Luke

10:25-37

The teachings of Messiah, 9:51-19:44

1. The meaning and acceptance of the kingdom message, 9:51-10:42

v] Who inherits eternal life?

Jesus is approached by a legal expert in Biblical law who asks what a person must do to gain eternal life. As a discussion-starter Jesus asks the theologian what he thinks the scriptures say on the matter. The theologian gives the standard answer, "love God, love neighbor." Jesus replies "Indeed, do this and you will live." Yet, here lies the problem, doing God's law is no easy matter, but it does help if our neighbor belongs to a select group of people we like. So, the theologian asks Jesus "who is my neighbor?" Jesus doesn't actually answer the theologian's question (eg. my neighbor is even my enemy), rather he illustrates in a teaching parable what it means to love "your neighbor as yourself", he illustrates the nature of selfless love, of neighborliness. Selfless love asks "not who is qualified for my help? But, what need can I meet?", Danker. By this means Jesus exposes the impossible perfection of God's law and thus the truth that "God can only relate to a person who, having lost self-confidence, humbles himself in repentance", Ellis.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is the fifth episode in a group of six dealing with the meaning and acceptance of the kingdom's message, 9:51-10:42. The long awaited kingdom of God has dawned in the person of Jesus. God, in his kindness has freely offered entry into the kingdom and all we need to do is ask Jesus. This offer from God is proclaimed for all to hear, 10:1-20, and those who believe are blessed, 10:21-24. Yet beware, kingdom membership is neither gained, nor maintained, by obedience to the law, 10:25-37.

This passage exposes the heresy of nomism, a heresy that had infested second temple Judaism. Religious Jews of the day believed that by obedience to the law they were able to maintain their standing before God and thus guarantee their place in the kingdom. Yet, the faithful application of Mosaic law, for someone possessing covenant standing, does not serve as the way to access the promised blessings of the covenant, the promised fullness of life under God, rather the law of the Sinai covenant serves primarily to expose sin, inculcating a divine curse and thus forcing a reliance on the basis of covenant standing established in the Abrahamic covenant, namely faith. The law serves to expose human corruption and its consequence, divine judgment, and thus forces the child of God to rest on divine mercy. The "expert in the law" was obviously dulled to this function of the law, since he saw himself as a good law-keeper, although he did have a minor theological concern which he felt Jesus may be able to help him with. Yet, this religious Jew did not need a legal definition for "neighbor", he needed to act in a neighborly way (with mercy) to inherit eternal life. The problem was he had never loved as the Samaritan loved, nor could he. Therefore, he stood under the condemnation of God and was in dire need of divine mercy. "Jesus deliberately shocks the lawyer by forcing him to consider the possibility that a semi-pagan foreigner might know more about the love of God than a devout Jew blinded by preoccupation with pettifogging rules", Caird.

The parable of the Good Samaritan, within Luke's wider context of hearing and doing God's word, confronts the "expert in the law" with the full weight of God's law and thus leaves him without excuse. It is from such gospel stories that the apostle Paul builds his doctrine of justification, "my gospel", namely that covenant compliance/ right-standing before God / being set-right with God, is neither gained, nor maintained, by obedience to the law, but is a gift of grace appropriated through faith in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Faith incorporates the believer in Christ, in his faithfulness (the cross) and his vindication (his resurrection). Thus, a believer stands approved before God, not by works of the law, but as a gift of divine grace through the instrument of faith.

It should be noted that the above interpretation is not widely accepted. It sits broadly within a reformed tradition, but is influenced by the new perspective on Paul, particularly where law-obedience is viewed as a nomistic problem, rather than a legalistic problem - of retaining covenant standing rather than gaining covenant standing. For an excellent exposition of this passage from a purely reformed tradition see Hendriksen, Luke, Banner of Truth, p596. Even so, many reformed commentators would not accept that the parable of the Good Samaritan is a commentary on the law, primarily its function to expose sin and promote dependence on grace, but also its function to guide the Christian life.

