I think most Americans have at least a basic understanding of the term "The Good Samaritan", and, generally speaking, it tends to refer to someone who helps a stranger in need. We even have laws on the books called "Good Samaritan Laws", that protect those who try to offer assistance from being sued for rendering aid that may inadvertently cause harm.
However, I think most Americans, Christians included, frequently don't know where it originated or don't fully understand the significance of the term. In Luke 10:25-37, Jesus encounters a theologian - someone who has been biblically trained and is well-versed on scripture and the law. This theologian is trying to test Jesus on His doctrine, and asks Jesus what he needs to do to have eternal life in heaven, and Jesus, using a common instructional technique, pivots back to him and asks, "Based on what you know about religious law and the scripture, how would you answer that question?" (Luke 10:26, my paraphrase).
The man replies that the law can basically be summarized with the following command:
"Love the Lord, Your God, with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."
And Jesus affirms this and says, "Yes, do this and you shall have eternal life in heaven." ... Not read this, understand this, study this, think about this, know this, preach this, teach this, or believe this ... Do this!
The man, looking for a bit of an 'out' here, replies, "Who is my 'neighbor'?" In other words, he wants to know who, exactly, he is called to love as much as he loves himself. Is it enough to love his family? His friends? His co-workers? His fellow Jews? His physical neighbors? ... Where is the limit to whom he must love?
And this is where Jesus conveys the parable of The Good Samaritan. He tells the story of a Jewish man who is traveling a relatively short distance from Jerusalem to Jericho (less than 20 miles). On his way to Jericho, the man is attacked by robbers and left for dead by the side of the road.
A Jewish priest walks by and sees him, but "crosses to the other side" (i.e. - makes a conscientous decision to avoid him). A Levite, someone whose job is to assist the Jewish priests and care for the day-to-day operation of the temple, also passes by and also makes a decision to avoid him. But a Samaritan comes upon the scene and, feeling compassion for the man, stops to help him.
The fact that Jesus chose to use a Samaritan for this parable is very intentional, and significant for several reasons. First of all, Samaria was fairly far north; in contrast to the priest and the Levite, who were probably from the area and who should have been inclined to consider the Jewish man a "neighbor", the Samaritan, at least geographically, would not necessarily have felt that this was his "neighbor".
Second, and probably of even more importance, Samaritans were considered spiritually inferior to the Jews - especially to a Jewish priest or a Levite. The NLT translation of the parable describes him as a "despised Samaritan", someone whom the Jews might even have considered immoral. Jesus is being very intentional in this parable; even the title "The Good Samaritan" would have seemed to the Jews to be somewhat of an oxymoron.
If the Jewish law was to love your neighbor as yourself, and this was a Jewish man who lived fairly close by and needed help, certainly the Jewish priest and the Jewish Levite - two men trained in the law and teaching it and preaching it to others, who had devoted their whole lives to God - should feel inclined to help the man. The point Jesus was trying to make was that the two men, who considered themselves so religious and morally upright, and who absolutely should have considered this man their neighbor and should have felt compassion for him, did not. And yet the one who was considered immoral and, knowing the Jewish man probably despised him, had every single reason not to feel compassion and offer assistance, did. Kind of ironic ... and more than a bit hypocritical, isn't it? But I think that was Jesus' point.
The parable doesn't stop there, though. Jesus goes on to describe what the Samaritan did to help the stranger. ... he did not start by questioning the man about what happened or what the man may have possibly done to end up in the predicament he was in ("Well, you probably shouldn't have been in this part of town; it's not safe." ... "You know it's not a good idea to be wearing this; you're just asking for trouble."), nor did he preach to the injured man about the benefits of following his way of life ("Well, if you had just followed the main road, like I always do, this never would have happened.").
He started by immediately attending to his physical needs. Period. Then he put the man on his donkey, most likely walking the rest of the way himself, and brought the man to safety (to an inn - because they had no hospitals back in biblical days), where he continued to personally provide physical care for him overnight, interrupting his own travel plans. The next day, presumably needing to resume his journey, he paid the innkeeper out of his own pocket to continue to care for the man. ... He didn't ask whether or not the man was employed, what type of insurance the man had, whether or not the man had a pre-existing condition, or had managed to meet his co-pays and deductibles. He just paid the man's bill.
