Reflection:
Jesus’ familiar parable of the good Samaritan follows on the other side of the mission of the seventy (Lk.10:1 - 24). It appears to reflect the major question being asked after Jesus confronts the nation of Israel in a concerted and organized way through his seventy disciples. That question concerns the relation between Jesus and the foundation of Jewish society, the Law of Moses. Jesus’ response, in short, is that he and his new movement stand in fundamental continuity with the Law and the expectation of the Prophets, though in a way that surprises his contemporaries. Jesus does this by telling the parable of the good Samaritan.
Within the simplicity of the parable, Jesus touches on several major themes. First, Jesus once again provides another example of ethics being a necessary component of evangelism. The lawyer asks what he must do to inherit eternal life, which is synonymous with entering the kingdom. Jesus’ response is multi-layered, but he first raises the ethical question of who a ‘neighbor’ is. Jesus radically extends the nature of covenant ethics. To Jesus, political affinity, ethnicity, proximity, and personal familiarity have nothing to do with being a neighbor, since the Samaritan was not a political friend to first century Jews in any meaningful way, was not regarded as ethnically akin to the Jewish man on the side of the road, did not live near him, and had never even met him before. Jews did not even regard Samaritans as part of their covenant community, so Jesus essentially takes what was to be the guiding ethic within the covenant community (e.g. Lev.19:9-18) and makes it the guiding ethic facing outward as well. Jesus is saying, ‘Love your enemy’ in yet another way. Jesus says that whether one accepts this ethic is one major determinant - integrated into Jesus’ overall kingdom teaching, of course - of whether one inherits the ‘eternal life’ of the kingdom of God.
Second, Jesus says that financial and personal generosity is part of being a good neighbor. The Samaritan first saw him and felt compassion. The fact that his heart was moved is quite significant. He is personally generous with his emotion by feeling the suffering of the wounded Jewish man. The Samaritan was also exposing himself to danger by pausing on a dangerous road, since the road from Jericho to Jerusalem was known to have prowling bandits. The Samaritan slowed down his own journey by putting the man on his donkey. Furthermore, he took the man to an inn and personally took care of him for the evening and through the night. The following day, he left a substantial amount with the innkeeper to continue the care.
Third, Jesus challenges the Jewish lawyer to embrace this hypothetical Samaritan as a full member of the covenant community. The Jewish priest and Levite had not stopped to care for the wounded man. The point probably registered forcefully: They did not stop because of they feared contamination by a dead man would ritually defile them; in other words, they wanted to uphold Mosaic ritual law about cleanness and uncleanness before they wanted to have compassion on the man. Jesus thus raises a larger ethnic and theological question, whether Samaritans can fulfill the requirements for Jesus’ kingdom as well as any Pharisaic lawyer can, obsessed as he was with the Mosaic code. This further confirms Jesus’ commitment to breaking down ethnocentrism and nationalistic interpretations of the kingdom. It is part of a repeated pattern where Jesus explicitly challenges Jewish ethnocentrism by favorably holding up a Samaritan or Gentile (4:14-30; 17:11-17).
Finally, by saying, ‘Do this and you will live’, Jesus may have been drawing on two occurrences of that phrase in the Old Testament. The Jewish expert in the Law would surely have thought first of Leviticus 18:5, which was within the covenant Israel, led by Moses, made with God at Sinai. However, Jesus may have been calling his attention to Genesis 42:18, which also contains the phrase ‘Do this and live.’ In that story, Joseph in disguise challenges ten of his brothers, the sons of Leah and her handmaiden, to care for their half-brother Benjamin, the son of Rachel.[1] Jesus may have been signaling to the Jews that they must care for their half-brothers, the Samaritans. After all, the Samaritan in the story had just done so for a Jew.
When contextualized into our world, the parable of the good Samaritan has significant ramifications. Technology and organization have made it possible for Christians to assist people who are radically different from us, on the other side of the world, whom we have never met before. It is possible for us to be ‘good Samaritans’ in a way that other generations never had the opportunity to before. We can make contributions to relief agencies coping with natural disasters or diseases, no-interest loans to microbusinesses and communities struggling to survive, funds for medical and educational supplies for children in poverty, etc., without creating further entangling dependencies on the wealthy benefactor, usually for the benefactor’s future benefit. Unlike the World Bank, or to a greater extent the U.S., which has given and continues to give ‘aid’ to developing countries with entangling economic, political, or military agreements, the Samaritan gives the injured Jewish traveler help that is directed purely towards getting him back up on his feet. It comes unconditionally. He writes a blank check, so to speak, to bear the expenses necessary for the wounded man to receive care. This is how Jesus defines being a ‘good neighbor.’
------------------
[1] I'm indebted for this insight to Preston Sprinkle, The Use of Genesis 42:18 (Not Leviticus 18:5) in Luke 10:28: Joseph and the Good Samaritan (Aberdeen University, Program Unit: Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity). However, Sprinkle argues that only Genesis 42:18 is being quoted here, whereas I think there is a deliberate ambiguity about reference being exploited by Jesus concerning which text is being quoted.
