Abstract
Scholars often puzzle over why the discussion about Torah obedience in Luke 10:25–29 does not appear to fit coherently with the story of the Good Samaritan that follows it (10:30–37). Was this an oversight on Luke’s part, a lack of editorial finesse, or did he have other aims? In this paper, I will argue that the apparent shift in logic, marked by the transformation of the lawyer’s question from ‘Who is my neighbour?’ (10:29) to ‘Who acts as a neighbour?’ (10:36), invites the lawyer to realign his interpretation of Lev 19:18 with the theology of imitatio Dei already present in Leviticus 19: The one who properly fulfills Lev 19:18 does so by imitating Yahweh. Within the context of Luke’s Gospel, moreover, Luke 10:25–37 illustrates how Luke both affirms and expands the terms of Torah obedience such that proper fulfilment of the Mosaic Law requires a disclosure of and participation in the very nature of God.
Introduction
The Torah was a gift for God’s covenant people—a manifestation of his will and purpose for them. 1 To what extent, then, was it possible for early Christian texts such as Luke-Acts to assert a different pathway to covenant faithfulness? Some scholars conclude that Luke portrays all Christ-believers as free from following the Mosaic Law, 2 while others argue that he presents both Jewish and non-Jewish followers of Jesus as faithful to the parts of the Torah that apply to them. 3 Although a discussion of such magnitude lies beyond the scope of a short paper, my study has a more modest aim that nonetheless contributes to this broader conversation: a consideration of how and why Jesus affirms Torah obedience in Luke 10:25–37.
Scholars often puzzle over why the discussion about Torah obedience in Luke 10:25–29 does not appear to fit coherently with the story of the Good Samaritan that immediately follows it (10:30–37). 4 When the lawyer 5 asks Jesus for clarification about the practice of Lev 19:18 by posing a question—Who is my neighbour? (Luke 10:29)—Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan and, in the process, reframes the interpretation of Lev 19:18 by posing a different type of question—Who acted as a neighbour? (Luke 10:36). From the perspective of Luke 10:29, the man who fell among thieves would represent the ‘neighbour’ whereas, by the end of the story, the Good Samaritan represents the ‘neighbour’ because of the way he helps the man who needs a good neighbour (Luke 10:37).
How do we account for this apparent break in the logical flow of this passage? Some attribute the shift in logic to a lack of editorial finesse: When Luke joined two separate pericopes (Luke 10:25–29 and 10:30–37), his redaction of them did not yield a coherent account. 6 Others see the discontinuity between the questions in Luke 10:29 and 10:36 as an intentional transition: Jesus tells the story of the Samaritan and changes the lawyer’s question to illustrate how love for one’s neighbour should not be confined to specific ethnic boundaries. 7 Still others suggest that Luke 10:25–37 represents a halakhic debate in which the story of the Samaritan shows the priority of the love commandment over purity concerns; the transformation of the lawyer’s question, together with the Good Samaritan story, provides an alternate interpretation of Mosaic Law. 8 While some interpreters rightly identify the shift in logic as intentional and others helpfully show how concerns about Torah interpretation govern the entire passage (Luke 10:25–37), no one, to my knowledge, has adequately explained how the shift in logic, marked by Jesus’s alteration of the lawyer’s question, plays a vital role in reorienting the lawyer’s approach to Torah exegesis.
In what follows, I will argue that the transformation of the lawyer’s question by Jesus (10:29, 36), together with its answer (10:37), invites the lawyer to realign his hermeneutical approach with the theology of imitatio Dei already present in Leviticus 19. To advance this argument, in the first part of the paper, I will focus on three interrelated avenues of inquiry: 1) a consideration of the common ground between Jesus and the lawyer—Torah obedience leads to eternal life; 2) an outline of the theological orientation of Leviticus 19; and 3) a discussion of how the theology of imitatio Dei informs the interpretation of Lev 19:18 in Luke 10:25–37. Subsequently, in the second part of the paper, I will explore how this reading corresponds to Luke’s wider thought. As we shall see, Luke does not simply affirm Torah observance; he insists that proper interpretation and embodiment of Torah requires supernatural intervention. In short, only those who receive teaching and revelation from Jesus can understand the Father and, consequently, fulfill Lev 19:18 in the manner prescribed by Jesus and exemplified by the Samaritan in Luke 10.
