Jesus and the Samaritans, Charity and the Church

The Gospels make repeated mention of an ethno-religious group known as the Samaritans. They practised Samaritanism, a religion which originated in and remains closely related to Judaism. It has a different understanding of the law as well as believes that worship should occur at Mount Gerizim rather than at Jerusalem. The fact that these Samaritans worshipped at Mount Gerizim receives two mentions in <<John>> and <<Luke>>, respectively (John 4:20-21: Luke 9:53-55). The Samaritan woman and Jesus directly mention this fact, whereas in <<Luke>> the reference is more oblique: "And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem" (Luke 9:53).

The inner meaning of Jerusalem, being the Church and its doctrines, underlines that Samaritans have different doctrines than the Jews (Lord 64), as does the "well" mentioned, which signifies "doctrine from the Word" (AE537:4). The incidence of face, which signifies interiors, adds extra emphasis to the Samaritans' awareness that Jesus' religious beliefs differed from their own (AC4299). This underlining makes the Samaritans a convenient symbol for other religions and those outside the Church, much like Gentile or Greek. Accordingly , in <<Apocalypse Explained>> we read that "the Samaritan woman meant the church to be established with the Gentiles" (AE537:4).

Scriptural passages with a similar signification, namely a dawning New Church to be established by the Lord in place of a benighted Old Church, include the story of the Canaanite woman who besought Him to banish a devil from her daughter as well as that of the rich man and Lazarus. These accounts use identical language concerning "crumbs", a symbol which emphasises their common subject matter, namely the New Church or "morning [that] cometh" (Matthew 15:27; Luke 16:21; Isaiah 21:12). Likewise does Lazarus signify Christians, the New Church of the time, in their relation to the rich man, Jews, the Old Church of the time, "and also the night" (Isaiah 21:12).

Jesus indeed expresses this elsewhere as "The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner", adding "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matthew 21:42-3). The riches of the rich man, of course, involve something more significant than material wealth, this being special access to divine truth (TCR246). Now, as to that truth, a notable feature of the 'handover' from Old Church to New Church involves the availability of any knowledge that the Old has laid up to the New (Prophecies and Psalms: Isaiah 19). The Church and "heresy called Cain" involves a similar meaning (AC409).

Heresy or not, the Church known as Cain performed a special service: they collected doctrinal materials from the Most Ancient Church for posterity, "that they might not be lost"; this being the significance of the famous "mark of Cain" (AC609). As we know, Cain slew Abel, which signifies that this Church killed charity in themselves -- for Abel means charity, the heart of the Church and the key to prophecy -- by "the separation of truth and good" (AE817:3). The rich man's heartless obliviousness to Lazarus signifies the same separation of doctrine and charity, a phenomenon we see among the Protestants of the Old Church in our time in the form of easy believism (TCR246).

As we read in <<True Christian Religion>>, "By Lazarus ("dogs"/Gentiles) lying at the gate of the rich man ("children"/Jews)" is meant that the Gentiles were despised and rejected by the Jews" (TCR215:3)> That holding others in despite does not partake of brotherly love bears mention and has everything to do with that very Cain asking, "Am I my brother's keeper?" concerning him he slew. We know besides that "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:15). For eternal life is Heavenly, and Heaven involves the conjunction of all who live in mutual love, wherein is no despite (SE2520).

The term Lazarus occurs again later in John 11, where it has exactly the same significance of "dogs"/Gentiles/Christians as we have seen from its association with the rich man above. As we read in <<True Christian Religion>>, "The Gentiles are meant by Lazarus, because the Lord loved the Gentiles as He loved Lazarus, whom He raised from the dead" (TCR215:4). The fact that the Lord "is called [Lazarus'] friend" bears relation to a statement by Jesus, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (ibid; John 15:13). That would be why the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead involves his lying in a sepulchre like that of Jesus.

