Around January 30, 2025 JD Vance said,
As an American leader, but also just as an American citizen, your compassion belongs first to your fellow citizens. That doesn’t mean you hate people from outside of your own borders, but there’s this old-school [concept] — and I think it’s a very Christian concept, by the way — that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then, after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.
Source: FoxNews: JD Vance: President Trump is looking after American citizens
A Little Context…
Before I address JD Vance’s theology more directly, let’s get a little context to better understand where he’s coming from. This is the man who said “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another” (Source: Fact-checking J.D. Vance’s statements on Ukraine). This is completely consistent with pretty much everything he’s publicly stated regarding Ukraine. You can get most of that from that previous link, or just Google it for yourself.
He DOESN’T CARE that Ukrainian civilian cities are bombed nightly, that Ukrainians in occupied areas are tortured, raped, and executed. And he doesn’t care that the “Evil Empire” (Reagan’s term) has resurrected and again raping its neighbors and currently reducing Ukrainian cities to rubble.
He has NOTHING good, encouraging, or supportive to say about the victim in this dystopian hellscape. And he has nothing especially critical to say about Putin or Russia.
Imagine saying in 1943, “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care one way or another how many Jews are exterminated in gas chambers, and they’re a pretty darned corrupt people anyway… We have our own problems to worry about…”
Now let me connect a few dots that appear in fairly linear sequence. Vance believes there’s a “Christian” concept of loving those most near the most, then next those a little further away. And for those who are terrorized nightly by missile and drone strikes, “I don’t really care one way or another”.
Hey, at least he’s clear. He doesn’t give a shit what terror is unleashed on his fellow man at the hands of evil, and he declares this with an almost boastful attitude.
BUT to then perform the Olympian feats of mental, verbal, and theological gymnastics to see this as somehow a “Christian concept”… Well, THAT will be interesting. Let’s jump right in.
Augustine, Aquinas, Ordo Amoris, and Greek
In the days following Vance’s statement some people ran to his defense. See First, Love Locally: JD Vance and ‘Ordo Amoris’, Dr. Richard Clements, February 11, 2025 for the example I’ll be addressing.
The article points out that Augustine and Aquinas addressed it, and had an official name for it, “Ordo Amoris”. That’s Latin for “Order of Loves”. Clements finds it “refreshing” that Vance would refer to it.
He quotes Vance saying “Just google ‘ordo amoris.’ Aside from that, the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does anyone?” (an excellent example of the logical error of the “false dichotomy”, by the way).
Clements goes on to reference another scholar, James Orr, discussing the meaning of the Greek word for “neighbor” in Luke 10:27. This passage says “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27, ESV).
James Orr points out that “the Greek word for neighbor in the New Testament is plēsion, which is derived directly from plēsios, meaning ‘near’ or ‘close by.’ It is proximity that makes neighbors our objects of care and attention.”
An Answer
I can easily picture a non-theologically trained reader being a little intimidated by Clements’ article. It references some heavy stuff: Augustine, Aquinas, official doctrines with Latin labels, the original Greek, and a Cambridge/Oxford scholar.
Don’t let it intimidate you… This is easy to debunk straight from the mouth of Jesus.
Augustine/Aquinas
If you’re not aware, when someone today references Augustine and Aquinas, it is supposed to impress you with their theological sophistication.
I vividly remember this challenge in academic theology circles… You hold some theological position. Someone comes and shows a quote from Calvin, Luther, Augustine, etc., that contradicts your position, and the case is closed.
Higher academic culture so reveres these figures that once someone quotes them the argument is supposed to be over. Or, in many cases, if both parties hold such reverence for these famous theologians, the discussion may then turn on what those theologians really thought, and whether the quote was in context, instead of over “WHAT IS TRUE?”, or “WHAT DID JESUS MEAN?”
While great theological thinkers in history have their place in discovering truth, they are human. They are prone to error, and limited by biases of their time. And their statements on various issues like this are often ripped from their contexts and inaccurately applied to modern questions.
With all due respect, it doesn’t really matter what they said and thought. YOU have access to God’s word, YOU can read it, and YOU can interpret it. And SOMETIMES the obvious, surface meaning of the text is so clear that you don’t need Augustine’s or Aquinas’ help.
“The word in the original Greek means…”
Any time you hear “The word in the original Greek really means…”, that’s also a common tactic designed to impress and intimidate.
But what replaces the “…” is almost always misleading, if not outright wrong.
Reputable English translations of the Bible are translated by teams of world-class scholars. These scholars span the ideological, philosophical, theological spectrum… Atheists, secularists, agnostics, Christians of all denominations… All top-notch experts in various fields of textual criticism, ancient Hebrew and Greek literature and language.
