Good Samaritan

[GrowingSmaller]

What is the message of the parable of the good Samaritan?

To me it seems like we ought to try and live together and have concern for others in spite of any religious differences we might have. That would parallel the Samaritan helping the Jew when in fact they were bitter theological opponents. The potential corollary of this is that all faith groups ought to work together for mutual material welfare, and leave theological difference to free intellectual argument but not physical strife. Religious differences ought to be settled academically, rather than by sanction or warfare as we saw in the times of the Inquisitions and wars of the Reformation, or equivalent strife in other faiths. Likewise, conquest against non-Christians etc cannot be justified by theological difference. Rather we ought to respect the body, not slay it (or leave it to perish where we have power not to) because of a matter of faith. The parable therefore advocates a form of constructive pluralism and implicit liberty to dissent. It advocates toleration of other views and upholds the right of other denominations' or faiths' believers to physical welfare, and the duty of men to work for it.

Is my imaginaiton going too far?

ETA{The remainder of the chapter (Luke 10:38-42), where Jesus teaches that over attention to physical "priorities" ie. rampant materialism, is inappropriate. This adds counterbalance to the lesson. Yet we ought to attend to the physical, but not at the expense of contemplating the religion.

Also the previous text where the 72 are sent Jesus says "I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you." Maybe this alludes in anticipation to the fact that viciousness can be taken from men's hearts if we treat them humanely in spite of our theological differences.}

 

[wayseer]

What is the message of the parable of the good Samaritan?

To me it seems like we ought to try and live together and have concern for others in spite of any religious differences we might have. That would parallel the Samaritan helping the Jew when in fact they were bitter theological opponents. The potential corollary of this is that all faith groups ought to work together for mutual material welfare, and leave theological difference to intellectual argument but not physical strife. Religious differences ought to be settled academically, rather than by sanction or warfare as we saw in the Inquisitions and wars of the Reformation. Likewise, conquest against non-Christians cannot be justified by theological difference. Rather we ought to respect the body, not slay it (or leave it t o perish where we have power not to) because of a matter of faith. The parable therefore advocates a form of constructive pluralism which tolerates other views and upholds the right of other faiths' believers to physical welfare, and the duty of men to work for it.

Is my imaginaiton going too far?

On the right track.

The real issue here, which you actually pick up one from another angle, is the matter of 'purity'. The 'purity' laws separated and excluded - it was a cultural fence against others.

Jesus' story introduces a Samaritan - hated by Jews - unclean, and on no account would a Jew go anywhere near them, especially if there was a dead body involved - which was another 'purity' issue.

So the Priest and Levite, conscious of their high social status and their state of 'purity' had nothing to do with a dead body and everyone listening would have nodded in approval when Jesus said as much. But it was the 'unclean', the despised Gentile, that showed mercy over and above the pettiness of the ritual purity laws - that would landed like a kick from a mule.

Not only does the parable tell us that we are to tolerate others, we are actually to go out of our way to help them and to bear the burden of the costs involved.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So the purity laws actually were actually counterproductive, they created spiritual impurity of neglect (GS parable), spite in the community (scorpions and snakes of resentment), and inappropriate attention to worldlly things (Martha's housework was prioratised above the spiritual). See my edit of the OP for detail. So the apparent purity of the Jews was in fact a stain which seeped from their hearts to corrupt society?

 

[ebia]

A lot of what has been said is true, but to some extent I think its on a slightly different track to the parable. One of the beautiful things about the parable is that it's a response to the question "who is my neighbour", yet cannot be reduced to a straight answer to the question - the Samaritan is a neighbour because he helped the man - go and do likewise. It turns the question inside out:
"Help you neighbour"
"Who is my neighbour?"
"The one you help"

 

[ebia]

So the purity laws actually were actually counterproductive,

The purity laws, along with the food laws, circumcision and sabbath keeping, were to serve to mark out Israel as separate. The problem was that Israel tended to loose the idea that it was separate to be a light for the rest of the world, and tended to view the separation as for itself.

Jesus then overturns the boundary markers not because they weren't a good thing, but because the purpose for which they existed has completed in him - with his resurrection the promises will explode outwards for the whole world.

they created spiritual impurity of neglect (GS parable), spite in the community (scorpions and snakes of resentment), and inappropriate attention to worldlly things (Martha's housework was prioratised above the spiritual

I'd have to disagree with about the Mary & Martha story completely:
Blogging along "The Way" » A Tale of Two Marys
It follows the Good Samaritan story precisely because its the overturning of another boundary marker.

 

[wayseer]

So the purity laws actually were actually counterproductive, they created spiritual impurity of neglect (GS parable), spite in the community (scorpions and snakes of resentment), and inappropriate attention to worldlly things (Martha's housework was prioratised above the spiritual). See my edit of the OP for detail. So the apparent purity of the Jews was in fact a stain which seeped from their hearts to corrupt society?

Ebia has given a sound respond. The only thing I might add is the concept of 'holy'. Holiness is that which keeps us 'separated' unto God. The problem Jesus was drawing attention to was the how holiness had become abused. Israel was meant to guide other nations towards God. Rather, they become self-centred and insular and self-righteous. This particular parable demonstrates how wrong they were.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

My friend has difficulty relating to all humans as neighbours, but sees animals ("God's creatures") as his neighbours, who would be loved, instead. Thoughts?

 

[ittarter]

I have a bit of a different take on this parable (and got the idea from Gordon Fee). I think Ebia is on the right track but misses a very critical point.

The "expert in the law," like most Jews of the day, believed he wanted to follow God's commands. However, what God commanded was in his day (as in ours) in dispute. So he asks Jesus his opinion.

Jesus tells a story about how a person helps somebody out. But notice the characters involved and the specific roles they're playing. The Samaritan is the hero (he should have been the victim in need of help, if we follow Wayseer's reading). The priest and levite have the opportunity to be the good guys, but precisely BECAUSE of their desire to obey the law, they (ironically) fail to do God's will.

After the story, Jesus asks the question, "Who acted as a neighbor?" The expert in the law can't even say, "the Samaritan," because it is so counter-cultural to credit Samaritans with anything good at all. Consequently Jesus reveals the man's prejudice (read: unneighborliness) toward that ethnicity.

As is typical of Jesus, he doesn't just answer people's questions -- he reveals the inner motives that corrupt their question in the first place. The narrative states that the expert in the law was "trying to justify himself," i.e. trying to absolve himself of any lack of effort or diligence in obedience on his part, and that attitude is exactly what Jesus addresses. The problem with the law is not any esoteric quality or insurmountable complexity -- rather, the problem is that we really DON'T have it in us to obey it.

In summary. As followers of Christ, our job is to love our enemies -- for what good is it to love those who love us? Don't even the tax-collectors do the same?