The parable of the Good Samaritan: implications for the euthanasia debate.

• Author: House, H. Wayne

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. `Teacher,' he asked, `what must I do to inherit eternal life?' `What is written in the Law?' he replied. `How do you read it?' He answered: "`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, "`Love your neighbor as yourself."' `You have answered correctly,' Jesus replied. `Do this and you will live.' But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, `And who is my neighbor?' In reply Jesus said: `A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. "Look after him," he said, "and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have." `Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?' The expert in the law replied, `The one who had mercy on him.' Jesus told him, `Go and do likewise.'(1)

Few stories in the Bible have attracted the attention of the general public more than the story of the Good Samaritan. It has worked its way into our common talk, when we request of others to be "Good Samaritans," and even into the laws of some states, where one has exemption from tort liability in helping injured persons unless gross negligence is involved.(2) Even as we implore people to be Good Samaritans, we find in our experience that we and others often do not reach this lofty goal. Certainly in interpersonal relationships we fail, but these are not life and death situations generally, as is the case of the original parable given by Jesus, nor in the case of the life and death subjects of our day, such as abortion and euthanasia. in the Good Samaritan parable the Master paints a scenario in which the balance was tilted against a beaten and helpless Jewish man who had taken the dangerous trip from Jerusalem to Jericho. In similar fashion today, there are individuals who find themselves hanging between life and death, and the ethic of Jesus poses for us a similar question that Jesus posed to the lawyer in Israel almost two thousand years ago. Persons who are sick, in pain, and often dying are treated with no more sympathy today than the priest and the Levite gave to the man on the Jericho road. Yes, they may have felt something inside, a tinge of guilt, but desired not to be bothered by this man's pain and the inconvenience he would cause them. Some wanting to promote euthanasia speak in caring, humanitarian terms but fail to make the sacrifice of the Samaritan in Jesus' story, who gave comfort, health, and even life to a dying person whom God brought to him that day. The lawyer who asked Jesus concerning the identity of his neighbor places each of us before the teacher who loves, gives succor and life, and bids each of us to do the same.

The Setting and Literary Nature of the Parable

In Luke 10:25-11:13, the evangelist Luke sets forth the characteristics of a disciple of Jesus Christ. He does so by means of three separate incidents, but all containing the motif of true discipleship. The first incident concerns the questioning by a lawyer, who is not his disciple but does not appear openly hostile to the Lord. The conversation leads to the conclusion that a disciple of Christ must follow two commandments in the law to inherit eternal life. The emphasis in this account is on the second commandment, to love one's neighbor.(3) The second incident encourages Jesus' disciples to obey the teachings given by him.(4) The third account is Christ's teaching on prayer in response to the disciples' request for instruction in how to pray.(5) Thus the three accounts present instruction on one's relationship to neighbors, to jesus, and to God, respectively.(6)

The Problem of Cohesiveness in Luke 10:25-37

Is the Good Samaritan Parable an Appendix?

The story of the lawyer's question about eternal life and the parable of the Good Samaritan is viewed by some scholars as being disjointed, reflective of a later redaction.(7) A major reason why this is seen to be the case is the relationship of this narrative to Mark 12:28-34, upon which the Lucan account is considered to be dependent. Both accounts have Jesus in a conversation with a lawyer in which the two major commandments are given. In Mark's gospel Jesus offers the summary of the law from Deuteronomy(8) and Leviticus,(9) with which the lawyers agree, whereas in the Lucan narrative the lawyer cites the Old Testament passages, with Jesus confirming that obedience to these commandments brings life.

Though there are similarities between the texts, there are important reasons why Luke has probably not borrowed from Mark, though he may have been familiar with Mark's rendition. In Mark's account the lawyer asks of Christ the "first commandment of all,"(10) while in Luke the lawyer asks the more practical question "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"(11) The Marcan account begins with the Shema, "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one,"(12) but in Luke the Shema is omitted.

If Luke has not borrowed his story from Mark, is the account an independent account of the same incident, or were there two similar occurrences? Certainly it is possible that all three gospel writers developed their accounts from one basic story, but it may be better to understand the stories as reflecting different incidents. We should not suppose that the gospel writers were restricted only to single sermons of Jesus in developing their gospels. As T.W. Manson once said, "Great teachers constantly repeat themselves."(13) The gospel writers, then, may have chosen a different episode of a similar teaching for their own accounts. Marshall says,

The sort of question raised by the lawyer was one that could arise

frequently, especially since we know that it was asked in rabbinic

circles; Manson makes the point that there is nothing surprising about

the lawyer repeating what he already knew to be the answer of jesus

himself to the question in order to put his own counter-question

regarding the scope of neighbourliness.(14)

Howard Marshall concludes his discussion by arguing for the unity of the lawyer's question and the parabolic tale. He says that they "manifestly belong together in the mind of Luke; although the latter appears to follow as a kind of appendix, it is integral to the pericope and forms the climax."(15) When one reads the two accounts together, it is difficult to imagine a better contextual setting for the parable than what we observe in the text handed down to us. Even though these two pericopae form an integral whole, the story of the lawyer and Jesus, as Marshall indicates, does not simply introduce the parable but has its own significance because it poses the issue regarding how one may inherit eternal life. In answering this, it also answers the matter in a thoroughly Jewish way in citing the two commandments of loving God and one's neighbor.(16)

Luke's Emphasis on the Social Implications of the Gospel

Luke's gospel, more than any other, presents the social dimensions to the gospel. in his account of Jesus, he presents Christ's concern for weak persons, for women, for outcasts. For example, the gospel gives special place to women. Mary, the mother of Jesus, has her story told in Luke 1:26-56, and possibly her genealogy is what is recorded in Luke 3:23-38. An elaborate account of the "sinful" woman is given in Luke 7:36-50. It is Luke who records the contrasting models of Mary and Martha, where Mary is commended for listening to his teaching rather than busying herself with cooking and cleaning.(17) Luke, as a physician, also gives special attention to the weak and infirm, often in great detail, in contrast to the rest of the evangelists.

This story also illustrates this emphasis. Through the conjunction of the two commandments found in this conjoined story, Luke is able to present the dual responsibilities that adhere to following Jesus, the commitment to God in the first commandment and concern for others in the second commandment.

The Relationship of the Lawyer's Question to Jesus' Lesson in the Parable

Though some scholars believe the story of the lawyer's question and the parable of the Good Samaritan are disjunctive, I have already argued earlier that they fit together well. By giving the parable, Jesus provides a practical expression to the lawyer's proper response to the full essence of the law found in the two commandments of loving God and then loving one's neighbor as oneself.

Let us look at the relationship of the two commandments and then determine in what sense the parable illustrates one or both of these commandments. First, are there really two commandments, or do they in reality merge into each other? In other words, are the love of God and the love for one's neighbor one and the same thing? Does love for God equate with love for one's neighbor? Moreover, is love for God the only motive for love of neighbor? Still yet, has loving one's neighbor become the same thing as loving God, so that love for one's neighbor becomes a substitute for loving God? Gunther Bornkamm speaks negatively to such a proposition:

Are the love of God and the love of our neighbour one and the same

thing? Surely not. That would mean eliminating the barrier between

God and man which is in fact immovable. Whoever considers both

commandments in this sense to be identical knows...