Luke Chapter 10

Luke Chapter 10
Luke 10:25
A certain lawyer - One who professed to be well skilled in the laws of Moses, and
whose business it was to explain them.
Stood up - Rose - came forward to address him.
Tempted him - Feigned a desire to be instructed, but did it to perplex him, or to lead
him, if possible, to contradict some of the maxims of the law.
Inherit eternal life - Be saved. This was the common inquiry among the Jews. "They"
had said that man must keep the commandments - the written and oral law.
Luke 10:26
luk 10:26
What is written ... - Jesus referred him to the "law" as a safe rule, and asked him what
was said there. The lawyer was doubtless endeavoring to justify himself by obeying the
law. He trusted to his own works. To bring him off from that ground - to make him feel
that it was an unsafe foundation, Jesus showed him what the law "required," and thus
showed him that he needed a better righteousness than his own. This is the proper use of
the law. By comparing ourselves with "that" we see our own defects, and are thus
prepared to welcome a better righteousness than our own - that of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus the law becomes a schoolmaster to lead us to him, Gal 3:24.
Luke 10:27
luk 10:27
See this subject explained in the notes at Mat 22:37-40.
Luke 10:29
luk 10:29
To justify himself - Desirous to appear blameless, or to vindicate himself, and show that
he had kept the law. Jesus wished to lead him to a proper view of his own sinfulness,
and his real departure from the law. The man was desirous of showing that he had kept
the law; or perhaps he was desirous of justifying himself for asking the question; of
showing that it could not be so easily settled; that a mere reference to the "words" of the
law did not determine it. It was still a question what was meant by "neighbor." The
Pharisees held that the "Jews" only were to be regarded as such, and that the obligation
did not extend at all to the Gentiles. The lawyer was probably ready to affirm that he
had discharged faithfully his duty to his countrymen, and had thus kept the law, and
could justify himself. Every sinner is desirous of "justifying himself." He seeks to do it
by his own works. For this purpose he perverts the meaning of the law, destroys its
spirituality, and brings "down" the law to "his" standard, rather than attempt to frame
his life by "its" requirements.
Luke 10:30
luk 10:30
Jesus answering - Jesus answered him in a very different manner from what he
expected. By one of the most tender and affecting narratives to be found anywhere, he
made the lawyer his own judge in the case, and constrained him to admit what at first he
would probably have denied. He compelled him to acknowledge that a Samaritan - of a
race most hated of all people by the Jews - had shown the kindness of a neighbor, while
a "priest" and a "Levite" had denied it "to their own countrymen."
From Jerusalem to Jericho - Jericho was situated about 15 miles to the northeast of
Jerusalem, and about 8 miles west of the river Jordan. See the notes at Mat 20:29.
Fell among thieves - Fell among "robbers." The word "thieves" means those who
merely take "property." These were highwaymen and not merely took the property, but
endangered the life. They were "robbers." From Jerusalem to Jericho the country was
rocky and mountainous, and in some parts scarcely inhabited. It afforded, therefore,
among the rocks and fastnesses, a convenient place for highwaymen. This was also a
very frequented road. Jericho was a large place, and there was much traveling to
Jerusalem. At this time, also, Judea abounded with robbers. Josephus says that at one
time Herod the Great dismissed 40,000 men who had been employed in building the
temple, a large part of whom became highwaymen (Josephus "Antiquities," xv. 7). The
following remarks of Professor Hackett, who visited Palestine in 1852, will furnish a
good illustration of the scene of this parable. It is remarkable that a parable uttered more
than eighteen hundred years ago might still be appropriately located in this region.
Professor Hackett ("Illustrations of Scripture," p. 215, 216) says of this region: "It is
famous at the present day as the haunt of thieves and robbers. No part of the traveler's
journey is so dangerous as the expedition to Jericho and the Dead Sea. The Oriental
pilgrims who repair to the Jordan have the protection of an escort of Turkish soldiers;
and others who would make the same journey must either go in company with them, or
provide for their safety by procuring a special guard. I was so fortunate as to be able to
accompany the great caravan at the time of the annual pilgrimage. Yet, in spite of every
precaution, hardly a season passes in which some luckless wayfarer is not killed or
robbed in going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. The place derives its hostile character
from its terrible wildness and desolation. If we might conceive of the ocean as being
suddenly congealed and petrified when its waves are tossed mountain high, and dashing
in wild confusion against each other, we should then have some idea of the aspect of the
desert in which the Saviour has placed so truthfully the parable of the good Samaritan.
The ravines, the almost inaccessible cliffs, the caverns, furnish admirable lurking-places
for robbers. They can rush forth unexpectedly upon their victims, and escape as soon
almost beyond the possibility of pursuit.
"Every circumstance in this parable, therefore, was full of significance to those who
heard it. The Saviour delivered it near Bethany, on the border of the frightful
desert, Luk 10:25, Luk 10:38. Jericho was a sacerdotal city. The passing of priests and
Levites between that place and Jerusalem was an everyday occurrence. The idea of a
caravanserai or 'inn' on the way was not invented, probably, for the sake of the allegory,
but borrowed from the landscape. There are the ruins now of such a shelter for the
benighted or unfortunate on one of the heights which overlook the infested road. Thus it
is that the instructions of our Lord derive often the form and much of their pertinence
from the accidental connections of time and place."
Luke 10:31
luk 10:31
By chance - Accidentally, or as it happened. It means that he did not do it with a
"design" to aid the man that was wounded.
A certain priest - It is said that not less than 12,000 priests and Levites dwelt at Jericho;
and as their business was at Jerusalem, of course there would be many of them
constantly traveling on that road.
When he saw him - He saw him lie, but came not near him.
Passed by on the other side - On the farther side of the way. Did not turn out of his
course even to come and see him.
Luke 10:32
luk 10:32
A Levite - The Levites, as well as the priests, were of the tribe of Levi, and were set
apart to the duties of religion. The special duty of the priest was "to offer sacrifice" at
the temple; to present incense; to conduct the morning and evening services of the
temple, etc. The office or duty of the "Levites" was to render assistance to the priests in
their services. In the journey of the Israelites through the wilderness, it was their duty to
transport the various parts of the tabernacle and the sacred utensils. It was their duty to
see that the tabernacle and the temple were kept clean; to prepare supplies for the
sanctuary, such as oil, incense, wine, etc. They had also the care of the sacred revenues,
and after the time of David they conducted the sacred "music" of the temple service,
Num. 8:5-22; Ch1 23:3-5, Ch1 23:24-32; Ch1 24:27-31.
Came and looked on him - It is remarked by critics, here, that the expression used does
not denote, as in the case of the priest, that he accidentally saw him and took no farther
notice of him, but that he came and looked on him more attentively, but still did nothing
to relieve him.
Luke 10:33
luk 10:33
A certain Samaritan - The Samaritans were the most inveterate foes of the Jews. They
had no dealings with each other. See the notes at Mat 10:5. It was this fact which
rendered the conduct of this good man so striking, and which was thus set in strong
contrast with the conduct of the priest and the Levite. "They" would not help their own
afflicted, and wounded countryman. "He," who could not be expected to aid a Jew,
overcame all the usual hostility between the people; saw in the wounded man a
neighbor, a brother, one who needed aid; and kindly denied himself to show kindness to
the stranger.
Luke 10:34
luk 10:34
Pouring in oil and wine - These were often used in medicine to heal wounds. Probably
they were mingled together, and had a highly sanative quality. How strikingly is his
conduct contrasted with the priest and Levite! And, how particularly as well as
beautifully by this does our Saviour show what we ought to do to those who are in
circumstances of need! He does not merely say "in general" that he showed him
kindness, but he "told how" it was done. He stopped - came where he was - pitied him -
bound up his wound - set him on his own beast - conducted him to a tavern - passed the
night with him, and then secured the kind attendances of the landlord, promising him to
pay him for his trouble and all this without desiring or expecting any reward. If this had
been by a Jew, it would have been signal kindness; if it had been by a Gentile, it would
also have been great kindness; but it was by a Samaritan - a man of a nation most
hateful to the Jews, and therefore it most strikingly shows what we are to do to friends
and foes when they are in distress.
Luke 10:35
luk 10:35
Two pence - About 27 cents, or 1 shilling, 2d. This may seem a small sum, but we are to
remember that that sum was probably ten times as valuable then as now - that is, that it
would purchase ten times as much food and the common necessaries of life as the same
sum would now. Besides, it is probable that all the man wanted was "attention" and
kindness, and for all these it was the purpose of the Samaritan to pay when he returned.
The host - The innkeeper.
Luke 10:36
luk 10:36
Was neighbour - Showed the kindness of a neighbor, or evinced the proper feelings of a
neighbor. The lawyer had asked him who was his neighbor? Jesus in this beautiful
narrative showed him who and what a neighbor was, and he did this in a way that
disarmed his prejudice, deeply affected him in regard to his own duty, and evinced the
beauty of religion. Had he "at first" told him that a Samaritan might be a neighbor to a
Jew and deserve his kindness, he would have been at once revolted at it; but when, by a
beautiful and affecting narrative, he brought the "man himself" to see that it might be,
he was constrained to admit it. Here we see the beauty of a parable and its use. It
disarmed prejudice, fixed the attention, took the mind gently yet irresistibly, and
prevented the possibility of cavil or objection. Compare, also, the address of Nathan to
David,Sa2 12:1-7.
Luke 10:37
luk 10:37
He that showed mercy - His "Jewish" prejudice would not permit him "to name" the
Samaritan, but there was no impropriety, even in his view, in saying that the man who
showed so much mercy was really the neighbor to the afflicted, and not he who
"professed" to be his neighbor, but who would "do nothing" for his welfare.
Go, and do thou likewise - Show the same kindness to "all" - to friend and foe - and
"then" you will have evidence that you keep the law, and not "till" then. Of this man we
know nothing farther; but from this inimitably beautiful parable we may learn:
1. That the knowledge of the law is useful to make us acquainted with our own
sinfulness and need of a Saviour.
2. That it is not he who "professes" most kindness that really loves us most, but he who
will most deny himself that he may do us good in times of want.
3. That religion requires us to do good to "all" people, however "accidentally" we may
become acquainted with their calamities.
4. That we should do good to our enemies. Real love to them will lead us to deny
ourselves, and to sacrifice our own welfare, that we may help them in times of distress
and alleviate their wants.
5. That he is really our neighbor who does us the most good - who helps us in our
necessities, and especially if he does this when there has been "a controversy or
difference" between us and him.
6. We hence see the beauty of religion. Nothing else will induce people to surmount
their prejudices, to overcome opposition, and to do good to those who are at enmity
with them. True religion teaches us to regard every man as our neighbor; prompts us to
do good to all, to forget all national or sectional distinctions, and to aid all those who are
in circumstances of poverty and want. If religion were valuable for nothing "but this," it
would be the most lovely and desirable principle on earth, and all, especially in their
early years, should seek it. Nothing that a young person can gain will be so valuable as
the feeling that regards all the world as one great family, and to learn early to do good to
all.
7. The difference between the Jew and the Samaritan was a difference in "religion" and
"religious opinion;" and from the example of the latter we may learn that, while people
differ in "opinions" on subjects of religion, and while they are zealous for what they
hold to be the truth, still they should treat each other kindly; that they should aid each
other in necessity; and that they should thus show that religion is a principle superior to
the love of sect, and that the cord which binds man to man is one that is to be sundered
by no difference of opinion, that Christian kindness is to be marred by no forms of
worship, and by no bigoted attachment for what we esteem the doctrines of the gospel.
The Parable of
the Good Samariatan
Luke 10:25-37
By Louis Rushmore
Introduction
The parable of The Good Samaritan is one of several parables that are recorded
exclusively by Luke. Sequentially in Luke's account of our Lord's earthly ministry, the
verbal exchange between Jesus and one in his audience, during which this parable was
recited, occurred following the return of the 70. During his Perean ministry, Jesus had
sent 70 disciples ahead of him into the cities that he would soon visit (Luke 10:1). These
disciples were charged to heal the sick and proclaim that the kingdom was close to
coming (Luke 10:9). (Formerly, during our Lord's ministry in Galilee, he commissioned
the twelve and charged them with the same mission, Matt. 10:1-6; Mark 6:7-13.)
The coming kingdom was the object of prophecy (Isa. 2; Dan. 2; Joel 2; Acts 2) and the
longing of the Jews. Nevertheless, the Jews expected and wanted a physical kingdom
(John 6:14-15), whereas Jesus Christ came to establish a spiritual kingdom (John 18:36-
37). Even at the late date of the moments preceding his Ascension, our Lord's apostles
still imagined that Jesus was about to establish a physical kingdom. "When they
therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time
restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).
Upon the return of the 70, and after they exclaimed that "even the devils are subject
unto us through thy name" (Luke 10:17), Jesus responded, "rather rejoice, because your
names are written in heaven" (Luke 10:20). Perhaps in the presence of a larger
audience, our Lord still turned to his disciples and spoke to them privately (Luke
10:23). Immediately thereafter in Luke's account a lawyer of the Law of Moses posed a
question to Jesus (Luke 10:25). Was there time and distance between Jesus' reception of
the returning 70 and the lawyer's question, or was the lawyer in the larger audience that
day? Is it possible that the lawyer was one of the 70 or does the new paragraph in which
his question appears indicate, though not specified in the text, that the interchange
between the lawyer and Jesus occurred on another occasion, perhaps even on another
day?
Misgivings about the new kingdom and its doctrine persisted among the disciples of
Christ well after the establishment of the kingdom (church). With some reluctance, the
apostle Peter surrendered his prejudice toward non-Jews to proclaim the Gospel to them
(Acts 10-11). Peter, though, suffered a relapse to his old mentality regarding Gentiles,
for which the apostle Paul publicly rebuked him (Gal. 2:11-14). Judaizing teachers
within the church were the source of much agitation, for which the apostles and elders
in Jerusalem publicly and in writing countered such erroneous teaching (Acts 15).
Whether the lawyer on this occasion was a disciple of Christ (though somewhat
misguided) or what we might call a heckler is difficult to say. The enemies of Jesus
frequently badgered our Lord from amidst a crowd of the curious and truth-seekers
(Matt. 22:15) as they also did to John the Baptist (Matt. 3:7). In any case, the lawyer's
question provides the platform for Jesus' presentation of the parable of The Good
Samaritan.
The Parable
"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master,
what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 10:25).
This is the most important question that anyone could ask! This question has been asked
by various persons under various circumstances that are recorded upon the pages of
inspiration. This question has also been asked for various reasons -- not always to obtain
information. The lawyer in the context before us may have been insincere, only hoping
to somehow belittle our Lord. The lawyer's motive appears to have been disingenuous.
The 3,000 souls who obeyed the Gospel message in Acts 2 were not seeking the Gospel
or the church when the Spirit-filled apostles began preaching in Jerusalem that day.
However, they were moved by the message to mouth, "Men and brethren, what shall we
do?" (Acts 2:37). Saul of Tarsus (better known to us as the apostle Paul) was not
seeking Gospel truth when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9; 22;
26). Yet, he, too, asked the question in these words, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to
do?" (Acts 9:6). The 3,000 and Paul became Christians once they received the answer to
this all-important question. The rich young ruler asked, "Good Master, what shall I do
to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 18:18), but went away sorrowfully. The lawyer to whom
Jesus recited the parable of The Good Samaritan seems to have resisted the divine
answer to his question, too.
The lawyer's question corresponds to the spiritual assessment and encouragement that
Jesus directed toward the returning 70: "rejoice, because your names are written in
heaven" (Luke 10:20). It is possible that with an air of sarcasm the lawyer rebutted the
statement of Jesus with his question. Irrespective of the lawyer's reason for asking the
question, that question is important because of the corresponding divine answer. At no
time was the answer to the question a curt, "Nothing!" It is not the case that mankind is
exempted from participation in his own redemption.
When the Jews on Pentecost asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37),
Peter did not say, "There is nothing to do!" Instead, he said: ". . . Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . ."
(Acts 2:38). When Saul of Tarsus asked that same question, Jesus did not say, "There is
nothing for you to do!" Rather, the record reads, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?
And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what
thou must do" (Acts 9:6). A disciple named Ananias was sent by Jesus to Saul and
proclaimed, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy
sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). The rich young ruler and the lawyer
both lived under Judaism and were nevertheless informed that there was something for
them to do. Any of the passages above would have been perfect opportunities for the
Holy Spirit to announce faith only or grace only or universalism or unconditional
election -- without the participation of mankind in his own redemption. Instead,
redemption is conditional on obedience (Heb. 5:9) or walking in the light (1 John 1:7).
We must, in a sense, work out our own salvation (Phil. 2:12). Still, due to human frailty
and our sins, we must rely on the grace and mercy of God (Eph. 2:8; Titus 3:5). Grace
and mercy are conditional on our obedience despite human shortcomings.
"He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?" (Luke
10:26).
Many people in our Lord's day or even now may not know the answer to the question
posed by the lawyer and earnestly desire a reliable answer. This lawyer, though, was not
such a person. By his training and life-long pursuit, he was expected to know the
biblical answer to the very question he asked. Jesus, therefore, compelled the lawyer to
answer his own question, which he did.
The lawyer by profession was an expert in the Jewish law. He was a man
who was supposed to know all the answers.1
Our Lord in substance says -- The question you ask is already answered.
"How readest thou?"2
The lawyer not only answered his own question, but he answered it correctly. However,
feeling the force of having his question turned back on him, he attempted to avoid the
application of the divine truth to himself.
"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy
mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast
answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify
himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?" (Luke 10:27-29).
The two-level apportionment of our love, first and foremost to God and secondarily to
our fellow man, underlies the whole duty of man. This multi-directional love is
addressed in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament.
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee
this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto
thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and
when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou
risest up" (Deut. 6:5-7).
"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy
people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord" (Lev.
19:18).
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great
commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and
the prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40).
As indicated in Deuteronomy 6, the love that God expected his children to exhibit
toward him and toward each other was neither an obscure nor a mysterious revelation.
Instruction about love (and every instruction from God) was to be an intricate part of
family devotions. Love for God fosters love for one's fellow man; love for our fellows
reinforces one's love for God.
"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that
loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he
hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who
loveth God love his brother also" (1 John 4:20-21).
The lawyer's last statement, "And who is my neighbour?," led our Lord's presentation of
the parable of The Good Samaritan.
It has been said that this parable is the most practical of all the parables. It
gets down to the bottom of what Christianity really is. There is no room
here for pious platitudes and hair-splitting definitions, no place for
Christianity in the abstract or for a religion to be seen of men. With one
scene the flashes upon the screen Jesus compels us to see thatChristianity
is a way of living.3
". . . Jesus used his question as an opportunity to teach an important truth, namely, you
cannot separate your relationship with God from your relationship with your fellow
man." 4
"And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to
Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and
wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there
came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by
on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came
and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain
Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he
had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds,
pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to
an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he
took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take
care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I
will repay thee" (Luke 10:30-35).
The "certain man" is anonymous to us, even to the extent that his nationality or ethic
background, his economic, political and social status are not declared. However, for the
parable to have the greatest emphasis, it must surely be inferred that the wounded man
was Jewish. If he were a Samaritan or a Gentile, given the then contemporary Jewish
prejudice toward all non-Jews, the illustration would lose its force. That is, Jews would
naturally be thought to avoid a Samaritan or a Gentile, whereas the Samaritan would
more nearly come to the aid of an injured fellow Samaritan or a Gentile. "In the time of
Christ the bitterness between Jew and Samaritan was so great that Jews traveling from
Galilee to Jerusalem would cross over to the east side of the Jordan and come through
Perea rather than go through the country of the Samaritans."5 The parable presents a
scenario in which one would expect the Jewish passerbys to more readily come to the
poor man's rescue than the Samaritan traveler.
The Bible is persistently correct regarding geography, topography and any other science
about which the inspired Book speaks and that also lends itself to critical review. (It,
then, is reasonable to believe that the Bible is credible also regarding those subjects of
which it speaks that are not susceptible to verification by physical evidence.) Jerusalem
rests atop a central range of mountains in Canaan at about 2,500 feet above sea level.
Jericho, 16 miles west of Jerusalem, is 800 feet below sea level. One literally descends
or goes "down" from Jerusalem to Jericho, dropping 3,300 feet.
Some localities in Bible times were especially notorious for the ferocious activity of
robbers, especially in rugged areas along highways. One such place may have prompted
the missionary John Mark to turn back from his evangelistic endeavor while Paul and
Barnabas continued (Acts 13:13; 15:38). The road between Jerusalem and Jericho
shared this infamous distinction.
The Jericho road was rugged, robber-infested. Because travelers had been
attached so often on this road, it became know as "the bloody way."6
One commentator cites the Jewish historian, Josephus, regarding the robbery common
to that route.
Josephus tells us that Herod had dismissed 40 thousand workmen from
the Temple, shortly before Christ's recital of this parable, and that a large
part of them became vicious highway robbers, who were aided in their
diabolical plunder by the hiding places and sharp turnings of the road.7
Whereas the Jews who passed by the unfortunate victim later doubtless professed piety,
the robbers had no regard for their fellow human beings. The robbers only regarded the
wealth and possessions they hoped to procure from hapless commuters. The lives of
their targets were not precious.
Deprived of his money, stripped of his clothes, battered and left to die, the fallen
stranger was not a specimen of economic, social or political attainment. He simply was
a fellow human being desperately in need of a biblical neighbor. "We must find our
neighbor everywhere and in everyone, and especially in the fellowman in need."8
Coincidentally, the first person to happen on the scene following the vicious assault was
a priest.
Since the time of David, the priests had been divided into twenty-four
courses or orders (see 1 Chronicles 24:1-19). Each order served in the
temple twice a year, a week at a time. Jericho like Jerusalem was a city of
priests, so priests and Levites often were seen moving to and from on the
desert road.9
Apparently, this man was ". . . one of the 12,000 priests living in Jericho at that time,
had evidently left God back in the Temple and had neither time nor compassion for his
unfortunate fellow Jew."10
The victim and the priest were both traveling the same direction, away from Jerusalem
and down to Jericho. The stranger preceded the priest by a matter of minutes. The priest
could have as easily been the human casualty lying along the road, the other man
finding him in that condition. Though the priest passed by his fallen countryman,
doubtless he would have wished for more compassion by anyone discovering him
injured along the highway. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should
do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matt. 7:12).
Evidently, the priest left his piety back at the temple. He did not demonstrate the
religion that he honored by his service in the Temple while traveling the Jericho road.
Perhaps his attitude was, "I've been serving at the temple. I've done my part. . . . I've
been away from home and need to hurry."11
Perhaps the tendency to duplicate the blameworthy conduct of this priest is common to
mankind. Several exhortations appear in the New Testament as if to counter this
disposition (Matt. 25:31-46; Jam. 2:15-17).
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise"
(Luke 6:31).
"As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially
unto them who are of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10).
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is
sin" (Jam. 4:17).
"But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and
shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of
God in him?" (1 John 3:17).
Next to pass by the dying stranger was a Levite. "The Levite was a servant of the
Temple and as a minister of religious worship and an interpreter of the Law should have
been eager to assist the distressed soul he looked upon, yet left unaided."12 We would
say, "The priest and the Levite didn't practice what they preached."
A Samaritan, however, the third person to discover the wounded and destitute man,
stopped to assist him. What did it mean to be a Samaritan and how did the Samaritans
differ from the Jews? Assyria conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C.,
after which it deported 20,000 Jews and brought in 20,000 Gentiles.13 The remaining
Israelites from the northern kingdom and the re-settled Gentiles intermarried --
producing the Samaritans. Upon the return of a remnant of Jews to Jerusalem from their
captivity in Babylon, Zerubbabel refused to allow the Samaritans to help rebuild the
Temple. The Samaritans built a temple on Mt. Gerizim (John 4:4-20) and practiced a
corrupted form of Judaism, revering only the Decalogue. See also these additional New
Testament references to Samaritans: Matthew 10:5; Luke 9:52-53; 17:16, 18; John 8:48.
"The Samaritan: [was] sympathetic (he had compassion on a fellow-human, even
though a natural enemy) . . ."14 Compassion results from the inner self being "moved
and stirred."15 In this illustration, the character least likely to come to the aid of the
victim responds with genuine interest in the physical welfare of the stranger. "The
Samaritan did not permit either racial or religious barriers to hinder him from helping
the Jewish victim."16
The Samaritan puts himself to inconvenience, perhaps to peril, and after
dressing the wounds, takes the wounded one along with him, provides
lodging for him and even takes care of the sick and friendless man's
future. The piled-up acts of kindness were all clearly done to a poor
stranger, without hope of recompense or reward.17
"The good Samaritan used his beast, oil and wine."18
Oil was widely used by the ancients as an external remedy to assauge the
pain of open wounds (Isaiah 1:6). The use of wine was also an external
remedy for wounds and bruises.19
Besides attending to the injured man's immediate needs, the Samaritan provided for his
extended care, too. Two "pence" (denaria) represented two days' wages (Matt. 20:2),
whereas a day's lodging cost about a twelfth of a denarius. Thereby, the Samaritan
provided for three weeks' recovery.20 If that were not enough, the good Samaritan
obligated himself financially for reimbursement of the innkeeper should even more be
expended in the rehabilitation of the Samaritan's espoused beneficiary.
Jesus, through this parable, caused the lawyer with whom he was conversing to
acknowledge truth before he surely understood that it applied to him. This is one of the
characteristics of a parable; see 2 Samuel 12:1-13.
"Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that
fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then
said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise" (Luke 10:36-37).
The adversaries of our Lord often tried to entangle him in his words, but to no avail
(Matt. 22:15-22). In each instance, Jesus thwarted the verbal assaults, as one would
expect from the divine Son of God (Matt. 22:46; Luke 14:6).
Conclusion
The Jewish lawyer got the message. When Jesus asked him which of the
three was neighbor to the victim -- the priest, the Levite, or the Samaritan
-- the lawyer gave the correct answer, but he would not use the word
"Samaritan"! He said, "He that showed mercy on him."21
The lessons derived from this parable are many and are equally applicable today. For
instance,
Without distinction of race or religion that man is our neighbor who has
need of us. It is not place but love that makes neighborhood.22
He [the lawyer] failed to see that the important question was not, "Who is
my neighbor?" but "To whom can I be a neighbor?"23
It is practical service that counts in Christ's kingdom. Christianity is more
than going to church and saying prayers. A group of people can do these
things for years and be a dead church. Christianity is a way of living.24
We learn from the priest and the Levite that, "Religious ritualism cannot be a substitute
for compassion for others."25 From the Samaritan we learn that, "Real compassion
affects conduct."26 "In the parable the Samaritan shows that the circle of Christian
responsibility is the world."27
Under Judaism, the Jew was obligated to rescue stray or distressed animals, even if an
animal belonged to an enemy (Exod. 23:4-5). The priest and the Levite in the parable
ought to have rescued any human being left by robbers to die along a desolate road.
With whom do you identify -- the priest and the Levite or the good Samaritan?
Endnotes
1 Neil R. Lightfoot, The Parables of Jesus, Vol. 1, Abilene, ACU Press, 54.
2 R.C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House,
109.
3 Lightfoot, 56-57.
4 Warren W. Wiersbe, Windows on the Parables, Wheaton, Scripture Press, 55.
5 Lightfoot, 56.
6 Fred Davis, The Good Samaritan, The Parables of Our Savior, Indianapolis,
Garfield Heights church of Christ, 88.
7 Herbert Lockyer, All the Parables of the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing
House, 261.
8 Davis, 87-88.
9 Lightfoot, 56.
10 Davis, 89.
11 Wiersbe, 57.
12 Davis, 90.
13 Wiersbe, 61.
14 Wayne Jackson, The Parables in Profile, Stockton , CA, Wayne Jackson, 72.
15 Wiersbe, 61.
16 Ibid.
17 Davis, 92.
18 W. Gaddys Roy, Sermon Outlines on the Parables of Jesus, Anniston, AL, W.
Gaddys Roy, 42.
19 Lockyer, 263.
20 Jackson, 73.
21 Wiersbe, 64.
22 Lockyer, 263-264.
23 Wiersbe, 59.
24 Lightfoot, 58.
25 Jackson, 73.
26 Lightfoot, 58.
27 Ibid., 59.
Parallel Verses
New International Version
He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on
his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him.

New Living Translation
Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged
them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of
him.

English Standard Version
He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his
own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him.

New American Standard Bible
and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put
him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him.

King James Bible
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own
beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
He went over to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on olive oil and wine. Then he put
him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

International Standard Version
He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. Then he put him
on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

NET Bible
He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. Then he put
him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he came and bound his wounds and poured wine and oil on them and set him on his
donkey and he took him to an inn and cared for him.

GOD'S WORD Translation
went to him, and cleaned and bandaged his wounds. Then he put him on his own animal,
brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Jubilee Bible 2000
and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own
beast and brought him to an inn and took care of him.

King James 2000 Bible

American King James Version

American Standard Version
and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him
on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And going up to him, bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine: and setting him upon
his own beast, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Darby Bible Translation
and came up [to him] and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine; and having put him
on his own beast, took him to [the] inn and took care of him.

English Revised Version
and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him
on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Webster's Bible Translation

Weymouth New Testament
He went to him, and dressed his wounds with oil and wine and bound them up. Then placing
him on his own mule he brought him to an inn, where he bestowed every care on him.

World English Bible
came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own
animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Young's Literal Translation
and having come near, he bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine, and having lifted
him up on his own beast, he brought him to an inn, and was careful of him;
Parallel Commentaries
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

10:25-37 If we speak of eternal life, and the way to it, in a careless manner, we take the
name of God in vain. No one will ever love God and his neighbour with any measure of
pure, spiritual love, who is not made a partaker of converting grace. But the proud heart of
man strives hard against these convictions. Christ gave an instance of a poor Jew in distress,
relieved by a good Samaritan. This poor man fell among thieves, who left him about to die
of his wounds. He was slighted by those who should have been his friends, and was cared
for by a stranger, a Samaritan, of the nation which the Jews most despised and detested, and
would have no dealings with. It is lamentable to observe how selfishness governs all ranks;
how many excuses men will make to avoid trouble or expense in relieving others. But the
true Christian has the law of love written in his heart. The Spirit of Christ dwells in him;
Christ's image is renewed in his soul. The parable is a beautiful explanation of the law of
loving our neighbour as ourselves, without regard to nation, party, or any other distinction. It
also sets forth the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward sinful, miserable men. We
were like this poor, distressed traveller. Satan, our enemy, has robbed us, and wounded us:
such is the mischief sin has done us. The blessed Jesus had compassion on us. The believer
considers that Jesus loved him, and gave his life for him, when an enemy and a rebel; and
having shown him mercy, he bids him go and do likewise. It is the duty of us all , in our
places, and according to our ability, to succour, help, and relieve all that are in distress and
necessity.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And went to him, and bound up his wounds,.... Which sin had made; it being part of the
work of Christ, to bind up the broken-hearted, to heal wounded sinners, and restore comforts
to mourners; and which he does, by

pouring in oil and wine: by which, in general, may be designed, the blood of Christ, applied
to the conscience of a wounded sinner; which cleanses from all sin, heals all the wounds and
diseases of sin, cheers and revives fainting spirits, gives ease, peace, and pleasure, and is
therefore exceeding valuable and precious: and in particular by "oil" may be meant, the
grace of the Spirit of God; compared unto it, for its sweet smell, its cheering and refreshing
virtue and efficacy, and its cooling, softening, supplying, and healing nature: and by "wine",
the doctrines of the Gospel; such as free justification by Christ's righteousness, and pardon
through his blood; which when applied to distressed minds, cause joy and gladness, and
them to forget their sorrow, and remember their misery no more: and the pouring in of these,
may denote the plentiful effusion of Christ's blood, and the riches of his grace in the
application of it; and the freeness and generousness of this action, which is his own: for man
cannot do it. It was usual with the Jews, to mix oil and wine together, for the healing of
wounds: hence those rules and traditions (w);

"they anoint a linen cloth for a sick man on the sabbath; when? when they mingle the oil and
the wine on the sabbath eve, but if they do not mingle it on the sabbath eve, it is forbidden; it
is a tradition, says R. Simeon ben Eleazer, R. Meir pronounced it lawful, to mingle wine and
oil, and to anoint the sick on the sabbath.''

