Bible Studies

The Witting Exposure of Little Honored Israelite Beliefs and Practices

by Walter Boswell
05/04/18
Free to Share
Author requests article critique

  Message Writer
  Hire Writer

Tweet

                             THE WITTING EXPOSURE OF LITTLE-HONORED

                                      ISRAELITE BELIEFS AND PRACTICES

                  PREMISE: The ways of exceptional goodness are a free-will offering to the Lord

SEMI-EQUALITY FOR THE OTHER HALF

                The challenge of this article, and of this section in particular, is to counsel a better understanding and thereby an appreciation of the changes the Israelite nation brought to world civilization. Women have always been blessed and cursed throughout time: blessed with a stronger image and a more robust biological system, with the guaranteed love of newborns, and with the adoration of (a multitude of) male worshippers; cursed by the actions of males (often the same males who worship them) to exercise control over them relative to their own need for exclusivity, fatherhood, and assured fidelity. To this contest of natural reproductive need versus sexual identity, what changes did the Israelites initiate to bring at least semi-equality?

                One need only take a glance at many Middle Eastern and sub-Saharan African countries today to see what women have endured for centuries. The slaughter of unwanted girl babies, child labor, genital mutilation, honor killings, death for being raped, extremely limited social privileges, almost non-existent legal rights, veiled lives, and even more hidden desires and ambitions, these sins can never be tempered, only delineated and eliminated.

                Genesis, when read insightfully, paints us a very dark picture of human existence. Eve was the first sinner and rebel, which provided the excuse for her husband to become her master (Gen 3:16). Metaphorically, Abraham and Sarah, fresh from the Garden of Eden, were still seeking a safe and blessed place to live together. Whenever Abraham entered a new region, he knew that it was in the rules of nature for the strong to prey upon the weak, to take whatever a person wanted, even another man’s wife. Therefore he lied about his wife, Sarah, being his sister (Gen 12:10-15). Isaac, his son, had the same wariness about the world (Gen 26:6-11).

                Young brides are parties to a wedding in which they seldom ever play a part (emotionally). Jacob’s feelings of love for Rachel were ‘known’ even before he ‘knew’ Rachel in the Biblical sense (Gen 29:18). Rachel’s feelings remained a mystery, except insofar as her shame of barrenness (Gen 29:31) was later lifted by earnest prayer (Gen 30:22-23). A woman’s honor in those days rested mainly in conceiving a child and managing the household. Despite her honorable station in life, Rachel was not above stealing and then deceiving her father about it (Gen 31:34-35). Along with his 12 sons, Jacob was blessed to have at least one daughter, Dinah, who was raped; and all the males in the town were massacred in order to restore her honor (Gen 34:1, 24-31). Judgement is with us.

                In a world post-Exodus, moral values that had been forever and inextricably tied to family honor or tribal unity were now to be sublimated to a new congregational faith and obedience to God. Among the Lord’s commandments was a universal proscription against ever wronging a widow or an orphan (Ex 22:21-23). Rights and protections once accorded only to men slowly drifted into women’s purview. Vows and pledges made by a woman were valid, hindered only on occasion by minor obeisance of her father or husband, and completely unbounded if made by a widow or a divorced woman (Num 30:4-16). Under the right circumstances, women could inherit property (Num 27:5-11; 36:5-9). Wives could be granted ‘freedom’, in effect a divorce, if the husband failed to provide for her needs (Ex 21:10-11). Daughters ‘sold’ into marriage were nonetheless expected to carry out their service contracts for life (Ex 21:7-8). Fathers-in-law were honor-bound to treat their daughters-in-law just like blood-kin daughters, who were also protected from assaults perpetrated by other male members of her husband’s family, which was considered incest (Ex 21:9; Lev 18:6-18; 20:10-21). Incidental harm and abuse coming to either a girl or a boy, a woman or a man, were to be treated in an equivalent manner for prosecution purposes (Ex 21:31). Persons found guilty of hurting a pregnant woman, even if only to the extent of miscarriage, had heavy damages to pay; furthermore, they risked physical penalty if the injury was more serious or permanent (Ex 21:22-25). When a man died without leaving a son, his brother, sharing title to the land, was importuned to marry the widow both as a  means of preserving his dead brother’s heritage and to provide some future security for the widow (Deut 25:5-10).

