James T Mace

The problem is that many interpreters insufficiently account for the literary context of the Samaritan Parable of Luke 10:30–35, which leads to misunderstanding the parable. Redaction critical textual relationships (cultural literary context, preceding and succeeding narrative co-text, intra-parabolic canonical intertext [Hosea & 2 Chronicles]) show that the literary context in which the Samaritan parable occurs prepares for the reader’s seeing the theological theme of Messianic Reunification (MR) of all Israel. Thus, fully appreciating the literary context indicates that the Samaritan parable coheres with MR and that Jesus is answering the two combined questions: “Whom must the Judaean accept as a fellow Israelite in order to participate in the messianic restoration of the reunited kingdom of all Israel?”

This talk is helpful to see some of the basic points I make about how the OT prophetic theme of the Messiah, who would come to reunite the divided kingdom of north and south Israel, empowers better understanding this parable of Jesus, who claimed (e.g. Luke 24:44) that all the prophecies were to be fulfilled by Him and His people.

Jesus, as part of his mission to remove divisions within Israel, to include those wrongly marginalized, etc., here uses the most ancient and hateful division of Israel in an a fortiori manner to specifically teach that polemically racist Judaean cultists, who wrongly exclude many Israelites, must accept even their estranged fellow Samaritan Israelites as covenanters if they want to be part of the Messiah's reunited Davidic kingdom.

The good biblical impulse to remove wrongful racial and ideological boundaries is exploited by advocates of socio-political agendas (e.g., Wallis, Gutenson, sojo.net) wielding fallaciously manufactured pseudo-Christian political theologies stimulating unbiblical action. Ironically thinking they serve Christ while facilitating the opposite, Christians squander limited resources and ignore true biblical commands. A current example of this is widespread abuse of the biblical גר / “gēr” legislation (Lev 19:34 etc.). Incompletely translated as “stranger,” “alien,” etc., it actually embodies the smaller concept of “non-indigenous permanent resident submitted to covenantal legal structure and worshipping no god but Yahweh.” This biblical concept is perversely universalized in promoting violation of immigration law, socialism, de-prioritization of Christians in the ordo amoris, etc. Therefore the Church needs better understanding, not only curbing further abuse but also facilitating pan-ethnic, loving global solidarity within the covenant people.
We examine needed correctives regarding the gēr category within Israel’s Holiness Code and Deuteronomy, e.g., exegetical structure of Lev 19:17-34, and literary, theological, and sociological determinants, especially the various widely ignored prescriptive and proscriptive delimitations for the gēr, including religious requirements. We appreciate determinative pentateuchal distinctions between the gēr, for whom love is prioritized, and the nokrî, implicitly excluded from equality (TLOT 50), so that people today better fitting into the latter category are no longer sanctioned to displace the former. Diachrony reveals Septuagintal translation as “prosēlytos,” better reflecting semantics than “stranger.” Examining the Acts 10 boundary removal, we question continued existence of the gēr category. Thus, widespread appeals abusing Lev 19:34, causing Christians to ignore proper ordering, are pronounced biblically unwarranted.
We point toward more ecclesially edifying praxis: to properly incarnate the loving community of the Lev 19:17-34 Holiness Code, favour legal above illegal immigrants, with persecuted Christians requiring utmost prioritization (Gal 6:10).

Misinterpreters conclude that Jesus universalizes the Second Great Commandment (2GC), erasing distinctions between Church and world, which subverts ecclesiology’s biblical foundation. Several exegetical factors overturn this consensus and restore 2GC to ecclesiology. 1) Interpreters uncritically accept anti-Samaritan polemics while ignoring reversal of Samaritan status over the last fifty years, but first-century sectarian competitors debated Samaritan Israelism (SI), with many early Tannaim (like Gamaliel) and Jesus here affirming SI. 2) The context of fulfilling expectations of messianic reunification (MR), a reunited Davidic kingdom (Isa 11:12-13; Ezek 37:19, 22, etc.). 3) Questions provoking the parable concern Torah obedience for participation in messianic Israel, with Lev 19:18 neighbour always meaning “Israelite” (Meier, Law and Love, 492-93, 527, 651). (Thus, those asserting that Jesus alters this bear burden of proof.) 4) The parable structurally follows the well-known scriptural-Mishnaic triadic genre of priest-Levite-Israelite, indicating that the third character (Samaritan) is an Israelite. 5) The Samaritan’s actions allude to northern-southern Israelite relations (2 Chr 28:15). 6) The Samaritan practices covenantal חסד / ḥesed, seen through consistency with first-century ḥesedism (Sorek 2010, Giambrone 2016), use of a Septuagintal Hebraism, the tripartite ποιεῖν + ἔλεος + μετά (=עשׂה + חסד + עמ) collocation (Luke 10:37a; cf. 1:72a), etc. Thus the Samaritan protagonist (Luke 10:33) represents inheritors of Northern Israel undergoing MR (accomplished in Acts 8; cf. 15:16 quotation of Amos 9:11).