So oil and wine were mingled together, and used to heal the sore occasioned by
circumcision (x).

and set him on his own beast; by which may be meant, either the red horse of Christ's
humanity, Zechariah 1:8 to which he has united all his people; and in which he has bore
their persons, and has represented them, and still bears them on his heart: or the white horse
of the Gospel,Revelation 6:2 compared to a horse for its strength, swiftness, and usefulness
in battle; and to a "white" one, for the purity of its doctrines, the joy and peace it brings, and
the victory it obtains: and this is Christ's own, and on which he himself rides, and shows his
glory, and goes forth conquering and to conquer: and on which he sets his people, and they
are carried out of the reach of men and devils to destroy them, and are caused to ride on the
high places of the earth:

and brought him to an inn; a church of Christ, where the Gospel guides, directs, and carries
souls: saints are not at home in their proper city and country, they are travellers here, and
need refreshment by the way; and a church of Christ is as an inn, for the entertainment of
such: it is large, and has room enough for as many as come to it; and is well stored with
provisions of all sorts, signified by bread, and milk, and wine, a feast of fat things, a
furnished table, Zion's provisions, the goodness and fatness of God's house; and has rivers of
pleasure, and very good lodgings, sure dwellings, and quiet habitations; all which is
agreeable to weary travellers: and hither Christ brings his people, whom he saves and calls;
it is his will that they should be in a church state, and it is his own act to bring them there,
and it is their great privilege to be thither brought:

and took care of him; clothed him with his righteousness, fed him with the choicest of
provisions, gave him reviving cordials of love, refreshing promises, exceeding great and
precious ones; and larger supplies of grace, with protection and preservation from all evils.

(w) T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 14. 3. & Beracot, fol. 3. 1. (x) Misn. Sabbat, c. 19. sect. 2.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

34. oil and winethe remedies used in such cases all over the East (Isa 1:6), and elsewhere;
the wine to cleanse the wounds, the oil to assuage their smartings.

on his own beasthimself going on foot.

Luke 10:34 Additional Commentaries

Context
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
33"But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt
compassion, 34and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on
them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of
him. 35"On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said,
'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.'
Cross References
Luke 10:33
But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took
pity on him.

Luke 10:35
The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he
said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
Treasury of Scripture
went.
Luke 10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine,
Exodus 23:4,5 If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall
Proverbs 24:17,18 Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad
Proverbs 25:21,22 If your enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty,
Matthew 5:43-45 You have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor,
Romans 12:20 Therefore if your enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him
1 Thessalonians 5:15 See that none render evil for evil to any man; but ever follow that
bound.
Psalm 147:3 He heals the broken in heart, and binds up their wounds.
Isaiah 1:5,6 Why should you be stricken any more? you will revolt more and more:
Mark 14:8 She has done what she could: she is come beforehand to anoint my
an inn.
Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling
Genesis 42:27 And as one of them opened his sack to give his donkey provender in
Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him,
Jump to Previous
Animal Bandaged Beast Bestowed Bound CareCareful Clean Donkey Dressed House Inn Li
nenMule Oil Placing Pouring Round Wine Wounds
Jump to Next
Animal Bandaged Beast Bestowed Bound CareCareful Clean Donkey Dressed House Inn Li
nenMule Oil Placing Pouring Round Wine Wounds
Links
Luke 10:34 NIV
Luke 10:34 NLT
Luke 10:34 ESV
Luke 10:34 NASB
Luke 10:34 KJV

Luke 10:34 Bible Apps
Luke 10:34 Bible Suite
Luke 10:34 Biblia Paralela
Luke 10:34 Chinese Bible
Luke 10:34 French Bible
Luke 10:34 German Bible

Alphabetical: an and bandaged beast brought came care donkey He him his inn man of oil
on own pouring put the them Then to took up went wine wounds

NT Gospels: Luke 10:34 Came to him and bound up his (Luke Lu Lk) Christian Bible Study
Resources, Dictionary, Concordance and Search Tools

Bible Hub

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(34) And went to him.Every detail is in harmony with the tender pity described in the
previous verse. All fear of risk from robbers, or from the police of Rome, who might take
him for a robber, is put aside; the oil and wine, which had been provided for personal
refreshment, are freely given to be used, according to the primitive surgery of the time, the
latter for cleansing the wounds, the former for soothing inflammation. His own beast
(better, ass, as the word is translated in Matthew 21:5; 2Peter 2:16) is given up, and he goes
on foot; he takes the wounded man to an inn, and there provides for him.
To an inn.The word is not the same as that in Luke 2:7, and implies the Western type of
hostelry, where the landlord provides for his guests, while in the earlier passage we have the
Eastern caravanserai, where the guests simply find shelter, and arrange their meals for
themselves.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
10:25-37 If we speak of eternal life, and the way to it, in a careless manner, we take the
name of God in vain. No one will ever love God and his neighbour with any measure of
pure, spiritual love, who is not made a partaker of converting grace. But the proud heart of
man strives hard against these convictions. Christ gave an instance of a poor Jew in distress,
relieved by a good Samaritan. This poor man fell among thieves, who left him about to die
of his wounds. He was slighted by those who should have been his friends, and was cared
for by a stranger, a Samaritan, of the nation which the Jews most despised and detested, and
would have no dealings with. It is lamentable to observe how selfishness governs all ranks;
how many excuses men will make to avoid trouble or expense in relieving others. But the
true Christian has the law of love written in his heart. The Spirit of Christ dwells in him;
Christ's image is renewed in his soul. The parable is a beautiful explanation of the law of
loving our neighbour as ourselves, without regard to nation, party, or any other distinction. It
also sets forth the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward sinful, miserable men. We
were like this poor, distressed traveller. Satan, our enemy, has robbed us, and wounded us:
such is the mischief sin has done us. The blessed Jesus had compassion on us. The believer
considers that Jesus loved him, and gave his life for him, when an enemy and a rebel; and
having shown him mercy, he bids him go and do likewise. It is the duty of us all , in our
places, and according to our ability, to succour, help, and relieve all that are in distress and
necessity.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Pouring in oil and wine - These were often used in medicine to heal wounds. Probably they
were mingled together, and had a highly sanative quality. How strikingly is his conduct
contrasted with the priest and Levite! And, how particularly as well as beautifully by this
does our Saviour show what we ought to do to those who are in circumstances of need! He
does not merely say "in general" that he showed him kindness, but he "told how" it was
done. He stopped - came where he was - pitied him - bound up his wound - set him on his
own beast - conducted him to a tavern - passed the night with him, and then secured the kind
attendances of the landlord, promising him to pay him for his trouble and all this without
desiring or expecting any reward. If this had been by a Jew, it would have been signal
kindness; if it had been by a Gentile, it would also have been great kindness; but it was by a
Samaritan - a man of a nation most hateful to the Jews, and therefore it most strikingly
shows what we are to do to friends and foes when they are in distress.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
34. oil and winethe remedies used in such cases all over the East (Isa 1:6), and elsewhere;
the wine to cleanse the wounds, the oil to assuage their smartings.
on his own beasthimself going on foot.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
See Poole on "Luke 10:30"
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And went to him, and bound up his wounds,.... Which sin had made; it being part of the
work of Christ, to bind up the broken-hearted, to heal wounded sinners, and restore comforts
to mourners; and which he does, by
pouring in oil and wine: by which, in general, may be designed, the blood of Christ, applied
to the conscience of a wounded sinner; which cleanses from all sin, heals all the wounds and
diseases of sin, cheers and revives fainting spirits, gives ease, peace, and pleasure, and is
therefore exceeding valuable and precious: and in particular by "oil" may be meant, the
grace of the Spirit of God; compared unto it, for its sweet smell, its cheering and refreshing
virtue and efficacy, and its cooling, softening, supplying, and healing nature: and by "wine",
the doctrines of the Gospel; such as free justification by Christ's righteousness, and pardon
through his blood; which when applied to distressed minds, cause joy and gladness, and
them to forget their sorrow, and remember their misery no more: and the pouring in of these,
may denote the plentiful effusion of Christ's blood, and the riches of his grace in the
application of it; and the freeness and generousness of this action, which is his own: for man
cannot do it. It was usual with the Jews, to mix oil and wine together, for the healing of
wounds: hence those rules and traditions (w);
"they anoint a linen cloth for a sick man on the sabbath; when? when they mingle the oil and
the wine on the sabbath eve, but if they do not mingle it on the sabbath eve, it is forbidden; it
is a tradition, says R. Simeon ben Eleazer, R. Meir pronounced it lawful, to mingle wine and
oil, and to anoint the sick on the sabbath.''
So oil and wine were mingled together, and used to heal the sore occasioned by
circumcision (x).
and set him on his own beast; by which may be meant, either the red horse of Christ's
humanity, Zechariah 1:8 to which he has united all his people; and in which he has bore
their persons, and has represented them, and still bears them on his heart: or the white horse
of the Gospel, Revelation 6:2 compared to a horse for its strength, swiftness, and usefulness
in battle; and to a "white" one, for the purity of its doctrines, the joy and peace it brings, and
the victory it obtains: and this is Christ's own, and on which he himself rides, and shows his
glory, and goes forth conquering and to conquer: and on which he sets his people, and they
are carried out of the reach of men and devils to destroy them, and are caused to ride on the
high places of the earth:
and brought him to an inn; a church of Christ, where the Gospel guides, directs, and carries
souls: saints are not at home in their proper city and country, they are travellers here, and
need refreshment by the way; and a church of Christ is as an inn, for the entertainment of
such: it is large, and has room enough for as many as come to it; and is well stored with
provisions of all sorts, signified by bread, and milk, and wine, a feast of fat things, a
furnished table, Zion's provisions, the goodness and fatness of God's house; and has rivers of
pleasure, and very good lodgings, sure dwellings, and quiet habitations; all which is
agreeable to weary travellers: and hither Christ brings his people, whom he saves and calls;
it is his will that they should be in a church state, and it is his own act to bring them there,
and it is their great privilege to be thither brought:
and took care of him; clothed him with his righteousness, fed him with the choicest of
provisions, gave him reviving cordials of love, refreshing promises, exceeding great and
precious ones; and larger supplies of grace, with protection and preservation from all evils.
(w) T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 14. 3. & Beracot, fol. 3. 1. (x) Misn. Sabbat, c. 19. sect. 2.
Geneva Study Bible
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Luke 10:34. ...] while he, as he was binding them up, poured on them oil and
wine, the ordinary remedy in the case of wounds (see the passages in Wetstein and Paulus),
which he carried with him for any casual need.

] on his own beast (his ass), so that thus he himself gave up its use.

] instead of the Attic , Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 307. The word has also
passed over into the Rabbinical vocabulary: , see Lightfoot, p. 799. We must picture to
ourselves a caravanserai, over which presided an ordinary landlord.
Expositor's Greek Testament
Luke 10:34. , : both technical terms in medicine. : not
separately, but mixed; in use among Greeks and Romans as well as Jews (Wetstein).
= from , generally a property, and specially a domestic animal:
ones beast. (in classics .), a place for receiving all comers, an inn
having a host, not merely a khan or caravanserai like in Luke 2:7.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
34. pouring in oil and wine] The ordinary remedies of the day. Isaiah 1:6; Mark 6:13;James
5:14. See Excursus VII.

set him on his own beast] The word implies the labour of lifting him up, and then the good
Samaritan walked by his side.

brought him to an inn] Pandocheion. See on Luke 2:7. There the word is kataluma, a mere
khan or caravanserai. Perhaps this inn was at Bahurim. In this and the next verse a word or
two suffices to shew the Samaritans sympathy, helpfulness, self-denial, generosity, and
perseverance in kindliness.
Bengel's Gnomen
Luke 10:34. , oil and wine) Those things are easy to be procured, which
are most necessary for the exercising of love.,having set him on) with labour
to himself., his own) which he himself had used. , to an inn) The
language in this passage is wonderfully popular (adapted to the intelligence of even the
common multitude).
Vincent's Word Studies
Bound up ()
Only here in New Testament.
Wounds ()
Only here in New Testament.
Pouring in ()
Rather upon (), as Rev. Wine to cleanse, and oil to soothe. See Isaiah 1:6.
Oil and wine
Usual remedies for sores, wounds, etc. Hippocrates prescribes for ulcers, "Bind with soft
wool, and sprinkle with wine and oil."
Beast ()
Perhaps akin to , a possession ; since animals anciently constituted wealth, so that a
piece of property and a beast were synonymous terms.
Inn ()
Only here in New Testament. From , all, and , to receive: a place of common
reception. See on inn, Luke 2:7. Remains of two khans, or inns, on the road between Jericho
and Jerusalem are mentioned by modern travellers. Porter ("Handbook of Syria and
Palestine") speaks of one about a mile from Bethany, and another farther on, at the most
dangerous part of the road, an extensive, ruined caravanserai, called Khan el Almah, situated
on the top of a bleak ridge. Concerning the former, Hepworth Dixon ("Holy Land") says:
"About midway in the descent from Bethany to Jericho, in a position commanding a view of
the road above and below,... on the very spot where search would be made for them, if no
such ruins were suspected of existing, stands a pile of stones, archways, lengths of wall,
which the wandering Arabs call Khan Houdjar, and still make use of as their own resting-
place for the night. These ruins are those of a noble inn; the lewan, the fountain, and the
court, being plainly traceable in the ruins."

The Good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37
by Matt Slick
Theme: What must I do to inherit eternal life?
25. And behold, a certain lawyer
stood up and put Him to the test,
saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to
inherit eternal life?"
Lawyer: One who is an expert in the Law of
Moses. Often this individual was called upon to
settle legal issues. "He stood up." This is a
social courtesy and a greeting of respect. Yet, in
his heart he sought to test Jesus. This is a
contradiction between his actions and his words.
26. And He said to him, "What is
written in the Law? How does it read
to you?"

