Samaritans: Then and Now

Saved By A Foreigner

Luke the Gospel Writer

Expert in the Law of Moses

Other

Download RTF version of article

Return

Level I    Level II    Level III

Irony is a complex literary device ranging from simple word plays to dramatic situations. Irony contrasts the face value of words or situations against their actual meanings as understood by the reader/hearers. The simplest definition of irony would be to convey the opposite of what you say.

Sarcasm is one of the easiest forms of irony to grasp. At the other end of the spectrum is situational irony, where the two levels of meaning involve the actions of the characters and not just their words.

The basic story of Jesus himself - one who brings life out of death - is ironic. Each Gospel writer employs this device. Luke uses situational irony, as seen in the story of the Good Samaritan. Both the use of a Samaritan in the hero’s role and the situation of the lawyer questioning Jesus can be seen as ironic.

Level I    Level II    Level III

Irony is a complex dramatic form that ranges all the way from simple word plays such as sarcasm and double entendre to complex dramatic situations in which things are the opposite of what they seem. The simplest definition of irony would be to convey the opposite of what you say.

Sarcasm is one of the easiest forms of irony to grasp. Imagine two school children playing at recess. When one of them is accused of misbehaving, the other fearful of also being accused says nothing. After a trip to the principal"s office, they meet again in class. As the second child begins to make excuses for his silence, the first retorts, "Some friend you are!" and walks off.

Irony has two levels of meaning wherein the second level subverts the meaning of the first level. It is not as though the literal meaning is useless and that one could have just said the opposite. The ironic dimension adds meaning. The hearer is forced to make a comparison, in this case a comparison of one's own behavior with the behavior expected of a friend.

At the other end of the spectrum is situational irony, also called dramatic irony. In situational irony the two levels of meaning involve the actions of the characters and not just their words. Things are not as they appear to be; one cannot take them at face value. Instead, the opposite is true.

There is irony in any telling of the story of Jesus. All four Gospels provide the audience with information about Jesus that is not available to the characters in the story. And there is a basic irony in the essence of the story: that the death of Jesus is somehow a good thing and part of God's design. Thus each Gospel writer must present what, on the face of it, appears to be a bad thing (the death of the hero) in such a way that the audience understands the opposite.

Most of the irony in Luke is of this situational or dramatic type; there is very little use of verbal irony. The story called the Good Samaritan, for example, contains no verbal irony but has two instances of situational irony.

First we have the Samaritan, a wholly unexpected character in this story. The Samaritan is an ironic character, because what we might call the usual meaning of a Samaritan contrasts sharply with the meaning within this story. The expression "Good Samaritan" has come to mean something like "helper" in English, but to the lawyer who is the audience for this story it would have been a jarring expression. For him, a Samaritan would be someone who perverted Jewish tradition and was both despised and hostile.

The second ironic dimension to this incident centers on the role of the lawyer in the larger story. The story begins with the lawyer, who decides to test Jesus. Clearly he does not quite know with whom he is dealing. Jesus immediately turns the tables and tests him. The lawyer sees himself as the expert. The audience knows better. The teacher of the Law is forced not only to learn from Jesus, not only to learn from a Samaritan, but he must act like the Samaritan. This is irony.

Level I    Level II    Level III

Irony is a complex dramatic form that ranges all the way from simple word plays such as sarcasm and double entendre to complex dramatic situations in which things are the opposite of what they seem. The simplest definition of irony would be to convey the opposite of what you say. The hearer or audience must understand that the words or situation is not to be taken at face value; in fact, the real meaning must be understood to be in opposition to that face value.

Sarcasm is one of the easiest forms of irony to grasp. Imagine two school children playing at recess. When one of them is accused of misbehaving, the other—fearful of also being accused—says nothing. After a trip to the principal’s office, they meet again in class. As the second child begins to make excuses for his silence, the first retorts, "Some friend you are!" and walks off.

The literal meaning of the words (what I’ve called their face value) is the opposite of their actual meaning, and the hearer knows this. These are the elements of irony: two levels of meaning wherein the second level subverts the meaning of the first level. It is not as though the literal meaning is useless and that one could have just said the opposite. The ironic dimension adds meaning. The hearer is forced to make a comparison, in this case a comparison of one’s own behavior with the behavior expected of a friend. Some literary theorists would hold that this quality of making an implicit comparison is at the heart of irony in all its various forms, including satire, double entendre, word plays, and puns.

At the other end of the spectrum is situational irony, also called dramatic irony. In situational irony the two levels of meaning involve the actions of the characters and not just their words. Things are not as they appear to be; one cannot take them at face value. Instead, the opposite is true. The most famous literary example is probably Oedipus’ actions in the play Oedipus the King. His determined effort to find the source of pollution in Thebes has an effect entirely opposite of the one he imagines, because the polluting force is Oedipus himself. As a result, much of the dialogue also takes on an ironic quality, as does other action. The blind prophet "sees" things more clearly than the sighted Oedipus, who will himself be blinded when he sees the truth. While the characters in the story continue to act on the first-level meaning, the audience understands the second-level meaning, which reverses everything.

