C. The good Samaritan (10:25–37)
C. The good Samaritan (10:25–37)
This parable is peculiar to Luke. There are parallels to the conversation with the lawyer that introduced it, especially the summary of the law in the command to love (Matt. 22:34–40; Mark 12:28–31). But there are differences, notably in timing and in the fact that in the others the summary is given by Jesus, here by the lawyer. We should not think of dependence.
25. At some unspecified time a lawyer stood up (which presupposes that the people were seated; evidently Jesus had been teaching). A lawyer would be concerned not with secular studies, but with the Law in the Jewish sense, the first five books of the Old Testament. Arising from that he would have studied the rest of Scripture and matters incidental. He was thus a man who might be expected to be both interested in and knowledgeable about religious affairs. He put Jesus to the test. That is to say he asked his question, not in the search for information, but to see what kind of answer Jesus would produce. He may even have been hoping that Jesus would do badly and that he would have the opportunity of showing him up. His question, what shall I do …? shows that he was thinking of some form of salvation by works and had no understanding of divine grace. Eternal life means life that is proper to the age to come. It denotes the life that will never end, but, in the Christian understanding of it, the more important thing is that it is life of a particular quality, that life that is the gift of God.
26–27. The questioner was a lawyer and it was highly appropriate that Jesus simply referred him to the Law. He answered with a combination of passages which Jesus himself also used to sum up the Law’s requirements (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18; cf. Mark 12:30f.). Both the Hebrew and LXX (and also Matt. 22:37) have three faculties with which people should love God, while both here and in Mark there are four. But the difference does not seem important. Both ways of putting it mean that one should love God with all that one is; the whole of human nature is included. The lawyer clearly had a deep insight into the Scriptures when he could sum up the Law in this way. The neighbour (ho plēsion) means more than the person who lives nearby (which is ho perioikos, used, for example, in 1:58). There is the thought of community, of fellowship.
28. Jesus commended the answer and went on, do this, and you will live. Some see in this a formal commendation of the way of works. If you want a way of salvation by doing, this is it (with the implication that you won’t be able to do it). It is perhaps more likely that it is a repudiation of works. It is not what we do, considered as a meritorious work, that matters, but our attitude. If we really love God in the way of which Jesus speaks, then we rely on him, not ourselves. This kind of love is our response to God’s love for us, not the cause of his acceptance of us (cf. 6:47–49). Jesus is not commending a new system of legalism somewhat different from the old one, but pointing to the end of all legalism. The lawyer wanted a rule or a set of rules that he could keep and so merit eternal life. Jesus is telling him that eternal life is not a matter of keeping rules at all. To live in love is to live the life of the kingdom of God. Arndt points out that the saying ‘recognizes the importance of the realm of the soul and spirit; if that area is sound, the whole person is well’. Our attitude to God determines the rest. If we really love him we love our neighbour too (1 John 4:20).
29. But the lawyer would not let it rest there. He wanted to justify himself. His basic attitude was still wrong: he had not understood the implication of his own words. So he went on to ask, And who is my neighbour? He saw that it meant more than the man next door. But how much more? There were different ideas among the Jews on this point, but they all seem to be confined to the nation Israel; the idea of love towards mankind had not reached them.2 As we approach the parable we must bear in mind that it is told to the lawyer in answer to the question, ‘Who is my neighbour?’ not, ‘What must I do to be saved?’
30. Jesus did not answer the question directly but told a story. The traveller in the story is clearly a Jew, but no stress is put on this; he is called simply a man. It is the need of the neighbour and not his nationality that is important. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho runs down a steep descent through desolate country. The distance is about 17 miles and the road descends more than 3,000 feet. It is the kind of wild country in which robbers might well be safe. Jesus does not say that the robbers of his story robbed the man: that would be understood. He concentrates on their violent ill-treatment of the traveller. They left him half dead.
31. It happened that a priest came by while he was still lying there. Since the man was ‘half dead’ the priest would probably not have been able to be certain whether he was dead or not without touching him. But if he touched him and the man was in fact dead, then he would have incurred the ceremonial defilement that the Law forbade (Lev. 21:1ff.). He could be sure of retaining his ceremonial purity only by leaving the man alone. He could be sure he was not omitting to help a man in need only by going to him. In this conflict it was ceremonial purity that won the day. Not only did he not help, he went to the other side of the road. He deliberately avoided any possibility of contact. Other factors may have weighed with him, such as the possibility that the robbers might return, the nature of his business, and so on. We do not know. We do know that the priest left the man where he was in his suffering and his need.
32. Much the same happened when a Levite came by. He also was a religious personage and might be expected to be interested in helping a man in need. But he also was a man interested in ceremonial purity. He also thought it better not to get involved. And he also passed by on the other side.
33–34. The audience would have expected a priest and a Levite to be followed by an Israelite layman. They would almost certainly now be anticipating an anti-clerical twist to the story. Jesus’ introduction of the Samaritan was thus devastating. In view of the traditional bitterness between Jew and Samaritan, a Samaritan was the last person who might have been expected to help. But this man had compassion on the sufferer. He attended to him as best he could on the spot. Wine would have been used for cleaning the wounds (the alcohol in it would have had an antiseptic effect though, of course, the man could not know that; he only knew that it helped). Oil, i.e. olive oil, would have eased the pain. The two appear to have been widely used by both Jews and Greeks. The wounded man was too weak to walk, so the Samaritan set him on his own beast (which meant that he himself had to walk), and so brought him to an inn. There he took care of him. What this meant is not spelt out, but the Samaritan did not regard his duty as done when he had brought the man to shelter. He continued to look after him.
35. He continued his kindness even when he had to leave. He gave the innkeeper two denarii on account, and instructed him to look after the man. According to the historian Polybius,3 a man could secure accommodation in inns in Italy in his time (c. 150 BC) for half an as a day, i.e. 1/32 of a denarius. If rates in Palestine at this period were at all comparable, the Samaritan was paying for about two months’ board. J. Jeremias brings forward evidence that a day’s rations cost a twelfth of a denarius at this time.4 If this be accepted the period for which the Samaritan was paying is correspondingly reduced. But it was still a worth-while period. Nor was that all, for whatever more the innkeeper might have to spend the Samaritan undertook to refund on his way back. It is a most attractive picture of a man who did more than the minimum. He saw a man in need and did all he could.
36–37. Jesus did not answer the lawyer’s question but asked him, Which of these three … proved neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers? The answer, of course, is not in doubt. Jesus drove home the lesson with the command, Go and do likewise. The man had asked, ‘Who is my neighbour?’ but Jesus faced him with the question ‘To whom am I neighbour?’ He was an expert in the Law. Now he must think whether the priest and the Levite, who scrupulously retained the moral purity required by the Law, really kept the Law, which likewise enjoined love of the neighbour.
Throughout the centuries some have delighted to see in the good Samaritan a picture of Jesus. Undoubtedly a moving devotional study can be made centring on Jesus as the good Samaritan of people’s souls. It is even possible that Luke himself thought of Jesus in this way. But it is another thing altogether to see this as the meaning Jesus intended. That seems impossible to maintain.