The Priest and Levite as Temple Representatives: The Good Samaritan in the Context of Luke’s Travel Narrative

Introduction

The parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–35) is one of the most familiar narratives in Scripture. This story’s broad appeal is not limited to Christianity but articulates universal principles of human decency; a simple literature search reveals that the term good Samaritan is used in non-religious contexts, including the ethics of medicine, law, and political policy.¹ This parable is replete with well-attested theological truths. On the one hand, it is a feel-good story; justice seems to ultimately prevail, and concepts of neighborliness and even human dignity extend beyond ethnic boundaries. Deeper layers of meaning rebuke racism, prejudice, and ethnic pride, all relevant concerns for both first-century and twenty-first-century audiences.

However, the lesser-explored element is the indictment of the inactivity of the priest and Levite. Commentators have frequently speculated over legal and personal reasons to explain why these characters might have passed the injured traveler by; however, few acknowledge the representative potential of these figures. This omission requires treatment, especially when considering that these characters are commonly associated with Jerusalem, a city that Luke deliberately reminds his readers that Jesus is traveling toward with a prophetic rebuke. In addition, a consideration of the first-century economic factors and various anti-temple sectarian movements further substantiates an examination of how Jesus utilized the priest and Levite within his social-historical context to convey his intended truth.

The intention of this exegetical study of Luke 10:25–37 is to contribute to this research void by discovering the roles of the priest and Levite as representative types of their broader classes. To accomplish this, these two characters are considered in light of their literary context in the Lukan travel narrative to Jerusalem (9:51—19:27). Some of the questions that are this study considers include:

1.How does a literary analysis of Luke’s travel narrative to Jerusalem (9:51—19:47) contribute to interpreting these characters’ placement within the parable?

2.In what ways do the priest and Levite serve as contrasting figures to the Samaritan?

3.How might a survey of Luke’s presentation of priests, Levites, and the temple inform this study?

4.In what ways does the socioeconomic circumstance of first-century Jewish Palestine contribute to assessing these characters?

The purpose of the study is to examine the priest’s and Levite’s roles in Luke 10:30–35 within the context of Luke’s travel narrative (Luke 9:51—19:27). The aim will be to discover how these characters represent their broader class within Jerusalem and the implications of these findings.

This project uses an exegetical hermeneutical approach to assist in developing its main arguments, with a specific emphasis on social-scientific and intertextual methods, giving special attention to historical and socioeconomic factors affecting the parabolic setting.

The structure follows the exegetical methodology proposed by Kevin G. Smith as an in-depth, inductive examination of scripture in which the exegete systematically applies established hermeneutic tools (exegetical methods) to discover the meaning and implications of biblical text(s).²

The preface to this volume briefly outlines how its content progresses, chapter by chapter. This structure is covered here in slightly more detail, as it relates to Smith’s four-step exegetical approach, which includes the introduction, context, meaning, and significance.

Smith’s step of introduction is incorporated in this introduction and chapter 1. These two units will outline purpose, methodology, and structure, then review the existing literature to demonstrate the knowledge gap that this project will address.

Smith’s second step, context, is covered in chapter 2. To ascertain the context of Luke 10:25–37, this section discusses authorship, date, audience, the purpose and occasion of its writing, and other variables. Following this, an overview of Luke’s literary context addresses structure and argument. Finally, this chapter surveys Lukan theological themes pertinent to the interpretation of the chosen text, as well as the immediate context surrounding the pericope.

Smith’s third step, meaning, is addressed in the third and fourth chapters. Chapter 3 begins exegesis of the chosen pericope and its immediate context (Luke 10:25–37) beginning with relevant textual criticism and translation issues. Subsequently, contextual analysis uncovers the passage’s historical and literary settings, whereas verbal analysis identifies useful lexical and grammatical features within the Greek text. Then, a literary analysis will highlight genre, structure, composition, and rhetoric.

Particular attention will be given to intertextual and social-scientific hermeneutical approaches. Regarding the former, the specific parallels between Luke 10:30–35 and relevant Old Testament texts offer a compelling connection to the development of the priest and Levite within the parable. Secondly, a social-scientific methodology highlights pertinent matters from the world of the text, including the concept of neighbor identification, the foundation to the parable of Luke 10:30–35. Furthermore, the social identities of the various characters and represented groups of the parable are developed via this methodology. Additionally, the social-scientific approach will enhance the exegesis of the text when considering qualities including honor and shame, as well as purity concerns.