‘Do This and Live’
Torah praxis and interpretation stand at the center of the conversation between Jesus and the lawyer in Luke 10:25–37. The repetition of the term ‘do’ (ποιέω) throughout the passage shows how this topic frames their discussion. The lawyer approaches Jesus with a question: ‘What must I do to inherit eternal life?’ (v. 25). Their exchange leads to a common conclusion that the practice of Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 represents the essence of Torah obedience and thus leads to eternal life: ‘Do this and live’ (10:29). Although the lawyer’s motives may be disingenuous, Jesus’s response to his further question (Who is my neighbour?), 9 nonetheless outlines what it means to enact Lev 19:18. Finally, by telling the lawyer to ‘go and do likewise’ (10:37), Jesus reiterates the necessity of observing the Mosaic Law. 10
In addition to their common concern for the proper practice of the Torah, both Jesus and the lawyer agree that obedience to Mosaic Law leads to the reward of eternal life. In the Mosaic Law itself, faithfulness to the Sinai covenant results in present reward (e.g., Lev 18:5; Deut 6:16–25): inheritance of a flourishing life in the promised land, fulfilled in the here and now (cf. Lev 26:3–13; Deut 28:1–14). Over time, however, the Jewish concept of reward for covenant faithfulness expanded to include blessing (or punishment) in the afterlife (e.g., Dan 12:2; 1 Enoch 96:5–7; Ps. Sol. 3:12; Luke 16:19–31). 11 While Jesus and the lawyer might envision ‘eternal life’ as a reward at the final resurrection of the dead, 12 they may refer more generally to life in God’s kingdom, which will appear most fully at the end of the age. 13 Whether as recompense in the afterlife, in the coming kingdom, or both, Jesus and the lawyer appear to agree that observance of the Torah will lead to future reward.
Beyond this, Jesus affirms the lawyer’s conflation of Deut 6:5 with Lev 19:18 and recognizes these two requirements as that which epitomizes the whole will of God. This combination of passages stands out as unique in two ways. First, while the call to love one’s neighbour was often used as an ethical summary in early Jewish texts (e.g., Jub. 7:20; 36:7–8; CD 6:20–21; Sir 7:21; 34:15), and could include a command to worship God (e.g., Philo, Spec. Laws 2.63), Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 do not appear together explicitly in pre-Christian Jewish texts. 14 Second, unlike Mark and Matthew, who each refer to two commandments—love of God and love of neighbour (Mark 12:28–31; Matt 22:36–39) 15 —Luke 10:25–28 presents Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 as a ‘a single unified command’. 16 Both Jesus and the lawyer agree that Torah obedience leads to eternal life, and both affirm a seamless connection between devotion to God and love for people.
Loving Neighbour: Imitating Yahweh (Leviticus 19)
Despite their broad agreement regarding what constitutes the essence of Torah and the necessity of obedience to it, Jesus and the lawyer diverge significantly in their hermeneutical approach. Whereas the lawyer ostensibly aims to exegete Lev 19:18 by identifying humans who qualify as the object of his love (Who is my neighbour?), Jesus tells a story that leads to the transformation of the lawyer’s question (Who acted as a neighbour?). The new question posed by Jesus serves to reorient the starting point for exegesis of the Torah. Accordingly, in the process of answering the lawyer, Jesus implicitly teaches him how to read and practice Lev 19:18 in a manner that corresponds to the theology of Leviticus 19: imitation of and loyalty to Yahweh lead to proper love of neighbour.
Leviticus 19 serves as a type of ‘brief Torah’ insofar as it expands the self-declaration of Yahweh from Exod 20:2 (cf. Exod 6:6–8) and repeats (or alludes to) the ‘ten commandments’ given to Israel on Sinai (Exod 20:1–17).
17
In this earlier context, Yahweh recalls his deliverance of Israel and their consequent responsibilities: You have seen what I did to the Egyptians and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation. (Exod 19:4–6a)
18
On the basis of his deliverance of the Israelites, Yahweh invites Israel into a covenant relationship with him—one that requires their loyalty and obedience. His self-revelation and deliverance express Yahweh’s gracious commitment to Israel (cf. Exod 6:6–8) whereas their obedient response makes it possible for them to serve him as a ‘priestly kingdom and holy nation’. 19 In this role, as Israel remains faithful to its covenant obligations, the nation mediates God’s will and blessing to the world. Correspondingly, Leviticus 19 repeats and expands the account of Yahweh’s self-revelation and Israel’s covenant responsibilities.
