The story of the Good Samaritan is probably Jesus’ most famous parable.  One might even say it sums up the essence of Christian living.  I’d like to go through it with you in context so we can better appreciate what it meant in Jesus’ time. 

The parable starts with a question.  The questioner is identified as a lawyer. That means he was skilled in the examination and elucidation of the more difficult and subtle questions of Jewish law.  His question, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” was meant to test Jesus’ understanding of such laws.  The expert teacher of the law is testing this wandering, unofficial rabbi to see how well he can answer tricky theological questions. The lawyer’s question also reveals his presumption of righteousness through works, a desire to earn salvation.  And this in turn is connected to a common human desire to be in charge of our destiny, even today. 

Jesus appeals to the expert's self-perception of being an authority, and turns the question back to him asking, “What is written in the law?”  The legal expert's answer shows much insight. In fact, he agrees exactly with Jesus' own assessment of the Torah's essential message: "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, "Love your neighbor as yourself," quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, respectively.

Such a response was both technically correct and consistent with the understanding of the religious elite that one got to heaven by strictly following the law. Of course few can follow such an overwhelming law perfectly, so we Christians have another path.  Here is how Paul explains it in Romans 3:

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Jesus responds to the lawyer that he was correct.  The Greek word is orthos from which the English word ‘orthodoxy’ is derived. The lawyer’s answer was orthodox and lawyerly. It was also a bit rote, devoid of life, so Jesus adds,

Do this and you will live.        

In Mark’s version of the story, Jesus states a similarly profound teaching:

“When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said,

‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’”

When we hear these words, we know that we are close to the center of Christianity, that we are close to the heart of God.

But the lawyer won’t give up, now asking Jesus to define “neighbor.”  Who is my neighbor?  The rabbinical writings of the Talmud are full of carefully reasoned legal distinctions about when a law is in effect, and when it is not.  The Jews of the time typically interpreted "neighbor," meaning literally "one who is near," in terms of members of the same tribe and religious community, that is, fellow Jews, period. 

The lawyer’s question also asks, “What exactly is my responsibility to my neighbor?”  What is the minimum I must do to be righteous? Here the lawyer may be trying to get around the law, or at least to interpret it in a way favorable to himself.  If the law says we are to love our neighbor, perhaps we can restrict the meaning of “neighbor” so that our responsibilities are more limited and reasonably doable.  Today we might wonder if we could exclude from the ‘neighbor’ category illegal aliens, Afghani Taliban, BP managers or state senators, to cite a few examples. 

Let me insert here a process comment from the parable.  It is never a good idea to try to outwit Jesus.  We’re not that smart.  He is way, way ahead of us.  We should accept, digest and apply what Jesus says, not attempt to weasel our way around it as the lawyer may be.

Now, back to the lawyer’s question, “Who is my neighbor?”  Jesus’ definition of neighbor comes as the story of the Good Samaritan.  Let’s look at it carefully.  In the time of Jesus, the journey from Jerusalem to Jericho was a 6 to 8 hour trek along a narrow, twisty and steep trail, notorious for its danger and difficulty.  Locally it was known as the "Way of Blood" or “The Bloody Pass” because of the travelers’ blood which was often shed there by robbers lurking around corners.  Today’s equivalent of the Jericho road might be a stroll down Jay St. in the city, on a Saturday night, and with money hanging from your pockets.

The parable tells of a Jew who was waylaid on the Jericho road, robbed, stripped naked, beaten and left for dead.  The thieves, not wanting to offend higher powers, generally left priests and temple staff like the Levites alone.  A passing priest, on his way home to Jericho, sees the apparently dead man and avoids him.  He was justified in the law for doing this since touching a dead person would have meant ritual defilement, preventing him from serving in the temple until he could be purified.  Likewise for the Levite.   Leviticus 21:11 is pretty clear.

He shall not go where there is a dead body.

Thus, according to Jewish law, even though the beaten man was a fellow Jew, both the priest and the Levite did the ‘right’ thing.  Plus, as practical matters, the robbers might still be nearby, this could be a trap and hot, dead bodies often harbored communicable diseases.  Nevertheless, there was an exception in the law that allowed a priest to deal with a neglected corpse.  The priest and the Levite, however, “passed by on the other side” indicating that they didn’t even check to see if the guy was alive.  This despite the fact that both were going “down,” that is, away from Jerusalem, so they were presumably free from any immediate Temple obligations and presumably had the time. 

