Who is my neighbor? by Watchman Nee

This story is one of the most common and familiar stories in the church. It would be good for us to read it together: "Jesus, taking up the question, said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who having both stripped him and beat him, went away, leaving him half dead. And by coincidence a certain priest was going down on that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. And likewise also a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the opposite side. But a certain Samaritan, who was journeying, came upon him; and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion; and he came to him and bound up his wounds and poured oil and wine on them. And placing him on his own beast, he brought him to an inn and took care of him. And on the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, Take care of him; and whatever you spend in addition to this, when I return, I will repay you. Which of these three, does it seem to you, has become a neighbor to him who fell into the hands of the robbers?"

The lawyer asked the Lord, "Who is my neighbor?" After the Lord told him this story, He replied to the lawyer with a question, "Which of these three, does it seem to you, has become a neighbor to him who fell into the hands of the robbers?" If you listen carefully to this word, you will realize that the Lord is telling the lawyer that he was the one who fell into the hands of the robbers.

Many today apply this passage incorrectly. They think that the Lord Jesus wants us to love our neighbor as ourself. Whether it is the Bible schools, the Sunday schools, or the Sunday pulpits, they all tell people that one has to be a good Samaritan. You have to love your neighbors, to show mercy to them, and to help them. To them, who is the neighbor? It is the one who was wounded by the robbers. And who are we? We are the good Samaritan. But this is exactly the opposite of what the Lord Jesus was saying. What the Lord meant was that we are the ones wounded by the robbers. Who then is our neighbor? Our neighbor is the good Samaritan. We think that we are the good Samaritan. We can move. We can walk. When we see those bound by sin, we are able to help them. But the Lord Jesus said that we are not the good Samaritan. Rather, we need the good Samaritan. We are the man wounded by robbers on the journey. We are those who are waiting to die. We do not have any good works. Who is our neighbor? He is the good Samaritan. What is it to love our neighbor as ourselves? It does not say that we have to love others as ourselves. It means that we have to love the Savior as ourselves. It does not mean that we must first love others before we can inherit eternal life. Rather, it means that if we love the Savior, the Samaritan, we will surely have eternal life.

The problem today is that man continually thinks of works. When he reads Luke 10, he says to himself: "Someone is wounded. Someone is dying. If I care for him and love him, I will be a good Samaritan, and I will have eternal life." We think that when we help others, we will inherit eternal life. But the Lord Jesus said if you allow someone to help you, you will have eternal life. None among us is qualified to be the good Samaritan. Thank the Lord, we do not have to be the good Samaritan. We have a good Samaritan already. This Samaritan, who formerly had no dealings with us, has now come. He has died and has solved the problem of our sins. He is now resurrected, and He has given us a new life. This One has bound up our wounds. He has given us redemption. He is helping us and is bringing us to heaven, that God would accept us and care for us.

Finally, we have verse 37: "And he said, The one who showed mercy to him." This time the lawyer answered correctly. He answered that it is the One who showed mercy to him. The One who shows mercy to me is my neighbor. My neighbor is the Samaritan who stopped to bind up my wounds with the oil and the wine, who put me on the beast and brought me to the inn. My friends, the whole question is not to be the neighbor of someone else. Rather, it is the One who showed mercy to you becoming your neighbor.

The Lord Jesus said, "Go, and you do likewise." This word confuses many people. They think that the Lord is telling us to help others. But what this word means is that your neighbor is the good Samaritan. Therefore you should accept Him as your Savior. Since your neighbor is the good Samaritan, you must be the one wounded by the robbers. This shows us that while we were lying there, He came and saved us. Never say that we can do anything ourselves. Never say that we have the way. He is showing us that we have to let Him do everything. We have to let Him pour the oil and the wine on our wounds. We have to let Him bind up our wounds. We have to let Him put us up on the beast and bring us to the inn. We have to let Him do the work of taking care of us. We have to be like the one wounded. We do not have to be like the Samaritan. Man's greatest failure is to think that he should do something. Man always wants to be his own savior. He always wants to save others. But God has not appointed us to be the savior. God says that we are the ones to be saved.

I really like this telling by Nee and I think in turning the sense around he makes some great points, but I still think the primary interpretation is "go and do likewise" meaning like the Samaritan.

I find this interpretation very disturbing. The reason is that Nee is twisting the entire story to mean something Jesus was not saying. It is an inverted method of interpretation, if you want to call it that. What it does is it will intimidate others from reading the scriptures because they will think they do NOT know how to interpret it correctly and so one needs learned scholars to interpret the WORD for you. NOT SO! When God spoke to people, he spoke clearly and said exactly what he meant and there was never a lack of understanding or any hidden meanings. One does not need a skilled scholar to understand God's word. So, to me this method of interpretation is very dangerous.

I have told one of our pastors that "you preachers sure have a knack of confusing, complicating the simplest [Biblical] thing." He admitted this to be true. This is a prime example of one doing just that.

My thoughts,
ginnyrose

Watchman Nee is not the only one.

