Seven surprising things about the Good Samaritan in Luke 10
by Ian Paul, Psephizo:
[…] the parable does not contrast legalism with compassion, since the Mosaic law also demands that we care for the stranger—in fact (rather ironically) this part of the summary of the law (‘Love your neighbour as yourself’) comes from the heart of what some readers would see as the most problematic law text in the Old Testament, Leviticus 19.18, not even a full chapter later than the notorious Leviticus 18.22! The issue is not compassion versus law, but the right understanding of the law, and the possibility of using Scriptural teaching for one’s own convenience rather than for the purpose for which it was intended.
This is confirmed by another of Alastair Roberts’ observations about the detail of the narrative, the use of oil and wine.
“Some have observed that the parable of the Good Samaritan is, in part, a commentary upon Hosea 6:6: ‘For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.’ The pouring on of oil and wine is a sacrificial action; that is how you might act toward a sacrifice.Now the priest and the Levite are characters associated with the cultic worship of Israel, people who would be serving in the temple. Some have suggested that they are trying to keep ceremonially pure by not encountering a body that might prove to be a corpse. But the important thing in the parable, as Jesus indicates, is that true sacrifice is found in this act of mercy and compassion performed by the Good Samaritan, and in this act of compassion a sacrificial pattern is being played out. He is treating the man to whom he is showing mercy as if he were a sacrifice.”
In other words, Jesus isn’t overturning Old Testament prescriptions, but entering into the debate within the Old Testament itself about what worship and sacrifice are all about…
…The parable has been interpreted in a wide range of different ways, and one of the best known (though least persuasive for modern readers) is the allegorical reading first proposed by Origen:
“The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord’s body, the [inn], which accepts all who wish to enter, is the Church. … The manager of the [inn] is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior’s second coming.” (Homily 34.3)
[…] There are all sorts of problems with this approach to the text, not least that it appears to have little connection with what Jesus actually meant, but also that it appears to annul the moral imperative. But the modern reaction to such a reading is to head in the opposite direction, and reduce the impact to mere practical morality, devoid of any Christological significance and detached from what the rest of the New Testament says about sin, atonement and ethics.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
