I am part of a theology class with a bunch of Unitarians and other very liberal Christians. At the last class they were discussing parables and had an interesting take on the Parable of the Good Samaritan. first of all they said (and I have not verified this so it may be crap) that in the Jewish religion everything is metaphorical. Parables have a more open meaning. With this in mind here's their interpretation.
The Good Samaritan: (It's not necessary to read the parable if you know it already. I'm just pasting it for convenience)
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] 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.’
They said that both the priest and the Levite couldn't touch the man to see if he was dead because if he was dead touching him would defile them. If they had been defiled by touching the dead body then they wouldn't have been able to perform their temple duties. In other words (actually the Unitarian's words) these people were too burdened down by religion to help someone in need.
I chuckled at this thinking "ya know, with this interpretation the Good Samaritan could have been an atheist.
The Good Samaritan: (It's not necessary to read the parable if you know it already. I'm just pasting it for convenience)
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] 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.’
They said that both the priest and the Levite couldn't touch the man to see if he was dead because if he was dead touching him would defile them. If they had been defiled by touching the dead body then they wouldn't have been able to perform their temple duties. In other words (actually the Unitarian's words) these people were too burdened down by religion to help someone in need.
I chuckled at this thinking "ya know, with this interpretation the Good Samaritan could have been an atheist.
I have studied the Bible and the theology behind Christianity for many years. I have been to many churches. I have walked the depth and the breadth of the religion and, as a result of this, I have a lot of bullshit to scrape off the bottom of my shoes. ~Ziploc Surprise
