A Fresh Look at the Good Samaritan

An Advertisement for the Get On The Bus program that brings spouses and children to visit their incarcerated parents.

This Sunday's Gospel is the story of the good Samaritan. (Luke 10: 25-37) Tonight is Bible Sharing, so I was reviewing our topic.  What I find as an invaluable tool in understanding scripture is Dr. John J. Pilch.  He is a biblical scholar concentrating on cultural-historical background.  Regarding the good Samaritan, everyone learns the lesson to help your neighbor. However, Dr. Pilch took me even deeper; I now have an ever greater admiration for this good Samaritan. Did you notice that the wounded man was naked?  That means that you couldn't tell whether he was a Jew or a Samaritan.  So the Samaritan had compassion on the man, not knowing whether the wounded man was friend or foe. ( It gets even better!)  After ministering to the wounded man, and after taking care of his needs and future needs, this Samaritan (I emphasize: this GOOD Samaritan.) was taking a considerable (and possibly foolhardy) chance.  Think about it.  Think Levitican Law. "An eye for an eye..."

If this wounded man was Jewish, and he died under the care of this Samaritan, this very Good Samaritan would have been killed by the deceased relatives.  It was the law.  They would have been obligated to kill him, regarding whatever good intentions a passerby may have had.  (This happens today. Bystanders hesitate to help for fear of being sued--and they sometimes are, regardless of Good Samaritan Laws.)  And I think due to the political climate in Jesus' times, the Jews would readily have killed the Samaritan.

Knowing this, would you have helped this wounded man in the ditch?  Also, do you have more empathy for the priest and Levite who passed him by?

Zacchaeus

Lectio Divina today.  Different translations tell the story of Zacchaeus differently.  When people start back biting Zacchaeus, and he snipes back that "he is giving...", is a lot different that "he will give."  Most translations say that Zacchaeus is speaking of being converted and he will in the future, "give".  This can't be correct, according to Dr. John Pilch.

When Jesus invites himself to Zacchaeus’ house, the Pharisees grumble that he is a “sinner.” Zacchaeus defends himself quite pointedly. Indeed, he literally stopped the procession to his house to publicly demonstrate that he is not a sinner as charged.

First, he admits to giving half of his possessions to the poor. Zacchaeus uses the present tense, which in the Greek language describes repeated, customary practice. Zacchaeus does this on a regular, ongoing basis. Most translations use the future tense (“I will give”), which is grammatically possible but less plausible. In Luke, giving alms is a sign of righteousness (6:30-31, 38; 11:41; 12:33; 16:9; 18:22, 29).

Second, he pronounces a conditional clause: “IF I have cheated someone,” whose form in Greek does not imply that he consciously committed extortion but only that if he discovers that he has cheated, then he has a plan whose details are truly amazing. He restores what he has inadvertently cheated fourfold (400 percent)!

The Torah (see Lev 6:5 and Num 5:6-7) demanded the restoration of the object plus one-fifth (20 percent) interest. Roman law required fourfold restitution only from a convicted criminal. Zacchaeus has surpassed the Torah’s requirements and met the most stringent of terms in Roman law.


Don't you feel bad for misjudging Zacchaeus all these years?  Even Jesus calls him a Son of Abraham, and Jesus calls a spade, a spade (remember the woman at the well).  


So what is this reading telling us?  It tells me that it's not important what people think of us.  Jesus knows the truth.


BTW, the picture is not me looking for Jesus.  It's me just arseing around.  I don't have to look far for Jesus.  I just have to look at you.