It is important to pass on her teachings.  Please share these teachings with others.  This is her study on the Parables (The Intro, Lesson 1 -4 of 12 Lessons):

THE PARABLES
Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation
By Brad H. Young

Introduction:
            By definition, parables are mini-dramas to show the mind and will of God, word pictures of the Scripture.  A picture is worth a thousand words, we often say, and the parable does that.  It creates a word picture that hits home much more than just words alone.  Parables reach the heart through the imagination.  The imagination is a gift from God.  It helps us to dream, to hope, to believe.  It also helps us - when we allow the enemy to use it - to fear, to doubt, to sin.
            A parable challenges the mind – even the highest intellect – by using simple stories that make common sense out of complex religious or faith issues and the human experience.
            The Hebrew word for the parable is Mashal, later used in a plural form Meshalim.  It has a broad meaning covering any illustration, from a saying to a detailed fictitious story, a proverb, riddle, anecdote or allegory.  A Mashal defines the unknown (or not understood) by using the known (or understood).  It begins right where we live and pushes us into a new realm of discovery.  A Mashal illustrates its point by re-describing in drama the nature of God and human responses to His love.
            The Greek word for parable is Parabole, from which we get our English word parable.  The Parabole is somewhat different from the Hebrew Mashal, in that it is less restrictive in the idea of a comparison.  Jesus blended the two into one of his favorite teaching tools.  (Mine, too!  When God gives me an image or picture of something natural that expresses something spiritual, I can describe it or share it and it becomes a parable.)
            It is an historically Hebrew style of teaching.  The Hebrews are passionate and poetic.  When they describe God, you can feel it.  For instance, God didn’t simply free them from Egypt.  He lead them out of a house of bondage with an outstretched hand and a might arm!  He isn’t simply powerful, but one who kills and brings to life, brings down to Sheol and raises up.  He doesn’t just create, but lays the foundation of the earth and shuts in the sea.  He seeks an unfaithful people with the longing of a rejected lover … remembers a people with a mother’s love.
            The passion and poetry of the Hebrews becomes drama in a Mashal or parable.  We are able to see a vivid image of the nature of God.  As we study Jesus’ parables, we will watch for God’s nature in them and by doing so, will come to know him better.
            Jesus’ parables had equal amounts of everyday-ordinariness and God-consciousness.  Parables also tend to include a surprise action by one of the leading characters or an unexpected change in an event.  Can you think of any?   The parable is a stage of daily life which becomes a scene for viewing the world from God’s perspective.  Suddenly God enters the world of humanity and when he does, it changes everything.  The parable is designed to catch the listener unaware by moving from the familiar to a surprising twist to the plot of the story.  Before the listener realizes it, a consciousness of God and his way of viewing the world has entered the story, a divine message lights up the eternal within the natural; a spiritual light bulb turns on and the light dispels the darkness that was previously there.  The parable is told in such a way as to draw the listener in to participate in the story and receive revelation from it – to see a physical manifestation of the spiritual.
            This is my thinking – not the author’s – that the reason we are so caught up in entertainment is that we are seeking understanding, trying to find out who we are, why we are here.  The problem is – drama without meaning that relates back to truth merely confuses and never satisfies.  Since the birth of Hollywood and television, we have been inundated with something akin to parables that do not enrich our lives or give us understanding of God, and in fact, often portray him the opposite of who he really is.  We find out more about who we really are, but not who God really is.  These “parables” lead us back to ourselves, not to God.  Like Adam and Eve, we leave behind the need to know God and what he wants in order to find out who we are and what we want.  It becomes about us instead of about him.  A true parable does the opposite.  It leads us toward God by showing us ourselves and how we really need him.
            The root of the word Mashal refers to a shadow, so we see that the parable takes what is a shadow and makes it clear.  Remember the scripture that tells us we now see in a glass darkly, but we shall see him face to face?  (I Corinthians 13:12)  A parable offers similar clarity, a spiritual truth revealed from the natural.
            Another level of the parable that I found is its similarity to us in relation to God.  We are the common expression of the perfect – made in the image of God.  We are living parables for the world to see and realize the nature of God.  As the drama of our lives is lived out, others can see the eternal expressed through the natural.  For instance, we see God as the loving father of the prodigal son and others see how we treat our children and how we respond to God the Father.
            Yet another layer of the parable, I believe, is that Jesus is the parable of God.  Through him we see what God is like.  The human is an expression of the divine.
            Actually, a third of Jesus’ recorded sayings in the four Gospels are in parables.  Jesus being a Jew, the Jewishness or Semitism of his parables reveals a lot of the rich heritage of the Jews during the days when the temple was a reality.  The Greek elements of the texts also give us something of a transition into the new setting of the early church and because of this, something of the original Jewishness of the parables is sometimes lost.  The Christian interpretation of the parables with the Gentile influence infused new meaning into them, too, but we need to remember that Jesus’ Jewish culture and devotion to the Torah or the written law of the Old Testament is the backdrop for his parables.
            Jesus’ parables always call for a decision from the listener, so they are prime examples of Jewish Haggadah, or storytelling with a message.  The Haggadah was and is used to both entertain and proclaim a powerful message that demands a decision.  Therefore, the Haggadah has a higher purpose than entertainment - to make a path for the earnest seeker who loves God and seeks his way.  Haggadah bridges the gap between the common people and the highly educated.  It reaches people at all levels by focusing on the heart and imagination and reveals God’s presence in personal experience.
            The author included the story of the Rabbi and the exceedingly ugly man as a prime example of Haggadah.  And the story goes like this:
            On one occasion Rabbi Eleazer, son of Rabbi Simeon, was coming from Migdal Gedor, from the house of his teacher.  He was riding leisurely along on his donkey by the riverside and was feeling happy and elated because he had studied much Torah.  There he chanced to meet an exceedingly ugly man who greeted him, “Peace be upon you, rabbi.”  He, however, did not return the greeting, but instead said to him, “Raca (good for nothing), how ugly you are!  Is everyone in your town as ugly as you are?”  The man replied, “I do not know, but go and tell the craftsman who made me, ‘How ugly is the vessel which you have made.’” When Rabbi Eleazer realized he had sinned, he dismounted from the donkey and prostrated himself before the man and said to him, “I submit myself to you; forgive me!”
            For starters, Rabbi Eleazer didn’t hold his tongue.  He was also quite full of himself after a day of gaining great wisdom.  When he saw the ugly man, all he could think of was the man’s ugliness and he failed to see him as a person created in the image of God.  The ugly man, on the other hand - probably because of his life experience - had come to realize the deeper significance of the story of creation, that every person – attractive or not – has the divine image superimposed.  Each person is crafted according to the master designer’s plan.  Look at the contrasts:  the lofty scholar and the ugly commoner, the scholar rides and the commoner walks, the scholar spent his day learning while the commoner spent his day working.  But in the end, who had the greater wisdom?  The Jews of Jesus’ day were raised on such Haggadah, so when Jesus told them to love their enemies, this was not a new concept to them.
            What did that story do to you?  Did you begin to think of times you have judged someone unattractive or less than desirable?  Was your heart convicted of pride or judgmentalism?  Of living in the natural instead of the spiritual or living out of your flesh or soul instead of your spirit?  This is how the Haggadah works.  The story draws our interest, a message is conveyed, and our hearts are touched.  This teaches us more about loving others and God’s love than any hour-long sermon and many-chaptered book.  From the Haggadah the Mashal or parable was born.
            The Haggadah and the Mashal were often used to teach that man is made in God’s image and each person is of more value than we can even imagine.  Jews teach that if you kill a person, you have killed a whole world, i.e. all that person would contribute, as well as that of his or her descendents forever.  They believe and teach that God reveals himself through mankind.  With this in mind, consider what it took for the Jews to want Jesus crucified.
            Both Rabbinic and Gospel parables offer glimpses into the rich cultural heritage of the times.  Aristocratic or royal families are described from the viewpoint of the common folk and laborers fill the dramatic scenes, which are descriptions of every day life.
            The classic form of the parable has six components.
1.      First is an introductory phrase, such as “To what may the matter be compared?”  This signals the listener that a parable is about to be told.
2.      Second is the introduction of the cast, i.e. the parable of the prodigal son, which begins, “A man had two sons…”  These three are the three main characters, the stars of the story.
3.      Third, the plot of the story or the drama begins.
4.      Fourth, a major conflict is introduced, such as the family crisis in the parable of the prodigal son.
5.      Fifth is conflict resolution.  The parable will usually lead the listener toward a resolution of the conflict, but sometimes it will leave the conflict hanging for the listener to decide the matter. 
6.      Last, a call to decision or application is made.  Jesus often called the listener to a point of decision and sometime challenged the hearer to make an application of the parable’s wisdom to daily life.
            There are, of course, often deviations from the form in one or more points.  For example, in the prodigal son story a new development occurs when the elder brother’s personal issues present another major conflict.
            Parables are not fables.  Fables tend to involve the humanization of animals for their lessons.  Parables are about God in relation to man and are theological in nature.  Jesus was a student and teacher of the Torah, the Hebrew law so his theology and teaching were deeply rooted in the Torah, in true Judaism.  As Westerners, we tend to focus on faith in Jesus rather than the faith of Jesus.  This isn’t wrong; it just short-changes us in our relationship with him.  As he preached the Torah and the prophets, he was consumed with the message of God’s compassion and love.  A centuries old question is, “Can Judaism be understood apart from Jesus and can Jesus be understood apart from Judaism?”   In Matthew 13:52, Jesus had this to say about parables and his teaching: “Therefore every scribe is like  a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.”  Jewish tradition, however, was not to replace the old with the new, or to reject the old in order to embrace the new, but for the new to be a renewal and re-application of the old that blends together a powerful combination of ancient themes and fresh ideas.
            As an itinerant Jewish teacher, Jesus followed in the way of rabbis for centuries by traveling from one place to another, stopping occasionally to teach.  Most likely the parables he used were inspired by the very setting where he stopped – fields of harvest or fishing boats upon the sea.  Let’s allow our imaginations to take us to the places where Jesus taught and see the people he described as we study his parables.
            Much of the power of a parable is in the telling and originally they were passed on orally.  The performance power of the story suffers as it is presented in written text.  We may find this to be true as we share Jesus’ stories.