From the outset of Leviticus 19, the revelation of Yahweh’s holy character provides the impetus for the covenant obligations of Israel: And the
In other words, ‘[t]he people of Israel are to imitate God, whose essential nature is holiness’. 20 The reiteration of the phrases ‘I am Yahweh your God’ or ‘I am Yahweh’ (vv. 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37) throughout Leviticus 19 reinforces the central purpose for its instructions. As John Hartley explains, these formulae raise ‘the authority of a law or a series of laws above the socio-political sphere to the divine sphere. Consequently, in obeying these laws the people express their loyalty to Yahweh’. 21 The repeated self-declaration of Yahweh throughout Leviticus 19 ‘becomes a call to holiness, followed by a series of commandments . . . by which holiness may be achieved’. 22 In sum, the everyday human practices of Israel must correspond to Yahweh’s own holy character and identity.
God’s holiness refers, on the one hand, to his exalted nature—he is distinct and separate from his creation—and, on the other hand, to his moral integrity—his justice and righteousness. 23 Israel thus takes up its responsibility to imitate the holiness of Yahweh by 1) observing commands that set it apart from the nations (cf. Lev 20:26), just as Yahweh is set apart from his creation, 24 and 2) by cultivating ethical practices that reflect Yahweh’s own righteousness. Since Yahweh’s holiness finds its highest expression through his character and actions, it is not surprising that a significant portion of Leviticus 19 addresses ethical practices that would make it possible for Israel to imitate Yahweh’s own moral uprightness. 25
Leviticus 19:11–18, for example, outlines both prohibitions and prescriptions that facilitate the human imitation of Yahweh. The first section prohibits activities such as theft, lying, exploitation of the weak, injustice in court, and slander (19:11–16). Thereafter, at the climax of this passage, Yahweh calls Israel to imitate his holiness through healthy communication, avoidance of hatred and vengeance, and, supremely, through love of neighbour: You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbour, or you will incur guilt yourself.
26
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the
Rather than taking vengeance or bearing a grudge, 27 Israelites imitate Yahweh by loving their neighbours (including foreigners who live in their midst) as themselves. 28 The pairing of negative prohibitions with positive commands suggests that imitation of Yahweh involves both avoidance of activities that compromise the representation of his character as well as the adoption of dispositions and practices that reflect his positive attributes.
Lev 19:18 in Luke 10:30–37: Transforming the Lawyer’s Question
When read in light of the theological context of Leviticus 19, the transformation of the lawyer’s question by Jesus, in Luke 10:25–37, does not disrupt the logical flow of the passage. Nor should we interpret the shift in questions (Luke 10:29; 10:36) solely as an attempt to prioritize compassion over ritual purity. Rather, the reframing of the lawyer’s question calls for an interpretation of Lev 19:18 that corresponds to the imitatio Dei theology already present in Leviticus 19.
Although purity concerns may play a significant role in the story of the Good Samaritan, their presence does not adequately account for the transformation of the lawyer’s question by Jesus. 29 As the story unfolds, we first encounter a priest and Levite who see the man who fell among robbers but avoid him by passing by on the other side of the road (vv. 31–32). While the passage provides no explanation for this action, it may signal their attempt to avoid incurring corpse impurity. 30 This concern, however, would probably not have been considered legitimate by first-century Jewish auditors because the responsibility to save life or to bury the corpse would naturally take precedence over purity concerns. As Amy-Jill Levine has argued, the Torah clearly required both the priest and Levite to attend to the man in the ditch; no excuse would be acceptable. 31 Perhaps more importantly, then, the account juxtaposes two high-status members of Jewish society with a marginal figure: the Samaritan.
