July 11, 2010, Luke 10:25-37, The Good Samaritan

 

          Today we are considering Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan. In our world, from the perspective of an Israeli living in modern Israel, we might think in terms of “the Good Palestinian.” There are some, of course, good Palestinians, I mean. We have a Christian Palestinian girl enrolled as a student in the seminary where Barbara and I teach. Her home is in Bethlehem, but she came here to study. She is a good student. In her Hebrew language class, she had an advantage, since Hebrew and Arabic are closely related.

 

          In Jesus’ day, the Jews, as John’s Gospel reminds us, “do not share things in common with Samaritans” (Jn. 4:9b NRSV). The older translation put it more bluntly, “the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans” (Jn 4:9b AV/KJV). John’s verb means “have dealings with,” “associate” (F. W. Danker, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2009, s.v. sugcravomai, sygchraomai). The Samaritans of Jesus’ day claimed descent from ancient Israel. They used the Pentateuch, Genesis through Deuteronomy in their own dialect as their bible, but there was long-standing hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans. Mark’s Gospel does not have the word “Samaritan,” nor the word “Samaria.” The only reference in Matthew is when Jesus sent the Twelve out on mission with the instructions, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 10:5-6). John, of course reports how when the Samaritan woman believed in Jesus, her witness led to the faith of many Samaritans (Jn. 4:41-42). But Luke apparently has a special interest in Samaria. He will report the mission of Philip to Samaria (Acts 8:4-14), followed by that of Peter and John (Acts 8:15-25).In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan does what the priest and the Levite failed to do, that is give aid to the man whom robbers had stripped, beaten and left half dead (Lk. 10:30).

 

          The context of this story in Luke’s Gospel is significant. While Jesus was teaching the crowds, “a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ” (Lk. 10:25). The exchange that follows resembles Jesus answer to the question about “the great commandment” during his final week in Jerusalem before the crucifixion as presented in Matthew (Mt. 22:34-40) and Mark (Mk. 12:28-34). Jesus answers the Lawyer’s question with a question of his own. “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” (Lk. 10:26).And the lawyer answers with what Jesus himself answers in the accounts in Matthew and Mark. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself” (Lk. 10:27, quoting Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18; cf. Mt. 22:37-39; Mk. 12:29-31). It’s a little bit like the context of the Lord’s Prayer. In Luke, chapter 11, one of Jesus’ disciples says, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples” (Lk. 11:1). And Jesus presents a version of the prayer (Lk. 11:2-4) that is similar—a little shorter—than the version given in Matthew, chapter 6 (Mt. 6:9-13). As one of my teachers once said, Luke describes the occasion when Jesus gave them the prayer. Matthew, known for his topical arrangements, includes the prayer in a series of teachings about Christian piety, almsgiving (Mt. 6:1-4) prayer and forgiveness (Mt. 6:5-15), and fasting (Mt. 6:16-18).

 

          So, from the context of the lawyer’s question and Jesus’ response, we can understand the Parable of the Good Samaritan as an example of keeping the commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18), which is related, of course to loving God with one’s whole being (Deut. 6:5).When Jesus commends the lawyer’s answer, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live” (Lk. 10:28), the lawyer follows with another question, “And who is my neighbor?” In Leviticus, the command to love one’s neighbor apparently meant, in the first place, “Love your family, your fellow Israelites.” “You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin,” says Moses; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD” (Lev. 19:17-18). I was glad to see that later in the chapter, this focus on one’s family and Israelite neighbors was expanded. “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

 

          In Jesus’ story, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead” (Lk. 10:30). According to David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, “The road down from Jerusalem to Jericho descends about 3,200 feet; the distance between the two is about eighteen miles” (The HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 10:30). Two respectable Jewish leaders are described who appear to be without excuse for failing to render aid to the beaten man. According to Tiede and Matthews, the priest was “perhaps returning home after temple service,” and the Levite was “a temple functionary from the priestly tribe of Levi.” Both, they add, “may have been concerned about impurity from contact with a corpse” (ibid., on vv. 31 and 32). They must have assumed that the man was indeed dead. In any event, both “saw him [and] passed by on the other side” (Lk. 10:31, 32).

 

          The Samaritan, on the other hand, “while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity” (Lk. 10:33). Jesus’ story presents a clear picture of human need—severe human need in this case—and the call for us, those aware of the need and with the means to do something about it, to find answers to needy human conditions wherever we find them, genocide, starvation, disease, state-sponsored terrorism, homeless people, and so forth.

