Universal solidarity
An exegetical study of the parable of the Good Samaritan Luke: 10:25-37
A plan for a journey to Jericho…
The willingness to die for some people would be an expression of group solidarity. The willingness to die for humankind is an expression of universal solidarity. Compassion and love compel people to do everything for others. However, the person who says he or she lives for others but is not willing to suffer and die for them is a liar and is dead. Jesus was fully alive because he was willing to suffer to die not for a cause but for people.
I am here to begin my journey on the way to Jericho that I may understand my worldview and myself in my relation with the other people. Hope this journey would be a new experience. This parable has been interpreted in different ways throughout the church history. For a long time our church had been worried about charity but not liberation. The inspiration and the invitation of the study was ignited by the very words of Gutierrez, “To believe in the God who reveals himself in history and pitches his tent in its midst, means to love in this tent – in Christ Jesus –and to proclaim from there the liberating love of the father.”
Here I would like to look at this pericope from the perspective of liberation theology. When the poor people were suffering because of the organized oppression and structural domination, liberation theology emerged as a new phenomenon in order to organize the oppressed and work for their emancipation. Thus liberation theology proclaims the world that all are born in the image and likeness of God. For a person who is very much comforted by technological sophistication and material obsession this passage is a motivation for charity but for a person who struggles with techno-economic and socio-political hegemony is a call for prophetic commitment.
When the dynamic evolutionary process of experiencing God took aboard in a comfort zone of institutionalized and dominant sponsoring ideology, Liberation theology emerged as a pointer for the church to revisit the person of Jesus Christ radically in his historical context and contextualize His message with the day today life experience of the unjustly suffering humanity. It also questioned all the structural injustice and institutionalized crimes that crushed the face of human dignity. Thus, a great change evolved in the worldview of the Catholic Church however not so radical. It brought a tremendous amount of change and transformation in the third world countries, to begin with. The church that restricted itself to preaching the gospel piously, moved ahead to the realm of living gospel. It is journeying together with the suffering humanity. At this point the term ‘Anawim’ gained its real and historical importance. I personally believe in this liberative praxis. However I am aware that I should not go to the extent, saying that liberative praxis is the complete human endeavour. Our church today should not restrict itself only to the preaching and teaching ministries. It should move forward to journey with the suffering humanity and work for them to affirm that they are also in the image and likeness of God. This work of liberation is to be adopted from the particular historical context. With this consciousness, I began my journey through my seminar paper.
The study of my seminar is the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). This parable is special in the gospel of Luke. It is placed in the travel narrative (9: 51-19:27).I have divided this paper into 3 parts. First chapter is of context: second, of exegesis; and third of hermeneutics. Thus, I landed in a greater conscious self – mission with vision.
Chapter I: the Context of the text
The profundity of thoughts and pearls of wisdom of any work can be discovered very succinctly only when it is properly posited in its context. Thus the word of God which has been a liberative experience in a particular space and time is still inspiring because people always trace back to the original experience of the text. Ronald Rolheiser says,
The teaching of Jesus is so rich that none of us, the disciples it would seem, can carry it off as did the master. We each pick out parts selectively, end up consistent, but also much narrower than the master…in his teaching it’s more both / and than either /or. We struggle with that. It is easier to carry one truth or another than try to carry them all.
To understand the message of Jesus Christ more meaningfully it is very necessary to study the text with its context. Here I discuss the remote and proximate contexts of the text so as to understand the message of the text in its originality.
1.1. Remote:
Lucan community is gentile Christian community. “Luke’s Greek audience, Scythians would be outsiders equivalent to Samaritans.” He avoids Jewish pericopes that his community will not feel offended (Matthew 7:1-23). The main thrust is universalism. We could see this in many passages widely in the infancy narratives and throughout the gospel: (Genealogy) 3:23-38, (Magnificat) 1:46-56, 2:8-20; 2:14, 32; 7:9; 10:25-37; 17:11-19; 24, 47. Moreover, the ministry in Samaria is widely spoken of in Luke-Acts: Acts 1:8; 8: 1-13, 14, 25; 9:31; 15:3.
When compared with the synoptic tradition some specific features are presented in the gospel of Luke so as to emphasize his theological position. As John McKenzie points out, “the most paradoxical feature of Luke’s universalism is that Luke is less hostile to Jesus than Matthew, Mark, and John”. And of presenting the person of Jesus Christ, “Luke shows that he views the life, death, resurrection of Jesus as a complete unit; and he alone related the ascension of Jesus.”And the gospel of Luke is called ‘social gospel’. It avoids harsh words on disciples and grim sayings: Luke: 14:31, 4:12, and 9:43-48.
In the gospel of Luke Samaritan is not only included in the saving mission of Jesus Christ but moving further he is shown as a model Christian (Luke 17:11-18). Thus, the Gospel of Luke serves its purpose of universalism that is to bring the good news to gentiles.
1.2. Proximate:
“The beatitudes pronounced over the disciples who have seen and heard are now followed with a parentic counsel about eternal life, a counsel about the practical love of God and of one’s neighbour.” It is preceded by Jesus’ thanksgiving to God for his revelation to infants (disciples) but not the ‘wise’ of the Jewish society (Luke 10:21-24). The content of the revelation is not given here but following two pericopes (the Good Samaritan and visit to Martha and Mary) give the content.
