Luke 10:25-37
July 10, 2022
“Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.”
Does anyone else remember that State Farm jingle? I’m not sure if its ever used anymore. I suspect it has been replaced by, “Jake from State Farm.” But for a long, long time that was the one thing I associated with State Farm Insurance Company. If you hummed the first few noes of that jingle, I could finish them without giving it a second thought.
State
Farm wanted people to know that they were good neighbors. They weren’t just a
necessary part of life, or a company you had to deal with when things went wrong.
They were like a good neighbor. From what the advertising implied, being a good
neighbor was being there for someone when they needed them. It meant being
there when the times got tough. They were the hand reaching out to help you up
when you’d been knocked down. State Farm was a good neighbor, because they were
there no matter how bad things got, in fact they were there especially when
things got that bad. They were a good neighbor.
“Like
a good neighbor, State Farm is there.”
Neighbor seems to be the key word
for our passage this week. Just like State Farm’s jingle, the story of the Good
Samaritan is one that I know by heart. All you would have to say is, “A man was
going down from Jerusalem to Jericho …” and I could probably fill in with the
words “and fell into the hands of robbers.” I bet many of us could do that.
After all, if you’re like me, you have heard this story from the time you were
a little kid. In Sunday School, if it wasn’t being read to us or diagrammed out
on a felt board, we were acting it out.
And even if you didn’t grow up
hearing this story on repeat, the idea of the Good Samaritan is everywhere in
our culture. If someone helps someone else out unexpectedly, that person is
hailed as a Good Samaritan. There are Good Samaritan laws that protect someone
from being held liable if they try to help someone in distress out and it goes
wrong. When I lived in Iowa there were two skilled nursing centers that used
the name Good Samaritan. Even if someone had never heard any other story about
Jesus, there is a good chance that they have heard this one.
And that’s the challenge. This is
such a well-known parable, it is so familiar to us, and we think we know it
backwards and forwards, that it is possible, just possible, it’s lost its shock
value for us. In fact, we might even question using the term, “shock value,”
because this is such a lovely parable. It should make us all feel good, warm,
fuzzy, not shocked.
But as scholar Amy-Jill Levine
points out in her book about Jesus’ parables, his “Short Stories,” the parables
were told not to make those listening feel contented and happy. They were told
to shock them. They were told to ‘afflict the comfortable and comfort the
afflicted.” Jesus’ parables were meant to have a punch, an unexpected twist.
They were meant to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.
The problem is though is that we are
listening from a distance. These stories of Jesus have been told for centuries,
and we are far removed by time and space from the first audience who heard them.
And, in the repeated telling, they have become domesticated. They have become
nice little tales instead of parables that shake us up and knock us out.
So, what in this story is shocking?
A lawyer asks Jesus a question.
“Teacher, what must I do to inherit
eternal life?”
As I understand it, being a lawyer
at that time was not just about understanding civic law. A lawyer would have been well-versed in
religious law, the Law. The distinctions between the two were not made as we
make them. So, the lawyer would have known the Law. He would have known the
commandments. He would have known the details of Leviticus and Numbers. Clearly,
the lawyer did because Jesus turned the question on him.
“What is written in the law? What do
you read there?”
And the lawyer was able to readily
answer, “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 Jesus responds with, good
answer! You know this. You got this. Go, and do likewise and you will live. But
the lawyer wants to justify himself. I know that the text tells us that the lawyer
wanted to test Jesus, but I’m not sure that this is one of those times when the
person asking Jesus the question is trying to trick Jesus. I’m not convinced
that the lawyer was trying to trap Jesus as the Pharisees and the other
religious authorities so often tried to. I think he genuinely wanted to know
what Jesus had to say, not as a trick but to get some clarity on the exact
details of the law. Maybe that means he wanted to push Jesus to give him more specifics,
not on what the law says, but on exactly who is his neighbor. And that is what
he asks.
“And who is my neighbor?”