                Full equality for women was ironically achieved in the realm of due process and punishment. Both the adulterer and the adulteress had to die (Deut 22:22; Lev 20:10). A philandering virgin would be stoned (Deut 22:20-21), unless she was a priest’s daughter whose dishonor brought shame to the priesthood; whereupon she was burned to death (Lev 21:9). A betrothed woman who had been obligingly seduced by another man prior to marriage would suffer the same ‘adulterous’ fate as her male partner (Deut 22:23-24). When a husband, in an age-old fit of jealousy, suspected his wife of having gone astray, she would have to undergo a strange trial of drinking bitter water which brought a curse for unfaithfulness (Num 5:11-31). Apparently that much of human nature had not changed since pre-history, nor even unto present day.

                By contrast, all men were subject to a far greater scrutiny, harsh discipline, and bowed submissiveness whilst growing up, extending even into adulthood. Only men served in the military, risking death and dismemberment or life-long disabilities often for injuries we would consider quite treatable today. All men, outside the farm, were expected to work in some professional endeavor just to establish ‘who they are’, often becoming ‘that son”, as in Jesus, the son of Joseph the carpenter. Men were expected to perform some of the most disgusting and hazardous jobs in society like tending to the sick and leprous, preparing and burying the dead. They also bore the brunt of the heavy labor, the dangerous and perilous tasks like digging wells and building stone barriers and (later) clinging by ropes on the temple walls; not to mention hunting wild beasts and fending off lions and human raiders. These things, too, have not really changed much – except to the extent of mechanized easement.

                The two genders have at least several things in common today. They foolishly think that they are just two of many possible natural ‘genders’. Women and men no longer correlate marriage or parenting, or for that matter work itself, to what they are or who they are supposed to be. In their selfish, materialistic lives they fail to recognize compromise, self-control, remission of sins, and Biblical truth as prerequisites for their own salvation. It is a mistaken view of history to think that ‘change’ is inevitable and that all we have to do is struggle for equality (over others). Neither a catalog of injustices nor a cloud of plagues brought the Israelites out of Egypt: it was the call of spiritual sacrifices unanswered.

LAWS’ SAVING GRACE

                By all the laws that we follow, we brandish a fellowship with the truth. Moses, the lawgiver, had a head start on us all in that legal regard. Within the Ten Commandments alone (as many religions arrange them), we acknowledge the necessary pronouncements of ‘You shall not kill’; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’. Other commandments are somewhat more unique and geared toward the chosen people because of their religious connotations or providential content: ‘You shall not take the Lord’s name in vain’; “You shall not carve idols for yourselves’; ‘You shall covet your neighbor’s wife’; ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor’. Just knowing that a commandment exists, how ever true or urgent, is not enough. To illustrate, behind the ‘false witness’ law is the understanding that at least two or three witnesses would be necessary to corroborate most judicial testimony, and that lying in a death penalty case could end one’s own life as a consequence.

                Some of these commandments and their collateral associations have already been discussed elsewhere, particularly this one: ‘Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy’. For an employer to force someone to work seven full days a week nowadays would be sacrilegious and against the law, not to mention hazardous to one’s health. Few people work six uninterrupted days, preferring instead the more common five days a week or collectively 40 hours per week. Discretionary time thus created (as originally afforded by the Sabbath break) allows workers the chance to grow and care for a family, maintain upkeep on the home and property, learn a new craft or hobby, and experience many other interests outside the confines and behavioral restrictions of the workplace. Little do we realize and appreciate the fact that the Sabbath applied to everyone, slave and free alike. ‘Honor your father and your mother’ has also been cited; but this law’s real benefit goes beyond a utilitarian effort to sustain social order. Behind it is the implication that solid marriages must be established and supported in order to ensure the long-term survival of any society, which depends on successive generational relays of spiritual learning and moral respect for its social actors, namely priests, judges, princes (anointed leaders), and of course prophets. These elements or figureheads, in turn, were to be revered only as long as they posted their own satisfactory performances by fulfilling their positional responsibilities. Judges, for example, had the Lord’s charge to ‘Listen to complaints … administer true justice … give ear to the lowly and the great alike … never take a bribe …’ and more. Any decision that they handed down must be impartial and would come as the result of their diligent investigation and interrogation (Deut 1:16-18). When the law was enforced strictly according to the ‘eye for an eye’ justice principle, it would sometimes demand extremely frightening and painful punishment. Rendering a responsible decision in difficult cases often came down to ‘divining’ the weight of each party’s arguments through arbitration in front of priests and presiding judges (Deut 19:16-21; 25:1).

