The gospel writer Luke cannot possibly have remembered the conversation between Jesus and the expert. He was not one of the original 12. Most scholars agree that Luke drew heavily from the Gospel of Mark, and from other companions and first hand eyewitnesses. Chances are good that not everyone remembered the exact Aramaic words that Jesus used, and chances are that the Greek used by Luke is an approximation of the Aramaic since no language is an exact translation of another, tense included. I think that the simplest explanation of the passage as it relates to religion is that the priest and Levite failed to show mercy because they were more concerned with maintaining ritual cleanliness. They observed the external ritual and forms of the religion, without allowing it to touch their hearts. A modern day example might be to fail to render aid to people in a car accident because you don’t want to be late to Mass…
That's a lot of weight to rest on a verbal tense-form. It is tempting, for those who've gone to all the trouble of learning the original language, to feel that the grammar gives us this 'precision' reading of the meaning. But in most language, it doesn't function in quite that way. In this case, the aorist can convey a range of senses, and this idea that it means a one-time only event, complete and not needing repeating - this is not born out by other NT usage. I'm afraid you have fallen into the exegetical 'aorist fallacy'. See D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies.
Hi again, I've had a re-read of Exegetical Fallacies and it's reminded me how much I love that book! So much gold!
I re-read the section on the aorist fallacy and I don't think it applies to my article. Don Carson is rightly pointing out that you can overdo the one-time-only, complete, not-repeating *potential* (pragmatic) implication of the aorist tense, as if that meaning was inherent to the aorist form. He is also clear that in some contexts, the outcome of using aorist will be punctiliar, non-recurring, complete, etc. But it is not a given of an aorist simply because it's an aorist.
I think my reading of the aorists in this pericope take into account the inherent meaning of aorist as well as what the context compels. But this will be hard to discuss properly without arguing for my view of the inherent aorist tense meaning. I have plans to dive into this more fully in the first half of 2026. I hope you'll read those articles when they come out because I'd definitely value your feedback/critique.
Ooh I love that book but haven’t read it for ages. When I’m back in my office I’ll re-read that section on aorists. I agree it doesn’t always imply once-off/unrepeatable.
I found your post very satisfying. I think Jesus is always pushing us toward on-going life changing love behavior. The separation of the sheep from the goats in Matthew 25, I think, emphasizes this. The life design of Love comes from an ongoing relationship with God in which He changes us moment by moment in large or small ways toward our fellowship with others. I was talking with a friend the other day. I told him that when Jesus forgives, it is me He forgives, not the sin. I feel free from my previous understanding of good and bad acts as discrete events that God balances… oops, I’m wandering … Thank you.
Thank you, Anna. I’ve been wandering since I was a toddler. My mom harnessed and hooked me to a dog leash clipped to the clothesline when I was 4 … when she came back a half hour later I was gone. That was 1951.
I have long suspected that any English Bible translation leaves somethings to be desired. I just loved your uncovering and shaking out of “The Good Samaritan”. I look forward to learning more from you about the Greek gospels.
Your post arrested me by requiring multiple readings, cross referencing and deliberation thereby helping me make sense also of what was for me its earlier companion with respect to interpreting the parable of the Good Samaritan spelled out in conversation between David Cayley and Ivan Illich (reference below). You however come to a slightly different though, paradoxically, similar conclusion in certain ways. Thank you for grappling with and sharing your refined sense of the text.
'Ivan Illich | The corruption of Christianity: Corruptio Optimi Pessim (2000)'. YouTube [04:14:34]
Thanks for posting this tremendous article. I'll briefly add 2 personal comments below.
"does aramaic have an aorist tense"
Aramaic Aorist Tense
Aramaic does not have an aorist tense as it is understood in Ancient Greek. Instead, Aramaic uses a system of verbal stems and aspects to convey similar meanings. The language employs perfect and imperfect tenses, which can be seen as rough equivalents to the aorist and imperfect aspects in Ancient Greek, respectively.
In both tenses, the third-person singular masculine form is the unmarked form from which others are derived by addition of afformatives and preformatives.
Matthew 12:32 - Is the Word "Speaks" in the Aorist Tense?
🌐
🌐
+ 2 more
1) since we don't have video recordings of Jesus actually speaking any words at all, then everything in the New Testament is therefore occult and unknowable, right?
Or else the Greek we have is also God-breathed, as I believe our confessions say.
