20
THE GOOD SAMARITAN AND THE CONCEPT OF NEIGHBOR And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? (Luke 10:30-36).
This parable was given in response to a lawyer's trick question: "Who is my neighbor?" In other words, "What person am I supposed to love as much as I love myself?" Jesus' answer: your neighbor is the person you assist in his time of crisis.
Selfless Assistance The Samaritan was a stranger in Israel. On a journey, he came across an injured man. The man had been lying in the road. First, a priest had passed him by; then, a Levite did the same. Having received no help from these religious officers, he was then assisted by a Samaritan, i.e., a religious rival.
Why did they pass him by? Perhaps they feared that the man's assailants were still in the neighborhood. Better to walk away quickly and avoid danger. Or perhaps they believed he was dead. If a Jew touched a dead man's body, he became unclean for a week. "He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days. He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean" (Num. 19:11-12). This was a nuisance, but it was not a disaster. It meant that he could not enter the temple (Num. 19:13). Perhaps they had business to conduct at the temple.
The wounded man was not a ritualistic threat to a Samaritan, who would not be entering the temple. The Samaritan was willing to examine the man closely to see if he was alive. He was also willing to assist him with his wounds. He took him to an inn, paid for his lodging, and promised the innkeeper that he would return and pay for any additional expenses incurred by the innkeeper in treating the wounded man.
This was selfless assistance. The Samaritan had no guarantee of repayment. Still, he helped the man. Why? Because he understood that the man was his neighbor. They were both on the same road, facing the same risks. They shared a common environment. They were therefore neighbors. The Samaritan understood Jesus' ethical principle, which we call the golden rule: "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (Luke 6:31).
This was a warning to the lawyer: do not define "neighbor" on the basis of shared religion. Define it by shared community. People who are in close proximity are neighbors. They share the same risks. They should help each other in a time of crisis, expecting nothing in return. "Love thy neighbor as thyself, but choose your neighborhood," quipped Louise Beal. This is what most Americans do today. We choose our neighborhoods very well. We choose them so well that marketers can use our postal zip codes to estimate what brands of automobiles we are most likely to own, or which magazines we probably subscribe to. The final four digits in our nine-digit zip codes reveal such neighborhood information: as many as sixty-two separate lifestyle types.(1) Marketers know, through computerized data, what we do not even perceive when we choose our neighborhoods: just how astoundingly well we choose them.
The good Samaritan did not choose his neighborhood that day on the basis of "safety first" or "live close to neighbors who will not need much assistance." He chose it as a way to get to Jericho. When he found a beaten man in his temporary neighborhood, he aided him.
The action of the Samaritan was comparable to making a charitable loan. "But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil" (Luke 6:35).(2)
Self-Interested Assistance The commentators never discuss the importance of the innkeeper. This is a mistake. The innkeeper was important to both the Samaritan and the wounded man. He offered a place for the wounded man to stay. He offered care. He also offered credit for the Samaritan. Without these services, the Samaritan's task would have been far more expensive and difficult.
The innkeeper had to make a decision to trust the Samaritan. There was no guarantee that he would be paid beyond the initial payment. He had to make an assessment of the Samaritan's character. His decision was made easier by the situation. Here was a religious stranger who was treating a wounded man as a brother. He was paying for services rendered. Could he be trusted to pay any extra expenses? The Samaritan seemed reliable. He was an ethical person, as far as the innkeeper could see.
Nevertheless, there was risk involved. How did the innkeeper know that the Samaritan would return? Who would pay if he failed to return? The wounded man? His family? But who was he? Where did his family live? The innkeeper had to judge the likelihood of repayment based on his previous experience. He had to decide whether to accept this obligation at the request of a stranger.
The innkeeper offered a service. He hoped for a return on his expenditures. He was in business to serve others. He was not running a nonprofit charity. But his business made the task of the charitable Samaritan much easier.
A society needs innkeepers. It needs people who offer services for a profit. The charity of the Samaritan was exceptional. The good Samaritan has served for centuries as a fine model of ethical behavior, but a society cannot be run on the assumption that such behavior will become common. Even if it should become common, charities still need to buy specialized services. There will be far more of these services offered for sale in a society that allows profit-seeking entrepreneurs to sell them profitably.
The Socialist Alternative The socialist believes that the innkeepers of this world should be compelled to act as charitable Samaritans. He knows that innkeepers will not act charitably in most cases. So, he calls for the State to confiscate wealth from taxpayers and then use the money to fund the care of wounded travellers -- and millions of other victims.
This raises many problems. Which government agency should pay the innkeeper? How much should he be paid? After all, profit-seeking innkeepers should not be allowed to gouge the government. There must therefore be fixed prices and enforceable standards of care. There must be forms to fill out and submit. There may be long delays in payment. Some innkeepers will try to get out of the business of providing services to government-funded victims on a regulated basis. Should this be allowed? If it is allowed, this will place a heavy a burden on all of the other innkeepers.