                Out of step with many of their neighboring nations, Israel forbade all sexual imagery in or near the Dwelling place of the Lord. By law very little imagery of man, beast, or godhead was ever displayed beyond the Ark of the Covenant itself (Ex 20:4). There would be no temple harlots or solicitors of illicit prostitution as part of any religious ritual (Deut 23:18-19; 23:17-18 KJV). There was no immolation (burning) of sons and daughters in sacrifice or the hedonistic boiling of (lamb’s) kids in their mother’s milk (Lev 18:21; Deut 18:10; Ex 23:19). Ordinary persons were expected to love, honor, and protect their families, abide by the rules of normal social and sexual behavior, and not get ensnared in idolatry, waywardness, drinking, erotic perversion, or other Sodom delights. Fortunetellers, charmers, and a host of other superstitious fakes were never to be consulted or tolerated (Deut 18:10-11).

When it came to paying taxes and satisfying their required civil service, every male, regardless of status, was supposed to be treated equally. This enlightenment toward fairness and a level-playing field nevertheless did not prohibit the Israelites from according special rights and privileges when needed. Military exemptions were granted to those men about to marry or about to claim a bounty from their newly-worked land. They even had their own form of ‘conscientious objector’ rule for the fainthearted (Deut 20:5-8; 24:5). ‘Tithing’ was considered both a civic duty and a good-neighbor gesture, that is to say, an opportunity to help the entire community: citizen and alien alike. On the down side, tithing could be thought of today as the official forerunner and (unmitigated) excuse for government income taxes.

Other Israelite laws and statutes could in some respects be thought to surpass our modern standards of civil justice and commercial compliance, such as charging no interest or usury against a kinsman (religious neighbor). Imagine applying for a mortgage loan and paying no interest during the closing process or over the long years of repayment. The Lord’s overall intent was to ensure that the needy in the land would never be lacking (Deut 15:11). Another law, whose remedy may seem strange by today’s standards, concerns a mistrusting husband who suspects his new bride is not really a virgin (as presented by her family). A false charge would result in the husband being penalized by paying the girl’s family a second marriage price; besides the husband would be chastised (literally flogged) for having defamed a virgin in Israel (Deut 22:13-21). While we may decry the open accusation of impropriety at the start of a new marriage, preferring instead to opt for annulment or some other reasoned settlement, even our lame moral culture might think it excessive to flog the suspicious husband for just being ‘human’. Two important points are missing in this assessment: 1) a man who marries a non-virgin will never know if any of their children will be of ‘his seed’, and if not, then he will have no ‘heritage’ in the land of the Israelites; and 2) a bride found guilty of being a non-virgin would be stoned to death. Therefore, the charge of impropriety, while cogent, must have an appropriate counter-measure of punishment. This sense of ‘fairness’ toward applying a precautionary balance to someone’s felonious tack (or false witness) is woefully missing from our current legal system. Think of all the modern cases that have been tried in the court of public opinion or on the unchallenged charge of a single witness, even after renouncement.  

The one Israelite law that seems to hold the least relevance to the modern court system, but displays full ceremonial respect, dealt with the unseemly matter of discovering the body of someone in the wilderness – dead from foul play or an unknown failing. An elaborate ritual involving elders, judges, and priests would sanctify that loss of life with another life (heifer), and then ask God to absolve the nation of this sorrowful shedding of blood on Israelite soil (Deut 21:1-9). This law is piously notable because it countenances each person, alive or dead, as being yet known to God, and because the sanctifying ritual is expressed in blood, water, prayers, and a subsequent cleansing fire.

BIOLOGICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

                Most deaths and casualties in war occur not from actual battlefield inflictions, but as the result of poor sanitary conditions, deficient medical aid, and generally poor biological management of living conditions. Nearly every major historic and renowned military operation, from Hannibal crossing the Alps to Napoleon’s retreat from Russia, demonstrated a real lack of planning as well as very little concern for the health of the soldiers involved. To their everlasting credit, the Israelites were one of the first peoples to establish their own health-conscious policy by making the soldiers, quite plainly and somewhat mundanely, go outside the camp to a designated place just to relieve themselves. They would be forced to dig a hole (in a latrine fashion similarly practiced today) and afterward cover up their excrement, thereby sparing the military campaign of future exposure to dysentery, cholera, typhoid and a host of parasitic worms and larvae (Deut 23:10-15; 23:9-14 KJV). This simple command was compulsorily proffered within the framework of keeping the camp from anything offensive because ‘the Lord journeyed along within your camp to defend you and to put your enemies at your mercy’. Hence the camp must be ‘holy’ – a prerequisite for health, for life, and, yes, for our salvation. More broadly, all the sick and unclean persons and anything unclean had to stay outside the camp. Those soldiers recently back from a bloody battle had to purify themselves on the third and seventh day (Num 31:19-24), which was probably as much of a psychological cleansing as it was physical. ‘Cleanliness is next to godliness’ was a practiced belief of the Israelites even before it became a maxim. While journeying, persons suffering from all sorts of unhealthy contacts had to wash their clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening, which must have been a real ordeal when passing through arid regions.

                Levitical hygiene laws were extensive regarding what they meant by ‘cleanness’ and ‘uncleanness’. Just the ordinary stresses of a woman’s menstrual cycle or the inconvenience of a man’s nocturnal dreams had ritualized responses of bathing, purification, even temporary isolation. More serious afflictions may have required the breaking of touched earthenware and the complete rinsing and cleansing of nearly every other tainted article (Lev 15:1-12, 19-30). People unfortunate enough to be labeled as ‘unclean’ usually had to reside outside the current living area (wherever that may have been at the time) of the general population, for it was thought that their uncleanness might be imparted to others (in today’s vernacular, ‘spreading the disease’). Nothing ‘airborne’ (like a virus) was particularly inferred here, rather occurring mostly through touching, spitting, or some other outright contact. Handling a dead body or working with the remains of the deceased most certainly brought uncleanness (Num 19:1-22). Those who assisted with the ceremonial cleansing process, such as preparing the lustral water or burning parts of a sacrifice outside the camp, likewise became unclean for that day (Num 19:21; Lev 16:28). Even Aaron, the high priest, was expected to keep his physical body and his garments spotless on numerous occasions when working around the Dwelling, especially entering the Holy of Holies (Lev 16:4, 23-25; Lev 8:5-9). Laymen were never permitted near the Tabernacle (Num 3:10, 38). Only priests with no obvious or congenital defects could serve (Lev 21:17). Pagan customs or habits (from outside nations) like having the worshipper or the offeror lacerate himself or shave himself at the temple were not permitted (Lev 19:27-28). As stated above, temple harlots and prostitutes were banned, irrespective of the (known-unknown) effects of passing on sexual ailments. Flesh offerings from the herd or flock were most often decreed to be eaten that day as a matter of ‘cleanliness’, if not for explicit health reasons. Rarely the leftovers could be eaten on the second day; but then without exception the rest had to be burned on the third day.

                The food choices and eating diet of most of the world’s cultures really have not changed much since the days of the caveman. The given options have always been to generally consume whatever they managed to catch or procure from their environment, as reflected in Gen 9:3. After Mt Sinai, however, the regimen of the Israelites was greatly refined both in its food handling and its consumption. Cloven-footed hooved animals, such as lambs and goats, cattle and deer, became their major sources of meat nutrition. Eating specified fish that had both fin and scale added to this sustenance, along with many types of fruits and vegetables, when in season and accessible (Lev 11:1-47). ‘Kosher’ restrictions, as they were defined at the time, prohibited the eating of swine, crustaceans, and scavenger birds – long before modern science had any understanding of ‘disease’, much less the potential harm caused by the ingestion of bacteria or other germs. When the Native Americans or Indians, as they were called then, first encountered these tiny infestations, contracted from pigs or other animal carriers (or their owners), the resultant illnesses and epidemics nearly wiped out the population of an entire continent. Self-serving historians will look back now in bold criticism at the white European’s ‘deliberate’ attempt at racial genocide, willfully ignoring the fact that every society since the first domesticators on down to modern-day ranchers have had to endure their own destructive plagues and gross population declines before achieving some sufficiency level of infection immunity.