So under the law both could have ignored the beaten man, or come to his aid.  This is important in the parable because we see that the priest and the Levite made moral choices.  In their choices it weighed more with them that the man might be dead and defiling to the touch of those who dealt with holy things than that he might be alive and in need of care.

Now a Samaritan comes along.  Samaritans were nominally Jews, but they were considered half-breeds and heretics, having intermarried with their Assyrian conquerors.  They had a defiant, rival temple on Mt. Gerizim, as we heard last week.  Religious Jews and Samaritans despised each other.  They did not associate with one another.  Tensions were particularly high in the early decades of the first century because Samaritans had desecrated the Jewish temple in Jerusalem at Passover by scattering human bones in it.  (Remember the Leviticus passage about nearness to human remains?)  

Therefore, among Luke’s readers, there would have been no presumption that there were any “Good” Samaritans.  Yet in the parable, against all expectations, a Samaritan stops, bandages up the beaten man (perhaps using his own clothing), gives him medicine (that’s what the wine and oil are meant to indicate) and transports him to an inn, with the man riding the donkey and the Samaritan walking beside him. 

And the Samaritan doesn’t stop there. He continues to care for him at the inn.  When he leaves he gives two denari (about two day’s pay for a laborer) to the innkeeper asking him to continue to care for the man.  We are to understand from these acts that the Samaritan went well beyond the call of duty and into the realm of love.  Listen to these words from 1 John 3:

But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

Characteristic of Jesus, who loved to humiliate the proud and lift up the humble, he used a Samaritan in his parable.  Having thus set him up, Jesus asks the lawyer which of the three was the true neighbor to the robbed and beaten man.  The lawyer, reluctant to even say the word ‘Samaritan,’ answers, “The one who showed him mercy.”  Now we see that Jesus has been successful in getting the lawyer to rethink his presuppositions.

If the theme of the OT is righteousness, obedience to the law, and the theme of the NT is love, this parable and other gospel accounts of Jesus and in Paul’s letters, all with their emphasis on love, are creating a bridge between the old and the new.  The parable’s lesson is that love trumps law.  If one is trying to attain righteousness through obedience to the law, this parable is telling us that it is not sufficient simply to obey the letter of the law, or simply have the desire to fulfill responsibilities. For even according to the law, one must love with all one’s heart, mind, soul, and strength. Less than this is not living according to the law or acting from love.

How do we prove ourselves to be true neighbors? What in our lives show that we love our neighbors, or not? If it were you lying in a ditch half-dead, is there anyone you would refuse help from, preferring to die instead? After the lawyer’s answers are given, Jesus calls us to commit to living a life commensurate with our beliefs. “Go and do likewise,” Jesus says, putting the ball in our court, leaving us with a choice to obey or disobey, not just continue to debate and dissect theories or teachings in a lawyerly way.

There are any number of lessons in this parable.  Let me pick out three.

1.  Love is costly.  The Samaritan spared no time or expense in his concern for the injured man.  The Samaritan's mercy is a generous mercy.  A mercy that didn't just observe the letter of the law, but its spirit as well. "Whatever he needs," is the limit of his mercy. The law can be a tempting rationalization if it seems cheaper, quicker or cleaner.  We lock up addicts rather than put them in treatment for example.  We are called to love one another, not to love wealth.

2.  Love is dealing with what is in front of us.  We do not have to be world crusaders, trying to solve the problems of violence and deprivation around the globe.  But we have to deal with what is right in front of us. The emergencies and problems that fall in our portion of the road on which we travel are our opportunity to show the kind of love the Samaritan showed. Our neighbor is anyone, in trouble or not, who God puts in our path.  We are called not to weigh circumstances, but to love whoever is in front of us.

3.  Love means letting go of futile efforts to control the world for our own benefit.  Instead, love means we will gladly sacrifice time, money, and convenience for our neighbors.  Personal convenience does not come ahead of desperate circumstances.  We act from character rather than consideration. Love has no limits, as Jesus’ journey to the cross and this story illustrate.

A couple of years ago a 12 year-old Palestinian boy, Ahmad Khatib, was shot by Israeli soldiers during street fighting near his house in the West Bank.  The boy had been holding a toy gun.  Ahmad was taken to an Israeli hospital where he died two days later.  His parents decided to allow his organs to be harvested for transplanting into Israelis.  In all six people received Ahmad’s organs, one a two-month old infant.  His mother said simply, “My son has died.  Maybe he can give life to others.”

There can be no real conflict between God’s law and our love if we take verse 27 as our guide:

"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 with this transplanted into our hearts, we shall live.

Amen.