Does God encourage us to pursue the occult and speculate about the unknowable?
If so there must be at least one verse like that.
Or maybe there are verses in the opposite direction.
2) Is my neighbor the military-aged man lolling about a French town square harassing white women? Or is my neighbor the people I grew up with whose taxes are taken to house "refugees" in luxury hotels and give them $15,000 EBT cards?
1 - I’m with you on the inspired Greek. Hubby just likes to suggest how people might make an opposing argument, so it can be addressed up front (or at least in a footnote). He was a lawyer once, and those skills stick around.
2 - what do you think? I’d say so.
As for Aramaic verb tenses, I haven’t studied them, but I studied Hebrew a long time ago, and many other languages, and I haven’t seen anything quite like the Greek aorist before. The tense system is really something. More on that, God willing, on this Substack in the coming months.
On 2), are my redneck classmates still my neighbors? Yes I think so , but the big money is working in the opposite direction, and it's tricky to discuss.
On 1), then good point and I'm sure people would raise that.
I'm personally struggling with Greek , for about a year now. I really liked your explanation of the aorist tense and the insight into the legalistic one and done meaning of the tense.
I'm not sure. Is he being deliberately negative about immigrants to emphasize that even so they are our neighbors, or does he just not like them and is not willing to accept them as neighbors? To be honest, the whole thing is confusing to me.
This article has made me so happy 🤩 I will be able to speak Greek to Jesus in heaven! 🥳
I’ve never heard those arguments before and the Beatitudes one in particular is pretty convincing. He’s not only speaking Greek but speaking Greek *poetry*.
A beautifully-written post on a classic parable. I am, however, not convinced by Lutheran/Reformed style interpretations. I agree with that basic theological premise (we come to God not as heroic doers, but as poor and needy sinners), but am not convinced that the mention of the robbed, beaten man inherently signals this theology in this parable. As you so clearly point out in the first half of your article, Jesus is reframing the Law-experts questions and approach from box-ticking legalism that wants to justify itself with the right action-of-the-moment, to a whole-life Love that keeps on embodying mercy. Jesus can teach holistic ethics in mercifully-framed parables like this without having to base it on sneaky hints that we can't 'do' the Christ-shaped ethic he is teaching us to keep on doing.
Thanks for your comments, Dale! I agree for sure that this parable demonstrates God’s beautiful ethics - and of course we are going to want to match those ethics. We are right to do so! And if the parable was stand-alone, then that would be how we should interpret it.
But I maintain that the framing of this parable around the question of what a law-lover needs to do to be justified changes that meaning significantly, and I don’t think it was that sneaky. I’d be very surprised if the people listening in didn’t all see it. Just because something in Greek is hard/impossible to convey in English doesn’t mean it was unclear or even subtle in the original context.
A similar thing happens with the parable of the Prodigal Son - the narrative frame puts the focus on the second son’s response and eventual exclusion from the party. However, the first son’s journey is so captivating that people get involved in it to a higher degree, applying it directly, and forget the live-audience point of the parable.
I’m both cases, it doesn’t *really* matter, as both applications are true and good. But in both cases, I think the riches and depth of the story increases when the narrative frame (the fallen condition of Jesus’s interlocutors) drives interpretation and application.
That's really helpful Anna. If you have time, would love to see the textual/contextual evidence for "the narrative frame" being "the fallen condition" of his interlocutors? Again I am basically 'reformed' in the sense of the major theological emphases on sovereignty of God, fallenness of humanity, Grace, etc. But I'm cautious to make those overarching frameworks overly controlling for each Gospel pericope. It may sound odd to say it like this, but I think we can hold a thoroughgoing view of human sinfulness, that can accomodate passages like this with (in my view) clear ethical imperatives. For another example, for Luke to say, as he does, that Zechariah and Elizabeth were 'blameless' and 'righteous in the sight of God' does not mean that they were not in the wider theological sense 'sinners in need of redeeming Grace'. Likewise, for Jesus to teach us to 'be perfect/complete as your heavenly Father is perfect' and to teach this Law-expert to 'go and do likewise' is not (in my view) implying 'go and earn your own salvation by works righteousness'. I hope that helps clarify my view?
Yes for sure. I agree with all the above! In the case of the Good Samaritan, I think he says this "Go and do likewise" at least partly to provoke the authentic reaction we all need to have provoked in us: "Lord, I can't!". But in this particular case, also perhaps with an air of resignation: "You've chosen to stick with works; in that case, off you go, fulfil the whole law."