Lesson 1: The Contemptible Friend and the Corrupt Judge

Luke 11:5-8; 18:1-8

            Traditionally, the Jews used more than one parable in a lesson to get a point across, so there is thought that Jesus actually taught these two at the same time.  Luke may or may not have been present, and he grouped them with other teachings, as he was led by the Holy Spirit.

            As we study these parallel parables, let’s keep in mind their background based in centuries of teachings by the Jews on prayer, and the way that Jesus used a sort of Jewish situation comedy from first-century Jewish life to convey a powerful message.  It was his goal to take this old teaching relating to obeying the law and tradition to a new level of having a relationship with God the Father.

            What do you think is the theme of these twin parables?  Believe it or not, a few modern scholars have struggled with their meaning.  Traditional scholars hold that the parables say what they say, or “It is what it is.”  Some who have looked for a more “enlightened” interpretation say that the scriptures deal with the end times and with avoidance of shame, because of the judge and the relationship of the friends.  Since there is, in fact, no judgment taking place, or explainable reason for the behavior of the so-called friend, traditional scholars maintain their interpretation of the parables’ theme as ‘persistent prayer in daily life.’ 

            A famous Jewish scholar said, “The problem with prayer is God.”  His belief was that the greatest barrier we face during prayer is not the words, thoughts or ideas, but rather the way we understand the nature of God.  Scripture is clear – it’s not our words that make the difference in our prayers, but our faith in the One we pray to.  Jesus challenged religious thinking in all he taught – challenged the listener to move closer in relationship to the Father, to believe what the Father had said.

            These twin parables are exaggerated characterizations of action that is NOT like the Father.  The person who refused to help a friend and the judge who did not care about a helpless widow is the reverse of God’s character.  By showing the listener what God is NOT like, Jesus showed what the Father IS like.  By giving this exaggerated role reversal, Jesus employed the Jewish principle of the light and the weighty.  Imagine a scale with one side up and the other down.  By describing something in a more light-hearted way, when the weightier subject is addressed, the rabbi could say, “How much more …”    To the Jew and to us, of course, it would be absurd to describe the Father in the same way as Jesus described the contemptible friend and the unjust judge.  The Lord is merciful and full of grace.  He is the opposite of a bad friend or bad judge.