It is followed by the Jesus’ flying visit to Martha and Mary (Luke 10: 38-42). Here Jesus praises Mary for her love of God (she sits and listens to Jesus). In the Good Samaritan parable Jesus shows Samaritan as a model for the love of neighbour.
Thus, there is a beautiful flow in the proximate context that the content of revelation is to inherit the eternal life. The inheriting eternal life is through the love of neighbour and love of God. Here the Samaritan becomes an example of love of neighbor whereas Mary as example of love of God. They are the revealers of God’s will. Thus, one can inherit the eternal life that is too in this very life itself. The beauty is the Samaritan is shown as a model but not Jew.
1.3. Structure: parallelism:
The structure of this pericope presents a parallelism. This pericope has two parts. In the first part there is a debate taking place between Jesus and the lawyer (v. 25-28) and in the second part Jesus includes a parable in the same structured debate. (v. 29-37). If we looked at them we could identify a parallel structure. In both parts the lawyers questions in order to trap Jesus and justify himself, but Jesus question put the lawyer into a trap by his own mouth. Finally Jesus gives a commandment to attain the eternal life on earth.
A. 25a - Intention of lawyer’s question A1. 29a -Intention of lawyer’s question
B. 25b - Lawyer’s question B1. 29b – Lawyer’s question
C. 26 - Jesus’ question C1. 30-36 – Jesus’ question
D. 27 - Lawyer’s answer D1. 37a – Lawyer’s answer
E. 28 - Jesus’ command E1. 37b – Jesus’ command
Chapter II: Exegesis
The very word ‘Samaritan’ bears its humiliating mark. Good Samaritan then for the Jews, means telling like good terrorists. This is placed in the beginning of the travel narrative. In this part, I will do the exegesis of this pericope verse by verse keeping the main theme of universalism at the back of my mind. Then I try to present the beautiful message treasured in.
2.1. Text: verse-by-verse:
I here choose to present some important points in each verse to extract the text meaning of this pericope. One special note by Fr. Pereira is that instead of a debate taking place in Jerusalem, this hostile questioning takes place in dangerous Samaria. The importance of Samaria is vivid in the gospel of Luke.
Verse 25: Lawyer:
The word lawyer literally means ‘Orator’. A person was trained in rhetoric who served as an attorney at law in a court trial. Those professionally trained to develop, teach and apply the Old Testament law. In the application of the law, the oral teaching of the people often assured great authority than the written law. Thus by the time of the New Testament the teachers of the law were in conflict with Jesus. And lawyer has a professional expertise/authority both in secular and religious sphere in Jewish context. Fr. Soares-prabhu says,
The lawyer was what we would call today a moral theologian. It was his job to derive relevant rules for human conduct from the immense mass of legislation that filled the old testament (the written law) and the great body of oral interpretation that had grown up around it, and was being handed down as ‘tradition of elders (the unwritten law).
Jewish Rabbi Akiba comments like this: “the study of law is of higher rank than practicing it.” Thus, lawyers were interested in the letter of law and justified the acts of people by the letter of law not by the spirit of law.
To test Jesus:
This appears in Luke 4:12 too. Matthew and Luke use this expression to show the hostile attitude of the lawyer through his question. But Mark expresses in a different way not of hostility. Therefore, he uses the word Scribe. Here the lawyer tests Jesus’ Jewish credentials because Jesus is the one who claims to speak the mind of God. So they wanted to check his hold in Jewish laws and practice. Charles says, “The lawyer’s question was not asked because there was a genuine desire to learn something but rather in order to test Jesus’ qualification to teach at all, as well as to test his knowledge on these issues.”
Teacher:
The reference to Jesus as teacher (Greek didaskale - teacher) must therefore be seen more as a tongue-and-cheek and a sarcastic address rather than a statement of genuine respect. Again, with the aim of justifying his authority over the study of law, he addresses Jesus as Teacher. The word, ‘teacher’ is mentioned in other place as well (Luke 3:12).
What must I do to inherit the Eternal life?
This question is very special to Luke. In Matthew the question is about the greatest commandment and in Mark the question is the first of all command but in Luke as it is above. The same question is repeated at the end of the travel narrative so as to show the Lucan material of travel narrative. Keith says the question could imply this, “Lord, having been granted eternal life through God, what may I do now to save and to promote God’s reign?”
What must I do?
Here Jesus emphasizes on doing. The question mode can be put in this way for better: what does law ask me to do in order to acquire merit or what must I do to acquire righteousness?
Inheritance:
“Reward belongs to those who belonged to the covenant people in Gen: 12:1-3”. And in Pauline letters, it is of the blessing of the age to come (Rom: 8:17, Eph1: 4, 3:6) in Jesus through the gospel.
Eternal life:
This combination of two words does not occur in Torah but in Luke –Acts (Luke 18:18, 30; Acts 13: 13: 46’48). Eternal life means that Life in the kingdom. It is an eschatological notion, first appearing in Dan 12:12 and becoming frequent in Jewish texts. Moreover, it expresses with the Jewish mind. Mark 12:28 concerns with the Mosaic Law so the question is which commandment is first of all. Since Luke’s audience is gentile Christians Luke phrases his question in such way that can easily suit his people. As a result, this question emerged with a force (Acts 16:30).
