Friday, September 10, 2010

Refuting Kinism: Part 4: Luke 10:30-37 (The Good Samaritan)

(posts in this series: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4)

If you were a non-white and were badly beaten by robbers, would you prefer A) a Good Samaritan to walk by, or B) a white kinist, who believes that whites should avoid those of different "races"?  Consider this as we examine the parable of the Good Samaritan.

After a lawyer asked Jesus ‘And who is my neighbor?’ (Luke 10:29b), Jesus replied,  
 A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.
Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine.
Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” (Luke 10:30b-37)
Note that this parable does not assume the legitimacy of “racial” segregation via borders.  Despite the fact that the parable includes both Jews and a Samaritan in the same geographical setting, no party here is condemned for violating the border space of another “race.”
Rather, the implicit condemnation here is of those who refused to assist the Jewish victim--the Jewish priest and the Jewish Levite.  And the Samaritan is not indicted for being around the Jewish victim (and thereby violating the kinist doctrine of segregation), but rather praised for helping him.

(We are inferring that the victim was Jewish, although the text does not explicitly say so.  But even if the victim was not Jewish, the parable still obviously expects those of different people groups to be neighborly to one another and not to neglect one another--whether for not wanting to be bothered, as possibly in the case of the priest and Levite, or for believing that people groups should be segregated, as in the case of kinists.)
"When he [the Samaritan] saw him he
had compassion on him
[the victim],
and never took into consideration
what country he was of."
--Matthew Henry
On the text Matthew Henry writes,

“How he was succoured and relieved by a stranger, a certain Samaritan, of that nation which of all others the Jews most despised and detested and would have no dealings with. This man had some humanity in him, v. 33. The priest had his heart hardened against one of his own people, but the Samaritan had his opened towards one of another people. When he saw him he had compassion on him, and never took into consideration what country he was of. Though he was a Jew, he was a man, and a man in misery, and the Samaritan has learned to honour all men; he knows not how soon this poor man's case may be his own, and therefore pities him, as he himself would desire and expect to be pitied in the like case.”

Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible: Volume Five, Luke Chapter 10

So much for the kinist view that “racial mixing” in and of itself results in moral breakdown.  On the contrary, we have an example of those who refused to assist one of their own people, and yet someone from another people group—a "half-breed" (Samaritans were part Gentile, part Jewish), which represents everything kinism opposes—assists the victim.

The Samaritan leavened the culture for the better.  He was being a light to the world (cf. Matthew 5:14), and refused to accept kinism and be a light merely to his own people.

Kinism would have us geographically segregate all “races,” and thereby render love for all “races” at best as merely words and not deeds.  However,
“The Samaritan hero actually helped the victim; he did not merely have compassion in his heart.” J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006), p. 171.
“The compassion of this Samaritan was not an idle compassion; he did not think it enough to say, "Be healed, be helped" (Jam. ii. 16); but, when he drew out his soul, he reached forth his hand also to this poor needy creature, Isa. lviii. 7, 10; Prov. xxxi. 20.”
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible
Like kinism, apostate Judaism advocated only being neighborly with “kin.”  Kinism, like the lawyer in the parable, asks, “And who is my neighbor?” If consistent with their doctrine, kinists would follow the course of the Levite and priest, and avoid assisting the victim.

In the Good Samaritan parable we see that “racial mixing” in and of itself is not immoral, but refusing to “racially mix” in order to assist a human being in need is immoral.  Thus the parable is not helpful to the doctrine of kinism.

Man is required to love his neighbor as himself, and this love must extend to those of all people groups.  John Gill writes,
“then said Jesus unto him, go and do thou likewise; such like acts of beneficence and kindness, though to a person of a different nation and religion, and though even an enemy; and by so doing, thou wilt not only appear to be a good neighbour thyself, but to love thy neighbour as thyself.” (John Gill, John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible: Luke 10:37)

No comments: