The Socio-Political Conflict and Human Right Concerns in the Parable of Compassionate Samaritan (Luke 10: 29-37) (original) (raw)
Related papers
After briefly rehearsing the first-century debate over Samaritan Israelism (SI), including favourable Tannaitic views, this paper shows that Jesus in the Samaritan parable teaches that covenantally loyal Samaritans are Israelites eligible for inclusion in his coming messianic age. Several points reveal this position. The parabolic teaching occurs within the Lukan thematic context of fulfilling prophesied messianic reunification (MR), reuniting both northern and southern Israelite kingdoms under a scion of David. The immediately preceding co-text of the parable relates eschatological kingdom proclamation in Samaria and an announcement by the royal Son of God (Luke 10:22; cf. 1:32–35, etc.) of the arrival of that which “many prophets and kings” awaited (10:24), which includes MR into kingdom unity (Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5–6; 33:14–17; 2 Chr 30; 35, etc.). The parable evidences a description of the word “neighbour,” which, within this context of Lev 19:17–18, is defined as a “fellow Israelite”; thus, when Jesus describes the one who proved to be a Torah-obedient neighbour of the Judaean victim as a Samaritan, he is portraying a reuniting of Israelites divided across national, ethnic, and sectarian boundaries. The form of the parable adopts the well-known triadic structure of “Priest-Levite-Israelite,” and Jesus places the Samaritan in the position of the Israelite. Jesus endorses the Chronicler’s pan-Israelite ideology embracing SI, reflecting the Lukan eschatological MR theme, in his intertextual use of 2 Chr 28:15 as a source for 10:33–34. Use of the tripartite collocation ποιεῖν + ἔλεος + μετά (from the Hebrew עשׂה חסד עמ) in 10:37a defines the Samaritan as one who observes covenantally loyal ḥesedism, not generic humanistic mercy. This recognition of Jesus’s position in the parable coheres with later representation of the northern kingdom by its Samaritan inheritors in the 2-stage resurrection of Israel (Acts 2 and 8) fulfilling Ezek 37. The parable’s SI and MR also produce a more comprehensively coherent reading of the rebuilding of the σκηνὴν Δαυὶδ (Acts 15:16) than the influential Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13-21)” (1996). When properly recognizing the Ḥesedic Samaritan’s parabolic teaching, it becomes clear that Luke-Acts views Samaritans as representatives of the northern kingdom inheriting the covenant promises of messianic renewal along with southern Israelite Judaeans.
The phrase 'Jews have no dealings with Samaritans' is the Johannine summary of the sour relations that existed between Jews and Samaritans during the time of Jesus Christ. Relations between Jews and Samaritans were at the level of conflicts during the time of Christ. These conflicts are reflected especially in the Gospels (see John 8:48; Luke 9:53-54). This work is primarily an attempt to identify the bases for these conflicts. Understanding the nature of the relations between these two groups will therefore assists students and interpreters of the New Testament appreciate and comprehend the negative signals emitted by these biblical texts. The work is a historical-critical method of study applied to biblical texts in their synchronic forms. It implies an inquiry into who the Samaritans were; what their beliefs and practices were and why there was such enmity between them and the Jews. The study identifies the non recognition of the Jewish origin of the Samaritans as the basis for the conflicts. It also identifies the intricacies of religion and politics in the diversification of the conflict, highlights some instances of class distinctions and religious conflicts in modern society as contemporary equivalents of the Samaritan-Jewish conflicts. It recommends respects for the dignity of the human person, emphasis on, and widening of the borders of kinship and the encouragement of multi-culturalism as the foundations for building a less discriminatory society.
Revisiting the Parable of the Good Samaritan
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations, 2021
The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is among the best-known Gospel texts. It may also be one of the most mis-interpreted texts in the Gospels. The story of a traveler who comes to the aid of a victim of crime has inspired Christians for centuries to establish agencies to render assistance to those in need. The popular acclaim for the parable can cloud the meaning and significance of the story recounted in Luke’s Gospel. The ways the parable has been presented to and read by Christians represents a stumbling block in relations between Christians and Jews. This article surveys contemporary scholarly literature published for an English-speaking audience to determine what limitations and possibilities exist for understanding this parable. A close and careful reading of Luke’s text can reveal story elements that challenge traditional interpretations of this significant parable.
