Readings:
- Deuteronomy 30.10-14
Psalm 69.14, 17, 30-31, 33-34, 36, 37 Response: “Turn to the Lord in your need, and you will live.” - Colossians 1.15-20
- Luke 10.25-37
Reflections on the Gospel Reading
In today’s gospel reading Luke uses a story unique to his Gospel to illustrate the way to eternal life. We, who would become doers of the word and not only listeners, would do well to take this lesson to heart.
The Story
At this point in his Gospel Luke portrays Jesus as on his way from Galilee through Samaria to Jerusalem. None of the other gospel-writers relate this tale. Some think that this story goes back to Jesus himself. The Jesus Seminar, for example, “regarded this parable as a classic example of the provocative public speech of Jesus the parabler.” (Funk et al. 1993, 324) Other critics are far more likely to be correct when they judge this parable to be a Lucan reworking of material attributed to Jesus in his special source.
This story originally circulated independently of any specific context. It was probably a story that Jesus used to make a point and told more than once. The story begins with: “A man fell victim to robbers.” It ends with the words of the Samaritan: “I shall repay you on the way back.” Luke adds what comes before and after in today’s Gospel, thus giving the story a particular context and his own distinctive interpretation.
It is important to remember that Jesus was speaking to oppressed people – people weighed down by debts to greedy creditors, people groaning under the burden of taxes imposed by their Roman occupiers and religious authorities, and people crippled by their own prejudices.
It was not hard for Jesus’ hearers to imagine that robbers could waylay a Judean man. In first century Palestine travel was a dangerous business. In last Sunday’s Gospel, when Jesus sent his disciples out two by two, he told them, “behold, I am sending you like lambs among wolves.” (Luke 10.3) People usually traveled in groups for safety. The man in the parable illustrates the danger travelers faced. Naked and unconscious, it was impossible to tell if he was a Judean from his clothes or his accent. From a distance it was hard to tell if he was dead or alive.
Contact with a dead body rendered an Israelite unclean. (Numbers 5.2, 19:11-13) This was a particular problem for a priest or Levite since it rendered him unable to serve in the Temple. In the story neither one wanted to risk touching a dead person. Each was so careful that he didn’t even go close enough to see for sure. This is not surprising since “priests were forbidden from going where there was a dead body, even when the dead body was a parent (Lev 21:10-11).” (Cousar et al. 1993, 427) Still, understandable as priest and Levite’s actions were, they were no excuse. Arland J. Hultgren observes that “if the priest could see that the man was in need, he should help him. Saving a life overrides any other prescript of the law.” (Hultgren 2000, 97)
Samaritans accepted the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, and were bound by the same purity restrictions as Israelites. Yet the Samaritan in Jesus’ story went over to see whether the man was still alive and in need of help.
The Samaritan was taking a big risk. If the man was dead, the Samaritan would be impure. If the man was alive and a Judean, he would be violating the practice of having nothing to do with hated Judeans. Moreover, by treating the man and identifying himself to the innkeeper, the Samaritan was leaving himself open to revenge by the man’s family. “If the victim should die, his family, who will not be able to find the robbers, may kill his benefactor instead. Or if the victim survives, he may rage at this Samaritan for making him impure with Samaritan wine and oil.” (Pilch 1997, 111)
One can’t help but be impressed by the number of things the Samaritan DOES. He sees, approaches, pours, bandages, lifts, takes, cares for, takes out [coins], gives, instructs, and promises. Truly he is a man of action. Most of all, he was moved with compassion.
Jesus’ original Judean audience would have identified first and foremost with the Judean attacked by robbers. They “would have viewed the story through the eyes of the victim in the ditch,” and would have asked the question “from whom may I expect help in dire straits?” The parable’s answer would have been: “from the quarter you least expect – a Samaritan!” The members of the Jesus Seminar conclude: “The parable prompts [Jesus’ hearers] to think of the identification of their neighbor as a different ethnic group. The possibility of another social world has come into view.” (Funk et al. 1993, 324)
Luke’s Frame: The Setting of the Parable.
It is important to realize that Luke has provided his own setting for this story. By placing the parable in the context of a question about who is one’s neighbor, Luke subtly shifts the emphasis from the Judean victim to the Samaritan. Instead of being the parable of The Judean in the Ditch it becomes the famous parable of The Good Samaritan.
