August 2009 Archives

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him [Jesus] to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “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.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, 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, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
— Luke 10:25-37

That is the Parable of the Good Samaritan. This story is interesting on a number levels. First of all, it clearly outlines the prejudices held by society’s upper classes, those in charge of religious practice and local government. During this time, Israel was a Roman territory, so the national and regional government was of Rome. However, the local government was theocratic and generally provided to the Jews through the temple and the synagogue. More interestingly, is how Jesus provides a story that goes against tradition, challenges this prejudice, and promotes a difficult model to emulate. I’m going to describe this and then a couple ways this story is misused.

To start, let’s examine the characters here.

• The Lawyer. By “lawyer” the passage doesn’t mean quite what we’d think of as a lawyer today. This was a scribe. A person educated in the Law of God. The questions he presents are similar to other inquiries. It is likely, since his profession is mentioned, that he was representing the religious leaders in the area. (Luke 18:18-21; Matthew 19:16-22; John 3:1-15)
• Jesus Christ. Our Lord and Savior. He’s being challenged to answer a question the lawyer believes is hard, but Jesus turns the question back on him in some very telling ways.
• Robbers. Not all that important except that they beat and robbed the victim in the story.
• The Man. We know nothing of this man except that he was traveling on the road between Jerusalem to Jericho, which is a somewhat dangerous road about 17 miles long. According to The MarArthur Bible Commentary it was “notorious for being beset with thieves and danger.”
• The Priest. The priests were direct descendants of Aaron, who was the brother of Moses. These were responsible for the details of temple worship, responsible sacrificing animals and grain and such for various reasons. The priests were a special class of individuals.
• The Levite. Aaron and Moses were both descendants from a man named Levi, who was the son of Israel. A Levite would be a person in the same tribe as the priests, but a different clan. Levites were generally responsible for other religious tasks, such as managing the temple treasury, guarding the entrances to the temple, and other services across the country.
• The Samaritan. Samaritans were hated and despised by Israelites. (John 8:48) They mixed worship of Yahweh with idol worship (2 Kings 17:41) and were really the descendants of people resettled there when the king of Assyria conquered Israel a few centuries earlier. (2 Kings 17:24) In general, they had few, if any, dealings with Jews. (John 4:9)First

If you think about it from the perspective of the lawyer: a Samaritan is a descendant of a people who lived on your ancestor’s land after they had been conquered by a foreign king. It might not matter greatly to you if they were just as forcibly resettled as your ancestors were when they were taken away to Assyria and Babylon because they were living in the land promised to you and your ancestors by God. It might not have been easy for the lawyer to agree with Jesus in the end that the Samaritan was obviously the good neighbor here. In fact, since he doesn’t answer directly, but says, “the one who…” it looks very much like he didn’t want to say, “The Samaritan.”

Okay, let’s summarize. A man is beaten and left for dead. Two members of the religious and political upper class walk by without helping him. A member of a despised group comes and helps the man out, nurses him to health, and even pays for his stay in an inn with no hope of repayment. The Samaritan’s not even in the right part of the country, so he’s not in a good position himself, but he helps anyway.

This is proving to be a really peculiar story. But then the real kicker is that Jesus doesn’t even answer the lawyer’s question! The lawyer asked, “Who is my neighbor?” So, we read the story, get right up to verse 36, “Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” Prior to reading that, the obvious answer to the lawyer’s question is, “the man who was robbed” is the neighbor he asked about. The Samaritan just looks like color to shame the lawyer, but that’s not the point Jesus makes.

Rather, Jesus asks that question, “Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” Jesus’s question is the opposite of the lawyer’s. Not who should I serve, but who was the one who served? It’s a very poignant challenge. It states that a Jew should emulate, of all people, a lousy Samaritan.

So, what do we learn? Lot’s of things. A true follower of God’s Kingdom is one like this Samaritan. His background is questionable, but his actions are righteous. We all sin, but once we have been redeemed by Jesus Christ, we should seek to serve others in need, without regard to what that means to ourselves. This is hard to practice. It is obviously much easier to behave like the priest and the Levite.

But, that’s not all. This service is very, very personal and extremely generous. The Samaritan didn’t just notify the next town that a Jew was on the road needing help, he didn’t just pick him up and help him to the next village, he didn’t just pass him a few coins for the inn. This man “had compassion.” He, personally, cleaned and treated the man’s wounds. He “brought him to an inn and took care of him.” He stayed the night with the man to make sure he was alright and then, before traveling on, payed the innkeeper two denarii, which was 2 day’s wages. Think about how much you earn in two days. Would you give that kind of money to a complete stranger? But he didn’t stop there, “Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.” This is like giving them his credit card and saying, “Just charge that for whatever he needs.”

Going back to what I said before now, following Christ’s suggestion, “You go, and do likewise,” is a very hefty proposition. Serving others in need with such generosity is very difficult. I’d say it’s pretty nearly impossible. I can’t imagine there are many people who come close.