Jesus asks the lawyer about what he knows best:
the law. He knows that keeping the law is the
appropriate answer. He brings the issue out into
the open. This is probably best since the Jewish
leadership were probably concerned about Jesus'
teachings on the Law.
27. And he answered and said, "You
shall love the LORD your God with
all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your strength, and with
all your mind; and your neighbor as
yourself."
It is interesting that this man of the law would
quote something regarding love and not some
ritual or set of rules.
The standard set here is one which no one could
keep.
Perhaps he was testing Jesus by quoting what
Jesus had taught before: love.
28. And He said to him, "You have
answered correctly; Do this and you
will live."
Jesus, the man, instructs the man of the law,
"You have answered correctly."
29. But wishing to justify himself, he The Lawyer does not show humility by saying
said to Jesus, "And who is my
neighbor?"
something like, "How can I do this since I am an
imperfect and sinful man?" Instead, he seeks to
justify himself.
This is often the case with experts in moral law;
they think they have their own lives covered
pretty well because they look at their actions--not
their hearts.
The expected reply would be something like,
"Your relative and your friend." Then the lawyer
would be able to say that he has done this, and
thereby enjoy honor among the people there
listening; However, Jesus said . . .
30. Jesus replied and said, "A certain
man was going down from Jerusalem
to Jericho; and he fell among robbers,
and they stripped him and beat him,
and went off leaving him half dead.
Jesus expounds on the law of love. True love is
put into action. It is not merely a concept or a
feeling.
There is a road that goes down from Jerusalem to
Jericho. It is 17 miles long and drops about
3,000 feet in those 17 miles. It has long been a
hazardous trip due to thieves and robbers.
Jesus intentionally leaves the man undescribed.
The audience, being Jewish, would naturally
assume that he was a Jew. Being in this half
dead state, he would be unconscious.
Since he is stripped, he then is unidentifiable.
Historically, a person can be identified in one of
two ways: his dress and his speech, i.e., dialect.
The man is any person: void of ethnic
background, void of stature, void of position.
31. "And by chance a certain priest
was going down on that road, and
when he saw him, he passed by on
the other side.
The priest was most certainly riding because he
was in the upper classes of society.
The poor walk.
Since he moves to the other side, probably the
priest did not actually see it happen. How can he
be sure the wounded man is a neighbor since he
cannot be identified? If the person lying there is
a non Jew, the priest could be risking defilement,
especially if the person were actually dead. If he
defiles himself, he cannot collect, distribute, and
eat tithes. His family and servants will suffer the
consequences with him.
Priests were supposed to be ritually clean--
exemplars of the law. There would be
immediate shame and embarrassment suffered by
them at the expense of the people and their peers
for such defilement. Having just completed his
mandatory two weeks of service, he would then
need to return and stand at the Eastern Gate
along with the rest of the unclean. Furthermore,
in addition to the humiliation involved, the
process of restoring ritual purity was time-
consuming and costly. It required finding,
buying, and reducing a red heifer to ashes, and
the ritual took a full week. The priest is in a
predicament. Moreover, he cannot approach
closer than four cubits to a dead man without
being defiled, and he will have to overstep that
boundary just to ascertain the condition of the
wounded man.
32. "And likewise a Levite also, when
he came to the place and saw him,
passed by on the other side.
"Levites were descendants of Levi but not of
Aaron, and they assisted the priests (Aarons
descendants) in the temple."1
The road spoken of here is a long one. It is very
likely, according to those who have walked it,
that a person traveling it could see ahead of him
a long way. The Levite, who is of a lower social
class, may have been walking. He most
probably saw the priest ahead of him and could
have thought to himself, "If the priest may pass,
then so should I."
Perhaps they might fear for their own safety.
What if someone saw them with the naked and
wounded person and reported to the officials that
the priest and/or Levite committed a crime
against the injured person?
33. "But a certain Samaritan, who
was on a journey, came upon him;
and when he saw him, he felt
compassion,
The Samaritans were a mixed race between the
Jews of captivity and the Samaritan people of the
land they were captive in. The relationship
between the Jews and Samaritans was one of
hostility because of some bad things that
happened in the past. According to the Mishna,
"He that eats the bread of the Samaritans is like
to one that eats the flesh of swine" (Mishna
Shebiith 8:10). The Mishna is the oral traditions
that developed about the law--containing
interpretations and applications to specific
questions which the law deals with only in
principle. Specifically, it is the collection of
these traditions.
The Samaritan is not a gentile. He is bound by
the same law as the Jews. The Samaritan would
not be naturally from that area, so the half dead
man would certainly not qualify as his neighbor.
"The Samaritan woman therefore said to Him,
How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a
drink since I am a Samaritan woman? (For Jews
have no dealings with Samaritans). (John 4:9).
"The Jews answered and said to Him, Do we
not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have
a demon? 49 Jesus answered, I do not have a
demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor
Me.'" (John 8:48-49)
34. "and came to him, and bandaged
up his wounds, pouring oil and wine
on them; and he put him on his own
beast, and brought him to an inn, and
took care of him.
The Samaritan risks defilement. He approaches
this unidentifiable man and helps him.
Oil and wine were poured out on the high altar
before God. Note how the usage is mentioned
after the Priest and Levite have failed to do their
duty.
Blood revenge: "Mosaic legislation established
cities of refuge for people under the threat of
death from blood vengeance retaliation. This
legislation provided an escape valve for a custom
it could not eradicate."
Often when the guilty cannot be reached,
vengeance may be administered to a member of
his family. Often the vengeance would reach
even to the most distant relations of the
offending party.
"Irrational minds seeking a focus for their
retaliation do not make rational judgments,
especially when the person involved is from a
hated minority community."
35. "And on the next day he took out
two denarii and gave them to the
innkeeper and said, 'Take care of
him; and whatever more you spend,
when I return, I will repay you.'
The Samaritan forfeits anonymity when he stays
overnight and then says he would return. This is
an acceptance of the potential threat of blood
vengeance.
The wounded man has no money. When it is
time for him to leave if he cannot pay the debt,
he can be arrested. Matthew 18:23-35. The
Samaritan knows this and volunteers money (two
denarii is two-days wages) and whatever else is
needed to see to the needs of this unidentified
man. Additionally, the Samaritan had no way of
insuring the return of his money. Therefore, it is
safe to assume he did not expect it to be returned.

The Robbers Priest and Levite The Samaritan
Rob him Harm him by inaction Pays for him
Leave him dying Leave him unhelped Leaves him cared for
Abandon him Neglected him Promises to return
The robbers hurt the man by violence--the Priest and Levite by neglect. All three are
guilty. "To the one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin."
(James 4:17).
Jesus was like the Samaritan. He was willing to touch the unclean. He was willing to
go to the lost, the outcast, and the needy. And, like the Samaritan, Jesus was an outcast
in the eyes of the Lawyers, Priests, Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.
36. "Which of these three do you
think proved to be a neighbor to the
man who fell into the robbers'
hands?"
Jesus refuses to define who a neighbor is.
Instead He asks a question proving something
greater than the exact answer anticipated. Being
a neighbor to someone is not limited to family
relations or proximity. It is showing the love of
God to all who are in need: whoever they may
be--wherever they may be.
37. And he said, "the one who
showed mercy toward him." And
Jesus said to him, "Go and do the
same."
The Samaritans were so hated by the Jews that
perhaps this lawyer did not want to comment on
a "Samaritan" and instead said, "the one who
showed mercy toward him."
The discussion began with a question: what must
I do inherit eternal life. The conclusion is
answered with what must be done.
If we are to do this, we will quickly find that we
are incapable of completing so perfect a love.
Since the law requires perfect obedience, the
doing of this lesson would be something most
difficult for the lawyer.
This parable teaches the impossibility of earning one's salvation. The standard, which is
perfect love, is too high.
It holds up an ethical level for us to strive for (See Matthew 5:48).
It attacks racial prejudices.
It teaches that love is something you feel and do.

6-20. PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN.
(Probably Juda.)
c
LUKE 10:25-37.

