Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 10:37
And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
37. He that shewed mercy on him ] Rather, the pity. By this poor periphrasis the lawyer avoids the shock to his own prejudices, which would have been involved in the hated word, ‘the Samaritan.’ “He will not name the Samaritan by name, the haughty hypocrite.” Luther.
Go, and do thou likewise ] The general lesson is that of the Sermon on the Mount, Mat 5:44.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 37. He that showed mercy] Or, so much mercy. His prejudice would not permit him to name the Samaritan, yet his conscience obliged him to acknowledge that he was the only righteous person of the three.
Go, and do thou likewise] Be even to thy enemy in distress as kind, humane, and merciful, as this Samaritan was. As the distress was on the part of a Jew, and the relief was afforded by a Samaritan, the lawyer, to be consistent with the decision he had already given, must feel the force of our Lord’s inference, that it was his duty to act to any person, of whatever nation or religion he might be, as this Samaritan had acted toward his countryman. It is very likely that what our Lord relates here was a real matter of fact, and not a parable; otherwise the captious lawyer might have objected that no such case had ever existed, and that any inference drawn from it was only begging the question; but as he was, in all probability, in possession of the fact himself, he was forced to acknowledge the propriety of our Lord’s inference and advice.
Those who are determined to find something allegorical, even in the plainest portions of Scripture, affirm that the whole of this relation is to be allegorically considered; and, according to them, the following is the true exposition of the text.
The certain man means Adam – went down, his fall – from Jerusalem, yorih shalom, he shall see peace, perfection, c., meaning his state of primitive innocence and excellence – to Jericho, ( yareacho, his moon,) the transitory and changeable state of existence in this world – thieves, sin and Satan – stripped, took away his righteousness, which was the clothing of the soul-wounded, infected his heart with all evil and hurtful desires, which are the wounds of the spirit – half dead, possessing a living body, carrying about a soul dead in sin.
The priest, the moral law – the Levite, the ceremonial law – passed by, either could not or would not afford any relief, because by the law is the knowledge of sin, not the cure of it. A certain Samaritan, Christ for so he was called by the Jews, Joh 8:48 – as he journeyed, meaning his coming from heaven to earth; his being incarnated – came where he was, put himself in man’s place, and bore the punishment due to his sins – had compassion, it is through the love and compassion of Christ that the work of redemption was accomplished – went to him, Christ first seeks the sinner, who, through his miserable estate, is incapable of seeking or going to Christ – bound up his wounds, gives him comfortable promises, and draws him by his love – pouring in oil, pardoning mercy – wine, the consolations of the Holy Ghost – set him on his own beast, supported him entirely by his grace and goodness, so that he no longer lives, but Christ lives in him – took him to an inn, his Church, uniting him with his people – took care of him, placed him under the continual notice of his providence and love – when he departed, when he left the world and ascended to the Father – took out two pence, or denarii, the law and the Gospel; the one to convince of sin, the other to show how it is to be removed – gave them to the host, the ministers of the Gospel for the edification of the Church of Christ – take care of him, as they are Gods watchmen and God’s stewards, they are to watch over the flock of Christ, and give to each his portion of meat in due season. What thou spendest more, if thou shouldst lose thy health and life in this work – when I come again, to judge the world, I will repay thee, I will reward thee with an eternity of glory.
Several primitive and modern fathers treat the text in this way. What I have given before is, I believe, the meaning of our blessed Lord. What I have given here is generally true in itself, but certainly does not follow from the text. Mr. Baxter’s note here is good: “They who make the wounded man Adam, and the good Samaritan Christ, abuse the passage.” A practice of this kind cannot be too strongly reprehended. Men may take that advantage of the circumstances of the case to illustrate the above facts and doctrines; but let no man say this is the meaning of the relation; no: but he may say, we may make this use of it. Though I cannot recommend this kind of preaching, yet I know that some simple upright souls have been edified by it. I dare not forbid a man to work by whom God may choose to work a miracle, because he follows not with us. But such a mode of interpretation I can never recommend.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
37. Go, c.O exquisite,matchless teaching! What new fountains of charity has not this openedup in the human spiritrivers in the wilderness, streams in thedesert! What noble Christian institutions have not such wordsfounded, all undreamed of till that wondrous One came to bless thisheartless world of ours with His incomparable lovefirst in words,and then in deeds which have translated His words into flesh andblood, and poured the life of them through that humanity which Hemade His own! Was this parable, now, designed to magnify the law oflove, and to show who fulfils it and who not? And who did this asnever man did it, as our Brother Man, “our Neighbor?” Thepriests and Levites had not strengthened the diseased, nor bound upthe broken (Eze 34:4), while Hebound up the brokenhearted (Isa61:1), and poured into all wounded spirits the balm of sweetestconsolation. All the Fathers saw through the thin veil of thisnoblest of stories, the Story of love, and never wearied oftracing the analogy (though sometimes fancifully enough) [TRENCH].Exclaims GREGORY NAZIANZEN(in the fourth century), “He hungered, but He fed thousands Hewas weary, but He is the Rest of the weary; He is saluted ‘Samaritan’and ‘Demoniac,’ but He saves him that went down from Jerusalem andfell among thieves,” &c.
Lu10:38-42. MARTHA ANDMARY.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he said, he that showed mercy to him,…. Meaning the Samaritan; which he was obliged to declare, though of another country and religion, and accounted as an enemy; yet the case was so plain, as put by Christ, that he could not with any honour or conscience, say otherwise:
then said Jesus unto him, go and do thou likewise; such like acts of beneficence and kindness, though to a person of a different nation and religion, and though even an enemy; and by so doing, thou wilt not only appear to be a good neighbour thyself, but to love thy neighbour as thyself.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
On him (‘ ). With him, more exactly. The lawyer saw the point and gave the correct answer, but he gulped at the word “Samaritan” and refused to say that.
Do thou ( ). Emphasis on “thou.” Would this Jewish lawyer act the neighbour to a Samaritan? This parable of the Good Samaritan has built the world’s hospitals and, if understood and practised, will remove race prejudice, national hatred and war, class jealousy.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
He that shewed mercy on him. Rather with him [] : dealt with him as with a brother. The lawyer avoids the hated word Samaritan.
THE VISIT AT THE HOUSE IN BETHANY,
38 – 42. Peculiar to Luke.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And he said, He that shewed mercy on him,” (ho de eipen ho poiesas to eleos met’autou) “Then he (the lawyer) replied, the one who did the mercy deed with and for him.” He would not say “the Samaritan”, expressing a haughty spirit or arrogance, even in his correct reply, Mat 5:7; Pro 14:21.
2) “Then said Jesus unto him,” (eipen de auto ho lesous) “Then Jesus said to him,” the tempting lawyer who had questioned Him with ulterior motives, directing him to “let his light of love shine,” if he had any, Mat 5:14-16.
3) “Go, and do thou likewise.” (poreuou kai su poiei homoios) “You go and do in a similar manner,” whatever you do, with care, compassion, and unselfish help, whatever you can to help those you find in a similar need near you, without hatred or malice toward any race, with love and pity for all. The lawyer had asked an hair-splitting question, and Jesus gave him a definitive, transparent, heart-piercing reply, Gal 6:2; Rom 15:1; Joh 15:14; Jas 1:22.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(37) Go, and do thou likewise.This was the practical, though not the formal, answer to the question of the lawyer. If he acted in the spirit of the Samaritan, he would need no nicely-calculated less or more of casuistic distinctions as to who was and who was not his neighbour. Fellowship in the same human nature, and any kind of even passing contact, were enough to constitute a ground for neighbourly kindness. Of such a question it may be said, Solvitur amando. We love, and the problem presents no difficulty.
Nothing should lead us away from recognising this as the main lesson of the parable. But there is another application of it which, within limits, is legitimate enough as a development of thought, and which has commended itself to so many devout minds, both in ancient and modern times, that it at least deserves a notice. Christ Himself, it is said, is the great pattern of a wide, universal love for man as man, acting out the lesson which the parable teaches in its highest form. May we not think of Him as shadowed forth in the good Samaritan, as accepting, in that sense, the name which had been flung at Him in scorn? Starting from this thought, the circumstances fit in with a strange aptness. The traveller stands as representing mankind at large. The journey is from Jerusalem, the heavenly city, the paradise of mans first estate, to Jericho, the evil and accursed city (Jos. 6:17), the sin into which man entered by yielding to temptation. The robbers are the powers of evil, who strip him of his robe of innocence and purity, who smite him sore, and leave him, as regards his higher life, half-dead. The priest and the Levite represent the Law in its sacrificial and ceremonial aspects, and they have no power to relieve or rescue. The Christ comes and helps where they have failed. The beast on which He rides is the human nature in which the Word dwelt, and it is upon that humanity of His that He bids us rest for comfort and support. The inn represents the visible Church of Christ, and the host its pastors and teachers; even the two pence, perhaps, the ordinances and means of grace committed to the Church. There is an obvious risk, in all such application, of an element that is fantastic and unreal; but the main line of parallelism seems to commend itself, if not to the reason, at least to the imagination of the devout interpreter.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.” And Jesus said to him, Go, and behave in the same way.”