Chapter 4 then situates the parabolic variables within their setting by engaging in a thematic study of Luke’s presentation of priests and Levites, the Jerusalem temple, and new temple theology. Furthermore, the social-economic and historical setting of the temple in Jerusalem will be discussed including popular perceptions of the institution being corrupt and in collusion with Rome, in addition to various Jewish sects that formed as a response to temple injustices. Finally, a survey of the critical components and theological message of the travel narrative to Jerusalem will add further contextual basis for making assessments of the characters.

Smith’s final step, significance, is considered in the fifth and sixth chapters. Chapter 5 includes an exegetical synthesis pulling together the findings to address interpretation situating these findings within the broader context of biblical theology. This chapter incorporates N. T. Wright’s approach to parabolic interpretation in his Jesus and the Victory of God wherein the parables are used to tell Israel’s story and indicate deeper eschatological truths. Then chapter 6 articulates practical significance, making application to missiological implications for Christians in the African and surrounding contexts.³ To accomplish this, the chapter will briefly examine literature written from the African perspective regarding this parable, and then the application will then move beyond current literature, bringing conditions in the African context into conversation with the principles of the parable discovered in this study as relayed in chapter 5. This chapter serves as an example as to how findings such as this may be applied to particular audiences through a creative approach based on solid theological findings.

1

. Chen, Luke, loc.

3910

.

2

. Smith, Academic Writing,

175

.

3

. Smith, Academic Writing,

182

.

1

A Hermeneutical History of the Good Samaritan

1.1 History of Parable Interpretation

Introduction

To establish a knowledge gap regarding the priest’s and Levite’s role in Luke 10:30–35, this literature review will identify how the parable and these two characters have been addressed during the two primary interpretive periods, including the earlier allegorical emphasis that lasted into the late nineteenth century and the modern emphasis resulting from historical-critical hermeneutical approaches. The focus will turn to how scholarship has engaged the priest and Levite in this parable over the last half-century. From this period, the bulk of relevant commentaries will be surveyed, and a considerable number of publications aimed at parabolic interpretation along with some dissertations, monographs, and journal articles that tend to exemplify where critical attention is frequently given to this parable.

The Ancient Era—An Allegorical Interpretation of Parables

The interpretive periods of Luke 10:25–37 pivot on the contributions of Adolf Jülicher in 1886.¹ Preceding this timeframe, throughout the early and medieval periods of the church, interpretations centered on an allegorical approach; however, following his work, they transitioned to a more literal and historical approach.²

In the early second century CE, evidence of allegorical interpretation of parables appears in the works of Marcion, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus.³ Origen’s third-century interpretation of this parable employs extensive allegory drawn from an anonymous contributor with the victim representing Adam, Jerusalem portraying Eden, and Jericho the fallen world.⁴ Furthermore, the bandits are present evils while the wounds connote Adam’s sin; meanwhile, the priest and Levite symbolize the law and prophets, the Samaritan models Jesus, and the inn represents the church. The two-denarii payment signifies the Father and Son, and the Samaritan’s commitment to return to pay the final tabulation takes on an eschatological meaning.⁵ However, Origen deviates from his source in considering the thieves as false prophets and does not believe that the story represents all humanity.⁶ Origen’s early interpretation would catalyze similar allegorical interaction from early church writers, including Gregory Thaumaturgus and Ambrose.⁷

Roughly two hundred years after Origen, Augustine demonstrated fondness for this parable in his writings.⁸ In his Quaestiones Evangeliorum, he details elements throughout the parable in which he finds allegorical meaning, including that the oil and wine applied to the wounds represent the sacraments.⁹ Perhaps most noteworthy, he identifies the innkeeper as the apostle Paul, an isolated position in historical interpretation.¹⁰ To Augustine, the significance of the parable is the application of mercy and compassion.¹¹

John Chrysostom believed the parable’s purpose was to challenge Judaizers, viewing attackers on the road to Jericho as symbolic of that sect who combated early Christian practice.¹² The Samaritan serves as an example for Christians, highlighting personal sacrifice with benevolence as a core Christian duty.¹³ While Chrysostom arrives at a practical application, he still implements allegorical tendencies.

