The parable of the Good Samaritan is sandwiched between Jesus sending out the 72 to spread news of the coming kingdom and Jesus’ conversation with Mary and Martha about whether Mary should be helping the Lord.
16.1 Read Luke 10:1-16
Jesus now appoints a further group of his disciples to be sent out. The language mirrors the sending of the twelve. Textual variants differ on whether it is 70 or 72 that are sent out.[1] The number, like 12 is symbolic. Jews traditionally thought in terms of 70 or 72 nations of the World. Moses had also appointed 70 spirit filled helpers with another 2, taking us to 72 additionally included by the Spirit. Though Nolland argues that Luke would not want the second link to dominate as it might put the focus on Moses’ limited capacity and needing help.[2](v1). Whilst this seems like a large number, Jesus suggests that it doesn’t provide enough workers compared to the size of the expected harvest. They are to ask “the Lord of the Harvest” for more workers to share the task. God is sovereign over the mission of the Gospel (v2). Furthermore, as well as being small in number, Jesus compares their vulnerability to sheep. It’s as though he has sent the lambs out right into the middle of a pack of wolves (v3). This vulnerability is marked out by their need to travel light without spare supplies or money.. The smallest of the team, their vulnerability in the face of danger and their lack of practical support, or at least a safety net should encourage their dependence on Jesus (v4).
They were not to move around looking for better support but as soon as they found somewhere to stay, they were to remain there, accepting the home owner’s hospitality, recognising them as a peaceful person. Whilst they were not to take extra supplies and so demonstrate their faith in God, they were to expect God to provide through others. This links to a principle, the worker is worth paying and so their work has value and so should be supported (v5-7).
This applies both to a specific home where they are welcomed and to the reception they receive from specific towns. If they are welcome then they are to accept hospitality, proclaim the good news and to work miracles (v8-9). If rejected, then they are symbolically to demonstrate that they will have nothing more to do with the place, they are completely clean of it, by shaking the dusk from their feet. However, even though they are rejected, they know that God’s kingdom has “come near”. In other words, its representatives have been visibly present so that the people have been given the opportunity to respond in submission to the true king. That they have refused the overt and obvious arrival of the Messiah puts them in a worse place on judgement day than Sodom and Gomorrah. If those cities were severely judged when they did not have the full light of the Gospel, how worse it is for those who deliberately refuse Jesus himself when given full revelation? (v10-12).
Jesus develops this theme by specifically addressing the towns and villages of Galilee and pronouncing woe upon them. The people there have had the opportunity to see great miracles, to know the signs of the kingdom and yet have rejected it. If other places outside of Israel that were subject to judgement had the same opportunity God’s people had, then they would have repented (v13-15). Jesus draws a connection between him and his followers, the choice whether or not to listen to them reflects their choice about him. They are truly his ambassadors. This both means that they can expects to be treated like their master and also that an action in favour or against them represents that person’s attitude to Jesus (v16).
16.2 Read Luke 10:17-24
The seventy-two return. They are overjoyed and surprised because they have experienced unexpected success. Whereas there had been failure by Jesus’ followers to cast out the demon after the Transfiguration, now the demons do submit (v17).
Jesus is not surprised. He reminds them that he has given this authority. He has authority over the demons because he has authority over their master. Satan himself has already fallen. Jesus was there in eternity to see Lucifer cast out (v18-19). However, as amazing as all of this is, far more exciting is that their “names are written in heaven.” This is another way of reminding them that they are citizens of God’s kingdom. Jesus is pointing to their identity and status which comes not from the power that they have over the enemy but the relationship that they have to him (v20).
Having spoken to them, Jesus prays for them. He speaks to God as his father, a reminder too that if he is Jesus’ Father, then they too get to call him that. He prays “full of the Holy Spirit.” Remember that this indicates a prophetic element to what he says but also captures the sense of Jesus and indeed the entire Trinity’s shared delight in what the 72 are reporting and more importantly in what he has just said to them about their identity in him (v21a). First Jesus gives thanks and praise because the things he has been teaching them about God’s kingdom, things that “the wise”, the religious and philosophical elite have been unable to see but their eyes and ears have been opened to his message. This is God’s pleasure or desired will. The great and mighty are humbled by their ignorance but God chooses to entrust his good news to those who are like little children, a pointer to their low status as invisible nobodies (v21b).