The marginal identity of the Samaritan has significant implications for how we understand his enactment of Torah obedience. In the first place, his role would probably jolt the sensibilities of a first-century Jew, who would have expected a Jewish layman to enter the scene after the priest and Levite. The repetition of ‘certain’ (τις) in the phrases ‘certain man’, ‘certain priest’, and ‘certain Samaritan’ signals that each of these characters represent a particular class of people. 32 Whereas priests, Levites, and the Jewish people comprised the three major divisions of people in postexilic Israel, Samaritans did not fit neatly into any of these categories. Rather, for Luke, they stand somewhere on the boundary between Jew and non-Jew. 33 The exemplary behavior of the Samaritan thus presents a shocking reversal: the one whom we least expect to interpret and obey the Torah correctly becomes a model of covenant faithfulness whereas those designated to interpret and teach Mosaic Law fail to observe it properly. 34
In the second place, the status of the Samaritan also suggests a context of hostility. As John T. Carroll explains, ‘[i]f the readers possess basic knowledge of Palestinian history and politics, they will be aware of the centuries-long animosity and distrust that estranged Samaritans and Jews (Ezra 4; Neh 2:19; 4:2, 9; Sir 50:25–26; Josephus, Ant. 9.14.3; 11.2.1; 11.43–6, 9; 11:1–7; 12.5.5; 13.3.4; 18.2.2; 20.6.3; Jub. 30; John 4:9, 20–22)’. 35 This long-standing enmity would almost certainly raise the expectation that the Samaritan would act with animosity toward the man in the ditch. 36 By refusing to act with hostility, the Samaritan follows the prohibition of grudge-holding and vengeance in Lev 19:18a. This, in turn, opens the way for him to fulfil the positive requirements of Lev 19:18b: love of neighbour. The Torah obedience of the Samaritan thus finds expression in two ways: the avoidance of activities that compromise the ability of humans to imitate Yahweh’s character (Lev 19:18a) and the adoption of activities that lead to the representation of his positive attributes (Lev 19:18b).
Beyond simply fulfilling Lev 19:18b by showing love for his fellow human, however, the Samaritan expresses the very sentiments and actions of Yahweh himself. Within the context of Luke’s narrative, the compassion (vs. 33; ἐσπλαγχνίσθη) of the Samaritan mirrors the emotion displayed by both Jesus and Yahweh (Luke 7:13; 15:20; ἐσπλαγχνίσθη). 37 More importantly, the mercy (ἔλεος) shown by the Samaritan reflects Yahweh’s own character. Elsewhere in the Gospel of Luke, this term occurs only in reference to God and almost exclusively to describe his covenant faithfulness (Luke 1:50, 54–55, 72, 78). 38 Similarly, in the LXX, the term ‘mercy’ (ἔλεος) is commonly used to translate חֶסֶד, a term that frequently expresses Yahweh’s steadfast covenantal love and faithfulness. 39 When Luke uses the same word to describe the Samaritan’s treatment of the man in the ditch (ἔλεος; 10:37), he presents the actions of the Samaritan as a participation in the very character of Yahweh. 40 In other words, the Samaritan does not simply fulfill Lev 19:18 by expressing care for another human; rather, he feels and enacts the type of steadfast love that mirrors Yahweh’s own covenantal faithfulness.
Consider, by way of summary, how the transformation of the lawyer’s question (10:29, 36), together with the answer to Jesus’s new question in Luke 10:37, reorients the lawyer’s hermeneutical approach so that it aligns with the original intent of Lev 19:18: Lawyer’s question: Who is my neighbour? (Luke 10:29) That is, what are the limits of my responsibility to other humans? Samaritan Story: The Samaritan (rather than priest or Levite) resists hostile action and instead takes compassionate action (Luke 10:30–35; cf. Lev 19:18), which provides the impetus for a new type of question. New Question: Who acted as a neighbour? (Luke 10:36) Answer: Someone who shows mercy [and thereby acts like Yahweh]. (Luke 10:37)
The story of the Good Samaritan leads to a new type of question that invites a recollection of the broader context and theological import of Lev 19:18. The identity of Yahweh himself—rather than the identity of one’s neighbour—provides the basis and motivation for love of one’s neighbour—whomever that might be. 41 This is the intent of the imitatio Dei theology of Leviticus 19 even as it also reinforces Jesus’s conflation of Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 in Luke 10:27. In short, the transformation of the lawyer’s question guides him to read and practice Leviticus 19:18 in a manner that follows the theological trajectory already established in Leviticus 19.
Imitation of Yahweh: Learning from Jesus
Although the actions of the Samaritan serve as an example of how to fulfill the true intent of Lev 19:18, within the wider context of his narrative, the Samaritan also stands out as a paradigm of discipleship. Indeed, Luke sets the stage for seeing the Samaritan in this light by showing how Jesus discloses the knowledge required to do God’s will (Luke 6:17–49). The Samaritan thus functions as a type of ideal disciple who fulfills Torah because he has heard, understood, and obeyed Jesus, the prophet like Moses.
