093. Chapter 34 - The Good Samaritan

Chapter 34 - The Good Samaritan

Luke 10:25-37 The Lawyer

Out of this period of Jesus’ ministry Luke has selected an exciting encounter with one of the scholars of Israel. The inner group of scholarly leaders of the Pharisees are usually called “scribes” in token of their meticulous labors over the precious manuscripts of the Old Testament. Luke calls this man a “lawyer,” one who by reason of his intensive study of the Scripture was qualified to expound its content and argue its implications and obligations. This man was deeply troubled with a problem. It arose out of the contrast between his way of life and what he had heard and observed in the ministry of Jesus. In the splendid isolation of his luxurious palace he had studied the law and sought to follow the high road in life, but his chief interest in the vulgar multitude had been to avoid any contact with them. Jesus accepted extreme poverty, privation, and hardship that He might spend His life’s energy and influence in the homes of the poor, the unfortunate, the sinful. The lawyer could see with dismay the vast chasm which separated His way of life from Christ’s. He desired to justify Himself. The Interruption The lawyer did not ask at first the thorny question which distressed him. He came to it in a circuit by beginning with a general question. In a college classroom today where freedom of discussion is encouraged, a student usually raises his hand to ask permission of the professor to raise an objection, ask a question, or interject a comment. This lawyer stood up to indicate he had such a desire. Jesus allowed complete freedom of discussion in His teaching. In His tremendous sermons there were no interruptions. It sufficed for the audience to breathe. But in ordinary periods of instruction anyone might interrupt. They did not need to stand to attract His attention. “Stood up and made trial of him” indicates poise and self-assurance combined with determination to find out for himself the extent of Jesus’ mastery of God’s revelation and of the mysteries of life. The Question

“Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25). It is to the credit of this lawyer that amid the abundance of earthly possessions he yet was deeply concerned about the life after death; he was eager to share in its glory, and realized he must do something to gain heaven. He seems to have shared the idea that eternal life can be earned by some tremendous act of sacrifice or service. The aorist tense of the verb suggests this. At the close Jesus uses the present tense, “keep on doing likewise.”

One of the chief lines of attack of modernists upon the Old Testament is to deny that it teaches there is a life after death; in other words, they agree with the Sadducees. The question of this lawyer and the answer of Jesus strike a deathblow to this theory. The lawyer uses the term inherit, which suggests that heaven is a gift, but the idea that the descendants of Abraham have an exclusive right to this inheritance was the concept of the Pharisees.

Counter Question

“What is written in the law? how readest thou?” (Luke 10:26). This skillful reply thrusts the problem right back upon the lawyer. He obviously had meditated deeply upon it and had decided ideas. Jesus gave him full opportunity to express his views. There seems to be a play on the words lawyer and the law. “You ask me; you, a lawyer? In the law what is written? How do you read it? Your question is answered plainly in the law, is it not?” Some suppose that Jesus pointed to the lawyer’s phylactery, but this seems improbable. The first commandment cited was written on the miniature manuscript in the phylactery, but not the second. The lawyer did think he knew the answer to the question. He spoke with assurance. The Lawyer’s Answer

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God...” (Luke 10:27). This was one of the most familiar of all the passages in the Old Testament. The Jews recited this verse every morning and evening. Its selection for their phylacteries shows their estimate of its importance. But the second passage was not so frequently quoted. How did it happen that the lawyer coupled these two passages together? It might have been from his own deep study of the Old Testament. He might have heard the teaching of Jesus that these two passages summed up all the law. His eagerness to defend his way of life as contrasted to the ministry of Jesus might have caused him to desire from Christ a definition of neighbor and thus led him to quote the second passage. There is an overlapping of terms in heart, soul, strength, and mind. The heart means the entire spiritual nature — the understanding, the emotions, the will. This obviously overlaps mind. Strength encircles the other three. This repetition is for emphasis; all there is in a man’s being must be dedicated to God without reserve. The Scripture does not forbid a man to love himself. Self-respect demands it. But he must have the same high regard and devotion to his neighbor. The Central Question The instant, calm commendation Jesus gave to the lawyer for this answer must have been disconcerting. Jesus made a subtle contrast between saying and doing. The lawyer had answered correctly; now he must translate the words into deeds. The change of tense to the continued action of the present tense is significant; the complete consecration to God and His service is a way of life for every day. Some suggest that the lawyer asked the second question to justify himself for having asked the first. The answer of Jesus had been so skillful it made the lawyer look ridiculous. He now tried to justify himself for asking such a question by insisting that the matter was not so simple as it sounded and needed explanation. It seems that the justification the lawyer sought was much deeper and covered the entire pattern of his life as contrasted to that of Jesus. What the lawyer was asking concerned how many people were to be included in the circle of “neighbor.” He made the circle very small and wanted to keep it so. Lightfoot quotes from the writings of the rabbis their interpretation of this passage (Leviticus 19:18) to show that they claimed Gentiles were not to be specifically included as “neighbors.” This fact gives particular point to the fact that a Samaritan served and saved in the account Jesus gave. Neither the priest nor the Levite attempted to discover whether the wounded man was a Jew or a Gentile. Their neglect was not based on racial prejudice. On the Jericho Road

