Most of us have heard about
THE GOOD SAMARITAN, if just the phrase or in concept. Since I've joined blogging communities, I've been reading about pain in people, because on-line strangers are being kinder to them than those who call themselves family and friends. This got me thinking, and when I think, I put myself out on a precipice because I don't always know what reaction I'll receive when I publicly communicate my thoughts...but here goes anyway...and I did some digging into the Biblical account of the parable of
The Good Samaritan. In order to understand it better, I looked into commentary on it. I found this link:
Commentary by Bob Deffinbaugh, Th.M. on THE GOOD SAMARITAN (Luke 10:25-37)
I want to use Mr. Deffinbaugh's words before my own, because they ring so true. He comments on what the text does and does NOT say. In the story, Jesus tells us, "A certain man was going from Jerusalem down to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him of his clothes and belongings and beat him and went their way, [unconcernedly] leaving him half dead, as it happened." I think we would all agree, this is a horrible set of circumstances that came upon this man. Jesus goes on to say, "by coincidence," a Priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan happened on the scene. Mr. Deffingbaugh puts it like this:
While Jesus makes it clear that the two travelers (the priest and the Levite) are Jewish, and that the hero is a Samaritan, we are not told the racial origins of the victim. The reason is simple—it doesn’t matter. And if it mattered to the first two travelers, it should not matter to us. The only thing that matters about that man is the one thing we’re told about him—that he is badly hurt and in need of help! The man had been mugged. Robbers overtook him, beating him badly and stripping him of his clothes, and then leaving him lying by the road, half-dead. This man needed help, badly. That’s what matters; and that’s what the text tells us. It isn’t matter whether it is a Jew who needs help or a Gentile. There is a human being lying by the road, who is seriously wounded and who desperately needs help.
Mr. Deffingbaugh continues to say, "We are told that two of Judaism’s finest specimens come upon the injured man as they make their way along the same road. These two men seem to be there
by chance (see verses 31 & 32). I take it that this means they did not have any pressing business, which might have hindered them from stopping to render aid. These two men—the priest and the Levite—belonged to an elite Jewish class; both of them were religious professionals. In today’s vocabulary, we might say that one was a prominent pastor and the other a well-known televangelist. If anybody was expected to carry out the Old Testament law, it would be these men."
BUT...as Mr. Deffingbaugh continues, I see these family and friends, that those in pain are blogging about--in an attempt to seek refuge and solace from their hurt, in these elitist men.
The priest came upon the injured victim first. He could see the man lying by the side of the road as he approached. Rather than to get involved, the priest deliberately walked on the other side of the road, so as not to get too close to the battered victim. I suspect that the priest carefully focused his eyes straight ahead or in the opposite direction of the injured man, so that he would not see his suffering. He did not check to see of the man was alive or dead. He did not ask the man if he needed help. He did nothing that would enlighten him about this man’s condition, and thus his need. For this priest, ignorance was indeed bliss.
The Levite was no different than the priest. He came upon the injured man some time after the priest. His actions were a virtual re-play of the scene with the priest. He passed by the suffering traveler on the other side, so that he would not feel obligated to do anything to help him. If the priest and the Levite felt any emotion at the sight of this man, it was probably revulsion at the sight of his injuries and deplorable condition.
The critical difference between the Samaritan, the priest, and the Levite is their compassion, or lack of it. So far as the attitude of the three travelers toward this man and his condition this the only difference the text indicates. The text tells us that the priest comes along and says (so to speak), “Yuk!” and he turns away. The text says virtually the same thing about the Levite. He comes along; he looks briefly, and then he turns aside. He doesn’t get too close. He doesn’t say, “Are you still alive?” He doesn’t listen for a heartbeat, or try to get a pulse. He doesn’t say, “I’ll send an ambulance.” He does not say, “I’d like to help you, but if I touch you, I may be ceremonially defiled.” He looks, and he says to himself, “How disgusting,” and he walks away. It is the opposite of compassion. It is repulsion. He doesn’t want to know any more about this man.
Personally, I'm hearing this in story after story of how unfaithful family and friends are to those in need and pain, and some in desperate circumstances--have been left beaten, broken, and left poor by illness or other devastating circumstances. BUT, thankfully--at least in the Biblical account, along comes
The Good Samaritan. Mr. Deffinbaugh tells us in his commentary that Samaritans were despised by Jews, yet...
He drew near to the victim, rather than to veer to the far side of the road. He treated the man’s wounds and bandaged him. The Samaritan does not seem to have had a first aid kit in his saddle bag; rather the wine, the oil, and perhaps even the cloth he used to bind the wounds came from his own food supplies and clothing. He placed the wounded man on his own mount, and brought him to an inn, where he spent the night caring for the man. The Samaritan had to continue his journey, but he did not let this keep him from providing care for the injured traveler. He paid for the victim’s room in advance, and saw to it that the innkeeper looked in on the recovering victim. He promised to return, and to fully reimburse the innkeeper for any additional expenses. There is nothing more the Samaritan could have done to minister to the man on whom he had compassion.
This Samaritan reminds me of our on-line supporters. Christ said it was the Samaritan who was the neighbor of the man whom had fallen into the hands of robbers, because he was the one who showed mercy toward him. When those in our physical space prove not to be compassionate or merciful toward us, I believe its okay to garner on-line support. In the safeness of mercy, compassion, and grace in cyberspace, we can learn what choices we should be making in allowing people into our physical space. We should only allow those within our borders, space with more intimacy involved, whom are safe and demonstrate safety with compassion and mercy. Let's make friends who are Good Samaritans and learn that not all family comes with birth.