Jesus responds with a story, a
parable, about a man going down on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. This man
is attacked, robbed, beaten, stripped of even his clothes, and left for dead. Two
religious Israelites pass by. The first, a priest, sees the man and sees the
state he is in, but he moves to the other side of the road and keeps going. The
second, a Levite, does the same thing. But then a Samaritan a SA MAR I TAN,
comes down the road. The Samaritan sees the man who has been beaten, robbed,
and left for dead, and he does not cross the road to get away from him. He
crosses the road to go to near to him. The Samaritan sees the man’s wounds, and
he pours wine on them to disinfect them, and he pours oil on them to keep them
soft. He bandages the man. He picks him up and puts him on his own animal and
he takes him to an inn so that he can more fully care for him. When the
Samaritan has to leave the next day, he gives the innkeeper money from his own
pocket, and asks the innkeeper to take care of the man. When he returns, he
will repay the innkeeper however much more the innkeeper had to pay for the
beaten man’s care.
Jesus finishes the story by saying,
“Now, who was the neighbor?”
And
the lawyer responds, “The one who showed him mercy.”
Jesus
says nothing else, but “Go, and do likewise.”
Lets put this in terms that we can
relate to. When we talk about the Good Samaritan, we think of the word “good,”
as part of his title. Instead of Dr. Samaritan, its Good Samaritan. But the
word “good” is descriptive. And Jesus does not call him “good” at all, does he?
The good is implied. He was a good Samaritan, not because that was part of his
name, but because of what he did, how he lived, how he treated the man who was
beaten and left for dead. But here’s the kicker, the lawyer who asked this
question of Jesus and the people listening to Jesus would not have applied the
adjective “good” before a Samaritan. Good would have been the furthest thing
from their minds. The Samaritans were enemies. They were not good.
Take a minute and think about the
group of people you can’t stand. Be honest with yourself. There probably is at
least one section of society that bugs you, angers you, makes you fume. If
you’re a Republican, maybe it’s the Democrats. If you’re a Democrat, maybe it’s
the Republicans. Maybe its people of another country or another religion.
Whatever that group may be, whoever they may be, insert their name in the place
of Samaritan. Make sure you add the word, “good” in front of it too.
How do you feel?
How does it feel to consider one of
these “others” as good? How does it feel to think about one of these “others”
doing what the Samaritan did? Especially when two folks from your side of
things crossed the road to stay away from the man left dead?!
In the past, I have tried to
minimize what the priest and the Levite did and didn’t do. They would have been
ritually unclean if they had gone near the man, if they had touched him. It
would have made them unable to fulfill their religious responsibilities. But
they were going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, not the other way around. They
were going away from the temple. It’s most likely that their religious duties
were already fulfilled. And as Levine points out, the Law made it clear that
helping someone in great need was more important than staying ritually clean.
The priest and the Levite messed up. They failed. It doesn’t mean that they
were horrible people. It means that they were human, and they failed. We all
have and it’s a good possibility that we all will again. But the Samaritan did
not fail. The Samaritan went near to the man. The Samaritan helped the man
without thought for himself, for his own safety, for his own needs. The
Samaritan did what was good because he showed the man mercy.
It seems to me that what the lawyer
really wanted to Jesus to make clear for him was not just what being a neighbor
meant, but what the boundaries are on who is our neighbor. Okay, look Jesus,
for real, who is my neighbor? Where do I get to draw the line? Who do I get to
leave out of this equation?
But Jesus made it clear that the
boundaries we put into place on who is our neighbor and who isn’t are
artificial. They have no real meaning. The person who is our neighbor is the
person in need. The person who is our neighbor is the person who requires
mercy. The person who is our neighbor is the person to whom we are called to
draw near. It does not require political or ideological agreement on our part.
It requires us to recognize who is being harmed and to realize that that person
or persons are our neighbors. That might just mean that other sentient
creatures are our neighbors. That might just mean that the creation itself is
our neighbor, that the whole of God’s world is filled with our neighbors. Are
we prepared to show them mercy? Are we ready to love our neighbors as
ourselves? The lawyer realized that the neighbor was the one who showed mercy.
Go, and do likewise, and we too will live.
Let all of God’s children say,
“Alleluia!”
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment