

As far as Proving that it doesn't mean the same is easy but now we are considering "similar in context" which is possible with a whole lot of different words in the way that they are used. As far as them meaning the same I would have to ask then why use both and not just one? Why is it that brother is used and then neighbor is used if they both mean the same? Why not just one? Thats not Scriptural but just plain common sense.

Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know YAH: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Are you accessing the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament online?

No. it was a hard copy. The body of the thread was an excerpt from a word study on the word "neighbr," as it appears in Luke 10, which I completed for Brandon Scott's NT class. About your next post: A good example of how cultural anthropology informs our interpretation of Biblical meaning. From your example, we can see that "neighbor" in Luke 10 and "brother/sister" are used in the same context, and that the meaning of that context changed across time and culture, as proven by Matthew and Luke.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by sojourner

I agree with your statement. I also tend to go one step further (which I think you disagree with) and say that, by grace and design, we are all already of the same family. The resurrection will simply make that plain for us.

Not at all, I agree whole heatrtedly.

Consider this from Romans 4:

"[16] Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
[17] (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were."