Note to Text Study aficionados: Most of you are probably already aware of this marvelous resource, but if not, please take the time to visit the Bible Odyssey site found here. And for this week, you can find an essay be Matthew Rindge here. This site is a collaborative work of members of the Society of Biblical Literature. If I visit it enough, I may be able to spell "odyssey" without spellcheck yelling at me again.
Below is a rough translation
and some initial comments regarding the well-known passage of Luke 10:25-37.
Your comments are welcomed. One thing that I find amazing about this story is
that Jesus had just been denied entry into a Samaritan village. James and John,
in fact, wanted to call down fire and invoke a Sodom-like punishment on that
village. We often hear that by making a Samaritan a hero in this story, Jesus
is pushing back against cultural prejudices of his day. We could say, just as
strongly, that by making a Samaritan a hero of this story, Jesus is pushing
back against his own right to anger against Samaritans. It makes me wonder if
all of our illustrative stories (and, in this case, I think that is the role
the parable plays) should be filled with unexpected heroes and heroines,
deliberately drawn from those against whom we have every reason to harbor
anger.
I have an essay on this text
at the Politics of Scripture blog, that you can read here.
25Καὶ ἰδοὺ νομικός τις ἀνέστη ἐκπειράζων αὐτὸν λέγων,
Διδάσκαλε, τί ποιήσας ζωὴν
αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω;
And behold a certain lawyer rose up testing him
saying, “Teacher, I will inherit life eternal having done/fulfilled/acquired
what?”
ἰδοὺ: An aorist middle imperative of εἶδον (to
see) which serves as a particle to call attention. Some dictionaries will not
list it as a verb.
ἀνέστη: AAI
3s, ἀνίστημι, 1) to cause to rise up, raise up 1a) raise up from laying
down 1b) to raise up from the dead ... 2) to rise, stand
up
ἐκπειράζων: PAPart
nsm, ἐκπειράζω, 1) to prove, test, thoroughly 2) to put to proof God's
character and power
λέγων: PAPart
nsm, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak
ποιήσας: AAPart
nsm, ποιέω, 1) to make 1a) with the names of things made, to produce ...
1e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one's self
κληρονομήσω:
FAI 1s, κληρονομέω, 1) to receive a lot, receive by lot 1a) esp. to
receive a part of an inheritance, receive as an inheritance, obtain by
right of inheritance
1. I want to be
very specific in how I approach this originating question. First, it is a test,
not a genuine question. Second, the lawyer is not an attorney of the secular
law, but an authority (in some way) of the biblical law. The reason I make both
of those obvious observations is because Jesus’ answer seems specifically
tailored toward this question and the questioner, whose motives are suspect now
that Luke has identified the question as a ‘test.’
2. In most
translations, the lawyer asks, “What shall I do ...?” However, ‘to do’ is only
one possible translation of the verb ποιέω. It can mean ‘to make,’ ‘to
fulfill,’ or ‘to acquire’ among other things. While it is a very versatile word,
I am going to use “do/fulfill/acquire” because by holding these three
possibilities together consistently we can see several meaningful directions
that the question and subsequent answers can take.
3. The question
itself is hard to translate literally. ποιήσας (do/fulfill/acquire) is an
aorist participle, which suggests a completed action of the past. κληρονομήσω
(inherit) is a future verb. The rough translation may be awkward, but the
refined translations seem to lose the nuances that Luke’s tenses may suggest.
4. I’ve seen
commentators who feel that the lawyer’s question exposes a sense of
entitlement, using the word “inherit.” Perhaps that is so, but perhaps it also
shows awareness that eternal life is a gift, even as one participates in
doing/fulfilling/acquiring it somehow.
5. I do not
hear this as a question about ensuring that one gets to heaven and not hell,
but a question about the whole matter and purpose of life itself. This is a
“what is the meaning of life?” or “what is the chief end of humanity?” sort of
question.
26ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν, Ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τί
γέγραπται; πῶς ἀναγινώσκεις;
Yet he said to him, “In the law what has been written?
How do you read?”
εἶπεν: AAI
3s, λέγω, 1)
to say, to speak
γέγραπται: PerfPI
3s, γράφω, 1) to write, with reference to the form of the letters
ἀναγινώσκεις:
PAI 2s, ἀναγινώσκω, 1) to distinguish between, to recognise, to know
accurately, to acknowledge 2) to read
1. I love,
love, love that Jesus asks both, “What has been written?” and “How do you
read?” Together they imply that the Scriptures are living texts of interactive
possibility. They are not, on the one hand, stagnant words that simply say what
they say to whoever reads. Nor are they empty pages onto which we can pour
opinions willy-nilly. Literalists beware: There is the written and there is the
reading of the written.
27ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης
[τῆς] καρδίας σου καὶ
ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου, καὶ
τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.
Yet the one answering said, “You will love your lord
God out of all [the] your heart and with all of your soul and with all of your strength
and with all of your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”
ἀποκριθεὶς: APPart
nsm, ἀποκρίνομαι, 1) to give an answer to a question proposed
εἶπεν: AAI
3s, λέγω, 1)
to say, to speak
Ἀγαπήσεις: FAI
2s, ἀγαπάω, 1) of persons 1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to
love dearly
1. The lawyer
cites Deuteronomy 6:5, which is often called “the Shema,” based on the Hebrew
word for “Hear” that begins v.4 and the recitation, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord
your God is one...”
2. Rather than
an imperative, this “command” to love (Ἀγαπήσεις) is future indicative. That is
how the verb from Deut. 6:5 is represented in the LXX and that is the same tense
and mode that all of the “10 Commandments” in Deut. 5 have in the LXX.
3. Notice that
it says “out of” all of your heart, then “with” all of your soul, strength, and
mind. I don’t know what to make of that difference but to observe it.
4. The man adds
Leviticus 19:18b to Deut. 6:5 here, just as they are merged in Mt.22 and Mk.12
discussions of the “greatest command.”
28 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ, Ὀρθῶς ἀπεκρίθης: τοῦτο ποίει καὶ ζήσῃ.
Yet he said to him, You answered well; this do/fulfill/acquire
and you will live.”
εἶπεν: AAI
3s, λέγω, 1)
to say, to speak
ἀπεκρίθης: API
2s, ἀποκρίνομαι, 1) to give an answer to a question proposed
ποίει: PAImpv
2s, ποιέω, 1) to make 1a) with the names of things made, to produce
... 1e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one's self
ζήσῃ: FMI
2s, ζάω, 1) to live, breathe, be among the living
1. Now we have
the imperative voice, “Do/Fulfill/Acquire this ....” It is a direct response to
the framing of the initial question, “What must I do/fulfill/acquire ...?”
2. Jesus
basically says, “Do what you know to do. You know the law, do the law.” He does
not say, “Ah, but it is not works righteousness that gives life, only faith.”
Nor does he say, “Now you have to believe in me and not just the law.” Jesus
does not say what many people presuming to speak in his name often say. Hmm…
29 ὁ δὲ θέλων δικαιῶσαι ἑαυτὸν εἶπεν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν, Καὶ τίς ἐστίν μου πλησίον;
Yet he wanting to justify himself said to Jesus, “And
who is my neighbor?”
θέλων: PAPart
nsm, θέλω, 1) to will, have in mind, intend
δικαιῶσαι: AAInf,
δικαιόω, 1) to render righteous or such he ought to be 2) to show,
exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to
be considered
εἶπεν: AAI
3s, λέγω, 1)
to say, to speak
ἐστίν: ἐστὶν:
PAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present
1. Remembering
that the first question was a test, the follow up question is an attempt to
justify himself. While the parable that follows has long been a favorite for
many of us, what significance is there that the questions evoking the parable
were disingenuous and defensive? Could it be that some of the best expressions
of grace arise out of words that were intended for ridicule or testing?
30 ὑπολαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Ἄνθρωπός τις κατέβαινεν ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἰεριχὼ καὶ
λῃσταῖς περιέπεσεν, οἳ καὶ ἐκδύσαντες αὐτὸν καὶ πληγὰς ἐπιθέντες ἀπῆλθον ἀφέντες ἡμιθανῆ.
Having taken him
on Jesus said, “A certain man went down from Jerusalem into Jericho and fell
among robbers, who also having stripped him and having inflicted blows went
away leaving him half dead.