Other interpretation for the passage are as follows: i] Allegorical interpretations by the Fathers, eg. the Samaritan is Jesus and he is to be loved by sinners (the man attacked by thieves) as the neighbor who saves. Such interpretations are now mostly discounted, although ref. Gerhardsson The Good Samaritan - The Good Shepherd? who argues that Jesus is the good shepherd who binds up Israel's wounds; ii] An authorization of the Old Testament as a final authority in matters of faith; iii] "Righteousness and salvation are not the exclusive privilege of the Jew", Plummer; iv] An exposition and application (in terms of discipleship) of the law of love, Deut.6:5, Lev.19:18. "Love of the neighbor is to know no bounds or boundaries", Evans - "go and do likewise" = "go forth and live a life of true love to God and to your fellow-man through the power I give you", Geldenhuys; a) The answer to the theologian's question serves to make the point that love of God = "to accept what God in his grace has done and to trust in him", Stein / "engagement with his (Jesus') teachings", Nolland, and love neighbor = "love of neighbor flows out of a radical love of God", Green, which commandments "Jesus' followers must obey .... in order to inherit eternal life", Marshall; b) The parable supports this teaching. "The point we learn, is not who deserves to be cared for but rather the demand to become a person who treats everyone encountered - however frightening, alien, naked or defenseless - with compassion..... One must take the same risks with one's life and possessions that the Samaritan did!", Johnson, so also Creed, Gooding, Leaney, Danker, Evans, Nolland, Bock, Marshall, Fitzmyer, Green, Tinsley; v] The law is self-defeating, particularly with regard ritual defilement, cf. Jeremias, Parables. The issue is certainly the law, or more particularly our inability to keep it, as noted above.

idou "on one occasion" - behold. Introducing a new episode.

nomikoV (oV) "an expert in the law" - A person trained in the interpretation and application of Biblical law.

ekpeirazwn (ekpeirazw) pres. par. "to test [Jesus]" - testing, tempting. The participle here is usually treated as adverbial, final, expressing purpose, "in order to test him", but possibly attendant circumstance, "stood up and tested him", in the sense of putting a test question to Jesus. Not necessarily a question that tempts Jesus to say something incriminating, or testing him in a negative way. Johnson argues for a "hostile" intent, possibly "challenges", but the question seems anything but hostile, possibly even "friendly", Marshall, so Plummer.

legwn (legw) "he asked" - saying. The participle is adverbial, modal, expressing the manner of the testing; "he stood up and tested him, saying, ...."

poihsaV (poiew) aor. part. "[what] must I do" - [what] having done [will I inherit eternal life]. The participle is adverbial, instrumental, expressing means; "I will inherit eternal life by doing what?" = "what do I have to do to obtain a share in eternal life?" Cassirer.

zwhn aiwnion "eternal life" - "Life" in the sense of "life in the land of Israel" as part of the covenantal promise is certainly common to the Old Testament, but "life in the age (to come)", the eschatological promised new age, did not emerge until the later prophets, eg. Dan.12:2. It is very likely that the question concerns "life" in all its fullness, the full appropriation of all the promised covenantal blessings both now, and then (at the resurrection of the righteous).

gegraptai (grafw) perf. pas. "is written" - has been written. This passive perfect is commonly used of scripture, of what has been written and is still relevant. Jesus is asking for a scriptural answer to the question and certainly not the recitation of tradition, cf. Plummer.

twV "how" - Establishing an interrogative clause.

anaginwskeiV (anaginwskw) pres. "do you read it" - do you read. In the sense of "understand"; "what does your reading tell you?", Rieu.

Elsewhere in the synoptics Jesus states this summary of the law, here it comes from a Jewish expert on the law and Jesus agrees with it. The two parts consist of the Shema, Deut.6:5, and Lev.19:18a. Both parts are idealistic and therefore beyond even the most faithful child of God. If "life" in all its fullness depends of the doing of the law then the temptation for reductionism is always going to be present. This temptation prompts the theologian's next question, a question which attempts to limit those who are neighbor, cf. Danker, Bock, Marshall.

apokriqeiV (apokrinomai) aor. pas. part. "he answered" - answering [he said]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "he said". A common phrase.

agaphseiV (agapaw) fut. "love" - you will love. Imperatival (volitive) future tense.

ek + gen. "with [all your heart]" - from. Expressing the source of the love, although best translated in English as NIV.

kardiaV (a) "heart" - Referring to the seat of intellect, not emotion, although the individual parts listed are not to be divided but rather serve to define an allegiance and devotion of the whole person to God.

wV "[love your neighbor] as [yourself]" - as. Establishing a comparison, "as you would love yourself." "The neighbor is to be trusted with the love we have for ourselves", Danker.

