I.
INTRODUCTION
The
parable of “The Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:25-37) is only found in the Gospel of
Luke and it is an illustration which Jesus used in responding to the question
raised by the expert of the law concerning about “And who is my neighbor?”
(Luke 10:29).
“The
Good Samaritan” clearly teaches about our primary and general duties as men,
which are to love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul and
with all our strength and with all our mind, and to love our neighbor as
ourselves. These godly principles are applied not merely to those contemporary
folks of Jesus’ day, but to all generations of those who have acknowledged
Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and who are called to live in accordance
with His Great Commandments.
The
parable of “The Good Samaritan” is so impressive to the audiences down the
centuries that people who offer their service or good work to the needy or the
poor, and those who intervene to help peril in the public arena are regularly referred
to as “Good Samaritans” within our Christianity culture and context.[1]
II.
DIFFERENT
APPROACHES OF INTEPRETATION
The
parable of “The Good Samaritan” has been interpreted by many historical
scholars and bible teachers, and they had adopted either literal, historical or
even allegorical approaches in interpretation. One of the famous allegorical
approaches was used by Augustine where he equaled the wounded man as Adam the
sinner, the robbers as Satan and his angels, the priest and Levite as the
helpless Law and Prophets, the Samaritan as Jesus the Savior, the inn as the
Church and the two silver coins as the two sacraments of the Church etc. Some
interpreted the “inn” in Greek term referring it as a place for all people.
Some linked the acts of pouring oil and wine by the Samaritan unto the wounded
man to priests and Levites pouring oil and wine before the altar of God, and
concluded that the act of offerings of the Samaritan was a kind of right and
acceptable worship before God. Some perceived the return of the Samaritan as
the second return of Christ.[2]
I do agree that sometimes parables have their
allegorical aspects, but not all parables are to be allegorized that the actual
textual meanings are missed out completely. Jesus’ parables were spoken to Jewish
audiences inclusive of his disciples and his opponents (e.g. the Pharisees, the
Scribes and the Priests). The intentions of Jesus telling the parables were to
explain to the audiences about the kingdom of God, to demonstrate the
characters of God and the expectations of God for human beings. Therefore I do
agree with Klyne Snodgrass that we have to take in consideration of the
intention of Jesus at the moment when the parables were narrated.[3]
In
order for the intent of Jesus to be fully expressed, I have thus concluded that
we need to look at the text at its literal sense and do a deeper study on the
historical background of Jewish living and beliefs, in order to interpret it accordingly.
III.
THE
CONTEXT OF “THE GOOD SAMARITAN”
This
parable was given to an expert of the law (or lawyer) who originated from
Jewish background, who was well educated in the Jewish written and oral laws,
and well rooted in Jewish tradition and thought pattern. A survey, analysis and
understanding of the literary and historical context of this parable enable us
to possess a clearer picture of both the intentions of the lawyer and Jesus in
asking questions and Jesus in narrating the parable, and the relevancy of the
parable itself to us as secondary audiences and readers.
A. LITERARY CONTEXT
a.
TWO STORIES
As
observed by James Montgomery Boice, this narrative passage in Luke consists of
two stories, one with the expert of the law asking the questions that
occasioned the parable (Luke 10:25-29; 36-37) and the other is the parable
itself (Luke 10:30-35).[4]
b.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
It
is a common practice of Jewish learning to ask questions and to answer
questions with more questions being raised further.[5] The subject matters of the
two questions asked by the expert of the law were different in nature, as one
was concerned with salvation while the other was concerned with God-pleasing
conduct.[6]
In
both cases, Jesus answered with further reflective questions raised intending to
invite the lawyer (nomikos) to answer his own questions. The lawyer’s knowledge
about the questions he asked and answered had revealed and proved of his ill
intention.[7] By asking question “who is
my neighbor” he was trying to exclude those who were undefined in his scope of
neighborhood. Bernard Brandon Scott presented to us a corresponding contrast
between the question “What shall I do” issued by the lawyer at the beginning of
the parable and the conclusive command of Jesus “Go and do likewise” in the end
of the parable.[8]
B. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
a.