Verse 26: Law:
There were totally 613 regulations in the time of Jesus, “Moses had given Israel 248 positive commands, as many as, that is, as there are, by Jewish reckoning, parts in the body; and 365 prohibitions, one for each day of the year”.
Verse 27: You shall love…and with all your mind; and your neighbour:
This command is combination of two passages Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. However, Mark begins with Due 6:4 (Shema Israel). Luke leaves the first part of Shema Israel so as not to disappoint his community of gentile Christian.
The question raised about joining two commandments is from the lawyer’s lips in Luke but in Matthew and in Mark is from Jesus’ lips. So there is a question whether this commandment is prevalent even in pre-Christian Jewish tradition. Scholars show that a form of double command is found in the testament of twelve patriarchs: love the Lord and the neighbour.
It is also said, “It is even likely (early Jewish texts are hard to date) that the two commandments had been brought together in Jewish tradition prior to Jesus. What is distinctive is to allow this double commandment to stand alone as identifying the fundamental principles of Godliness”. Even if it were so, the meaning and interpretation of double command would be different from the perspective of Jesus.
You shall love:
First part of Jewish shema is not given (Deut 6:4) but in Mk so as to be effective to his gentile community. Moreover, with all your mind is added in all the three gospels. This clearly expresses that with the faculties of human and undivided dedication a person must worship God. LXX has introduced diamia (mind). The original Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 6:5 has heart, soul and might. Where the fourth comes is not clear. Probably it is a harmonization with the LXX by the gospel writer. Finally, it is all to emphasize effectively that we should worship God in totality.
The totality of personal life is in worshipping God:
Heart (kardia): responsive and emotional reactions of a human being.
Soul (psyche): the vitality and consciousness of a person
Might (ischys): the powerful and instinctive drive
Mind (dianoaia): the intelligent and the planning qualities.
The order heart, soul, strength and mind in Luke, and in Mark the last two is reversed mind and strength, and in Matthew only three are given and strength is left out.
And your neighbour:
It is taken from the holiness code of Leviticus chapter 17-26. This Love of neighbour is not self-love. “To love the neighbour as yourself does not mean to love the other as much as you love yourself but it does mean to love the neighbour in the way you would love yourself”. And “no love of neighbour is complete without that of one’s neighbour.”
Mt: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: you shall love your neighbour as yourself (added with the second is like it: a little less importance to the second)
Mk: The first is, Hear, O Israel; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, you shall love your neighbour as yourself. (Second command)
Lk: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself. (With and – both are of equal importance).
Verse 28: Jesus affirms the answer given by the lawyer. Jesus’ affirmation reveals to Luke’s readers that 10:27 is indeed the way to eternal life.
Do this and will live:
It is special to the theology of Luke. Here in this verse, “It is present imperative showing the continual nature of Christian commitment (Luke 9:23).”Also Jesus adds another Levitical teaching to it by saying ‘do this and life be yours (Lev: 18:5).
“Only the person who puts the commandment of love into practice will find life. The verb ‘zese’ may allude to Lev 18:5, which promises life to a person who obeys Yahweh’s statute and ordinances.” From Moses to Amos there have been 613 regulations and Amos reduces to one commandment. Seek me and you will live in Amos 5:4. In the New Testament writings too the same meaning of this phrase appears for example, in Gal 3:12 (doing the work of law you will live)- It is also a Lucan model.
Verse 29: Justifying himself:
It is a Lucan use. To justify himself :(16:5-rejecting God); 18:9- publican and Pharisee; 7:29- against the justice of God). The lawyer again uses his intelligence to put down Jesus. However, as we move, we see that he will fall back from the place of challenger to being challenged.
Who is my neighbour? : Who is worthy of being my neighbour?
Neighbour:
It is from the Hebrew word ‘ra ah’ meaning to associate with (pro 3:29). The neighbour is a fellow Israelite and a member of the community (Deut 10:19, Lev: 19:16). It is extended to an alien or a stranger residing in the land, but not the one who is passing by (Lev 19: 33-34). It is a tribal consciousness. It is a group solidarity. It is a group loyalty.
Verse 30: A man:
It is a Lucan use of the word. This expression is widely used in Luke-Acts of his parables (11:12; 12:16; 14:16; 15:11; 16:1, 19; 19: 12; 20:9) and miracles (14:12; Acts 9:33). A certain man here is understood as a Jew in its context.
Jerusalem to Jericho:
Jerusalem is the center of Jewish religion and Jericho is known as town of palm tree in the Old Testament in 2 Chro 28:15. However, it is also said that this is the city not same as the Jericho of the Old Testament, It was founded by Herod the great, and it was under his responsibility. This path is from mountain 2500 above sea level (Jerusalem) to 800 feet below sea level (Jericho). This path was notorious for its hazard. Remarkable is that priests are returning from the temple duty.
In the fifth century, Jerome calls it the red or blood way and on the 19th century it was necessary to pay safety money to the local Sheiks before we travel that way. And in the late early 1930s H.V. Morton tells us that people warned to go home before it was dark. Otherwise, a certain Abu Jildah may rob everything and escape to the hills and mountains.