c
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying,
Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? [For the term lawyer see Section 51,
The lawyer wished to make trial of the skill of Jesus in solving the intricate and difficult
question as to how to obtain salvation. Jesus was probably teaching in some house or
courtyard, and his habit of giving local color to his parables suggests that he was
probably in or near Bethany, through which the road from Jerusalem to Jericho passes.
The lawyer stood up to attract attention to himself, and thus give emphasis to his
question and its answer.]
26 And he said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? [Looking
upon Jesus as a sabbath-breaker and a despiser of tradition, the lawyer no doubt
expected that Jesus would lay down some new rule for obtaining salvation. If so, he was
surprised to be thus referred to the law of Moses for his answer.]
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy
neighbour as thyself. [Deuteronomy 6:4 Deuteronomy 6:5 ; Leviticus 19:18 . Having
made himself conspicuous by standing up, the lawyer had to give the best answer he
knew or sully his own reputation for knowledge. He therefore gives the two great laws
which comprise all other laws.]
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt
live. [The lawyer had asked his question simply as a test. With him the law was simply
matter for speculation and theory, and the word "do" was very startling. It showed the
difference between his and the Master's views of the law. He had hoped Jesus had
exposed the lawyer as one who merely theorized about the law, and himself as one who
advocated the doing of the law.]
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my
neighbor? [He could justify his conduct if permitted to define the word "neighbor." He
asked his question, therefore, in the expectation of securing such a definition of the
word as would enable him to maintain his public standing and quiet his conscience.]
30 Jesus made answer and said, A certain man [evidently a Jew, for otherwise the
nationality would have been specified] was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho;
and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed,
leaving him half dead. [The road from Jerusalem to Jericho is eighteen miles long, and
descends about 3,500 feet. About two miles from Jerusalem it passes through the village
of Bethany, and for the rest of the eighteen miles it passes through desolate mountain
ravines without any habitation save the inn, the ruins of which are still seen about half
way to Jericho. This district from that time till the present has been noted for robberies,
and Jerome tells that the road was called the "bloody way."]
31 And by chance a certain priest was going down that way [a very natural thing
for a priest to do, for there was a very large priestly settlement at Jericho]: and when he
saw him, he passed by on the other side. [He did this although the law commanded
mercy and help to a neighbor-- Exodus 23:4 ; Deuteronomy 22:1-4 .]
32 And in like manner a Levite also [A temple minister. The tribe of Levi had been
set apart by God for his service], when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by
on the other side. [In the priest and Levite the lawyer saw the picture of his own life,
for he saw in them those who knew the law, but did not practice it. There may have
been many excuses for this neglect of the wounded man: danger, hate, dread of
defilement, expense, but Jesus does not consider any of them worth mentioning.]
33 But a certain Samaritan [the hereditary enemy of the Jew-- John 4:9 ], where he
was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion,
34 and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on themoil and wine [the
ordinary remedies for wounds-- Isaiah 1:6 ]; and he set him on his own beast, and
brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow he took out two shillings [the shilling or denarius was worth
about seventeen cents, but it represented the price of a day's labor], and gave them to
the host [the inn-keeper], and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest
more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee. [The compassion of the Samaritan
bore full fruitage. However heterodox he was, he was after all a worshiper of Jehovah
and more orthodox at heart than either the priest or the Levite. Though it was not
customary for an inn-keeper to furnish food either for man or beast, he could do so if he
chose out of his own stores. The scant cash left by the Samaritan indicates a poverty
which made his charity the more praiseworthy. His eye and heart and hand and foot and
purse were all subservient to the law of God.]
36 Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among
the robbers? [Instead of answering didactically, "Everybody is your neighbor," Jesus
had incarnated the law of neighborliness in the good Samaritan, and had made it so
beautiful that the lawyer could not but commend it even when found in a representative
of this apostate race. He showed, too, that the law was not for causistry but for practice.]
37 And he said, He that showed mercy on him. [The lawyer avoided the name
Samaritan so distasteful to his lips. Jesus gave countenance to no such racial prejudice,
even though the Samaritans had rejected him but a few weeks before this-- Luke
9:53 .] Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. [All the laws and
teachings of God are to be generously interpreted (Matthew 5:43 Matthew 5:44 ) and
are to be embodied in the life-- Matthew 7:24-27 .]
Discipleship: Looking to Our Neighbor, to Jesus and to God
Now Luke turns from mission and discipleship to basic attitudes the disciple is to
possess. In a series of three passages he addresses attitudes toward neighbor, spending
time with Jesus and prayer to God. The grouping is important. It suggests connections
among the various relationships. How we respond to our neighbor and how we walk
with God are connected; in fact, both Jesus and the lawyer connect the two concepts in
Luke 10:27-28. Ethics is not an abstract question of options in a particular situation; it is
a matter of character developed through a walk with God and a focus on Jesus.The
Parable of the Good Samaritan (10:25-37)
One of the most abstract, but important, questions we can wrestle with is the goal of
life. Humankind has struggled with this question throughout its history. During my first
year at university, I took a course called "The Nature of Man," which devoted an entire
semester to this question. We studied and discussed what the great minds in history had
said about the purpose of life. I was an agnostic at the time, and it was a fascinating
journey. Many people engage in such a quest whether they have religious interests or
not. Most of us sense that power and possessions are really meaningless life goals.
Surely there is something more.
In this passage a theist asks Jesus how one can inherit eternal life. This Jewish lawyer
knows that God exists and that he is accountable to that God, so his question is
particularly focused: "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"If God exists,
then the goal of life must be related to his purpose for us. The terminology of the
question is unique to New Testament time, but it has a rich background, since the Bible
speaks of inheritance in many ways (Mt 19:29; Mk 10:17; Tit 3:7; 1 Pet 3:7; L. T.
Johnson 1991:172; Bultmann 1964a:864 n. 274). In the Old Testament one could inherit
the land (Gen 28:4; Deut 1:8; 2:12; 4:1). Or one might speak of the Lord as one's
inheritance (Ps 15:5 LXX). Mention is made of an "eternal inheritance," but its nature is
not specified in the context (Ps 36:18 LXX). Daniel 12:2 speaks of the just who will rise
to eternal life.
The lawyer seems focused on this last possibility. He assumes that he must do
something to gain life everlasting. In effect he asks how he can be sure to participate in
and be blessed at the resurrection of the dead. Jewish scribes would have great interest
in such questions, not only for personal reasons but because they were interested in
interpreting the law for the community.
The lawyer's question seems to assume that he must earn such a reward, though when
Jesus probes him we see that he knows that works are not the issue. Jesus calls for
reflection on the law, asking, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" He is
asking for scriptural support.
The lawyer responds well (v. 28) by citing Deuteronomy 6:5, a text that has become
known as the "great commandment": "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind"; and, "Love your
neighbor as yourself." This text could well be called "the law of love." The reply shows
that the issue is not action per se but the heart. Do I love God fully? That is the starting
point. Everything else grows out from that relationship.
This is a relationship of trust and devotion, a truth that lies at the heart of Jesus' reply
and explains why Jesus' approval is not an endorsement of works righteousness. When
Jesus says, "Do this and you will live," he is saying that relationship to God is what
gives life. The chief end of humankind is to love God wholly. We were designed to
love; but to love well, we must love the right person. Here is the definition of life that
brings life. And the product of our love for God will be a regard for others made in his
image, those whom God has placed next to us as neighbors. The New Testament often
connects one's relationship to God to one's response to others (Mt 5:43; 19:19; Jn 13:34-
35; 15:8-12; Gal 5:14; Col 1:3-5; 1 Thess 1:1; Philem 6; Jas 2:8; 1 Pet 2:17; 1 Jn 4:11).
To respond to the law means to love God. To live by the Spirit means to love and do
righteousness (Rom 8:1-11).
The lawyer is confused, even though his answer is correct, because he still thinks that
eternal life is earned rather than received in the context of a love relationship with God.
It is also important to set this discussion in its context. Jesus has just said that to know
the Father one must know the Son (vv. 21-24). So to love the Father will also mean to
love Jesus. If Jesus brings the kingdom message, then he must be heeded as well. This is
why 1 Corinthians 2:9 describes believers in Christ as those who love God.
But the lawyer latches on to the second part of the reply about one's neighbor. Exactly
where does his responsibility fall? Does it have limits? Luke is clear that the lawyer has
not understood the thrust of Jesus' reply, for he notes that the lawyer is seeking to justify
himself by his next question. The question Who is my neighbor? is really an attempt to
limit who one's neighbor might be. In ancient culture, as today, such limits might have
run along ethnic lines. There was a category of "nonneighbor," and the lawyer is
seeking Jesus' endorsement of that concept. In contemporary terms, any of various
forms of racism may underlie the scribe's question: there are neighbors, "my folk," and
then there are the rest, "them." Perhaps the lawyer could appeal to a text like Leviticus
19:16 for support: my concern is for "my people."
Jesus' reply not only challenges the premise but brings a shocking surprise: each of us is
to be a neighbor and realize that neighbors can come from surprising places. Jesus'
words reflect Leviticus 19:33-34: even "sojourners" deserve love. In addition, the ethic
of Hosea 6:6 seems reflected here.
The original impact of the parable of the good Samaritan is generally lost today. After
centuries of good biblical public relations, our understanding of a Samaritan as a
positive figure is almost a cultural given. But in the original setting, to a Jewish scribe a
Samaritan would have been the exact opposite, a notorious "bad guy" and traitor (see
discussion on 9:51-56 above). That is an important emotive element to remember as we
proceed through this parable. The hero is a bad guy. Culturally he is the last person we
would expect to be hailed as an exemplary neighbor.
In fact, the parable turns the whole question around. The lawyer asks who his neighbor
is in the hope that some people are not. Jesus replies, "Just be a neighbor whenever you
are needed, and realize that neighbors can come from surprising places."
The story builds on a common situation, a seventeen-mile journey on the Jericho-to-
Jerusalem road. This rocky thoroughfare was lined with caves that made good hideouts
for robbers and bandits. The road was notoriously dangerous, the ancient equivalent to
the inner city late at night. Josephus notes how some took weapons to protect
themselves as they traveled this road and others like it (Jewish Wars 2.8.4 125).
In Jesus' story, a man is overcome by a band of robbers and left on the road to die. As
he lies there, his life passes before him. Then a priest comes down the road. The
expectation culturally would be relief: "Surely help is on the way now." Luke's
statement that the priest appeared "by chance" (Greek) suggests a note of hope that
fortune has smiled on the wounded man. The NIV renders this A priest happened to be
going down the same road. But the priest does not stop. Rather, he crosses to the other
side and keeps going. The detail about crossing the road is no accident. It is a brilliant
use of literary space: the priest gets as far away as possible from the wounded man as he
passes by.
A Levite, another potential source of aid, arrives on the scene. As one who served in the
temple, he will surely have compassion, stop and render aid. But when he sees the man,
he also crosses to the other side of the road and keeps on moving. So two men of similar
Jewish background have failed to render aid. They have failed to be neighbors.
Interpreters speculate as to why they refuse to help. Do they fear being jumped
themselves? Do they fear being rendered unclean? The text gives us no reason. As is
often the case, the bother and discomfort of helping have kept the man dying on the
road. Getting involved is costly, and for many the investment is too high. But to refuse
to help is moral failure.
But now another traveler comes on the scene. In Greek the text highlights this man's
arrival by placing his ethnic identity, a Samaritan, at the front of the description. The
scribe hearing Jesus tell the story must be thinking, "There will be no help from this
half-breed." But as often happens in Jesus' parables, a twist on cultural expectations
yields this story's major point: the despised schismatic will be the model of
neighborliness. Maybe "enemies" can love God and be examples.
Jesus focuses his language now. In as many words as he used to describe the activity of
the two Jewish leaders, he details all the Samaritan does to save the man--six actions in
all. He comes up to the man, binds his wounds, anoints him with oil to comfort him,
loads him on his mule, takes him to an inn and cares for him, even paying for his whole
stay. In fact, given the amount the Samaritan leaves with the innkeeper, the injured man
probably has about three and a half weeks to recover if he needs it, since the going inn
rate was one-twelfth of a denarius and two denarii was two days' wages.
Jesus' question to close the story requires no brilliant reply: "Which of these three do
you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The lawyer knows, but he cannot even bring himself to mention the man's race. The
lawyer is choosy about his neighbors. He does not understand the call of God.
Nevertheless, he answers, "The one who had mercy on him."
This reply is correct, so Jesus simply says, "Go and do likewise." Jesus' point is, Simply
be a neighbor. Do not rule out certain people as neighbors. And his parable makes the
point emphatically by providing a model from a group the lawyer had probably
excluded as possible neighbors.
To love God means to show mercy to those in need. An authentic life is found in
serving God and caring for others. This is a central tenet of discipleship. Here human
beings fulfill their created role--to love God and be a neighbor to others by meeting
their needs. Neighbors are not determined by race, creed or gender; neighbors consist of
anyone in need made in the image of God.Looking to Jesus: Mary and Martha (10:38-
42)
Luke
10:25-37
The teachings of Messiah, 9:51-19:44
1. The meaning and acceptance of the kingdom message, 9:51-10:42
v] Who inherits eternal life?
Jesus is approached by a legal expert in Biblical law who asks what a person must
do to gain eternal life. As a discussion-starter Jesus asks the theologian what he thinks
the scriptures say on the matter. The theologian gives the standard answer, "love God,
love neighbor." Jesus replies "Indeed, do this and you will live." Yet, here lies the
problem, doing God's law is no easy matter, but it does help if our neighbor belongs to a
select group of people we like. So, the theologian asks Jesus "who is my neighbor?"
Jesus doesn't actually answer the theologian's question (eg. my neighbor is even my
enemy), rather he illustrates in a teaching parable what it means to love "your neighbor
as yourself", he illustrates the nature of selfless love, of neighborliness. Selfless love
asks "not who is qualified for my help? But, what need can I meet?", Danker. By this
means Jesus exposes the impossible perfection of God's law and thus the truth that "God
can only relate to a person who, having lost self-confidence,humbles himself in
repentance", Ellis.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is the fifth episode in a group of six dealing
with the meaning and acceptance of the kingdom's message, 9:51-10:42. The long
awaited kingdom of God has dawned in the person of Jesus. God, in his kindness has
freely offered entry into the kingdom and all we need to do is ask Jesus. This offer from
God is proclaimed for all to hear, 10:1-20, and those who believe are blessed, 10:21-24.
Yet beware, kingdom membership is neither maintained nor progressed by obedience to
the law, for who can love as the Good Samaritan loved?
A superficial reading of the parable of the Good Samaritan leaves us with an ethical
imperative (be a good Sam) rather than a declaration of judgment (go and do likewise (if
you can!) ). Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan, within the context of hearing and
doing God's word, confronts the "expert in the law" with the full weight of God's law
and thus leaves him without excuse. It is only through the apostle Paul, the inspired
exegete of Jesus, that we can properly understand Jesus' teachings, here in particular,
the function of the law to expose sin and thus drive the righteous to rest on faith for
God's mercy. For Paul, covenant compliance / right-standing before God, is neither
maintained nor advanced by obedience to the law, but is a gift of grace appropriated
through faith in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Faith incorporates the believer in Christ,
in his faithfulness (the cross) and his vindication (his resurrection). Thus, a believer
stands approved before God, not by works of the law, but as a gift of divine grace
through the instrument of faith. In the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus confronts
the expert in the law with the simple fact that eternal life is not secured by law-
righteousness. Our lawyer friend is going to have to find another way - maybe the
example of Abraham will help! Without Paul's inspired interpretation of Jesus'
teachings we are left with be a good Sam.
It should be noted that the above interpretation is not widely accepted. It sits broadly
within a reformed tradition, but is influenced by the new perspective on Paul where law-
obedience is viewed as a nomistic problem, rather than a legalistic problem - of
retaining covenant standing rather than gaining covenant standing. For an excellent
exposition of this passage from a purely reformed tradition see Hendriksen, Luke,
Banner of Truth, p596. Still, not many commentators accept that the parable of the
Good Samaritan is a commentary on the law - its function to expose sin and promote
dependence on grace.
Interpretations offered for the parable are as follows: i] Allegorical interpretations
by the Fathers, eg. the Samaritan is Jesus and he is to be loved by sinners (the man
attacked by thieves) as the neighbor who saves. Such interpretations are now mostly
discounted, although ref. Gerhardsson The Good Samaritan - The Good Shepherd? who
argues that Jesus is the good shepherd who binds up Israel's wounds; ii] An
authorization of the Old Testament as a final authority in matters of faith; iii]
"Righteousness and salvation are not the exclusive privilege of the Jew", Plummer; iv]
An exposition and application (in terms of discipleship) of the law of love, Deut.6:5,
Lev.19:18. "Love of the neighbor is to know no bounds or boundaries", Evans - "go and
do likewise" = "go forth and live a life of true love to God and to your fellow-man
through the power I give you", Geldenhuys; a) The answer to the theologian's question
serves to make the point that love of God = "to accept what God in his grace has done
and to trust in him", Stein / "engagement with his (Jesus') teachings", Nolland, and love
neighbor = "love of neighbor flows out of a radical love of God", Green, which
commandments "Jesus' followers must obey .... in order to inherit eternal life",
Marshall; b) The parable supports this teaching. "The point we learn, is not who
deserves to be cared for but rather the demand to become a person who treats everyone
encountered - however frightening, alien, naked or defenseless - with compassion.....
One must take the same risks with one's life and possessions that the Samaritan did!",
Johnson, so also Creed, Gooding, Leaney, Danker, Evans, Nolland, Bock, Marshall,
Fitzmyer, Green, Tinsley; v] The law is self-defeating, particularly with regard ritual
defilement, cf. Jeremias, Parables. The issue is certainly the law, or more particularly
our inability to keep it.
So, this passage exposes the heresy of nomism, a heresy that had infested second
temple Judaism. Religious Jews of the day believed that by obedience to the law they
were able to perfect their standing before God and thus guarantee their place in the
kingdom. Yet, the faithful application of Mosaic law, for someone possessing covenant
standing, does not serve as the way to access the promised blessings of the covenant, as
the way to access the promised fullness of life under God, rather the law of the Sinai
covenant serves primarily to expose sin, inculcating a divine curse and thus forcing a
reliance on the basis of covenant standing established in the Abrahamic covenant,
namely faith. The law serves to expose human corruption and its consequence, divine
judgment, and thus forces the child of God to rest on divine mercy. The "expert in the
law" was obviously dulled to this function of the law, since he saw himself as a good
law-keeper, although he did have a minor theological concern which he felt Jesus may
be able to help him with. Yet, this religious Jew did not need a legal definition for
"neighbor", he needed to act in a neighborly way (with mercy) to inherit eternal life.
The problem was he had never loved as the Samaritan loved, nor could he. Therefore,
he stood under the condemnation of God and was in dire need of divine mercy. "Jesus
deliberately shocks the lawyer by forcing him to consider the possibility that a semi-
pagan foreigner might know more about the love of God than a devout Jew blinded by
preoccupation with pettifogging rules", Caird.

10:25
The parable of the Good Samaritan, v25-37.
idou "on one occasion" - behold. Introducing a new episode.
nomikoV (oV) "an expert in the law" - A person trained in the interpretation and
application of Biblical law.
ekpeirazwn (ekpeirazw) pres. par. "to test [Jesus]" - testing, tempting. The
participle here is usually treated as adverbial, final, expressing purpose, "in order to test
him", but possibly attendant circumstance, "stood up and tested him", in the sense of
putting a test question to Jesus. Not necessarily a question that tempts Jesus to say
something incriminating, or testing him in a negative way. Johnson argues for a
"hostile" intent, possibly "challenges", but the question seems anything but hostile,
possibly even "friendly", Marshall, so Plummer.
legwn (legw) "he asked" - saying. The participle is adverbial, modal, expressing the
manner of the testing; "he stood up and tested him, saying, ...."
poihsaV (poiew) aor. part. "[what] must I do" - [what] having done [will I inherit
eternal life]. The participle is adverbial, instrumental, expressing means; "I will inherit
eternal life by doing what?" = "what do I have to do to obtain a share in eternal life?"
Cassirer.
zwhn aiwnion "eternal life" - "Life" in the sense of "life in the land of Israel" as
part of the covenantal promise is certainly common to the Old Testament, but "life in
the age (to come)", the eschatological promised new age, did not emerge until the later
prophets, eg. Dan.12:2. It is very likely that the question concerns "life" in all its
fullness, the full appropriation of all the promised covenantal blessings both now, and
then (at the resurrection of the righteous).

v26
gegraptai (grafw) perf. pas. "is written" - has been written. This passive perfect is
commonly used of scripture, of what has been written and is still relevant. Jesus is
asking for a scriptural answer to the question and certainly not the recitation of tradition,
cf. Plummer.
en + dat. "in [the law]" - Expressing space/sphere.
twV "how" - Establishing an interrogative clause.
anaginwskeiV (anaginwskw) pres. "do you read it" - do you read. In the sense of
"understand"; "what does your reading tell you?", Rieu.

v27
Elsewhere in the synoptics Jesus states this summary of the law, here it comes from
a Jewish expert on the law and Jesus agrees with it. The two parts consist of the Shema,
Deut.6:5, and Lev.19:18a. Both parts are idealistic and therefore beyond even the most
faithful child of God. If "life" in all its fullness depends of the doing of the law then the
temptation for reductionism is always going to be present. This temptation prompts the
theologian's next question, a question which attempts to limit those who are neighbor,
cf. Danker, Bock, Marshall.
apokriqeiV (apokrinomai) aor. pas. part. "he answered" - answering [he said].
Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "he said". A
common phrase.
agaphseiV (agapaw) fut. "love" - you will love. Imperatival (volitive) future tense.
sou gen. pro. "your [God]" - The genitive sou, "you", with "heart", "soul", etc. is
obviously possessive, "your heart", etc. but with "God" it is serving as a genitive of
subordination; "the Lord God over us."
ek + gen. "with [all your heart]" - from. Expressing the source of the love,
although best translated in English as NIV.
kardiaV (a) "heart" - Referring to the seat of intellect, not emotion, although the
individual parts listed are not to be divided but rather serve to define an allegiance and
devotion of the whole person to God.
en + dat. "with [all your soul]" - in [all the soul of you]. Here with an instrumental
sense expressing means, as NIV.
wV "[love your neighbor] as [yourself]" - as. Establishing a comparison, "as you
would love yourself." "The neighbor is to be trusted with the love we have for
ourselves", Danker.

v28
autw/ dat. pro. "[Jesus replied]" - [he said] to him. Dative of indirect object.
poiei (poiew) pres. imp. "do [this]" - The present tense is durative expressing
continued action. The imperative takes the force of a condition; "if you do this", TH.
zhsh/ (zaw) fut. "you will live" - The "live" obviously as v25, "eternal life", but still
"life in all it's fullness" = the promised new life of covenant membership.

v29
de "but" - but, and. Here adversative.
oJ ... qelwn (qelw) pres. part. "he wanted" - the one wishing, wanting. The
participle may function as a substantive, "the one/man who wanted / wished", but more
likely adverbial, causal, "but he, because he wanted to justify himself, said."
dikaiwsai (dikaiow) aor. inf. "to justify [himself]" - The infinitive is
complementary, completing the verbal sense of the participle "wanting". This word
provides the motive behind the theologian's question, but even so, the motive remains
unclear. The sense here may be quite general, "to vindicate": "to show how expert he
was", Barclay. Yet, it is unlikely that such a highly charged theological word would be
used so lightly, so better "wishing to put himself in the right", Cassirer. He wants, for
himself (rather than "before men", 16:15), to establish/confirm a recognition of
covenant inclusion / covenant acceptance, and this by making sure he had clearly
defined those to whom he has an obligation of love.
kai "and [who is my neighbor?]" - Here serving to introduce a subsequent question
in the discussion and so best left untranslated. As noted above, this question, "who
qualifies for my help?", is the wrong question and so Jesus does not bother answering it.
What Jesus does do is illustrate what it means to love "your neighbor as yourself", what
it means to be neighborly. Given that the theologian wants to stand right before God and
so possess the fullness of covenant life, then it is essential that he understand the nature
of neighborliness.