There are guys on these teams that have written 300 page doctoral dissertations on things like “The significance of the presence or absence of the definite article with proper names” (in English, we say “Peter”, capitalized. In Greek, it’s sometimes literally “The Peter”, sometimes just “Peter”. WHY? That is the subject of that dissertation!).
These teams put ridiculous time, effort, and diligence into the biblical translations. So when ALL English translations – each one compiled by a committee of multiple scholars – agree on an English translation of some Greek word, that settles it. It requires no additional color commentary.
For this word for “neighbor” in Luke 10:27, “plēsion”/”plēsios”… it means “neighbor”! And YES, duh, the normal literal usage of “neighbor” implies “near”, just as it does in modern English. There’s no need here to dig any more deeply into nuances of the word in Greek.
And to try to extrapolate from that a theological doctrine… Well, that falls flat on its face.
BAGD
“BAGD”, or “A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT and Other Early Christian Literature” (the “BAGD” comes from “Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich/Danker”) is THE definitive, undisputed gold standard of New Testament lexicography.
The print edition is a beast twice the weight and size of a calculus book.
EVERY NT language scholar of any stripe uses it daily. It’s the golden source.
So what does it say about the meaning of plēsion (“neighbor”)?
“1. as adv. near, close by… b. substantively, ὁ πλησίον the neighbor, the one who is near or close by, the fellow man…” (BAGD).
Now don’t get all excited that “near, close by” appears here. This is not a case where you have the option of choosing the definition that best supports the doctrine you are pushing. The word has different meanings in different contexts.
Failure to apply that reality – that a word has different meanings in different contexts – is to commit the lexical fallacy known as “Illegitimate totality transfer”. Hey, JD, GOOGLE THAT!
To illustrate, the English word “Grilled” means “cooking over fire” (“I’ll have the grilled chicken”) AND “questioning thoroughly” (“The police investigator grilled the suspect”). The CONTEXT determines which meaning applies, and only one meaning could possibly apply in any particular context. The police did not cook the suspect over an open fire, and the burger flipper did not thoroughly interrogate the meat.
According to BAGD, in Luke 10:27 the context calls for “plesion” to mean “the fellow man”. But to be honest, a plain reading of the passage makes that abundantly clear.
Let’s have a look…
Luke 10:25-37 – The Good Samaritan
Orr wants to argue about the meaning of the Greek word for “neighbor” in Luke 10:27, but in the “Good Samaritan” story (Luke 10:25-37) Jesus does a whole speech answering “And who is my neighbor?”… exactly this subject. When Orr was looking up the meanings of the Greek I wonder if he happened to just meander just a few verses later to hear Jesus’ own explanation?
That’s the HIGH IRONY in all these ridiculous arguments about “Ordo Amoris”, Augustine, Aquinas, the “original Greek for ‘neighbor’…” THIS WAS THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF LUKE 10:25-37, the story of the parable of the “Good Samaritan”.
It’s so obvious, and so parallel to the discussion at hand that it’s comical that Vance and Clements make their case for some sort of hierarchy FROM LUKE 10:25-37.
Go ahead, open your Bible to Luke 10:25-28 and follow along…
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” [Jesus] replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered, ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
Source: Luke 10:25-28, NIV
This part we’ve all heard… The “greatest commandment”, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind… and love your neighbor as yourself…” Jesus taught it in Matthew 22:34–40 and Mark 12:28–31 (though it is probably the same event).
In Luke the “expert in the law” (I’ll just call him the “lawyer”) answers Jesus’ question, “What is written in the Law?” with the “love God/love neighbor” formula.
This “Love God/Love Neighbor” concept is basically a quote of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 in the Old Testament.
It was already a well-known teaching among Jewish teachers by the time.
AND WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR?
BUT in the Luke passage there is a whole dialog between Jesus and the lawyer about “WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR?”.
But [the lawyer] wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
Luke 10:29, NIV
Isn’t this EXACTLY the case Vance, Clement, and Orr are arguing? “Who is my neighbor?”. And isn’t Vance asking it FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON the lawyer in the story asked it, “TO JUSTIFY HIMSELF”?
Here in Luke Jesus answers this EXACT QUESTION AT LENGTH, in the form of a parable, and nothing in the answer hints of “proximity” or “nearness”, as Orr argues.
Before we continue with Jesus’ actual answer, let’s be real clear about the lawyer’s motivation and question. He was obviously looking for some way to NARROW THE SCOPE of who one was required to love, IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY HIMSELF… Exactly as Vance and Clement and Orr are doing.
Jesus’ Answer
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Source: Luke 10:30–37, NIV
The story is mostly clear enough, but did you notice that Jesus didn’t answer the question that was actually asked?
Think about it… When you are commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself”, the first natural thought is that the kind of neighbor in mind here is the one who NEEDS help, compassion, — maybe a VICTIM of some sort.
When you ask, “But who is my neighbor?”, you’re hoping to narrow the field of victims you are required to love.