Fell down in the hands of robbers…. stripped of…
Robbers: robbers hid in the mountains, rocks, desert along the road between Jerusalem and Jericho. They are highway men or bandits (as mentioned in 19:43 and 22:52). It was a normal happening that the robbers hide in the mountains and forest and attacking the travelers. ‘Stripped of’ shows that he was left unconscious and looked like a corpse. The way also refers to the ascent of adummim (blood) in Josh 18:17.
Verse 31: by chance:
It indicates a signal of hope. The sequence expected from the audience is Priest … Levi… Jew that the parable will evaluate the morality of the priest and an ordinary Jew. But the unexpected sequence forcefully enters as we move. That will be Priest…Levi…. to Samaritan. Thus, it is a challenge to the group consciousness of the whole Jewish community.
Priest:
Priests are the prime representatives of the Jewish religion. They are the symbol of leadership of the people and restricted by the purity regulations. They are from the tribe of Levi from the ancestry of Aronites, later Zadokites. By birth, they are priests without blemish. Their duty consists in offering sacrifice and temple maintenance. They should not have contact with the dead body unless it is of a close relative (Num 19:11-19; Lev 21:1-3).
However, it is also clearly noted that it is a failure on the part of the priest: “failure to distinguish between their formal religious practice and the covenantal obligation to help one’s neighbour.” And it is very striking to note: “Even the priests had an obligation to bury the neglected corpse.”
Passed by the side:
The priest and the Levi dare not go near the wounded man and check. The crucial point is that they are returning from their temple duty. So there is no point in rushing unless there is a fear of the attack by the robbers and a fear of contamination by the dead corpse. Their basic malady is “Lovelessness finds comforts in distance.”
Verse 32: Levite:
The third son of Jacob and Leah is Levi (Gen 29:34). He is the eponymous ancestor of the tribe of Levi. This tribe is later replaced by the tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh. It is not listed among the twelve in Num 1:5-15.
They are of non-Aronite decadency of Levi. They assisted the priests. They were guarding and serving the tabernacle (Num 3: 25-29). They police temple and cannot perform sacrificial acts. The role of Levites in killing the golden calf worshippers is clearly mentioned in Ex 32: 25-29.
Verse 33: Samaritan:
It was of greater importance in the United Kingdom. It was then the remnant of kingdom of Israel (1 Sam 19). Division came after the Babylonian exile when Assyrian settlement of mixed marriage came in force after the fall of the northern kingdom (2 kg 17:4).
The division reached its crucial point at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. They were of a mixed breed (2kg: 7:6-41), worshipped heathen gods, and accepted only Pentateuch. In addition, their temple is at mount Gerizim and it was considered the holy place for them because Abraham offered his son on the mount Gerizim, Melchizedek’s meeting-place, and Moses built first altar on mount Gerizim.
Later, the mount Gerizim was destroyed by John Hyrcanus in 128 BC. The tension was very high. The Samaritans were considered as neither neighbours nor capable of works of love. The slogan was also prevalent among the Jews that love the sons of light and hate the sons of darkness.
Ben Sirach speaks of the Samaritans as foolish people whom his soul detests and they are not even people. (Sir 50: 25-26). Jews were forbidden to say ‘Amen’ when prayer offered by a Samaritan. Mutual hatred was between them (John 4:9; 8:48).
It is interesting to note: when a Jew was accused of eating unleavened bread or violating Sabbath, he flew to the Samaritans. And when the Jews were in good fortune, Samaritans try to claim their ancestry from Israel. The beauty of the Samaritan in the parable is: “The defilement by dead body is also found in Samaritan Pentateuch but it did not hinder him to go beyond the letter of law and live out the spirit of law…Samaritan is presented as a paradigm of Christian conduct.” Thus, the derivation is: “Samaritan will inherit the eternal life, the reward promised to the covenant people.”
Verse 34: Good use of possession:
He used his possessions in a right way, as it was demanded from the followers of Jesus in Luke 6: 32-36; 16: 19-25, 21:1-4..,
Oil: it was used for softening the wounds (Is 1:6). In the New Testament, it is used for anointing the sick (Mark 6:13, and James 5:14).
Wine: it was used as an anti-septic. In the 2sam 16: 2, it was a drink for the fainted one.
Donkey: he used it to carry the wounded and stranded. It shows the desperate condition of the man.
Denarii: it was used for caring the helpless. It is enough for the basic need and lodging. It was a day’s wage (Mat 16: 19; 19:13). By the very fact that he has possession, he risked his life (he is also potential victim) and saved the wounded man.
I will repay: it has two connotations: Hand over to him something and a debt to be settled.
31-34: Direction:
Both priest and Levite: saw and passed by…neglect of the covenantal obligation to one’s neighbour - Hos 6:6 –10. Samaritan came near, saw and moved with pity and cared for him.
Verse 36: The paradigm shift:
The final question unmasks all his justification. “Mere neighbourhood does not create love, love does create neighbourliness. No definition of neighbour emerges from the example because such a cauistic question is really out of place. Love does not define its objects”
Here “The neighbour becomes the subject of love (V.36) than the object of acts of love.” The emphasis is on the quality of neighbourliness than the quality of those belonging to the category of neighbour. And we could understand from the words of Fitzmyer saying, “your neighbour is anyone who is in need with whom you are thrown into contact.”