So he salvaged some pride by saying, “He who showed mercy on him.” If we think that was easy for him to say that we do not know human beings. By that he had admitted that a Samaritan could be his neighbour, and that took some doing. True it was a Samaritan of compassion and mercy but that was not the point. The point was that this proud Jewish Scribe had had to admit to a Samaritan being his neighbour. For if he was neighbour to one Jew he was neighbour to all Jews. Even the Scribe would recognise that. In two minutes Jesus had swept away all his religious arguments and all his racial arguments and had consigned them to the dust. Only genius could have accomplished that.
Then Jesus turned to him and said, “‘You go and behave in the same way.” How? By treating men of all religions and races who were in need in the same way, that is as his neighbours. By acknowledging that all good men were his neighbours. By putting aside years of pride and prejudice and becoming a different man. He was demanding a life changing experience
Jesus left the deeper meaning of the story to be thought about by all who heard it. It had not only answered the question as to who his neighbour was, but it had answered his deeper question, how were men to obtain eternal life. For it had shown how men could inherit eternal life by recognising in the Good Samaritan a picture of the One Who came from Galilee seeking and saving the lost, and by putting themselves in His care.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Luk 10:37. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, &c. What a lively picture have we in this parable, of the most disinterested and active benevolence!A benevolence, which excludes no person, not even strangers or enemies, from its tender regards! which disdains no condescension, grudges no cost, in its labours of love! Could any method of conviction have been more forcible, and at the same time more pleasing, than the interrogatory proposed by our Lord, and deduced from the history, Luk 10:36.? or can there be an advice more suitable to the occasion, more important in its nature, or expressed with a more sententious energy, than Go, and do thou likewise. In this case the learner instructs, the delinquent condemns himself; bigotry hears away its prejudice; and pride (when the moral so sweetly, so imperceptibly insinuates), even pride itself lends a willing ear to admonition.
From our Lord’s conduct in the case, we learn how to apply to the passions and prejudices of men, and by what art truth is best and most successfully introduced, where error has been long in possession. Were it a defect in our reason and understanding that made us disagree, and judge and act differently in cases where we have one and the same rule to go by, no human application could reach the distemper; since it is not in our power to enlarge the faculties which are bounded by God and nature; though the Spirit of God can do wonderful things in this respect. But our reason and our understanding are not in fault; they want only to be set free, and to be delivered from the bondage of passion and prejudice, to judge rightly in cases of morality andnatural justice. It is Self which influences the judgment of men, when they obstinately maintain and defend the cause of error or of vice: it is Self that always lies at the bottom: it is not so much the vice as Self that is to be defended; and if you can but separate Self from the vice, (which nothing but the grace of God can do,) the vice will soon be condemned and forsaken. By this honest, this holy art, our Lord convinced the lawyer, who put the question to him, Luk 10:25. He asked the question, intending that none should be admitted into the number of his neighbours, who were not nearly allied to him, of the same nation at least. Our Saviour states a case to him, and puts it so, that his prejudices were all thrown out and silenced. The consequence was, that he who wanted to exclude almost all mankind from a right to his good offices, in a few minutes owns even the Samaritan, his most hated enemy, to be the Jew’s neighbour; and by owning and accepting the Samaritan’s good offices done to the Jew under the relation of a neighbour, he confessed the Samaritan’s right, in that relation, to expect and receive the good offices of the Jew. Whence we may draw the following consequences: 1. It is evident, that the true art of convincing of their