poiei (poiew) pres. imp. "do [this]" - The present tense is durative expressing continued action. The imperative takes the force of a condition; "if you do this", TH.

zhsh/ (zaw) fut. "you will live" - The "live" obviously as v25, "eternal life", but still "life in all it's fullness" = the promised new life of covenant membership.

de "but" - but, and. Here adversative.

oJ ... qelwn (qelw) pres. part. "he wanted" - the one wishing, wanting. The participle possibly functions as a substantive, "the one/man who wanted / wished", but more likely adverbial, causal, "but he, because he wanted to justify himself, said."

dikaiwsai (dikaiow) aor. inf. "to justify [himself]" - Forming an object clause / dependent statement of perception expressing what he wanted. This word provides the motive behind the theologian's question, but even so, the motive remains unclear. The sense here may be quite general, "to vindicate": "to show how expert he was", Barclay. Yet, it is unlikely that such a highly charged theological word would be used so lightly, so better "wishing to put himself in the right", Cassirer. He wants, for himself (rather than "before men", 16:15), to establish/confirm a recognition of covenant inclusion / covenant acceptance, and this by making sure he had clearly defined those to whom he has an obligation of love.

kai "and [who is my neighbor?]" - Here serving to introduce a subsequent question in the discussion and so best left untranslated. As noted above, this question, "who qualifies for my help?", is the wrong question and so Jesus does not bother answering it. What Jesus does do is illustrate what it means to love "your neighbor as yourself", what it means to be neighborly. Given that the theologian wants to stand right before God and so possess the fullness of covenant life, then it is essential that he understand the nature of neighborliness.

uJpolabwn (uJpolambanw) aor. part. "in reply" - having replied. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "said". "Continuing the discussion Jesus said."

periepesen (peripiptw) aor. "fell" - he encountered, fell among, was surrounded. "Fell into the hands of brigands", Rieu.

lhstaiV (hV ou) dat. "into the hands of robbers" - thieves, robbers, highwaymen, brigands. The dative is possibly local, "fall in amongst thieves" = "encounter", or instrumental, "was surrounded by thieves."

oi} kai "-" - This construction "is without apparent significance", Zerwick, so NIV, although BAGD argues that it reinforces the independence of a relative clause, lit. "who also having stripped him", "who, as you would expect, .....", Creed, "who went so far as to ...", Nolland, "who, in addition to other violence, ...", Plummer.

ekdousanteV (ekduw) aor. part. "they stripped [him]" - having stripped. As with "having inflicted [blows]", the participle is adverbial, possibly temporal, "after they stripped ... and beat him they went away."

afenteV (afihmi) aor. part. "leaving [him half dead]" - having left [half dead]. The participle is adverbial, modal, expressing the manner of their leaving; "left him half conscious lying in a pool of his own blood", Junkins.

kata sugkurian "happened" - according to chance. A common expression meaning "by coincidence", TH; "it so happened", Phillips.

katebainen (katabainw) imperf. "to be going down" - was coming down. The imperfect is durative expressing the action of travelling. "The road drops 3,300 feet in 17 miles", Evans.

en th/ oJdw/ "the [same] road" - on/in/ [that] way. A common expression meaning "on the road." "The road was notorious for its hazards", Danker.

idwn (oJraw) aor. part. "when he saw [the man]" - having seen [him]. The participle is adverbial, temporal, as NIV.

antiparhlqen (antiparercomai) aor. "he passed by on the other side" - The aorist expresses punctiliar action. It is only a story, but the reason for this action is usually taken as fear of the robbers, or fear of defilement from a corpse.

oJmoiwV de kai "so too" - and likewise also. "And in the very same way", TH.

genomenoV (ginomai) aor. part. "-" - having happened. Variant, cf. Metzger, 152. The participle would be adjectival limiting "a Levite", "who happened [on the scene/place, and having gone and taken a look]", cf. Zerwick. If the longer reading is accepted, the actions of the Levite are more heartless than the priest because "he came up to him, quite close, and passed on", Plummer.

kata + acc. "to [the place]" - to, up to [the place]. This preposition takes a spacial sense here of direction toward; "up to."

elqwn (ercomai) aor. part. "when he came" - having come [and having seen]. The participle is adverbial, temporal, as NIV.

oJdeuwn (oJdeuw) pres. part. "as he traveled" - traveling. The participle is possibly adverbial, temporal, as NIV, but better adjectival, limiting "a Samaritan", "who was travelling"; "a Samaritan traveller", Moffatt.

