• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

FairMormon

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Come, Follow Me Resources

  • Find Answers
  • Blog
  • Media & Apps
  • Conference
  • Bookstore
  • Archive
  • About
  • Get Involved
  • Search

Immigration and the Good Samaritan

June 12, 2011 by Ben McGuire

In the new statement on immigration published by Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [1], we find this comment:

“The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.”

I was reminded when I read this statement of a passage in the New Testament. In Luke 10, we read the parable of the Good Samaritan. Personally, I don’t believe it is a parable at all. It follows a pattern that I recognize elsewhere as a legal debate in which a question is asked, and then various examples are raised in which the question might occur – and those examples move from the most difficult and unusual to the most common and immediate [2]. Our narrative starts with this introduction:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? (vss. 25-26)

What is the purpose of this exchange? In such a setting the lawyer would approach Jesus and ask a question. The lawyer is challenging Jesus. He already has an answer to the question (it says he was there to tempt Jesus and not to learn), and the underlying supposition is that he will try to embarrass Jesus or show him up by getting a response and then giving a better one. So Jesus responds to the question with a question of his own (part of the normal tactics for these discussions) – Jesus asks, how do you understand the law? And so the lawyer responds:

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? (vss. 27-29)

So the lawyer provides a very good answer (one in fact that Jesus himself uses in response to the priests and elders – Matt. 22:36-40). But, the lawyer wants further the discussion (he still has a trap in mind), so he asks Jesus who that neighbor is. Why is this question important? Much of the Law of Moses is dedicated to distinguishing between Israel and everyone else. Different rules applied when dealing with an Israelite than with strangers or foreigners. Again, we assume that the lawyer has some idea of how he would answer this question, but the question he is asking is where do we draw the line? This is a question about exclusion. Who does the Law of Moses apply to?

How does Jesus respond? He provides a test case for the lawyer to consider:

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and who wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. (vss. 30-31)

So, what is the nature of the question? A man traveling from Jerusalem could be just about anybody. The venue itself doesn’t suggest whether or not that man was an Israelite. He has no clothes (which presumably could function to help identify the man). But more than this, the one indicator that would indicate that he could be an Israelite is now in plain sight. Is he circumcised? If he wasn’t, the priest could leave him there and the stipulation in Leviticus 19:18 (to love your neighbor as yourself) wouldn’t apply. Even if he were circumcised, there wouldn’t necessarily be resolution. After all, the Samaritans were circumcised as well, and they certainly traveled the road between Jericho and Jerusalem. The man is half dead, (unconscious) so he cannot simply be asked if he is an Israelite.

As a priest, he might consider the implications of Leviticus 21:1-4 which makes it sinful for the priest to touch a corpse. There were other legal considerations, and of all the Israelites, the question in the case of the Priest would be the most difficult, since he would have the most rules to work his way through when weighing the different outcomes. Jesus has then posed his lawyer challenger with a difficult legal question to be figured out – is the priest justified in moving to the other side of the road and ignoring the man in the ditch? And the lawyer, who has, himself, come to challenge Jesus will see this as an appropriate challenge.

Jesus follows this up then with the next case to be considered. It is the same situation, but with a Levite, the cultic responsibilities are a bit less than that of the priest (and so a little less difficult to determine a resolution):

And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. (vs. 32)

The Levite has similar concerns to the priest (although the issues with Leviticus 21:1-4 could be removed from the equation although other similar restrictions like Numbers 19 would still apply). In fact, from the perspective of the lawyer, this is the distinction that Jesus seems to want to introduce, going from most complex to less complex, to simplest situation. So the implied question too here is, was the Levite also justified in ignoring the man (in not applying Lev. 19:18).

Finally, we get to a third test case. At this point, the lawyer is expecting the introduction of the Israelite with the least restriction – the common Israelite. After all, he still understands that we are asking the question – is the man in the ditch the neighbor to the priest, to the Levite and now, potentially to the common Israelite. And here, Jesus pulls the rug out from under the lawyer’s feet:

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. (vss. 33-34)

Jesus has completely altered the discussion. Of course, it is completely natural that a Samaritan would walk down that road (we have already determined that it is this issue which in part forms the basis for discussion – was the half dead man at the side of the road an Israelite or a Samaritan?) And the Samaritan acts out of compassion (and not just a little compassion – the details lead us to understand that what he did was neither quick or cheap). Now we could suppose for a moment that Jesus could return to the original discussion that the lawyer has envisioned. He could ask, “If the Samaritan acts with compassion on the man, are the Priest and the Levite still justified in not treating the man as a neighbor?”, but instead he asks the lawyer:

Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. (vss. 36-37)

So we start by asking who a neighbor is, and we end up by illustrating what a neighbor does. And in the process, Jesus has challenged the whole legalistic process of identifying a neighbor. And rather than contributing to a legalistic identification, he has made a neighbor into someone who helps those in need. In a sense, Jesus hasn’t embarrassed the lawyer by his questions, he has embarrassed the Law of Moses.

And this brings me back to the official position of the Church as presented in the statement released by the Public Affairs Office. I think that too many people in our society today are interested in being the lawyer. They want to have lines drawn. They want to know exactly where their obligation to love our neighbors as ourselves ends. They want to do this in the abstract – to walk by on the other side of the road so to speak so that they aren’t faced with the reality that their decisions are creating. As the statement notes:

“The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved.  This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage.”

