The Kingdom of God is Like . . .

Chapter 1

by Fr. Thomas Keating

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.'" (luke 10:30-35)

    To understand the full meaning of the parable of the good Samaritan, we need to be aware of the Jewish hierarchical society of the time. The priest, the Levite, and the ordinary Israelite or layperson were the familiar triad of that society. Sacred persons, places, and things were rigorously separated from the profane. Those who belonged to Israel--insiders, were sharply distinguished from those who were not--outsiders.

    Samaritans were not only looked upon as outsiders, but as the mortal enemies of the nation of Israel and apostates from the Jewish religion. They derived from the northern tribes of Israel and had split off from the rest of the nation during King David's reign. A rabbinical text of the time states that "one who eats the food of Samaritans is eating the food of swine," thus equating Samaritans as apostates from Judaism. For this parable's original audience, a Samaritan was the epitome of ultimate corruption.

    As the parable begins, we hear that a traveler from Jerusalem to Jericho, presumably an Israelite, has been beaten up by robbers and left half dead by the roadside. Along come the various representatives of the hierarchical structure of that society. A priest sees the man and passes by. A Levite, a step down on the hierarchical ladder, also passes by.    

    The reason why the first two pass by the victim is not addressed. The law commanded that priests and Levites were not to bury the dead apart from their next of kin. But in this case the man was "half dead," so they had no excuse to pass him by. The hearers would not be likely to identify with these two people and their merciless conduct. But neither would they be inclined to identify with the victim who was beaten up. The buildup of suspense focuses on who the next person coming down the road is going to be. Given the values of the Jewish society of the time, it has to be an Israelite layperson who will appear in the role of hero and bind up the wounds of the injured man. Then the hearers can all go home reinforced in their cultural mindsets.

    The plot is designed to encourage the expectation of the Israelite savior. But who shows up coming down the road? A Samaritan, the mortal enemy of the Jewish nation and religion.

    To get an idea of how shocking this reversal of expectations would be for the original hearers, you may recall a movie entitled Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. In this film one of the principals is an editor of a liberal newspaper and a vigorous promoter of civil rights. His wife is in complete sympathy with his liberal views. They have a beautiful daughter upon whom they both dote ad who dotes on them. One day the daughter announces that she has met a marvelous young man and that they have just become engaged. She expatiates loud and long on how much he is in full accord with all the social issues to which her father and mother are devoted. The parents are excited and say, "Well, bring him to dinner! We want to meet him!"

    When the appointed day arrives and the engaged couple come to the door, the daughter rushes in first and embraces her beloved parents exclaiming, "I just can't wait till you meet him!" The audience has been built up to the same high pitch of expectancy to which the hearers of the parable were led before the appearance of the Samaritan. In this case, the parents are expecting a wonderful new addition to the family, one who will support their intense social concerns and projects. as the camera focuses on the entrance, in strides a tall, strapping, handsome black man, all smiles and ready to plunge into the arms of his prospective in-laws.

    The camera then switches to the parents. We see the delighted expression on their faces fade with the suddenness of night descending in a deep canyon. The event has triggered something very unsettling for them. It is clear that on the conscious level they are very concerned about civil rights and social issues, but on the unconscious level their emotional values are being suddenly and severely confronted. This scene immediately raises the question, Just how open are they to equality with the black race? Clearly not to the point of welcoming a Black man into the family. Their own identification and emotional investment in the values engendered in them by their cultural conditioning has been hidden from them until now. On the conscious level they are all for civil rights. On the unconscious level they are not prepared to accept the possibility of cross-cultural grand-children. The moment of truth having arrived, they react with horror. From the perspective of their deepest emotional values, the young man represents monumental corruption. The unexpected often shows what our secret values really are.

    To return to the parable of the good Samaritan, the hearers of Jesus' story are eagerly waiting to see who the next traveler is going to be on the road to Jericho. The clever design of the narrative has eased them into the expectation that it will be an Israelite layperson, on the lowest rung on the social ladder but still one of their own and hence acceptable To their horror, the next travel turns out to be a Samaritan! After the shock their first thought is, "He will surely finish off the poor guy!"