But Jesus flips the question. He asks “which one was a neighbor TO THE VICTIM?”, which, of course, was the Samaritan. And Jesus’ command is basically “be like him”.
The lawyer asked, “Who is my neighbor?” — hoping to draw boundaries. But Jesus responds, in effect: Forget the question of who counts as your neighbor. Be a neighbor to anyone in need. In this case, the “neighbor” (the one helping the victim) was their cultural enemy, a FOREIGNER, from OUTSIDE their own region.
And about that “cultural enemy, a FOREIGNER, OUTSIDE your own region”…
Who were the Samaritans?
Today everyone has heard the expression “Good Samaritan”. Now it just means “Good, kind, caring, compassionate, generous person”. But this expression has THIS meaning today exclusively because of this exchange in Luke 10:25-37.
PRIOR to this exchange no Jew (Jesus’ audience) could have conceived of a “good” Samaritan.
Samaritans were a group of people who lived primarily in the region of Samaria, between Galilee and Judea. Their ancestry was partly Israelite, but it had become intermixed — both ethnically and religiously — with Gentile [foreign, pagan] populations after the Assyrian conquest in 722 BC. As a result, Jews in Jesus’ day often viewed them as traitorous, heretical half-breeds who corrupted the true faith.
The key points of hostility were:
- Religious differences: Samaritans accepted only the first five books of Moses (the Pentateuch) and rejected the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. They also built a rival temple on Mount Gerizim, not in Jerusalem, which was considered blasphemous by mainstream Jews. This is discussed in John 4:20, “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship”.
- Historical betrayal: Jews remembered times when Samaritans sided with foreign occupiers or interfered with Jewish rebuilding efforts (e.g., Nehemiah 4).
- Cultural disdain: Jews and Samaritans avoided each other whenever possible. John 4:9 says it plainly: “For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.” Some rabbis even taught that eating food touched by a Samaritan made a person unclean.
Why did Jesus make a Samaritan the hero?
So when Jesus picked the SAMARITAN to be the hero of the story, it was NOT incidental. It was a MASSIVE STATEMENT. He picked the most disgusting, disdainful foreigner the Jews of his day could imagine to be the hero. And he picked the PRIEST and the LEVITE – revered religious leaders – to be the uncaring, callous, cold, and indifferent who might have said “I don’t really care what happens one way or another, I have my own problems to deal with”.
It was a direct challenge to the nationalist, exclusionary mindset of the time — and a surgical rebuke to anyone looking for a loophole in the command to love their neighbor.
Is Vance like the Priest or the Levite?
Above, under “A Little Context…”, I quote Vance saying “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another” (Source: Fact-checking J.D. Vance’s statements on Ukraine). THIS is the cold, callous, dark-hearted thinking he’s defending with his theological gymnastics about “Ordo Amoris”.
Based on our examination of the Luke story of the “Good Samaritan” it might be tempting to think that Vance is like the priest and the Levite in the story – the religious leaders who passed the man beaten by robbers. That would certainly fit with his statements like “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another”.
But this is also a man who has said of Putin – no less than the carbon copy of “Hitler” of our day,
You know, it’s interesting. He’s more soft-spoken than you would necessarily expect… He’s very deliberate; he’s very careful. And I think, fundamentally, he’s a person who looks out for the interests, as he sees it, of Russia.
Source: JD Vance Gushes Over ‘Soft-Spoken’ Vladimir Putin, by Ewan Palmer, Aug. 21 2025 12:14PM EDT
This is also the man who enthusiastically participated in the February 2025 White House gang beating of Ukrainian President Zelensky, literally screaming at him “Why don’t you say ‘Thank you’?”
So is Vance REALLY like the priest and the Levite in Luke, or is he more someone cheering on the robbers while hurling insults at the victim?
Maybe we can find Augustine and Aquinas commentary on “Victimam Verberare” (Latin for “Beat the Victim”, according to Google Translate), or how in the original Greek the word for “robbers” is “lestais”, which really means “revolutionary”, which is really kind of more of a compliment, etc.
Sorry, No Loopholes in The Greatest Commandment
This “Greatest Commandment”, as Jesus himself affirmed it to be, is, well, THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT. Jesus is quoted saying it in Matthew and Mark, and in Luke the lawyer describes it and Jesus affirms it.
It’s not a trivial matter to the Christian life, it is the GREATEST COMMANDMENT… The MOST IMPORTANT THING!
So no, there is absolutely no “Christian concept” justifying saying (or feeling or thinking) things like “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another”. Not even close. In fact, based on Luke 10:25-37, it stands in stark contrast to THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT.
Perhaps now someone will point out that nowhere in the Luke passage is the victim actually praised, and that there are no characters presented that cheer on the robbers or criticize the victim, and that this leaves these moral questions unanswered…