The above picture is of modern Jericho - picture taken from internet
From Jerusalem to Jericho
The Good Samaritan is one of Jesus’ most popular parables. Preachers often use it to encourage people to be unselfish, to think ahead and help others. I chanced across an old research paper title "From Jerusalem to Jericho" published n 1973 . I never had come across a parable of Jesus being examined in a psychological context and tested in a research setting. I have searched the web and am reproducing here one of the better summary of the research paper and also a bible commentary of the same parable. The researcher’s focus was the factors that affected the willingness to help a stranger while Jesus wanted to show the impossibility of finding a good neighbor.
Luke 10:30-37
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
But a Samaritan, as he travelled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins 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.”
Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?
From Jerusalem to Jericho
The Good Samaritan is one of Jesus’ most popular parables. Preachers often use it to encourage people to be unselfish, to think ahead and help others. I chanced across an old research paper title "From Jerusalem to Jericho" published n 1973 . I never had come across a parable of Jesus being examined in a psychological context and tested in a research setting. I have searched the web and am reproducing here one of the better summary of the research paper and also a bible commentary of the same parable. The researcher’s focus was the factors that affected the willingness to help a stranger while Jesus wanted to show the impossibility of finding a good neighbor.
Luke 10:30-37
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
But a Samaritan, as he travelled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins 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.”
Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?
|
Darley, J. M., and Batson, C.D., "From Jerusalem to Jericho": A study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior". JPSP, 1973, 27, 100-108.
| ||
A summary of the research article
This is the famous seminary experiment about the Good Samaritans.
Previous studies have failed to find a link between personality traits and the likelihood of helping others in an emergency. However, changes in the # of people present did have a big effect on behavior.
The parable of the Good Samaritan is an interesting example. What possessed the priest and the Levite to pass by the injured man by the side of the road? Possibly they were in a hurry and were filled with busy, important thoughts. Maybe the Samaritan was in less of a hurry. Or maybe the virtues that the religious leaders espoused were not something they followed themselves (unlike the Samaritan).
The researchers had three hypotheses:
1. People thinking religious, "helping" thoughts would still be no more likely than others to offer assistance.
2. People in a hurry will be less likely to offer aid than others.
3. People who are religions in a Samaritan fashion will be more likely to help than those of a priest or Levite fashion. In other words, people who are religious for what it will gain them will be less likely than those who value religion for it's own value or are searching for meaning in life.
Procedure
The recruited seminary students for a study on religious education. First they completed personality questionnaires about their religion (to help evaluate hypothesis #3). Later they began experimental procedures in one building and then told to go to another building to continue. On the way they encountered a man slumped in an alleyway (the victims condition is unknown -- hurt, or drunk?).
They varied the amount of urgency they told the subjects before sending them to the other building, and the task they would do when they got there. One task was to prepare a talk about seminary jobs, and the other about the story of the Good Samaritan. In one condition they told the subject they were late for the next task, in the other they said they had a few minutes but they should head on over anyway.
In an alleyway they passed a man sitting slumped in doorway, who moaned and coughed twice as they walked by. They set up a scale of helping:
0=failed to notice victim as in need
1=perceived need but did not offer aid
2=did not stop but helped indirectly (told the aide on their arrival)
3=stopped and asked if victim needed help
4=after stopping, insisted on taking victim inside and then left him.
5=refused to leave victim, or insisted on taking him somewhere
After arrival at the 2nd research site, they had the subject give the talk and then answer a helping behavior questionnaire.
Results
The amount of "hurriness" induced in the subject had a major effect on helping behavior, but the task variable did not (even when the talk was about the Good Samaritan).
Overall 40% offered some help to the victim. In low hurry situations, 63% helped, medium hurry 45% and high hurry 10%. For helping-relevant message 53%, task relevant message 29%. There was no correlation between "religious types" and helping behavior. The only variable that showed some effect was "religion as a quest". Of the people who helped, those who saw religion as a quest were less likely to offer substantial help than those who scored low on this statement. But later analysis revealed this may not be caused be real religious differences.
Conclusions
Ironically, a person in a hurry is less likely to help people, even if he is going to speak on the parable of the Good Samaritan. (Some literally stepped over the victim on their way to the next building!). The results seem to show that thinking about norms does not imply that one will act on them. Maybe that "ethics become a luxury as the speed of our daily lives increases". Or maybe peoples’ cognition was narrowed by the hurriedness and they failed to make the immediate connection of an emergency.
Many subjects who did not stop did appear aroused and anxious when they arrived at the second site. They were in a conflict between helping the victim and meeting the needs of the experimenter. Conflict rather than callousness can explain the failure to stop.
_______________________________________
A bible commentary of the parable
Jesus was teaching much more than a lesson in social responsibility. Let’s consider the context. Jesus was answering a lawyer who had asked, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (verse 25). This man was a religious lawyer, priding himself in his understanding of all 613 points of the Torah. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day had inherited a system that had turned obedience to God into an obstacle course, so strewn with picky dos and don’ts that it left the average person on a permanent guilt trip.
This approach contradicted what Jesus taught, and confrontation became inevitable. The lawyers, along with the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and others in religious leadership, were constantly trying to discredit Jesus. There was a motive behind the lawyer’s apparently innocent question. So Jesus let the expert speak first: “What is written in the law?... How do you read it?” (verse 26).
The lawyer knew the answer: “‘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, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’” (verse 27). “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live” (verse 28).
It was a good answer, as far as it went. But you know what lawyers are like. They are trained to look for some extenuating circumstance that might in some way limit the extent of the law. The lawyer knew that the command to “love your neighbour as yourself” was impossible to fulfil. So he thought he had found a loophole. “Who is my neighbour?” he asked Jesus. That is when Jesus gave his famous parable.
Jesus set his story on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, a distance of about 17 miles. Jerusalem was where the Temple was, the centre of the Levitical priesthood. The priests were the highest class of the Levites. They were supported by thousands of other Levites who served at lower levels, doing such tasks as keeping the altar fire going, lighting the incense, singing in the Temple chorus and playing musical instruments. When they were not on duty, many of these priests and temple workers lived in Jericho. They often travelled this road between Jerusalem and Jericho. Travel in those days could be hazardous. One stretch of the Jericho road was known as the “Way of Blood,” because so many people were robbed and killed there. This was where Jesus set the scene for his parable. People knew exactly where he was talking about.
In Jesus’ story, the first person to see the victim is a priest, but rather than get involved, he passes by on the other side of the road. He is followed by a Levite, a temple-worker. The Levite does the same—he passes by. Then along comes a Samaritan.
A what? Jesus would have caused a stir with that. The Samaritans were a mix of Jew and Gentile, and the Jews did not like them. They had names for Samaritans like “half breeds” and “heathen dogs,” and considered them to be spiritually defiled. The Jews of that time did not often hear the words “good” and “Samaritan” used in the same sentence. But in Jesus’ story, it is this outcast who stops to help. Not only does this Samaritan help, but he goes far beyond what most people do. He cleans the victim’s wounds with oil and wine, then bandages them. People didn’t carry first-aid kits back then. He likely would have had to tear up some of his own clothing to make a bandage. Next, he puts the injured man on his donkey and takes him to an inn. He takes two silver coins, a considerable amount in those days, and promises to reimburse the innkeeper for any further expense. This is an exceptional level of assistance, especially for a total stranger and someone who is supposed to be a social enemy. But the Samaritan did not let that stand in the way.
With this deceptively simple little story, Jesus impales the lawyer on his own hook. He asks him, “Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” (verse 36). Jesus has turned the question around. He is not asking, “Which people should I help?” He is saying: To answer the question, you need to put yourself into the shoes (or lack thereof) of the man who was beaten and left to die. The better question is: “When I need help, who do I want to help me?” Don’t you hope that the Samaritan will be a neighbour to you?
Who was a good neighbour? The answer is obvious, but the expert in the law didn’t want to say the word Samaritan, so he said, “The one who had mercy on him.” Then Jesus delivers the knockout blow: “Go and do likewise” (verse 37). Remember, this “teacher of the law” was from a class of people who prided themselves on how carefully they obeyed God. For example, they would not pronounce God’s name, considering it too holy to utter. They would even take a ritual bath to ensure purity before writing God’s name. Along with the Pharisees, they were fastidious about observing the law in every detail. The lawyer had asked what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus’ answer was, in effect, “You have to do the impossible.” Your love for others needs to extend far beyond what humans are capable of doing.
How could anyone be expected to live up to the standard of the Samaritan in this story? If that is what God expects, even the meticulous lawyer was doomed. Jesus was showing that humans cannot meet the perfect requirements of the law. Even those who dedicate themselves to it fall short. Jesus is the only one to fulfil the law in its deepest intent. Jesus is the Good Samaritan.
Jesus knew that there is nothing we can “do” to earn an eternity with a holy God. So he crafted his answer-story at two levels of meaning. On the surface, it made the point that people ought to love and do good to their enemies. But on a deeper level, it addressed the question of eternal life. To answer the question, we need to put ourselves in the place of the man who was beaten and left to die. He represents us—all humanity. The robbers correspond to sin and the forces of evil, the devil and his dominion. We do not have enough strength to combat these forces, and if we are left to ourselves, we will die.
The priest and the Levite represent the laws and sacrifices of the old covenant. They can’t help us. The Good Samaritan is the only one who can help. The wine and the oil correspond, roughly, to the blood Jesus shed for us and the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. That is what heals us. The inn could then represent the church, where God puts his people to be spiritually nurtured until he returns for them. Jesus pays for this ongoing need in our life, too.
Jesus used the lawyer’s question to show how inadequate for salvation even the best human effort is, and how wonderful and sure is his work of redemption for humanity. Jesus, and only Jesus, can rescue us from the “Way of Blood”—and he did it by way of his own blood.
Article published on 3 Oct 2016
by Benjamin Cheah
by Benjamin Cheah