Thomas Aquinas’s Catena Aurea, which compiles writings of the church fathers, profiles early interpreters’ various allegorical treatments of the parable.¹⁴ Aquinas also confronts the parable in his Commentary on the Master’s Prologue to the Sentences, considering the Samaritan to symbolize God. The man left for dead is sin-plagued humanity, while the two denarii used to secure lodging for the victim represent two covenants.¹⁵ During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther retained common allegorical views of this parable; to evidence, his final sermon at Wittenberg in 1546 portrays the victim as Adam and the Samaritan as Christ.¹⁶

Through medievalism into the Protestant Reformation, allegorical affirmations were usually constant in the view that the mugged traveler symbolizes humanity as a victim of the world’s evils and that the Samaritan represents God or Christ showing concern for the wounded. Interpretations were also generally consistent in the application that Christians should practice compassion as did the Samaritan. During this period, interpreters made minimal effort toward developing this parable’s meaning within historical or literary contexts. The allegorical tendencies of this period would continue to largely influence interpreters until Jülicher.

The Modern Era of Parable Interpretation: The Historical-Critical Approach

Adolf Jülicher’s seminal work, first published in 1886, launched the contemporary era of parabolic interpretation. In reaction to previous scholarship, Jülicher aimed to eliminate allegorical treatment in favor of a historical-critical approach.¹⁷ As literal meanings took on greater significance, historical methods opened the door for new hermeneutical perspectives. Within this early period of change, parables became part of this school’s epicenter, with many Lukan-only parables, including the good Samaritan, occupying much attention.

Jülicher asserted that parabolic teachings tend to have a single idea in contrast with the cryptic misrepresentation of allegorical interpreters.¹⁸ He divides parabolic speech into simile and metaphor, the former comparing variables while the latter takes on definition and context other than its plain meaning.¹⁹ Jülicher organizes the synoptic Gospel parables into three categories—similitude, parable, and example²⁰—contending that the good Samaritan is an example story, straightforward in exposition and only needing further development through application.²¹

Jülicher determined that while this parable’s ending is uncertain, not revealing whether the Samaritan returned to pay the bill or the extent of the financial damages, its inconclusiveness does not detract from interpretation. He saw no purpose in expounding on the priest’s and Levite’s roles, instead concentrating on the single idea that the parable’s ultimate point is that neighborliness and mercy should coincide.²²

Joachim Jeremias leaned on the contributions of Jülicher’s historical-critical approach, maintaining some of his methods while furthering the development of the parable’s interpretation.²³ His attention rests on the motive behind the inactivity of the priest and Levite—whether they were unconcerned with the wounded traveler, or if duty prevented them. C. H. Dodd, another early authority from the line of Jülicher, implemented an open-ended eschatological emphasis in parable interpretation. However, in his well-known The Parables of the Kingdom, Dodd engages the good Samaritan only in terms of erroneous historic allegorical tendencies, electing not to interpret this parable through his eschatological approach.²⁴

Expanding the Modern Approach

Robert Funk, continuing the historical-critical tradition, considered parables to be extended metaphors through which meaning is found by positioning contrasting objects to stimulate the imagination.²⁵ He further acknowledged the intention of metaphoric language to be creative, rendering it incomplete until heard and understood by the listener. To Funk, listening is the crucial step, and each listener may encounter a unique meaning of the text. Leaning on Dodd’s assessment of the open-ended interpretation of parables, Funk deduces that parables can never have a definite meaning. He deviates from his predecessors by rejecting the approach of the good Samaritan parable as an example story, identifying it instead as an extended metaphor.

John Dominic Crossan’s career spans fifty years treating parables, initially from the historical-critical approach.²⁶ While rejecting the allegorical interpretation of earlier ages, he does accept that parables contain poetic metaphors and symbolic expressions.²⁷ Crossan usefully defines the parable as a metaphoric story that will point externally beyond itself toward a much wider referent.²⁸ Crossan came to view parables as having many potential readings since they may be read in varying contexts.²⁹

Kenneth Bailey’s methodology was developed from years of living among Christians in the Middle East, which allowed him to understand elements of their modern culture that remain similar to culture in the first century. He advances that the dichotomy Jülicher poses between historical and allegorical readings, as well as his insistence on single meanings, has since been disproved by scholarship. Bailey’s conclusion is that parables include three fundamental elements. The first involves symbols, which are one or more points of contact within the real world of the listener; the second element is the listener’s response; and the third critical element is what he terms theological clusters, which are combination of theological motifs.³⁰

Concerning the good Samaritan, Bailey assesses the priest to be a victim of a rule-based system in which he might have weighed not only the need for ritual purity but also the unknown identity of the wounded traveler. In the latter case, the concern would be whether he should risk assisting someone morally unfit for help. Regardless, Bailey does see the priest as having the greatest culpability within the narrative.³¹

Craig Blomberg seeks to create a balanced approach between allegorical and historical interpretations, affirming that Jesus intended for some parables to be allegories in the manner of rabbinical tradition, although such interpretation requires strict parameters.³² Blomberg challenges assessments of singular viewpoints in parabolic speech, demonstrating that multiple themes are at work in cases such as the prodigal son (Luke 15). However, he does limit each character of parables to a single point, diminishing the potential for the multiple meanings that his approach would have indicated are possible in each story.