            Back to the subject of the parable, Jesus is teaching about prayer in this demonstration.  He is saying when you pray, you cannot approach God as though he is like the bad friend or corrupt judge.  When these elements of thinking God will not treat us as a friend or judge us fairly are removed, the negative or doubt-filled thinking on our part, then our faith rises as we remember that God is our Father and our best friend and that he is perfectly just while full of mercy – a righteous judge.  While some modern day scholars see these parables as having a different theme, i.e. the end times and the absence of shame, looking at these parables in the light of their Jewish background should bear out the traditional interpretation.  Faith in God is the basis of prayer, and faith can be viewed as determined persistence.  True faith focuses on what God is like.

            Remember that parables open with an introductory phrase, usually a question?  The opening question of the first parable is, “Which of you …?”  This links the illustration with the sayings that follow about a father who gives good things to his children.  The only response can be that no one would behave in such a way as the bad friend or as a bad father - certainly not God!

            Next the cast is introduced.  Who comprises the cast in this parable?  Then the plot develops and a major conflict is introduced.  A word picture is created in the parable that describes a family dwelling and the interaction between neighbors.  Based on the Jewish tradition of hospitality and kindness, the story takes quite an unexpected turn.  Remember, that’s part of how a parable works.  The opening question alerts the audience to listen for the unexpected.  It also alerts them that they are expected to participate mentally in this little mini-drama.

            At midnight, when all is quiet, a neighbor comes to the home of a friend and calls out for assistance.  He doesn’t knock on the door and cause unnecessary alarm; he calls out, because his friend will recognize his voice.  He expects the friend within to hurry to open the door and come to his aid.  The very fact that it’s midnight alerts the neighbor to the urgency of his mission.  The surprise in the story is the neighbor’s negative response.  This is unheard of in Jewish tradition.  Hospitality in the culture of first-century Israel was at the top of their list of values.  A friend or neighbor is actually obligated to aid another, in their view, jut as the one who had a traveling guest arrive late at night was obligated to take him in and extend hospitality.  In fact, it was the obligation of the community to see that they were both covered in whatever way was needed. 

            When an Israelite asked for help, he obligated himself to the person who helped him, obligated himself to do in return what he asked of his friend or neighbor.  The first man in the parable could have gone to anyone for help, but he chose his neighbor and friend and so obligated himself in return to “be there” for the one who aided him.  The Jewish covenant and in fact the Mid-eastern covenant is based on the same principle.   It is even practiced in parts of Africa.  Believe it or not, even some gangs use this as a foundation for their relationships.  When one requires something of another, he instantly obligates himself for the same in return.  When one provides something to another, he instantly obligates the other to do the same for him.  Look at Abraham and Isaac when God required Abraham to sacrifice his son of promise.  God thereby obligated himself to sacrifice his own son of promise in return.

            One of the modern scholar’s approaches to the parable, avoidance of shame, takes into consideration that at midnight the whole neighborhood would know what was going on and most would hear every word.  It would, in fact, be discussed by all the following day.  By responding properly, the neighbor would avoid shame.  This makes it about the neighbor and what people think and say about him.  The traditional interpretation makes it about all of us and God and our needs, especially as seen through helping each other.  If there is a need we see that someone has and we cannot meet it, but we believe God would have us meet it, we can ask for God’s provision and he will provide so that his love may be expressed.

            The genius of the storyteller can be seen in how he anticipates the reaction of the listeners.  The scene is familiar to them.  The humble home where a family slept together in one room would be the norm and these homes were built very close together.  Imagine a situation similar to today’s apartment complex with a central courtyard.  When the neighbor refuses to respond with traditional hospitality, the audience is expected to complete the story in their minds.  Because of the everyday-ness of the tale, few details are needed.  The listeners fill in the blanks.  The eastern ear can hear this story much more clearly than the western ear.  Think of the differences in our culture and theirs.  We might think a person crazy or inebriated if they called to us outside our bedroom window at midnight wanting help.  We probably would be frightened.  We would even wonder about them if they woke us up with a phone call.

            The story is completed in the mind of the listener, but questions remain that challenge the listener to think on the story, much like the parable of the prodigal son.  Will the elder brother get and attitude adjustment?  Will he reconcile with his younger brother?  In this parable, did you wonder if the neighbor even had the loaves to share or did you pick up on the implication that he had them but wasn’t turning them loose?  Not having them would have been his only excuse and he would have immediately responded that way.  Would you have left to find other help or stayed and persisted?  Did perhaps the neighbor owe the return of three loaves which made the first man choose him to approach with his need?  What did the neighbors think or do?  Why did the neighbor only respond to persistence and not friendship, neighborliness or hospitality?

            Translations of scripture use the terms “bold persistence” and “tenacity”  in verse 8.  What term does your Bible use?  The Greek term literally translates to “shamelessness.” The Amplified Version calls it shameless persistence.  This explains why some modern scholars think Jesus was talking about avoidance of shame, which is definitely a positive virtue in Mid-Eastern culture.  In the Far East as well, culture dictates that one must avoid shame by behaving properly in order to maintain one’s personal honor and reputation.  We don’t see much of this in the West.  It is an effective behavioral tool, but the end result is living with shame for every mistake at one end of the spectrum or having pride in oneself for good behavior at the other.  It’s a self-focused approach.

            A person with brazen tenacity demands what he or she requires without shame.  The basic idea of shamelessness is very different from avoidance of shame.  The closest Hebrew word is chutzpah, which is equal to determined persistence.  In current English, perhaps “raw nerve” would be a better translation.  Old Testament Hebrew implies that when this term is used in conjunction with scripture, it is a positive trait, but when it is used apart from scripture, it is sometimes less so, with a connotation of impudence.  The question that arises from this parable and its twin is, “Does Jesus define faith as determined nerve?  Have you observed a Christian who evidences a strong faith who seems a little ‘nervy’ in their prayer at times?  I pray we are ALL so!  It is not an indication of arrogance, but of deepest belief in the Word and nature of God.  Paul is a great example of that.  He sometimes comes across as a little arrogant, if you do not already know his nature.

            Two rabbis who were known as men of great faith fasted and prayed for rain.  It rained in one rabbi’s area, but not the other.  The rabbi who saw his prayer answered wished to be kind and wanted the people to continue to honor the other rabbi who was in fact his teacher, mentor and elder, so he told this parable of the tenacious daughter.