v30
uJpolabwn (uJpolambanw) aor. part. "in reply" - having replied. Attendant
circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "said". "Continuing
the discussion Jesus said."
katebainen (katabainw) imperf. "was going down" - The imperfect is durative,
expressing the action of traveling. The "going down" expresses movement from a high
place to a low place, the low place being Jericho. In Australia going down to
somewhere represents a movement from North to South.
apo + gen. "from [Jerusalem]" - Expressing separation.
periepesen (peripiptw) aor. "fell" - he encountered, fell among, was surrounded.
"Fell into the hands of brigands", Rieu .
lhstaiV (hV ou) dat. "[fell into the hands of / when he was attacked by] robbers"
- [fell among] thieves, robbers, highwaymen, brigands. The dative is possibly
instrumental, as TNIV, but more correctly a dative of direct object after the
verbperipiptw.
oi} kai "-" - This construction "is without apparent significance", Zerwick, so NIV,
although BAGD argues that it reinforces the independence of a relative clause, lit. "who
also having stripped him", "who, as you would expect, .....", Creed, "who went so far as
to ...", Nolland, "who, in addition to other violence, ...", Plummer.
ekdousanteV (ekduw) aor. part. "they stripped [him]" - having stripped. As with
"having inflicted [blows]", the participle is adverbial, possibly temporal; "after they
stripped ... and beat him they went away."
afenteV (afihmi) aor. part. "leaving [him half dead]" - having left [half dead]. The
participle is adverbial, modal, expressing the manner of their leaving; "left him half
conscious lying in a pool of his own blood", Junkins.

v31
kata sugkurian "happened" - according to chance. An idomatic expression meaning
"by coincidence", TH; "it so happened", Phillips.
katebainen (katabainw) imperf. "to be going down" - was coming down. The
imperfect is durative expressing the action of travelling. "The road drops 3,300 feet in
17 miles", Evans.
en th/ oJdw/ "the [same] road" - on/in/ [that] way. An idomatic expression meaning
"on the road." "The road was notorious for its hazards", Danker.
idwn (oJraw) aor. part. "when he saw [the man]" - having seen [him]. The
participle is adverbial, temporal, as NIV.
antiparhlqen (antiparercomai) aor. "he passed by on the other side" - The aorist
expresses punctiliar action. It is only a story, but the reason for this action is usually
taken as fear of the robbers, or fear of defilement from a corpse.

v32
oJmoiwV de kai "so too" - and likewise also. "And in the very same way", TH.
genomenoV (ginomai) aor. part. "-" - having happened. Variant, cf. Metzger, 152.
The participle would be adjectival, attributive, limiting "a Levite", "who happened [on
the scene/place, and having gone and taken a look]", cf. Zerwick. If the longer reading
is accepted, the actions of the Levite are more heartless than the priest because "he came
up to him, quite close, and passed on", Plummer.
kata + acc. "to [the place]" - to, up to [the place]. This preposition takes a spacial
sense here of direction toward; "up to."
elqwn (ercomai) aor. part. "when he came [to the place and saw him] / when he
saw [the man]" - having come [and having seen]. The participle, as with idwn, "having
seen", is adverbial, temporal, as NIV. Note the improved rendering by the TNIV.

v33
oJdeuwn (oJdeuw) pres. part. "as he traveled" - traveling. The participle is possibly
adverbial, temporal, as NIV, but better adjectival, attributive, limiting "a Samaritan",
"who was travelling"; "a Samaritan traveller", Moffatt.
kat (kata) + acc. "[came] where [the man was]" - [came] up to / upon [him]. Again
this preposition takes a spacial sense here.
idwn (eidon) aor. part. "when he saw him" - having seen. The participle is
adverbial, probably temporal, as NIV.
esplagcnisqh (esplagcnizomai) aor. pas. "he took pity on him" - he was filled with
compassion, deeply moved with pity. The aorist is punctiliar; "he was instantly moved
with compassion."

v34
kai "-" - Coordinative.
proselqwn (prosercomai) aor. part. "he went to him" - having approached.
Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "he bound
up [his wounds]", as NIV.
epicewn (epicew) pres. part. "pouring on [oil and wine]" - pouring on. The
participle is adverbial, modal, expressing the manner of attending to his wounds;
"bound up, pouring on as he bound, oil and wine", Plummer. Oil was used on wounds as
a liniment, while wine (alcohol) was used as an antiseptic.
epibibasaV (epibibazw) aor. part. "then he put [the man on his own donkey]" -
having put on. The participle is adverbial, probably temporal, as NIV. "He then put him
on his own pack animal", Cassirer.
pandoceion (on) "an inn" - a public inn. A hapax legomenon, once only use in the
NT.
epemelhqh (epimeleomai) aor. pas. "took care of" - cared for. The picture presented
in the parable is of the Samaritan taking the man to the inn, staying the night with him
to care for him (rather than just dumping him there) and paying for ongoing care the
next day. "As a neighbor, the Samaritan did everything he could", Bock.
autou gen. pro. "him" - Genitive of direct object after the verb "cared for."

v35
epi thn aurion "the next day" - upon the next. Here the preposition with the
accusative of time forms "an unusual phrase", Evans, cf. Plummer, "towards the
morrow."
ekbalwn (ekballw) aor. part. "he took out" - having taken out. Attendant
circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the main verb "he gave"; "he
took out .... and gave ...."
tw/ pandocei (uV ewV) "to the innkeeper" - Dative of indirect object.
autou gen. pro. "[look after] him" - Genitive of direct object after the
verb epimelhqhti, "take care of."
en tw/ + inf. "when [I return]" - This construction, the preposition en with the
dative articular infinitive, forms a temporal clause; "I shall pay you back when I am on
my journey home", Cassirer.
soi dat. pro. "[I will reimburse] you" - [I will repay] you. Dative of indirect object.
o{ ti an + subj. "any extra expense [you may have]" - whatsoever [you spend
further]. This construction forms an indefinite relative conditional clause 3rd. class,
where the condition has the possibility of coming true; "whatever, as the case may be,
you spend in addition, then I will repay you."
egw "I" - Emphatic by position and use.

v36
Jesus now applies his illustration of neighborliness, of what it means to love our
neighbor as ourselves, v36-37. The syntax of this verse is somewhat tricky. Culy
identifies the main verb as dokei, "seems", taking as its subject the interrogative
pronoun tiV, "who?"; lit. "who seems to you of the three to have become neighborly to
the one having fallen into the robbers." The infinitivegegonenai, "to have become",
introduces an object clause / dependent statement of perception expressing what
"seems", namely, "to have become neighborly = that which is neighborly." Some
translations have assumed a ellipsis, eg. ESV; "which of these three, do you
think, proved to be a neighbor ....." "Which of these three proved [himself] to have
become [by what he had done (Meyer)], neighborly" = "proved himself to be neighbor",
Cassirer; "proved himself neighbor", NJB, Knox; "proved a neighbor", Moffatt; or
simply "was really neighbor", Berkeley.
tiV "which" - who. This interrogative pronoun serves to introduce a question.
toutwn twn triwn gen. "of these three" - The genitive is adjectival, partitive.
dokei (dokew) pres. "[do you] think" - seems [to you]. Here taking a dative
pronoun soi, dative of direct object. "Which of these three, in your opinion", Moffatt.
gegonenai (ginomai) perf. inf. "was" - to have become. For the infinitive, see above.
The tense is interesting suggesting that the Samaritan became, and continued to be,
neighborly in his compassionate actions.
plhsion adv. + gen. "a neighbor" - neighborly. The adverb, rather than the noun is
intended, as the adverb takes a genitive, here the participle tou empesontoV, "the one
having fallen in." The twist in Jesus' illustration comes out at his point. The theologian
asked "who is my neighbor?". Jesus ignores the question and asks the more important
question, "who was neighborly?" This, of course, is the nub of the issue. The full
blessings of covenant life rest on doing neighborly love, of showing mercy as the
Samaritan showed mercy.
tou empesontoV gen. aor. part. "to the man who fell [into the hands of robbers]" -
of the one having fallen [into the thieves]. The participle functions as a substantive,
genitive after the adverb plhsion.

v37
oJ poihsaV (poiew) aor. part. "the one who had" - the one having done. The
participle functions as a substantive. Plummer notes that the theologian cannot bring
himself to use the designation "Samaritan". At any rate, the use of the descriptive
"mercy" is far more powerful in that it encapsulates neighborly love. The expression is
Semitic and reflects scripture, eg. Mic.6:8. As God is gracious and merciful to his
people, so his people should be gracious and merciful.
to eleoV met + gen. "mercy on [him]" - This Semitic idiomatic prepositional phrase
takes the sense "to show mercy to."
su " [go and do likewise]" - [go and] you [do likewise]. The pronoun is emphatic by
position and use; "you yourself do likewise." The imperative verb, poiei, "do" takes the
present tense, durative, so the command is "you yourself adopt the Samaritan's way of
behaving/doing and keep on doing it." Here we have the punch line of the episode, not
so much as a command to do, but more a reality check, for who can claim that they have
any chance whatsoever of doing "likewise"? Many a sermon has placed this obligation
on the congregation, leaving them to wrestle with failure and guilt. Those who have
decided not to give up because it's all too hard, usually develop a sophisticated guilt-
transferance system identified by Jesus as speck removal - the exposure of another's sins
to effectively cover our own. So, what we have in this episode is the use of of a moral
ideal to expose the state of human sin and so prompt the search for divine mercy. In
Jesus, that search comes to fruition.

THE GOOD SAMARITAN.

LUKE x. 30-37.

WE need not ascribe to the lawyer who stood up and pro
posed to our Lord the question out of which this parable grew,
any malicious intention ; least of all that deep malignity
which moved some other questioners, who were in fact laying
snares for his life (John viii. 6 ; Matt. xxii. 16). The question
itself, What shall I do to inherit eternal life ? was not an
ensnaring one : of another who put the same we are assured
that Jesus loved him (Mark x. 21) ; it was not, like that of the
tribute-money (Matt. xxii. 17), one which it might be hoped
would compromise the answerer, whatever reply He made.
Neither was the spirit which dictated the question captious
or mocking. This much we confidently gather from the
earnestness of the Lord s reply ; who was not wont to answer
mere cavillers or despisers so. It is true that this scribe oi 1
lawyer (Matt. xxii. 85, compared with Mark xii. 28, shows the
identity of the two) put his question to Christ, tempting Him.
But exactly the same is affirmed of another lawyer (Matt. xxii.
35) ; who could have tempted with no ill intention, seeing
that Christ bears testimony to him, Thou art not far from
the kingdom of God (Mark xii. 34). For indeed to tempt
means properly no more than to make trial of ; and whether
the tempting be honourable or the contrary, is determined by
the motive out of which it springs. Thus God tempts man,
putting him to wholesome proof, revealing to him secrets of
blS OWP heart, tQ which else even he himself might have

312 THE GOOD SAMARITAN

remained a stranger to the end (Jam. i. 12) ; He tempts
man, to bring out bis good and to strengthen it (Gen. xxii. 1 ;
Heb. xi. 17) ; to show him his evil, that he, made aware of
this, may strive against and overcome it, to humble him, and
to do him good in his latter end (Deut. viii. 3, 16). Only he
who bears the Tempter s name (Matt. iv. 3), a name which he
has earned too well (Gen. iii. 1-5), tempts with the single
purpose of irritating, calling out, and strengthening man s
evil. 1 If the intention of this lawyer is not that high and
holy one, as little is it this malignant and devilish. Kather
we may suppose that the fame of this young Galilean teacher
has reached his ears ; and he will now take his measure ;
and counts that he cannot do this more effectually than by
proposing to Him the question of questions, What shall I do
to inherit eternal life ?

Our Lord answers question with question : Wliat is
lorittcn in the law ? how readest tlwu ? as much as to say,
4 What need of inquiring further ? Is not the answer to thy
question contained in that very law of which thou profcssest
thyself a searcher and expounder ? The lawyer shows himself
not altogether unworthy of the name he bears ; for in answer
to this appeal he quotes rightly Deut. vi. 5, in connexion with
Lev. xix. 18, as containing the quintessence of the law. That
he should thus lay his finger at once on the great command
ment, by the Lord Himself accepted as such (Matt. xxii. 36 ;
Mark xii. 30), showed no little spiritual discernment. His
words are right words, however he may be ignorant of their

iv. Augustine defines often the manner in
which it is lawful to affirm that God tempts ; thus (Enarr. in Ps. Iv. 1) :
Every temptation is a trial, and the issue of every trial has its fruit.
For whereas a man is generally but little known even to himself, he
knows not what he can bear and what he cannot, and sometimes pre
sumes that he can bear what he cannot and sometimes despairs of
being able to bear what he can. Temptation comes as a kind of question,
and the man is discovered of himself, for to himself he was a secret, but
he was not a secret to his maker. Cf. Tertullian, De Oral. 8. On the
difference between irdpdfciv and SoKi/j.dfcu see my Synonyms of the
Testament, 74.

THE GOOD SAMARITAN 313

full import, of all which they involve ; and the Lord declares
as much : Thou hast ansioered right : this do, and thou shalt
live. Let this which he knows express itself in his life, and
all will he well. His conscience is touched at last ; he feels
himself put on his defence, and it is, as the Evangelist declares,
out of a desire to clear himself that his next question proceeds :
But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who
is my neighbour ? He may not have been large and free in
the exercise of love towards his fellow-men ; but then how few
had claims upon him, and how difficult it was to determine
which were these. 1V7io is my neighbour ? The very
question, like Peter s How oft shall my brother sin against
me, and I forgive him (Matt, xviii. 21) ? was not merely one
capable of receiving a wrong answer, but did itself involve a
wrong condition of mind, from whence alone it could have
sprung. He who inquired, Wlio is my neighbour? who
wished the entire extent of his obligation to others to be declared
to him beforehand, showed in this how little he understood of
that love, whose essence is that it owns no limit except its
own inability to proceed further, receives a law from itself
alone, being a debt which they who are ever paying, are best
contented still to owe (Rom. xiii. 8).

What he needed who could propose such a question as this,
was, that his eye should be taken off from those, the more or
fewer, towards whom, as he conceived, love should be shown,
and turned inward upon him who should show the love ; and
this which he needed the Lord in his infinite wisdom and
grace provided for him in the parable which follows. Without

1 It is instructive to see the question of the narrow-hearted lawyer,
Who is my neighbour ? reappearing in one with whom we might think
that he had little in common. I make this extract from Emerson s
Essays (Ess. 2) : Do not tell me, as a good man did to-day, of my
obligation to put all poor men into good situations. Are they my poor ?
I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the
dime, the cent, I give to such men as do n6t belong to me, and to whom 1
do not belong. There is a class of persons to whom by all spiritual affinity
I am bought and sold : for them I will go to prison, if need be ; but your
miscellaneous popular charities, &c,


further preface He begins : A certain man went down from
Jerusalem to Jericho. We are not expressly told that this
certain man was a Jew ; but doubtless we were intended to
regard the traveller between Jerusalem and Jericho as such ;
though here and there an expositor denies this, and will see
in him a heathen, much to the weakening of the lesson which
the parable is meant to convey. He went or was going
down, not merely because Jerusalem stood considerably higher
than Jericho, the latter lying nearly six hundred feet below
the level of the Mediterranean sea, so that the language has
its fitness in this respect, but because the going to Jerusa
lem, as to the metropolis, was always regarded as a going up
(Acts xviii. 22). The distance between the two cities was
about a hundred and fifty stadia, the road lying through a
desolate and rocky region, the wilderness that goeth up from
Jericho (Deut. xxxiv. 3 ; Josh. xvi. 1). The plain of Jericho,
an oasis in the wilderness, was of rare fertility and beauty,
the Tempe of Judaea, well watered, and abounding in palms
( the city of palm-trees, Deut. xxxiv. 3 ; Judg. i. 16 ; 2 Chron.
xxviii. 15), in roses, in balsam, in honey, and in all the choicest
productions of Palestine. 1 The squalid village of Kiha marks
now the spot where once this glorious city stood. 2 On his
way he fell among thieves, or rather among robbers ; but
at the time when the Authorized Translation was made, there
was no strongly-marked distinction between the words ; 3
violent and bloody men, who stripped him of his raiment,
and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 1

1 Josephus, B. J. iv. 8. 3. Cotovicus, Itiner., quoted by Winer
(Realw&rterbuch, s. v. Jericho) : The extensive plain in which it lies ia
surrounded by mountains in the form of an amphitheatre, is very
pleasant and fertile, and though at present uncultivated, abounds with
flowers and sweet-smelling herbs. Compare Strabo, xvi. 2, ad ftnem ;
Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 299 ; and Keim, Jesu von Nazara, vol.
iii. p. 17.

