 |
(Estimated reading time: 8 minutes) The parable of the good Samaritan is an answer to a question of a scribe. A scribe is a lawyer, a person schooled in Jewish laws. Before Jesus the Nazarene uttered the parable to his listeners, the scribe asked an intriguing question, as can be read in Luke 10.25-28*. The scribe asked how a person can gain eternal life. The fact that he is learned in Jewish law somehow suggested his intention of asking the question.
25 “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Moralists focus on how we should be more like the good Samaritan, and that is rightly so. However, they failed to question how we can be less like the priest and the Levite. Those two would have learned the essence of the law with their heart but chose not to act most righteously. They must have thought that their obligations to the temple are much more important than helping the beaten man on the road. It should have been the right time for them to exercise their faith by extending their mercy toward the person in need, but they chose their religious functions, importance, status, and privilege to the point that the dying person in front of them seemed to be a matter of irrelevance. The two highly religious personalities could also have thought that the traveler was about to die or might have been dead already. And touching a dead person can make them unclean (see Numbers 19.11) and thus could hinder them from performing religious duties. Or that they do not want to get involved in the trouble that had happened. With all the motives we can think of, the conclusion is this: despite their being men of faith, the priest and the Levite failed to take the road of mercy and compassion.
Many of us wish that there are more good Samaritans in this world, but with all the ever-increasing functions and duties we encounter as we go along with life, we should admit that we are more becoming the priest and the Levite, ignoring our beaten neighbor down the dangerous road, and choose to go on along our way. Let us examine ourselves. May we see how our many concerns in our society and ourselves, ethical, religious, and secular, occupy our minds and hearts and hinder us from taking the path of mercy and compassion towards our neighbors in need. The parable should go beyond whom we should show our mercy and compassion with, but of who we are that we should withhold showing our love to others in greater need.
25 “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
In which Jesus cleverly replied,
26 ..., “What is written in the law? What do you read there?”
The scribe answered,
27 ...., “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.”
Where Jesus declared,
28 ..., “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”
Yet, the conversation did not stop there.
29 But wanting to justify himself, [the scribe] asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
As his usual style in answering his disciples and other people around him, and to put their motives to the test, the good Teacher, then, gave the parable as his answer. (Matthew 10.13-17, Luke 8.9-10)
The parable goes:
“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii,k gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Luke 10.30-35.
Jesus then asked the scribe,
36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?”
Where he replied,
37 “The one who showed him mercy.”
Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
The parable served as a moral about showing mercy and empathy, how one should look past race and status, and being a good person in general. As Jesus did not give much attention to the Levite and the priest other than they failed to show compassion, most interpretations focused on the two main characters in the parable, namely, the Samaritan and the robbed traveler. Later as we go forward in this piece, we will put our focus on the two other characters, the priest and the Levite.
The road was oft taken by caravans, soldiers, and pilgrims alike, despite the drastic ascent and descent due to its geological nature, being a mountain road. Rogues and bandits also took advantage of the location and attacked many unwary travelers. As other biblical accounts suggest, Jesus would have walked on the Jericho road on the final stretch from Galilee to Jerusalem through the Jordan Valley and across the Desert of Judea. (Mark 10.46-52) Because of the proximity of Jericho and Jerusalem and the area being one of the places where more roads are built compared to other places in the country, this road is a preferred thoroughfare among pilgrims.
As said, the most relevant of all the characters in the parable is the Samaritan. Samaritans and Jews have a long history of enmity because of religious and ethnic differences. Samaritans believe that the proper place of pure worship is on their mountain, Gerizim, instead of Jerusalem. They favor the Torah, or the first five books of what we know now as the Bible, and consider other scriptures as a product of heresy. Jews likewise develop hatred among the Samaritans and consider them equal to the Gentiles (the people of the nations).
The moral is that the Samaritan chose the path of mercy. He showed a strong contrast between those who know the law and those who genuinely follow the law in the way they live. We should extend our compassion regardless of religion or race. It is also noteworthy that the Samaritan did not simply help the beaten traveler to continue his way back home. He ensured that the traveler would be capable of setting foot on the road again, took him to an inn, and made sure that he had enough provisions and was taken care of well. But let us continue with another take on the parable.
