Who Is My Neighbor? Beyond Fred Rogers: Reclaiming Jewish Compassion (Part 2)
Jesus argues about who to love... As expected!
Note: This post is Part 2, click here to read Part 1!
Neighbor, Schmeihbor… What’s the problem?
In our previous blog post, we left you on a cliffhanger - Jesus was about to start an intellectual smackdown with a Pharisee… But; why? Most churches I’ve been part of, Christians I’ve chilled with and sermons I’ve heard exhort and exemplify Jesus as this chill dude who loved endlessly and preached to others to love, so, why would Jesus metaphorically pick a fight at the dinner table? We certainly wouldn’t be seeing Fred Rogers doing the same, either!
Well… Mentioning the Samaritans wasn’t exactly a signal that Jesus was going to be having a delightful conversation free of offense; he was metaphorically taking the gloves off, if you examine using the Samaritan from the perspective of the upper echelons of Jewish society.
The “Problem” with Arguing for Samaritans
To grasp the impact of this parable, you have to understand who the Samaritans were. They were an ethnoreligious group claiming descent from the northern tribes of Israel, with their own version of the Torah and worship centered on Mount Gerizim rather than Jerusalem.
Tensions ran deep between Jews and Samaritans - politically, theologically, and socially. Jews saw the Samaritans as outsiders, even heretics, and vice versa.1 So, yeah, Jesus was not sharing something popular by dropping Samaritans into the conversation - he was announcing his official fight card on ancient ESPN.
By Jesus’ time, Jewish tradition held that a faithful Jew would not associate with Samaritans. So, when Jesus makes the hero of this parable a Samaritan, he’s not just answering a legal question - he’s challenging a deeply ingrained bias. He’s throwing down for a fight, he’s entering the Thunderdome, folks.
The priest and the Levite - both respected figures in Jewish society - pass by the wounded man, perhaps out of concerns about ritual impurity in the parable. Strike ONE. But the Samaritan, the outsider, is the one who fulfills the command of the V’ahavta: he loves his neighbor in action, not just in words. Strike TWO.
But here, at this point, Jesus would be getting his honorary set of puppets, a sweater knit by Mr. Rogers mother herself and his own land of make believe gifted by Mr. Rogers if he existed at that time… Because Fred Rogers essentially did the same.
If you need a reminder, there is a historic example of Fred Rogers doing this as well, no doubt, because of the influence of Jesus Christ, the Argumentative Rabbi, himself. Anyone who grew up with Fred Rogers, especially within driving distance of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, can most likely see the scene in their mind that has been iconic for Mr. Rogers…
For the USA in 1968, this episode from Mr. Rogers Neighborhood was groundbreaking. Mr. Rogers was arguing in his own way against segregation in this episode. He wasn’t quite as Rabbinical as Jesus Christ the Jew was about it, but here he is, displaying Jewish values still prayed today.
Arguing for Halakha and Chesed
Before you call me a heretic, Jesus metaphorically throwing some rabbinical Mixed Martial Arts out here with this move mentioning the Samaritan was really not out of the ordinary. The legal expert who tests Jesus is not merely a lawyer in the modern sense, and many rabbis and legal experts were trying to get to the truth of the matter through these arguments - which is often lost when this parable is taught.
Before he was framed as the Messiah by his followers, Jesus Christ the Jew is a Torah scholar, someone deeply versed in Jewish law and tradition. Jesus’ response aligns with a long Jewish tradition that insists that the V’ahavta is not just about personal devotion, but about how we treat others.
The legal expert seeks to limit the command - “Who exactly qualifies as my neighbor?” - but Jesus expands who that is by arguing. The Samaritan, despised and considered outside the covenant, is the one who fulfills the law, showing that salvation is not just about who you are, but how you love. Strike THREE.
In Jesus’ day, the Pharisaic understanding of righteousness emphasized both halakha (legal observance) and chesed (loving-kindness). The V’ahavta was central to Jewish spirituality, but the tension lay in how one lived it out. Was love for God expressed primarily through scrupulous observance of commandments, or through radical, boundary-breaking acts of mercy?
Jesus (and other Rabbinic Jews) and the V’ahavta: Sincerity Over Ritual
Jesus’ emphasis on sincerity behind works is not a rejection of Jewish law; it’s a call to its deepest intention - and other rabbis may have made this argument during his time as well. It’s still discussed today among rabbis. His critique would have been in line with some religious leaders perspectives at the time, and his parables are less important than the act of engaging in Early Rabbinic Judaism at the time.
It was not about Torah itself, but about hypocrisy - following the letter of the law while neglecting the spirit. The priest and the Levite in the parable may have had religious reasons for avoiding the wounded man, but their adherence to purity laws cost them the very heart of the V’ahavta.
The Samaritan, by contrast, exemplifies the V’ahavta in its fullest sense. He does not perform an empty duty - he shows compassion that is costly, inconvenient, and unrestrained by social barriers. He was the not-so-great Jew (or maybe not even considered a Jew) of the time, the heretic, but here he is - actually doing the V’ahavta.
This is precisely what Jesus, the typical Rabbi, illuminates in his teaching: a faith that is not performative, but transformative - adjacent to the goal of rabbinic Judaism and not solely motivated by his messianic work; this may be where I lose some of my readers of a Christian background, but it is important to note that some aspects of Jesus’ work that may be characterized as his messianic mission were actually in line with Early Rabbinic Judaism.
Living the V’ahavta Today
But hey, regardless, this is still taught in churches - but I think everyone misses the rabbinic aspect of it, the heart of the argument, or that an argument is even happening, and I think it loses some of its punch by doing so. It’s easy to ask, “Who is my neighbor?” with the unspoken hope that the answer is only those who think, look, and believe like me.
When we understand the context of it, the message of the V’ahavta forces us to confront the ways we set limits on our compassion. We all want to be the Samaritan, but wow we view the Samaritan actually becomes the model for living the V’ahavta.
Before you want to argue with me that Jesus wouldn’t argue, I’d stop and think about that first. Rabbinic Judaism does not abolish the Torah; he who argues with it, illuminates it. The call to love God with all our heart, soul, and strength cannot be separated from how we love others. And when we see the V’ahavta in this light, we realize: it was never meant to be about who belongs to our group. Your neighbor isn’t synonymous with you.
Despite this loss of context, I think on a deep and integral level, Fred Rogers understood this and the real impact of realizing everyone is your neighbor. This is why he told us to do this as kids! But also: He taught this way better than I did, but I don’t know how Fred Rogers would have spoken to some downtrodden Altoonans who play music too loud at 2 am when he had to film an episode directed towards kids speaking with puppets, either.
Jesus the Rabbi and Fred Rogers exemplify about becoming the kind of person who makes God’s love tangible in the world as the prayer being a call to act on the teachings of Torah; and sometimes getting people to understand this involves a little arguing along the way.
So, the next time we ask, “Who is my neighbor?” maybe the real question is: Am I willing to argue for the Samaritan?
Image 1 by Ri Butov from Pixabay
https://blog.23andme.com/articles/samaritans-genetic-history