Jesus’ immortal response to the lawyer’s second question is usually called a parable. But Jesus did not say it was a parable. It might have been a historic case. He did not say that this “certain man” was a Jew, but this is strongly implied. The implication is really at the heart of the illustration. “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho” (Luke 10:30). The geographical accuracy of the Scripture is always most impressive. Jerusalem is on the backbone of the mountain range 2,600 feet above sea level ; Jericho is in the rift through which the Jordan flows, nearly 1,300 feet below sea level. The road was steep, lonely, and dangerous. About halfway down the mountain is the traditional spot where the man is supposed to have been left in the care of the innkeeper. The ruins of an ancient Kahn, fort, and pools show that this place has been through the centuries a haven for travelers unable to complete the trip by day. Evidently the attack itself took place in some lonely stretch of the road. Roman historians, early Christian writers, and chroniclers of the crusades all join Jewish writers in telling of the desperate brigands who infested this road. The most desolate section of Palestine is the Wilderness of Judaea, just west of the Dead Sea. This region between the Jordan and Bethel is the second most desolate. The fact that the main east-west highway passed through this territory made it a prime target. The robbers first stripped the man and then beat him unmercifully. The possessions and money of the man were seized; since clothing was so expensive in the ancient world, the preservation of his clothes was a matter of importance. Naked and bleeding, the man was left to die in the broiling sun. The Priest and Levite That Jesus should have told of a priest and a Levite at this juncture may be because this is history; this is what actually happened. “And by chance a certain priest was going down that way” (Luke 10:31). Plummer suggests “by coincidence” instead of “by chance.” There is the implication that the priest and the Levite were both coming down fresh from the worship of God, perhaps from a term of service in the temple or its environs. Thus Jesus joins together in practice the love of God and the love of man which the lawyer had joined in theory; flashlight photographs from the lives of two religious leaders of the day give revealing application. It is interesting to note that Jesus did not represent a Pharisee and a Sadducee coming down the road that day. The priest might have been a Sadducee. Actual history being related may have kept Jesus from having a Pharisee as one of the selfish travelers, or Jesus may not have wished to become too personal and thus allowed the lawyer to make his own applications. This is the only time in the teaching of Jesus that priests and Levites come in for particular condemnation. The priests were the descendants of Aaron and had specific charge of the temple worship. The Levites were the larger group descended from Levi who performed the secondary tasks necessary for maintenance of the temple worship. They also were religious leaders of the nation who lived in cities set apart for their use. Both by reason of their office, and opportunities, and training the priests and Levites could be expected to he foremost in humanitarian service. The priest saw this dying man from a distance and went around to avoid a closeup of his need. “A Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him” seems to suggest that he came closer and had a cold-blooded survey before he turned off and left him to die.

All sorts of excuses may have been in the minds of the two: (1) too busy to halt, (2) too limited in equipment; only one animal so both could not ride; (3) too hopeless a case; the man was already dying, and it would be wasted effort; (4) too dangerous; these robbers were probably watching them and were ready to pounce upon them; (5) too limited in financial means; the man might become a burden to them for a long time; (6) Someone else better equipped would probably come by and help. (7) No one was in sight and would know or report their cruel neglect of the man. (8) If laid on the doorsteps of their houses where the praise of men could be had, they would have helped quickly, but out here on this dangerous road the responsibility was not theirs. The Samaritan

Some suggest that the reason Jesus made the rescuer a Samaritan was to rebuke James and John for having asked to call down fire from heaven upon an inhospitable Samaritan village. But one might as well speculate that it was returning good for evil and showing divine love after his recent rejection in Samaria. It was in spite of the fact that the bitter charge had been made against Him in Jerusalem that He was a Samaritan. This discourse of Jesus was now delivered before a crowd and would travel far and wide. Such slander could not move Him from His course in teaching the truth. The best explanation of the introduction of the Samaritan is that it was actual history. The racial element was not underscored, but the wounded man must have been a Jew; otherwise, one loses the strong contrast of the priest and Levite failing to help their own countryman and then a hated Samaritan doing what they had failed to do. To have had a Gentile aid a wounded Jew would have taught the same lesson against racial prejudice; but, if this was known history, the recital would have had the greater effect. The Samaritan is not represented as “coming down from Jerusalem.” While the Jews and Samaritans had nothing to do with each other in social or religious affairs, yet they did carry on commerce. They did travel in the other’s territory if necessity of trade so required. This Samaritan was accustomed to traveling this lonely highway. He was well-known to the innkeeper, who trusted him implicitly.