Gaebelein's Annoted Bible

Verses 25-37. The lawyer's question leads to the utterance of the parable of the good Samaritan, to answer the question, "Who is my neighbor?" The parable answers the question fully, but it also contains the most blessed Gospel truths. Jerusalem is the city of God; Jericho represents the world. The traveller is the type of humanity. Man has fallen in the awful road which leads down, fallen among thieves, naked, wounded, helpless and hopeless. The failure of the Priest and the scribe to help illustrates the inability of the law and the ordinances to save man out of his deplorable condition. The good Samaritan is the Lord Jesus Christ. He came to the place where the lost are and He alone could have compassion on him. The wine typifies His precious blood He shed to save us. The oil is the type of the Holy Spirit, who applies the blood. He takes care of fallen man found by Him. The inn is typical of the church, where the Lord through His Spirit cares for His own. The two pence are not typical of "two sacraments" but speak of the reward, which those receive, who, under the Holy Spirit, care for souls. The promised coming again with a greater reward offered is the Second Coming of our Lord. The Gospel of the Manhood records this parable exclusively. end;

"Go and do likewise"

Tell all that Jesus is the Good Samaritan and will bind up our lethal wounds if left untreated.
Do you believe, "Whom do you say that I am"

In Christ: Phillip

Ginny and Philip, I did not find Nee's spiritualization of the passage to be wrong, as long as no one would insist it is the primary application of the passage. Most people interpret some the parables of Matthew 13 in the opposite way I tend to think Jesus intended them. In either case, I have found both flows of thought edifying. But, anyone who would say the primary application of the Good Samaritan is that we are the beaten man and Jesus is the Samaritan has had too much seminary.

I also think the logic of Nee's reasoning is seriously flawed:

"Someone is wounded. Someone is dying. If I care for him and love him, I will be a good Samaritan, and I will have eternal life."

The lawyer asked Jesus what He can do to inherit eternal life. Jesus' reply was "what is written in the law? how readest thou?" Luke 10:26.

The lawyer said "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind and thy neighbor as thyself." Luke 10:27.

If these principles are operating in the life of the believer he will not be thinking that his good deeds will earn him eternal life because he will know where his salvation comes from. He will not be given to idolatry. He will follow the Lamb wheresoever He goeth and that will include helping the guy in the ditch which this fine rich lawyer was prone to leave alone. And who knows? Maybe this lawyer was the fellow who actually did see this guy in the ditch and he walked on by...

This inverted method of interpretation is the method used by liberals to dismiss plain teaching of the WORD and we all lament where those folks are. They twist and ignore plain scripture to suit their own fanciful schemes. They will declare that Jesus or Paul did not mean it this way, or that but another way. They can confuse you to no end. And that is what spiritualizing does. While Nee's interpretation does no violence to Biblical principles, it is the method Nee used to arrive at his interpretation of this scripture that is so very dangerous.

Folks also use this method to interpret Revelation and it has spooked folks from delving into the book to see what it can teach us. As result of this, many have lost a blessing because they think they cannot understand the vision that was given to John because even the experts will argue and debate about it. And they know more then we do, don't they?

We cannot allow this inverted method of Biblical interpretation to teach us how we approach the WORD. This is my primary concern.

ginnyrose

Hello Frank,

even his disciples did not understand His parables and He had to explain them to them.

Isn't it possible that their needing to have the parables explained to them was for our benefit, too? Although I do believe He said the peoples eyes and ears were blocked from understanding to fulfill God's purpose.

Kind regards,
white stone

I think BOTH 'Nee's' and the 'traditional'interpretation are valid. At first I thought Nee was distorting the plain meaning of the parable, but on reflection I realise that although the plain meaning is that we should be the good Samaritan and love our neighbour, we do so by following the perfect example of our Lord Jesus who loved us who where broken and in great need. 'We love, because He first loved us'. When you think about it all scripture points to the fact that we should be like our Lord Jesus Christ. 'As Christ is, so are we in this world'; ' Be immitators of God', etc.

So we can see in this parable the truth of the redemption story as described by earlier poster and ALSO be challanged 'to do likewise' and be the representation of Jesus Christ to a needy world. This is the great challange of the Christian walk, not only did Jesus preach the Good News, He also was (and is) the provision of that Good News.

Every Blessing...

ginnyrose wrote:

I also think the logic of Nee's reasoning is seriously flawed: Quote: "Someone is wounded. Someone is dying. If I care for him and love him, I will be a good Samaritan, and I will have eternal life."

But look at the sentence he wrote immediately before the ones you quoted:

The problem today is that man continually thinks of works. When he reads Luke 10, he says to himself: "Someone is wounded. Someone is dying. If I care for him and love him, I will be a good Samaritan, and I will have eternal life." We think that when we help others, we will inherit eternal life.

You see that Nee is pointing out that people who think like that are wrong in their thinking. Instead of Nee advocating the position you claim he is in your quote, he is actually opposed to that type of thinking.

The more I think about Nee's interpretation of this parable, the more I discount it being the main intent of the teaching. Who if they were beaten and left for dead in the road needs to be told to love someone who comes by and helps them? Wouldn't that be a natural reaction? But then we come to verses 36 and 37:

"Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." And Jesus said to him, "You go, and do likewise."

So here we see that in this parable the neighbor is the good Samaritan. So does the command "go and do likewise" mean love the neighbor (those who show us mercy) or does it mean be a neighbor (show kindness to those in need)? I lean toward the be a neighbor more than the other.