Jesus summarized the entire Law into two aspects: the love of God and the love of neighbor. In order to carry out and respond to the spirit of the law of love, it is just but proper to understand its object. The account of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is a magnificent exposition of one of the two objects of love: neighbors. This parabolic account answers the question of the lawyer on the extent and scope of the concept of the term neighbor. In order to illustrate this point, Jesus told the narrative of the Good Samaritan. The story began with a man who is on his way down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell in the hands of robbers. From this description, it is highly implied that the man is a Jew since he was coming from Jerusalem. Jericho is about twenty miles from Jerusalem. Jerusalem is 2,500 feet above sea level, while Jericho is 700 feet below it; so travelling between them is indeed downward. Also, the road that connects the two cities was considered to be a very dangerous place, where bandits and robbers usually attacked travelers. Stripping the man of his clothes and the blows that the man received from the robbers suggest that he was treated in the most harsh form of robbery, with an implied suggestion that death is not an impossibility without immediate assistance or help.
The story continued with a priest, going in the same direction, who saw the man lying on the side of the road, but decided to take the other road. It is possible that he was going home after discharging his turn of service in the temple. In order for them to be worthy in their duty of offering animal sacrifices and the like, they are prohibited to have contacts with unclean objects such as blood or corpses, and they are even asked to take another route if they are to pass by any cemeteries so as not to render them unclean. In this regard, it is possible that the priest didn’t take the initiative to help the man, thinking that the man was already dead, and any close contact with him would make himself unfit to offer sacrifice to the temple. Another angle to look at is the fact that the priest might have felt fearful to go closer to the man for the reason that the robbers might also see him, and he would suffer the same fate. Whatever reason it is that kept the priest from extending his hands, Jesus didn’t elaborate further.
Instead, he goes on saying that a Levite passed by as well. By ancient tradition, the Levites were set apart to minister to the priests of the Tabernacle in the wilderness and later on in the Temple of Jerusalem. They are considered to be the associates of the priest, providing music, incense, sacred bread, temple curtains and adornments. They are also to observe some purity regulations by virtue of their roles in the Temple. It is interesting to know that the Levite came closer to see the man, but after seeing and observing his condition, he decided to take the other route. Coming closer to the man and maybe observing the man for awhile should have prompted the Levite to help the man or seek for assistance; instead, he heartlessly departed the scene as if he didn’t witness anything. The same motivations or reasons of the priest may have moved the Levite to abandon the dying man, but he acted more mercilessly due to his knowledge of the condition of the man after coming to see and observe him for awhile before leaving. In contrast to the two heartless and merciless representatives of the temple, Jesus proceeded in his story by introducing a third character, who in his own ethnic background can’t be expected to be involved in any way or another with a Jew or any Jewish affair. It was the Samaritan. The Samaritans and the Jews were known to be bitter enemies and were hostile to one another. The Samaritans were considered to be unclean by the Jews because they were products of intermarriages between Jews and the foreigners who
settled in after the conquest of the Assyrians. With this ethnic and cultural background, it is unlikely that a Samaritan would extend any help to the wounded and dying Jew. But, the unexpected happened. It was the Samaritan who was moved with compassion and went on his way to provide the immediate assistance that he could give. The mere action of stopping is already an admirable gesture since it shows interest and concern. He didn’t fear the possibility of being assaulted by the robbers or of being suspected of robbery since he is considered to be an enemy, a Samaritan at that. The description “moved with compassion” in reference to the immediate feeling of the Samaritan toward the wounded Jew is very striking. It underscores a profound affection of oneness in his suffering, and the leap of the heart to alleviate the suffering of the assaulted Jew. The Good Samaritan went beyond the minimal requirement to assist a person. He not only provided immediate help, but made sure that he got everything needed to return to health. Thus, his compassion not only overcomes the enmity between himself and the Jew, but even the normal reluctance to spend one’s resources in aiding a stranger, are vivid proofs of the extravagance of his compassion. It is implied in the story that he devoted a considerable amount of time, postponing his intended schedules, in order to attend to the needs of the man. He not only gave his resources, but also his time and energy.
Before leaving the wounded Jew, the Samaritan gave two denarii to the innkeeper, asking the innkeeper to look after the welfare of the recovering Jew. He even promised repayment to the innkeeper if ever the amount that he gave would not be sufficient to the needs of the wounded Jew. The Samaritan wanted to tell the innkeeper not to bother the Jew with anything, especially when it comes to his expenses or “medical bills.” A denarius is said to be worth twenty cents in silver content and could be regarded as a fair day’s wage. The story didn’t give us a very clear ending. It doesn’t give us any hint as to what happens next. It leaves us with many questions, and the answers can only be
speculated. What did the victim do when he got well enough to realize what had happened? Did he leave and go on his way to Jericho? Did he wait until the Samaritan returned in order to thank him? What did he tell his friends about what happened? Did the incident have any effects on his views of the Samaritans later? The missing ending could be understood in the context of the intended audience of Jesus. Jesus didn’t give a precise ending of the story because he is leaving it up to his audience to decide the ending. It is not difficult to determine in the parable that the assaulted Jew could be the Pharisees and the lawyer. Jesus is asking them to make a choice: to wait and thank the Samaritan and to consider him as a neighbor or to go immediately to their own “Jericho” without thanking the generosity and kindness of the Samaritan and continue to see one’s group as superior to the other. Jesus was posing to them this challenge. Their decision could be the ending of the story. On the other level, we – the secondary audience — are also being asked as to what ending we are going to give. Are we ready to go beyond our own small groups or circles and treat everyone as our neighbor, or are we going to hold into our own biases and pride? Are we ready to be grateful for the good things that others have done for us, even if we are not comfortable around them, and continue to keep the wall that hinders reconciliation and dialogue to take place? It is only when we have decided the answers for these questions that the ending of the story will be revealed.
One of the hallmarks of the Good Samaritan is his willful and courageous attitude to go beyond his comfort zones. He didn’t think of the cultural barriers that divide him and the Jew. He didn’t see the wounded man primarily as a Jew to be despised of, but as a fellow human being accorded with the same dignity as him. It is only when we free ourselves from our own vain pictures of ourselves that we see the true image of others. To come out of our comfort zones and to reach out to others are moral obligations. We can’t just act with passivity, minding our own business while passing by the beggars, the marginalized, and those who are in dire need of any help. It would be too much hypocrisy to fulfill and be faithful to our religious and ritual practices while neglecting the cries of others, especially the poor and the marginalized. This kind of person, like the priest and Levite in the parable, in the words of St. James is “a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror. He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like” (James 1:23-24). Christian life is not all about rituals, though it is an important part of it, but of charity, love and compassion just as Christ did. – Fr. Cary