“Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town". What does it mean for us today?

[GratefulDad]

Gospel for Sun. June 15, 2008. “Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". What does this mean in todays world.

Complete paragraph:

Jesus sent out these twelve after instructing them thus,
“Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town.
Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
As you go, make this proclamation: ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’
Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons.
Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give.”

 

[Trishie]

As Jesus was asking his own people to serve his countrymen, might we not take it to mean that before we evanglise non-Catholics, we need to evangelize and to witness to our own fellow and lapsed Catholics? We need to care for our own who are ill, confused or suffering? We need to do so freely, without expectation of personal reward?

 

[Holly3278]

As Jesus was asking his own people to serve his countrymen, might we not take it to mean that before we evanglise non-Catholics, we need to evangelize and to witness to our own fellow and lapsed Catholics? We need to care for our own who are ill, confused or suffering? We need to do so freely, without expectation of personal reward?

I think I agree with your interpretation Trishie. I was wondering if one could take the passage to mean that we should serve our country since the apostles were serving their country by doing what they did?

 

[glenaitken]

God willed that His salvation should first be offered to the Jews, and knowing that he would be rejected it is offered to the world at large, in this way He keeps the prophesies and promises from the old testament. salvation is ment for all, but Christ’s primary earthly mission was to the chosen people, and through them to bless the world (one of the original promises to Abraham).
I think for us today, it does two things:

1. it reminds us of the necessity of evangelizing our homes, churches, friends, towns, country etc. - its the whole “bloom where you’re planted” thing. we are our brothers keepers.
2. when taken in the context of “shaking even the dust of the town from your sandals”, and “do not throw your pearls to swine and give what is holy to dogs”, it is a strict warning for us- we must safeguard the holy things of God, and they are not ment to be taken lightly. I think this is in reference to trying to evangelize the unreachable- those whom have knowingly arejected God and accepted evil. these are rare, but still exist. your common sinner is simply lost, and should be brought home- some people only profane God’s things (ie: eucharist, rosaries, abusing holy people, and the like). these latter types should not be given anything holy (unless of course there is a prospect of true conversion) because they will only further offend God by sining in blasphamy. basically, don’t give hoply things to blasphimers (“lest they turn on you and tear you to pieces”-mtt5-7), but do try to assist sincere people in thier salvation.

 

[John_Hiner]

Gospel for Sun. June 15, 2008. “Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". What does this mean in todays world.

Complete paragraph:

Jesus sent out these twelve after instructing them thus,
“Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town.
Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
As you go, make this proclamation: ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’
Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons.
Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give.”

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

I suggest that this is a “poetic” statement of an anthropological warning. The Old Testament (including the “Greek” influences in the Books of Sirach and Maccabees) is the record of the long and difficult cultivation of the sort of people who were needed to receive the Gospel. Jesus gives us a clue to the goal of this preparation when He greets St. Bartholomew: “Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Here is a true Israelite. There is no duplicity in him,” (John (NAB) 1:47).

In many ways, the Faith can only be grasped if one has a proper understanding of what people are and how they relate to themselves and to the world around them. Some of the elements of this view are that people ought have integrity and not be hypocrites, that they are morally responsible agents, that they have free will, that they have a fixed sex, that they are related to people around them by ties that are important and enduring, that they are creatures that have been created for a specific end, etc. There are many other elements to this “essential anthropology.”

On my reading, “pagan territory” refers to alternative “theories of man,” such as man as his own maker, man as consumer, man as absurd or purposeless, etc. If one assumes any of these “alternative views of man,” the Faith cannot be communicated or grasped. Similarly, “a Samaritan town” represents a hybrid theory of man, consisting of an admixture of the Church’s anthropology with other theories. Even these slight admixtures undermine the coherence of the Faith and pervert it when taught with such hybrid assumptions as the context.

Hence, this text, to my ear, embodies a warning against the mistake of thinking that all views of man’s nature are equally amenable to the Gospel. This dovetails* with the teachings of John Paul II in “Fides et Ratio” and with Benedict XVI’s view that the meeting of the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman cultures was integral to the proclamation of the Gospel and that any purported “dehellenization of Christianity” is therefore destructive to the Faith itself. (See, Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections, (the “Regensburg Lecture”).)

In the context of the Church’s mission to all of the peoples of the world, this means that man’s nature must be understood properly, regardless of any other habit of thought which might be found among a given people. Thus when the Church encounters a new culture, there are elements of anthropology which cannot be compromised, as the Faith is proclaimed.

I hope this is of some help.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

---

*I mean that this view of the passage is consistent with the Popes’ arguments. I do not mean to suggest that this interpretation is explicitly proffered by either of these Pontiffs in their writings.

 

[GratefulDad]

So does this acknowledge that.

1. Everyone is called to be with the Lord.
2. That many people, through their own free will, have rejected God and His love, and we are called to take care of others who have strayed just a little, first.

