When Jesus was asked
which of the 613 laws found in the Hebrew scriptures was the greatest—that is,
which took priority over all others—Jesus responded by quoting the Shema
(Deuteronomy 6:4), adding the little-known Leviticus 19:18. “You shall love the
LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your
mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You
shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Matthew 22:37, 39).
Jesus understood that
the essence of the law—that is, what is pleasing to God—was love. Love God, love
neighbor, love self.
Jesus’s response raises
a second question—one asked by an expert in the Hebrew scriptures: “Who is my
neighbor?” (Luke 10:29).
The man who asked Jesus
the question had dedicated his life to studying and interpreting the Hebrew
scriptures. We would call him a theologian or scholar. Luke’s gospel indicates the
man asked the question to prove that he not only knew the law, he also was doing
what the law commanded—“wanting to justify himself” (Luke 10:29). And so, he
asked the question, “And who is my neighbor?”
What exactly was the
scholar asking?
By attempting to define
“neighbor”, the scholar was attempting to define who the law said he was to love—who
was to be the recipient of what he would give. Defining who he was commanded to
love—his neighbor—also defined those he did not have to love because they were
not his neighbor. Defining “neighbor” was an attempt to draw a circle that
identified who would benefit from his giving—in other words, who was significant
and who was not, who was included and who could be excluded.
If we can define “neighbor”, we can define the
limits of our love.
As a scholar-theologian,
this legal expert had already dealt with this question. The common rabbinical
interpretation identified one’s neighbor as a fellow Jew—those who were descendants
of Abraham. Anyone who was not Jew was not one’s neighbor and, thereby, outside
one’s circle of concern, care, and compassion. This lawyer, however, was
associated with the Pharisees. They were
not content with the common rabbinical definition of neighbor. They had their
own definition. In their minds, a neighbor was someone who interpreted the law
the way they did and who followed the law like they did. In other words, a neighbor was someone like
them. They only had to love those like themselves.
The scholar asked “who
is my neighbor” in an effort to get Jesus to confirm what he already believed
and did.
Rather than giving a
direct answer to the scholar’s question, Jesus told a parable—the parable we
know as the Good Samaritan.
A man was on a journey
from Jerusalem to Jericho. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho winds from high
in the Judean hill country to Jericho at the mouth of the Dead Sea, one of the
lowest places on earth. The road is a winding road that follows the canyons
that run down out of the high country to the Jordan River Valley. The road was
a dangerous road, not to be traveled alone.
As this unidentified man
made his way toward Jericho, he was attacked by robbers. The robbers beat him,
stripped him, and left him to die. What they did to the man is important to the
story. They stripped him. As a result, there
was no means by which he might be identified—nothing to identify his
nationality, his social standing, or his economic status. He was just a human
being. The robbers beat the man. Thus,
he was a person who was hurting and in need. The robbers left him near death. He
could not help himself. He was dependent upon the help of another. Without the
aid of another, he would die.
The unidentified man was
simply a hurting person, in need, with no way to help himself. He was dependent on the help of others.
The first to come by on
the road was a priest—one who served in the Temple at Jerusalem. The priest
would have been the expected hero of the story as he was at the top of the
religious social order. However, when the priest saw the man, he moved to the
other side of the road—intentionally avoiding him—and passed by, leaving the
man in unattended.
The next to come by was
a Levite—a kinsman of the priest and one who also served within the Temple. In
the religious social hierarchy, the Levite would be the next expected hero. He
too, seeing the wounded man, passed on the other side.
At this point in the
story, the crowd listening to Jesus’s story would have begun to snicker because
they knew where Jesus was headed—or, at least, they thought they did. The next
in line in the religious social hierarchy was the layman. The people thought
that Jesus was going to use a layman as the hero of the story, leaving mud on
the face of the religious leaders.
Jesus, however, did not
do the expected. Instead of using a layman as his hero, he chose a Samaritan.
Samaritans were
foreigners. Their ancestors were Jews who had intermarried with non-Jews. They were hated, despised by the Jewish
people. A pious Jew would spit before he spoke the word Samaritan, so great was
their hatred of them. A Samaritan was not even on the social ranking. He was
beneath the lowest of the low.
The Samaritan did what
the priest and Levite did not do. He responded to the hurting man, at great
risk and cost to himself. He gave of himself, his resources, his abilities, and
his time to meet the man’ need.
The details of what the
Samaritan did are intentionally stated, giving us a glimpse of what it looks
like to love our neighbor.
The Samaritan saw the
man and was moved with compassion. One of the obstacles to helping others is
that we fail to see them. We normally see those who are like us or those who
have more than we have. We have the tendency to overlook—to not see—those who
have less than us and those who have a lower social standing. The Samaritan saw
the man.
The Samaritan went to
him. Notice the Samaritan was on a journey—that is, there was purpose to his
travel. Yet he set aside his schedule and his agenda to help the man. One of
the reasons we fail to help others is that we are so busy, so caught up in our
own agendas and activities that we don’t have time to get involved. The
Samaritan set his agenda aside to help.
The Samaritan bandaged the
man’s wounds, using oil and wine to heal them. He did what he could, using his
knowledge and skills and resources to address the man’s immediate need. The oil
and wine he used were common, everyday items in that culture. What needs could
we meet if we shared our knowledge and skill and resources like the Samaritan
did?
The Samaritan put the
wounded man on his donkey and took him to an inn. There, he took care of him. Beyond
addressing his immediate needs, the Samaritan spent time and resources taking
care of the man. One of the reasons we give for not helping others is that we
don’t want to get involved. We don’t want to invest the time and energy that is
required to address a need. The Samaritan did what was needed to meet the man’s
need.
The next day, the
Samaritan entrusted the man to the inn keeper’s care, providing the financial
resources for that on-going care. Another excuse we commonly use for not
helping another is it costs too much. The Samaritan gave generously to address
the man’s need.
After telling the story,
Jesus asked: Which one of these three was a neighbor to the man who encountered
thieves? Note how Jesus changed the scholar’s question. The religious scholar
asked, “Who is my neighbor?” In his question, a neighbor was the one to be
loved—the recipient of compassion and care. In Jesus’s question, the neighbor
was not the one who received the help but rather the one who did the giving,
caring, helping. In Jesus’s question, the neighbor was the one who loved.
In this twist is the
truth of the story. That which limits our love, preventing us from helping
another is not something about the other—their race, religion, wealth,
education, sexual orientation, moral behavior, what they did to us. Rather,
that which keeps us from giving to another is what is in our heart. That which
leads us to draw a circle that excludes another is not something about them. It
is something about us. That which causes us to exclude another is within us,
within our hearts. The problem does not lie with the other. The problem lies
within us, deep inside.
Jesus changed the
scholar’s question from “Who is my neighbor?” to “Who is a neighbor?” The
scholar again gave the right answer: the one who showed mercy—the one who saw
the one in need, who set aside his agenda to respond, who shared his knowledge
and skill, who gave his resources, who got involved, who gave generously to ensure
the need was met.
Jesus asked the better
question—one that spoke to the heart of the issue. Who is a neighbor? The answer:
the one who gives to meet the need of another.