ὑπολαβὼν: AAPart
nsm, ὑπολαμβάνω, 1) to take up in order to raise, to bear on high, 1a) to take
up and carry away 2) to receive hospitably, welcome 3) to take
up 3a) follow in speech, in order either to reply to or controvert
or supplement what another has said 4) to take up in the mind
4a) to assume, suppose
εἶπεν: AAI
3s, λέγω, 1)
to say, to speak
κατέβαινεν: IAI
3s, καταβαίνω, 1) to go down, come down, descend
περιέπεσεν: AAI
3s, περιπίπτω, 1) so to fall into as to be encompassed
ἐκδύσαντες: AAPart
npm, ἐκδύω, 1) to take off 1a) to strip one of his garments
ἐπιθέντες: AAPart
npm, ἐπιτίθημι, 1) in the active voice 1a) to put or lay upon 1b) to add to
ἀπῆλθον: AAI
3p, ἀπέρχομαι, 1) to go away, depart
ἀφέντες: AAPart
npm, ἀφίημι, 1) to send away 1a) to bid going away or depart 1a1)
of a husband divorcing his wife ... 3e) to go away leaving
something behind
1. I may be
overreaching to interpret ὑπολαβὼν as “having taken him on,” but it is not the
common verb for “answering.” It means, literally, ‘to take up.’ In fact, this
is the only instance in the NT where that word is commonly translated
“answered.” It is, however, the word that one finds in the Septuagint
throughout the conversations in Job, where Job and his interlocutors answer one
another (2:4, 4:1, 6:1, 9:1, 11:1, 12:1, etc.) on the question of Job’s
suffering. I have supplied ‘him’ as the object of the verb. Young’s Literal
Translation supplies ‘the word.’
2. I’m thinking
that “having stripped” is less a matter of clothing and means that the man was
completely robbed. However, one respondent argues that because clothing was so valuable at that time, we should read "stripped" literally, because that would have been an integral part of the robbery. It makes sense to me.
3. I’m going to
follow the Greek ἡμι/θανῆ and start using “hemi-dead” more often. And I’m going
to find a copy of “The Princess Bride” and dub into Miracle Max’s line, “He’s
not dead. He’s only hemi-dead.”
31κατὰ συγκυρίαν δὲ ἱερεύς τις κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν
ἀντιπαρῆλθεν:
Then by chance a certain priest was going down in that
road, and having seen him went by oppositely;
κατέβαινεν:
IAI 3s, καταβαίνω, 1) to go down, come down, descend
ἰδὼν: AAPart nsm, ὁράω, 1) to see with the eyes 2)
to see with the mind, to perceive, know
ἀντιπαρῆλθεν:
AAI 3s, ἀντιπαρέρχομαι, 1) to pass by opposite to
1. The word συγκυρίαν
appears only here in the NT. I don’t think I’ve ever noticed before that Jesus
uses a word here meaning “accidental” or “by chance.” What is the significance
that the travelers (since traveler #2 ‘likewise’ comes) are there by chance?
2. The verb ἀντιπαρέρχομαι
is a delightful construct of ἀντι – against; παρα – by/alongside; and έρχομαι –
to go. Something about the very deliberate prefixing of this verb captures the
very deliberate ‘going against by’ of the non-neighborly. It only appears here
and in the next verse in the NT.
32 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Λευίτης [γενόμενος] κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ἀντιπαρῆλθεν.
Then likewise also a Levite having [begun to] come to
the place and having seen went by oppositely.
γενόμενος: AMPart
nsm, γίνομαι, 1) to become,
ἐλθὼν: AAPart
nsm, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come
ἰδὼν: AAPart nsm, ὁράω, 1) to see with the eyes 2)
to see with the mind, to perceive, know
ἀντιπαρῆλθεν:
AAI 3s, ἀντιπαρέρχομαι, 1) to pass by opposite to
1. The [γενόμενος] is
not in many of the earlier manuscripts and I would omit it in a refined
translation.
33 Σαμαρίτης δέ τις ὁδεύων ἦλθεν κατ'αὐτὸν καὶ ἰδὼν ἐσπλαγχνίσθη,
Then a certain Samaritan who was traveling came to him
and having seen was moved with compassion,
ὁδεύων: PAPart
nsm, ὁδεύω, 1) to travel, journey
ἦλθεν: AAI
3s, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come
ἰδὼν: AAPart nsm, ὁράω, 1) to see with the eyes 2)
to see with the mind, to perceive, know
ἐσπλαγχνίσθη:
API 3s, σπλαγχνίζομαι, 1) to be moved as to one's bowels, hence to be moved
with compassion
1. The
Samaritan was traveling and did not come upon the wounded man “by chance.”