There are numerous indications that the setting for the parable is clearly a Lukan creation. Mark (Mk 12.28-31) and Matthew (Mt 22.34-40) relate a dispute over which is the first or greatest commandment, but they don’t make it a setting for the question of who is my neighbor or the story of the man assaulted by robbers. In Mark and Matthew the setting is in Judea at the end of Jesus’ ministry. A scribe or lawyer poses a question about which is the greatest commandment, and JESUS responds by citing TWO commandments – love of God and love of neighbor.
In Luke’s Gospel, on the other hand, early in the journey to Jerusalem a lawyer challenges Jesus by asking: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” The LAWYER eventually responds to his own question with SINGLE, albeit twofold, instruction. (Note that in Luke’s account the word “commandment” does not appear.)
Only Luke tells us that the expert in religious law was testing Jesus; that it was a hostile question. “Teacher” on the lips of one who had devoted his life to the study of the Torah had overtones of: “Well, Mr. know-it-all, what do YOU think is the key to heaven?” Luke’s Jesus characteristically responds to the challenge with an insult: “What’s written in the Torah? You have read it, haven’t you?” The lawyer’s reply quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus shows that he knew the answer all along. His question was a sham. Trying to save face, he makes another attempt to embarrass Jesus by asking, “Who is my neighbor?” (See Pilch 1997, 109.)
The lawyer knew very well that in the Book of Leviticus “neighbor” refers to one’s kin or to resident aliens: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Leviticus 19.18) “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.” (Leviticus 19.34)
Luke’s readers would be aware that by this time Jesus had commanded love of one’s enemies (Lk 6.27), healed the centurion’s servant (Lk 7.1-11), healed the Gerasene demoniac (Lk 8.26-39), and did not overreact to the snub of the Samaritan village that refused to receive him (Lk 9.51-56). These teachings and actions stretched the notion of one’s neighbor beyond fellow Israelites.
As Luke frames the parable, the lawyer is challenging Jesus to draw a line, to say who is my neighbor and who is not. No matter where Jesus draws that line he will be in trouble. If he includes non-Israelites, he will offend Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees, Zealots and their followers. For them “neighbor” is restricted to fellow Israelites and possibly resident aliens. If he fails to include non-Israelites, he will not be faithful to the inherent universalism of the Reign of God.
By placing Jesus’ story in this setting Luke turns the lawyer’s question around from “Who is my neighbor?” to “How can I be a neighbor?” He also throws in another insult by making a hated Samaritan the hero.
Lessons from the Story
What lesson is there in this for us twenty-first century readers? A lot depends on whether we look at the parable from the perspective of the Samaritan or from the perspective of the Judean in the ditch.
From the Perspective of the Samaritan
Looking at the parable today from the perspective of the Samaritan, we are overwhelmed by the number of persons in need – victims of senseless violence, economic injustice, disease, and natural disasters. We don’t have to set out on the road from Jerusalem down to Jericho to encounter them. Thanks to newspapers, radio, television, and the Internet, we can see them from a great distance as though they were across the street.
Like the lawyer in Luke’s tale, we too are tempted to draw lines around our compassion and reach out only to our family and friends. After all, charity begins at home. How thin can one stretch one’s resources? If I give everything away or if I get hurt in the process, I will end up being a burden to others.
These are, of course, valid observations. However, the example of the Good Samaritan will always raise the question: In my quest for eternal life WHAT HAVE I DONE to be a good neighbor to others in need?
The Jesuit theologian Roger Haight draws another application of this parable from the insights of liberation theology by asking the question: What does Christian theology say to the dehumanized condition of large numbers of people? He finds an embryonic response in this parable, “which can be read as dramatizing the principle that love of God is displayed as love of neighbor.”
The truth of the principle is conveyed with climactic force by the shocking fact that only the Samaritan had internalized it. Modernity adds a conviction that beyond tying up the victim’s wounds, true love will make the road to Jericho safe for all. With this addendum liberation theology rewrites the parable for the whole world. (Haight 2008, 12)
From the Perspective of the Judean in the Ditch
Twenty-first century readers of Luke’s Gospel tend to identify with the Good Samaritan. To those who listened to Jesus this story was very concrete, engaging their stereotypes of Judean officials and aliens on their borders. They empathized with the man in the ditch and asked, “Where is help going to come from?” They were disappointed that help did not come from their revered and trusted leaders – the priest and the Levite. They were amazed, and probably offended, to think that help could come from an enemy, a hated Samaritan.
