With each new church season we (my church) work our way through one of the Gospels. We are presently in the Gospel of Luke. This morning we looked at the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)
The great thing about this practice is that each new season brings with it a fresh context, thus a fresh set of eyes. One point in particular stood out for me this time around, as I had never looked at it this way before.
A common observation is to rightly point out that the initial question posed by the Jewish “laywer” (who is my neighbor) is thrown back at the lawyer in the end using a different framework and emphasis (which of these was a neighbor).
This shift in focus reflects two important aspects of the text that I think are relevant to its context. The first point, one brought up and underscored by my pastor, is this;
Compassion and mercy must be taken together
The lawyer, or technically “the expert in the Law”, answers Jesus’ question by stating that it is “the one who had mercy.” The root of the word mercy in the Greek (eleos), outlined in this article, shares a meaning with the word olive oil. Why does this matter? Because often mercy is used in a modernist sense in place of “justice” or “forgiveness”, two other words equally misconstrued through a strict application to modern court room or legal/penal concerns. Mercy, like forgiveness, is often understood to be the withholding of a consequence or penalty. But that’s not how the word is used in the Greco-Roman world. The cultural and customary use of olive oil can help us understand this. As the above article points out,
Olive oil was used to treat wounds. It was soothing, comforting, and healing. It speaks then to a merciful God who is all those things
Just as the word justice, which shares a root with the word righteousness, denotes the idea of something “being made right” or whole, the word mercy denotes the act of helping, healing, restoring towards this just or right end.
Further though, mercy contains the word compassion (Strongs defines it as to show mercy” or “to have compassion”), which is defined according to the image of “the stirring of the inward parts, literally the twisting of the intestines.”
A feeling or a conviction and an act. A posture and a movement anchored in making right what is wrong in the world.
Which brings me to the second thing that stood out for me;
The direction the Priest, Levite, and the Samaritan are traveling indicate what is being made right and how it is being made right
Scot McKnight states in his recent commentary on Luke that the initial question posed by the expert in the Law, noted by my pastor as an attempt to find a loophole in which to “justify” (make right) himself, doesn’t just indicate that he is looking for “who to help”, as though having this information signed on the dotted line would ensure him eternal life, it actually had more to do with justifying those whom he was excluding for the purpose of obtaining eternal life, properly understood as the fulfillment of the covenant promise, not being saved and going to heaven. The promise was for the restoration of Israel, through which the fullness of time (creations renewal) would be found.
To unpack this idea further:
Every parable Jesus tells puts his audience in the story, in this case a religious teacher of the Law. What’s interesting to note about the context of this parable is the first half of chapter 10, which is all about the appointing and sending out (the second of two sending chapters, following the sending of the 12 in chapter 9) to the surrounding area to “harvest the fields”. Here Jesus calls out Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, God’s representative people (10:13-15).
So what does this have to do with the story of the good Samaritan? The hint is found in the direction of their travels. The man is “going down from Jerusalem”. The Priest is following “the same road.” The Levite “came to the same place”, indicating that each of these characters are facing the same direction- away from Jerusalem.
Now, here’s a point McKnight raises, citing scholar Ben Witherington. The text tells us that the man was not dead (vs 30). This is an important point because of how the purity laws worked. If they had been going to the temple (moving in the direction of Jerusalem), purity laws would have been a part of the discussion. Heading away from the temple meant that “defilement was not so serious.” Thus, as McKnight points out, the condemnation was not on the Law, as some often state, it was placed elsewhere- namely on the nature of the movement itself and what this movement was accomplishing.
What I mean by this basic point is this. The Gospels state that Jesus came to Judea first. As chapter 10 describes, the point of coming to Judea is so that this might flow out from Jerusalem into the world. But there is a further point about the nature of this movement that remains relevant to the discussion of this parable. As my pastor pointed out, the equation Jesus presents would have been anticipated to end with the following- a priest, a levite and Israel (Ezra 10:5; Nehemiah 11:3). This would have been the equation applied to the Jewish expectation, being held now by the only surviving tribe (Judah) from the period of exile. In a very real sense the idea of Israel was seen to be pronounced dead with the Diaspora. Thus what we find in Judah in the time of Jesus is a push for reform by the Pharisees. This reform includes the strict resistance to that which they see lying at the root of the exile (idolatry), and a further return to faithfulness regarding the Torah.
To summarize:
1. The priest and the levite formulate an expectation regarding the third – the restoration of the idea of Israel, which would mark a full return from exile.
2. Jesus throws it for a loop, replacing this oft cited equation with the Samaritan
3. These are the same Samaritans that had just rejected the proclamation of the kingdom and healing of the sick in Luke 9:1-2;53.
Now notice the parallel with 9:53 and the direction of the movement in chapter 10. “The (Samaritans) did not welcome him (Jesus) because he was heading for Jerusalem.” Contrasted with heading “down” from Jerusalem.
Notice a second parallel in 9:54- “When the disciples James and John saw this (the Samaritans rejection of Jesus), they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them.” Contrasted with chapter 10 where the judgment of fire is placed on Capernaum and mercy is being enacted by the Samaritan.
The movement to Jerusalem contrasted with the movement away, indicating that what the priest and levite, or the expert in the Law, have missed is the point of this movement- Jesus’ kingdom work, which is built on this call to mercy and justice.
As Jesus states in 10:13, “if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidom (pagan cities), they would have repented long ago.” But you who have been given this knowledge of the kingdom, you still fail to see what it is all for- a kingdom for the world. A kingdom moving out into the world.
This is how the idea of Israel, the harbinger of God’s promise to restore creation, left dead in the Diaspora, gets restored. The expert in the Law asumed that the point was the necessary rejection and judgment of the world, not mercy. After all, idolatry led to exile, thus Judahs return hinged on its repentance (a return to Torah faithfulness). The question who is my neighbor is looking to justify the expert in the laws commitment to this present day reform- resist idolatry by condemning the world. Have I resisted the right thing, is the question. In doing so he misses the actual work of God- mercy for the world. This is, after all, where the story of Israel, their story, has been scattered and dissolved. The call to go and do likewise then is both the answer to the initial question and to the second. How will the promised restoration come about? Through participating in the Kingdom work that is moving out into the world, thus restoring the idea of Israel in the process,
The Stories of my Life 