In his treatment of the good Samaritan, Blomberg remarks that the priest and Levite are representatives of the location of worship and the nature of the cultic ritual juxtaposed with the Samaritan, whose people espoused significant theological differences from the beliefs of the Jews.³³ Blomberg further assesses that the priest’s and Levite’s lack of action was inexcusable, even when considering the specific purity standards. However, he does not develop further implications of the representative qualities of the priest and Levite, specifically in the context of Luke’s travel narrative, and does not consider sociohistorical aspects.

Leland Ryken offers another voice asserting the need for balance between the rampant allegorical tendencies of the past and the strict historical approach of the twentieth century.³⁴ Ryken framed the discussion of allegory versus straight, concrete readings as a complex false dichotomy.³⁵ Like Blomberg, Ryken challenges the historical-critical interpreters on their insistence of a single point for each parable and provides a strict method toward interpreting parables with allegorical tendencies, but offers no example from Luke 10:30–35.³⁶

The movement toward historical methodology sprung by Jülicher and furthered by others provided much of the basic framework for modern endeavors. However, this group of scholars did not reach consensus as to the appropriate way to read and interpret parabolic speech. In the second half of the twentieth century, scholars began to further critique Jülicher and his proponents’ narrow limitations on parabolic interpretation.³⁷ However, with the contributions of Bailey and Blomberg, thought began to progress away from strict historical-critical readings, and scholarship began to consider the indictment of the priest and Levite and an enhanced interest in these characters as representatives.

1.2 The Priest and Levite in Contemporary Scholarship

Introduction

For much of the period since Jülicher, Jeremias, and Dodd, commentators shifted to a broader approach, viewing the good Samaritan variously through historical, grammatical, social, and literary emphases. Despite these changes, academia has still seen limited dialogue concerning the priest’s and Levite’s presence. Some scholars have considered the reasons for these characters’ inactivity but have neglected effort toward discovering their purpose.

This review will focus on literature specifically to identify scholars’ contributions (or lack thereof) as they add to this discussion regarding the priest and Levite, establishing that current offerings fall short of identifying the implications of these archetypal characters. First under consideration are commentaries published since Jeremias’s work on parables in 1958, categorized into groups based on time of publication.

1964 to 1984

During these two decades, eight commentaries on Luke are considered. While Frederick Danker adopts the stance that the priest and Levite’s motives are irrelevant,³⁸ G. B. Caird asserts that it is the Samaritan who fulfills the role of the great commandments as opposed to the devout, law-keeping priest and Levite.³⁹ I. H. Marshall adds that there is an anti-clerical point to the story but does not elaborate on that significance.⁴⁰ In the early 1980s, E. Earle Ellis aligns with Marshall, stating that this parable stresses one thing: the religious ones, seeing the victim’s need, passed by.⁴¹ Charles H. Talbert likewise offers that the priest and Levite are the villains of the parable.⁴² However, each of these theologians fail to seek out the further import of these statements.

Joseph Fitzmyer contributes by placing the characters within a socioeconomic circumstance, alerting the reader to notice the crucial information that these two characters are members of the privileged Jerusalem class,⁴³ but Fitzmyer does not address the symbolic potential of these characters. Meanwhile, Eduard Schweizer hardly mentions the priest and Levite.⁴⁴ Walter Liefeld balances between the allegorizing of the past and what he sees as the oversimplification of parables following the historical-critical era.⁴⁵ These eight scholars acknowledge these two characters’ significance, their inferred rebuke, and even in the case of Fitzmyer, their social-economic privilege, but offer only a modest contribution in expounding upon their roles, failing to develop them as representatives or in the broader literary context.

1988 to 1993

Seven commentaries on Luke were published in the five-year period from 1988 to 1993. However, Fred Craddock,⁴⁶ David Gooding,⁴⁷ and Craig Evans⁴⁸ provide little to no