Innkeepers are rarely good Samaritans. Neither are most taxpayers. What can the State's employees do about this? The State possesses no resources that it has not gained apart from the threat of violence. The only way for the State to deal with the problem of wounded victims is by coercion. But coercion predictably reduces both voluntary cooperation and the standard of care. It turns health care into a government-funded bureaucratic profession.
This parable rests on the assumption that a moral obligation to help a victim is not a legal obligation to be enforced by civil law. Individuals are encouraged to offer positive sanctions. The State is not supposed to make such an offer, for it holds a legal monopoly of violence. Its function is to impose negative sanctions on evil-doers (Rom. 13:1-7). Its task is not to make men righteous. That is God's exclusive prerogative.
Who Is My Neighbor? Rev. Timothy Keller has discussed this parable in his chapter in the book written by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (1990). He wrote: "Anyone in need is my neighbor -- that is the teaching of the Good Samaritan parable."(3) Nowhere have I heard this argument more forcefully presented: the Jericho road is every highway and byway on earth, and all the off-road residences as well. This statement, if taken seriously -- and no one on earth has ever taken it seriously institutionally, including Rev. Keller -- means that there is no escape from the ideal of absolute economic equality. No matter where we are on earth, if we have a brass farthing more than anyone else on earth, we are not being good Samaritans.
If believed and obeyed, Keller's position would de-capitalize faithful Christians. They would feel morally compelled to give away everything they own for the sake of the poor in general. The church has never believed this. Why, then, did Rev. Keller make the statement?
Perhaps Rev. Keller would add qualifications. He really didn't mean that anyone in need is my neighbor, if that also means that I am in any way legally or morally obligated to help my neighbors. (If it does not mean this, however, why did he bring it up?) He may mean something else. But he never said what he meant. What he wrote is theologically radical.
Rev. Keller presents his theology of welfare in the section, "The Issue of Conditions." In it, he attacks Ray Sutton's paper, "The Theology of the Poor." Rev. Sutton argued there that churches are not required by God to give money to drug addicts and drunks. A chronic repeater of some offense is also not entitled to aid. He wrote: "To give to him unconditionally, sight unseen, is a waste of God's money." The underlying covenant theology -- a covenant theology with sanctions (point four of the biblical covenant model)(4) -- led Rev. Sutton to this conclusion. This conclusion is precisely what repels Rev. Keller. Rev. Sutton replied to Rev. Keller in detail in Theonomy: An Informed Response.(5) Here I need only to summarize Rev. Keller's position.
Rev. Keller insists that "When God's grace first comes to us, it comes unconditionally, regardless of our merits."(6) Rev. Keller then makes this leap of faith: "At first, we should show mercy to anyone in need, as we have opportunity and resources. We should not turn them away by analyzing them as `undeserving' even if sin is part of the complex of their poverty."(7) Where is a single Bible reference that supports this view? Are we omniscient, the way God is? No. Then why discuss our obligations to give charity in the context of what a sovereign God does? Why not turn to biblical law to decide what we are responsible for? Answer: because that would be theonomic. Rev. Keller does not think much of theonomy. "Many of my criticisms of their response to the poor rest on deeper reservations I have with their interpretation of the Old Testament civil code."(8) Furthermore, "the reconstructionists in their mode of interpretation and application of the Old Testament do not appear to me to be sensitive to the progress of biblical theology."(9) But, of course, "Nothing that I just said is meant to deny that Israel's code is full of God's wisdom and is all applicable to our own culture. No area of life is untouched by God's law."(10)
Year after year, theonomists receive this sort of criticism. "No, we don't want Old Testament laws. Yes, these laws are valuable. No, there are no biblical blueprints. Yes, we must honor biblical principles. No, we must not appeal to the Old Testament law code for our civil laws. Yes, we must respect them. No, we should not be biblicists. Yes, we must pay attention to God's moral principles." It gets confusing.
Conclusion The parable of the good Samaritan deals with the question of loving one's neighbor. The Samaritan was the wounded man's neighbor because he helped the man when the opportunity arose. The opportunity arose because they were both travellers on the same road. The priest and the Levite were also travellers on that road, but they did not help. They refused to act as neighbors.
Jesus chose the highest ecclesiastical officers as His examples of how not to serve as neighbors. This deliberate provocation could not have been missed by members of both groups. He was making it clear that the concept of neighbor is broader than either race or confession. It has to do with shared circumstances and close proximity. It also has to do with need or weakness. It has to do with the golden rule. "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (Luke 6:31).
Footnotes:
1. A test site allows residents of the United States to identify their own zip code's five most common lifestyles, based on the less precise five-digit zip code (www.yawyl.claritas.com). The company's slogan is "You are where you live!"
2. Chapter 10, above.
3. Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, edited by William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academie, 1990), p. 275.
4. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), ch. 4.
5. Theonomy: An Informed Response, edited by Gary North (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), ch. 9.
6. Keller, p. 276.
7. Ibid., pp. 276-77.
8. Ibid., p. 288.
9. Ibid., pp. 288-89.
10. Ibid., p. 289.
If you are interested in receiving Dr. North's FREE monthly e-mail newsletter send an e-mail to:
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out.