The Parable regarding loving your Neighbour

And who is my neighbor?

—Luke 10:29

The most famous Parable

The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) is arguably the most famous of all biblical parables. People know about it all around the world. Some may not know who said it or in which book it is written, but they have heard about a good Samaritan who helped another person. The story advocates helping those in need. People made up proverbial sayings around this famous parable. We are encouraged to 'be a good samaritan,' that is, to do good and help others. People call those who help others in need 'good Samaritan.' There are numerous aid organisations called after the 'Good Samaritan' of Jesus' parable. One of the largest Christian organisations helping people in need is called Samaritan's Purse. Their main slogan is, "Helping in Jesus' Name."

Jesus told this parable, 'the classic form of the story parable' (Parables, 101), in response to a question by a biblical scholar. The question was, 'And who is my neighbor?' (Luke 10:29). The parable was not 'to entertain but rather to communicate' (Parables, 101). What was Jesus communicating? In what context did He share this parable? Who was this Samaritan? What did it mean in the original context of Jesus' audience? And what does it tell us today?

At first glance, it seems simple and straight-forward: a man is in desperate need after being robbed and beaten, two men pass by without helping him, yet a third man did otherwise: he stopped, helped and paid for his recovery. Who was his neighbour? Jesus asked. The man who 'showed mercy,' the scholar said, and Jesus told him to 'do likewise.' Love is demonstrated in action. In context, however, the force of the parable comes out stronger. There's more to it. Consider the following, if you would.

Context Matters

Every parable, every statement, every situation, even commandments with timeless, universal relevance, have a context. And context matters (see Introduction to the Parables). The context of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is one of theological discussion around the question of 'eternal life' and the Greatest Commandments in the Law (Luke 10:25-28; see Q10). More specifically, the parable was given in response to a question regarding loving your neighbour (v 29). It's one thing to know the commandment, yet another one of knowing how to apply it, although they are related matters. Knowing without doing is rather useless. The Jews would place highest emphasis on applying God's Law to every-day life. That was Jesus' approach, too. Theosophical reflections are important, even philosophical discussion has value, but applying the Word of God is what really matters.

Here is the scenario. A biblical scholar inquired of Jesus what he had to do in order to 'inherit eternal life' (v 25). The fact that he asked Jesus shows us that Jesus was a respected Rabbi, a Jewish teacher. He was a force to be reckoned with when it comes to interpreting God's Law. And Jesus pointed to the Torah: 'What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?' (v 26) The first question indicates that God's Word is the basis of all religious authority. We are to find the answer to the question in God's Law. The second question is one of interpretation. How one approaches and reads the inspired Scriptures will determine one's understanding and application of it. There are many ways to read the Bible. People read all kinds of things into the Bible or seek some confirmation of what they already believe (the so-called 'confirmation bias'). Few have the humility to learn what it actually says (see Q7). Some people understand what the Bible teaches, yet can't or won't accept it because it contradicts their views or values, by which, of course, they set their values above the Word of God.

In response to Jesus' questions, the biblical scholar quotes the two main commandments that sum up the Law: Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 (see Luke 10:27). To Jesus, this was the correct answer; 'do this and you will live' (v 28). The scholar would have realised that Jesus quoted another verse from Scripture: Leviticus 18:5 (cf., Nehemiah 9:29; Ezekiel 18:9).

So you shall keep My statutes and my judgments, by which a man [a person] may live if he does them; I am the LORD.

—Leviticus 18:5

Jesus Himself had affirmed that a person does not live of bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from God's mouth (Matthew 4:4, quoting Deuteronomy 8:3). The right way to live as a human being created in the image of God, is by the laws of the Creator.