But it doesn't stop there. The Samaritan told the innkeeper that if there was any additional cost to caring for the man, he would pay for it in full the next time he returned. He didn't expect the man or his family to cover the additional cost; he covered it. Out of his own pocket. And he didn't whine or complain about it, or try to excuse his way out of doing it; he did it willingly, graciously, and generously.
Jesus' second point was that the Samaritan didn't just feel and demonstrate compassion, but that he did so extravagantly ... some might even say "excessively". He went beyond what most would do. After sharing this story, Jesus turns the tables back on the religious scholar and asks him, point blank, "Which one of these 3 men was a neighbor to the injured man?" And the theologian replied, "The one who showed mercy." (Other translations of the word include compassion, sympathy, pity).
And Jesus affirmed this and said, "Yes, go and do likewise."
You see, it wasn't enough to just know the Bible. It wasn't enough to just study the Bible. They were supposed to do what the Bible said to do ... and, in this case, specifically, Jesus was telling them they had better have compassion for other people - ALL people. Christians, Muslims, and atheists ... gay, straight, or bi ... black, brown, or white. And demonstrate it ... extravagantly; some might even say, excessively. Even if it meant parting with their own, hard-earned resources.
As Christians, we claim we want our faith to "inform our politics". But it seems to me that many Christians only want it to "inform their politics" when it involves defending something they hold dear, protecting their own rights and freedoms, or preventing others from expressing theirs. When it involves their wallet, on the other hand ... or when it involves demonstrating kindness, compassion, and generosity for people who may be different than them, well, then they seem to be all for the separation of church and state.
In many Christian circles, "liberals" are viewed very negatively, much in the same way Samaritans would have been perceived by religious leaders back in biblical times; thus the negative terms, "a bleeding heart liberal" or "the liberal, main-stream media". Yet I frequently hear far more unconditional love and compassion coming through my newsfeed from my non-Christian, liberal, friends than I do from those who profess to be Christ-followers ... especially when the conversation turns to politics.
The Urban Dictionary defines Bleeding Heart Liberal as: "A person who is considered excessively sympathetic toward those who claim to be underprivileged or exploited." ... "an individual that aligns themselves with the Liberal party (aka left), and is particularly sympathetic to the underprivileged class."
I don't know about you, but if, as a Christian, I were going to be misjudged for my outward behavior (including my position on political issues), based upon the parable of The Good Samaritan, I would much rather be mistaken for a "bleeding heart liberal" than a "hypocritical, Bible beating conservative". Why? Because, according to Jesus, my outward behavior (and thus my politics) should demonstrate extravagant (some might say "excessive") compassion, love, and sympathy for all people.
It is sometimes a bit shocking to me when I hear my conservative, Republican, evangelical, Christian friends debating things like health care, because they frequently focus entirely on the cost or how it might adversely affect them personally. I can't recall one time in the Bible when Jesus told His followers it was okay not to do the right thing because the cost was too great. On the contrary (and not at all coincidentally in my mind), the chapter just before the parable of The Good Samaritan is about the cost of following Jesus (Luke 9:57-62). ... It will "cost" you in some way, shape, or form; you can be sure of that. And Jesus was consistently clear on what place money is supposed to have in the life of a believer. In Matthew 19:24, Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Why? Because people who have it, generally tend to like it ... and sometimes have a hard time parting with it, even when called by God to do so. I have felt led to do some pretty radical things with my money since becoming a Christ follower, and, frequently, doing the morally right thing was not at all the financially responsible thing. And it may have been painful in the short term. But God always blessed it in the long run. Always.
What do your politics say about you and your love and compassion for other people? More importantly, if you are a Christ-follower, what do your politics say about your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and His love and compassion for people? I have heard it said that, "you may be the only Bible some people will ever read", but the truth is, "your politics may be the only Bible some people will ever read." ... Make sure it is sending the right message.
© I Lift My Voice, 2020.
Comments