They would have been troubled by the suggestion that maybe Samaritans were not as evil as they had imagined, that perhaps their leaders had cast Samaritans in such a negative light to cover up the leaders’ own failings and to shore up their prerogatives. Were the Samaritans, just by their existence, a threat to the teachings on racial purity and exclusive worship at the Jerusalem Temple that were the basis of levitical and priestly power? Was the climate of fear between Judeans and Samaritans just the nature of things, or was it enhanced or even manufactured by policies of self-interest and aggrandizement?
The parable opened up a whole new view of their social world with frightening consequences and exhilarating possibilities. Was it possible that Jesus’ command (“Go and do likewise.”) meant that Judeans should reciprocate by showing compassion to Samaritans? In light of the parable the question for them (the Judeans listening to Jesus) became, “If Samaritans are capable of such compassion, how should we act toward them? Is this what love of God and neighbor means? Concretely? For us in our time?”
Contemporary Application
Jesus’ parables are much more than moral exhortations. Writers like William R. Herzog II have shown how the parables are a continuation of the basic proclamation of Jesus: “Change your way of thinking (metanoeite) for the Reign of God is at hand.” By his parables Jesus helped his contemporaries to see things as they were, to understand their own situation of oppression and to challenge the dominant narratives of their culture. Reading parables like The Judean in the Ditch can help us challenge the violent narratives of the rich and powerful and see new possibilities for justice and peace.
Explanatory Notes
The Jesus Seminar Convened in 1985 by Robert W. Funk, the Jesus Seminar has become a lightning rod for international debate about the “historical Jesus” – that is, the real facts about the person to whom various Christian gospels refer. The Seminar’s on-going project has been to evaluate the historical significance of every shred of evidence about Jesus from antiquity (about 30-200 CE). Over the past dozen years more than 100 scholars from North America & beyond have participated in its semi-annual meetings.
Two features distinguish the research of the Jesus Seminar from other scholarly forums:
The Seminar’s deliberations are conducted as a public forum involving both dialogue between biblical scholars & reaction from lay associates. To insure candor, the debates are electronically recorded & reported through major news media.
The Seminar’s research is measured by democratic rather than elitist methods. Debate on any item is closed by a ballot to test the degree of consensus about the relative value of that item as historical evidence. The weighted average of the votes determines what items are accepted as the Seminar’s data base of verifiable information about Jesus himself. Therefore, the Seminar’s reports meticulously represent the balanced cumulative judgment of the group rather than the opinion of any individual. (From the Jesus Seminar’s Website: http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/jsem_b.html )
Samaritans “The origins of the Samaritans can be traced to 722 B.C., when the Northern Kingdom (Samaria) was conquered by the Assyrians. The king of Assyria brought immigrants from foreign lands to live in Samaria, and over time these inhabitants worshiped foreign gods and, in the eyes of the Jewish people, departed from Jewish customs and sensibilities regarding the law (2 Kings 17:24-41). Rejecting the OT [Old Testament] as a whole, their only Scriptures were a particular redaction of the Five Books of Moses, the ‘Samaritan Penteteuch.’ Furthermore, they had their own temple at Gerizim (John 4:9). The Samaritans were typically regarded as Gentiles, or at best a degree nearer than Gentiles, but still not full members of the house of Israel. Samaritans continue to exist to the present day; in modern times it has been estimated that some 250 live in or around Nablus and another 250 at Holon near Tel Aviv.” (Hultgren 2000, p. 98)
In preparing these reflections, in addition to the biblical texts, I consulted the following works:
Cousar et al. 1994 – Charles B. Cousar, Beverly R. Gaventa, J. Clinton McCann, Jr., James D. Newsome, Texts for Preaching: A Lectionary Commentary Based on the NRSV, Year C. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), pp. 426-428.
Fitzmyer 1985 – Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Anchor Bible Volume 28A. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1985), pp. 876-888.
Fuller 1984 – Reginald H. Fuller, Preaching the Lectionary. The Word of God for the Church Today (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1984), pp. 486-487.
Funk et al. 1993 – Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, A Polebridge Press Book (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993), pp. 323-324.
Haight 2008 – Roger Haight, S.J., “Lessons From an Extraordinary Era,” America, Vol. 198, No. 9 (March 17, 2008), p.12.
Herzog II 1994 – William R. Herzog II, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994)
Hultgren 2000 – Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids [MI]: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 92-101.
Johnson 1991 – Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke , Sacra Pagina Series Volume 3, A Michael Glazier Book (Collegeville [MN]: Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 171-175.