(In the case of "be perfect", I think the Greek doesn't actually support that translation... but that's a topic for another article...)
In terms of the narrative frame, I think that just means paying attention to why Jesus told the parable. It wasn't just an isolated teaching out of nowhere. It was sparked by a particular social interaction, and so that context (which is in both cases a run-in with a person or group who were misunderstanding the nature of grace) must be answered by the parable. If we take it as answering another question we might have ("should a Christian care for others?"), the slant will be different. Not necessarily wrong, but neither precisely the reason for the parable, nor capturing the real power of the parable.
Interesting, you seem to think you know the heart of Jesus and it apparently isn’t what anyone ever learned about God. This may be one of the most damning examples of how Satan still works in the world and how a single man believes the understands the word of God and it contains violence.
I have a saying for people like you. “A mouth full of scripture and a heart full of hate”.
How many people in this world have been killed in the name of God? I don’t know who you are and I don’t profess to understand the mind of God, but it would not surprise me if he is weeping right now……
It's because Luke wrote it in Greek - that was the common language back in those days, after the Greek empire had taken over that part of the world. By the time of Jesus, the Romans are in charge, but Greek language was still more widely known than Latin.
I learned Greek in college and I found your article really delightful! Thank you for your hard work in learning the original language.
I think your second reading of the story is compelling. There is certainly a message of grace, but I also we should take Jesus’ words seriously. God didn’t give us the Law to laugh at us for not being able to do it. The Law isn’t a trick. It is good and holy, as Paul himself affirms. Of course, we all need saving, but we are also called to participate, to be God’s hands and feet, to love our neighbors. As you said, this is a serious ongoing task. As James says, “I will show you my faith by my works” (2:18).
Thanks, Asher, for the kind comment. Yay for a fellow Greek student!
You’re exactly right. I would never want to detract from that core component of the Bible’s message.
I wouldn’t go to the Good Samaritan as the place from which to teach it directly, but every time we catch a glimpse of the neighbourliness of Jesus, we see where we’re headed, as we become transformed into his likeness.
I think the algorithm brought me your paper in purpose because I was just asking ChatGPT about this parable and the puritans! The answer also included something about Augustine… but! Really great thoughts. One of the things I want to look into further is the “hero” of Jesus’s parables. They’re normally him, aren’t they? Prodigal Son, Woman and the Lost Coin… those are all I can think of and maybe because that’s all there are but that’s why I’m going to look into it 😅🙃but I’m going to sit with this further. I think you’ve brought up really great and founded points. But I’m missing your connection between Luke 10:27 and Luke 10:42. 🫣 Would you mind elaborating further?
I meant that Luke 10:27, the answer to "what do I need to do?" is "Love God and neighbour, entirely". But to Mary and Martha - "few things (tasks) are needed, or just one" - by implication, sit there next to Jesus and do nothing, and that is all. It's vastly different.
I think the algorithm brought me your paper in purpose because I was just asking ChatGPT about this parable and the puritans. The answer also included something about Augustine… but! I’m missing your connection between Luke 10:27 and Luke 10:42. Would you mind elaborating further?
I think that's the idea, but faith isn't spelled out here, just a general "wanting to be with Jesus", maybe a realisation that I *get* something from him rather than *do* something for him. That's what Mary has - she's quite content sitting there useless as anything - and that's what Jesus approves.
The gospel writer Luke cannot possibly have remembered the conversation between Jesus and the expert. He was not one of the original 12. Most scholars agree that Luke drew heavily from the Gospel of Mark, and from other companions and first hand eyewitnesses. Chances are good that not everyone remembered the exact Aramaic words that Jesus used, and chances are that the Greek used by Luke is an approximation of the Aramaic since no language is an exact translation of another, tense included. I think that the simplest explanation of the passage as it relates to religion is that the priest and Levite failed to show mercy because they were more concerned with maintaining ritual cleanliness. They observed the external ritual and forms of the religion, without allowing it to touch their hearts. A modern day example might be to fail to render aid to people in a car accident because you don’t want to be late to Mass…
Yes - there's a lot to be explored in this parable!