Compassion

“He was moved with compassion” (Luke 10:33). Here is the beating heart of this account. We come close to the answer to the lawyer’s question. Here is love in action. He did not seek first to learn the nationality and identity of this man wounded and dying by the roadside. How far removed he was from philosophical speculation of the question, “Now is this man my neighbor or not?” He immediately rushed to his aid. Olive oil and wine were the best current remedies to prevent infection (often used separately, or in conjunction, or mixed together before applying). He bound up his wounds and undoubtedly put on him some of his own spare clothes. Putting the man on his own beast, he slowly walked alongside supporting the wounded man as they traveled through this lonely robber-infested area. He did not demand or suggest that the innkeeper join in the rescue by furnishing free lodging and care for the unfortunate man. He paid for his care and promised any further payment that might be entailed, when he came by on his next trip. Who Is the Neighbor? The common answer to the question as to who is the neighbor in this account is to say that the wounded man is the neighbor, and the fundamental lesson is that any person in need regardless of race or condition must be included in the term neighbor. That this answer should be so instantly and universally given shows that this phase of the account cannot possibly be missed. But this answer is not the one Jesus required of the lawyer. How very embarrassing to the lawyer to have him now answer his own question. More than this, it is his question turned upside down. He is prevented from giving the easy and obvious answer to the question. He is asked a different question. Jesus corrects not merely the false concept of the man; He corrects the question he asked.

“Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers?” (Luke 10:36). Jesus’ question does not permit the answer, “the man who was in need.” He limits the lawyer to three people in his answer. Neighbor is a positive, and not merely a negative, title. It must be earned by unselfish, sacrificial service. The lawyer had asked, “How many people am I compelled to love?” Jesus answered that the term neighbor is a high title conferred on those who earn it. The glowing light of this beautiful account stretches out in a gleam of compassion to the whole wide world with all of suffering humanity in view, but it places a halo of glory upon the neighbor who rises above all barriers and selfish inhibitions to serve all who need his help.

Answer to the First Question

Jesus also gave the answer to the lawyer’s first question. One might wonder why Jesus should have allowed the lawyer to ask a question which implied that one may earn eternal life without correcting such an idea. But the correction is inherent in the account and the final exchange. Jesus shows that salvation is not to be achieved by any single good deed, but by devoted, daily obedience to God. And man can never earn his salvation by any means. The way of life which Jesus revealed to the lawyer was so lofty he must have seen that be could never reach and constantly maintain such a high position. He must cast himself upon the mercy of God in the midst of constant failures. The parable of the laborers in the vineyard is devoted definitely to showing that salvation is the gift of God, which man can never earn.

Evangelizing the Samaritan? The instruction given to this lawyer follows the regular pattern of Jesus’ teaching. He did not fire broadcast at the universe, but selected a single target which He always pierced. The lawyer’s problem as to how many he had to include in the term neighbor received the concentrated attention. One might as well express surprise that in this high drama on the Jericho road Jesus should have presented as the hero of the account a Samaritan, without adding a word about the false system of worship of the Samaritans or without having the wounded man express his deep gratitude by expounding the way of the Lord more perfectly to the Samaritan and by leading him to a more accurate faith. Certainly Jesus was not teaching that it does not make any difference what religion a person follows just so he has a generous, sympathetic attitude toward his fellowmen. It is again a case of concentration on a single objective at a time. The Samaritan woman had deliberately introduced this controversy: “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Jesus gave a blunt response: “Ye worship that which ye know not...for salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:20-22). He then pictured the glorious reign of the Messiah when a person might worship at any place in all the world if he worshiped in spirit and in truth. It must have been particularly shocking to this lawyer to have the Samaritan’s compassion offered as an example to follow. All of the different angles of doctrine which Jesus presented on different occasions must be joined together to get the complete picture of His teaching.

Mystical Interpretation

Early Christian writings abound in mystical interpretations of this account. They interpret that Jesus meant the good Samaritan to represent Himself and the course of the parable to represent Christ’s ministry to the lost. Augustine even goes to the extreme of trying to prove that Jesus was a Samaritan in order to sustain this mystical interpretation. No Christian would deny that Jesus is the only perfect embodiment of the teaching and example of mercy set forth in this account, but that Jesus meant for the good Samaritan to represent Himself is more than can be affirmed. It certainly is a part of His revelation of Himself as the Christ, and we can write here at its close the epilogue, “I that speak unto thee am he” (John 4:26).