It would also be why Caiphas afterwards mentions "that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people", for the raising of Lazarus cannot be disentangled from the resurrection of our Lord (John 11:50). Those whose response to Jesus' raising of Lazarus involved the beginnings of the conspiracy that culminated in His crucifixion are "the children of the kingdom [who] shall be cast out into outer darkness" as well as the "children" of whom the Canaanite woman and Jesus spoke; whereas the "dogs" of their exchange correspond to the "many [who] shall come from the east and west, and sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 9:11-12; Mark 7:26-27).

Much has been said up to now about the Samaritan lady and her spiritual congruence with the poor man Lazarus; but little has hitherto been said about the village of the Samaritans which would not receive Jesus. The reason given for their inhospitality -- because "His face was as though he would go to Jerusalem" -- draws attention as earlier mentioned to the religious distinction between Samaritan worship at Mt Gerizim and Jewish worship at Jerusalem (Luke 9:53). The disciples respond to this failure to receive their master in indignant language redolent of Hell and condemnation, which "spirit" Jesus rebukes, emphasising that He is "not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (Luke 9:56).

In this connection, there exist people in everyday religious life who refer to other religions as inherently demonic, insisting that someone will go to Hell on account purely of their religious affiliation. Jesus rebukes this kind of "spirit", or in other words does not want us to engage in this sort of assumption about someone's eternal fate. For only God -- the God who comes to "save" not to "destroy" -- knows the maximum extent of a person's love and understanding in this life and consequently their eternal fate in Heaven or Hell. Naturally, God may come to "save", but people may self-destruct. For this reason, Jesus' rebuke underlines His not condemning them to Hell but their condemning themselves.

For they certainly did condemn themselves, and regardless of any redundant condemnation the disciples may have supplied. As we read in <<Apocalypse Explained>>, "A city of the Samaritans" signifies the false doctrine of those who reject the Lord, because the Samaritans did not receive Him" (AE223:20). Their rejection of the Lord cast them into Hell even as the Lord willed that they should be saved. But His being thus willing comes with our free will attached. As we read in <<Secrets of Heaven>>, "a whole city could not be damned because they did not receive the disciples and at once acknowledge the new doctrine which they preached" (AC7418:2). And we do not command people to believe us.

This agrees with Jesus' other, earlier rebuke of His disciples, for it so happened that they "forbad... one casting out devils in thy name... because he followeth not with us" (Luke 9:49). Specifically, He said, "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us" (Luke 9:50). The other version in <<Mark>> reads, "Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me" (Mark 9:39). Many of us will have encountered similarly forbidding "disciples", people who assume we are going to hell on account of religious affiliation and are not shy about saying so. But the Lord not only rebukes them but imputes a "miracle" to the man who did not want to join them.

Now, a miracle involves basically a good deed. After all, Jesus refers to the miraculous healing of one who had a "withered hand" in the context of, "Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil?" (Mark 3:1-4). This brings us to a third instance of "Samaritan" in the same stretch of <<Luke>> that has so persistently concerned us, the famous parable of the good Samaritan (10:33). God did not specifically title it thus, but that is nonetheless its traditional name. By this designation Christian tradition quietly admits to righteousness in someone of another religion. We modern people do not nearly appreciate how radical Jesus will appear to have been here in the eyes of His disciples.

Recall that portion of the religious population which assumes that other religions, and consequently the spirits of their followers, are demonic. Now consider this assumption in relation to something the Jewish Church technically asked but effectively said about Jesus, "Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan and hast a demon?" We read elsewhere, "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his household?", which is Jesus' reference to this same irreverent question. It is in the context of such extreme rejection of Samaritans as unsaved that Jesus told a parable about precisely a Samaritan tending to a wounded man whom a presumably Jewish priest simply passed on by.

