PART 6 – KEEPING IT TOGETHER
​
Chapter 31 - THE ROAD JESUS TRAVELLED
Revisiting the story of the Good Samaritan
​
The story of the Good Samaritan must be one of the most well-known stories in the Bible. If you have grown up in a church context, you must have heard the story expounded numerous times. But if you were asked: “Where does this story fit into the context of Jesus life and ministry?”, how would you respond? And what difference does it make anyway?
​
I will consider this question by starting with a close up look at the parable itself, and then gradually zoom out to consider the surrounding layers of the narrative context. We will see how each additional layer adds new questions and new insights into the significance of the parable and its wider implications.
​
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage 1: the parable itself (from Luke 10:30-35)
A man was traveling down the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, and on the way he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him, beat him up, and left him half dead by the side of the road.
​
A Priest just happened to be traveling down the road. But when he saw the man lying there injured, he crossed over the road and walked by on the other side. Then a Levite – an assistant at the Temple – came past and saw him him lying there, but he also walked by on the other side of the road.
​
After this a Samaritan (who would normally have nothing to do with the Jews – nor us with them!) came along. And when he saw the man, he was filled with pity and compassion for him.
​
He went over to him, poured oil and wine on his wounds to soothe them, and bound them up with strips of cloth. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn, and took care of him.
​
The next day he gave the innkeeper two silver coins, and told him,
'Take care of this man. If there are any additional expenses, I'll pay you the next time I come past.'
Of course, we can learn a great deal from looking at the parable as a stand-alone story, irrespective of its narrative context. There are a number of very relevant questions that arise from the internal content of the story:
-
Why does Jesus cast the Priest and the Levite as the “villains” in this story? What characteristics of the religious leaders is he pointing up?
-
Why did these religious men avoid the injured victim? The usual interpretation is that approaching and touching the wounded man would make them religiously impure – thus their concern for religious rules and regulations takes priority over mercy and compassion.
-
How does the action of the Samaritan contrast with the actions of the Priest and Levite? What is it about his behaviour that illustrates the characteristics of a “good neighbour”?
-
How can we apply Jesus’ parable by acting as “good neighbours” in our present day context?
This simple outline would provide the basis for a great sermon or Bible study, but would miss some important elements that we can glean from the surrounding conversation between Jesus and the teacher of the law. So let’s widen our view to take in the immediate context.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage 2 - The question and the conclusion (Luke 10:25-29, 36-37)
After this, a teacher of the religious law came to Jesus in order to test him by asking him this question:
"Rabbi – Teacher – what must I do in order to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus replied,
"What does the law of Moses say? How would you answer the question?"
The man answered,
"You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind. And you must love your neighbour as yourself."
Jesus told him,
“Yes, that’s exactly the right answer. If you follow these commands you will live!"
But the man wanted to show that he was justified in asking the question, so he asked Jesus,
"So tell me, who is my neighbour?"
Jesus answered his question by telling this story:
[Here comes the parable of the Good Samaritan]
Then Jesus asked the teacher of the law,
"Now which of these men would you say was a good neighbour to the man who was attacked by robbers?"
The teacher replied,
"The one who showed him mercy and compassion."
Then Jesus said,
"Yes you are right. So now you go and do the same!"
So let’s look at the conversation leading up to the parable. What can we make of the teacher of the law who comes to Jesus with his questions?
In the first instance, his initial question and his answer to Jesus’ counter-question show that he is, indeed, an expert in the Old Testament scriptures, and his understanding is (at least in theory) very insightful. His question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” gets to the very heart of the Biblical message, and his response to Jesus’ question exactly corresponds to Jesus’ own summary of the Old Testament law (Matthew 22:34-40):
When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had confounded the Sadducees with his replies, they met together to question him again. One of them, who was an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question:
"Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?"
Jesus replied,
"You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and the greatest commandment, but there is a second commandment which is equally important: You must love your neighbour as yourself. Everything else contained in the books of the Law and the writings of the Prophets is based on these two commandments."
But other aspects of the conversation reveal serious blind spots. In order to justify himself he asks Jesus, “Who is my neighbour?” The story that Jesus tells in response shows that he (the teacher of the law) is influenced by the general Jewish belief that the label of “neighbour” belongs to fellow Jews, not to Gentiles or Samaritans. That’s not at all surprising. The theology of the Old Testament is strongly founded on the principle of God’s covenant relationship with the Jewish people. They are God’s chosen, and are called to a life that is special, separated from the idolatry and immorality of the surrounding nations. The Old Testament principle of Chesed – God’s covenant love, his faithful loving-kindness – is founded on the covenant relationship between God and Abraham. So their principle loyalty is to their fellow “children of Abraham”.
However, Jesus’ story punches a hole straight through that assumption. His story shows that God’s principle of mercy and compassion applies across cultural, religious and racial boundaries. God loves all peoples, not just the Jews. But he also accuses the religious leaders that they cannot even follow God’s principle of loving their neighbour when it comes to those who are poor or disadvantaged within their own community!