2 Bitter, Comparative Geography of Palestine, vol. iii. pp. 18-3G,
brings together all of most important which modern travellers
written concerning Jericho.

1 See ray Synonyms of the New Testament, 44i


The mention of stripping first and wounding afterwards may
seem to reverse the natural order in the succession of events ;
but is indeed exactly what would happen. The murderous ban
ditti will not injure the raiment which shall be a part, probably
an important part, of the spoil by gashes, or stain it with the
blood of their victim. 1 The incident is drawn from the life.
Josephus more than once mentions the extent to which
Palestine in those later days was infested with banditti ; 2
and from St. Jerome we learn that the road leading from one
of these cities to the other was at one place called the Eed or
the Bloody Way, 3 from the blood which had been there shed ;
that in his own time there was in this wilderness a fort with
a Eoman garrison, for the protection of travellers. No r has
the danger now ceased ; Arabs of the wilderness, 4 having
their lurking places in the deep caves of the rocks, now as of
old infest the road, making it unsafe even for the vast host of
pilgrims to descend to the Jordan without the protection of a
Turkish guard. 5

As the poor traveller lay bleeding in the road, by chance
there came down a certain priest that way ; by coincidence,
we might say, by that wonderful falling-in of one event with
another, which often seems chance to us, being indeed the
mysterious weaving-in, by a higher hand, of the threads of
different men s lives into one common woof. That hand
brings the negative pole of one man s need into relation with

1 There is a noticeable story in Lamartine s Travels in the Holy Land
of one who being enticed to a solitary place, and there bidden to strip to
the end that, this done, his life might be taken, turned the tables on his
intending murderer.

* Anlt. xx. 6. 1 ; B. J. xi. 12. 6.

1 Onomast. s. v. Adommim. But it bore this name already in
Joshua s time, Josh. xv. 7 : xviii. 17. There is an impressive description
of this dreary route in Lamartine, Travels in tlie Holy Land; and in
Keim, Jesu von Nazara, vol. iii. p. 59.

4 Jerome (In Jcrem. iii. 2) : The Arabs. ... a race much given to
robberies, which to this day infests the borders of Palestine, and besets
the path of those descending from Jerusalem to Jericho.

4 Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 416 ; compare Josephus, , /, JY
8,3,


the positive of another man s power to help, one man s
emptiness into relation with another s fulness. Many of our
summonses to acts of love are of this kind, and they are those,
perhaps, which we are most in danger of missing, through a
failing to see in them this ordering of God. At all events he
who came, down that way missed his opportunity a priest,
perhaps one of those residing at Jericho, which was a great
station of the priests and other functionaries of the temple,
and now on his way to Jerusalem, there to execute his office
in the order of his course (Luke i. 8) ; or who, having
accomplished his turn of service, was now journeying home.
But whether thus or not, he was one who had never learnt
what that meant, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice ;
who, whatever duties he might have heen careful in fulfilling,
had omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment,
mercy, and faith ; for when he saio him, he passed by on
the other side. And likeivisc a Lavite, but with aggravation
in his cruelty ; for he, when he ivas at the place, came and
looked on him, and having seen the miserable condition of
the wounded man, claiming as it did instant help for the
life that remained was fast ebbing through his open gashes
he too passed by on the other side. Tacitus, while he paints
in darkest colours the unsocial character of the Jews, must
yet admit this much to their honour, that, however unfriendly
to all others, they were prompt to show pity among themselves j 1
but even this redeeming grace is wanting here ; they on
whose part it is wanting being the express guardians and in
terpreters of a law so careful in urging the duties of humanity,
that it twice said, Thou shalt not see thy brother s ass
or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them :
thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again (Deut. xxii.
4 ; Exod. xxiii. 5). Here not a brother s ox or his ass, but a
brother himself, was lying in his blood, and they hid themselves
from him (Isai. Iviii. 7).

No doubt they did, in some way or other, justify their
neglect to their own consciences ; made excuses to themselves :

1 Zfist, v. 5 ; Among themselves their compassion is ever ready, 1


fts that where one outrage bad happened, there was danger of
another, that the robbers could not be far distant, and might
return at any moment, or that the sufferer was beyond all
human help, or that one found near him might himself be
accused as his murderer. The priest, we may imagine, said
lie could not tarry ; the service of the temple must not wait,
must not be left incomplete during his absence. Why too
should he undertake a perilous office ? Was not the Levite
close behind, to whom such ministries cf help would more
naturally appertain, and by whom his lack of service, service
which the circumstances of the case rendered it impossible
that he should render, would inevitably be supplied ? And then
the Levite in his turn may have thought with himself, that there
could be no obligation on him to thrust himself on a danger
from which the priest had just shrunk ; duty it could not be,
else that other would never have omitted it. Such action on
his part would be a kind of affront to his superior, an implicit
charging of him with inhumanity and hardness of heart. And
so, falling back on these or similar pleas, they left their fellow-
countryman to perish.

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where
he was. This man was exposed to exactly the same perils as
those who went before him ; moreover it was no fellow-
countryman who demanded his help ; one rather of an alien
and hostile race ; but he neither took counsel of selfish fears,
nor steeled his heart against all pity with the thought that
the wounded and bleeding man was a Jew, whom he as a
Samaritan was bound to detest ; but when he saw him, Jte
had compassion on him. This, as the best thing which he
gave or had to give, is mentioned first ; the rest will follow. 1
While the priest and Levite, boasting themselves the ministers
of the God of all pity and compassion, neglected the
commonest duties of humanity, it was left to the excommuni-

1 Gregory the Great says beautifully on this (Moral, xx. 36) : For in
supplying him with things more external, he bestowed something that
was outside himself. But since he granted his neighbour his tears aud
bis compassion, he gave him also something from within himself.

3i8 THE GOOD SAMARITAN

cated Samaritan, whose very name was a bye -word of scorn
among the Jews, and synonymous with heretic (John viii. 48),
to show what love was ; and this toward one of an alien
stock ; l one of a people who would have no dealings with his

1 Our Lord calls the Samaritan a stranger (a^oyeviis, Luke xvii.
18), one of a different stock; a\\of9ve is Josephua tells us they were wont
to style themselves, when in the evil times of the Jews they wished to
disclaim all relationship, and such he evidently accounts them (Antt.
ix. 14. 3 ; xi. 8. 6). The notion of the Samaritans as a mingled people,
composed of two elements, one heathen and one Jewish, has of late found
its way not merely into popular but into learned books ; so that they are
often spoken of as, in a great measure, the later representatives of the ten
tribes. The mistake is quite recent. In Christian antiquity they were
always regarded as a people of unmingled heathen blood (see testimonies
in Suicer, Thes. s. v. SctjuapeiTTjs, to which may be added Theophylact on
Luke xvii. 15, Aarvvptoi yap oi Sa^apeTrai) ; so too by the expositors of
two hundred years ago. Hammond describes the Samaritan in our par
able as being of an Assyrian extraction ; and Maldonatus : Samaritani
origine Chaldasi erant ; seeBeland, De Samaritanis. For the opinion of
Makrizi, the very accurate and learned Arabian geographer, see S. de
Sacy, Chrcst. Arabs, vol. ii. p. 177 ; and Eobinson says (Biblical Re
searches), The physiognomy of those we saw was not Jewish. At
2 Kin. xvii., where the deportation of Israel is related, there is not a
word suggesting that any were left, or that there afterwards was any
blending of the Cuthites and other Assyrian colonists brought in, with a
remnant of the Israelites whom they found in the land. It is true that
when Judah was carried away captive, many of the poorer sort were
allowed to remain (2 Kin. xxv. 12) ; and Winer (Realivorterbuch, s. v.
Samaritaner) thinks it very unlikely that some out of the ten tribes were
not left behind in like manner. But at 2 Kin. xxi. 13 the Lord threat
ening Judah says, I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria and
the plummet of the house of Aliab ; and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man
wipeth a dish, and turneth it upside down. This, only a threatagainst
Judah, in part averted by repentance, had actually been executed against
Samaria (2 Kin. xvii. 6, 23, 24; Jer. vii. 15; Josephus, Antt. ix. 14. .1).
With Oriental conquerors it was no uncommon thing thus thoroughly to
clear a conquered territory of all its inhabitants ; tray^veveiv the actual
process was called (Herodotus, iii. 149 ; vi. 31). If the Samaritans had
owned any Jewish blood, they would certainly have urged this, as
mightily strengthening their claim to be allowed to take part with the
returned Jewish exiles, in the rebuilding of the temple ; but their words
practically exclude this : We seek your God as ye do, and we do sacri
fice unto Him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which brought
us up hither (Ezra iv. 2). When our Lord, at the first sending out of


people, who anathematized them ; even as, no doubt, all the
influences which had surrounded him from his youth would
have led him, as far as he yielded to them, to repay insult
with insult, and hate with hate. For if the Jew called the
Samaritan a Cuthite, a proselyte of the lions (2 Kin. xvii.
24, 25, 30), an idolater worshipping the image of a dove,
if he cursed him publicly in his synagogue, prayed that he
might have no portion in the resurrection of life, and by
refusing under any conditions to admit him as a proselyte,
did his best to secure the fulfilment of this prayer, proclaimed
that his testimony was naught and might not be received,
that he who entertained a Samaritan in his house was laying
up judgment for his children, that to eat a morsel of his food
was as the eating of swine s flesh, and would rather suffer
any need than be beholden to him for the smallest office of
charity, if he set it as an object of desire that he might
never so much as see a Cuthite ; the Samaritan was not behind
hand in cursing, and as little in active demonstrations of
enmity and ill-will. We have proofs of this in the Gospels
(John iv. 9 ; Luke ix. 53), and from other sources more
examples of their spite may be gathered. For example, the
Jews of Palestine being in the habit of communicating the
exact time of the Easter moon to those of the Babylonian
Captivity, by fires kindled first on the Mount of Olives, and
then taken up from mountain top to mountain top, a line of
fiery telegraphs which reached at length along the mountain
ridge of Auranitis to the banks of the Euphrates, the
Samaritans would give the signal on the night preceding the
right one, so to perplex and mislead. 1 And Josephus mentions

his Apostles, said, Into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not
(Matt. x. 5), He was not, as some tell us, yielding to popular prejudice, but
gave the prohibition because, till the Gospel had been first offered to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Samaritans had no more claim to
it than any other heathen. See a valuable article, Samaria, in the
Dictionary of the Bible.

This, according to Makrizi (S. de Sacy, Chrest. Arabe, vol. ii. p. 159),
first put the Jews on calculating for themselves the moment of the new
moon. Cf. Schoettgen, Hor. Ileb. vol. i. p. 344.

320 TH GOOD SAMARITAN

that they sometimes proceeded much further than merely to
refuse hospitality to the Jews who were going up to the feasts
of Jerusalem ; they fell upon and murdered many of them ;
and once, most horrible profanation of all (see 2 Kin. xxiii.
13, 14 ; Matt, xxiii. 27 ; Luke xi. 44 ; Num. xix. 16 ; Ezelc.
xxxix. 15), a Samaritan entering Jerusalem secretly, polluted
the whole temple by scattering in it human bones. a

But the heart of this Samaritan was not hardened ; though
so many influences must have been at work to steel it against
the distresses of a Jew ; though he must have known that
any Jew who was faithful to the precepts of the Jewish schools
would not merely have left, but have made it a point of
conscience to leave, him in his blood, would have counted
that he was doing a righteous act therein. All the details of
his tender care toward the poor stranger, of whom he knew
nothing, save that he belonged to a nation the most bitterly
hostile to his own, are given with a touching minuteness.
He bound up his wounds, no doubt with strips torn from his
own garments, pouring in oil and ivine, wine to cleanse
them, and oil to assuage their smart and to bring gently their
sides together (Isa. i. G), these two being costly and highly
esteemed remedies in all the East. 3 No little time must have
been thus consumed, and this when there was every motive
for haste. Having thus ministered to the wounded man s
most urgent needs, and revived in him the dying spark of
life, he set him on his own beast (cf. 2 Chron. xxviii. 15),
himself pacing on foot ; and brought him to an inn, 4 we
may suppose that at Bachurim. Neither did he then commit
him to the care of strangers, so long as he could himself tend
him ; but there, as counting nothing done, while anything
remained for him to do, took care of him, 1 tended him as

1 Antt. xx. G..1.

2 Antt. xviii. 2.2; B. J. ii. 12. 3. Pliny, H. N. xxxi. 47.

4 riaf5oxioj> (cf. {nroSoxtwv, Strabo), not altogether identical with
Kard\v/j.a (Luke ii. 7) ; though both are translated by the same word.
This has a host, is something of an inn in our sense of the word ; that
more the Eastern caravanserai, where every one shifts for himself. See
the Diet, of the Bible, B. v. Inn.

321

hia slate required. Nor even so did he account that he had
paid the whole debt of love, but with considerate foresight
provided for the further wants of the sufferer : And on the
morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and nave
them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him ; and
whatsoever thou spendcst more, } ivlicn I come again, J 2 will
repay thee. The sum sounds small, though larger than it
sounds ; but we may assume that he was journeying on some
needful business to Jerusalem, and that a day or two would
bring him back.

Beautiful as is this parable when thus taken simply in the
letter, inviting us to put on bowels of mercies, to shrink
from no offices of love, even though they should be painful
and perilous ; yet how much fairer still, how much more
mightily provoking to love and good works, when, with most
of the Fathers, and with many of the Reformers, we trace in
it a deeper meaning still, and see the work of Christ, of the
merciful Son of man Himself, portrayed to us here. None
can refuse to acknowledge the facility with which all the
circumstances of the parable yield themselves to this interpre
tation. It has been indeed objected, that it leaves the parable
beside the mark, and nothing to the matter immediately in
hand. But this is not so. For what is that matter? To
magnify the law of love, to show who fulfils it, and who not.
But if Christ Himself, He who accounted Himself every man s
brother, fulfilled it the best, showed how we ought to love and
whom ; and if his example, or rather faith in his love towarda
us, is alone effectual in kindling our love to one another, He
might well propose Himself and his act in succouring the
perishing humanity, as the everlasting pattern of self-for
getting love, and place it in strongest contrast with Uie

1 The Vulgate renders 3 n ttv vpo<T$a.ira.rf)<rp*, quodcunque supereroga-
veris. The technical theological term, works of supererogation, finds
its suggestion here.

* Let us not miss the ly&> &iro5<io-. Trouble not the poor man
upon that score ; I will take those charges on myself ; or it might be,
, Fear not thou to be a loser : I will be thy paymaster.

