The Good Samaritan

I’m preaching on Luke 10:25-42 soon and during my prep I came to the conclusion that the popular/ethical/moral interpretation of this parable isn’t very satisfactory.

A number of reasons:

  1. it doesn’t deal well with the details of the text (see below)
  2. it doesn’t fit well into the context of Luke 10 (most scholars/commentators get around this by saying that it starts a new section; however the και ιδου at the start suggests otherwise (see below).
  3. it leaves us with the difficulty that Jesus’ answer to the lawyers question “how can I inherit eternal life” is “go and love your neighbour” which contradicts the rest of Scripture!

What led me to these issues are some of the peculiarities of the text itself.

Firstly, the context: Jesus has just sent out the 70/72 (10:1-16; the precise number doesn’t affect our exegesis). They return (10:17-24). The next section is introduced with καί ἰδοὺ. The phrase is used 25 in Luke (or 26 times, if 24:49 is included). It is possible that the phrase can introduce a new section (see a possible example at 23:50. Nolland calls it a new section but recognises that “this function [of the phrase] is not paralleled in Luke” [p583]); it seems more common, though, that the phrase is used to introduce a new scene or character in an ongoing plot (e.g. 5:18; 7:37; 8:41; 9:30; 14:2; 19:2). Certainly, the phrase doesn’t necessitate the start of a new section or a change in submit.

Key to understanding Jesus’ purpose in using of the parable of the Good Samaritan is understanding the conclusion that he draws from it. This we find in v36. After finishing the explanation of the parable and after giving a surprising level of detail about the Samaritans care for the robbed man; Jesus asks the lawyer:

“Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” (Luk 10:36 ESV).

This is a very interesting way to phrase the question. Note that Jesus does not say,

 “Which of these three loved his neighbour?”

Rather, in response to the lawyers question: “And who is my neighbor?” (Luk 10:29 ESV); Jesus forces the conclusion that it is the Samaritan who is the neighbour, not the man who was robbed.

The usual interpretation which takes the mean of the passage to be a call to “love your neighbour,” if taken to its logical conclusion, calls us to love those who are kind and merciful to us. Since the merciful Samaritan is identified as the ‘neighbour’ and we are to love our ‘neighbour’ then we are to love those who are nice to us and help us. This, of course, is entirely the opposite to the conclusion usually drawn from an ethical/moral interpretation!

Another significant point for consideration is the lawyers description of what the Samaritan has done to the robbed man:

He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” (Luk 10:37 ESV)

“Mercy” (ἔλεος) is not a common word in Luke. It occurs only here and in 1:50, 54 58, 72, 78. Similarly the cognate verb (ἐλεἐω) occurs in 16:24; 17:13; 18:38, 39. The one common denominator between all these uses (which is not explicit in 10:37) is that mercy is an attribute/action of God. He alone is said to show (noun) or do (verb) mercy. (Neither the noun nor the verb occur at all in Acts).

A final issue with the traditional interpretation is that it does not deal adequately with the initial question of the lawyer:

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luk 10:25 ESV)

To claim that Jesus simply ignores this question does not do justice either to Jesus’s teaching or to Luke’s composition (why bother to record this question is Jesus does not engage with it). Furthermore, it contradicts the rest of Scripture to claim that eternal life is inherited by our dealings with other people.

Given all these factors I think the traditional understanding of the parable needs to be held loosely. That Jesus is calling for people to “love their neighbour” and be kind to everyone does not deal with the intricacies of the text. Neither does such an interpretation fit with the context. The context before hand (the sending of the 70/72) and the following passage (Mary and Martha, vv38-42) deal with a person’s reception of Jesus and their response to his teaching (and the teaching of his messengers/missionaries/disciples). So a parable insisting on loving other people is alien here.

Although I haven’t yet figured all the details out, I posit that this parable is a call to love God/Jesus as the way to “inherit eternal life” (v25). Since Luke only understands God as the one who shows mercy, and since the merciful Samaritan is identified as the true ‘neighbour’; then there is an intimate connection between the two OT quotes at the start of the parable. To love God and to love your neighbour are not independent commands (which might explain the words immediately following in Leviticus 19:18:

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. (Lev 19:18 ESV)

Much more work to do before next Sunday (22/4/12); but needless to say, I am not satisfied with the ethical/moral interpretation.

8 thoughts on “The Good Samaritan

  1. I think it’s a case of “What must I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus answers – You are a fallen man, left for dead, the law and sacrificial system won’t save you. Only a beautiful stranger who has “compassion” (the word most strongly associated with Jesus’ emotional state) can and does Saviour. Once you put yourself in the saved man’s shoes, *then* go and do likewise.

    http://christthetruth.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/he-saved-my-life-and-i-dont-even-know-his-name/

  2. Thanks Glen.
    I seemed to have opened a can of worms in my own mind. There are quite a lot of varying interpretations of this parable. I’m struggling to weigh them all. I’m pretty sure, though, that we should see Jesus in the parable.

  3. Update:
    thanks to Glen (see comments above) for pointing this out. Not only is “mercy” only used by Luke to speak of God’s action; but similarly the verb “compassion” (σπλαγχνίζομαι) is only used in the NT to speak of Jesus (Matt 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13).

    Mark 9:22 the word is found on a father’s lips, but it is still a request for Jesus’ compassion.

    Matt 18:27; Luke 10:33 and 15:20 are all used within parables. The use in 10:33 is, obviously, the one under scrutiny here; but the other two uses are action of characters representing God.

    Adding weight to the idea that the Samaritan is Jesus.

  4. I cannot find a single commentator who even mentions, let alone adequately deals with, the Lawyers use of “mercy” in v37. Every just opts out by saying that he couldn’t bring himself to say the word “Samaritan” – which is rubbish eisegesis.
    The closest is Nolland (596) who says that “The answer to Jesus’ question is not oblique in order to avoid speaking about the hated Samaritan. Rather the wording underlines the point of the parable.” But even he then fails do deal with the actually text of the lawyers response.

  5. the story is about you, mankind, being beaten and robbed here on earth
    and not even the church folk can help

    there is one who esteems you as very special and he takes
    you to his Father’s house

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s