errors men of obstinate prejudices, but of general discernment, is, to throw them as much as possible out of their case; for the less a man is concerned himself, the better he judges. You are not in such instances to stir and fret his prejudices, but to decline them; not to reproach him with the error that you condemn, but to place the error at a sufficient distance from him, that he may have a true light to view it in. We have a remarkable instance of this in the conduct of the prophet Nathan with David. But, after all, unless the sacred influences of divine grace accompany our efforts, no genuine good will ever arise even from the most refined arts of reasoning. 2. When once you find yourself, on such occasions, labouring to justify your actions, and searching for expositions which may suit your own inclinations, you may consider yourselfexceedingly far gone from the true liberty of the gospel. 3. If you find yourself involved in the case you are to judge of, instead of seeking for new reasons and arguments whereby to form your opinion, you had much better look back, and reflect what sense you had of this matter before the cause was your own; for it is ten to one but that judgment was much more free and impartial than any that you will make now: or consider, if the case admits it, what is the sense of the truly pious part of mankind; you may more safely trust them than yourself, when your passions are concerned. At least, suppose your enemy in the same circumstances with yourself, and doing what you find yourself inclined to, and consider what judgment you should make of him;and so judge of yourself.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Luk 10:37 . . . .] Bengel: “Non invitus abstinet legisperitus appellatione propria Samaritae.” On the expression, comp. Luk 1:72 .
] the compassion related; : thou also ; not to be joined to (Lachmann), but to . Comp. Luk 6:31 .
REMARK.
Instead of giving to the theoretical question of the scribe, Luk 10:29 , a direct and theoretical decision as to whom he was to regard as his neighbour, Jesus, by the feigned (according to Grotius and others, the circumstance actually occurred) history of the compassionate Samaritan, with all the force of the contrast that puts to shame the cold Jewish arrogance, gives a practical lesson on the question: how one actually becomes the neighbour of ANOTHER, namely, by the exercise of helpful love, independently of the nationality and religion of the persons concerned. And the questioner, in being dismissed with the direction, , has therein indirectly the answer to his question, ; namely: Every one, without distinction of people and faith, to whom the circumstances analogous to the instance of the Samaritan direct thee to exercise helpful love in order thereby to become his neighbour, thou hast to regard as thy neighbour. This turn on the part of Jesus, like every feature of the improvised narrative, bears the stamp of originality in the pregnancy of its meaning, in the insight which suggested it, and in the quiet and yet perfectly frank way in which the questioner, by a direct personal appeal, was put to the blush. [138]
[138] The Fathers, as Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, have been able to impart mystical meanings to the individual points of the history. Thus the signifies Adam ; Jerusalem, paradise ; Jericho, the world ; the thieves, the demons ; the priest, the law ; the Levite, the prophets ; the Samaritan, Christ ; the beast, Christ’s body ; the inn, the church ; the landlord, the bishop ; the Denarii, the Old and New Testaments ; the return, the Parousia . See especially Origen, Hom . 34 in Luc ., and Theophylact, sub loc . Luther also similarly allegorises in his sermons. Calvin wisely says: “Scripturae major habenda est reverentia, quam ut germanum ejus sensum hac licentia transfigurare liceat.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Ver. 37. Go, and do thou likewise ] Help him that hath need of thee, though he be a stranger; yea, or an enemy.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
37. , . . . ] The rendering is as in E. V., go and do thou likewise. The belongs, not to the , but to the , which carries the main stress, the being only secondary.
The lawyer does not answer ‘The Samaritan:’ he avoids this; but he cannot avoid it in conviction and matter of fact.
. , i.e. ‘count all men thy neighbours and love them as thyself.’
