 |
Parable of The Good Samaritan |
|
|
Luke 10:25-37
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
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.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 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.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 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.
35 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.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Notes on Customs
Oil and wine have traditionally been regarded as having medicative, healing qualities. Oil was widely used as an external remedy to assuage the pain of open wounds (Isaiah 1:6). The use of wine was also an external remedy for wounds and bruises.
The priests were all of the tribe of Levi, but not all Levites were priests. The Levitical priests served the Temple in offerings and service. Their specific duties were to offer sacrifices, daily providing the shewbread, the preparation of the altar of incense, trimming the lamps of the candlestick, and we can well imagine they had the responsibilities of cleaning the blood from the sacrificial area, cleaning the altar, making sure that proper animals were available for sacrifices and responsible for the supplies needed, such as wood for the altar, etc. They also conducted the morning and evening worship and prayer services of the Temple. The Levites not in the priesthood assisted the priests in their work and services taking a less prominent role. Both were required to observe ritual cleanness in the course of their official activities of the Temple.
A detailed study of the history of the Samaritans goes beyond the scope of the purpose of this lesson. However it is important to understand the relationship between these people and the Jews of the time of Christ. In the eyes of the Jews the Samaritans were a racial mixture of the worst kind. They called them half-breeds; since they were the results of inter ”racial” marriages of Gentile and dregs of the Jews. The bad blood between them extended as far back as Nehemiah and Ezra. The Jews avoided contact with them at all cost. Never would they have asked for or given any favor to them. To them all Samaritans were outcasts and unclean. Samaria was bordered on the north by Galilee, and the south by Judea. Despite the additional hardships and dangers, only under extreme circumstances would Jews travel through Samaria. There was a genuine hatred between them, and never would one consider the other as neighbor.
We have several references to Samarians and Samaria in the New Testament. On one occasion Jesus and His disciples traveled through Samaria on their way to Jerusalem. As they approached a village, desiring to spend the night to rest and sup, the local Samaritans refused to receive them and they had to continue their journey. This enraged James and John so much they asked Jesus to call down fire and consume them (Luke 9:52-54). When Jesus healed the ten lepers the only one who returned and shouted glorifying praises to God was a Samaritan (Luke 17:12-19). The story in John 4:3-43, tells of Jesus and the woman at the well in a village of Samaria. On that occasion many Samaritans believed Christ and proclaimed Him as the Savior of the world. Also, this story is very enlightening for it reveals the contrast between the religion of the Samaritans and the Jews, and their argument of the proper worship of God. In John 8:48 the Pharisees accused Jesus of being born of fornication and that he was a Samaritan, possessed by a demon. In the first, and most limited, commission in which Jesus sent out the twelve, they were specifically instructed not to go to the Samaritans. However, the order of the Great Commission given in Acts 1:8 stated they were to witness first in Jerusalem, then all Judea, then Samara, and finally to the entire world. Many churches were established in Samara as seen in the Book of Acts.
Inns. By the meaning of the word itself, it is a public place for receiving all comers. The lodging was free but all else, such as the food (for man and beast), the entertainment, which they offered, and any care given was charged. A stable was normally available at inns.
Language Notes
Verse 25
“Tempt” To test out, prove, tempt, try, all with the sense to scrutinize; to test thoroughly. Is used predominantly of testing someone in order to show whether one is approved of God or reprobate.
Verse 29
“Willing (desiring) to justify himself.” Justify is to render, or to show that he is just, innocent, hence righteous, by asking the question “Who is my Neighbor?”
“Neighbor” “It was generally agreed that the term connoted fellow countrymen. Including full proselytes, but there was disagreement about the exceptions, the Pharisees were inclined to exclude non-Pharisees; the Essenes required that a man “should hate all the sons of darkness;: a rabbinical saying ruled that heretics, informers, and renegades “should be pushed (into the ditch) and not pulled out,” and a wide spread popular saying excepted personal enemies (“You have heard that God said: You shall love your fellow countrymen; but you need not love your [personal] enemy,” Matthew 5:43.)” A. T. Roberson’s Word Pictures.[1]
Verse 33
“Compassion” Moved deeply, feeling sympathy and pity. Not just to feel but to be moved to such a degree that it causes a response to do something to help, to take action.
Points of the Parable
A) The occasion of the Parable.
The lawyer in all likelihood was a Pharisee. It is highly improbable that a lawyer, trained and skilled in the law would ask a layman such as Christ, no matter how gifted he may appear, a question about the law, especially a question such as this concerning eternal life. Today this would be as if a preacher with a doctorate degree in theology asked a lay preacher without any formal biblical education how to be saved. So the question, meant to tempt Him, it is not sincere but a trap to discredit Him. Interestingly this same question was asked by a young ruler in Luke 18:18. But, on that occasion it seems to have sincerity.