T


carelessness and selfish neglect of the present leaders of the
theocracy. 1 Such a meaning as this, lurking behind, though
one day to pierce through, the literal, and to add to the
parable a yet more endearing charm, would be of course
latent at the first uttering. He to whom it was then spoken,
took all in the obvious meaning; nor is the parable less
effectual in commending man s love to his fellow, because it
further shadows forth the Son of man s crowning act of love
to the whole race of mankind. 2

Regarding it in this mystical sense, the traveller will be
the personified human Nature, or Adam as the representative
and head of our race. He has forsaken Jerusalem, the
heavenly City, the city of the vision of peace, and is going
down to Jericho, the profane city, the city under a curse
(Josh. vi. 26 ; 1 Kin. xvi. 34). But no sooner has he thus
left the holy City and the presence of his God, and turned
his desires toward the world, than he falls into the hands oi
him who is at once a robber and a murderer (John viii. 44),
and is by him and his evil angels stripped of the robe of his
original righteousness, grievously wounded, left covered with
almost mortal strokes, every sinful passion and desire a gash
from which the life-blood of his soul is streaming. 3 But for
all this he is not absolutely dead ; 4 for as the utmost cares of

1 A medieval expositor of this Gospel says of it excellently well:
Herein is shown that nearness of race or of blood is nothing in com
parison to that nearness which is of love and compassion. And because
these abound in Christ more than in any other, more than any other He
is our neighbour and is more to be loved.

2 Compare Tholuck, Die wahre Wcihe des Zweiflers, p. 63.

8 H. de Sto. Victore (Annott. in Luc.) : The man here typifies the
human race, which in the persons of our first parents forsook the
celestial state, and by their sin fell into the misery of this world of
exile, being by the cozenage of the old enemy despoiled of the robe of
innocence and immortality, and sorely wounded by the taints of original
sin. See Ambrose, Exp. in Lite. vii. 73 ; Augustine, Enarr. in Ps.
cxxv. 6 ; and the sermon (Horn. 34 in Luc.) which Jerome has trans
lated out of Origen. For the later Gnostic perversions of the parable in
ihis direction, see Neander, Kirchengcschichte,vol. v. p. 1121.

4 H. de Sto. Victore: For although a man maybe infected with such
great wickedness that he love nought that is good, he yet cannot, be


the Samaritan would have been spent in vain upon the poor
traveller, had the spark of life been wholly extinct, so a
restoration for man would have been impossible, had there
been nothing to restore, no spark of divine life, which by a
heavenly breath might be fanned into flame ; no truth in
him, which might be extricated from the unrighteousness in
which it was detained. When the angels fell, by a free self-
determining act of their own will, with no solicitation from
without, their loss was not in part, but altogether. With man
it is otherwise. He is half-dead ; he has still a conscience
witnessing for God ; evil has not become his good, however
weak he may prove to resist it ; he has the sense of some
thing lost, and at times a longing for its recovery. His case
would be despei ate, were there none to restore him but
himself ; it is not desperate in the hands of an almighty and
all-merciful Physician.

He, and He only, can restore to man what he has lost,
can bind up the bleeding hurts of his soul, can say to him in
his blood, Live (Ezek. xvi. 6). The Law could not do it.
If there had been a law given which could have given life,
verily righteousness should have been by the law (Gal. iii.
21). That was but like Elisha s staff, which might be laid
on the face of the dead child, but life did not return to it the
more (2 Kin. iv. 31) ; Elisha himself must come ere the child
revive. 2 Or as Theophylact here expresses it : The law
came and stood over him where he lay, but then, overcome
by the greatness of his wounds, and unable to heal them,

blinded by so great ignorance as to know nought that is good . . . The
sword of the enemy has not wholly destroyed a man, so long as it hag
not been able altogether to do away in him the worth of natural good.
Augustine (Qiuest. kvang. ii. 19) : On the side on which lie can under
stand and know God a man is alive, on the side on which he is wasted
and overwhelmed with sins he is dead.

1 The selection of Gal. iii. 10-23 for the Epistle on the 13th Sunday
after Trinity, this parable supplying the Gospel, shows the interpretation
which the Church puts upon the parable. The Gospel and Epistle attest
the same truth, that the law cannot quicken ; that righteousness is not
by it, but by faith in Christ Jesus.

Augustine, Enair. in Ps. Ixx. 15.

T2


departed. Nor could the sacrifices do better ; they could not
make the comers thereunto perfect, nor take away sins,
nor purge the conscience. Priest and Levite were alike
powerless to help : so that, in the eloquent words of a scholar
of St. Bernard s, 1 Many passed us by, and there was none
to save. That great patriarch Abraham passed us by, for he
justified not others, but was himself justified in the faith of
One to come. Moses passed us by, for he was not the giver
of grace, but of the law, and of that law which leads none
to perfection ; for righteousness is not by the law. Aaron
passed us by, the priest passed us by, and by those sacrifices
which he continually offered was unable to purge the con
science from dead works to serve the living God. Patriarch
and prophet and priest passed us by, helpless both in will
and deed, for they themselves also lay wounded in that
wounded man. Only that true Samaritan beholding was
moved with compassion, as He is all compassion, and poured
oil into the wounds, that is, Himself into the hearts, purifying
all hearts by faith. Therefore the faith of the Church passes
by all, till it attain to Him who alone would not pass it by 2
(Rom. viii. 3).

1 Gillehert. He completed not unworthily the exposition of the Can
ticles which St. Bernard had left unfinished at his death. Compare a
noble passage in Clement of Alexandria (Quis Dives Salv. 29): But who
else could it be but the Saviour himself ? Or who rather than He would
have had compassion upon us who at the hands of tke powers of dark
ness have been nigh done to death with the number of our wounds, with
fears, lusts, passions, sorrows, guiles and pleasures ? Of these wounds
Jesus is the one healer, utterly excising our passions by the roots ; not
like the law applying empty remedies, the fruits of worthless trees, but
laying his axe to the roots of the wickedness. He it is who pours upon
our wounded souls wine which is the blood of the Vine of David, who
applies and lavishes upon us the oil of the spirit of compassion. He it is
who shows to us the bonds of health and salvation as never to b broken,
even love, faith and hope. He it is who appoints angels and princi
palities and powers to minister to us for a great reward, since these also
shall be freed from the vanity of the world by means of the revelation
of the glory of the sons of God.

2 Augustine s proof that our Lord intended Himself by this Samaritan
is singular (Serm. clxxi. 2) : When two terms of reproach were cast at


Were it absolutely needful to attach a precise meaning to
the oil and the ivinc, we might say with Chrysostom, that
the former is the anointing of the Holy Spirit, the latter the
blood of passion. 1 On the binding up of the wounds it may
be observed that the Sacraments have been often called the

the Lord and it was said " Thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil," He
might have answered " Neither am I a Samaritan nor have I a devil."
He answers, however, " I have not a devil." The term He answers He
refuted ; the term as to which Ho was silent He confirmed. Cf. Enarr.
in Ps. cxxxvi. 3.

1 They were sometimes interpreted differently ; the oil as the gontlo
consolation, the wine as the stern rebuke. Thus St. Bernard says of
the good pastor: Let him be as the Samaritan, watching and observing
when he is to present the oil of compassion and when the wine of fer
vour ; and at more length, In Cant., Scrvi. xliv. 3. So too Gregory the
Great (Mor. xx. 5) : In rulers there should be alike a compassion right
eous in its consolation and a discipline pious in its wrath ; wherefore also
to the wounds of that half-murdered traveller who was brought by the
Samaritan to the inn, both wine and oil are applied, that the wounds may
be stung by the wine and soothed by the oil : so that everyone who is
appointed unto the healing of wounds, in the wine may apply the sting
of severity, and in the oil the soothing influence of kindness : that by the
wine what i putrid may be cleansed, and by the oil what is to be healed
may be soothed. Elsewhere he has resolved this whole history into
prayer (Exp. in Ps. li.) : Lord Jesus, moved by compassion mayst
Thou deign to approach me, even me who while going down from
Jerusalem to Jericho, while falling, that is, from the highest to the
lowest, from that which gives life to that which weakens, have come
upon the angels of darkness, who have not only robbed me of the
garment of spiritual grace, but also have beaten me and left me nigh
unto death. By giving me confidence for the recovery of my health,
mayst Thou bind up the wounds of my sins, lest despairing of being
healed they rage the worse. Mayst Thou apply to me the oil of re
mission, and pour on me the wine of penitence. If Thou wilt but place
me on thine own beast, Thou wilt raise my helplessness from the earth,
my poverty from the mire. For it is Thou who hast borne our sins,
Thou who hast paid for us what Thou didst not take. If Thou wilt lead
me to the inn of Thy Church, Thou wilt feed me with the refection of
Thy body and blood. If thou wilt have care for me, neither do I pass
over Thy commandments nor meet the rage of furious beasts. For I
need Thy guardianship so long as I wear this corruptible flesh. Hear
me, therefore, Samaritan, me who am robbed and wounded, weeping
and groaning, calling aloud and crying with David, Have pity upon me,
God, according to Thy great mercy.


ligaments for the wounds of the soul ; and the hurts of the
spirit are often contemplated as bound up, no less than those
of the body ; and God as He who binds them up. 1 The
Samaritan setting the wounded man on his own beast, himself
therefore pacing on foot by his side, 2 reminds us of Him, who,
chough He was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, that we
through his poverty might be rich, and who came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister. Neither is it far-fetched to
regard the inn as the figure of the Church, the place of
spiritual refection, in which the healing of souls is ever going
forward, called therefore by some a hospital, whither the
merciful Son of man brings all whom He has rescued from
the hand of Satan, and where He, the good physician, cares
for them until they shall have been restored to perfect health 3
(Mai. iv. 2; Hos. xiv. 4; Ps. ciii. 3; Matt. xiii. 15; Kev.
xxii. 2 ; and typically, Num. xxi. 9).

And if, like the Samaritan, He cannot tarry, 4 cannot
always be in body present with those whose cure He has begun,
if it is expedient that He should go away, yet He makes for
them a provision of grace sufficient to last till the time of his
return. It would be an entering into curious minutiae, one
tending to bring discredit on this scheme of interpretation, to
affirm decidedly of the two pence, that they mean either
the two Sacraments, or the two Testaments, or the Word and
the Sacraments, or unreservedly to accede to any one of the
ingenious explanations which have been offered for them.
They do better who content themselves with saying that these
include all gifts and graces, sacraments, powers of healing,

1 Thus Ps. cxlvii. 3 : He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth
up their wounds. Augustine : The binding up of wounds is the re
straining of sins.

2 Eyser : By his own discomfort He sought our comfort.

8 Augustine brings out another side of tbe similitude : The inn is
the Church in which travellers returning to the eternal country from
their pilgrimage are refreshed ; or it is an inn (travSoxe tov), because
(Origen, Horn. 34 in Luc.) it receives all who wish to enter."

4 Ambrose (Exp. in Luc. vii. 78) : This Samaritan was not free to
linger long on the earth : He had to return thither, whence He hud
desceiulud."


of remission of sins, or other powers which the Lord has left
with his Church, that it may keep house for Him till his
return. As the Samaritan took out two pence, and gave them
to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; even so
He said to Peter, and in him to all the Apostles, Feed my
sheep, Feed my lambs (John xxi. 15-17 ; cf. xx. 22, 23).
To them, and in them to all their successors, He has com
mitted a dispensation of the Gospel, that as stewards of the
mysteries of God, they may dispense these for the health of
his people. And as it was promised to the host, Whatsoever
tJwu spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee, 1 1
so has the Lord engaged that no labour shall be in vain in
Him, that what is done to the least of his brethren He will
count as done to Himself, that they who feed the flock of
God, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, when the
chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory
that fadeth not away (1 Pet. v. 2, 4). 2

Let us reverently admire as it deserves to be admired, the
divine wisdom with which, having brought this parable to an
end, Christ reverses the question of the lawyer, and asks,
1 WJiich now of these three, thinkest tliou, was neighbour unto

1 Melanchthon : " Whatsoever thou spendest more, I will repay
thee," as much as to say : Labours, perils, lack of counsel are coming
upon thee, in all these I will be present with and will help thee.

* Cyprian s use of the parable (Ep. 51) forms a sort of connecting
link between these two interpretations, the literal and the allegorical : the
wounded man is a sinning brother, one who has fallen away in time of
persecution. Cyprian, who desired to deal mildly with these lapsed, and
to readmit them to Church communion, exclaims : Behold where a
wounded brother is lying, stricken by his adversary in the battle. On
the one side the devil is trying to kill him whom he has wounded. On
the other, Christ is exhorting that he whom He has redeemed should not
wholly perish. To which of the two shall we bring help, on whose side
are we standing? Are we favouring the devil s efforts to kill, and like
the priest and Levite in the Gospel, passing by our brother as he lies
almost lifeless before us ? Or, like priests of God and of Christ, are we
imitating what Christ both taught and did, are we snatching the wounded
man from the jaws of his enemy, that he may be cured and reserved for
the judgment of God ? Cf. Ambrose, De Pemit. i. 6; and Chrysostoiu,
Adv. Jud., Oral. viii. 3.


him that fell among the thieves? The lawyer had asked,
Who is the neighbour to whom it is my duty to show love ?
But the Lord, answering question with question, demands,
Who is a neighbour, he who shows love, or he who shows it
not? for it was this which He desired to teach, that love
finds its own measure in itself ; like the sun, which does not
inquire upon what it shall shine, or whom it shall warm, but
shines and warms by the very law of its own being, so that
nothing is hidden from its light and heat. The lawyer had
said, Designate my neighbour to me ; tell me what marks a
man to be such ? Is it one faith, one blood, the obligation of
mutual benefits, or what else, that I may know to whom I
owe this debt ? The Lord rebukes the question, holding up
to him a man, and this man a despised Samaritan, who so
far from seeking limits to his love, freely and largely exercised
it towards one whose only claim upon him consisted in his
needs ; who assuredly had none of the marks of a neighbour f
in the lawyer s sense of the word. The parable is a reply,
not to the question, for to that it is no reply, 1 but to the spirit
out of which the question proceeded. You inquire, Who is
my neighbour? Behold a man who asked quite another
question, " To whom can I be a neighbour ? " And then be
yourself the judge, whether you or he have most of the mind
of God ; which is most truly the doer of his will, the imitator
of his perfections.

To the Lord s question, IVliich now of these three,
thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the
thieves ? the lawyer circuitously replies, He that shewed
mercy on him ; let us hope from no grudging reluctance to
give the honour directly and by name to a Samaritan ; a

1 Maldonatus is the only commentator I know who has fairly put this
difficulty, which is on the face of the parable. It is one of the many
merits of this most intolerant and abusive Jesuit (Maldonatus maledi-
centisshnus, as he used to be called), that he never evades a difficulty,
but fairly states it, whether he can resolve it or not.

* So Bengel : It is not from any reluctance that the lawyer abstains
from explicitly naming the Samaritan.


although it certainly has something of this appearance. But
let that have been as it might, Go, said the Lord to him,
and do thou likewise (Luke vi. 36 ; Col. iii. 12 ; 1 Pet. iii.
8). These last words will hardly allow u? to agree with
those who in later times have maintained that this parable
and the discourse that led to it are, in fact, a lesson on justifi
cation by faith that the Lord sent the questioner to the law,
to the end that, being by that convinced of sin and of his own
shortcomings, he might discover his need of a Saviour. The
intention seems rather to make the lawyer aware of the mighty
gulf which lay between his knowing and his doing, how little
his actual exercise of love kept pace with his intellectual
acknowledgment of the debt of love due from him to hia
fellow-men : on which subject he may very well have had
secret misgivings himself, when he asked, Who is my
neighbour ? It is true, indeed, that this our sense of how
short our practice falls of our knowledge, must bring us to
the conviction that we cannot live by the keeping of the law,
that by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified, so
that here also wo shall get at last to faith as that which alone
can justify ; but this is a remoter consequence, and not the
immediate teaching of the parable.

33

Luke Chapter 10

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Luke Chapter 10

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Luke Chapter 10

S-ar putea să vă placă și