Priests in Judaism performed duties on the worship done in the Temple of Jerusalem. They also acted as teachers of Jewish law and traditions. They were persons who head various sacred temple duties such as ritual sacrifices, cleansing, atoning, and overseeing celebrations and feasts.
The Levites, on the other hand, are less important but still relevant in the Jewish faith. Levites are ministers to temple priests and assist them with various sacred duties. Temple priests and servants solely came from the tribe of Levi. Both priests and Levites are persons of status and importance in the Jewish religion.
A view at why the temple priest might have chosen to ignore the beaten traveler might not be a message we want to hear or expect when interpreting this parable. As a priest, he has many duties to attend to, scrolls and scriptures to tend to, students to teach, and another approaching feast to manage. Here we can see that the many obligations of a person can hinder that person in extending a helping hand to persons in greater need. The good Teacher just plainly said that the priest chose to go on the other side of the road, farther from the robbed traveler, and continued down its way to Jericho. Same as what the Levites did.
Now, as a temple priest and a Levite, there might be many people who rely on their help. There might have been whole congregations of worshipers waiting for them apart from the feast that might have occurred in Jerusalem before the story took place. We cannot say for sure what occupied them or their thoughts when they saw the half-dead traveler. Nor do we know why the Samaritan chose to help him besides that pity moved him to help. The Samaritan also might not have so much obligation to others compared to the priest and the Levite. Could it be that because he is not a person of great importance, he is less occupied and therefore is capable of giving help? But the sure thing is that the Samaritan acted with compassion and did the right thing over the two others who must have learned the essence of the Jewish law, that is, to love your neighbor as yourself.
26 ..., “What is written in the law? What do you read there?”
The scribe answered,
27 ...., “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.”
Where Jesus declared,
28 ..., “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”
Yet, the conversation did not stop there.
29 But wanting to justify himself, [the scribe] asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
As his usual style in answering his disciples and other people around him, and to put their motives to the test, the good Teacher, then, gave the parable as his answer. (Matthew 10.13-17, Luke 8.9-10)
The parable goes:
“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii,k gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Luke 10.30-35.
Jesus then asked the scribe,
36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?”
Where he replied,
37 “The one who showed him mercy.”
Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
The parable served as a moral about showing mercy and empathy, how one should look past race and status, and being a good person in general. As Jesus did not give much attention to the Levite and the priest other than they failed to show compassion, most interpretations focused on the two main characters in the parable, namely, the Samaritan and the robbed traveler. Later as we go forward in this piece, we will put our focus on the two other characters, the priest and the Levite.
About the road to Jericho and the enmity between the Jews and Samaritans
We do not have the direct detail on who the traveler was, but the story suggests that he is a Jew, for the road he is taking is from Jerusalem going to Jericho, Jerusalem being the center of Jewish worship and religion. That both a priest and a Levite also came down the road underscores this detail.The road was oft taken by caravans, soldiers, and pilgrims alike, despite the drastic ascent and descent due to its geological nature, being a mountain road. Rogues and bandits also took advantage of the location and attacked many unwary travelers. As other biblical accounts suggest, Jesus would have walked on the Jericho road on the final stretch from Galilee to Jerusalem through the Jordan Valley and across the Desert of Judea. (Mark 10.46-52) Because of the proximity of Jericho and Jerusalem and the area being one of the places where more roads are built compared to other places in the country, this road is a preferred thoroughfare among pilgrims.
As said, the most relevant of all the characters in the parable is the Samaritan. Samaritans and Jews have a long history of enmity because of religious and ethnic differences. Samaritans believe that the proper place of pure worship is on their mountain, Gerizim, instead of Jerusalem. They favor the Torah, or the first five books of what we know now as the Bible, and consider other scriptures as a product of heresy. Jews likewise develop hatred among the Samaritans and consider them equal to the Gentiles (the people of the nations).