There is a radical shift from group solidarity to universal solidarity and from “who is my neighbour” to “to whom I become a neighbour,” and from eternal life to life in itself now.
Verse 37a: the one who showed him mercy:
He is even not ready to pronounce the word Samaritan because he is not even included in the category of the gentiles. Thus was their hate-full attitude towards them.
Verse 37b: Go and do likewise:
Doing is important in the mission of Jesus and the life of Christians according to the gospel of Luke.
Go: It is used only once in Matthew, thrice in John but in Luke it is 12 times.
Do like wise: it is twice in Luke 3:11; 6: 31.
2.2. Message of the Pericope:
The thrust and the point of our departure is universalism. The inheritance of eternal life is in the very life itself. Hear the word of God (we are created in the image and likeness of God) and do it in this life itself (universal solidarity). Thus the sidelined were brought back to the mainstream in the kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed.
Love of neighbour is valued equal to love of God. In no way one can minimize the love of neighbour. The whole New Testament widely speaks the acts of love of neighbour than the love of God so as to present the mutual inclusiveness of the commandment of love of God and neighbour. Thus, it calls for a universal love.
Our service in the altar is not by birth but by the call or gift. Holiness is not by the nearness of space and time but by trans-space and time. It is the community of God’s people not based on ascription but granting of status based on actions. The Samaritan then participates in the covental compassion and faithfulness of God. It is not by the law we acquire righteousness but by love we are made righteous. It is not by conformism we bring meaning to our life but by humanism, we commend meaning to our life. When thinking about Samaritans it is described in this way, “No one expects them to change the order of things and no one expects them to look after the victims of the society since they themselves are its victims.” Thus, it is a call for the victims of the unjust systems (actually disorder) to get gathered to commune and to confront the unjust systems.
Here it is not the question of who is worthy to be my neighbour (group consciousness) but to whom I am a neighbour (universal consciousness). The group consciousness in a negative sense restricts the person within the group and makes him consider others as non- person or a threat. Therefore, Christians diffuse the experience of neighborliness(all) not neighbourhood (group). If a neighbour is the one to whom, I will be ready to extend help; a neighbour is also one who is ready to extend help to me.
Chapter III: Hermeneutics
The message of universal solidarity in this passage can be very significant in the context of caste system in our country. I try to work out this authentic and demanding message by recognizing the traces of group solidarity well established and well encouraged by the individualistic motivation and closed consciousness of many Christians. My journey is to arrive at the vision with which Jesus worked out in his context. Parable in this pericope serves a hermeneutical function. That is the interpretation of the formulation of law given by the experts.
3.1. A journey into Now: My context
The word “Dalit” is from the Sanskrit language, meaning “broken” “crushed” or “oppressed”, “torn asunder", “destroyed”. It includes all forms of oppressed people. It gains a new meaning. In a positive sense it is an expression of hope to recover their past self identity. And this word connotes the consciousness of our own unfree existence and outcast experience, which form the basis for a new cultural unity and Dalit ideology. This name, Dalit is a symbol of change, confrontation, and revolution.
Misguided and forgotten truth: Dalit conversion is “a search for improved social status, a greater sense of human dignity, self-respect, equality and the freedom from the clutches of the oppressive land owners.” Because of its identification with the Dalits it was called Parangis Margam---Samaritans of today Dalits. Thus, it is the opportune time to revisit our conception of the conversion of Dalits in our dominant societies. Now, we could trace out the essence and existence of Christianity when it sporadically spread in India. Christianity bore an indelible imprint of low caste religion. Christian Dalits are from a large segment among Indian Christians. Jesus Christ is happy about it but our priests today may not be very favourable to this.
“Dalits are always Dalits whatever religion they embrace and whichever Christian denomination they belong to. At present 70% of the Christian in India and around 60% of all Catholics are Dalits.” It is significant that the caste Hindus and Hindu Dalits treat and respect the Christian Dalits better than the caste Christians. The Christian Dalits are found to be subjected to caste discrimination more within the catholic village than outside.
“We still have many a priest and Levite, in our society who make very big claims about their importance as those who perpetuate and protect religious values, but have no concern for the thousands of victims along the roads which they travel.” Moreover, cultic priesthood is in full swing and holiness is understood as sexual purity and piety than spirituality. They are unbothered of accountability, commitment, and spirituality. To the worst, priests though appointed in Dalit parishes, are working for the betterment of their own people than that Dalit people.
Caste groups (purity matrix) by their social positions are mushrooming. The privileges of vocations and positions tracing back to caste solidarity is a stark reality- a normal event. Hereby priesthood is by birth not by call. Antonyraj questions our conscience posing provoking thoughts that lion’s share of opportunity, education…is given to the upper caste people and “We understand that vocation is from God but it boggles our mind why he should choose His priests from the non-dalits only. Are we not justified in asking following question: is God casteist or practice untouchability?”
The group solidarity among people’s consciousness is less acute than the priest’s consciousness- the so-called ‘holy people’. It is a divine truth that not by birth does one become an outcaste; not by birth, one does become a Brahma; but by deeds, one does become outcaste or Brahma (holy man).