            To what may this be compared?  A  king had two daughters.  One was tenacious and the other was gracious.  When the tenacious one wanted something and came before their father, he said, “Give her what she wants so she will get out of here.”  But when the gracious one wanted something and came before him, he lengthened his dealings with her because he enjoyed listening to her conversations.

            We see the same implication here as in the parables, that the person gave in to the one who was bothering him.  The friend and the widow were both bothersome, but not in a negative way.  They knew what was right and pursued it until it was theirs.  The friend held his neighbor’s feet to the fire by bothering him into doing the right thing.  The widow did the same with the judge by bothering him into doing his job well.  Persistence is a genuine expression of true faith.

            In the parable of the corrupt judge, the judge is a person who fears no one, not even God.  This lets us know that he believes in God to a degree, but doesn’t fear him. (How can he not fear something he doesn’t believe in?)  The judge uses the term ‘faith’ in referring to the widow, again letting us know that while he is concerned only for himself and does not invite God into the picture, the widow does invite God in.  Justifying his actions with the thought that she will continue to disturb his peace and annoy him to the point that she is lessening his quality of life, he gives in and does as she wishes, which is actually the right thing and his obligation.  The reference to prayer in the text of this parable reminds us that God hears the prayers of people in need.  If we are to be kind, generous, hospitable and responsive to the needs of others - to use a parabolic term - how much MORE is the Lord to do so with us?  Would he set an earthly standard that he himself would not live up to? 

            According to Hebrew scripture, judges were given jurisdiction over the legal affairs of the people during the reign of Jehosaphat.  Policy was established then instructing judges: “Consider what you do, for you judge not for man, but for the Lord.  Let the fear of the Lord be upon you.”  In light of this, the behavior of the unjust judge in this parable is even more despicable.  Since the judge didn’t fear God or regard people, the widow had no justice, nor access to justice, unless she appealed to a higher power.  This she did, and while God would not impose fear of himself on the judge, he did make the judge aware of the aggravation he would experience if he did not regard the widow’s plea rightly.  Actually, legally a widow at that time had no legal recourse except through an advocate to plead her case, an intermediary who could legally approach a judge and convince him in her behalf.  She was vulnerable to a society insensitive to her needs – a forgotten member of the community.  The fact that this widow had no one to represent her makes her personal appearance before the judge even more tenacious and headstrong.  She truly had chutzpah!

             It’s clear why the common people took such delight in the parables Jesus taught.  The very idea that a corrupt judge could be influenced by a widow with chutzpah – what a great thought.  And if an unscrupulous magistrate will be moved to act justly because of the unrelenting tenacity of a helpless widow, how much MORE will the one good and true God answer persistent prayer?  If a bad judge can be influenced by someone of little importance, how much more can the person created in the divine image pray expectantly to the compassionate Father?

            The unexpected in this story is the judge’s change of mind.  Here the value Jesus places on an outcast who makes good and a villain who acts like a hero is clear.  Anything is possible to him who believes, especially where persistent faith-filled prayer is offered.  From the first verse of the chapter, Luke clearly defines the purpose of this parable.  Except for the reference to the coming of the Son of Man, I wonder why some modern scholars relate this to the end time, other than the fact that in the end time more than any other, we “… ought always to pray and not lose heart.”

            The bold tenacity encouraged here reminds me of Abraham inquiring of the Lord if he would save Sodom if there was a certain number of righteous people there.  If we look back at the heroes of faith throughout scripture, we see a tenacious boldness in them.  One rabbi describes Moses’ actions in the same way that a person grabs another’s garments and demands action.  Certainly David had that quality, and Joseph who believed his dreams whether his brothers did or not.  There are too many to name, but it’s a clear picture though history, so bold prayer characterized by brazen tenacity is acceptable under some circumstances.  When do you think this is the case?  What about the times Jesus responded to people who approached him in this way?  (i.e. the man lowered through the roof, the woman who touched the hem of his garment, the blind beggar who cried out to him, the woman who forced her way into the home of Simeon with a bottle of ointment to pour on Jesus’ feet, the Canaanite woman who begged Jesus to heal her child, the ten lepers who cried out for healing)  He often responded, “Your faith has saved you.”   The Gospels clearly describe faith as sometimes being bold tenacity and these parables push beyond that – to challenge the listener to redefine the concept of the nature of God.

            We are left with this question:  “What then is God like?”  And we can say he is a trustworthy friend and a fair and righteous judge who hears and answers our prayers.

Lesson 2: The Fair Employer: Jewish Grace in Jesus’ Parables

Matthew 20:1-16

            This parable illustrates the Father’s divine character in concrete images in the areas of money, labor management and most especially, the wealthy landowner.  It deals in the realities of everyday life.  We may tend to forget that God cares about everyday life – OUR everyday lives.  We tend to go about our business and just don’t think to include him.  In these areas of money and labor, it often just doesn’t seem to apply to our spiritual lives, and may even feel like we are mixing the divine with the mundane.  That’s why Jesus taught this parable – because that’s right where he wants to be – right in the middle of our everyday life.

            What is his crowd-grabbing introductory phrase?    “For the kingdom of heaven is like …” in itself would grab attention.  Didn’t it make your ears perk up?  Then as he reveals the cast, it’s even more attention-grabbing.  The common folks he spoke to would definitely identify with rising before dawn to try to get work.  They had a clear mental picture of this landowner, too, even though they did not identify with him.  Knowing that Jesus is speaking of the kingdom of heaven, they would immediately make the connection that God is like the gracious landowner who hires workers for his vineyard.  People hearing the story see themselves as one or the other types of day laborers – either those who were glad to get the full-time pay for part-time work or those who play the role of the grumblers.  Depending on the situation, they and we can even identify with both.

            The story is introduced.  The cast is identified.  Now we need a crisis or crucial issue.  What questions does the parable stir up?  What is just and fair?  What is God like?  Which of the laborers am I?  If the landowner is one of God’s servants rather than God himself, how is he like God?

            The author’s thinking is that first, the story attempts to present God in his immeasurable goodness and unmerited generosity, and shows him as thinking and acting beyond our human thinking and motivation.  Second, the story shines a light on how the outcast and the latecomer are welcomed into the community of faith.  Some traditional thinking holds that it is a comparison of the law to grace.  My thinking is that there is also the same element that we find in the Prodigal Son Parable – the jealousy of the elder brother who has been faithful when the younger brother is celebrated.  Ah, the unfairness of it all!  We can see this later applied to the Jewish attitude toward Christianity and even to older members of our own faith community who see newcomers as people who want to change things and therefore are a threat.

