He replied to him, "You have answered correctly;
do this and you will live."
The scholar asked Jesus about the way to inherit eternal life but Jesus did not respond with some new novelty or obscure ritual. Instead he asked the scholar what he himself already knew about the matter from the law. To this question the scholar gave, apparently, the correct answer. Eternal life was the result of putting love of God and neighbor first in one's life. Yet the scholar was not content with his own answer to his question. He couldn't leave things at so simple an answer because he was trying to test Jesus, to find out what was unique or special in his teaching. Yet from the initial answer it almost seemed as though Jesus' message wasn't anything new, anything that the scholar didn't already know. Perhaps another reason he couldn't leave off with his own answer was from a sense of his own limited ability to actually put the commandments into practice. He knew, perhaps, that his own love of neighbor was fairly restricted. And lest he be condemned by his own words he asked Jesus to define the category so that he could "justify himself", and then, hopefully be off the hook.
But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus,
"And who is my neighbor?"
The definition of neighbor that was revealed in the parable about the good Samaritan was not one that was restricted by the bounds of ethnicity or religion. It was not simply a matter of one's kin, nor even of those who lived in proximity to oneself. Rather it was mercy itself that created neighbors from those who might otherwise have no relation or even be enemies.
Which of these three, in your opinion,
was neighbor to the robbers' victim?"
He answered, "The one who treated him with mercy."
Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
Because mercy has the power to overcome division and sin everyone is potentially our neighbor. This means that the category neighbor is, potentially, unrestricted. And this means the call to love our neighbor as ourselves is, at least conceptually, unlimited. But this truth does not help us to justify ourselves. If anything, it first makes us realize how limited is our own ability to act with the mercy of the Samaritan, and how frequently we choose to pass by "on the opposite side" when we see someone in need. We may clothe it with all sorts of justification, even the facade of religion, like the priest and the Levite. But we should nevertheless sense that this response is inadequate.
A man fell victim to robbers
as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.
In order to respond to the call to mercy we must first realize the mercy we ourselves have been shown. We should recognize that we are the man who was robbed of our eternal inheritance by sin and the Devil and that Jesus was the traveler who saw us and was moved with compassion.
He approached the victim,
poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them.
Then he lifted him up on his own animal,
took him to an inn, and cared for him.
Jesus poured on us the oil of his Spirit, the wine of his Precious Blood. He himself carried us when he carried the cross and brought us into the inn of his Church for further healing and protection. The two coins of his human and divine nature were priceless, more than enough to be for any subsequent care we would require. And he himself will return to repay those who have faithfully cared for his own.
When we recognize the mercy we have been shown we won't be tempted to shrink from the task of showing mercy to others in the way that Jonah fled the call to preach to Nineveh. He tried to pass by on a very distant side of that road. Fortunately we see that God himself was did not abandon Jonah to his hardness of heart and he will not abandon us either. But we can perhaps avoid a journey in the belly of a fish if we choose to cooperate sooner rather than later. And we can do this in virtue of the mercy we ourselves have already received, and, in fact, continue to receive.
Out of my distress I called to the LORD,
and he answered me;
No comments:
Post a Comment