The long awaited shift is, do not worry about the eternal life, but live out the life now by becoming like the Samaritan to the suffering humanity. Dalits are the Non-humans of our day.
3.2. A journey to redefine My-self:
To cause any change I need to conscientize myself of biased reality and I should be convinced of my praxis. Otherwise, I cannot commit myself for the cause. In this process the living words of Paulo Freire are convincing:
Conscientation is a probing of the ambience of reality. The more a person conscientizes himself the more he unveils reality and gets at the phenomenic essence of the object he stands in front of, to analyze it. For the same reason, conscientaisation without praxis, i.e. without action-reflections two paired, dialecticised elements permanently constituting that special way of being the world (or transforming it) is peculiar to man.
Arab saying goes like this: to have a good neighbour you must be one. My task is to check whether the caste ideology strongly imbedded in the minds of Christians today in their dealings, unconsciously guiding and influencing me in my attitude too. Thus, I should not be led by this cancerous ideology for my selfish motive and comfort-zone.
Hereby a few questions I must address in the process of becoming an authentic disciple of Jesus Christ. Do I identify myself with the broken people (non- persons of our time) or the breaking people? “We share their feelings because like us they are persons with feelings”. Do I prepare to stand by the broken people? If so, the repercussions follow forcefully are clerical-ostracization, labeled as problem-maker, revolutionary (negative sense) and even made vulnerable to an unjust suffering and cross. “Jesus was able to stand up and contradict the assumptions, customs and cultural norms of his society”.
3.3. The journey to actualize the redefined self:
“The need of the hour is to perceive the church and the society through the eyes of the Dalits and to convert ourselves to their cause, they cannot wait anymore. To them we cannot answer tomorrow.” It is the felt need for my diocesan level project. It is a challenge to all priests of my diocese to stand up and prefer convenience to conviction or conviction to convenience. The question is: whom are we siding with? When the group solidarity provides me with technological sophistication and material comforts I should stand rather stand firm not to fall prey to individualism-the slogan of consumeristic and globalized world.
The second question is to the priests and religious, who have committed themselves in the formation houses, teaching theology and other subjects, handling media (magazines, communication centers, media talks, and public forum (lawyers and spokespersons of minority): are they writing powerful messages for the Dalits, organizing the Dalits of our time for their rights, and fighting against the unjust structures to eradicate the cruelty done to their dignity? And the priests who are abroad: are they helping materially the priests who are working genuinely working for the cause of Dalits or banking for their own caste play in the diocese as any politician of our day?
“Many of our relationships would be improved if we sometimes pause to remind ourselves that the one we are with now is also person with his or her own thoughts and fears.” I should extend my horizon to go beyond my regionalism and caste identity. When my caste people force my identity based on caste rigourism it should go beyond my caste group and I should help them go beyond the group solidarity.
I should take an effort to table with the people of different groups. It will be a hallmark of universal solidarity. Human dignity is sacred than the sacraments. This implies that Human dignity is divine. And in other words human dignity in itself is a sacrament. Here I should also make an effort to appreciate the values and the Christness present in the people of other religions. To my surprise, many people of other religions and the liberative movements too live out Christian values and many Christians participate in the ceremonies but do not live out the values.
My special attention and constructive evaluation is to be aimed at the old people who are the governing principle in sowing the seed of the blood-sucking and life-devastating ideology of group solidarity. I have to help people to revisit their poisonous stories in use that are consciously created to be imbibed by children and the castic- dehumanizing ideology consciously and unconsciously that has been handed over to children. Thus, once this ideology gets embedded in their minds it takes its monstrous killer-form as they grow.
The catechism I teach, the children is to be reformulated in such a way that children at least get the glimpse of authentic spirituality and then I can engage in discussion with youth and matured conscious people who can differentiate between piety and spirituality. Thus, they will be able to comprehend and participate in the promotion of neighbourliness.
Seminars could be organized for women and thereby sow the seed of humanness and universal love could be shown. Since women are of compassionate heart when it is explained with spirituality and human experience, they could become promoters of universal love. Thereby, it will be a point of departure in the society for true neighbourliness that Jesus lived out.
My mission consciousness: I should have an ideological clarity in the conscience about the justified injustices carried out without any disturbance specially the institutionalized violence (caste system, poverty, illiteracy..,): “it is violence because it effectively deals in negation of and contempt for human life. It is institutionalized because it is not something fleeting or occasional, but a social system built on, institutionalized in, the death of the poor for the profit of the few.” Samaritan risked his life to help the needy/others in order to become a neighbour. As Nolan beautifully explains the paradox of compassion (to suffer with): “compassion destroys suffering by suffering with and on behalf of those who suffer.” When I work to remove the unjust suffering and oppression of the people I have to suffer in the process. It is the meaning of Jesus’ suffering.
It is also very necessary and inevitable that I should organize people and make them involve, otherwise there will be no radical change. Only the communion of the oppressed can deepen my commitment by their presence and their very being. Paulo Freire provides good insights on this saying, “Involvement is more than commitment: it is a critical insertion into history in order to create it, to mould it. And so when an oppressed individual sees he is oppressed, if he does not set out to do something to transform the concrete oppressing reality, he is not historically committed, and thus he is not really conscientized.”