Now, my final point. I hear this parable cheapened and distorted far too often and it grates on my soul. Here are a couple things I hear the term “Good Samaritan” used to describe, which water down the meaning in ways that bother me:

• Good Samaritan Law. It does not strike me as particularly ethical to force ethics on people by law. In any case, it takes a beautiful portrait of what the Samaritan does voluntarily and turns it into an obligation. I say that cheapens this beautiful portrait Christ painted.That’s bothersome.
• Social action. Social action typically implies some sort of detached service, not personal service, at least not for most people. For example, there’s an organization in town (I used to fix their computers) called Kansas Guardianship Program. Their purpose is to help guardians who help people unable to care for themselves pay for the care they give. It’s more complicated than that, but that’s the gist. To call this kind of social action a Good Samaritan program cheapens the story of the Good Samaritan. One of these guardians might be comparable to the Good Samaritan, but a program of social workers who coordinate with these folks and deliver checks are not Good Samaritans. I’m not making any comment regarding KGP, itself, by the way. Just noting that calling them Good Samaritans for doing this would be an exaggeration of what they do professionally and/or a cheapening of the story.

If you want to use the above terms, fine, but realize it’s a misuse.

The real point, however, is that we should each be humbled by this story and realize how we’ve failed to serve others personally when opportunities have presented themselves. We should keep our eyes peeled for the people in need we run across and give of ourselves sacrificially. This isn’t a parable about serving others in the abstract, but of giving up that which is valuable to serve others directly and personally.

Cheers.

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. — 1 Samuel 8:10-18

Someone asked me this week why I am “terrified” of government. “Terrified” is certainly too strong a word, but I’d certainly say I’m cautious and wary of government. This passage in 1 Samuel does a marvelous job of explaining why.

For those who may not know, the nation of Israel escaped from the tyranny of Pharaoh and conquered Canaan (modern day Israel) before 1200 BC. The settled the Promised Land at this time and took as their own, as the land God had promised their forefathers. For the following 200 years, the nation of Israel lived in what we’d probably call anarchy today. You can read about this period in your Bible by reading the Book of Judges.

Essentially, Israel was divided up into sections by tribe. During this time, they existed primarily as city-states, where each major city had elders that handled local government and exerted influence over the nearby land and villages. The tribes of Israel warred against one another from time to time, but were mostly allied with one another. Yet, they had no central authority, at least nothing we’d recognize as such today. During times of crisis, God would raise up a “judge” who took leadership over Israel and resolved the crisis. Samson is probably the most infamous of these judges and Samuel the most famous.

After living under this system for a couple hundred years (longer if you look back to the times of Joshua and Moses), the Israelites had had enough. They demanded that God give them a king. Samuel, who was also a prophet, had been judge over Israel shortly before this time and had appointed his sons Joel and Abijah to be judges. Though Samuel had been just, his sons were not and took bribes. (1 Samuel 7)

At this time, the people began demanding a king. “Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, ‘Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.’” (1 Samuel 8:4-5) We see that a king was something different from a judge in that what a judge was differs from what the other nations called a king. You can read above to see what many of those differences amounted to, but the gist is that under the judges, the people were closer to the Kingdom of God. (1 Samuel 10:7) A judge merely adjudicates and provides a relatively weak leadership role. More of a consul than a Caesar. A king is permanent, comes with the trappings of royalty, adds bureaucracy, industry, and taxes, and has absolute authority.

When we read on, we find out that this desire displeased not only Samuel, but God. “But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.’” (1 Samuel 8:6-9) What follows this paragraph in scripture is the warning given at the top of this post.

Clearly, a king is not what God wanted for his nation, but as God so often does, he lets people have what they want. Not only that, he gives “them up to dishonorable passions.” (Romans 1:26-27)

What does that have to do with today? Everything. While we lack a king over us, our government is still based upon the same kind of sovereignty that kings have. Previously, such sovereignty was philosophically derived from the Divine Right of Kings or simply who possessed the most power in force.

Our government is philosophically based upon the Inalienable Rights of people who use their liberties to choose leaders and, in a sense, our ownership of weapons to provide the force necessary to keep powerful people in check. The Divine Right has transfered from a patriarchal monarchy to the wisdom or folly of the people. We have the awesome responsibility of choosing the people who stand in authority over us. Once they have authority, they can do all the things threatened in 1 Samuel 8:10ff, even make us slaves. We have the brute force option open to us, but, fortunately, we have been and remain very, very reluctant to apply that force.

George Washington put it well in 1797, “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant—and a fearful master.” I would not want to do without some form of government. Yet, I prefer to keep that government in a small box, like the gas fire that warms my house in winter.

The government we have has astonishing authority, authority that the nation’s founders warned us against. Samuel warns Israel against the use of this authority and we should heed that warning. We have sacrificed liberty in the name of safety. We have sacrificed happiness in exchange for license. We have sacrificed life for convenience. Soon, I fear, we shall exchange health in the name of compassion.

Were my hope resting upon men and government, I would certainly be terrified. (Proverbs 1:20-33) However, I could only be terrified if I had no hope for myself and my children. “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?” (Psalm 27:1)

Cheers.