Misinterpreters conclude that Jesus universalizes the Second Great Commandment (2GC), erasing distinctions between Church and world, which subverts ecclesiology’s biblical foundation. Several exegetical factors overturn this consensus and restore 2GC to ecclesiology. 1) Interpreters uncritically accept anti-Samaritan polemics while ignoring reversal of Samaritan status over the last fifty years, but first-century sectarian competitors debated Samaritan Israelism (SI), with many early Tannaim (like Gamaliel) and Jesus here affirming SI. 2) The context of fulfilling expectations of messianic reunification (MR), a reunited Davidic kingdom (Isa 11:12-13; Ezek 37:19, 22, etc.). 3) Questions provoking the parable concern Torah obedience for participation in messianic Israel, with Lev 19:18 neighbour always meaning “Israelite” (Meier, Law and Love, 492-93, 527, 651). (Thus, those asserting that Jesus alters this bear burden of proof.) 4) The parable structurally follows the well-known scriptural-Mishnaic triadic genre of priest-Levite-Israelite, indicating that the third character (Samaritan) is an Israelite. 5) The Samaritan’s actions allude to northern-southern Israelite relations (2 Chr 28:15). 6) The Samaritan practices covenantal חסד / ḥesed, seen through consistency with first-century ḥesedism (Sorek 2010, Giambrone 2016), use of a Septuagintal Hebraism, the tripartite ποιεῖν + ἔλεος + μετά (=עשׂה + חסד + עמ) collocation (Luke 10:37a; cf. 1:72a), etc. Thus the Samaritan protagonist (Luke 10:33) represents inheritors of Northern Israel undergoing MR (accomplished in Acts 8; cf. 15:16 quotation of Amos 9:11).
Interpreting the parables of the Galilean Jesus: A social-scientific approach
2009
This article proposes a methodology for interpreting the parables of Jesus. The methodology put forward has as starting point two convictions. Firstly, the difference between the context of Jesus’ parables as told by Jesus the Galilean in 30 CE and the literary context of the parables in the gospels has to be taken seriously. Secondly, an effort has to be made to at least try to avoid the fallacies of ethnocentrism and anachronism when interpreting the parables. In an effort to achieve this goal it is argued that social-scientific criticism presents itself as the obvious line of approach. Operating from these two convictions, the method being proposed is explained by using 12 statements (or theses) which are discussed as concisely and comprehensively as possible. It is inter alia argued that the central theme of Jesus’ parables was the non-apocalyptic kingdom of God, that the parables are atypical stories (comparisons), and that the parables depict Jesus as a social prophet.
Messianic Imagination of the Poor in the Gospel of Luke
This festschrift celebrates the life and ministry of Dr. Ezra Sargunam. Dr. Sargunam had been active in the ministry to the poor and the needy. He fought for the rights of the minorities and poor for decades through religious, social and political avenues. Therefore, it is only fitting to write an article about the poor and the needy in a book that celebrates his life. This article will deal with the Messianic imagination of the poor in the Gospel of Luke. Walter Brueggemann notes that while prophecy was seen by many conservatives as a " future-telling " liberals undermine the futuristic aspect to focus on its " social-action " aspect.1 Alternatively, Brueggemann says that " the task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture among us. " 2 Brueggemann's prophetic imagination is about identifying the present dominant evil in the society which requires critiquing by the prophet. By the same time, it is about energizing the people with an " alternative " " imaginable " " consciousness, " which would get rid of the present evil.3 Moses identified the evilness of slavery of his time. He imagined an alternative, a free Jewish nation. Towards this end he critiqued his contemporary dominant powers and he energized the people with his prophetic imagination, the " alternative consciousness, " a free nation, and he led the people out of captivity to liberation. Similarly, in the time of " royal consciousness " after Solomon, prophets of Northern and Southern kingdoms rose against their contemporary evil present, and they imagined an alternative reality and spoke about it.4 Therefore, prophetic imagination in the Hebrew Bible is nothing but prophets' imaginations of alternative society when their present realities were unwell or evil. Similarly, Brueggemann identifies that Jesus saw the evilness of his time under the Roman " royal consciousness " and spoke against those evil practices giving an alternative consciousness in his exhortations to bring about alternate realities.5 The exhortations of Jesus then show his " prophetic imaginations " of the alternative society suggested. The poor in the time of Jesus were oppressed both by the Roman empire which created the " royal consciousness " and by the Jewish leaders who were with the " royal consciousness " and oppressed the poor further. Jesus spoke against this evil in the book of Luke and he shared an alternative consciousness, on how the society must be, i.e., how the rich and poor must live. This idea is further explored in this article to discuss Jesus' imagination of the poor. Though this article is based on Brueggemann's idea of " prophetic imagination " the idea of imagination is used much more loosely than Brueggemann. Here, the concept of imagination is also treated in the way of seeing or envisioning of an alternative reality in a time of contemporary evil identified. When a person identified a dominant evil the envisioning of an alternative reality and the propagation of that alternative reality is