The conversation also shows up the twisted motivation of the religious teacher. His aim is to test Jesus, to trap him into giving an answer that would open him up to accusations of heresy or blasphemy. And when his first attempt fails, and Jesus turns the question around so that he, the trapper, becomes the one who is trapped, he seeks to justify himself, setting himself up for Jesus to expose him for being hypocritical.
The end of the conversation shows that the teacher of the law has been forced to accept the conclusion of Jesus’ parable. When Jesus asks, “Which of these three men would you say was a good neighbour to the man who was attacked by robbers?" He can only reply, "The one who showed him mercy and compassion."
At least in theory, the teacher of the law has got the point. But can he translate theory into practice? Jesus ends the conversation with a challenge, “Now you go and do the same!” How does the teacher respond? That question is left hanging, but maybe zooming out once again to the larger context of Jesus’ ministry, and the setting of the confrontation between Jesus and this teacher of the law, can raise some further possibilities.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage 3 - The Road Jesus travelled (Luke 9:38-45, 51-53, 10:38)
The day after Jesus had been transfigured on the mountainside, Jesus was teaching a crowd of disciples. A man in the crowd called out to him,
"Teacher, please come and look at my son, my only child. An evil spirit keeps seizing him, and making him cry out. It throws him into convulsions so that he foams at the mouth. It hardly ever leaves him alone. It’s destroying his life! I begged your disciples to cast out the spirit, but they couldn't do it."
Jesus said to the crowd,
"You faithless and perverse generation, how long must I be with you and put up with you?"
Then he said to the man,
"Bring your son here."
​
As the boy started towards Jesus, the spirit threw him to the ground and sent him into violent convulsions. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the boy. Then he gave him back to his father. The people were astonished and awestruck when they saw the mighty power of God, and amazed at what Jesus had done.
While the crowd were still full of wonder at all that had happened, Jesus said to his disciples,
"Listen carefully to what I have to say. The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of his enemies."
But the disciples didn't understand his words. His meaning was hidden from them, so they couldn't grasp its significance, and they were afraid to ask him about it.
Now the time was approaching for Jesus to ascend to heaven, so he made a firm decision to set out for Jerusalem. He planned to travel through Samaria, so he sent messengers ahead to a Samaritan village to prepare for his arrival. But the people of the village refused to welcome him because he was on his way to Jerusalem.
[Jesus continues his journey through Samaria, and on the way is confronted by the teacher of the law. After this encounter…]
Jesus and the disciples continued their journey to Jerusalem, and they came to the village of Bethany, to the home of Martha and Mary.
So, we are approaching the final week of Jesus’ ministry. The healing of the spirit-possessed boy reminds us that Jesus has powerfully demonstrated his claim to be the promised Messiah, and the crowds are amazed at his teaching, his healing, and his miracles. But Jesus knows that the Father has prepared a final dramatic confrontation with the powers of darkness – that he will soon be betrayed, handed over to his enemies, tried, condemned and crucified. Yet knowing this, he sets out resolutely towards Jerusalem, traveling for the last time from Galilee, through Samaria, and on to Jerusalem where he will suffer and die for the sins of the world.
And on the way he must also pass through Jericho. Luke does not mention Jesus passing through Jericho specifically, but this was the only sensible route, and in any case we know that he did from Mark’s account, who tells us about Jesus healing blind Bartimaeus there (Mark 10:46-52).
So if we look at the context of Jesus’ final journey towards Jerusalem we find some fascinating elements that connect the parable of the Good Samaritan to Jesus’ own personal journey:
-
Jesus had just had a personal encounter with the Samaritans (not a very positive one at that).
-
He himself was about to – or maybe even was in process of – traveling the same road that he talks about in the parable, from Jericho to Jerusalem.
-
And he knew that there were people lying in wait for him, intent to betray him, scourge him, crucify him and leave him for dead on a wooden cross!
Now are those parallels merely coincidental?... or did Jesus intend for the teacher of the law to see through the parable and discern the hidden meaning? Bear in mind that Jesus clearly saw through the motives of the teacher of the law. He knew this man – like many, or most, of his fellow Scribes and Pharisees – was looking for an excuse to trap him and accuse him, actively looking for an excuse to condemn him to death. In his story, Jesus casts the Priest and the Levite as the villains – but where is the Pharisee, the Scribe, the Teacher of the Law? Could it be that Jesus intends his adversary to see himself cast as one of the robbers, lying in wait for Jesus to come along and fall into the trap?