The Parable in Context

Thus far, Jesus and His audience would have agreed, both on the importance of God's Word and the centrality of love. But the scholar took the discussion further. He wanted to know who his neighbour was (Luke 10:29), indicating that loving one's neighbour has to be defined, and perhaps limited in scope. It's one thing to agree on the importance of the commandment to love your neighbour, but another thing to apply it only to a select group of people or define love in a way that suits us, rather than understanding and applying the value God assigns to it and the way He wants us to love people. Was it a commandment from God that applied only to his people? Were Jews only to love their fellow Jews? The answer is in the parable. What is also interesting to note is the attitude by which the scholar asked about who his neighbour was. Luke notes that he wished 'to justify himself' (v 29). What does that mean? Keeping God's Word isn't just a matter of action, but also one of attitude. People can become proud or arrogant when keeping commandments; they can even despise others (Luke 18:9), and trust in their own performance rather than in God who justifies the repenting sinner. Or, people justify themselves to avoid facing unpleasant realities and to make sure they look good in the eyes of people.

Analysis of the Parable

As for the parable, several persons are involved: one is beaten by robbers, two won't help him, but one did. The man who 'fell among robbers,' stripped, beaten and left 'half dead' (Luke 10:30) is not identified in terms of his ethnicity or religious affiliation. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho was, apparently, known to be a dangerous road. Hence, the story parable is close to reality; its setting reflected real life. This could happen to anyone on that road. All three men who passed by and saw the man beaten and half dead, are identified in terms of ethnicity and religious affiliation: a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan. The first two 'saw' the man but 'passed by on the other side' (vv 31-32). This would've caused some raised eyebrows since they didn't stop to help. Yet, one may justify their inaction with the fact that priests were not to touch a dead body or that they were on a mission for Temple service (although the Temple was situated in Jerusalem and they were going the opposite way).

We don't know why they didn't stop to help; the parable doesn't give a reason. The issue is not the reason(s) they didn't help, but the contrast with the one who did. Many have speculated and used the two men as negative examples how we so easily find excuses not to help people in need. Both were priests, with a clearly defined 'job descriptions.' When people hold certain positions, they might limit their responsibilities to the tasks associated with their positions, yet won't go beyond them. They think someone else should do it instead of them. But we should never be too busy to help those in need or take our positions as an excuse not to help when it is in our power to do so. Some people don't help others in need by giving some excuse, others because they simply don't care. But ancient Hebrew wisdom teaches the following:

Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it. Do not say to your neighbor, "Go, and come back, and tomorrow I will give it," when you have it with you.

—Proverbs 3:27-28

The twist in the story comes with the third man passing by, who also 'saw him,' and, unlike the others, 'felt compassion' (v 33). His compassion didn't simply make him feel sorry for the beaten-up man, but it moved him to action, including financial responsibility (vv 33-35). Two denarii was a basic wage for two days of work. Not a large sum, but depending on his economic means, not a small sum either. But the main issue is, that the man he helped was a complete stranger. And he was a complete stranger to the man he helped. Given the fact that the issue under discussion in context was the question, 'who is my neighbour?' Jesus using a stranger to help another stranger, broke all limitations as to who they were to help in order to fulfil God's commandment. Helping a relative or friend, or even someone from your own nation, ethnicity or religion, is the normal thing to do, but helping a complete stranger? That's extraordinary. Consider Jesus' teaching on His love ethic:

For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors and sinners fo the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

—Matthew 5:46-47

The context here is loving your enemies, not just your friends or relatives (vv 43-44), and thus proving to be true sons of God and mature/complete/perfect as He is (vv 45, 48). Jesus had the highest of standards for His community of faith. We are not to love our neighbour but hate our enemies; love must be extended beyond what is traditionally accepted. Love must extend to all peoples. Our neighbour is, therefore, the person in need, especially when we come in contact with that person and are able to do something about it. We are not to look the other way, but walk the 'extra mile.'

But there's more...

Samaritans were a despised people group by ethnic/religious Jews. Back in history they had intermarried, mixed their religious beliefs with others, and developed their own traditions while claiming the Torah as their religious text. In the encounter of Jesus with the woman at the well, John points to that reality (John 4). In other words, the Samaritan was not a 'neighbour' but a 'stranger.' We may rightly assume that the man beaten-up by robbers was Jewish. The very person helping him was not a neighbour, or at least not in the religiously and ethnically pure sense as some defined it. This would've shocked the audience!