The student accustomed to look at all below the surface of Scripture, will not miss the meaning which lies behind this parable, and which while disclaiming all fanciful allegorizing of the text I do not hesitate to say that our Lord Himself had in view when He uttered it. All acts of charity and mercy done here below, are but fragments and derivatives of that one great act of mercy which the Saviour came on earth to perform. And as He took on Him the nature of us all, being ‘not ashamed to call us brethren,’ counting us all His kindred, so it is but natural that in holding up a mirror (for such is a parable) of the truth in this matter of duty, we should see in it not only the present and prominent group, but also Himself and His act of mercy behind. And thus we shall not (in spite of the scoffs which are sure to beset such an interpretation, from the superficial school of critics) give up the interpretation of the Fathers and other divines, who see in this poor traveller, going from the heavenly to the accursed city (Jos 6:26 ; 1Ki 16:34 ), the race of man, the Adam who fell; in the robbers and murderers, him who was a murderer from the beginning ( Joh 8:44 ); in the treatment of the traveller, the deep wounds and despoilment which we have inherited from the fall; in the priest and the Levite passing by, the inefficacy of the law and sacrifice to heal and clothe us: Gal 3:21 (Trench remarks, Parables, p. 316, note, edn. 4, that the Church, by joining the passage Gal 3:16-23 as Epistle, with this Parable as Gospel for the 13th Sunday after Trinity, has stamped this interpretation with her approval): in the good Samaritan, Him of whom it was lately said, “Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan , and hast a devil?” ( Joh 8:48 ) who came to bind up the broken-hearted , to give them the oil of joy for mourning (Isa 61:1 ff.); who for our sakes became poor, that we through His poverty might become rich: who, though now gone from us, has left with us precious gifts, and charged His ministers to feed His lambs, promising them, when the chief Shepherd shall appear, a crown of glory that fadeth not away (1Pe 5:2 ; 1Pe 5:4 ). Further perhaps it is well not to go; or, if we do, only in our own private meditations, where, if we have the great clue to such interpretations, knowledge of Christ for ourselves , and a sound mind under the guidance of His Spirit, we shall not go far wrong. But minutely to allegorize, is to bring the sound spiritual interpretation into disrepute, and throw stumbling-blocks in the way of many, who might otherwise arrive at it.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 10:37 . , etc. If the lawyer was captious to begin with he is captious no longer. He might have been, for his question had not been directly (though very radically) answered. But the moral pathos of the “parable” has appealed to his better nature, and he quibbles no longer. But the prejudice of his class tacitly finds expression by avoidance of the word “Samaritan,” and the use instead of the phrase . Yet perhaps we do him injustice here, for the phrase really expresses the essence of neighbourhood, and so indicates not only who is neighbour but why . For the same phrase vide Luk 1:58 ; Luk 1:72 . This story teaches the whole doctrine of neighbourhood: first and directly, what it is to be a neighbour, viz. , to give succour when and where needed; next, indirectly but by obvious consequence, who is a neighbour, viz. , any one who needs help and whom I have opportunity and power to help, no matter what his rank, race, or religion may be: neighbourhood coextensive with humanity.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
on = with. Greek. meta. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
37. , …] The rendering is as in E. V., go and do thou likewise. The belongs, not to the , but to the , which carries the main stress, the being only secondary.
The lawyer does not answer-The Samaritan: he avoids this; but he cannot avoid it in conviction and matter of fact.
., i.e. count all men thy neighbours and love them as thyself.
The student accustomed to look at all below the surface of Scripture, will not miss the meaning which lies behind this parable, and which-while disclaiming all fanciful allegorizing of the text-I do not hesitate to say that our Lord Himself had in view when He uttered it. All acts of charity and mercy done here below, are but fragments and derivatives of that one great act of mercy which the Saviour came on earth to perform. And as He took on Him the nature of us all, being not ashamed to call us brethren, counting us all His kindred,-so it is but natural that in holding up a mirror (for such is a parable) of the truth in this matter of duty, we should see in it not only the present and prominent group, but also Himself and His act of mercy behind. And thus we shall not (in spite of the scoffs which are sure to beset such an interpretation, from the superficial school of critics) give up the interpretation of the Fathers and other divines, who see in this poor traveller, going from the heavenly to the accursed city (Jos 6:26; 1Ki 16:34),-the race of man, the Adam who fell;-in the robbers and murderers, him who was a murderer from the beginning (Joh 8:44);-in the treatment of the traveller, the deep wounds and despoilment which we have inherited from the fall;-in the priest and the Levite passing by, the inefficacy of the law and sacrifice to heal and clothe us: Gal 3:21 (Trench remarks, Parables, p. 316, note, edn. 4, that the Church, by joining the passage Gal 3:16-23 as