That's a lot of weight to rest on a verbal tense-form. It is tempting, for those who've gone to all the trouble of learning the original language, to feel that the grammar gives us this 'precision' reading of the meaning. But in most language, it doesn't function in quite that way. In this case, the aorist can convey a range of senses, and this idea that it means a one-time only event, complete and not needing repeating - this is not born out by other NT usage. I'm afraid you have fallen into the exegetical 'aorist fallacy'. See D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies.
Thanks, Josh!
Hi again, I've had a re-read of Exegetical Fallacies and it's reminded me how much I love that book! So much gold!
I re-read the section on the aorist fallacy and I don't think it applies to my article. Don Carson is rightly pointing out that you can overdo the one-time-only, complete, not-repeating *potential* (pragmatic) implication of the aorist tense, as if that meaning was inherent to the aorist form. He is also clear that in some contexts, the outcome of using aorist will be punctiliar, non-recurring, complete, etc. But it is not a given of an aorist simply because it's an aorist.
I think my reading of the aorists in this pericope take into account the inherent meaning of aorist as well as what the context compels. But this will be hard to discuss properly without arguing for my view of the inherent aorist tense meaning. I have plans to dive into this more fully in the first half of 2026. I hope you'll read those articles when they come out because I'd definitely value your feedback/critique.
Ooh I love that book but haven’t read it for ages. When I’m back in my office I’ll re-read that section on aorists. I agree it doesn’t always imply once-off/unrepeatable.
Thanks!
This is wonderful. What a delight to read and think more deeply about this parable that, sadly, becomes so familiar it somehow actually becomes lost!
Keep up the great work! Love from NZ
I found your post very satisfying. I think Jesus is always pushing us toward on-going life changing love behavior. The separation of the sheep from the goats in Matthew 25, I think, emphasizes this. The life design of Love comes from an ongoing relationship with God in which He changes us moment by moment in large or small ways toward our fellowship with others. I was talking with a friend the other day. I told him that when Jesus forgives, it is me He forgives, not the sin. I feel free from my previous understanding of good and bad acts as discrete events that God balances… oops, I’m wandering … Thank you.
Glad to have you along!
Not all who wander are lost 🙂
Thanks for the comment!
Thank you, Anna. I’ve been wandering since I was a toddler. My mom harnessed and hooked me to a dog leash clipped to the clothesline when I was 4 … when she came back a half hour later I was gone. That was 1951.
I have long suspected that any English Bible translation leaves somethings to be desired. I just loved your uncovering and shaking out of “The Good Samaritan”. I look forward to learning more from you about the Greek gospels.
I find your reading both interesting and compelling. It certainly generates food for thought.
It does lead me to wonder, among other things, if any of the Fathers read the passage this way and, if not, how they missed it.
Yes, I wonder too. They may have! I’d love to hear if so.
The puritans read it this way! And maybe Augustine
Ooh that's exciting :-) I'll have to check them out. (Let me know if you have references handy)
Your post arrested me by requiring multiple readings, cross referencing and deliberation thereby helping me make sense also of what was for me its earlier companion with respect to interpreting the parable of the Good Samaritan spelled out in conversation between David Cayley and Ivan Illich (reference below). You however come to a slightly different though, paradoxically, similar conclusion in certain ways. Thank you for grappling with and sharing your refined sense of the text.
'Ivan Illich | The corruption of Christianity: Corruptio Optimi Pessim (2000)'. YouTube [04:14:34]
I’ll have a watch of that video. Thank you for sharing, Hendrik!
Thanks for posting this tremendous article. I'll briefly add 2 personal comments below.
"does aramaic have an aorist tense"
Aramaic Aorist Tense
Aramaic does not have an aorist tense as it is understood in Ancient Greek. Instead, Aramaic uses a system of verbal stems and aspects to convey similar meanings. The language employs perfect and imperfect tenses, which can be seen as rough equivalents to the aorist and imperfect aspects in Ancient Greek, respectively.
In both tenses, the third-person singular masculine form is the unmarked form from which others are derived by addition of afformatives and preformatives.
AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.
🌐
ugg.readthedocs.io
Tense aorist — unfoldingWord® Greek Grammar 1 documentation
🌐
en.wikipedia.org
Aorist (Ancient Greek) - Wikipedia
🌐
truthsaves.org
Matthew 12:32 - Is the Word "Speaks" in the Aorist Tense?
🌐
🌐
+ 2 more
1) since we don't have video recordings of Jesus actually speaking any words at all, then everything in the New Testament is therefore occult and unknowable, right?