            We have to admit it certainly looks unfair that the latecomers arrived in the cool of the day with only a short time to work, while the early risers are hot and tired, but all get the same pay.  If Jesus had said, “Life is like this …” we would wonder, but he said, “The kingdom of heaven is like this  ...” so we are clued into something that will be the antithesis of natural life.  The Jews knew and we know that God’s kingdom does not work at all like the natural world.  In almost every case it is the flip side, so to speak, of the natural.  Jesus wanted the Jews to understand that in the Kingdom of God, this situation IS fair; the first are last and the last, first and all receive the same wage of mercy and justness from our magnanimous Father.

            The setting of the parable suggests a depressed economic situation in which workers wait in the marketplace, hoping to be hired for temporary work.  A denarius was enough money to feed a worker and his family, but not much more.  For the day laborer at the bottom of the economic ladder, it was considered a fair wage for a day’s work.  Since we live in an agricultural area, we can understand to a degree the situation of the landowner needing help with the harvest.  However, Jesus specifically used a vineyard for this parable – not wheat or any other crop - because there are specific needs for the landowner who has a vineyard.  First, harvesting grapes at the exact time they are ready is crucial, sometimes down to the hour of the harvest.  This would explain why the landowner was still hiring people late in the day.  The labor was hard and hot.  The Mid-East suffers from a scorching hot wind from the desert at certain times of the year.  The winds are as dry as they are hot and are completely unpredictable, and they may occur during grape harvest time. This added to the critical timing of the grape harvest.  We don’t know if the earlier laborers were worn out, burned out from the heat, or just too slow to get the job done, or if more laborers were just showing up later in the day, but the landowner had a good reason for hiring more.

            So the story is about the workplace.  The land is the business place.  The labor dispute clearly portrays blaming God for what seems to be an injustice.  As Christians, we see the parable as a message of God’s grace, but to the Jews under the Law, it is a message of merit through works.  The grumblers are identified with the Jewish leaders and the latecomers as rejected outcasts, such as tax collectors and sinners.  The contrast then would be the Christian interpretation, which contrasts the grace offered by God through the church with the so-called legalism of the synagogue; this would be compared to the portrayal of a compassionate God who is willing to receive the outcast.  While the Jews taught and believed in love, acceptance of all, and kindness, the preaching didn’t so much meet with the practice during Jesus’ day.  Of course, we’ve seen that historically, most religious communities tend to set higher standards than are actually practiced.

            But wait … Jesus was a part of that Jewish community.  He shouldn’t be viewed as a maverick or outsider, but instead, like the rabbis of his day, a teacher calling people to live up to what they had been taught, the higher standard of the Torah, not because they should or had to, but out of love for the Father who first loved them.  Jesus taught right out of the Torah, but from the perspective of one who intimately knew the Father’s nature.

            In this parable, the money would have captured the listeners’ attention.  Jesus used humor to heighten the awareness of the financial circumstances.  The landowner asked, “Why do you stand here idle all day?”  To use my husband’s words, he said, “Where’ve you boys been?  Watching soap operas and eatin’ bonbons?”  The listeners would’ve picked up on Jesus’ dry wit.

            So we have a little mini-drama that needs to take a surprise turn, and it does at the end, when the landowner pays the laborers.  It was shockingly contrary to accepted practice, but Jesus was comparing the generous landowner to God, who gives a just reward.  Notice I used the word ‘just’ and not ‘fair.’  The concept of fairness is nearly always different from what is just.  How many times have you heard a child say, “That’s not fair!”?  What he really meant was, “I’m not getting what I want!”  This is what the laborers proclaimed.  They thought if the latecomers were paid a denarius, they should get more, or if they were paid a denarius, the latecomers should get less, thus validating them and their efforts and making less of those who spent less time working. 

            Central to all of this is the idea of a reward, rather than wages.  If we see the generous landowner as representing God, we can see that God gives a just reward.  Jesus taught more than once about rewards.  Matthew 5:12 says, “…for great is your reward in heaven.”  Matthew 5:46 says “For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?”  The reward Jesus spoke of is a reality – not a goal.  Let’s go down that road.

            The motive of love, which emerges from a deep awe and reverence for God, should be what guides our actions and our spiritual life.  To fulfill a commandment, to do good, help someone, or simply obey God – this is faith demonstrated.  Faith begins with knowing God and having no other gods, then it’s expressed through action.   Obeying God for its own sake is reward enough.  It is love that will have a reward.

            One rabbi taught how a king had an orchard and he brought in laborers to plant trees in it.  He did not tell them which trees would bring the greater reward, because the laborers would neglect some to make sure the ones that brought the greater reward were tended.  If we were motivated by the reward we would receive, we would try to learn which of God’s commandments would bring the greater reward.  While the reward is a reality, it is not our motivator or our goal.  We serve God out of love grounded in awe and reverence.

            Jesus broke away from traditional rabbinic teaching to give the message in this parable.  He did not teach about the reward, but of the goodness of the master and of serving him out of love, faith and obedience.  He also portrayed the landowner as being involved with the people, rather than aloof from them.  This was also unexpected.  It was unusual for such a landowner to be directly involved with the laborers and their concerns.  Notice he had a manager that he sent out to pay the laborers.  Why didn’t the manager do the hiring?  This would much more be his job than the landowner’s.

            Jesus even played on their superstitions in the last verse, almost accusing the laborers of having an evil eye.  He compared it to his own ability to see good.  This is about attitude.  Were the laborers already feeling like victims, therefore they saw the landowner as unfair?  Did the landowner see the laborers as blessed by finding work and being paid the fair wage that was promised them?  Jesus is drawing attention to the fact that the laborers are not grateful for what they have been given and see themselves as victims, while the latecomers are seen as being favored for no good reason.  Often in the workplace, we hear employees complain because they believe a supervisor is playing favorites.  They fail to see the admirable work ethic of the other worker and fail to see their own shortcomings as workers.  If they see one, then they have to face the other.

            The scripture warns us against comparing ourselves to others.  It says that is unwise.  Comparisons tend to lead to jealousy or resentment or a victim mentality.  None of these have a place in our spiritual lives.  Neither love nor faith can survive much less flourish in that kind of environment.

            Jewish wisdom teaches that there are four kinds of people.

He who says, “What’s mine is mine and what’s thine is thine.”  He is average.

He who says, “What’s mine is thine and what’s thine is mine.”  He is ignorant. He who says, “What’s mine is thine and what’s thine is thine.”  He is a saint. He who says, “What’s mine is mine and what’s thine is mine.”  He is wicked

Which is the landowner?  Which describes the disgruntled laborers?  Do you see grace introduced in this parable?  How so?  A number of rabbinic parables used similar circumstances to teach a good work ethic or what it means to be a good landowner who sets an example for his laborers – ultimately salvation through works.  Only Jesus taught with all the laborers on equal footing and a landowner who justly gives each one not what he deserves, but what his master has to give.


Lesson 3: God’s Gracious Gifts:
The Talents - Matthew 25:14-30; the Pounds – Luke 19:11-27
          What is the underlying theme of these two parables?  It’s stewardship – what will the steward do with his master’s goods?  In Jewish thought, God created the world and every person is a caretaker of what really belongs to God.  We would do well to think this way, too.  This kind of thinking recognizes that we are simply stewards of God’s property – whether it’s the earth, the land we live on and call our own, or the money we earn and everything else.
            Our concept of God is the determining factor in our stewardship.  One servant in each of the parables only feared God.  These servants contrast with the good servants who trusted in the goodness of their master and as a result are willing to take risks in order to get the greatest return for their master’s money.
            How were these parables introduced?  Who is the cast?  These are two similar versions of a story that introduce a dramatic conflict.  What is the conflict?  What will the servants do while their master is away?  While the cat’s away, the mice will play, but they know he’s coming back and they are responsible for the assets of his estate.  One question the parable asks is, “How do people behave when they think or feel that God is absent?”  Another question is, “Are they expecting wages or a reward for their behavior?”  And another, “Do they expect punishment for mismanagement of his assets?”
            Let’s look at the similarities and differences in the two parables.  In the first parable, the servants use what is graciously bestowed on them as a sacred trust – each according to his ability.  In the second, how do the servants see the money?  It’s more of a business situation, isn’t it?  In Matthew, the servants were entrusted with their master’s money.  In Luke, they were instructed to trade or invest.  In Matthew, all the servants at least wanted to please the master even though one of them did not make an effort to increase his assets.  He was motivated by fear and a misunderstanding of what his master is like.  He did not know his master well.  Ultimately he was punished, so the parable tells us that good intentions are not enough.
            In Luke, we’re looking at two different groups:  the citizens who do not want him as a master and the bondservants who want to obey and please him.  Again one of them only fears the master and doesn’t really know him.  Do you remember what a bondservant is?  The bondservant is a servant who served his master to pay off his debt and after the debt is paid, chooses to stay with his master and continue to serve him for life.  This often occurred when the master was kind, merciful and generous and the servant knew he would have a better life serving him than going out on his own.  The one who did not invest his master’s money well was not a true bondservant, but a more just a hireling.  The difference in characters in the two parables is that one is about servants and the other about citizens and bondservants – three completely different types of people.
            So far we have only looked at the Jewish interpretation of the parables.  Now let’s look at the Christian interpretation.  The basic meaning of the parables is the same, but where they are recorded in scripture gives them a greater meaning.  In Matthew, we find that the parable follows the story of the five wise and five foolish virgins.  Remember the story?  It’s about being prepared for the coming of the bridegroom and the beginning of the wedding, Jesus being the bridegroom and the wedding being his final joining with the church at his second coming.  This leads us into tonight’s parable about being good stewards as we wait for the return of our master, or Jesus’ second coming.  To the Jews this would have meant that at the end of the age there would be an accounting of each person’s works.  To the Christian, it is about relationship and how this affects stewardship.  For instance, the oil in the lamps could have had a number of natural implications for the Jews, such as temple service, giving to temple service, wise money management, etc.  For the Christian, the revelation of truth by the Holy Spirit and the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian are common interpretations of the lighted lamp, since oil represents the Holy Spirit and the anointing of the Spirit and light represents truth, revelation and the presence of God.  In tonight’s parables, to the Jews the stories would have been about good stewardship pleasing God and resulting in prosperity for the steward.  To the Christian, it’s about good stewardship being possible through being in right relationship with and knowing God.  Also, the verses that follow our parable are about the judgment of the nations in Matthew.
            In Luke, our parable concludes a section of text known as the Travel Narrative (Luke 9:51 – 19:28).  Then in the Gospel of Mark, he alludes to these parables in Mark 13:34 when he speaks about the unknown day and hour that urge constant preparation.  The drama begins, “It is like a man going on a journey, when he … puts his servants in charge.”  In Mark, the man will return.  In Luke the nobleman comes back to receive his kingdom, and in Matthew, after a delay the wealthy man returns to seek an accounting of the deposits he entrusted to his servants.
            To modern scholars, the delay of the master followed by his sudden return has been interpreted as illustrating the second coming of Jesus.  The warning of the end-time crisis was emphasized by the three Gospel authors, but Jesus’ message reaches deeper to teach being in relationship with the Father and living our daily lives in such a way that we are always ready for Jesus’ return.  It is common for us to focus on or have a greater interest in these scriptures and others about the second coming.  People generally have a fascination with prophecy and end times.  But Jesus’ lesson, while certainly apocalyptic in nature, directs us to serving others, divine justice and holy living as a result of a love relationship with God.  The Coming of the Messiah was a normal part of the Jewish faith.  Even while hearing Jesus speak, many were still expecting the Messiah to come.  Every Jew would have grown up being taught of the Messiah’s coming and so may not have had the fascination with it that we see among Christians today.  The Jews could also have read into the parables that this end could be death, rather than the second coming, which meant a final reckoning to determine a person’s reward or punishment.  Either way, the parables stress the urgency of acting before it is too late.