Notice that everything revealed to the 72 is through Jesus because the Father has chosen to reveal his will to him. As The Son, Jesus uniquely knows his heavenly father and so he is the one who can reveal what God is like and what God’s purpose is to others. In fact, we might argue hat it is his Sonship and what that means for their status which is the thing revealed. It is only because we know Jesus is The Son that we can know God as The Father. The language here sounds very close to John’s Gospel in style and could indicate that John was the source for this quote. The text is sometimes referred to as “The Johannine Thunderbolt” (v22).
For emphasise, Jesus tells the disciples again that they are blessed. They have been able to see, hear, experience and understand things that none of the great leaders and prophets of the past were able to. Specifically, they have seen the Messiah, the Son of God arrive (v23-24).
16.3 Read Luke 10:25-37
One of the Torah teachers comes to test Jesus. He asks him “What must I do to inherit eternal life.” We need to be careful about reading anachronistically onto the question modern thinking about the after-life. This isn’t about “can I be sure I will go to heaven when I die.” Tom Wright suggests that “eternal life” might be best rendered “life of the age to come.”[3] In other words, he wants his life to be in God’s new kingdom. He is asking about the citizenship that the 72 have been told they have. The age to come was the age that would be ushered in when David’s heir, the Messiah came. This would be eternal and so it would mean life for ever, without death and decay for him. It was also specifically associated, for those who expected it, with the resurrection of the dead. So, whilst we should not overlay our modern perspective of eternal life onto it, there isn’t a complete disconnect. It’s not that our understanding of what the phrase means is completely alien to what Jesus meant but it means it is deficient. Eternal life is more than but not less than what we mean by life after death.
The man asks about what he must do to inherit, how can he access this. Inheritance language is significant too. Jesus has talked about the poor, meek and mourners as heirs of the kingdom. The expectation was that you inherited the blessings of the covenant through Abraham. So, another aspect to things here is that the person is asking “How do I guarantee my place within the covenant as one of Abraham’s heirs.” This suggests some recognition too that it wasn’t enough to simply be a physical descendent of The Patriarchs (v25).
Jesus’ response is to ask a question back. “Come on you’re the expert and you know that it is the Law/Torah that tells us how to do this. What does it say?” The man responds by quoting the two commands recognised as being the greatest and summing up the Law. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart … and your neighbour as yourself.” It is important to make two clarifications here. First, “all your heart, mind and soul” is not intended to indicate three seats of will, as though we are divided up like that. Rather, it’s a way of saying “love completely, with all that you are.” Secondly, “as yourself” is not intended to indicate that we need to love ourselves, it’s not that we need self love in order to give out to others, nor that we should that in equilbrian. We are meant to put others first, to prefer them, to sacrifice ourselves foe them. It’s more that there is a recognised way in which most people tend to care for and prioritise themselves. The Law tells us to prioritise others and to treat hem with that level of care even at cost to yourself. Jesus confirms that the man has answered correctly (v27-28).
The conversation would have ended there but the man is not satisfied. Luke tells us that he was trying to justify himself. This might partly be about not wanting to be seen to have lost, or failed to win the debate. He hasn’t really scored any points over Jesus. In fact, it might be argued that Jesus had made him look foolish by saying “It’s obvious.” The man’s whole career relied on it not being obvious, on needing people like him to interpret the Law. Jesus is suggesting that the Law needs obeying rather than interpreting. The scribe is potentially redundant. Then there is th question about whether or not he is righteous, has he kept the law. So, he asks the question “Who is m neighbour.” This is surely the bit that needs interpreting by Scribes and it was important so that you could know if you had managed to obey the Law. Notice that he is less interested in attempting to define what it means to love God whole heartedly (v29).
So, Jesus tells a story about a man travelling from Jerusalem to Jericho who is attacked, beaten robbed and left for dead. Three people pass by, a priest, a Levite (another descendant of Levi but not directly from the priestly line of Aaron who still would have had temple duties) and a Samaritan. One might expect the first two to be willing to stop, they should be the man’s “neighbour” as fellow Israelites, they would also be those who knew the Law well and were seen to interpret, keep and mediate it. However, for whatever reason, whether fear of the robbers, fear of becoming unclean through contact with a body or simple lack of compassion (we are not told), they pass by. It’s the detested Samaritan who instead of leaving a Jew, his enemy for dead, stops to help and shows compassion (v30-35)
Jesus’ question is “Who is the one acting as a neighbour here?” The answer, perhaps given grudgingly, is “the one who helped.” It’s the Samaritan. The immediate implications are first that those who knew the Law and were ethnic kinsmen did not act as neighbours, whereas the one considered not to be a neighbour and not to know God’s Law did act as a neighbour. Jesus tells the man to go and be like the Samaritan. In other words instead of calculating and attempting to work out what the Law meant by “neighbour” to focus on loving others as himself (v36-37).