At the end of my journey…
The journey I traveled through, however tiresome, yet worth journeying too. I could cull out the values treasured in this passage. I wondered how liberative it is. One thing I am sure that it challenged my worldview and myself. And I could imagine how this pericope would have been a liberative one for the victims of the structured injustice if it was rightly proclaimed. Here I could remember the words of Gustavo, saying, “ The only faith life is the one the scriptures call “witness” and witness is borne in works.” And “To believe is to practice.” Most of the time, I stop with believing because practicing is challenging and life-demanding. This challenge is from the closed systems that grow more and more violent as they approach their inevitable end and that may suck my blood in my praxis.
The question is: to whom I am a neighbour is closely related to taking the cross and following Christ (do likewise). Following Christ in this historical situation of discrimination and structuralized oppression of Christian dalits by non-dalit Christians is in the inspiring and life promoting words of Boff. He shares,
To carry the cross as Jesus carried it, then, means taking up solidarity with the crucified of this world-with those who suffer violence, who are impoverished, who are dehumanized, who are offended in their rights. To carry the cross as Jesus carried it means to defend these persons, and to attack the practices in whose name they are made non-persons. It means taking up the cause of their liberation, and suffering for the sake of this cause. This is what it means to carry the cross. Jesus’ cross and death too were the consequences of such a commitment to the deserted of this world…to follow Jesus is, to take his path, pursue his cause and achieve his victory.
If not I, who? …If not now, when? …If not here, where? I should live committed and convinced life here and now. It is life of mission with a vision Jesus lived (Luke 4: 18-19). Helen Keller was once asked by one of the reporters: what is worse than having no eyesight? She replied, ‘having eye sight without vision is worst’.
Bibliography
Commentaries
Balch, David L, Luke (Eerdmans commentary on the bible), Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing company, 2003.
Barclay, William, The gospel of Luke, Bangalore: Theological publications in India, 2006.
Bauer, Johannes B., Humility to righteousness (Encyclopedia of biblical theology, Vol: 2,) London: Sheed and Ward, 1970.
Buttrick, George Arthur (Edi), The interpreter’s dictionary of the bible, New York: Abington press, 1962.
Culpepper, R. Alan, The gospel of Luke (The new interpreter’s bible, Luke and John, Vol: IX), Nashvile: Abington press, 1995.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The gospel according to Luke X-XXIV, (The anchor bible, Vol: 28A), New York: Doubleday and company, 1985.
Franklin, Eric, Luke (The oxford bible commentary), New York: University Press, 2001.
Gordond, Fee, The Gospel of Luke (The new international commentary on New Testament), Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.
Manser, Martin H., Dictionary of Bible themes, Grandrapids: Zondervan publishing house, 1999.
McKenzie, John, Dictionary of the Bible, Milwaukee: The Bruce publishing company, 1965.
Nolland, John, Luke 9:21-18:34 (Word biblical commentary, Vol 35B), Texas: Wordbooks publisher, 1993.
Oyin Samuel Abogunrin, Luke (International bible commentary), Minnesota: The liturgical press, 1998.
Ream, Merlin. D, Levites and Priests (Anchor Bible Dictionary, K-N, Vol: 4), New York: Double day, 1992.
Stein, Robert H, The gospel of Luke (The New American commentary), Nashville :Broad man press, 1992.
Timothy Johnson, Luke, The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina, Vol: 3), Louvain: Liturgical press, 1991.
Vincent, Marvin R, Word studies in the New Testament, Vol: I, New York: Hedrickson Publishers, 1988.
Books
Byrne, Brendan, Hospitality of God, Collegeville: Liturgical press, 2000.
Danker, Frederick W., Jesus and the new age, Philad: Fortress press, 1988.
Nickel, Keith F, Preaching gospel of Luke, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox press, 2000.
Nolan, Albert, Jesus before Christianity, Mumbai: St. Paul’s press, 2007.
Nolan, Albert, Jesus today, Mumbai: St. Paul’s press, 2007.
Pereira, Francis, Jesus the human and humane face of God, Mumbai: St. Paul’s press, 2000.
S.G. Wilson, Luke and the law, New York: Cambridge university press, 1983.
Soares-Prabhu, George M., Biblical spirituality of liberative action, (the collected writings of George M. Soraes-Prabhu, Vol: 3, Kuthirakattel, Scaria.., ed.,) Pune: Jnana- Deepa Vidyapeeth, 2003.
Articles
Amjad-Ali Charles, “The parable of Good Samaritan,” Al-mushir, Vol: 31, No: 3, Autumn 1989, 87-97.
Antonyraj, “The Dalit Christian reality in Tamilnadu”, Jeevadhara, Vol: 22, No: 128, March 1992, 95-111.
Boff Leonardo, “Suffering born of struggle against suffering”, Voices from the third world, Vol: 13, No: 2, December 1990, 145-170.
Boff, Leonardo, “Trinitarian community and social liberation”, Cross Currents, Vol: 38, fall 1988, 289-308.
Devaraj D, “Dalit Christians and their struggle for liberation”, Vaiharai, Vol: 5, No: 3&4, Sep&December 2000, 45-65.