 

          The Samaritan went to the fallen man “and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him” (Lk. 10:34). “The next day,” says Jesus, the Samaritan “took out two denarii [two coins, each representing a day’s wage for a laborer], gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend’ ” (Lk. 10:35). So the Samaritan paid the innkeeper for two day’s work, and promised more, as needed, upon his return. And Jesus makes his point by asking a question with what would seem to be an obvious answer. “Which of these three, do you think,” he asks, “was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” The lawyer who first asked the question, “And who is my neighbor?” (Lk. 10:29), gives the expected answer: “The one who showed him mercy. And,” says Luke, “Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise’ ” (v. 37).

 

Michael Gourgues, (Dominican College, Ottawa, Canada) suggests that “Priests, Levites, and all the people” became a common way to refer to Jewish “religious society in its diversity” (“The Priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan Revisited: A Critical Note on Luke 10:31-35,” The Journal of Biblical Literature, 117/4 (1998), p. 710). He finds the substitution of a Samaritan for “all the [Jewish] people” in this phrase remarkable.

 

Had Jesus addressed the question as it existed in the mind of the lawyer, Luke’s narrative would have introduced the variant on the side of the victim and not on the side of the passers-by. Love of neighbor, as it was then understood, was to be exercised toward priests, Levites, and true members of Israel, which thus excluded Samaritans. A representative of one of those categories should have taken the role of the neighbor in distress by the wayside. The narrative turns the problem on its head and situates the neighbor not among those who must be loved but among those who are to love. The reversal. already imp1ied by the parable, is made explicit by Jesus’ closing question. “Who is my neighbor?” the lawyer had asked (10:29). “Who proved himself a neighbor?” now asks Jesus (10:36).

 

So why a priest and a Levite? Perhaps the simplest explanation is sociological in nature. The two characters whom the example story of the Good Samaritan first puts on the scene belong to the first two categories of the social hierarchy that dominated post-exilic Judaism. “The priests, the Levites, and all the people of Israel.” According to this traditional tripartite division, one would expect the narrative to bring on stage next a lay Israelite. And so it is totally unexpected to see a “Samaritan,” a representative of one of the groups that all agreed to exclude from the category of neighbor—come on the scene and provide the answer to the question “Who is my neighbor?” (10:29).

 

Paradox of paradoxes, it is the Samaritan who, by means of a reversal of roles, becomes the very model of neighborly love. (ibid., 713)

 

Jeanne Stevenson Moessner (Columbia Theological Seminary, Decatur, Georgia) offers perspectives on the Parable of the Good Samaritan from a woman’s perspective (Journal for Preachers, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 21-25):

 

 

In our customary way of reading the Good Samaritan text, women have not acknowledged a crucial aspect to the passage, an aspect so significant that it shatters previous interpretations. The Samaritan finished the journey. The Samaritan finished the journey while meeting the need of a wounded and marginal person. “The Samaritan does not give everything away; in this enigmatic parable, he did not injure, hurt, or neglect the self. He loved himself, and he loved his neighbor.” This balance in the care of self/care of other is a difficult balance for many. It is often women who have excelled in the care of the other. To be able to care for another (others) and to be able to finish one’s journey in life is a message to be proclaimed from the pulpit. (ibid., p. 22).

 

Moessner adds other perspectives, for example:

 

In application and extension of the “inn” in ministry, the inn may be a support group, a battered women’s shelter, a halfway house, a hospital, a rape crisis center, therapy, a pastoral counseling center, a specialized support group such as Bosom Buddies or Resolve or AA. The inn may be the church. . . . In an exegetical attempt to understand the inn in Luke 10, commentators do agree that the inn was a temporary lodging place, a place where a journeying person found room for the night. This night can surely include the “night of the soul,” a place of struggle and despair. Preaching the Good Samaritan from a feminist perspective brings to the pulpit an awareness of a sense of teamwork and community in ministry and healing. At a minimum, from the sermon itself, a pastor can describe the inn and give directions. (ibid., p. 23).

 

In Houston, we are provided with many opportunities to follow the Lord’s command to love our Samaritan neighbors, whether they are Hispanic, Asian or other.

 

Amen.

 

RETURN