PHYLACTERY (φυλακτήριον, phylaktērion). Prayer boxes that Jewish men wear on their foreheads or left forearms as a devotional aid during statutory times for prayer.

Meaning and Etymology

Phylacteries contain copies of the four biblical passages upon which their usage is based: Exod 13:9, 16; Deut 6:8; 11:18. They serve as a ritual reminder of the covenantal commitment to keep the Torah of Moses and to thank God for His many blessings (1QS 10.10; Segal, 160–64). Two other physical symbols reflect this same goal:

1. mezuzah—a small box, containing scrolls bearing the same four verses, mounted to the right doorpost of the house and of each room (see Deut 6:9; 11:20);

2. tzitzin—tassels or fringes with blue cords worn at the four corners of a prayer shawl (see Num 15:37–38; Deut 22:12).

The use of phylacteries has varied throughout history according to time and place, as have rules regarding their use. The Greek term “phylactery” (φυλακτήριον, phylaktērion) comes from the Greek word meaning “to watch, guard” (φυλάσσω, phylassō). Its only occurrence in the Bible is in Matt 23:5, in which Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees. The term also appears in extrabiblical sources from the mid-second century AD (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 46.5; Massekhet Tefillin §9 [attributed to R. Judah b. Ilai, using the translation equivalent qāmîa]; §12). Phylacteries are also known by the term tefillin (m. Berakhot 3:1), which may be based on the Hebrew term for prayer (תְּפִלָּה, tephillah)

Vs. 29. Willing to justify himself.—Perhaps the scribe took the reply, “this do,” as an indirect reproach that he, to his own amazement, had not yet done it, and now apparently his conscience begins to speak. But he will justify himself, inasmuch as he intimates that he, in this respect at least, had already fulfilled the requirement of the law, unless it were that Jesus perhaps by the words “thy neighbor” might have some different meaning from himself. But better still, we are perhaps to conceive the matter thus: if the answer was so simple as it appeared to be from the words of our Saviour, there might undoubtedly be need of an excuse that he had approached Jesus with so trifling a question. He wishes, therefore, by this more particular statement to give the Saviour to feel that precisely this is the great question, namely, whom he is to regard as his neighbor and whom not; and as to this, our Lord now, in the immediately following parable, gives him a definite exposition.

PHYLACTERY (φυλακτήριον, phylaktērion). Prayer boxes that Jewish men wear on their foreheads or left forearms as a devotional aid during statutory times for prayer.

Meaning and Etymology

Phylacteries contain copies of the four biblical passages upon which their usage is based: Exod 13:9, 16; Deut 6:8; 11:18. They serve as a ritual reminder of the covenantal commitment to keep the Torah of Moses and to thank God for His many blessings (1QS 10.10; Segal, 160–64). Two other physical symbols reflect this same goal:

1. mezuzah—a small box, containing scrolls bearing the same four verses, mounted to the right doorpost of the house and of each room (see Deut 6:9; 11:20);

2. tzitzin—tassels or fringes with blue cords worn at the four corners of a prayer shawl (see Num 15:37–38; Deut 22:12).

The use of phylacteries has varied throughout history according to time and place, as have rules regarding their use. The Greek term “phylactery” (φυλακτήριον, phylaktērion) comes from the Greek word meaning “to watch, guard” (φυλάσσω, phylassō). Its only occurrence in the Bible is in Matt 23:5, in which Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees. The term also appears in extrabiblical sources from the mid-second century AD (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 46.5; Massekhet Tefillin §9 [attributed to R. Judah b. Ilai, using the translation equivalent qāmîa]; §12). Phylacteries are also known by the term tefillin (m. Berakhot 3:1), which may be based on the Hebrew term for prayer (תְּפִלָּה, tephillah)

His question springs therefore from a very different source from that of the rich young man, Matt. 19:16, and without doubt he expects a very different answer from this one, which, on the position of the law, was the only possible one. He is first put to shame by the very fact that the Saviour gives him to hear nothing strange, but simply that which was perfectly familiar.

Vs. 29. Willing to justify himself.—Perhaps the scribe took the reply, “this do,” as an indirect reproach that he, to his own amazement, had not yet done it, and now apparently his conscience begins to speak. But he will justify himself, inasmuch as he intimates that he, in this respect at least, had already fulfilled the requirement of the law, unless it were that Jesus perhaps by the words “thy neighbor” might have some different meaning from himself. But better still, we are perhaps to conceive the matter thus: if the answer was so simple as it appeared to be from the words of our Saviour, there might undoubtedly be need of an excuse that he had approached Jesus with so trifling a question. He wishes, therefore, by this more particular statement to give the Saviour to feel that precisely this is the great question, namely, whom he is to regard as his neighbor and whom not; and as to this, our Lord now, in the immediately following parable, gives him a definite exposition.

but with their passion for definition the Rabbis sought to define who a person’s neighbour was; and at their worst and their narrowest they confined the word neighbour to their fellow Jews. For instance, some of them said that it was illegal to help a Gentile woman in her sorest time, the time of childbirth, for that would only have been to bring another Gentile into the world. So then the scribe’s question, ‘Who is my neighbour?’ was genuine.

This inspection, however, merely persuades them of the greatness of the danger that awaits them also if they delay even for an instant, and therefore they make haste to quit the way of blood as quickly as possible. Neither the voice of humanity, nor that of nationality, nor that of religion, speaks so loudly to their heart as the desire of self-preservation.

We note two things about him.

(1) His credit was good! Clearly the innkeeper was prepared to trust him. He may have been theologically unsound, but he was an honest man.

(2) He alone was prepared to help. A heretic he may have been, but the love of God was in his heart. It is not uncommon to find the orthodox more interested in dogmas than in help and to find those whom the orthodox despise to be the ones who show the greatest love for others. In the end we will be judged not by the creed we hold but by the life we live.

Jesus’ answer involves three things.

(1) We must be prepared to help others even when they have brought their trouble on themselves, as the traveller had done.

(2) Anyone from any nation who is in need is our neighbour. Our help must be as wide as the love of God.

(3) The help must be practical and not consist merely in feeling sorry. No doubt the priest and the Levite felt a pang of pity for the wounded man, but they did nothing. Compassion, to be real, must issue in deeds.

What Jesus said to the scribe, he says to us—‘Go you and do the same.’