The despised Samaritan is the 'good guy' in the story, the one who did the right thing we all should be doing. The simple point is this: the ones you expected to help, didn't; but the one not expected to help, did. The stranger (Samaritan) helped and proved to be a true neighbour, yet the neighbours (Levite, priest) didn't help, but behaved like strangers! In other words, the stranger helped a stranger, yet the neighbours didn't help a neighbour. The Levite and priest, the 'neighbours,' had no proper excuse to not help their neighbour and by inaction to break the commandment of God. Yet the Samaritan, the 'stranger,' had the perfect excuse, even two: (1) the man is not my neighbour, why help? (2) The Jews don't like us, why help?

Given the fact that the one who helped as a 'stranger' or 'foreigner' drives the issue harder and brings out the point stronger. Imagine societies with prejudice against certain people groups, and one from that very group does the good deed others didn't do. The ones knowing the commandments didn't do them, especially to their neighbour, yet a stranger/foreigner did what the neighbour didn't do. It would've caused a shock in the hearers, but also an awakening, perhaps even shame, for not doing what they are supposed to do. It was the 'stranger' who showed the 'neighbour' how a neighbour ought to behave.

The story of the good Samaritan... is simple and conveys a clear lesson. It contrasts the lack of compassion shown by two members of the Jewish priesthood towards an unknown and unfortunate sufferer with the obedience to the law shown in practical compassion by - to Jewish eyes - the most unlikely of man, a Samaritan.

—I. Howard Marshall

Even in a world of religious morality, one can miss the true meaning of God's commandments. People can develop arrogance or prejudice against others of their own community who live below a certain standard (see Luke 18:9-14; P9), or towards foreigners, near and far, who they don't accept as belonging to the 'inner circle' or their 'holy club.' There is no reason to make this an issue of anti-Jewish rhetoric, that would go like this: the Jews didn't help their fellow Jew, but the non-Jew or half-Jew did. Jesus used this fictional scenario as a wake-up call to those whose hearts had grow cold (lack of love) or those who sought to limit love in a wrong way and justifying themselves in doing so (hence the scholar's follow-up question). Jesus didn't speak to His fellow-Jews from the outside as a critic; He spoke to them in intra-Jewish discussions as a prophet, teacher, and ultimately, as the Son of God. The issue is one of defining God's love accurately and how it is expressed in daily life. Jesus was against discrimination, tribalism, and making excuses for disobeying God's Law. There is also no reason to turn this parable into a gender issue, that would go like this: these were all indifferent men, except the one; if it was women, it would've all been very different—all women would've helped the needy person. This parable is not about gender, race or religion; it is about love in action in obedience to God's Law beyond the categories of gender, race or religion. The issue is making excuses for inaction.

Sometimes excuses to disobey God's commandments come 'dressed up' in nice-sounding excuses. This can be true in religion or other aspects of society. In the world of modern politics, this is even worse. Good-sounding policies can actually be misused just to win votes, or, worse, be a smoke-screen for destructive policies, such that help the people in power but not the people they claim to be helping. Jesus' parable doesn't call for 'government intervention' or 'social policies'; it calls for personal responsibility for our neighbours and with it to the society in which we live. It is a call to responsible living in love according to God's commandment. It is not an instruction to create charity organisations, noble and important as that is. The Law instructs us to love others, which translates into actions towards those in need.

The Object and Subject of Love

The scholar had asked who his neighbour was, that is, the person as the object of love (who to love). Jesus answered with a parable showing the object of love as people in need, and the one doing the commandment as the subject of love. The subject of love is the one showing love and compassion; the object of love is the one being helped by that love and compassion. It seems, Jesus removed all limitations as to the objects of love (who to love), and placed the emphasis and the responsibility to love on the subjects of love (those doing the loving).