Such situational irony is dependent on the audience knowing something the characters in the story do not know (in this case, the true identity of Oedipus). There is probably some irony of this type in every story, and certainly there is irony in any telling of the story of Jesus. All four Gospels provide the audience with information about Jesus that is not available to the characters in the story. And there is a basic irony in the essence of the story: that the death of Jesus is somehow a good thing and part of God’s design. Thus each Gospel writer must present what, on the face of it, appears to be a bad thing (the death of the hero) in such a way that the audience understands the opposite.

In addition, all the Gospel writers (and probably Jesus himself) present the notion of God’s kingdom as somehow hidden—present in the world but known only to a few (see, for example, the parables in Matthew 13). With this basic notion that what God is doing in the world is hidden, it was probably inevitable that the story of Jesus should be told with irony.

Even Luke, where the presentation of Jesus tends toward the heroic more than the ironic, is pervaded with irony. More concerned than any other Gospel with the marginal social groups, Luke’s story is, ironically, addressed to the "most excellent Theophilus," surely one of the cultural elite.

Most the irony in Luke is of this situational or dramatic type; there is very little use of verbal irony. The story called the Good Samaritan, for example, contains no verbal irony but has two instances of situational irony.

First we have the Samaritan, a wholly unexpected character in this story. The sequence Priest–Levite–Israelite would have been a common and expected way to organize a story; it is a descending hierarchy stretching from the central figure of the Jewish religious map to the peripheral. If we were to draw a map or diagram of Jewish society concerned only with the purity or holiness of the groups, we would put the priests in the center, the Levites next, and all other Israelites in the outer circle. Or, to change our metaphor, we could say we have moved from the top of the pyramid to the bottom. In an American story that involved a church we might expect the sequence Pastor–Music Director–Layperson. But what we have here is more akin to Pastor–Music Director–Jehovah’s Witness, that is, the third figure is unexpected. It is not logically a progression from the other two, but rather represents a religiously divergent tradition somewhat at odds with mainstream religious culture. Cross reference to Samaritans The point here is only that the sequence of characters in the story is unexpected and that the story did not need to introduce this surprising character of the Samaritan to make the basic point the lawyer recognizes: the one who shows mercy is the one who acts as neighbor. What is added by making the hero of the story a Samaritan?

The Samaritan is an ironic character, because what we might call the usual meaning of a Samaritan contrasts sharply with the meaning within this story. The expression "Good Samaritan" has come to mean something like "helper" in English, but to the lawyer who is the audience for this story it would have been a jarring expression. For him a Samaritan would be someone who perverted Jewish tradition and was both despised and hostile. Samaritans had their own temple and their own version of the Law of Moses. A Samaritan was so foreign to the lawyer that he cannot even speak the name in his answer to Jesus’ question ( 10.37). The ordinary meaning of Samaritan and the meaning within this story stand in ironic tension for the lawyer.

But the same is also true for the reader/hearers of Luke’s story. The only previous encounter with Samaritans shows them rejecting Jesus ( Luke 9.52–53). The force of the story rests on the power of the felt discrepancy between the acts of mercy and the one doing the acts (a Samaritan). It is ironic, we might say, that a Jewish lawyer should be instructed by a Samaritan’s actions.

The second ironic dimension to this incident centers on the role of the lawyer in the larger story. The story begins with the lawyer, who decides to test Jesus. Clearly he does not quite know with whom he is dealing. Jesus immediately turns the tables and tests him, but the lawyer passes with flying colors. Irony arises here from the difference in knowledge between the reader/hearers and the characters in the story. The lawyer sees himself as the expert; his intention is to test Jesus. The audience knows better. But the irony runs deeper.

Like Oedipus, the lawyer keeps acting in what he perceives as his own best interest, but each step he takes leads him farther into trouble. He begins by asking Jesus what he must do to acquire eternal life. Jesus elicits the standard summary of the Law from him and then responds, do this and you will live. But instead, "wanting to justify himself" he asks a further question, "Who is my neighbor?" ( 10.29). Instead of justifying himself, however, he is forced to admit he knew the answer all the time: the one who did the mercy ( 10.37, literal). Jesus again admonishes him, "Go and do likewise." The teacher of the Law is forced not only to learn from Jesus, not only to learn from a Samaritan, but he must act like the Samaritan. This is irony.

In summary, irony is a complex literary device ranging from simple word plays to dramatic situations. Irony exists in the discrepancies between the face value of words or situations and their actual meanings as understood by the reader/hearers. Thus the basic story of Jesus is intrinsically ironic and each Gospel writer employs this device. Luke uses situational irony more than verbal irony, as can be seen in the story of the Good Samaritan. Both the use of a Samaritan in the hero’s role and the situation of the lawyer can be seen as ironic.