                At home in their own communities, the dietary restrictions for the Israelites were somewhat more lax. Both the clean and unclean persons could ‘share’ the same meal, if not at the same table. Hunting and eating wild animals was of course permitted, even those (clean) animals which were already dead upon finding, provided one did not mind being declared ‘unclean’ until evening, which priests would rather not do (Lev 11:39-40; Deut 14:21). The prohibition against partaking of the blood of a hunted or discovered animal still stood (Lev 17:13-14; Deut 12:15-16).

                The priests were the medical practitioners of their day. Beyond circumcision, atonements, and other sacrificial cleansings, they would examine persons (patients) for suspected leprosy and other potentially harmful infections. If necessary, they would quarantine them over several seven-day periods. True ‘lepers’, as referenced in their terminology and as distinguished from what we call today merely victims of eczema or some other form of tetter, would become pariahs who would be banished from the rest of the community (Lev 13:1-46). Molds and funguses lingering inside clothes or abiding in houses were thoroughly investigated and declared to be either clean, repairable, or they had to be destroyed.

                Though perhaps deemed primitive by today’s aerified biological standards, many of the Israelites’ religious/medical practices and original emphasis on personal hygiene and body care should nevertheless be regarded as innovative for that time period and no doubt life-saving. Centuries later, so-called great civilizations in medieval Europe would still have streets that were open sewers and children whose health was beaten down by disease and poor eating habits. Perhaps even more debilitating to their coarse lives was their unenlightened (spiritual) education and their consequential sin-struck ways.  

NATURAL PROTECTION

                The Lord that watched over the Israelites also watched over the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and the beasts of the field (Gen 9:2). Throughout the first five books (of Moses), the reader comes upon curious references to nature and environmental things which seem out of place for a people on a religious quest for holiness. ‘If while walking along, you chance upon a bird’s nest with young birds or eggs in it, in a tree or on the ground, and the mother bird is still sitting on it … , you may take away the brood, but let the mother go (Deut 22:6-7). Adhering to this seemingly cordial advice will supposedly ‘bring prosperity and a long life’. How such an accommodation will benefit us may seem at first unclear. The freed mother bird can almost surely mate again and raise many more nests of fledglings in her lifetime, providing for us future sources of nourishment. An act of natural conservation today could thus favor us with personal preservation tomorrow.

                Whenever mankind’s activities (war, famine, city sprawl, deforestation, etc.) have become caustic and overwhelming, we often forget their effect on another mother – Mother Earth, the plants and the animals. In their (attempted) conquest of Canaan and unfortunate ‘dooming’ of the natives, the Israelites committed many atrocities against the environment such as utterly destroying some cities, as well as the forests and the pasturelands that surrounded them. Joshua ordered his soldiers to at least spare the fruit trees from being used as beams and braces in their siege engines (Deut 20:19-20). The Israelites loved their olive trees, their pomegranates, and of course their grape vines. As suggested earlier, soldiers would be given a year off from pending military service just to tend to their vineyards, whose growth (like children) have not been fully guided and raised. The fruit of newly-planted trees would be reserved during a three-year maturation period (leaving them free for wild animals to graze). The fourth year would constitute a sort of circumcision for the tree as all of its fruits would be dedicated to the Lord in a feast. Only in the fifth year would the farmer be permitted to taste a single fruit. In the Sabbath year, all of the fields, vineyards, olive groves, and fruit trees would be left fallow and/or untrimmed, hence open to any human ‘invasion’ or natural grazing. There is a lesson here that the farmer reveals to us:  much must be left of the harvest we gather in life for others to share (the wayfarers, the aliens, the poor and the less fortunate, and even the beasts). Outside these special years and reservations, landowners would sometimes specially set aside fields and vineyards for any hungry traveler or kinsman passing by to enjoy (Deut 23:24-25).

                The ‘good-neighbor’ policy written into the law encouraged the Israelites to assist anyone whose work or herd animals were going astray or being driven astray by rustlers. When the neighbor’s ox or ass was burdened down and foundering in the road, the kinsman was obliged to help him raise it up (Deut 22:1-4). A fascinating set of peculiar commands counseled the Israelite: ‘do not sow your fields with two different kinds of seed’; ‘do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species’; ‘do not plow with an ox and an ass harnessed together’; and ‘do not muzzle an ox when it is treading out grain’ (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9; 25:4). These may be a reminder to whom the Lord gave dominion over the earth (Gen1:28) of his responsibility to respect the needs and integrity of his environmental companions.