2. It seems to
me that ἐσπλαγχνίσθη is the critical turning point in this parable. Jesus
describes the first two travelers with ἰδὼν ἀντιπαρῆλθεν, “having seen
went against by.’ For the third traveler the second word in the order changes
dramatically: ἰδὼν ἐσπλαγχνίσθη, “having seen was moved with compassion.” Luke
uses this verb on two other occasions. It describes Jesus’ response when he
sees a mother processing to bury her son (7:13) and it is the father’s response
when he sees his lost son returning home (15:20) in another striking parable.
34 καὶ προσελθὼν κατέδησεν τὰ τραύματα αὐτοῦ ἐπιχέων ἔλαιον καὶ οἶνον, ἐπιβιβάσας δὲ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον κτῆνος ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς πανδοχεῖον καὶ ἐπεμελήθη αὐτοῦ.
And having come he bound up his wounds pouring on oil and
wine, then having lifted him on his own beast he led him into an inn and cared
for him.
προσελθὼν: AAPart
nsm, προσέρχομαι, 1) to come to, approach 2) draw near to 3) to
assent to
κατέδησεν: AAI
3s, καταδέω, 1) to bind up
ἐπιχέων: PAPart
nsm, ἐπιχέω, 1) to pour upon
ἐπιβιβάσας: AAPart
nsm, ἐπιβιβάζω, 1) to cause to mount 2) to place upon
ἤγαγεν: AAI
3s ἄγω, 1) to lead, take with one 1a) to lead by laying hold of, and this
way to bring to the point of destination: of an animal
ἐπεμελήθη: API 3s, ἐπιμελέομαι, 1) to take care of a person or
thing
1. The
participle προσελθὼν of this traveler (having come) seems to be the opposite reaction
to the ἀντιπαρῆλθεν (went against by) of the first two travelers.
2. I wonder if
the emphasis that the beast (Ox? Mule? Noble steed?) was the Samaritan’s “own
beast” (ἴδιον κτῆνος) means to say that it is the beast on whom the
Samaritan was riding, now he is walking as he leads the wounded man to the inn.
3.
Incidentally, the word for “inn” here (πανδοχεῖον) is not the same as in the
birth narrative (2:6) where Luke uses κατάλυμα.
35 καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον ἐκβαλὼν ἔδωκεν δύο δηνάρια τῷ πανδοχεῖ καὶ εἶπεν, Ἐπιμελήθητι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὅ τι ἂν προσδαπανήσῃς ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ ἐπανέρχεσθαί με ἀποδώσω σοι.
And on the morrow having taken out two denarii he gave
to the innkeeper and said, ‘Care for him, and whatever you may spend I in the
returning myself will give to you.’
ἐκβαλὼν: AAPart
nsm, ἐκβάλλω, 1) to cast out, drive out, to send out
ἔδωκεν: AAI
3s, δίδωμι, 1) to give
εἶπεν: AAI
3s, λέγω, 1)
to say, to speak
Ἐπιμελήθητι:
APImpv 2s, ἐπιμελέομαι, 1) to take care of a person or thing
προσδαπανήσῃς:
AASubj 2s, προσδαπανάω, 1) to spend besides
ἐπανέρχεσθαί:
PMInf, ἐπανέρχομαι, 1) to return, come back again
ἀποδώσω: FAI
1s, ἀποδίδωμι, 1) to deliver, to give away for one's own profit what is
one's own, to sell 2) to pay off, discharge what is due
1. This is the
only dialogue in the whole parable. It is enough, eh?
2. We remember
that the man was robbed before being beaten, so the Samaritan’s purse is as
important as his medicines and care.
36 τίς τούτων τῶν τριῶν πλησίον δοκεῖ σοι γεγονέναι τοῦ ἐμπεσόντος εἰς τοὺς λῃστάς;
Which of these three do you think to him who had
fallen among robbers had become a neighbor?”
δοκεῖ: PAI
3s, δοκέω, 1) to be of opinion, think, suppose
γεγονέναι: PerfAInf,
γίνομαι, 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive
being
ἐμπεσόντος: AAPart
gsm, ἐμπίπτω, 1) to fall into 1a) to fall among robbers 1b) fall
into one's power
1. This
question seems to correspond to the question “how do you read” in v.26.
2. This
question circles back to the lawyer’s self-justifying question of v.29, “Who is
my neighbor?” But, there is a turn from “who is my neighbor?” (v.29) to “who
has become a neighbor?”
3. The word πλησίον (neighbor)
is rooted in the adjective for “near” (πλησίος). It is only used in this
parable (3x) in Luke’s gospel.
4. The full
quotation from Lev 19:18 is, "You shall not take vengeance or bear any
grudge against the sons of your own
people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord." What
Jesus has done with this parable – assuming that the wounded traveler is a Jew
– is to revise the understanding of neighbor as “of your own people” (still the
most popular way of understanding ‘neighbor’) to “the one who is wounded but
not of your own people.” And Jesus does so by making a Samaritan the exemplar
of being a neighbor.
37 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, Ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔλεος μετ' αὐτοῦ. εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Πορεύου καὶ σὺ ποίει ὁμοίως.
Yet he said, “The one who having done/fulfilled/acquired
the mercy to him.” Yet Jesus said to him, “Go and you do/fulfill/acquire
likewise.”
εἶπεν: AAI
3s, λέγω, 1)
to say, to speak
ποιήσας: AAPart
nsm, ποιέω, 1) to make 1a) with the names of things made, to produce,
construct, form, fashion, etc. 1b) to be the authors of, the
cause 1c) to make ready, to prepare 1d) to produce, bear, shoot
forth 1e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one's self
εἶπεν: AAI
3s, λέγω, 1)
to say, to speak
Πορεύου: PMImpv
2s, πορεύομαι, 1) to lead over, carry over, transfer 1a) to pursue the
journey on which one has entered, to continue on one's journey
ποίει: PAImpv
2s, ποιέω, 1) to make 1a) with the names of things made, to produce,
construct, form, fashion, etc. 1b) to be the authors of, the
cause 1c) to make ready, to prepare 1d) to produce, bear, shoot
forth 1e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one's self
1. Now we
circle back to the originating question, “What must I do/fulfill/acquire” of
v.25. If we interpret ποιέω as “do,”
then we must do works of mercy to those who are wounded, even if they are among
despised people to us. If we interpret ποιέω as “fulfill,” then to fulfill the
law is to exercise mercy. If we interpret ποιέω as “to acquire,” then we are to
acquire mercy, even to those who are wounded and enemies.
I love the idea of how do we make a neighbor, rather than who is our neighbor. How do we become a neighbor is expansive, invitational, and gives us a place to go.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Thanks, Marci! I'm delighted that you are visiting the blog.
ReplyDeleteOne resource I would recommend to anyone preaching this text this week is James Gustafson's book, "Can Ethics Be Christian?", particularly the opening scenario that initiated his interest in writing the book.
ReplyDeleteI never noticed before that Jesus frames his response as both 'what does it say?' and 'how do you read it?'. Thank you for bringing this out in the text. Very helpful.
ReplyDeleteI never really saw that before this time around either, Rita. It is fascinating. My text study group was saying how it is a nice way of telling extreme fundamentalists, "It's not just about what is written, it is also about how one reads it," and of telling extreme liberals, "It's not just about how you read it, it is also about what is written." It seems to include both the discipline of letting the Scriptures have their own voice and the necessary interaction that comes with interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI've read that a good number of the priests lived in Jericho -it being something like a close suburb. Could Jesus be using "by chance" as mock surprise...?
ReplyDeleteGosh...who would have expected them to be travelling that way?
I love, love, love (smile) the "out of" ... breaking boundaries of the heart, moving "out of" mind sets ... "out of" that which deadens us.
ReplyDeleteThank you for helping me get back to the Greek texts on a weekly basis. "What does it say?" and "How do you interpret it?" are questions with special resonance here. Relying solely on the received translations lead me sometimes to miss something crucial. Here, as someone already noted, the parable doesn't convict us of not being a good neighbor so much as it provides a path to become one. I also love the attention to the "commandments" being in fact not imperatives but future indicatives: these "commands" are in fact promises that as we follow Jesus we will learn to be what God intends us to be. Hallelujah!
ReplyDeleteOne little note: "stripped" is *absolutely* literal as well as figurative. Bear in mind that this is a pre-industrial society where every piece of clothing was manufactured entirely by hand from beginning to end. They took his clothes because those were as valuable as his purse, if not more so. (Cf. the soldiers casting lots for Jesus' cloak.)
ReplyDeleteWhich also lends extra significance to the binding of wounds--the Samaritan may well have had to damage his own garments in order to dress the wounded man.
Hi Fellmama,
DeleteThanks for the note. The word about the value of garments is helpful and I'll remember it the next time that I go about editing this entry. I'm not quite as comfortable with the word 'absolutely' as you are, but I take your suggestion very seriously.
Thanks again for responding. Blessings on your work.