BETWEEN THE JEWS AND
THE SAMARITANS
We
discover both from the biblical and historical records about the enmity existed
between the Jews and the Samaritans. The conflict has lasted for more than 450
years before the parable was told.[9] The initial causes of
conflict was due to the invasion and conquer of Assyria, where the residues of northern
Israelites had intermarriages with those foreigners (e.g. people deported by
Assyrians from Babylon,
Cuthah,
Avah, Emath, and Sepharvaim who settled themselves among Israelites) since the
fall of Samaria into the hand of Assyria in 721B.C. The descendants from these
mixed marriages were called Samaritans. Jews despised the Samaritans greatly
and refused to acknowledge them as part of their people as they were considered
impure.
The
alienation was increased when the Samaritans offered their help to rebuild the Temple
and the City of Jerusalem upon the return of the remnants of Judah from the
exiles, yet they were rejected by the Jews in Jerusalem. Since then, the
Samaritans established their temple of worship on Mount Gerizim. They claimed
that the temple on Mount Gerizim is the original sanctuary and their Pentateuch
is the original text comparing to the Jerusalem temple and the Pentateuch held
by Ezra the Scribe.
According
to the record of Jeremias, after twelve years of King Herod’s death, during
Jesus’ day, the Samaritan spread some human bones in the Jerusalem temple when
the Jews were celebrating their Passover.[10] The hatred of Jews
towards Samaritan was thus deepened and Jews refused to enter or pass by any
villages of Samaritans. The Samaritans would not allow any Jews to spend the
nights in their villages as well.[11]
William
Barclay disclosed that “the Samaritans” also refer to those law breakers and
renegades from orthodox Jewish religion. Anyone who does not keep the
ceremonial law will be labeled as Samaritan[12]. It is actually
contemptuous and demeaning for a Jews to call the other Jews a Samaritan.
b.
JEWISH MIND AND CONCEPT
Simon
Kistemaker considered the question raised by the lawyer “who is my neighbor” as
a common question to ask by then since geographically Israel served as a bridge
among many nations surrounding her. Israel definitely and unavoidably had to
rub shoulders and elbows with those foreigners who passed by her land. [13]
When
Jesus illustrated Samaritan as the one who offered help to the wounded man, he
had shocked his audiences terribly as Jews would never consider a Samaritan as
their neighbor, instead they saw Samaritans as their physical enemies or those
who were despised and rejected by the laws. The hero appeared in the parable
was someone who stood in contrast with them both in culture and in religion.
The
threefold pattern of story-telling was very popular during Jesus’ day. With the
priest and the Levite failing to extend their hands to the wounded man, the
Jewish audiences were expecting the third comer to be the rescuer.[14] The Jewish’s concept of their
social status is a tripartite division consists of the priests, the Levites and
the Israelites, who are the common Jews. The concept of triad and their flow of
mind were seriously disrupted when the hero they had expected in the
story-telling turned out to be a Samaritan instead of a layman Israel.[15]
c.
PRIESTHOOD & THE
LAWS
The
Jews of Jesus’ day were well-taught in Torah since young. It is instructed
clearly in the Torah that priests are to make themselves ceremonially clean by
not touching any dead body, other than those who are their close relatives,
i.e. direct family members excluding married sisters (refer to Leviticus 21:
1-4). The high priests are forbidden to defile themselves even by the dead bodies
of their parents (refer to Leviticus 22:11).
Yet
the exception towards the above mentioned teachings is found in their tradition
or oral laws, which is written in their Mishnah and Talmud. The teachings in
Mishnah allow the significance of the neglected corpse to take priority over
ritual purity and priests are supposed to bury the neglected corpse without
fearing of being defiled and becoming ceremonially impure.[16]
The
priest and Levite mentioned in the parable might be Sudducees as they were
literalists who followed the written or biblical law (Torah) strictly and they had
rejected the validity of the oral laws. Their consciences were not troubled
because they thought they had abode in the Torah. In doing so they actually
missed out the very heart of God because the oral laws have detailed out that the
principle of saving lives is one of an uncompromised priorities.[17] Jesus had pointed to us
concretely that what God desires from us is a heart of mercy and not many sacrifices
(Matthew 9:13).
During
Jesus’ time, many priests lived in Jericho and they travelled to Jerusalem when
they were on their temple duty.[18] Yet the Bible tells us
that the priest who passed by and ignored the wounded man went down from
Jerusalem to Jericho, which was the same direction the wounded man had
travelled. For a priest to come from Jerusalem to Jericho, he had actually
finished his priestly duty and was on the way back home. This highlighted the
guilt of the priest as he seemed to have no excuse of fearing any defilement since
he had fulfilled his priestly task.[19] We could imagine how
surprise the Jewish audiences were upon hearing this parable to discover how
merciless and rigidity the elites they had honored were.
IV.
THE
CENTRAL THEME
The
overall central theme of “The Good Samaritan” is to demonstrate that in order
for the followers of Christ to fulfill the greatest Commandment given in the
Law, which is to love God with all your heart with all your soul and with all
your mind and with all your strength, they have to exercise their faith through
their loving and gracious acts towards their neighbors. Loving God and loving
men fulfill our priesthood call and there is no commandment greater than these
(Matthew 22:34-40 & Mark 12:28-34). In Luke 10:36-37 Jesus instructed the
lawyer to do so in order to have eternal life that he was seeking after and in
Mark 12:34 Jesus commented that the lawyer who understood this truth is “not
far from the kingdom of God”.
The
parable shows us that the priest and the Levite who observed strictly the
teachings of the Law and who served as guardians of the Temple failed to
fulfill their call as God’s representatives. They had set the temple ritual
above the humanity [20]which God values so much
and emphasizes again and again in His living Word. By refusing to offer their
assistance and ignoring the wounded man, the priests and the Levites were in
fact continuing the evil action of the robbers.[21] They had allowed those
superficial requirements of religion to supersede the actual requirement of the
Law. Faith without deed is dead (James 2:26) and is not pleasing to God.
Therefore true faith is a faith that lives out with action of love and
compassion.
While
the priest and Levite failed to live out true essence of the Law, the outcast
Samaritan who was considered impure ceremonially had fulfilled the Law by
offering his help for the needy. [22] The Samaritan had indeed
crossed the physical, cultural, ethnical and religious barriers when he stepped
in to help the wounded man. A. M. Hunter commented that Jesus perceives real
love as an attitude which does not ask for limit but only for opportunities.[23] In J. Jeremias’ saying[24], we can conclude that the
example of Samaritan was intended to teach us that no human being is beyond the
range of our charity, and we are called ever ready to be for those who are in
need. John R. Donahue, S.J. implied that in order to fulfill the law, we have
to become the Samaritan to take risk in a hostile world, to love even our
enemies.[25]
Religious
piety is not shown only through religious acts but in love towards our
neighbors! It is more than an inner relationship with God but an outward loving
relationship with people around us. It is what Jesus has required of us, to
love our neighbor as ourselves, and beyond that, to love our enemies (Matthew
5:43-48).
V.
CONTEMPORARY
APPLICATION
Christians
are called to serve rather than to be served, as the Lord Jesus sees Himself
more of a servant than a Master sent by God. Many scholars have agreed that
Jesus was directing the lawyer to see himself as a neighbor for all, inclusive
of his enemies, rather than be exclusive and classifying his own category of
neighbors. The highest demand of Jesus’ teaching for us as followers of Christ
is to love our enemies, to extend our friendship to those who are hostile and
those who are our opponents. Gospel is a message of grace with salvation
offered to all men and we could not afford to alienate any individual or people
groups from the reach of our hands.
We
are called also to be salt and light in the world (Matthew 5:13-16). We have to
demonstrate our faith through our good deeds in order that people could see the
light and taste the saltiness in us and give praises to our Heavenly Father. One
way we can practice our love to God is through loving others, as how we love
ourselves.
The
Church or the Christian community sometimes has functioned like the priest and
the Levite unknowingly. We are so much concentrated on our worship towards God
that we lock ourselves within the four walls of the Church and our own faith
community and forget about the world. We might be diligent in religious
activities and performances, but we are cold towards the lost, the needy and
the poor. Our church program and activities might be so Christian-centered that
it could only minister to the saved and the unsaved find it hard or unable to
relate with us. It would be an irony if the Church is experiencing God’s
fullness of life without realizing and concerning about the millions who are
lost in eternity. It would be painful to Jesus if the hungers and sick who have
no hope for the future could not find hope through the existence of the Church.