                Some scholars take a different view, postulating that all these non-sequitur references were just concessions to a sometimes nomadic or erratic ranch life. They represent ‘special-interest’ stories that reflected on the natural world around them. My own view is more of an ‘accession’ than a concession, acceding to wildlife rights and positioning that mankind would normally and selfishly only reckon unto itself. None is more revealing than ‘Whoever takes the life of an animal shall make restitution of another animal. A life for a life!’ (Lev 24:18) – the life of an animal being no less sacred than the life of a human.

TENANT SHARING

                ‘For the land is mine, says the Lord’, and we are but its tenants. Therefore, it behooves us to be courteous renters and generous neighbors. Having been foreigners turned aliens turned slaves in the land of Egypt, the Israelites were constantly being prodded to remember what it felt like to be strangers in another country (Ex 23:9; Deut 10:19; 24:22). Built into Moses’ instructions were statutes designed to accentuate and support the needs of everyone, even resident aliens. ‘Do not molest or oppress them,’ and whenever possible, let them share in the wealth of the Promised Land.

                Among the giving that farmers did when harvesting was to yield their fields and vineyards, after one complete pass (not thoroughly scoured), to anyone who was able to garner and gather the fallen seeds or remaining fruit (Deut 24:19-21). Leftovers and plantings on the edge were all left for the alien, the widow, and the orphan to glean (Lev 19:9-10). Seventh-year fallow fields, vineyards, and groves, along with any after-growth, were open for anyone to scavenge (Ex 23:10-11; Lev 25:3-7). Every third year, the tithes of the produce for that season would be placed into community storage for the future benefit of the Levites, the aliens, the orphan, and the widow (Deut 14:28-29; 26:12-13). An overall command insisted that the Israelites should befriend, feed, and clothe the alien (Deut 10:17-19).

                These neighborly gestures could lead us into a false impression of absolute equality between the Israelites, as welcoming hosts, and the resident aliens, their foreign house-guests. ‘You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently from the native-born’ (Lev 19:34). More truthfully, in lending practices, you could ‘press’ a foreigner, that is, charge him interest and dictate the naming and forced manner of his pledge – acts forbidden to be dispatched against a Hebrew kinsman; moreover, it is unlikely that any easement was forthcoming in the debt-relaxing seventh year (Deut 15:1-3; 23:20-21; 23:19-20 KJV; 24:10-13). Hebrew slaves were mandatorily set free in their seventh year of service, whereas slaves purchased from aliens could be contracted as everlasting chattel (Lev 25:44-46). It is also unclear whether such slaves were entitled to the same legal protection that Hebrew slaves had when punished or mistreated (see Deut 23:16-17; 23:15-16 KJV; Ex 21:20-21). Numerous times the Israelites were admonished not to marry or have intercourse with the enemies of their faith (Deut 7:3; Num 25:1-3; Ex 34:16). Often the offspring born of such illicit affairs were never allowed to become true members of the Israelite ‘family’, regardless of their generational extension (i.e., 3, 4, or 10 generations down the road) (Deut 23:4; 23:3 KJV).

                Aliens, by their very standing, were not religiously bound to abide by the same dietary restrictions. They could eat unclean animals, and so could purchase or be given food not suitable for the Hebrews (Deut 14:21). On the other hand, because of their uncircumcised foreskin, they were not allowed to partake in the Passover sacrifice (Ex 12:43-45).

                Too often the existing relationship between long-time neighbors, even today, is primed for divisiveness. Rules for fostering neighborly relationships include: do not defraud or rob your neighbor; do not condemn the less-fortunate, do not bear hatred for your brother in your heart (Lev 19:13-14, 17-18). Quite fittingly for all tenants, the command is, ‘Love your neighbor (or the alien) as yourself (Lev 19:18, 34). More than a thousand years later, however, Christians freshly-being-minted were still asking themselves, ‘but who is my neighbor?’ (Luke 10:29) In a world of constant competition and conflict, claims of racial or gender prejudice, together with the denial of everything decent, honorable, and true by ‘supposed’ friends and co-believers, this is a question we could well ask ourselves today.