The question is of such a nature that it implies that eternal life is the reward of works and earned merit. It is the typical stance of Judaism, of self-righteousness without the need of repentance. “Teacher, what having done shall I inherit eternal life?” At the foundation lay the notion that eternal life was the reward of merit, of works: the only question was, what these works were to be. The idea of guilt had not entered the lawyer’s mind; he had no conception of sin within.
The counter question by Christ directs the lawyer to the word of the law and his knowledge of it. His reply of quoting Deut. 6:5 was the correct answer and Jesus tells him to fulfill this command. Now the problem arises, for to the Jew only fellow Jews would be considered as their neighbors. Even more restrictive among the conservative Jews definition of neighbor would be limited to their own peers. So when the lawyer, seeking to justify himself and his critical judgment of others, asked who is my neighbor? (Neighbor is anyone who is close by or near, it could be any fellow man, a fellow countryman, a friend, and a person who is in the proximity of another.) The lawyer was seeking a loophole in the law, probably realizing his failure to keep this command.
At this point the heart of the matter has been reached. Like this lawyer, alas, many today have this carnal heart of prejudice and restricted limits of love. The question of who is my neighbor has become the question, “Who am I required to love?” The word love is agape, not philos (friend). To be neighborly, to give kindness and help is an act of befriending and may lead to a friendship, but the command is not that of being friends but seeking to do what is good to all men (Phil. 2:3,4). There are indeed people, whom the child of God cannot regard as friends, for they cannot walk together. But, the child of God should always seek their good and edification and never to hurt, harm or deny help for their needs.
B) The Parable Itself.
The road from Jerusalem to Jericho is approximately fifteen to seventeen miles long. It passes through treacherous terrain and is notoriously dangerous because of bandits. This man is thought to have put up a struggle causing his beating and being left half dead.
The priest came along side of the wounded man and then crossed over to the other side of the road. The Levite came to the man, looked at him and also crossed to the other side of the road. Both avoided contact with the man and put space between him and them. The Pharisees thought that if even one's shawdow touched a corpse it would render them impure. There is a theory that such behavior on the part of these two was in keeping with their ceremonial law of avoiding contamination with either a dead man or one who is a stranger. If that was the case then it demonstrates a basic flaw in the Pharisaical law of cleanness at the cost of moral duty. The fact that they were coming down the road indicates that they were on their way away from Jerusalem and headed “down” to Jericho. This would be an argument against their need to keep themselves ceremonially clean because they are headed to the Temple to perform a service there. So it is difficult to justify the callous actions of these two men, ministers of God, who, of all persons, should have shown kindness and given assistance.
Next came the hated Samaritan. When he looked upon the man he was moved by compassion. He felt pity and a strong sense of duty to care for him. He did not consider who or what the man was. It mattered not what he may have personally felt towards this man or what that man may have felt about him, he at that time was his neighbor. The expression of love on the part of the Samaritan took resolve in him and he acted in the best interest of the man. He cleaned, treated, and dressed his wounds. Next he set him on his own beast, walked beside him and took him the inn. The indication is that the Samaritan tended him all that night. The next day he paid the owner of the inn two denarius (two day’s wages) for the care of the man, with the understanding that if more were due because of any extended care, he would pay that also upon his return. The cost of a day’s board would be about one-twelfth of a denarius.
C) The Final Question
“Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor to him that fell among the robbers?” The scribe answered the question correctly, but cannot bring himself to speak the name Samaritan. In his world the Samaritans were devoid of all righteousness, morally corrupt infidels. Never could it be admitted that they could do the commands of God, and certainly never achieve eternal life. But, the story precisely declares that this is exactly what the Samaritan did. The condemnation is against the priest and Levite for their heartless insensitivity, having no display of love or compassions for this man in critical need. The question Jesus asked embodied the finer questions, who loved this man and who kept the command of God?
This scribe, and many others like him, knew that they could never regard an outsider as their neighbor or concede that they were under the burden of God’s law to love them and do good to them. Their love could only be given to those whom they approved. There was an inability for them to do the works of God and they knew it. So in order to justify themselves they manipulated the language of God. But, Jesus gave absolute clarity to God’s word and brought down the walls of pretentious self-righteousness. The command by Christ to the scribe contains a great irony, he is told to go and do as the Samaritan had done. This despised one, and only he, had done the righteous deeds of God. Go and imitate the Samaritan, this detested half-breed, and you shall live.