    The Samaritan, however, starts ministering to the wounded man, pouring oil and wine into his wounds. He takes the injured man to an inn and pays for his stay. The the story ends, leaving the hearers without anybody in the story with whom to identify. they cannot identify with the priest, the Levite, or the victim, and it is inconceivable for most of them to identify with the Samaritan. that would be to accept the compassion and service of their mortal enemy. An impossible choice! for these hearers, the story must simply be untrue or makes no sense.

    The message that is being communicated in this parable is that the kingdom of God knows no political or religious boundaries. The old maps of Israelite society are not relevant in this new kingdom. In the kingdom that Jesus is preaching, there are no rigid barriers between insiders and outsiders. More striking still, the temple in Jerusalem, center of the sacred in the popular mind, is no longer the sole criterion for holiness. In the person of the good Samaritan, the former universally accepted and unquestioned social and religious boundaries are swept away.

    A favorite practice of the ancient Mediterranean cultures was to set up criteria for deciding who was in and who was out. In the kingdom revealed by Jesus, there is no way of deciding who is an insider and who is an outsider. This teaching must have sounded incredible for the people of that time who knew no other categories of judgment than the accepted social and religious distinctions. The great insight of early Christianity was that the kingdom of God is open to everyone. As Paul stated it, "There is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile, slave or free, male or female."

    The movie described earlier is a modern parable dealing with basically the same issue. The implications of Jesus' teachings are especially apt in our time, because humanity is moving toward a global society with interaction among peoples in every conceivable way: economic, social, political, religious. The interiorization of Jesus' teaching about the unity of the human family as the most urgent expression of the will of God, must upstage every other value and consideration. Otherwise, violence, denial, and hypocrisy will abound.

    The Samaritan in the parable was not rewarded. The kingdom of God is manifested in showing love whether or not it is accepted or its compassion appreciated. Divine love is its own reward. It is also irresistible. It keeps flowing until it finds someone who will receive it.

    Would the first hearers of Jesus ever have understood the kingdom of God unless the one who came down the road was a Samaritan instead of the expected Israelite? And will we ever overcome our various forms of denial unless we are confronted by opposition or tragedy? The kingdom of God may be most active in what is most unacceptable to us, such as the dark side of our personality and the humiliation of acknowledging our mixed motivation at work even in our best intentions and in the service of others. Grace brings us to an ever-increasing awareness that under certain circumstance, we are capable of every evil. If the circumstances of our lives were challenged by starvation, serious illness, or a certain level of competition for money, prestige, position, love, or power, what would we actually do?

    The Samaritan represents what we identify as monumental corruption. Our unquestioned values are profoundly undermined. We are forced to acknowledge the goodness of those we detest or distrust--perhaps even to accept compassionate service from them. The kingdom of God seeks to enter our lives just as they are. God wants us to show mercy, to take down doors, windows, and useless barriers of every kind. This is the message of the Samaritan, of the person or event that appears to us to be unmitigated evil--the master disguise in which God enters our lives in the fullest possible manner.

    Jesus' parables leave the hearers with unresolved questions. The parable of the good Samaritan asks the question, "What is your idea of the kingdom of God?" Jesus' idea of the kingdom did not match the popular one of his time. In his view, the social map of first-century Palestinian culture is no longer a suitable vehicle for transmitting the kingdom of God.

    Where does that leave the hearer? Perhaps with the question, "Do I want to live in this kingdom?"

    To enter into the kingdom of God is to move beyond social expectations. Jesus identifies the action of the kingdom with the compassion of the Samaritan. The fact that  the Samaritan is not converted suggests that the kingdom is not limited to religious attitudes or mindsets. Moreover, our supposed enemy may turn out to be our greatest benefactor.

    According to this parable the kingdom of God has no fixed social, ethnic, racial, nationalistic, economic, or religious boundaries. There are no insiders or outsiders, no elite or non-elite. The abba whom Jesus reveals is the God of the human race as a family. Everyone must be concerned about everyone else. Unconditional love is the name of the game.

More information can be obtained by reading the book The Kingdom of God is Like . . .by Fr. Thomas Keating. It is offered in our Book Store.