Royal Davidic typology is the unifying factor for Lukan Christology, including the Davidic covenant constellational element of ruling over a united kingdom of all Israelite tribes (Hahn 2009). Thus, in displaying Davidic covenantal fulfillment, Luke-Acts includes messianic reunification (MR), restoring unity by joining both southern and northern kingdoms’ constituents (Judaeans and Samaritans) under Jesus the Davidide, which phase of Israel’s Heilsgeschichte must occur before inclusion of Gentiles. MR coherently synergizes with several additional established Lukan themes (the people of God, ecclesiological identity, inclusion of marginalized Israelites, table-fellowship, economics). Although widely expected in prophets used by NT authors, scholarly consideration of MR is frequently neglected (conversely, see Jervell, Ravens, Pao, Bauckham, Samkutty, Butticaz). Moreover, the fifty-year Samaritanological revolution is generally unappreciated in NT studies.
This paper describes the prophetic MR paradigm then shows literary thematic progression in Luke-Acts foretelling, initiating, proclaiming, teaching, consummating, and summarizing MR: the Davidic son of God (Luke 1:32-35; 10:22, etc.) must fulfill all elements of Davidic covenant restoration; that awaited by “many prophets and kings” (10:24) includes the scion of David’s MR into kingdom unity (Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5-6; 33:14-17); this royal Son teaches Samaritan Israelism, that faithful Samaritans are also Israelites inheriting his reunited messianic age (10:25-37; cf. 17:11-19); this eschatological MR theme mirrors the Chronicler’s pan-Israelite ideology, displayed in Jesus’s use of 2 Chr 28:15 in 10:33-34; Samaritan inheritors represent the northern kingdom in the 2-stage resurrection of Israel (Acts 2-8), fulfilling Ezek 37 and vindicating the Son’s enthronement; Acts 9:31a and 15:16 summarize, declaring fulfillment of Amos 9:11’s rebuilding of Davidic dominion.
This MR hermeneutic revitalizes theological exegesis (e.g., Lizorkin-Eyzenberg 2015, Gospel of John). Most significantly, MR shows Luke’s Samaritan parable not to address universalized ethics but to ecclesiologically reinforce Lev 19:18 as performing purely intra-covenantal ḥesedism, including almsgiving (Giambrone 2016).