Or else the Greek we have is also God-breathed, as I believe our confessions say.
Does God encourage us to pursue the occult and speculate about the unknowable?
If so there must be at least one verse like that.
Or maybe there are verses in the opposite direction.
2) Is my neighbor the military-aged man lolling about a French town square harassing white women? Or is my neighbor the people I grew up with whose taxes are taken to house "refugees" in luxury hotels and give them $15,000 EBT cards?
1 - I’m with you on the inspired Greek. Hubby just likes to suggest how people might make an opposing argument, so it can be addressed up front (or at least in a footnote). He was a lawyer once, and those skills stick around.
2 - what do you think? I’d say so.
As for Aramaic verb tenses, I haven’t studied them, but I studied Hebrew a long time ago, and many other languages, and I haven’t seen anything quite like the Greek aorist before. The tense system is really something. More on that, God willing, on this Substack in the coming months.
On 2), are my redneck classmates still my neighbors? Yes I think so , but the big money is working in the opposite direction, and it's tricky to discuss.
On 1), then good point and I'm sure people would raise that.
I'm personally struggling with Greek , for about a year now. I really liked your explanation of the aorist tense and the insight into the legalistic one and done meaning of the tense.
Greek is hard but worth persisting in. Hang in there!
Don't keep us in suspense. What is the answer to 2)?
🤣 what do you think, Sean?
I'm not sure. Is he being deliberately negative about immigrants to emphasize that even so they are our neighbors, or does he just not like them and is not willing to accept them as neighbors? To be honest, the whole thing is confusing to me.
Basic principle from Jesus's parable: everyone you come across is your neighbour. No need to complicate it further!
PS - there are very plausible arguments that Jews knew the dominant language of their region (greek) quite well.
https://tyndalehouse.com/2020/11/27/did-jesus-speak-greek/
This article has made me so happy 🤩 I will be able to speak Greek to Jesus in heaven! 🥳
I’ve never heard those arguments before and the Beatitudes one in particular is pretty convincing. He’s not only speaking Greek but speaking Greek *poetry*.
This Lord just keeps getting better and better!
A beautifully-written post on a classic parable. I am, however, not convinced by Lutheran/Reformed style interpretations. I agree with that basic theological premise (we come to God not as heroic doers, but as poor and needy sinners), but am not convinced that the mention of the robbed, beaten man inherently signals this theology in this parable. As you so clearly point out in the first half of your article, Jesus is reframing the Law-experts questions and approach from box-ticking legalism that wants to justify itself with the right action-of-the-moment, to a whole-life Love that keeps on embodying mercy. Jesus can teach holistic ethics in mercifully-framed parables like this without having to base it on sneaky hints that we can't 'do' the Christ-shaped ethic he is teaching us to keep on doing.
Thanks for your comments, Dale! I agree for sure that this parable demonstrates God’s beautiful ethics - and of course we are going to want to match those ethics. We are right to do so! And if the parable was stand-alone, then that would be how we should interpret it.
But I maintain that the framing of this parable around the question of what a law-lover needs to do to be justified changes that meaning significantly, and I don’t think it was that sneaky. I’d be very surprised if the people listening in didn’t all see it. Just because something in Greek is hard/impossible to convey in English doesn’t mean it was unclear or even subtle in the original context.
A similar thing happens with the parable of the Prodigal Son - the narrative frame puts the focus on the second son’s response and eventual exclusion from the party. However, the first son’s journey is so captivating that people get involved in it to a higher degree, applying it directly, and forget the live-audience point of the parable.
I’m both cases, it doesn’t *really* matter, as both applications are true and good. But in both cases, I think the riches and depth of the story increases when the narrative frame (the fallen condition of Jesus’s interlocutors) drives interpretation and application.
That's really helpful Anna. If you have time, would love to see the textual/contextual evidence for "the narrative frame" being "the fallen condition" of his interlocutors? Again I am basically 'reformed' in the sense of the major theological emphases on sovereignty of God, fallenness of humanity, Grace, etc. But I'm cautious to make those overarching frameworks overly controlling for each Gospel pericope. It may sound odd to say it like this, but I think we can hold a thoroughgoing view of human sinfulness, that can accomodate passages like this with (in my view) clear ethical imperatives. For another example, for Luke to say, as he does, that Zechariah and Elizabeth were 'blameless' and 'righteous in the sight of God' does not mean that they were not in the wider theological sense 'sinners in need of redeeming Grace'. Likewise, for Jesus to teach us to 'be perfect/complete as your heavenly Father is perfect' and to teach this Law-expert to 'go and do likewise' is not (in my view) implying 'go and earn your own salvation by works righteousness'. I hope that helps clarify my view?