The answer to the question by the scholar, 'And who is my neighbor?' (Luke 10:29), is countered by Jesus, in view of the parable just shared, with another question: 'Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?' (v 36) The question is not primarily on who the object of love (whom to show love) is, but who the subject of loive (the one doing the loving in action) is. The schoalr gives the answer: 'The one who showed mercy towards him' (v 37). Brad Young (Parables, 117-118) observes the following:

He [scholar] no longer defined the Samaritan only as a member of another religious and cultural community. He did not call him "the Samaritan" but defined him by his actions. He is the one who showed compassion. In order to understand or define the meaning of neighbor (rea), one must first become a neighbor... He [scholar] saw him [Samaritan] for what he did. He realized from the story of Jesus that every human bring, whether friend or enemy, is of inestimable value and must be esteemed according to the biblical commandment "you shall love your neighbor as yourself".

We are wise to identify people by their actions, not gender, race or religion.

The Emphasis on Action

Interesingly, at the end of the discussion regarding the commandment, Jesus told the scholar to 'do this and live' (Luke 10:28). And at the end of the parable, He again told him to 'go and do likewise' (v 37). The emphasis is on doing the commandment, not on limiting the scope of loving certain persons but not others, or finding seemingly valid or clearly invalid excuses. To 'love your neighbour' is a verb (implying action) and a command (implying responsibility, demanding obedience). While there is an emphasis on love in action in the parable (the action of the Samaritan), the force of the parable is such that a forgeigner or stranger did the loving. This element reenforces the call to love in action.

One may say, how can God command us to love? The answer is simple: in a selfish world, to love takes selflessness, and that has to be commanded in order to restrain the selfish and often indifferent human nature, and bring out the best in us. To love is not an option; it is a necessity—only love will make the world a better place. A commandment is not forced on us; it is instruction to which our conscience agrees. We love because we realise that it is the right way to live. While we acknowledge that there are different peoples, nations, cultures and religions, the call to love is universal. As God's creation we are called to love. Tribalism or sectarianism are wrong and can be dangerous.

The Larger Context

Looking at the larger context of Luke 10, the scholar's questions (vv 25-29) and Jesus' parabolic answer (vv 30-37) come after the instructions by Jesus to reach people with the gospel of 'the kingdom of God' (vv 1-16) and the focus on the importance of having your names 'recorded in heaven' (vv 17-24), followed by Jesus' visit to two sisters, who have different priorities during His visit (vv 38-42). This is interesting for several reasons. First, eternal life is the most important aspect during life on earth: where we spend eternity is far more important than how we spend life on earth. Even the heavenly powers given to God's ministers are not to be the focal point; being 'recorded in heaven' is (vv 17-20). Seeing and understanding who Jesus is and what He came to teach and do are among the greatest of blessings (vv 21-24).

Loving your neighbour as an expression of loving God is the right way to live, yet even doing good works, helping others, or serving in various ways can be a distraction to having your priorities right. Jesus' visit to the sisters Mary and Martha illustrates this. While Martha was busy yet 'distracted' with serving, Mary was 'listening' to Jesus. Martha complained to Jesus about His apparent indifference and Mary's apparent laziness, to which Jesus responded that while Martha was 'worried and bothered about so many things,' Mary chose the good thing that cannot be taken away from her—the words of Jesus! The issue was one of the distractions of serving and worrying while Jesus was present and speaking. Martha was not wrong in serving; she was wrong in serving as a distraction from what is more important. Martha was resentful in her service; this exposed a wrong heart and attitude. The visit to the sisters and the lesson we learn regarding the importance of devotion is followed by teaching on prayer (Luke 11:1-13; P3). Ora et labora (pray and work) was the famous slogan by the monastic orders. Prayer shall not be an excuse for work; work should not be a distraction from prayer.