Seems as though God acknowledges the physical limits of time and human resources and is almost saying start here and take care of those who have a glimmer of hope?

Are Muslim Countries todays " Pagan Territory’s" and “Samaritan Town’s”, are cities/locals who fully support abortion or active homosexuality?

 

[John_Hiner]

So does this acknowledge that.

1. Everyone is called to be with the Lord.
2. That many people, through their own free will, have rejected God and His love, and we are called to take care of others who have strayed just a little, first.

Seems as though God acknowledges the physical limits of time and human resources and is almost saying start here and take care of those who have a glimmer of hope?

Are Muslim Countries today’s " Pagan Territory’s" and “Samaritan Town’s”, are cities/locals who fully support abortion or active homosexuality?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear GratefulDad:

I am not sure whether your post no. 6 is addressing my post immediately before; I hope I am not being presumptuous in responding as though it were.

1. Yes; the notion, that the references to “pagan territory” and “a Samaritan town” is a poetical warning about alternative “anthropologies” or “views of what man is,” does acknowledge that everyone is called to the Gospel. This is clear, because the reason for taking such a poetical view of the text is precisely because its facial and most direct meaning is directly contradicted by other sayings of the Savior:

“Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature,” (Mark (NAB) 16:15).

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you,” (Matthew (RSV) 28:19-20).

And, most directly by:

“[Y]ou shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth,” (Acts (RSV) 1:8).

It is in this context of universal proclamation of the Gospel that one is obliged to seek a less direct meaning for the passage about “pagan territory” and “a Samaritan town.” When spoken to the Twelve, the words primarily had their “literal” meaning of avoiding certain geographic areas. However, one must ask, why did the Holy Spirit retain these particular words in the Scriptures. This urges us to find a “secondary” meaning which arises from the literal meaning, but which continues to have direct import for us today. The suggestion that the meaning intended for us is about the “view of the nature of man” required by the Gospel is an attempt to discern this “secondary meaning.”

Hence, this meaning presupposes that all are called to the Gospel.

Continued . . .

 

[John_Hiner]

Continued . . .

1. No; I do not believe that this proposed view would include a general direction to recover those who had “strayed a little” before proclaiming the Gospel to those who have never heard it or who have rejected it strongly.

Rather, these difficulties seem to be addressed by other sayings of the Lord. For the Church as a whole, most directly this difficulty of “limited resources” seems to be addressed by the Lord’s directive:

“The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest,” (Matthew (RSV) 9:37-38; see also, Luke 10:2).

However, with regard to one’s personal resources, other passages come to mind:

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” (Matthew (NAB) 22:29).

This reference to “neighbor” or “those near one” suggests that one’s attention is fairly focused on those who are near. If they are fallen away, so be it. If they are atheists, or Moslem, or Protestant, so be it. Focusing one’s attention on the task at hand is certainly suggested by this Second Greatest Commandment.

One’s limited resources are also acknowledged in other ways by the Apostles:

“But if any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” (1John (RSV) 3:17).

By implication, this suggests that when one does not have the means to live, one is not able to help the brother in need. The parable of the Good Samaritan indicates that the costs can be extensive, precisely because one “happens to be” the one who comes on a particular person in need. Hence, St. Paul reminds us:

“You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities, and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive,’” (Acts (RSV) 20:34-35).

And similarly:

“Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his hands, so that he may be able to give to those in need,” (Ephesians (RSV) 4:28).

The implications of these passages both acknowledge that one is limited by one’s resources and suggest that one must work to increase one’s resources, specifically so that one has something to give. These resources surely include physical and monetary things, as well as learning, understanding, and other intellectual, emotional, and social goods.

Continued . . .

 

[John_Hiner]

Continued . . .

Finally, yes; in a sense the Moslems are “pagan territory” and those who support abortion or homosexuality are “a Samaritan town.” However, this does not mean that they must be avoided or that their evangelization can be delayed.

Rather, on my reading, it means that one must take care when speaking to Moslems to be wary of their “world view” which differs significantly from that required to grasp the Gospel. Evangelization, for them, must include a building up of the “world view” which grasps the true nature of God and of man, so that the incarnation can be made credible for them.

Similarly, when speaking with those who would allow abortion or who favor homosexuality as a “life style,” one must be aware of the admixture of “compassion” as taught in the Faith, with false notions of “pleasure,” “self-definition,” “self-esteem,” etc. which have formed these gruesome mixtures of good intention with horrific practices. One cannot proclaim the Gospel, without being aware and remedying this admixing of good with bad ideas.

In either case, without giving sufficient attention to the proper view of “man and his place in the world” as taught to Israel and shared by the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” one cannot effectively proclaim the Gospel to either of these groups – or others with similarly different understandings of man and the world.

I hope this is helpful.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner