Along the Way

Recollections of Our Trip Through Samaria

The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Part 1)

 7-19-09

Text: Luke 10:25-37

 ● There are (10) chapters in the center of Luke’s account which many scholars and theologians refer to as the                    “Travel Narrative”.

            “leaving Galilee” (9:51) – “and arriving at Jerusalem” (19:11). Between the two is the journey through Samaria. 

● During this journey, we find Jesus so wonderfully conversational. In being so wonderfully relational and spontaneous, Jesus could allow the circumstance to shape the “text”; whatever was happening at the moment was “sacred”… filled with God-possibilities. He was aware that something more was happening than what was happening! 

● The way to Jerusalem was through Samaria, but the Samaritans wouldn’t let you “cut through their yard”!

Samaria was decidedly “unfriendly” territory. They were a people whose values were often in conflict with the Jews. The Jews and Samaritans had enough “history’ to not only connect them, but to create clear animosity and division. The people in Samaria were considered a sort of “hybrid-Jew” (not pure) which would develop a certain prejudice. 

Samaria is where we will spend the better part of our lives.

            With people who neither share our beliefs nor our conclusions about God and life in his world. Interestingly, our identity in God, meant to make us more relevant and more connected with our culture, often leaves us distanced and unable to identify with those in Samaria. Ironically, Jesus seemed right at home there. 

● Samaritans were considered “excluded” from Judaism. From hope of the afterlife, from legitimate societal function (court testimony). Just by virtue of being born in Samaria, you are significantly saddled you with certain limitations, presumptions about your level of involvement within the community.

            These were a people who were despised religiously and ethnically. In other words, they were people who lived in the “margins”: separate from God, separate from participation with God’s family. 

● As they begin their travels through Samaria, we find various responses and multi-graced atmosphere: some are struggling with conditional allegiance, there is opposition, but many are experiencing the joy of participation.

            Jesus summarizes it by saying, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you have seen. The stuff that prophets and Kings longed to see, but didn’t”. It was really happening… God’s Kingdom was being announced; God’s new world was breaking in; God’s new creation was re-establishing order and function; a people were being gathered with a new identity in Jesus in order to fulfill God’s dream of shalom. 

● The scenario begins with a legitimate question posed by an expert in the Law (Torah; Law of Moses), “What should I do to inherit eternal life?” To which Jesus responded with a question (common rabbinical practice).

            As an expert, his function was to study, interpret and defend the law of God; to preserve it from impurities and impostors. They were responsible for exposing heretics and alerting the community to error. The question was possibly meant to authenticate Jesus’ teaching and authority. 

● It was a good question, one that many of that day would be asking. All of us desire transcendence (something larger than mere existence); it’s the “more” that we all long to experience; a question that we are all answering daily in our pursuits.

            Jews viewed history in terms of “the present age” and the “age to come”, so his question signified his desire to participate in God’s new world once it would arrive as a result of Messiah’s arrival. 

● You’ll notice that both the expert and Jesus had the same answer, but they had not reached the same conclusion. I’m not convinced that when the expert asked the question that he hadn’t already pre-determined the answer.

Remember, this man believed that this type of life was unavailable to the Samaritans by virtue of their ethnicity. 

● He provides the good “party response”, if you will. He lines up with the party’s doctrine and ideology.  

“The man wanted to justify his actions (looking for a loophole: only when we are uncertain about our position), so he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’”  I’m sure he was thinking, “Oh, touché… good one! Slip into vagaries and the ambiguous”.

            Loopholes are “righteousness on a technicality”. They are ways of avoiding or side-stepping the law without actually breaking it. They allow us to appear compliant while ensuring that the compliance is not too demanding. Self-justification ensures the appearance of being right without all the ‘messy work’ of personal transformation!

            He needed to maintain his self-righteous reputation and still win Jesus’ approval. 