The parable of Jesus shows the importance of love in action as an expression of obeying God's commandment to love others. However, we are not to be distracted by charitable work and then to miss out on our devotion to Jesus and hearing what He was to say. The story of the visit to the sisters balances service and devotion in a healthy way. Some people can be resentful towards God and others for all they do, while others seem lazy in their devotion. Of course, devotion as an excuse for laziness would be totally wrong, yet being distracted by service or work from what is more important is also wrong. Focusing all our efforts on helping the poor and needy while not preaching the Gospel of the kingdom and leading people towards eternal life with their names 'recorded in heaven,' would be to miss right priorities. We are not to help others just to evangelise them, or manipulate people into a religion (which happens!). Charity is a great way to show the love of God; we are to aspire a healthy balance of work and devotion, charity and evangelism. The good works we do are to glorify God (Matthew 5:16) and serve people in a redemptive way.

In the context of Jesus' teaching, the parable expresses His encouragement to be generous and give to those in need. The emphasis is personal responsibility within our means. There is no indication for irresponsible giving that leads to poverty. But if wealth is an idol in the heart, one may be wise to give it all away, help the poor and live a modest life in discipleship with Jesus, like He instructed a rich man (Luke 18:18-26). Note how that rich man asked the same question as the scholar did: what shall I do to inherit 'eternal life' (v 18), and again Jesus pointed to the commandments (vv 19-20) and beyond that at the heart (vv 21-22), where the commandments should take effect! 'Treasures in heaven' is more important than wealth on earth, and most certainly so in view of eternity and when money is an idol that is a hinderance to it.

Extending the Call to Action to Others

Although the man in the parable was not a 'needy man' but a 'man in need,' we must consider how we can extent the call to love in action beyond the scope of a person in urgent need, since the parable is an illustration of how to love our neighbour and who our neighbour is. Since the man in the parable was robbed, there was something to steal, hence he was not a poor beggar in need of some food for the day. Maybe he was a businessman on a business trip. In that sense, the parable is not a direct call to charity for ther poor but to take action when we come across an urgent need. However, Scripture has a lot to say about defending the widow, helping the poor and protecting the orphan; and the parable of the Good Samaritan fits perfectly well into these passages of the Bible that call us to action in love.

We must note that at the time of Jesus, needy people or beggars were not con-men or cheaters. Those who were poor at the time were actually poor and in need of support. The man in the parable was beaten on a journey and in need of help; he was robbed, something that can happen to anyone. Today, there are millions of people in need for many other reasons and the call to love in action is resounding through the parable. However, there are also those who abuse the welfare system or, even worse, mafia-controlled beggar rings as part of organised crime. We are under no obligation to help people who seek to misuse our generosity and goodness. We must help the poor in an empowering way. Sometimes giving money to certain people with a wrong attitude towards and a bad handling of money would be a wrong way to help them (e.g., drug addicts, gamblers, irresponsible spenders etc). However, we should not take such negative examples as an excuse for not helping those who would honour help and handle it properly. We are called to good works (Ephesians 2:10) and meet urgent needs (Titus 3:14). After all, loving in word and deed is the expression of God's love (1 John 3:16-18).

Conclusion

The parable Jesus used to answer the question, 'who is my neighbor?' shows that love should not be limited to a certain group of people, but be expressed with compassion, mercy and action towards those in need. Loving your neighbour is a life-style that emphasises love in action without wrong limitations or cheap excuses. Our 'neighbour' is the person in need and sometimes love is shown by the one you least expect it. To help those in need is the way to fulfil God's commandments. Jesus is calling us to personal responsibility in caring for others in order to have a good society according to God's Word. We do good works not apart from God but in order to glorify God and point people to Him in a redemptive way. The parable, seen in the larger context of Luke 10, would indicate that our priorities of proclaiming the gospel as well as our devotion to God are a healthy balance to doing charitable work. Loving our neighbours is the way to make the world a better place for everyone.

P6 >

_________

Reference

Brad H. Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998.

I. Howard Marshall. The Gospel of Luke (The New International Greek Testament Commentary: 3). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1978.