kat (kata) + acc. "[came] where [the man was]" - [came] up to / upon [him]. Again this preposition takes a spacial sense here.

idwn (eidon) aor. part. "when he saw him" - having seen. The participle is adverbial, probably temporal, as NIV.

esplagcnisqh (esplagcnizomai) aor. pas. "he took pity on him" - he was filled with compassion, deeply moved with pity. The aorist is punctiliar; "he was instantly moved with compassion."

kai "-" - Connective.

proselqwn (prosercomai) aor. part. "he went to him" - having approached. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "he bound up [his wounds]", as NIV.

epicewn (epicew) pres. part. "pouring on [oil and wine]" - pouring on. The participle is adverbial, modal, expressing the manner of attending to his wounds; "bound up, pouring on as he bound, oil and wine", Plummer. Oil was used on wounds to soften as if a liniment, while wine (alcohol) was used as an antiseptic.

epibibasaV (epibibazw) aor. part. "then he put [the man on his own donkey]" - having put on. The participle is adverbial, probably temporal, as NIV. "He then put him on his own pack animal", Cassirer.

pandoceion (on) "an inn" - a public inn. A hapax legomenon, once only use in the NT.

epemelhqh (epimeleomai) aor. pas. "took care [of him]" - cared for. The picture presented in the parable is of the Samaritan taking the man to the inn, staying the night with him to care for him (rather than just dumping him there) and paying for ongoing care the next day. "As a neighbor, the Samaritan did everything he could", Bock.

epi thn aurion "the next day" - upon the next. Here the preposition with the accusative of time forms "an unusual phrase", Evans, cf. Plummer, "towards the morrow."

ekbalwn (ekballw) aor. part. "he took out" - having taken out. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the main verb "he gave"; "he took out .... and gave ...."

o{ ti an + subj. "any extra expense [you may have]" - whatsoever [you spend further]. This construction forms an indefinite relative clause.

egw "I" - Emphatic.

en tw/ + inf. "when [I return]" - This construction, the preposition en with the dative articular infinitive, forms a temporal clause; "I shall pay you back when I am on my journey home", Cassirer.

Jesus now applies his illustration of neighborliness, of what it means to love our neighbor as ourselves, v36-37. The syntax of this verse is rather difficult.

tiV "which" - who. This interrogative pronoun serves to introduce a question.

dokei (dokew) pres. "[do you] think" - seems [to you]. Here taking a dative pronoun, dative of direct object. "Which of these three, in your opinion", Moffatt.

gegonenai (ginomai) perf. inf. "was" - to have become. Technically we have an ellipsis at this point in the verse in that we are missing the main verb, so "which of these three proved [himself] to have become [by what he had done (Meyer)], neighborly". So, the infinitive serves to form an infinitival clause, object of the assumed verb "proved". Most translators reduce this to "proved himself to be neighbor", Cassirer; "proved himself neighbor", NJB, Knox; "proved a neighbor", Moffatt; or simply "was really neighbor", Berkeley. The tense is interesting suggesting that the Samaritan became, and continued to be, neighborly in his compassionate actions.

plhsion adv. "a neighbor" - neighborly. The twist in Jesus' illustration comes out at his point. The theologian asked "who is my neighbor?". Jesus ignores the question and asks the more important question, "who was neighborly?" This, of course, is the nub of the issue. The full blessings of covenant life rest on doing neighborly love, of showing mercy as the Samaritan showed mercy.

tou empesontoV gen. aor. part. "to the man who fell [into the hands of robbers]" - of the one having fallen [into the thieves]. The participle functions as a substantive.

oJ poihsaV (poiew) aor. part. "the one who had [mercy on him]" - the one having done [the mercy with him]. The participle functions as a substantive. Plummer notes that the theologian cannot bring himself to use the designation "Samaritan". At any rate, the use of the descriptive "mercy" is far more powerful in that it encapsulates neighborly love. The expression is Semitic and reflects scripture, eg. Mic.6:8. As God is gracious and merciful to his people, so his people should be gracious and merciful.

su " - [do likewise]" - you [do likewise]. The pronoun takes an emphatic position in the text; "you yourself do likewise." The imperative verb "do" takes the present tense, durative, so the command is "you yourself adopt the Samaritan's way of behaving/doing and keep on doing it."

Luke Introduction

lectionarystudies.com