After briefly rehearsing the first-century debate over Samaritan Israelism (SI), including favourable Tannaitic views, this paper shows that Jesus in the Samaritan parable teaches that covenantally loyal Samaritans are Israelites eligible for inclusion in his coming messianic age. Several points reveal this position.
The parabolic teaching occurs within the Lukan thematic context of fulfilling prophesied messianic reunification (MR), reuniting both northern and southern Israelite kingdoms under a scion of David. The immediately preceding co-text of the parable relates eschatological kingdom proclamation in Samaria and an announcement by the royal Son of God (Luke 10:22; cf. 1:32–35, etc.) of the arrival of that which “many prophets and kings” awaited (10:24), which includes MR into kingdom unity (Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5–6; 33:14–17; 2 Chr 30; 35, etc.). The parable evidences a description of the word “neighbour,” which, within this context of Lev 19:17–18, is defined as a “fellow Israelite”; thus, when Jesus describes the one who proved to be a Torah-obedient neighbour of the Judaean victim as a Samaritan, he is portraying a reuniting of Israelites divided across national, ethnic, and sectarian boundaries. The form of the parable adopts the well-known triadic structure of “Priest-Levite-Israelite,” and Jesus places the Samaritan in the position of the Israelite. Jesus endorses the Chronicler’s pan-Israelite ideology embracing SI, reflecting the Lukan eschatological MR theme, in his intertextual use of 2 Chr 28:15 as a source for 10:33–34. Use of the tripartite collocation ποιεῖν + ἔλεος + μετά (from the Hebrew עשׂה חסד עמ) in 10:37a defines the Samaritan as one who observes covenantally loyal ḥesedism, not generic humanistic mercy.
This recognition of Jesus’s position in the parable coheres with later representation of the northern kingdom by its Samaritan inheritors in the 2-stage resurrection of Israel (Acts 2 and 8) fulfilling Ezek 37. The parable’s SI and MR also produce a more comprehensively coherent reading of the rebuilding of the σκηνὴν Δαυὶδ (Acts 15:16) than the influential Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13-21)” (1996).
When properly recognizing the Ḥesedic Samaritan’s parabolic teaching, it becomes clear that Luke-Acts views Samaritans as representatives of the northern kingdom inheriting the covenant promises of messianic renewal along with southern Israelite Judaeans.

Royal Davidic typology is the unifying factor for Lukan Christology, including the Davidic covenant constellation element of ruling over a united kingdom of all Israelite tribes (Hahn 2009). Thus, amidst its displaying Davidic covenant fulfillment, Luke-Acts includes messianic reunification (MR), restoring unity to the kingdom by joining both former northern and southern kingdoms’ constituents under the rule of Jesus, messianic Son of God, which phase of Israel’s Heilsgeschichte must occur before inclusion of Gentiles. Although widely expected in prophets used by NT authors, scholarly appreciation of MR is underdeveloped (conversely, see Lizorkin-Eyzenberg 2015, Jewish Gospel of John) but produces understanding of Acts 15:16 more comprehensively coherent than the influential Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles” (1996), espoused by several St. Andreans. The paper describes the prophetic MR paradigm then shows literary thematic progression in Luke-Acts foretelling, initiating, proclaiming, teaching, consummating, and summarizing MR: the Son of God (Luke 1:32-35; 10:22, etc.) must fulfill all elements of Davidic covenant restoration; that awaited by “many prophets and kings” (10:24) includes the scion of David’s MR into kingdom unity (Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5-6; 33:14-17); this royal Son teaches Samaritan Israelism, that faithful Samaritans are Israelites inheriting his reunited messianic age (10:25-37; cf. 17:11-19); this eschatological MR theme mirrors the Chronicler’s pan-Israelite ideology, displayed in Jesus’s use of 2 Chr 28:15 in 10:33-34; Samaritan inheritors represent the northern kingdom in the 2-stage resurrection of Israel (Acts 2-8), fulfilling Ezek 37 and vindicating the Son’s enthronement; Acts 9:31a and 15:16 summarize, declaring fulfillment of Amos 9:11.

Although scholars recognize the ποιεῖν ἔλεος μετά phrase as a Semitism referring to observing covenant faithfulness rather than to practicing general ethical mercy or compassion (e.g., BDF, §206; BDAG, 636; Marshall, Luke, 450; Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 101; Fitzmyer, Luke, 888), its implications have not been consistently applied within the context of Luke 10:25–37 for understanding Lev 19:18. The paper first surveys the widespread use and consistent covenant context of the ποιεῖν ἔλεος construction in biblical and post-biblical literature. Special attention will be paid to its often overlooked usage in Jas 2:8–13 (vis-à-vis Ruth 1:8), which provides a striking parallel to the argument of Luke 10:25–37. Possible intertextual allusions relating to Luke 10:37 (Exod 34:7) and to the Samaritan parable itself (Hos 6:6) are then also discussed in scholarly interaction. Against this backdrop, the paper argues that the purpose of the Samaritan parable (10:37) as an interpretation of Luke 10:27 is not to universalize Lev 19:18 into a general call to love outsiders. Rather, its goal is to reinforce the meaning of Lev 19:18 as a call to maintain covenant loyalty by loving one’s fellow covenant members, thereby inheriting eternal life (Luke 10:25, 28, 37b).