The question now is not “who is my neighbor?” but “Whose neighbor am I?”
Given Interpretation
The allegorical views of this parable extend back to the third century. With variations they all follow this same pattern presented here.
“The certain man represents Adam, the head representative of the race. The ‘going down from Jerusalem to Jericho’ represents going out from Paradise into a world of thorns and briars. His ‘falling among thieves’ indicates the malignant powers of hell, which assail the sinner and rob him of his heavenly birthright. His being stripped of his garments represents his despoliation of his robe of original righteousness and innocence. His wounded state indicates the sad work of sin upon man, which makes him, ‘from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot, to be full of wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores, which have never been healed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.’ Then leaving him ‘half dead,’ exemplifying the fact that Adam did not die in body the day in which he sinned, but that having pronounced against him the sentence of death, he may in truth gave been ‘declared half dead.’ By the priest and Levite is meant the patriarchal and Levitical dispensations, since the head of each family was a priest, and which of themselves could do nothing to recover the lost man, ‘for it was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin.’ But what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, was at length effected by Him whom the Jews called a Samaritan, even Jesus Christ. The journey He took was that of incarnation by which He ‘traveled in the greatness of His strength,’ from heaven to earth, and, coming in the capacity of a Great Physician, He had oil and wine, the wine of His own purifying, cleansing blood, and the wine of His own anointing grace, which healeth all our infirmities. He is said to have set him on His own beast, because of man’s inability to move himself in the direction of his salvation. His being brought to an inn signifies his admission into the visible church. The ministry is the host. The Old and New Testaments are the ‘two pence,’ which this ‘host’ is to expound and administer as being the ‘steward of the manifold grace of God.’” [2]
Many modern theologians criticize this view as being fanciful, far fetched, cleaver and of none effect in its interpretation. Their objection is that these allegories take the lesson off to a whole new direction and misses the point of the teaching altogether. This is precisely the same objection and reasoning I have about all allegories. But there are still many who make the application of Christ being the Good Samaritan and the beaten man as the lost. Hence concluding with an emphasis that this is a Salvation-Parable.
The Interpretation
The story is so clear and forthright that no interpretation is required. This parable was spoken to an adversary of Christ. And, like other such parables directed to His adversaries no insight or spiritual understanding was required by them to grasp the full meaning of what was being said. In these cases the requirement of having ears to hear did not apply. As an example of this we see the parable of the vineyard and the wicked husbandmen (Matt. 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-19).
The Application
Some further lessons may be drawn. The parable implies not a mere enlargement of Jewish ideas, but a complete change of them. It is truly a Gospel-Parable, for the whole old relationship of mere duty is changed into one of love. Thus, matters are placed on an entirely different basis than that of Judaism. The question now is not “who is my neighbor?” but “Whose neighbor am I?” The gospel answer to the question of duty, not only abolishes man’s enmity, but bridge over man’s separation. Thus is the parable truly Christian, and more than this, points up to Him, Who, in our great need, became neighbor to us, even at the cost of all He had. And from Him, as well as by His Word, we are to learn our lesson of love and mimic His example.
The second great command of God to man is for man to love one another. It truly is an amazing thought to realize how much importance God has place upon man’s relationship with his fellow. While the first three of the “Ten Commandments” set forth God’s law of man to God - the vertical plane, the last six pertain to man’s relation on a horizontal plane. It is evident that men will be judged on how the kept these laws on both planes. Jesus tells us, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” In what other way can we do this apart from loving our neighbor? As we have seen, this love is not necessarily that of affection but rather the desire to good, to have that preference for our neighbor’s good rather than evil! If we keep this law in our minds and hearts we find that it is so very easy to keep, and brings such joy in performing it. The yoke of Christ is indeed easy. A person who has publicly identified himself with Christ will, by his conduct before others, either bring shame or glory to God. We do not bestow our acts of kindness for our neighbor’s approval but for God’s as He commands, “Do this!”
(YLT) Philippians 2:2-5
fulfill ye my joy, that ye may mind the same thing--having the same love--of one soul--minding the one thing,
nothing in rivalry or vain-glory, but in humility of mind one another counting more excellent than yourselves--
each not to your own look ye, but each also to the things of others.
For, let this mind be in you that {is} also in Christ Jesus,
[1] A. T. Roberson Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 2 Luke
[2] Ancient, early century interpretation
|
|
Next: Parable of The Wicked Husbandmen |
This page last updated November 10, 2004 at 10:58am
|
|