I think it's solid enough to stand behind the "absolutely." The passage doesn't support a metaphorical reading of the verb, and I think one would have to be pretty deep into metaphor to dissociate ἐκδύω from its literal roots. (H.L. Mencken did famously derive ecdysiast as a fancy word for, well, you know.) I should mention that, while I'm an internet random, I'm also an internet random who an MA in ancient history, so I do know something of what I speak!
DeleteThank you for your blog! I have a priest friend who links me here frequently, and I always enjoy a look at the upcoming readings.
Thanks. This is very helpful.
ReplyDeleteThanks. This is very helpful.
ReplyDeleteThis is my first time here, and I thank all of you for this beautiful conversation! In my prayer I never cease giving thanks, and now I am thanking the Holy Spirit for you. I have gained insight which I needed to learn, and which I will share.
ReplyDeleteMark,
ReplyDeleteIn considering "antiparerxomai" in v.31, could we look at this verb in a way of saying "he walked by him opposed to him?" The deliberate/opposite speaks of walking on the other side of the street, but could it also signify the priests opposition to the person laying on the road in a way that was not neceassarily only in physical space but deeper? Just wondering as I tinker. Thanks. Miss you all at Synod School.
I was looking up "antiparerxomai" in the TDNT. Of course, I had to remove the "anti" and look up "parerxomai." One of the fascinating things the TDNT says about this word is: "The word serves to disclose human guilt. Jesus lashes as culpable both the inward attitude - which in unrepentant complacency maintains that it has "left no commandment unfulfilled" - and also the religious practice which concentrates on unimportant aspects of the Law but "overlooks" the essential things, the judgment and the love of God."
ReplyDeleteA couple of things: 1) If parerxomai serves to disclose human guilt, then ANTIparerxomai could also mean that NO human guilt was disclosed/shown. In other words, you could translate the text as
"Then by chance a certain priest was going down in that road, and having seen him showed no guilt."
This would also but the priest and Levite in direct opposition to the Samaritan who "was moved with compassion."
2) In reflecting back on the TDNT's commentary - antiparerxomai could also refer to the preist/Levite's over attention to right ritual while overlooking right living. AND it also then points back to the Lawyer who is more focused on the "letter of the Law" than the "spirit of the Law."
Finally:I find it curious that while the Lawyer asks about "eternal life", Jesus only responds about how to "live." Now you could say that "eternal life begins now" which I often do with my congregation. But what if the injured man is the Lawyer - who then gets helped by a Samaritan? Does the Lawyer/injured get help ("lives") because he had followed the Law by loving his neighbor as himself? In other words, if we all (including the "Samaritans" of the world) "loved our neighbors" then we would all get to "live" in the here and now - or at least live longer. (Maybe I'm not as clear on this one...but I'm working on it.)
Hmm ... I'll need to sit with this one for a while.
DeleteI'm a little wary of stretching the meaning of ἀντιπαρέρχομαι too far. In vv. 31-32 it could simply describe the manner by which the priest and levite passed by. ἀντι - would indicate opposition, as you noted. παρέρχομαι is the verb έρχομαι with the prefix παρ, which can take on a lot of different meanings. I think, unless I see reason to go there, that it is a reference to crossing around the needy person instead of going to the needy person.
Hmm...
Jesus basically says, “Do what you know to do. You know the law, do the law.” He does not say, “Ah, but it is not works righteousness that gives life, only faith.” Nor does he say, “Now you have to believe in me and not just the law.” Jesus does not say what many people presuming to speak in his name often say. Hmm…
ReplyDeleteSo issue one: Classicly we acknowledge that no, we are screwed up and can't/don't/won't do those things. Getting told that only if we love God and Neighbor are we real human beings leaves me at least at the mercy of the accuser. Every attempt to fulfill the law of love leaves me in the dust. I run out of steam too quickly.
Second: While I get that an individual traveling (especially in the historical context) was likely male, Ἄνθρωπός is human being - no?
Hi Bill,
DeleteI've often thought that the strongest argument for denying works righteousness comes from some of the Scriptures and the strongest argument for works righteousness comes from others of the Scriptures. You make the case for one side of that equation. I would agree with you that this conversation in Luke is probably not where someone would want to stake out an Augustinian or Lutheran polemic against works.
And, yes, I agree that Ἄνθρωπός" is 'human being' as opposed to strictly male. My sense is that if this is a female there would have been so many other 1st century taboos and customs to consider that it would have been more specific to the gender.