If so, Jesus is giving the teacher of the law a clear choice: to continue as his adversary, aligning himself with those who are seeking Jesus’ destruction, or to repent of his sin and hypocrisy, to choose mercy and compassion, and to turn to Jesus as his salvation. There were many Pharisees and religious leaders who did just that. We know specifically of Nicodemus who came to seek Jesus in secret, and Gamaliel, who defended Peter and John against his fellow Pharisees in the Jewish High Council (interestingly, Gamaliel is described (Acts 5:34) as “an expert in religious law”).
But I am particularly struck by the parallel with Joseph of Arimathea, who, while other religious leaders turned their backs and left Jesus’ body to be disposed of by the Roman authorities, had the courage to go to Pilate (along with Nicodemus, as we are told in John 19:39) and request that Jesus’ body be handed over to him for burial. Joseph took Jesus’ body (on his own donkey?) wrapped it in grave clothes, and placed it with love, pity and compassion in his own private tomb, to give Jesus the greatest care, honour and dignity that could be offered.
We may note two other parallels which are maybe not quite so obvious, but give even stronger evidence that Jesus may be referencing his own coming passion and death.
-
The parable tells us that the Good Samaritan "poured oil and wine on his wounds to soothe them, and bound them up with strips of cloth.”. And after Joseph and Nicodemus had taken Jesus’ body from the cross, John 19:39-40 tells us that Nicodemus “brought a preparation of myrrh and aloes (weighing about 75 pounds), and they anointed Jesus' body with the aromatic spices and wrapped it in strips of linen cloth.”
-
The Samaritan gives the inn-keeper two denarii – two silver coins. Some translations note that the money amounted to two days wages, but in the context of the story I believe it’s more likely that each silver coin represents the cost of one night’s lodging at the inn. So the Samaritan pays in advance for two nights’ bed and board, anticipating that the man will be sufficiently recovered and fit enough to leave the inn and continue his journey on the third day. The parallel breaks down in the important respect that Jesus is actually dead, not just wounded, while resting in the tomb. But any allegory can only stretch so far. The wounded man was expected to leave his place of rest on the third day – Jesus rose from the grave on the third day.
But Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were not Samaritans! Does that invalidate the proposal that the wounded man on the Jericho Road is a type of Jesus himself? No, I don’t think so. Jesus used the illustration of the Samaritan/Jewish opposition as representative of the cultural/racial/religious barriers that inhibit our sense of love and compassion. Bear in mind that there was also a spirit of hatred and opposition between Jesus and the Jewish religious elite. It was just as unacceptable and risky for Jewish religious leaders to associate with Jesus as it was to associate with the Samaritans – hence Nicodemus visited Jesus by night, out of public view, for the same reason that the Samaritan woman came to draw water from the well in the heat of the day.
So zooming out to the context of Jesus’ own journey along the Jericho road provides parallels that almost certainly link the story of the Good Samaritan to Jesus’ own personal journey, and suggest that Jesus may have intended the teacher of the law to recognize the wounded victim as the Christ-figure.
If I am right, then the meaning of the parable is significantly enhanced.
Without this additional narrative context, and the parallels that emerge to Jesus’ own personal journey, we can interpret the story as:
-
A condemnation of the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders, and
-
A charge to the Teacher of the Law to put mercy and compassion ahead of empty rules and regulations, and to show compassion to his enemies, as well as to his fellow Jews.
But with those additional narrative elements in mind, we must see the story as challenging, not just the teacher’s general hypocritical attitude, but specifically his attitude towards and his relationship with Jesus the Messiah.
-
Jesus exposes the Teacher of the Law for his rejection of and opposition towards God’s chosen Messiah. He is identified both as one of the robbers, lying in wait for Jesus in order to attack and condemn him, and/or as one of the religious elite who despised and rejected God’s chosen and (prophetically) left him to suffer the pain and humiliation of the cross.
-
And at the same time he challenges the Teacher of the Law to change his position towards Jesus – to abandon his attitude of rejection and opposition, and to align himself with those who, like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, were drawn to Jesus, and came to love him and share in his sufferings.
The element of mercy and compassion is still at the forefront of the story, but with the additional implication that these qualities emerge from one’s relationship with Christ, and that showing mercy and compassion to others is an expression of one’s willingness to share in Christ’s suffering for the sake of the lost. Christ is placed at the centre of the parable, instead of lurking somewhere on the periphery.
We cannot divorce the love and compassion which we show to other human beings from the love and compassion which we possess towards Christ.
Then those who are righteous will say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you? When did we give you something to drink because you were thirsty? When did we find you a stranger and show you hospitality? Or give you clothes because you were naked? When did we visit you because you were sick or in prison? (And when did we find you lying injured and bleeding by the side of the road, and bind up your wounds?)’ And the King will say, 'I tell you the truth, whenever you showed love and compassion to the least important of my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!' (Matthew 25:37-40)
Did the teacher of the law truly learn the lesson? We are not told who this teacher was, or how he responded to Jesus’ challenge, but I like to speculate that his name may have been Gamaliel…
Questions for discussion…
​
​