Yes for sure. I agree with all the above! In the case of the Good Samaritan, I think he says this "Go and do likewise" at least partly to provoke the authentic reaction we all need to have provoked in us: "Lord, I can't!". But in this particular case, also perhaps with an air of resignation: "You've chosen to stick with works; in that case, off you go, fulfil the whole law."
(In the case of "be perfect", I think the Greek doesn't actually support that translation... but that's a topic for another article...)
In terms of the narrative frame, I think that just means paying attention to why Jesus told the parable. It wasn't just an isolated teaching out of nowhere. It was sparked by a particular social interaction, and so that context (which is in both cases a run-in with a person or group who were misunderstanding the nature of grace) must be answered by the parable. If we take it as answering another question we might have ("should a Christian care for others?"), the slant will be different. Not necessarily wrong, but neither precisely the reason for the parable, nor capturing the real power of the parable.
Interesting, you seem to think you know the heart of Jesus and it apparently isn’t what anyone ever learned about God. This may be one of the most damning examples of how Satan still works in the world and how a single man believes the understands the word of God and it contains violence.
I have a saying for people like you. “A mouth full of scripture and a heart full of hate”.
How many people in this world have been killed in the name of God? I don’t know who you are and I don’t profess to understand the mind of God, but it would not surprise me if he is weeping right now……
I fail to see the relevancy of Greek to the gospel of Luke
It's because Luke wrote it in Greek - that was the common language back in those days, after the Greek empire had taken over that part of the world. By the time of Jesus, the Romans are in charge, but Greek language was still more widely known than Latin.
Of course... and I appreciate you reminding me 😄
I learned Greek in college and I found your article really delightful! Thank you for your hard work in learning the original language.
I think your second reading of the story is compelling. There is certainly a message of grace, but I also we should take Jesus’ words seriously. God didn’t give us the Law to laugh at us for not being able to do it. The Law isn’t a trick. It is good and holy, as Paul himself affirms. Of course, we all need saving, but we are also called to participate, to be God’s hands and feet, to love our neighbors. As you said, this is a serious ongoing task. As James says, “I will show you my faith by my works” (2:18).
Thanks, Asher, for the kind comment. Yay for a fellow Greek student!
You’re exactly right. I would never want to detract from that core component of the Bible’s message.
I wouldn’t go to the Good Samaritan as the place from which to teach it directly, but every time we catch a glimpse of the neighbourliness of Jesus, we see where we’re headed, as we become transformed into his likeness.
I think the algorithm brought me your paper in purpose because I was just asking ChatGPT about this parable and the puritans! The answer also included something about Augustine… but! Really great thoughts. One of the things I want to look into further is the “hero” of Jesus’s parables. They’re normally him, aren’t they? Prodigal Son, Woman and the Lost Coin… those are all I can think of and maybe because that’s all there are but that’s why I’m going to look into it 😅🙃but I’m going to sit with this further. I think you’ve brought up really great and founded points. But I’m missing your connection between Luke 10:27 and Luke 10:42. 🫣 Would you mind elaborating further?
I meant that Luke 10:27, the answer to "what do I need to do?" is "Love God and neighbour, entirely". But to Mary and Martha - "few things (tasks) are needed, or just one" - by implication, sit there next to Jesus and do nothing, and that is all. It's vastly different.
And I would be interested in your thoughts I wrote on perhaps a similar topic:
https://open.substack.com/pub/emilybrockhoff/p/who-are-the-foreigners?r=okohf&utm_medium=ios
An interesting read! will PM you.
I think the algorithm brought me your paper in purpose because I was just asking ChatGPT about this parable and the puritans. The answer also included something about Augustine… but! I’m missing your connection between Luke 10:27 and Luke 10:42. Would you mind elaborating further?
Is it that it’s by faith we have been saved? That’s the one thing he mentions to Mary? And the thing the lawyer actually lacked?
I think that's the idea, but faith isn't spelled out here, just a general "wanting to be with Jesus", maybe a realisation that I *get* something from him rather than *do* something for him. That's what Mary has - she's quite content sitting there useless as anything - and that's what Jesus approves.