Throughout his narrative, Luke repeatedly presents Jesus as a prophet like Moses and the positive response to his message as an expression of covenant faithfulness. Although many ‘hear’ (ἀκούω) his teachings (Luke 5:1, 15; 6:18, 10:16; 15:1; 18:23, 26; 19:11, 48; 20:45), only those who do what he says are acceptable to God (Luke 6:27, 47–49; 8:8–18, 21; 10:24, 39; 11:28; 16:29–31; cf. Acts 3:22–23; 7:51–53). 42 Luke associates this positive response to the message of Jesus with moral integrity and endurance (8:15), and identifies ‘those who hear and do the word of God’ as his true family (Luke 8:21). In addition, Luke aligns the call to hear and obey Jesus with the responsibility to hear and heed Moses (Deut 18:15, 18; cf. Luke 9:35; Acts 3:22–23). 43 Accordingly, those who understand and obey Jesus embody the type of covenant faithfulness already envisioned in the Torah (e.g., Luke 16:19–31; Acts 7:51–53).
The ‘Sermon on the Plain’ serves as a significant example of Luke’s presentation of Jesus as a prophet like Moses. In a series of episodes immediately prior to this address (Luke 6:17–49), Luke outlines the growing conflict between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees because of his different Torah instruction and practices (Luke 5:17–6:11). 44 Subsequently, in recollection of the descent of Moses from Sinai, Jesus descends from a time of prayer on a mountain to teach the people (Luke 6:12-17; cf. Exod 19:24; 24:3). 45 In this way, the preceding narrative sets the stage for interpreting his discourse as analogous to the giving of the Mosaic Law on Sinai.
This account of the teachings of Jesus also provides essential background for recognizing how the Samaritan serves as an example of someone who obeys Jesus and, consequently, observes Lev 19:17–18. At the heart of this sermon (Luke 6:27–36), we find several points of similarity between Lev 19:17–18 and Luke 10:30–37. Consider, for example, the following parallels:
While all three passages contain a similar cluster of ideas—reward for obedience, non-retaliation, love of others as oneself, 46 and imitation Yahweh—the teachings of Jesus in Luke 6 and the actions of the Samaritan in Luke 10 also expand the demands of Leviticus 19. Whereas Leviticus 19:17–18 juxtaposes negative prohibitions (hatred, vengeance, and grudge-holding) with love of neighbour, Luke 6:27–38 calls for a more sustained positive response to hostility: prayer, blessing, generosity and love toward enemies (or toward those who cannot reciprocate). Likewise, in Luke 10:30–35, the Samaritan embodies the teachings of Jesus by treating the man in the ditch (presumably his enemy) with mercy, kindness, and generosity.
Just as the merciful action of the Samaritan mirrors Yahweh’s own character and covenant faithfulness, so Jesus appeals to God’s character as the rationale for his instructions in the ‘Sermon on the Plain’: But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind (χρηστός) to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful (οἰκτίρμονες), just as your Father is merciful (οἰκτίρμων).
47
(Luke 6:35–36)
While the syntax of vs. 36 invites a recollection of Lev 19:2 (‘You shall be holy, for I Yahweh your God am holy’), the call to be ‘merciful’ (οἰκτίρμων) probably recalls passages such as Exod 34:5–7 (cf. LXX Psa 144:8–9):
48
The LORD descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name, ‘The LORD’. The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, ‘The LORD, the LORD, a God compassionate and merciful (רַח֖וּם וְחַנּ֑וּן; οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων), slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness (רַב־חֶ֥סֶד וֶאֱמֶֽת; πολυέλεος καὶ ἀληθινὸς), keeping steadfast love (חֶסֶד; ἔλεος) for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation’. (Exod 34:5–7)
The terms typically translated as ‘compassion’, ‘abundant mercy’ and ‘steadfast love’ (or ‘mercy’) appear in a cluster in this passage (οἰκτίρμων [רַחוּם]; πολυέλεος [רַב־חֶ֥סֶד]; ἔλεος [חֶסֶד]; cf. Neh 9:17; LXX Psa 85:15; 102:8; 144:8–9). That similar descriptions of Yahweh reverberate throughout the rest of the OT highlights their fundamental importance for understanding the most essential aspects of Yahweh’s character: his steadfast covenantal love and mercy (e.g., Exod 20:5–6; Num 14:18–19; Deut 5:10; 7:9, 12; Neh 9:17; Pss 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Jer 32:18; Joel 2:13). Accordingly, the call for disciples to be ‘merciful’ (οἰκτίρμονες, οἰκτίρμων; Luke 6:36) and the ‘mercy’ of the Samaritan (ἔλεος; Luke 10:37) heighten the idea of imitatio Dei such that those who follow Jesus more closely resemble the character and actions of Yahweh himself. 49 Besides merely imitating God, they participate in the very nature of God as his beloved children (Luke 6:36).