16.4 Read Luke 10:38-42
The third event Luke includes takes place at Martha and Mary’s home. We know from John’s Gospel that they were Lazarus’s sisters and they were in Bethany, close to Jerusalem. This may refer to a prior visit when Jesus went up to the festival earlier in his ministry or may have been brough forward from his final week. Martha welcomes Jesus and offers hospitality. Mary also welcomes Jesus and sits to listen to his teaching, presumably with the disciples and other men (v38-39).
Martha is busy with the practicalities of hospitality. She has no time to stop and listen to Jesus. She gets frustrated and asks Jesus to tell Mary to help her. Jesus recognises her concern and busyness. However, he says that there is actually only one thing that matters, Martha has omitted to worry about the one crucial thing whereas Mary has done it, so she has chosen the better thing. True hospitality means actually giving time to the guest and listening to them. When the guest is the Lord himself, that matters even more (v38-41)
16.5 What matters
There have been two temptations when it comes to the parable of the Samaritan. First, there has been a nervousness about becoming focused on law and ethical teaching about neighbourliness and doing good. Does this take us away from the Gospel and grace? So, the tendency is to try and put Jesus quickly into the story as the Samaritan. It is true of course that Jesus was rejected and treated like a Samaritan, in fact, some of the gossip about him suggested he wasn’t really Jewish but was a Samaritan. Perhaps the suspicion was that Mary had lost her virginity to someone travelling through Galilee. However whilst we can tell the story with Jesus as the lead character, that doesn’t seem to be the main intention. Notice that when we do that, the tendency is to be caught up in the second temptation and to attempt to find meaning in every detail through allegroy.
I think that is a misstep. We do best to treat the story at face value as an answer to the man’s question “Who is my neighbour?” I think this is confirmed by context. Both the 72 and Martha are challenged by Jesus to not be distracted and focus on what truly matters. Indeed, we might note the surprise in all passages: places outside of Israel stand up better to God’s judgement, those you expect to be in by doing the right thing or having the right connections are not whilst those who might be assumed to be outside or in the wrong turn out to be in the right place and doing the right thing whether a Samaritan traveller or a woman sitting and learning as a disciple in a male only sphere.
What matters then of course is not our ability to carefully define the Law but the state of our hearts. The scribe wanted to make sure he understood the law and defined neighbour properly so he could keep the law just as Martha was focused on the busyness of hospitality. The disciples needed to be reminded that it wasn’t their power and gifting that mattered but God’s verdict on them as citizens of heaven and by implication this made them, the poor in spirit, meek and persecuted mourners of the beatitudes. Whilst they were Jews, sent on a Jewish/Galilea mission, the symbolic numbering linked them to the nations, a reminder that those currently outside would be included.
This brings us back to the point of the Law as summed up in the two greatest commandments, love. This is whole hearted, undistracted, undiverted love for God which flows out to others. The disciples risked being distracted by their excitement about exorcisms, the priest and Levite were distracted from loving the man in need, just as the scribe risked being distracted and Martha was distracted by her worries.
This does incidentally bring us back to the Gospel because at some point the penny should drop that we are not capable of loving in that way, undivided, undistracted, whole heartedly. That’s exactly why we need a saviour. If inclusion in the kingdom as heirs of the age to come is not based on ethnicity nor what we do, if outsiders are included as neighbours, if Jesus has appointed ambassadors to the 72 nations and not just the 12 tribes of Israel, then the good news is for everyone.
[1] Morris prefers 72, see Morris, Luke, 200. Nolland also seems to lean towards “72” suggesting that it is easier tyo see how a number might be dropped off than added in. However, he also notes that in Jewish tradition, the numbers are seen as interchangeable. Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, 549.
[2] . Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, 549.
[3] Wright, How God became king, 44.
Faithroots 