The Good Samaritan
Stories
Lectionary Tales for the Pulpit
Series VI, Cycle C
Object:
This is a familiar story. One researcher found in a survey that 49% of the people interviewed said they would be able to tell the story of the good Samaritan if asked to do so, 45% said they would not be able to, and 6% were unsure whether they could tell it or not. Among those who attended religious services every week, the proportion who thought they could tell the story rose to 69%.1
Surprise! The details are important. There is more here than a simple reminder about our ethical obligation to assist people in need.
The story. Immediately we are introduced to a lawyer. He poses a question to Jesus as a "test" -- "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 10:25).
In the typical fashion of the rabbis then and now, Jesus answers the question with one of his own. "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" (Luke 10:26).
The answer comes back, " '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' " (Luke 10:27). Good answer. And Jesus agrees. But now the lawyer does something that all of us do from time to time -- in good lawyer-like fashion, he looks for a loophole. "And who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29). In other words, "Okay, Jesus, I understand I am supposed to care, but what are the limits of my caring? When can I quit?" And here Jesus tells his famous story.
The first person to whom we are introduced is the poor traveler. He had taken the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, which was notoriously dangerous. This unfortunate fellow had been stripped, beaten, and left for dead -- a first-century mugging. One more random victim in a randomly violent world. Jesus' audience that day knew how easily it could happen. For that matter, with a quick glance at the newspaper or television, his audience today knows just as well. While hearers then and now would sympathize with the poor fellow, we are not forced to identify with him because in a story that begins with a tragedy, helpers are sure to arrive. If we will identify with anyone, we will wait for our helper/hero.
Hallelujah! Who comes along but a priest? If anyone could be expected to stop and help it would be a priest. But wait. The priest is not only not coming over to help; he is passing by on the other side. No reason is given. Perhaps it was fear. Those who beat the man in the ditch might be lying in wait to beat him as well. Perhaps it was simple revulsion. Have you ever come upon someone after a bloody accident? Ugly. Whatever. "He passed by on the other side" (Luke 10:31). Some hero!
No matter. Here comes a Levite ... an "assistant" priest. The first one was an aberration. This one will come through ... right? As the text has it, "he came to the place and saw him, [and] passed by on the other side" (Luke 10:32). Another hero!
Now what? By normal storytelling conventions, we can expect we are about to meet a third character who will break the pattern created by the first two. In the context of our current parable, the expected sequence would be a priest, a Levite, and then ... ta dah! ... our hero will be an ordinary Israelite who will come to the rescue even when the high muckety-mucks of the temple fail to do so. The story would have an anti-clerical edge to it along with the reminder that love of God and neighbor are commanded, but a shot at the Holy Joes would not be any big shock considering the difficulty Jesus regularly has with the religious establishment.
Enter character number three -- a Samaritan. The good Samaritan! Ha! Nowhere in the Bible will we find the words "good" and "Samaritan" next to each other. For those folks who first heard this story, the phrase "good Samaritan" would have been an oxymoron anyway -- the only good Samaritan would have been a dead Samaritan. There would be no hero here. The hatred between Jews and Samaritans in Jesus' day was at least as deep as the feeling Jews and Arabs have toward each other today.
Just as the priest and the Levite, the Samaritan sees the man, but instead of distancing himself, he comes closer.
When he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine [oil to keep them soft, wine to sterilize]. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins [two days' wages] 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."
-- Luke 10:33-35
Not an insignificant amount, not lavish either, but enough to do the job.
The story is over. Jesus has responded to the lawyer's question about the limits of neighborliness with his story and now turns the question back to the lawyer: "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" (Luke 10:36).
And the answer was, "The one who had mercy on him" (Luke 10:37). Amazing, isn't it? The concept of a good Samaritan is so distasteful that the lawyer cannot bring himself to even speak the name.
Perhaps the reason Jesus chose a Samaritan as the hero of the piece is that he did not want his hearers to identify with this generous caregiver. As attractive and winsome is the behavior of this man, as much of a helper/hero as he obviously was, that would be the temptation. But no good Jew could do that. He would not want to be like the priest or Levite either, so the only character left with which to identify would be the man in the ditch ... that is interesting.
Now Jesus concludes, "Go and do likewise." What? Be the guy in the ditch?
Perhaps that is not so far-fetched as we might think. We never hear if this poor victim recovers, but my assumption is that he does. That being the case, what would the effect have been on him that he had been rescued by a Samaritan? One would presume that it would forever color his view of Samaritans. For that matter, one would presume that it would forever color his view of the world's victims. There would be less callousness, and less inclination to lay blame for getting into such a fix in the first place, less temptation to "pass by on the other side." If Jesus' story had gone on any longer, I would bet that this poor fellow, from that day forward, became a better neighbor to the rest of his world than he would have ever dreamed possible.
