The context in which Jesus tells the Parable of the Good Samaritan is that of a question He is asked by a lawyer – or a “scholar of the law.” Luke writes that the lawyer stood up to “test” Jesus. Luke here uses the same word for “test” that he used for the devil testing Jesus in the desert. This lets his readers know that the lawyer’s motives are not pure, but sinister.

The lawyer asks Jesus, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Likely, the lawyer knows the answer that Jesus should give but, again, he is asking not to confirm Jesus’ wisdom, but to test Him before the crowd, perhaps in hopes of trapping Him. Jesus doesn’t answer him, and instead asks him a question: “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” The lawyer gives an answer that reflects the devout Jew’s obligation to love God and love one’s neighbor: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and will all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” The first half comes from the Shema (shi-MAH), the prayer the devout Jew recites every day, and the second half from Leviticus 19:18, which reads: “Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your own people. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD”). Jesus agrees with the lawyer’s answer, telling him that if he does this, he will live. In agreeing with the lawyer, Jesus demonstrates that His teaching is not contrary to Jewish tradition, but “an elaboration or refinement of that tradition.”

But “because he wished to justify himself,” that is, to show that he is “in good stead in the eyes of God,” the lawyer asks Jesus to clarify a matter: “And who is my neighbor?” Naturally, the lawyer would have expected Jesus to answer consistent with Jewish culture and expectations of the day, and of Leviticus 19:18 – one’s neighbor is one who belongs to the Jewish community, those who are also in good stead with God, “your own people.” But Jesus confounds the lawyer and the crowd with the Parable of the Good Samaritan.    

A bit of history on the tensions between Jews and Samaritans:

When King Solomon died, the kingdom of Israel became divided. The northern districts abandoned their allegiance with Judea and became a separate kingdom. This included Samaria, that region of Palestine just north of Judea. The Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom in 722 BC, and took into exile with them many of the Israelites who lived there, while introducing to the area peoples of various regions whose own kingdoms or districts the Assyrians had conquered. These peoples assimilated to their new home, and the Israeltes still living in what had been the Northern Kingdom assimilated to them. As such, they began to marry each other. Eventually, the population of the Northern Kingdom became so mixed that the orthodox Jews of the Southern Kingdom no longer considered them part of God’s people under the covenant. As well, the religion of the north began to change. They regarded only the books of Moses, Genesis to Deuteronomy, as God’s revelation. As well, they worshipped on Mount Gerizim in Shechem, while the southern Jews regarded only the worship in Jerusalem as authentic. The animosity between the two groups of Jews grew over the centuries, and was maintained during the time of Jesus.

First, let’s consider the Samaritan in the parable. Obviously, based on the history we just heard, he would have been regarded as an enemy to the Jews who heard this story. Why would Jesus choose to depict such a one as the hero of the story? Isn’t Jesus really creating something that doesn’t exist – a compassionate Samaritan?

But no Samaritan hearing this parable would have taken pride in the actions of the compassionate Samaritan. Why? Well, consider that the Samaritan in the story is in Jewish territory. What’s he doing there? Oh, no, he seems to be returning to Jericho from Jerusalem, as was the man who was beaten and robbed. This likely would mean that he was worshipping in Jerusalem and, as we just discussed, Samaritans don’t worship in Jerusalem (or, at least, they’re not supposed to!). Finally, the man to whom he is showing compassion is almost certainly a Jew (considering that he’s in Judea and returning from one Jewish city to another). Any Samaritan worth his salt would have been happy to see a Jew in so unfortunate a way. This Samaritan would have been considered a traitor to his own people. So, the Samaritan in the story would be one rejected by both Jews and Samaritans.

Now, let’s consider the priest and the Levite. Both are officials in the Jerusalem temple. Both are likely returning from their temple service. As such, their primary concern is their ritual purity. Considering that the man beaten by robbers is likely bleeding, and may even be dead, they don’t want to come near him. To come into contact with the man’s blood, or to touch a dead person, would have made them ritually unclean and unqualified to perform their temple service until they had gone through ritual cleansing, a ritual cleaning that required a commitment of some considerable time. Their solution to the problem is to avoid the problem, that is, the beaten man, all together, even going so far as crossing the road so they won’t come near him.

Then the Samaritan comes along. He has compassion toward the man. He pours oil and wine on his wounds to clean them, then bandages them. He puts him on his animal and takes him to an inn, where he continues to care for him. The next day he gives money for the man’s continued care to the innkeeper, promising to make up the difference in what he gives the innkeeper and the actual cost of the man’s care until his return.

Now, Jesus asks the lawyer another question: “Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?” Luke doesn’t record the drama that must have taken place when Jesus asked this question. For the lawyer, a good Jew, likely doesn’t want to answer the question, because to answer honestly who was obviously neighbor to the robbers’ victims, he will have to counter everything he knows and feels as a good Jew.

Jesus is also offering a different understanding of “neighbor” than was custom in His time. The neighbor was always considered another in one’s own tribe, or community, or ethnic division or, at best, a foreigner who had taken up permanent residence among another people. But Jesus’ idea of neighbor is not defined by such. Rather, the neighbor is the one in need, regardless of ethnic identity. And, if regardless of ethnic identity, then regardless of any other identity that we impose upon ourselves and others. No, the idea of neighbor is far wider in Jesus’ understanding. It means anyone in need. Which could theoretically be, literally, anyone! And, if anyone is my neighbor, then everyone is my neighbor! Perhaps now we can appreciate how truly radical was Jesus’ expectations of those who follow Him and, even, His expectations of all. Furthermore, our obligation to our neighbor isn’t qualified by other obligations, even religious obligations. No, we are called to act in love toward our neighbor, and this means getting involved.

St. Augustine of Hippo saw the Parable of the Good Samaritan as an allegory, where the Good Samaritan is our Lord, and the man beaten by robbers is Adam or, more extensively, all humankind beaten down by the forces of sin. The inn is the Church, where Jesus delivers us to be cared for us until His return.

At last, the lawyer cannot deny the honest and obvious answer to Jesus’ question: “He answered, ‘the one who treated him with mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’” Jesus challenges the lawyer’s understanding of neighbor, then challenges him to adopt Jesus’ understanding of neighbor in how he lives his life. This is no simple challenge. To do so would have consequences. Treating anyone in need as a neighbor could put the lawyer himself at risk of being considered a traitor to and an outsider in his own community. Did he follow Jesus’ command? We don’t know. Luke doesn’t tell us. The pertinent question for us, of course, is: Do we?     

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.