The Good Samaritan

The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) is so well known that I hardly need to take up space here repeating or paraphrasing it. The legacy of this story is that a Samaritan is universally understood as a good person who helps others, a good neighbour. Newcastle Anglican’s own welfare agency scarcely needs a mission statement; the name says it all.

Perhaps less explored is the context of theological tensions in which the parable is told and the new ground it forges in that context.

In the first Century CE Jewish thought was substantially formed by two distinct schools: the House of Hillel (Bet Hillel) and the House of Shammai (Bet Shammai). Hillel and Shammai we sages (of the late 1st century BCE and the early 1st century CE) who debated each other on aspects of Jewish life and law. Broadly Shammai is the more conservative and Hillel the more progressive so far as those distinctions can be helpful. Their debates frame the context of many questions posed to Jesus in the gospels.

For example, the 1st-century theological debate on divorce between Hillel (who took a more lenient approach) and Shammai (who was stricter) forms the backdrop of the debate in Matthew 19:3-9, where religious leaders test Jesus on the grounds for divorce. In this case Jesus seems to lean toward the teaching of Shammai.

Hillel's famous summary of the Torah ("What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah...") closely parallels Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7:12: "In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you."

While neither sage is named in the New Testament, Hillel’s grandson, Gamaliel, is mentioned in the Book of Acts. He was a highly respected Pharisee who counselled the Sanhedrin to exercise caution with the early apostles in Acts 5:34-39, here Gamaliel is clearly following in his grandfather’s footsteps. He is cited by Paul as his former teacher in Acts 22:3. Sadly, this influence on Paul is often overlooked when interpreting his writings.

The parable begins with an expert in the law asking Jesus how to inherit eternal life. When Jesus asks how he reads the law, the lawyer fuses parts of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18: “to love God” and to "love your neighbour as yourself". This is also a clever synthesis of Hillel and Shammai. Seeking to "justify himself," the lawyer asks a follow-up question that was a point of tension in first-century rabbinic debate: "And who is my neighbour?"

The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel answered this question differently. Shammai applied strict purity codes to define the boundaries as to who was and who was not a neighbour. In contrast Hillel took more inclusive, empathetic approach. In this contested space the operational framework of rabbinic law still struggled to define where functional, legal obligation began and ended. By forcing the lawyer to define "neighbour," Jesus directly entered the space between Shammai's purity-based restriction and Hillel's expansive inclusiveness.

In the parable Jesus does as most rabbis do, he responds to a question with a story, and the story reframes the question. The question posed by the lawyer is “Who is my neighbour?”. Following the story the question becomes, “What kind of a neighbour am I?”. This moved the debate away from the various interpretations of the Sages to an ethical and moral question that needs to be struggled with deeply within the self.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan cannot be fully appreciated outside the shadow of Hillel and Shammai. Jesus used the tension between Shammai’s protective legalism and Hillel’s humanitarian leniency to challenge his listeners. Instead of answering "who qualifies as my neighbour," Jesus flipped the question entirely, demonstrating that neighbourhood is not a status to be analysed, but an active commandment to be lived.

The dynamic and essence of this debate remains active within the contested spaces of our church and our world today. It is in the essence of the debate around immigration in our current political environment. Although we may use different words this debate is framed around questions of “purity” and “identity”. Within our church the same could be said of the contested space of human sexuality. Most of us will either lean towards a Shammai or a Hillel position.

Jesus points us towards a third way. In this way the question becomes not “Who is my neighbour?’, but “What kind of neighbour am I?”.