            The only way the Jews of that day had to accomplish what they saw as the requirement for a final reward was good works.  The just reward was a major issue of the parables.  The message here seems clear that the more faithful one is, the greater the reward.  It also addresses faith itself, since to the one that has, much will be given, but to the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.  This is closely related to the Jewish tradition that speaks about the giving of the Law.  The Torah was freely given by God, and it was taught freely.  The one who learns the most from the Torah receives more revelation, and the more learning, the more life.  The one who neglects the Torah will lose even what he may have gained at one time, hence the less Torah, the less life.
            When it comes to reward and punishment, the divine view of justice is not the same as human understanding of equitable recompense.  Remember last week we learned about the first being last and the last being first.  Just like last week, no it’s not fair – just as some said in the Luke parable – but it is just.  Kingdom principles and our earthly way of thinking more often than not don’t line up with each other and in fact, often look at things in the reverse of each other.
            We do not know if these two strikingly similar parables were recorded as Jesus teaching the same lesson on two different occasions with a slightly different bent or if Matthew and Luke heard the same parable and recorded it slightly different.  Matthew’s version is creative folklore, using the artistry of language, storytelling techniques, culture and tradition to communicate an urgent message.  Interestingly, Luke took the same basic story that Matthew told and applied it to the historic temperament and political outlook of that day.  Consider the setting of the times.  Remember that Herod the Great was the one who had all the babies two years old and under slain in an effort to destroy the Christ Child?  His will stipulated that his son Archelaus succeed him in power.  Herod was hated and feared and along came his son who was just as cruel and brutal as his father, and he had strong political aspirations, so he sought the favor of Rome.  In a desperate act, an embassy composed of Jews and Samaritans went to Rome to try to persuade the political powers to give them a more suitable governor.  In the words of Luke’s telling of the parable, “We do not want this man to reign over us.”  Luke introduced the idea of a king coming from a far country to receive his kingdom.  This was a new concept to the Jews.  The basic message concerning stewardship is linked with the theme of a nobleman who is given a kingdom – very much like the events surrounding Archelaus’ rise to power.  The opposition to the reigning king is secondary to the parable and was likely used to capture the attention of the listeners, much in the way of using a Jewish situation comedy or a story set in a harvest.
            Consider this: The Gospel of Luke was written around 60 A.D. and the Gospel of Matthew around 70 A.D.  It must have brought the persecuted Church much comfort to read or hear these parables as they waited for their master to return.
            A rabbinic parable called “Love and Fear of the King’s Servant” is a wonderful parallel to the two parables we are studying tonight.
            What is the difference between love and fear?  It may be illustrated through the means of a parable.  To what may the matter be compared?  To a king who had two servants.  One loved the king and feared him.   The other feared the king but did not love him.  The king went into a far country.  The servant who loved the king and feared him rose up to plant gardens, orchards and all varieties of fruit.  The servant who feared the king but did not love him remained inactive and did nothing at all.  Upon returning from the far country, the king saw the gardens, orchards and many varieties of fruit arranged before him according to the design of the servant who loved him.  When the one who loved the king came before him, he was greatly contented in correspondence to the joy of the king.  But when the king entered the domain of the servant who only feared him, he saw all the desolate grounds which lay before him according to the failure of the servant who did not love him.  This servant was greatly distressed in accordance with the anger of the king.  As it was said, “He provides food for those who fear him.”  (Psalm 111:5)  Here we learn that the reward of the one who loved the king was a double portion, while the reward of the one who only feared the king was only a single portion.  Thus the ones who worship foreign gods only receive their portion in this world, but Israel merits favor by enjoying her portion in both worlds.
            We see once again that God looks upon the heart.  Fear without love is not enough.  Those who love the king will obey his commandments and seek to please him in their daily lives.  The attitude of not using the blessings God gives was unacceptable to the Jews, so they were not shocked when the servants in tonight’s parables were treated in what appeared to be a harsh way for not investing well.  Another rabbinic parable explains this.  It’s called “The Miser.”
            A miser sold all his property and bought a mass of gold, which he buried in a secret place to which he made frequent visits of inspection.  Someone who had noticed his coming and going found the treasure and carried it off, and when the miser returned and discovered his loss, he wailed and tore his hair in a frenzy of grief.  Someone who saw him agonizing, after learning the cause, said to him, “Don’t grieve, my friend.  Just take a stone and bury it in the same place and think of it as gold in a vault.  Even when the gold was there you made no use of it.
            So we are down to the theological foundation of Jesus’ parables, which embrace the Jewish view of God and his creation.  The world belongs to God, and the Jews express this in their daily prayers.  (See Shabbat Siddur.)  The Jewish view of the world is found in the practice of always giving thanks.  The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof and they that dwell therein.  (Psalm 24:1)  Imagine someone allowing you to live in their home on their property and use whatever you need.  How do you want that home to appear when they return?  And a thank you note every day would be nice!  In the Jewish view, a child is given as a sacred trust.  All life is a gift from God and all that we have is, too.  The Jews do not have a problem with returning a portion to God for his use.  We should not either.  Out of sheer gratitude for God’s generosity and love for God’s kindness toward us, we should be willing to give him anything he requires of us and more.
            A major point of the parables is decisive action.  The steward must take steps to increase what has been graciously given.  Use what is in your hand.  No matter how great or small, it is given by God as a resource and is to be used for his service.  The Jews also understand that this also means one’s talents and abilities.  It is good to be proud of what God has given you as talent or ability, as long as you understand that it is a gift from God.
            A final note – look at the reward the faithful servants received in proportion to what they had to give to their master.  They were invited to enter into his joy, to rule over cities – greater relationship with God and greater responsibility for him.  God is good and the stewards of his divinely given abilities and assets must use them creatively and faithfully to achieve a maximum return on their master’s investment.