In <<Apocalypse Explained>> we read of the "robbers" who wounded the man that they "injure the mind and spiritual life by falsities" and that they "deprive [other people] of truths" which should rather be shared with others than snuffed out (AE444). The tending of the wounded man with oil and wine specifically represents instruction in the doctrines of charity and truth. The Samaritan, being "in the internal sense... one who is in the affection of truth", happens upon someone wandering in spiritual darkness and compassionately shares Divine truths involving conjunction with Jesus (AC9057). Someone in affection for truth thirsts for increased understanding even if this results in awareness

of flaws in themselves, of behaviours that need improvement. Such a person was the Samaritan lady at the well, for she showed every willingness to receive Jesus' rebuke of her adulterous way of life. We can also apply the Samaritan's tending of the wounded man with oil and wine template to the dialogue at the well, where Jesus takes on the role of the passing Samaritan and the Samaritan lady that of the wounded man. He spoke to a Samaritan woman at a time when "the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans" and in thus speaking poured in the oil of good (John 4:9; Luke 10:34). He warned her to shun sin and enlightened her spiritual darkness, or poured in the wine of truth, binding her wounds.

It is those who have charity in their hearts -- whatever their outward religious affiliation -- who live in the neighbourhood of God. And as for those who assume that only their kind, of whatever stripe, has worth or can be saved, these people may safely be said to have little charity in their hearts. The Jewish Church at the time of the 1st Coming used "Samaritan" as an insult, and we know from history that the Jews and the Samaritans effectively loathed one another. Naturally they believed the worst of each other's eternal fates. But those who have mercy like the passing Samaritan man had do not assume the worst but hope for the best of others' capacity to "hear" and "do" the Word (Luke 11:28).

It is also those who have charity in their hearts who have oil in their lamps in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. Those whose faith has been separated from charity, those without oil in their lamps, those who "hear" but do not "do" the Word, do not make the cut. But those who have oil in their lamps to pour into the binding of others' spiritual wounds caused by falsities -- conscientious people who genuinely love to be of service to the neighbour and do not feed thinking ill of others -- enjoy eternal conjunction with God and His neighbours, safe from sin and error, free and home at last. Recall the Samaritan lady: herself amazed about Jesus, she began to tell others so that they could be amazed too.

It is those who have charity in their hearts -- those who do not labour foremost for reward of gain or reputation but in a willing spirit of service -- who cast their nets from the right side of the boat and consequently grow the Church of those who "hear" and "do" (AE600). It is they who worship God "in spirit and truth" beyond external doctrinal differences of opinion about sacred mountains and scriptural canons (John 4:24). The Samaritan lady effectively cast her net to the right side of the boat when she willingly told others of her village about Jesus, and "many of the Samaritans of the city believed on him for the saying of the woman" (John 4:39). It's not about numbers only, it's about sincerity foremost.

Or as we read in Ecclesiastes, "Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment [oil]" (9:8). As has been mentioned, for someone to lack that oil corresponds to the foolish virgins who had no oil of charity in their lamps, meaning that they did not live for the sake of being of use to others but on the contrary exploited others to aggrandise and enrich themselves. But those with oil in their lamps, those who cast their nets to the right side of the boat, are in conjunction with the "great mountain" that "filled the whole earth", which is the mutual love of God and His neighbours (Daniel 2:35). As we read in Paul, of "faith, hope, and charity.... the greatest... is charity", not faith (1 Corinthians 13:13).

It is therefore of utmost importance to the spiritual health of a person and Church that they practice this charity, which defined "is to act honestly, justly, and faithfully, in every work that belongs to anyone's occupation" while shunning sins both mentally and in action (C-0). Notice what John the Baptist tells some Roman soldiers who specifically ask not what we shall believe but "What shall we do?" He says, "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages" (Luke 3:14). They are to "honestly, justly, and faithfully" go about their duties. As Paul says, "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good" (Ephesians 4:28).

In sum, let us strive to be a blessing rather than a curse while we are alive and forevermore, not believing that we are good in ourselves but doing good as if of ourselves anyway, for that is essentially why we are here. Amen.