We can focus on what might or might not be legal (and on occasion we may even find ourselves in positions to change or affect what might or might not be legal). We can engage in sophistry – we might suggest that because this statement hasn’t come from the First Presidency in General Conference that it isn’t something we need to thoughtfully consider when we become engaged in issues of immigration. In doing this, we, like the lawyer in Luke 10, are simply looking for ways to exclude. Rather than seeing a need for compassion and acting on it, we first wish to determine if our immigrants are worthy of our help. Like the followers of Mosaic Law, we wish to interpret and reinterpret in an ever more detailed fashion so that we can constantly narrow that which requires us to act.

No matter what side of the political spectrum we sit on, our responses to the issues of immigration that challenge us today should be dominated foremost by the issues that the leaders of the Church have raised and presented to us for our consideration: a respect for every member of the human family as children of God, compassion, a respect for family, and a commitment to law.

[1] http://newsroom.lds.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

[2] This interpretation is adapted from Philip F. Esler, “Jesus and the Reduction of Intergroup. Conflict: the Parable of the Good Samaritan in the light of. Social Identity Theory,” Biblical Interpretation 4 (2000)

Filed Under: News stories, Politics, Racial Issues

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Allen Wyatt says

    June 13, 2011 at 5:27 am

    Excellent essay, Ben. There is plenty of food for thought here.

  2. Steven G. says

    June 13, 2011 at 11:18 am

    Thanks Ben, that helped me to understand this important parable better. I know quite a few undocumented immigrants and they are wonderful people. I just wish that some of those who are so adamant in their opposition to these people could sit down and have dinner with them and get to know their families. They would know that they are truley our neighbors.

  3. John Baxter says

    June 13, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    Seems to me that the author is confusing mistreatment of people based on “race, culture, or religion” with a desire to see that the laws of the land are enforced without regard to any of those things. I agree that there is no room for treating children of God with anything other than Christlike love but I think that even Christ himself would sustain obedience to the law as written regardless of “race, culture, or religion”.

  4. Allen Wyatt says

    June 13, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    John,

    Most are eager to enlist Christ (or God) on their side, even without evidence. There is much evidence to the contrary of what you state, as those who upheld earthly laws at the time of Christ considered him seditious and treasonous.

  5. Steve G. says

    June 14, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    In my understanding the reason that we belong to the LDS Church and not an evangelical or other religious tradition is because we believe in continuous revelation and as Peter state, the scriptures are not for private interpretation. I know that it can be very hard for some who have invested a lot of time and emotion in a particulate political or social position to be able to see the other side. All those good Saints that are having such a hard time with this issue are in my prayers. Hang in there, continue to search and pray and I hope that we can survive this issue. This is not a new position the church has taken. they have been trying to get us to understand this issue for decades. It is not just a simple issue of “law and order” there are many issues involved. If I can toot my own horn, I would like to invite anyone that is interested in a bit of the history of this issues to check out my article at http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleGooldImmigration.html

  6. Jeff Meyers says

    July 8, 2011 at 7:54 am

    I appreciate the perspective this essay provides for the parable of the good Samaritan (which has many levels of meaning), as it applies to the immigration issue. I am concerned about the rhetoric of the on-going debate, but I am more concerned for those who are here because they are seeking for opportunity to help themselves and their families. If the same immigration restrictions of today were in place 150 years ago when many of our ancestors immigrated, they would either not have been able to come or would have been illegal aliens themselves. This is the fundamental issue, but all of the discussion is about enforcing immigration laws that are broken to begin with.

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe to Blog

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


RSS-Icon RSS Feed (all posts)

Subscribe to Podcast

Podcast icon
Subscribe to podcast in iTunes
Subscribe to podcast elsewhere
Listen with FairMormon app
Android app on Google Play

Pages

  • Blog Guidelines

FairMormon Latest

  • Come Follow Me Week Three: The Turning of Hearts
  • Joseph Smith’s First Vision
  • Willing to Be Weak
  • FairMormon Finances
  • FAIR Voice Podcast #25: Interview with Blake Ostler

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

  • Neal Smith on FAIR Voice Podcast #25: Interview with Blake Ostler
  • Debbi Rollo on Joseph Smith’s First Vision
  • Glenn Thigpen on Willing to Be Weak
  • Rob Peters on Joseph Smith’s First Vision
  • Wendy Ulrich on Willing to Be Weak

Archives

Footer

FairMormon Logo

FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Our Friends

  • Book of Mormon Central
  • BYU Religious Studies Center
  • BYU Studies
  • Interpreter Foundation
  • LDS Perspectives Podcast
  • Pearl of Great Price Central

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • iTunes
  • YouTube

Donate to FairMormon

We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.

Donate Now

Donate to us by shopping at Amazon at no extra cost to you. Learn how →

Site Footer

Copyright © 1997-2021 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

No portion of this site may be reproduced without the express written consent of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc.

Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FairMormon are solely those of FairMormon and not those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) Logo

FairMormon™ is controlled and operated by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)