____________
1. Robert Wuthnow, Acts of Compassion: Caring for Others and Helping Ourselves (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 161.
Surprise! The details are important. There is more here than a simple reminder about our ethical obligation to assist people in need.
The story. Immediately we are introduced to a lawyer. He poses a question to Jesus as a "test" -- "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 10:25).
In the typical fashion of the rabbis then and now, Jesus answers the question with one of his own. "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" (Luke 10:26).
The answer comes back, " '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' " (Luke 10:27). Good answer. And Jesus agrees. But now the lawyer does something that all of us do from time to time -- in good lawyer-like fashion, he looks for a loophole. "And who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29). In other words, "Okay, Jesus, I understand I am supposed to care, but what are the limits of my caring? When can I quit?" And here Jesus tells his famous story.
The first person to whom we are introduced is the poor traveler. He had taken the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, which was notoriously dangerous. This unfortunate fellow had been stripped, beaten, and left for dead -- a first-century mugging. One more random victim in a randomly violent world. Jesus' audience that day knew how easily it could happen. For that matter, with a quick glance at the newspaper or television, his audience today knows just as well. While hearers then and now would sympathize with the poor fellow, we are not forced to identify with him because in a story that begins with a tragedy, helpers are sure to arrive. If we will identify with anyone, we will wait for our helper/hero.
Hallelujah! Who comes along but a priest? If anyone could be expected to stop and help it would be a priest. But wait. The priest is not only not coming over to help; he is passing by on the other side. No reason is given. Perhaps it was fear. Those who beat the man in the ditch might be lying in wait to beat him as well. Perhaps it was simple revulsion. Have you ever come upon someone after a bloody accident? Ugly. Whatever. "He passed by on the other side" (Luke 10:31). Some hero!
No matter. Here comes a Levite ... an "assistant" priest. The first one was an aberration. This one will come through ... right? As the text has it, "he came to the place and saw him, [and] passed by on the other side" (Luke 10:32). Another hero!
Now what? By normal storytelling conventions, we can expect we are about to meet a third character who will break the pattern created by the first two. In the context of our current parable, the expected sequence would be a priest, a Levite, and then ... ta dah! ... our hero will be an ordinary Israelite who will come to the rescue even when the high muckety-mucks of the temple fail to do so. The story would have an anti-clerical edge to it along with the reminder that love of God and neighbor are commanded, but a shot at the Holy Joes would not be any big shock considering the difficulty Jesus regularly has with the religious establishment.
Enter character number three -- a Samaritan. The good Samaritan! Ha! Nowhere in the Bible will we find the words "good" and "Samaritan" next to each other. For those folks who first heard this story, the phrase "good Samaritan" would have been an oxymoron anyway -- the only good Samaritan would have been a dead Samaritan. There would be no hero here. The hatred between Jews and Samaritans in Jesus' day was at least as deep as the feeling Jews and Arabs have toward each other today.
Just as the priest and the Levite, the Samaritan sees the man, but instead of distancing himself, he comes closer.
When he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine [oil to keep them soft, wine to sterilize]. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins [two days' wages] 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."
-- Luke 10:33-35
Not an insignificant amount, not lavish either, but enough to do the job.
The story is over. Jesus has responded to the lawyer's question about the limits of neighborliness with his story and now turns the question back to the lawyer: "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" (Luke 10:36).
And the answer was, "The one who had mercy on him" (Luke 10:37). Amazing, isn't it? The concept of a good Samaritan is so distasteful that the lawyer cannot bring himself to even speak the name.
Perhaps the reason Jesus chose a Samaritan as the hero of the piece is that he did not want his hearers to identify with this generous caregiver. As attractive and winsome is the behavior of this man, as much of a helper/hero as he obviously was, that would be the temptation. But no good Jew could do that. He would not want to be like the priest or Levite either, so the only character left with which to identify would be the man in the ditch ... that is interesting.
Now Jesus concludes, "Go and do likewise." What? Be the guy in the ditch?
Perhaps that is not so far-fetched as we might think. We never hear if this poor victim recovers, but my assumption is that he does. That being the case, what would the effect have been on him that he had been rescued by a Samaritan? One would presume that it would forever color his view of Samaritans. For that matter, one would presume that it would forever color his view of the world's victims. There would be less callousness, and less inclination to lay blame for getting into such a fix in the first place, less temptation to "pass by on the other side." If Jesus' story had gone on any longer, I would bet that this poor fellow, from that day forward, became a better neighbor to the rest of his world than he would have ever dreamed possible.
____________
1. Robert Wuthnow, Acts of Compassion: Caring for Others and Helping Ourselves (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 161.