“Jesus replied with a story…” (vs.30) [read] 

● Jesus knew that we don’t respond well to “stats” or “graphs”, so we listen as he uses a narrative to teach a life-lesson. In fact, stats simply seem to overwhelm us; they numb us…paralyze us into inactivity. But, narratives are meant to appeal to our soul; to go deeper than statistics and projections; they are meant to personalize or humanize our considerations. 

● Admittedly, there is usually some intentional “shock value” to the story which is often lost on us. They always challenge our current biases and presumptions; they are both ‘shocking’ and ‘provoking’; they both anger us and sadden us.

It’s hard to imagine that any one of us might be so cold and calloused as to actually encounter such a scenario (someone beaten to unconsciousness, lying bloodied and half-naked in the middle of the road) and be able to walk around it and continue on.  

● Ironically, “good Samaritan” has become synonymous with selfless, charitable expressions. In the first century, it was an “oxymoron” (like “express line”, “freezer burn”, “friendly fire”, “great depression”, “job security”, “mild abrasive”, “united nations”, “tight slacks”, “country music”--- sorry, couldn’t help myself) 

● Initially, given the history and the background, you are almost presuming a certain outcome to the story… you already know how it’s going to end, right?

            The “priest” is the first to happen by and, having seen the man, intentionally maneuvered to the other side. He was a “mediator”, we would expect him to respond, right? Many hearing the story would have been taken aback, but many might have sympathized with him given the circumstances. After all, he couldn’t defile himself if the person happened to be dead.

            The “Levite” is the next character to enter the scene. He is the “priest’s assistant”, if you will. We are offered a similar response from him. 

Who are we expecting next? Maybe a devout, conservative, right-wing, republican Jew?!

            “Then, a despised Samaritan came along…”: as soon as Jesus said that, what do you suppose they expected next? “… came along, took his wallet and finished him off. You know the way those people are!” 

~The stories always expose us and invite us come out from behind our theology and into the messy context of the wounded and needy.

You know, the places and the people that we have spent a lifetime trying to avoid. 

● We must never use the gospel as a means of isolating or quarantining ourselves from Samaria, but as a means of demolishing self-imposed limits and engaging the culture with the healing welcome of the Kingdom at their point of need. 

~Stop trying to justify a faith that revels in being right, but ignores human suffering.

            Grace takes no delight in being “right” when being “wrong” has such devastating consequences on others. 

“Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Who’s in? Who’s out?”        

All of those neat little ways that religion often categorizes people and moves them to the margins in the process. Our systematic ways lumping everyone into their proper categories and ensuring that they find their proper places because that helps us know how to respond in any given circumstance… Such an approach is dramatically inconsistent with the radical welcome of the Kingdom. 

● Jesus’ story confronts our misguided conclusions that assume eternal life is about “accuracy”; who’s “right” and who’s “wrong”.

Right and wrong can never be divorced from their impact on divine/human relationships, and… Right answers and right conclusions never guarantee a right response or that we are living the right life or becoming the right kind of people. 

~Right beliefs often provide the best cover for an un-transformed heart.

            You see, in Samaria, you can’t hide behind your beliefs, because it’s there that your beliefs are exposed; they are either authenticated or proven to be fraudulent.

            We all realize that our faith doesn’t really consist of the things we profess to believe, but the action and the lifestyle that our faith produces. 

~Jesus would never offer us a way of life which allowed us to “keep the rules” but “ignore our hearts”.

            Jesus wasn’t breaking the Law, just the rules! The Law was good, the rules were human interpretations often skewed by a particular bias. Maybe sometimes you have the “break the rules” in order to “keep the Law”? 

~Compassionate service always trumps a good argument!

            Compassion is always disarming and able to penetrate the most hardened of hearts because it doesn’t demand a response from the one being served… not even “thank you” (notice the Samaritan didn’t say he would be back to collect?) 

● Only love will motivate us beyond the comfortable confines of our doctrine and move us toward the compassionate service which defines “eternal life”.