The
Church needs to be balanced in her role in meeting her own needs and the needs
of the wounded world, for Jesus’ ministry is to preach to the poor, to heal the
sick, to bind the wounded, to comfort those who mourn, to strengthen the weak,
to set free the captives and to bring forth the deliverance (Isaiah 61:1-3).
Priest and Levite could not afford to limit themselves with ceremonial
responsibility only, but they have the social responsibility too entrusted by
the Lord. William Temple had made it bluntly clear about the mission of the
Church or the faith community as a whole, that “the Church is the only organization
that exists for the sake of its non-members.”[26]
VI.
CONCLUSION
We
may behave like the expert of the law who tried to justify our stands and argue
with our bias and corrupted perspectives. Yet we need always to be reminded
that God does not see religious act or faith as a separate function from our
social responsibility. Loving God and loving man are the two greatest
commandments and we are called to do so. The Lord perceives that we love Him when
we are able to love our fellow people around us. One cannot claim to be true
follower of Christ unless He sees others with the eyes of the Lord, full of
compassion and grace and mercy, and to extend our hands unconditionally
whenever the needs arise.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barclay,
William. And Jesus Said: A Handbook on
the Parables of Jesus.
Philadelphia
:The Westminster Press, 1970.Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Leicester: Apollos, 1990.
Blomberg,
Craig L. Preaching the Parables. Michigan:
Baker Academic, 2004
Boice,
James Montgomery. The Parables of Jesus.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.
Crossan,
John Dominic. In Parables: The Challenge
of the Historical Jesus.
California:
Polebridge Press, 1992.
Donahue,
S.J, John R. The Gospel in Parable.
Fortress Press, 1990.
Hendrickx
, Herman. The Parables of Jesus.
Makati: St Paul Publications, 1987.
Hunter,
A. M. Interpreting the Parables.
London: SCM Press Limited, 1979.
Jin
Huat, Tan. Preacher, Prepare Yourself:
Towards Better Preaching. Kuala Lumpur:
Good News
Resources, 2000.
Kistemaker,
Simon. The Parables of Jesus.
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980.
Scott,
Bernard Brandon. Hear Then the Parable: A
Commentary on the Parables of
Jesus. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1990.
Shillington,
V. George. Jesus & His Parables.
Glasgow: T&T Clark, 1999.
Snodgrass,
Klyne. Stories with Intent: A
Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of
Jesus.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.
Trench,
Richard C. Parables of Our Lord.
Lafayette : Sovereign Grace Publishers,
Inc., 2002.
Wenham,
David. The Parables of Jesus. London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1989.
Young,
Brad H. The Parables: Jewish Tradition
and Christian Interpretation.
Massachusetts:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan
(access date: 28Mar2012)
[1] Craig L.
Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables
(Leicester: Apollos, 1990), 56 & 58.
[3] Klyne
Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A
Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 2-4.
[4] James Montgomery
Boice, The Parables of Jesus
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), 148.
[5] Brad H. Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian
Interpretation (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 103.
[6] Boice, The Parables of Jesus, 148
[7] Hendrickx, The Parables of Jesus, 79.
[8] Bernard Brandon
Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A
Commentary on the Parables of
Jesus
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 191.
[9] William
Barclay, And Jesus Said: A Handbook on
the Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970), 81.
[11] Ibid, 109.
[12] Barclay, And Jesus Said: A Handbook on the Parables
of Jesus, 82.
[13] Simon
Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus
(Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980), 167.
[14] Hendrickx, The Parables of Jesus, 96.
[16] Ibid, 196.
[17] Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian
Interpretation, 105, 108 & 112.
[18] Ibid, 106.
[19] Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 232.
[20] Barclay, And Jesus said: A Handbook on the Parables
of Jesus, 79.
[21] Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian
Interpretation, 105.
[22] V. George
Shillington, Jesus & His Parables
(Glasgow: T&T Clark, 1999), 42.
[23] A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables (London: SCM Press Limited, 1979), 72.
[24] John Dominic
Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of
the Historical Jesus (California: Polebridge Press, 1992), 56.
[25] S.J, John R
Donahue, The Gospel in Parable
(Fortress Press, 1990), 132.
[26] Tan Jin Huat, Preacher, Prepare Yourself: Towards Better
Preaching (Kuala Lumpur: Good News Resources, 2000), 188.
No comments:
Post a Comment