Within the emerging milieu of Secular Humanism and global transhumanism, analysts like Pope John Paul II say the key question facing the world is what it means to be human. To advance a Christian cultural hermeneutic, we must think biblically and creatively about what the image of God means. Any transformative ecclesiological ethic must incorporate the Dual Love Command (love Social Trinity and one’s neighbour) as its foundation. But the scope of the Second Great Commandment (2GC) is a debatable issue: either strictly intra-ecclesial (e.g., Thorsteinsson) or universal (e.g., Allison).

The essay first examines a truncated case for the ecclesial scope of the 2GC in the NT. The original scope of Lev 19:18 is widely recognized to be purely intra-covenantal, and the single most crucial passage supporting alleged universalizing alteration of the 2GC is the Samaritan parable of Luke 10:25–37. Most people now define the Samaritan’s exemplary behaviour by general humanistic ethics. But is such a change of Torah warranted? There are very good grounds to question this and instead theorize that the parable’s purpose is to depict the Samaritan as a loyal Israelite obeying the command to love his fellow Israelite, thereby inheriting eternal life in messianic covenant renewal (Luke 10:25, 28, 37b).

These grounds include specifically covenantal indicators within the narrative context, form and source criticism of the parable, the ideology of the Books of Chronicles, Samaritanological archaeology and genetics, and conformity to Lukan themes, both of inclusion of wrongfully marginalized Israelites and of prophetic fulfillment.

Special attention will be paid to the latter through exploration of the major OT motif, broadly neglected by NT interpreters, of the prophesied messianic reunification of northern and southern Israel and how this exercises great explanatory power to confirm the hypothesis of Samaritan Israelism in the parable.

Of vital significance is the Semitistic ποιεῖν ἔλεος μετά phrase (Luke 10:37a) describing the Samaritan, which indicates a specifically covenantal sphere of activity. After surveying the widespread use and consistent covenant context of the ποιεῖν ἔλεος construction in biblical and post-biblical literature, special attention will be paid to its often overlooked usage in Jas 2:8–13 (vis-à-vis Ruth 1:8), which provides a striking parallel to the argument of Luke 10:25–37. Possible intertextual allusions relating to Luke 10:37 (Exod 34:7) and to the Samaritan parable itself (Hos 6:6) are then also discussed in scholarly interaction finding support for the covenantal sphere.

All this research so far strongly trends toward verification of the hypothesis that Jesus did not alter the OT scope of the 2GC but reinforced it by recognizing loyal Samaritans as fellow covenanters obeying Lev 19:18. Further verification is recognized in that a hypothetical intra-ecclesial scope for the 2GC coheringly comprehends all pertinent NT texts, bringing, e.g., rapprochement of Pauline and Johannine love concepts.

Second, the essay briefly explores building upon the preceding 2GC biblical theology by proposing a tool for constructive “malistan” ecclesiology of the Imago Trinitatis (Zizioulas, Volf, Knight, O’Donovan), named from the superlative adverb μάλιστα (“especially, chiefly, most of all, above all”; Gal 6:10). Integral to the 2GC are voluntary economic koinonia (Green) and church discipline for ethical formation leading to eschatological Spiritual empowerment. This could be a tool for ecclesial maturation, forming more complete Body members inside the Church (cf. Kamell re Jas 2) as the school of love formation, reflecting the corporate image of the communitarian God in the renewed humanity (Wright). This reading thus could restore a theological grounding for the world-transforming, loving solidarity that would not only incarnate the centripetally attractive evangelistic image of the reciprocally loving Trinitarian community (cf. John 17:21, Wright’s “worldview symbol”) but also, in the open divine economy, counterintuitively increase Spiritually empowered extensive love for the world (contra Phillips vis-à-vis Sorokin).

Last, impact from adopting this 2GC reading could also provide a corrective for political theology. Scripture authorizes only one group for preferential treatment, suffering fellow Christians, and we are given no scriptural option to disregard the primacy of loving solidarity, the uniquely like-yourself mutual love between Christians, in favour of anyone outside the covenant structure. The essay ends positively proposing practical ethical application of the inter-ethnic Loyal Samaritan parable in global ecumenical ministry to the persecuted Church.