Freire Paulo, “Conscientation”, Month, Vol: CCXXV, No: 1281, May 1974, Pg: 575-578.
George M. Soraes-Prabhu, “The table fellowship”, Jeevadhara, Vol: 22, No: 128, March 1992, 140-159.
George Maliakal Rosie, “Better Samaritan”, Indian journal of spirit, Vol: 3, No: 2, June 1990, 199-208.
Gueriviere De la Paul, “Caste and Christians”, Jeevadhara, Vol: 11, No: 62, March 1981, 157-171.
Gutierrez Gustavo, “From exclusion to Discipleship”, Concilium, No: 4, August 1994, 81-90.
Gutierrez Gustavo, “Speaking about God”, Concilium, No: 1, February1984, 27-31.
Gutierrez Gustavo, “The poor proclaim the gospel”, Voices from the third worlds, Vol: 9, No: 4, December 1986, 34-40.
Gutierrez Gustavo, “The violence of a system”, Concilium, No: 2, December1980, 93-100.
James Massey, “Christian Dalits in India”, Religion and society, Vol: 34, No: 3, September1990, 40-53.
James Massey, “Christian Dalits: a historical perspective”, Journal of dharma, Vol: 16, No: 1, Jan-Mar 1991, 44-60.
Japhet s., “Christian Dalits: a sociological study on the problem of Gaining new identity ”, Religion and Society, Vol: 34,No: 3, September 1987, 59-87.
Koonthanam George, “Yahweh the defender of the Dalits”, Jeevadhara, Vol: XXII, No:128, March 1992. 112-123.
M. Gnanavaram, “Dalit theology and the parable of the good Samaritan”, Journal study for New Testament, Issue: 50, June 1993, 59-83.
Rolheiser Ronald, A spiritual columnist from 1999 until today, Web: www. Ronald Rolheriser.com, columns: 2002, 2007 and Dec 2008
David L. Balch, Luke (Eerdmans commentary on the bible), (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing company, 2003), 1127.
Cf. Gordond Fee, The Gospel of Luk (The new international commentary on New Testament), (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 427.
Cf. Francis Pereira, Jesus the human and humane face of God, (Mumbai: St. Paul’s press, 2000), 179.
George M. Soares-Prabhu, Biblical spirituality of liberative action, (the collected writings of George M. Soraes-Prabhu, Vol: 3, Kuthirakattel, Scaria.., ed.) (Pune: Jnana- Deepa Vidyapeeth, 2003), 65.
Cf. John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:3 (Word biblical commentary, Vol 35B), (Texas: Wordbooks publisher, 1993), 582.
Keith F Nickel, Preaching gospel of Luke, (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox press, 2000), 120.
Cf.Fitzmyer.., The gospel according to Luke X-XXIV (The anchor bible, Vol: 28A).., 880.
Cf. Fitzmyer, The gospel according to Luke X-XXIV (The anchor bible, Vol: 28A).., 880.
Cf. Fitzmyer, The gospel according to Luke X-XXIV (The anchor bible, Vol: 28A).., 879.
Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:3 (Word biblical commentary, Vol 35B)..,585.
Cf. Fitzmyer.., The gospel according to Luke X-XXIV, (The anchor bible, Vol: 28A).., 880.
Fitzmyer, The gospel according to Luke X-XXIV (The anchor bible, Vol: 28A).., 878.
Cf. Robert H Stein,, The gospel of Luke (The New American commentary), (Nashville :Broad man press, 1992), 316.
Cf. Johannes B. Bauer, Humility to righteousness (Encyclopedia of biblical theology, Vol: 2), (London: Sheed and Ward, 1970), 613.
Cf. Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the new age, (Philad: Fortress press, 1988), 222.
Cf. William Barclay, The gospel of Luke, (Bangalore: Theological publications in India, 2006), 139.
Cf. Robert H Stein The gospel of Luke (The New American commentary), (Nashville: Broad man press, 1992), 317.
Cf. Fitzmyer, The gospel according to Luke X-XXIV (The anchor bible, Vol: 28A).., 888 & 887.
Cf. Stein, The gospel of Luke (The New American commentary).., 318.
Cf. Balch, Luke (Eerdmans commentary on the bible).., 1127.
Balch, Luke (Eerdmans commentary on the bible).., 1127.
Cf. Fitzmyer.., The gospel according to Luke X-XXIV (The anchor bible, Vol: 28A).., 888.
S.G. Wilson, Luke and the law, (NY: Cambridge university press, 1983), 15.
Cf. Stein The gospel of Luke, (The New American commentary..,596.
Cf. Gordond, The Gospel of Luke (The New international commentary on New Testament).., 425.
Cf. M. Gnanavaram, “Dalit theology and the parable of the good Samaritan”, Journal study for New Testament, Issue: 50, (June 1993), 82.
Paulo Freire, “Conscientisation,” Month, Vol: 7, No: 5, (May 1974), 576.
Gutierrez, “The violence of a system”, Concilium, No: 2, (December1980), 94.
Freire, “Conscientisation,” Month.., 576.
Leonardo Boff, “Suffering born of struggle against suffering”, Voices from the third world, Vol: 13, No: 2, (December 1990), 165 - 169.