As the parallels above amply illustrate, the Samaritan fulfills the Torah in a manner that looks as if he has heard and obeyed the teachings of Jesus, the new Moses. For Luke, this type of covenant faithfulness does not stand in contrast to the teaching of the Torah but expands the call to imitate Yahweh already present in Leviticus 19. Moreover, as we have seen, both the ‘Sermon on the Plain’ and the story of the Good Samaritan demonstrate that it is not enough for the disciples to express mere human love in their imitation of God. Rather, only those who hear and obey the teachings of Jesus, the new Moses, will embody the character and covenant faithfulness of God.
Imitation of Yahweh: Revelation from Jesus
Such participation in the divine nature, however, cannot occur apart from supernatural help. As Luke points out in the passage immediately preceding Luke 10:25–37, proper understanding of the kingdom of God requires special revelation from Jesus. Luke 10:21–24 provides an essential backdrop for interpreting the Good Samaritan story because, as Joel Green rightly notes, regarding Luke 10:25, ‘Luke records no shift in scene, so he pictures the lawyer breaking in on what had become a private conversation between Jesus and the seventy-two [disciples]’.
50
Right after the disciples return from their mission (Luke 10:1–16), Jesus describes the supernatural impact of their activities (10:17–20) and rejoices over God’s gracious choice to reveal his will to them: At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’. Then turning to the disciples, Jesus said to them privately, ‘Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it’. (Luke 10:21–24)
In keeping with the Lukan pattern of reversal, Jesus here expresses joy over both the concealment and the revelation of divine will and portrays this unexpected change of fortunes as a part of God’s sovereign plan. 51 On the one hand, he identifies the disciples as marginal figures—mere ‘infants’—who nonetheless receive the gift of revelation and empowerment needed to understand God and proclaim his kingdom (cf. Luke 9:1–6; 10:1–20). On the other hand, Jesus declares that these divine gifts have been hidden from ‘the wise and intelligent’. 52 The description of reversal thus highlights how correct understanding of the Father depends upon supernatural revelation from Jesus.
By juxtaposing Luke 10:21–24 with 10:25–37, Luke highlights an important connection between supernatural revelation of God’s character and Torah obedience. At the very moment when Jesus rejoices over the revelation he imparts to the disciples, the lawyer breaks onto the scene with his question about Torah interpretation. This figure, together with the priest and Levite in the Good Samaritan story, serve as representatives of ‘the wise and intelligent’, who fail to comprehend and obey Lev 19:18. Although they have a thorough knowledge of the Torah, they do not possess a revelation of the Father from Jesus. 53 Consequently, these ‘wise and intelligent’ figures do not imitate God in a manner that fulfilled the true intent of Lev 19:18. By way of contrast, despite his (presumably) inferior knowledge of the Mosaic Law and marginal status, 54 the Samaritan imitates the very character and covenant faithfulness of God. In so doing, he fulfills the Torah to the highest degree.
Conclusion
Although this study does not provide a comprehensive discussion of Luke’s approach to Torah observance, it does illustrate how his Gospel affirms a particular type of Torah faithfulness and integrates this with the teachings of Jesus. As we have seen in Luke 10:25–37, the theological context of Leviticus 19 provides an essential key for understanding why Jesus transforms the lawyer’s question. To interpret Lev 19:18 accurately, one must change the question from ‘Who is my neighbour?’ to ‘What does it look like to act as a neighbour?’ Far from discounting the demands of Torah, the latter line of questioning, together with the story of the Good Samaritan, yields an answer that follows the trajectory already established in Leviticus 19: it looks like someone who imitates Yahweh.
Within the context of Luke’s narrative, moreover, this type of covenant faithfulness entails more than mere human apprehension of Mosaic Law: it requires a disclosure of and participation in the very nature of God. As Luke 6:27–38 and 10:21–24 demonstrate, disciples of Jesus receive these gifts through instruction and revelation from Jesus. By providing the proper understanding and divine enablement required to participate in the divine nature, Jesus offers the means of fulfilling the true intentions of Torah. Accordingly, the Samaritan functions as an example of just this type of disciple, who both exemplifies and exceeds the original intention of Lev 19:18.