Lesson 4: The Samaritan: Love Your Enemies
Luke 10:25-37
            The parable of the Good Samaritan teaches a clear message at a child’s level.  So why would Jesus teach it to Jews raised on Torah?  Could there be a deeper meaning than the obvious?  Could its Jewish roots give it a more far-reaching interpretation?
            The Good Samaritan parable is in the classic form of a story parable: a mini-drama with a cast of colorful characters.  One scene moves quickly into the next.  Listeners meet the cast, then take a journey toward the conflict or drama of the story.  The resolution communicates the deeper message of the storyteller.
            The literary form is Jewish and insights into it are best understood in the light of its Jewish background.
            Jesus uses this parable in response to a question asked by a Torah scholar, who asked, “Who IS my neighbor?”  This was a legitimate question to a Jew, for the word ‘neighbor’ in the old Hebrew had a range of meanings.  As it does to us, ‘neighbor’ could mean ‘friend’ or ‘a person who is close by.’  The general meaning was ‘anyone,’ but the Jews, who were concerned with obeying the law, were looking for a specific, legal term.  Imagine if our doctrine and theology were also our law!  What if we could be fined, imprisoned or even executed for our sin?!  This is a perspective that our western minds can’t comprehend as the eastern mind can.  Think of our legal system and how people try to work it.  The slightest technicality can change everything!  The Jews – like us – included some people who wanted to know, understand and do God’s will through the Torah, and some who were looking for escape hatches or loopholes that let them do as they wished.  Obviously this had nothing to do with loving, serving or honoring God.
            So first we have people either wanting truth or wanting to hear what they wanted to hear.  Then there was the conflict of the language.  In Jesus’ time, the Hebrew language was in transition.  People were having trouble with true definitions of words.   We can relate to that, can’t we?  Have you read the funny email about old words with new meanings and how things have changed?  Take for instance the words ‘mouse’ or ‘speaker’ or ‘drive.’  The compute age certainly changed the way we use those words, plus hundreds more.  So the Jews weren’t sure if ‘neighbor’ meant friend, colleague, acquaintance or someone they didn’t even know yet.  A concern was – what if it meant a neighboring country?  That could mean ‘enemy’!
            In this scripture passage, the Torah scholar approached Jesus and asked him, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”   This scholar was likely a Pharisee and the Pharisees were always asking Jesus questions to test and harass him, but this man’s answers show him to be genuine.  This doesn’t give any evidence of being a confrontation or having any hostility.  It was simply an exchange between two rabbis regarding the Torah.
            Jesus answered his question with a question as he often challenges us, “What do you believe?   He recognized that the man was a Torah scholar so he asked, “What is written in the Torah?  How do you read?”  Or what does the Torah say about this and what is your interpretation?  Is your understanding in line with the Word of God?  Jesus has a way of getting right to the bottom line, doesn’t he?  The scholar answered his own question by answering Jesus’ question.  He summed up his Torah knowledge in saying, “Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself.”  For in doing these two things consistently, one would obey all that the Law required.
            The scholar understood the message of the parable – that everyone, even one’s enemy – is a neighbor if God lets your paths cross.  The Samaritans were enemies of the Jews and Jesus made one a hero in his parable.  Here’s our element of shock that parables hold.  An enemy becomes a hero and a friend.
            Let’s look at the story.  A man is stripped and left for dead.  Without his identifying clothing, he can’t be recognized as being from a particular community or culture.  Is he a Pharisee?  A priest?  A Roman?  No one knows.  Jesus doesn’t tell.  Those who pass by him can’t even identify his family to come help him or to get help from anyone.  Who is he?  Is he dead?  Is he still alive?  What is the proper religious duty toward him?
            Our question-asking scholar would not have identified with the passers-by who obviously did not embrace the oral tradition of the Law.  Let me explain this observance of the Law.  The Torah was delivered to Moses with its oral commentary and practical application in every aspect of human experience.  The written law could not be understood without the oral teachings by the sages who explained how it applied to everyday life.  The Sadducees rejected all oral law.  They were literalists and typically had a certain amount of contempt for those who obeyed both Torahs – the written and the oral.  The Samaritans accepted only the written five books of Moses.
            In the previous chapter of Luke, a clear picture of the hostile relations between the Jews and Samaritans is clearly described.  The Samaritans wouldn’t even allow Jesus and his disciples to spend the night in their village.  James and John were ready to call down fire from Heaven to burn them alive.  (Very spiritual!)  Sometimes wars erupted between them.  ‘Samaritan’ was considered a by-word by the Jews.
            Back to the story.  The road from Jerusalem to Jericho was very dangerous.  It was traveled regularly by many wealthy Levites and priests, making the road very lucrative for robbers.  Records show that a large number of priests lived in Jericho, priests who would not have followed the oral law.  We and the Jewish listeners would deduce that the priest and the Levite were not Pharisees, but probably Sadducees, because by their actions they showed they did not accept the validity of the oral Torah which commanded them to stop and render aid.  The oral law required tending to another human being, to rescue if alive or to buy if already dead.
            The language of the parable uses the term half-dead to indicate the man was closer to death than not.  In the Jewish oral tradition, the principle of saving life at all costs was a priority.  A person who is half-dead should be treated as a living person in every respect.
            The Sadducees believed they should never defile themselves by touching the dead – even if it meant they must set aside all humanitarian concern.  So the Levite and priest were more concerned with personal, ritual purity than in possibly saving the life of another human being.
            So the naked half dead man lay beside the road.  The priest and the Levite pass by without helping him.  They abandon him just as the robbers did.  But the Samaritan reverses the action of the robbers by giving aid to the injured man, binding up his wounds and doctoring them the best he could.  He then walked while his donkey carried the man to the nearest inn.  The robbers took; the Samaritan gave – by paying for the injured man’s care.  The robbers left without looking back.  The Samaritan promises to return and cover all expenses and assure the injured man has been cared for.  The robbers left him without hope.  The Samaritan left him with hope.  The Samaritan had no obligation to fulfill the oral law, but he did anyway.
            Jesus and the scholar arrived at a much different understanding of the message, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  The parable was a real shocker to the listeners.  Another reason for its shock value is from Jesus’ use of a Samaritan as a hero.  You see, during Jesus’ lifetime, the Samaritans for some unknown reason entered the Temple in Jerusalem in the dark of night and strewed human bones all over the place – during Passover – thus defiling the Temple.  This rekindled all the old fires of hatred.
            Jesus’ message clearly reminds us not to treat a person a certain way based on race, culture or creed.  Just because a person is the same race or culture as “the enemy” does not mean he is the enemy, but instead, is a neighbor.  In Matthew 5:43-44, Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, love your enemies.”  Jesus is not talking about an emotion – something warm and fuzzy or touchy-feely, cut a CHOICE.  Jesus wanted the Torah scholar to get it.  When the scholar gave the right answer to “Who was the real neighbor?” by saying “He who showed mercy,” he was saying, “Sometimes my enemy is my neighbor.”
            The scholar could have answered, “Any human being in need,” or “The injured man,” or even, “The Samaritan.”  But he wisely answered, “The one who showed mercy.”  He did not define the Samaritan by his religion or culture, but by his actions.  So we find instead of one direction in the parable, instead levels of direction.  (1) One must be a neighbor (2) by choice (3) by not defining a person who needs help (4) or the one who helps, but being ready to help whenever God puts a neighbor in our path.