It is a question as to how many doors of opportunity were open to this Samaritan. Even if he could have become a proselyte, would he have been welcome in the temple worship? Would not bitter hatred and sarcastic jibes have foredoomed to failure even such a determined effort to follow the truth God had revealed in the Old Testament? There is much of gentle frustration and bewildering hope in the Samaritan woman’s excited gasp, “I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things” (John 4:25). The tremendous evangelistic campaign which Philip carried on in the city of Samaria presents the universal gospel of Christ as the answer. The Better Samaritan

Modern critics of the teaching of Jesus like to preach on the theme “The Better Samaritan.” They will admit that Jesus did fairly well in this account, but they set forth that they can do much better in constructing a parable which will proclaim the social gospel. They represent that “the better Samaritan,” after rescuing the wounded man, would have gone back to Jerusalem and organized an army of soldiers who would have destroyed this band of robbers and thus have launched a campaign of prevention instead of cure. This is an astonishing picture of an unknown Samaritan taking command in Jerusalem, setting aside Roman authority, and marching out with an army of soldiers to achieve what Rome with all her discipline and power had not been able to accomplish on the Jericho road. Our present experience with guerrilla warfare in Vietnam has shown that ferreting brigands out of a vast wilderness is not easy or of short duration.

We are not to conclude because this element is not found here in Jesus’ account that this means He was not in favor of law and order, of punishment of crime, and of protecting the innocent and helpless from the bloody oppression of criminals. Jesus did not urge political revolution. He came rather to offer individual salvation. This process would transform the world so far as it could he transformed with the devil still at work. In many parables and in much of His teaching Jesus did urge law and order, punishment of crime, law enforcement. Here is again another illustration that Jesus was concentrating on the target the lawyer had set up and not trying to cover the entire field of human conduct in one discussion.

Monetary Analysis As the debates with the Pharisees during the Judean-Peraean campaign became more hectic, Jesus denounced them for their love of money (Luke 16:14). It is highly probable that economics as well as ideology entered into the lawyer’s question, “Who is my neighbor?” It was not merely his pride in his piety and moral achievements and his separatism from the vulgar multitude of “publicans and sinners,” but an intense love for wealth, luxury, and ease that would have influenced him on the Jericho road. Someone has made a very attractive homiletical analysis of this parable from this approach. What is the attitude of the various persons in this drama toward worldly possessions? The analysis divides everyone into one of three classes: (1) the robbers: “What is yours is mine; I will seize it.” This is the age-old warfare between the “have-nots” and the “haves.” This is the sort of stuff from which communism and all other revolutions spring. (2) the priest and the Levite: “What is mine is my own; I will keep it.” Selfishness and indifference are the breeding ground for revolutions. How often Jesus pointed out that selfishness will he the ground for eternal condemnation of many. (3) the good Samaritan: “What is mine is God’s; I will give it.” The Innkeeper This interesting monetary analysis overlooks one of the persons who had an important role in the drama of the Jericho road — the innkeeper. Perhaps we might fit him into the analysis as the representative of “strictly business” or “business as usual.” But we are often unjust in our estimate of persons with whom we have a very slight acquaintance. We do not know enough about this innkeeper to become too severe in our criticism. Jesus allows us only a tiny peek into his inn; He quotes only a sentence from the conference between the Samaritan and the innkeeper. After all, this man was keeping a hotel, not a hospital. He assumed a very considerable responsibility in agreeing to take care of the desperately wounded man and to nurse him back to good health. If the innkeeper earnestly sought to share further in the rescue by offering to take in both the Samaritan and the wounded man without charge and to care for the man at his own expense, and, if the Samaritan insisted that, having risked his life to rescue the man on the roadway, he did not wish to surrender the privilege of paying for any care necessary for recovery, then we would change our estimate of the innkeeper accordingly. If tradition is correct in locating this inn and the protecting fort alongside halfway up this wild mountain road, then the innkeeper might have been one of those hardy pioneers of the frontier to whom this was “all in a day’s work.” On the other hand, it might have forced him to face being involved in unforeseen consequences.

What Jesus omits from the account is second only to what He includes. Brevity is the soul of all the marvelous teaching of Jesus. This scintillating gem concerning the Good Samaritan is only one example of many. The deliberate purpose of Jesus in this account is to concentrate the spotlight upon the compassion of the Good Samaritan.