When we read one of the most powerful of parables in the Gospel of Luke, the Good Samaritan, we could highlight five characters within the story itself.  One can identify the robbers, the victim, the passers-by, the Samaritan and the innkeeper.  Clearly, our attention most often concentrates on the Samaritan, but at different times I have wondered what the setting and the other figures teach us.  I ponder: to what religious group did the victim belong, Samaritan or Jew; in which direction were the passersby (the priest and the Levite) traveling, toward Jerusalem or away from Jerusalem; why were there two passersby who act the same way, did their religious ranking have meaning; I also wonder about the itinerary of the Samaritan, in what direction was he going; how eager was the innkeeper to care for the victim, how eager to trust the Samaritan, what was the innkeeper’s religion?  To tell the truth, I think that the consideration of these elements of the story can contribute to added reflections.  Yet, as far as I can determine, the story itself does not offer more information.  Perhaps Jesus intended that dynamic to add to the depth and application of a parable.

Let me take a single item and ask what it might contribute to the lesson of the parable: the passersby.  I wonder if their action connects with the earlier response that the “scholar of the Law” returns to Jesus regarding the great commandment:

“You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” (10:27)

And so, the two great directives: love God and love neighbor.  Where might those instructions fit in the parable?  We might ask whether the victim is a Samaritan or a Jew, and that might influence the decision of the passersby.  (Just as it might color the analysis of the situation by the Samaritan.)  In any case, the victim is bleeding.  Let us say that the passersby are heading to Jerusalem for worship.  Touching a Samaritan, or a dead body, or having contact with blood would make them ritually unclean and unable to participate in liturgical services for a period.  Perhaps, their fear of impurity and its consequent separation from worship in the Holy City, made them ponder: do I act out of love of God or love of neighbor in this circumstance.  Perhaps, since they could not do both at the same time, they determined that “love of God” was to be preferred and so they pass by the victim.

I do not mean to seem playful with this central Gospel story of Jesus.  I just think that when we allow ourselves to reflect on it from different perspectives, we can find more food for thought.  We might see more deeply the way in which the two great commandments of the context enter the interpretation of the parable.  We could bring other questions to this story.  They can broaden its lessons.

As Vincentians, in the current reflection, we might hear in the parable of the Good Samaritan an application of a core teaching: “leaving God for God.”