The moral is that the Samaritan chose the path of mercy. He showed a strong contrast between those who know the law and those who genuinely follow the law in the way they live. We should extend our compassion regardless of religion or race. It is also noteworthy that the Samaritan did not simply help the beaten traveler to continue his way back home. He ensured that the traveler would be capable of setting foot on the road again, took him to an inn, and made sure that he had enough provisions and was taken care of well. But let us continue with another take on the parable.
The other characters and what we can learn from them
But let us focus our view on the two less significant characters of the parable, namely, the Levite and the priest.Priests in Judaism performed duties on the worship done in the Temple of Jerusalem. They also acted as teachers of Jewish law and traditions. They were persons who head various sacred temple duties such as ritual sacrifices, cleansing, atoning, and overseeing celebrations and feasts.
The Levites, on the other hand, are less important but still relevant in the Jewish faith. Levites are ministers to temple priests and assist them with various sacred duties. Temple priests and servants solely came from the tribe of Levi. Both priests and Levites are persons of status and importance in the Jewish religion.
A view at why the temple priest might have chosen to ignore the beaten traveler might not be a message we want to hear or expect when interpreting this parable. As a priest, he has many duties to attend to, scrolls and scriptures to tend to, students to teach, and another approaching feast to manage. Here we can see that the many obligations of a person can hinder that person in extending a helping hand to persons in greater need. The good Teacher just plainly said that the priest chose to go on the other side of the road, farther from the robbed traveler, and continued down its way to Jericho. Same as what the Levites did.
Now, as a temple priest and a Levite, there might be many people who rely on their help. There might have been whole congregations of worshipers waiting for them apart from the feast that might have occurred in Jerusalem before the story took place. We cannot say for sure what occupied them or their thoughts when they saw the half-dead traveler. Nor do we know why the Samaritan chose to help him besides that pity moved him to help. The Samaritan also might not have so much obligation to others compared to the priest and the Levite. Could it be that because he is not a person of great importance, he is less occupied and therefore is capable of giving help? But the sure thing is that the Samaritan acted with compassion and did the right thing over the two others who must have learned the essence of the Jewish law, that is, to love your neighbor as yourself.
Moralists focus on how we should be more like the good Samaritan, and that is rightly so. However, they failed to question how we can be less like the priest and the Levite. Those two would have learned the essence of the law with their heart but chose not to act most righteously. They must have thought that their obligations to the temple are much more important than helping the beaten man on the road. It should have been the right time for them to exercise their faith by extending their mercy toward the person in need, but they chose their religious functions, importance, status, and privilege to the point that the dying person in front of them seemed to be a matter of irrelevance. The two highly religious personalities could also have thought that the traveler was about to die or might have been dead already. And touching a dead person can make them unclean (see Numbers 19.11) and thus could hinder them from performing religious duties. Or that they do not want to get involved in the trouble that had happened. With all the motives we can think of, the conclusion is this: despite their being men of faith, the priest and the Levite failed to take the road of mercy and compassion.
A point of self-examination
This different take on the parable should awaken us with our attitude on extending help to others. Do our obligations and duties, whether earthly or religious, hinder us in bestowing mercy and compassion to others? We all lead busy lives, and we could all deem that our functions and duties are more important than giving help to a beaten fellow traveler, like what could have run on the minds of the priest and the Levite. Or we can also have the thought that helping someone in need can hinder us from performing duties we deem are more significant. We can also have thought that helping others can make us get caught in the problems of the person in need. Or simply that the person in front of us is not worthy of any help from us.Many of us wish that there are more good Samaritans in this world, but with all the ever-increasing functions and duties we encounter as we go along with life, we should admit that we are more becoming the priest and the Levite, ignoring our beaten neighbor down the dangerous road, and choose to go on along our way. Let us examine ourselves. May we see how our many concerns in our society and ourselves, ethical, religious, and secular, occupy our minds and hearts and hinder us from taking the path of mercy and compassion towards our neighbors in need. The parable should go beyond whom we should show our mercy and compassion with, but of who we are that we should withhold showing our love to others in greater need.
A Different Look on a Beloved Parable (The Good Samaritan) by Leandro Angelo Castro is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Comments
Post a Comment