Skip to main content

Re-reading the Good Samaritan

The parable of the “Good Samaritan” is a story that is found only in Luke. It is set within a conversation between Jesus and a scholar in Jewish law. That is why the ESV calls that character a “lawyer.” The lawyer’s question “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25 ESV). In Judaism attaining “eternal life” is the utmost goal of spiritual life. This question need not be taken as one of the deep spiritual quests because Luke tells us that he was simply trying to “test” Jesus.
However, Jesus did not answer the question directly but shot a question at him so that he had to answer it. The answer is simple, in order to inherit eternal life one has to practice the supreme command to love God and love ones’ neighbour. By the time of Jesus, the Rabbis had agreed that the summary of the Law is the conflation of two commands, one found in Deuteronomy 6:5 and the other one found in Leviticus 19:18. The first one has to do with loving God. The second one has to love one’s neighbour.
That is what the Lawyer recited to Jesus.
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself. (Luke 10:27, ESV)
Jesus had affirmed this already in his conversation with another Jewish scholar according to the Gospel of Mark (Mark 12:30). It may look as if the scholar and Jesus have reached a point of agreement but the scholar still insisted knowing who is the neighbour. He was demanding a clear definition of the word “neighbour.” So, he asked Jesus to define who the neighbour is (10:29). There were different interpretations of who the “neighbour” in this command is. However, ancient and modern Rabbis are almost unanimous that the “neighbour” in this command is a fellow Jew.
Jesus told the lawyer the story that we now know as the parable of the Good Samaritan. The story is centred around a man whose identity is not known. All that we are told is that this man took the dangerous road running through the steep wilderness from Jerusalem to Jericho. He was attacked, robbed and wounded and left half-dead by the roadside. A priest and a Levite who came by ignored him. However, a Samaritan whom the Jews consider as an outcast and heretic stopped, gave him the first aid, took him to an inn. He paid an advance to keep this man in the inn and promised to pay the expense in full on his return.
Then Jesus asked the lawyer a question? “Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?” (Luke 10:36, ESV)
It is important to notice that Jesus did not answer the lawyer’s question, “who is my neighbour?” By asking him this question after telling the story, Jesus was suggesting that he has to answer a different question. That question is not “who is my neighbour” but “am I a neighbour?” It was a subversive question which demanded a new radical approach to the issue at hand.
Through this parable, Jesus was rewriting the Jewish law and its interpretation in one stroke. Jewish scholars interpreted the “neighbour” differently. But there was a consensus in their approach that the definition of the “neighbour” is crucial to its interpretation. However, Jesus questioned the methodology. It is not the definition of the neighbour that matters but being a neighbour when the situation demands!
Jesus thus demands us to re-imagine ourselves in a world full of need, pain, and injustice. That is the world of the man injured in the attack of robbers. If we limit ourselves to loving our neighbours, we will not be able to reach out to him. In other words, we will not ever enter into the world of those who are oppressed, exploited or otherwise disadvantaged. But being a neighbour opens unending opportunities and challenges in a world of pain for us to serve God’s people. That is what Jesus meant by the story of the Good Samaritan.

Popular posts from this blog

Pandita Ramabai versus Swami Vivekananda: Two Visions of India

This is more than a story about two remarkable nineteenth-century Indians. It is a story about two competing ways of seeing India itself. Pandita Ramabai and Swami Vivekananda were contemporaries, reformers, and influential voices who introduced India to the Western world. Swami Vivekananda (b. 1863—d. 1902 and Pandita Ramabai (b. 1858—d.1922) were contemporaries for about 39 years. Pandita Ramabai was five years older than the Swami and lived 20 more years than he did. Both individuals had connections to Brahmo Samaj. Swami Vivekananda was an official member, whereas Pandita Ramabai closely aligned with its principles and members but did not formally join. When Ramabai arrived in Kolkata in 1878, she received a warm welcome from Brahmo Samaj leaders such as Keshab Chandra Sen, who was notably impressed by her Sanskrit skills and encouraged her to study the Vedas, which were traditionally restricted to men. Although she adopted many of the movement's social reform ideas—such as opp...

A Chat With God

A Chat With God : Prayer can sometimes be a tough thing for people. This video takes a look at some of the struggles and thoughts a person might have with prayer, through the lens of a 'chat' conversation with God.

The Smoking Meat-Eating Swami

  Typically, we imagine a revered spiritual monk as a quiet figure subsisting on fresh vegetables, clear water, and pure air, untouched by worldly habits. However, Swami Vivekananda challenges this traditional image entirely. His life was characterised not by a strict adherence to conventions but by practical wisdom, profound humanity, and a bold rejection of superficial dogma. Throughout his life, Vivekananda regularly enjoyed cigars, pipes, and the traditional Indian hookah. It was a habit he picked up in his youth and maintained during his travels across India and abroad. Yet, for him, a simple pipe could carry profound spiritual meaning. During his wanderings across India, he once asked a man from a lower caste for a smoke from his hookah. When the man hesitated because of the era’s strict customs of untouchability, Vivekananda initially walked away—only to turn around immediately, realising that bowing to caste distinctions violated his core belief in spiritual unity. He took ...