Would a Good Samaritan Apply a Chokehold?

 

Would a Good Samaritan Apply a Chokehold?

                First, a bit of disclosure. I am a former Evangelical. I am a baptized Baptist. I attended a Bible College for one year. I have read the entire Bible in a couple of versions and have memorized portions of it. But like a former anything (former smoker, for example), the actions of current users or adherents is at least bemusing to me, if not disturbing. One of those actions is the pronounced habit of quoting Christian scripture to make a point. Unfortunately, the pushback some of these folks get for doing that comes from people who say things like "Your Bible is baloney," or "Isn't it nice that you believe in an invisible sky fairy."  Instead, those who inappropriately quote scripture should be challenged, not with ridicule and snark, but on the basis of the scripture itself. 

                A recent example of this is the rush to judgment in the New York City subway strangulation death of Mr. Jordan Neely, a black man,  by Mr. Daniel Penny, a white man. The facts are not at dispute, as the entire episode was captured on video. Mr. Penny held Mr. Neely in a prolonged chokehold until Mr. Neely died. Prior to this, witnesses claim that Mr. Neely was talking loudly. Mr. Penny was arrested about four days later then released on bond. He has been charged with manslaughter and will presumably stand trial. Once we get past the facts, the interpretation begins. 

                Mr. Penny has been called a "Good Samaritan" by many who profess to be both Christian and conservative. This list includes Governor Ron DeSantis and Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida. As of this date, a defense fund set up for Mr. Penny has raised somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million. The fund has a list of familiar names as contributors. I am not here to discuss that, however. My interest is in the first part: the Good Samaritan part. 

                The story of the Good Samaritan, as it has been interpreted in our society, involves a person who is otherwise not obligated to intervene in some situation, intervenes nevertheless. We have come to use the term over many years for situations like a motorist or pedestrian suddenly springing into action to render aid at the scene of a horrific accident. Or it could be someone standing in line at a store offering to pay for a purchase of a person short of the necessary funds (the tear-jerker country song called "The Christmas Shoes" would fit that category). Now, it is being applied to Mr. Penny, who, according to his advocates, stepped up to protect his fellow passengers from a threatening and possibly dangerous man who was acting erratically. Mr. Penny's detractors say that had he been black, and Mr. Neely white, Mr. Penny would have been arrested immediately and would probably still be held without bond. All of this is a matter for a court to decide. But was Mr. Penny acting as a "Good Samaritan?" Perhaps it would be useful to actually provide that parable of Jesus of Nazareth in context. 

                From Luke chapter 10, here it is. This is the only place in the four Gospels where this parable appears:

Luke 10: 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” 27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” 29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ 36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”  37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

                And that is the entire parable. But what does it mean? First, it is important to understand what the term “Samaritan” meant in context. In the context of the time, Samaritans were an ethno-religious group who claim they descended from the so-called “northern tribes” of Israel. They practiced a monotheistic faith akin to Judaism but were not accepted as full members by all Jews of the time of Jesus. In particular, they were not accepted by those who appointed themselves the religious and social leaders of the Jewish community of the time. These leaders are often referred to by Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels as priests, or scribes, or Pharisees, or lawyers, or teachers of the law. 

The reason the parable becomes striking, then, is that a person who is already discriminated against is the person who renders aid to the man who had been robbed, beaten, and left for dead on the side of the road. By Jesus’ telling, religious leaders had passed by previously and saw the victim, and simply walked by. The despised member of society was the one who recognized the need, gave of his own resources, and rescued the man. He was the one who had mercy. 

I grew up reading this, among the many other parables of Jesus. The meaning is not that opaque. At least it never used to be. Jesus meant to say that the religious leaders of his time were good to consult if you wanted someone to readily quote the scriptures from memory. They were good to consult if you wanted someone to tell you how you whom you should marry or how to raise your kids. But if you needed someone to spring into action in time of need, this crew was not so useful. On the other hand, perhaps a person already despised, by those who held themselves up as the authorities, actually possessed the inner compassion that caused them to see the need. They knew what it meant to have needs that society and its leaders ignored. 

What is my point? As a person who grew up Evangelical, I have seen more than my share of persons who quote scripture for every occasion. In fact, much of the time, such quoting is applicable. But during the past few years, we have also seen the rise of the scripture-quoting politician who on one hand wears the mantle of Christian in a very loud way (Jesus had some things to say about those folks in Matthew chapter 23, by the way), but when it comes to actually doing good for the person right next to them, they simply are of not much use. So if Ron DeSantis and Matt Gaetz want to contribute to Mr. Penny’s defense fund, there is not a lot any of us can do about that. However, if they are going to quote the parables of Jesus, perhaps they could actually understand the context. If anyone in this parable would have applied a chokehold, it probably would have been the first two passers-by, not the third.