Epistle, with this Parable as Gospel for the 13th Sunday after Trinity, has stamped this interpretation with her approval):-in the good Samaritan, Him of whom it was lately said, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? (Joh 8:48)-who came to bind up the broken-hearted, to give them the oil of joy for mourning (Isa 61:1 ff.);-who for our sakes became poor, that we through His poverty might become rich: who, though now gone from us, has left with us precious gifts, and charged His ministers to feed His lambs, promising them, when the chief Shepherd shall appear, a crown of glory that fadeth not away (1Pe 5:2; 1Pe 5:4). Further perhaps it is well not to go;-or, if we do, only in our own private meditations, where, if we have the great clue to such interpretations,-knowledge of Christ for ourselves, and a sound mind under the guidance of His Spirit,-we shall not go far wrong. But minutely to allegorize, is to bring the sound spiritual interpretation into disrepute, and throw stumbling-blocks in the way of many, who might otherwise arrive at it.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 10:37. ) LXX. 2Sa 9:1, etc., has . It is not without design, that the lawyer refrains from giving the proper appellation, the Samaritan. [He shrunk from attributing such credit to a Samaritan, and therefore does not use the name.]-, go thy way) Not yet was this lawyer fit for discipleship.- , thou also) When once the love of ones own people and sect is removed out of the way, the access then at length is the easier to the Grace, which is free and common to all. Therefore the Samaritan, say you, has by this act of his obtained eternal life? [Luk 10:25.] Comp. Luk 10:27-29. The answer to this may be given from Rom 2:26.-, do) This is in consonance with , he that did the deed of mercy.-[, likewise) We need not he ashamed of copying any good example set us, even though it be a Samaritan who is to be imitated.-V. g.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
The Good Samaritan
And Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.Luk 10:37.
The story of the good Samaritan is one of our Lords greatest and most typical parables. It is so simple that a child can read its meaning; yet it is in truth a treatise on practical ethics more profound in thought and more powerful in effect than any other in the world. Is it too much to say that in these few verses there is contained the essential truth of mans relations with his fellow-men? Our very familiarity with the parable blinds us to the greatness of its mingled simplicity and depth andlet us addto the greatness of the claim which it makes upon us.1 [Note: Archbishop C. G. Lang, The Parables of Jesus, 123.]
As we grow older and as things change around us, the old becomes ever new. We look upon the record from a different point of sight, and the parts group themselves together in new combinations. We look upon it in a new light, and what perhaps we had not noticed before grows radiant with unexpected brightness. It is so with the parable now before us. I suppose that we can never read it thoughtfully without finding some fresh power in it to meet new circumstances; and at the same time the central truths of the Divine narrative always rise sharp and clear before us to crown each special lesson which it supplies.2 [Note: Bishop B. F. Westcott, Village Sermons, 342.]
In order to understand the parable we must first of all understand the question with which the lawyer came to Jesus and His reply. Then will follow the truths taught in the parable itself. When we understand the parable we shall see the meaning and feel the force of the exhortation contained in the text.
I
The First Question and its Answer
The lawyer put two questions to Christ. The first question he came for the purpose of asking, the second he found himself compelled to ask.
1. Christ was in Capernaum. And while He was there a certain lawyer stood up and tempted Him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? This lawyer was not a lawyer in our acceptation of the name; he was a man versed in the precepts and ceremonies of the Mosaic law, and also in the commandments and traditions with which meddling priests and scribes had thickly incrusted that law until it became a burden too heavy to be borne. He stood up before the Saviour to tempt Him. The word clearly showsfor its meaning is always a bad one in the New Testamentthat his aim was not to elicit truth but to lay a trap for Christ, to entangle Him in His talk. He was a type of the captious critic, whom you can still find in every street and lane of the city. Nothing could be more solemn and profound than his question; and nothing more unseemly and self-defeating than the spirit in which it was propounded.
He who came to sneer may have departed to pray. Many an incautious seeker has found more than he really sought. The light of conviction has broken in upon men who were not even honest in their doubt. Paul was never more furious against Jesus than on the day of his conversion. More than one scoffer has gone to church to ridicule his wifes religion and has gone home to beseech his wifes God for mercy. One of the most remarkable preachers of early Methodism was converted at a meeting which he attended solely for the purpose of breaking it up. He meant to drive out the preacher, but the truth hooked in his soul. Contest against truth is never hopeful. The keenest blade is soft metal against the sword of the Spirit. God is a terrible antagonist. So, however bitter or cynical the spirit of this lawyer may have been, I am confident he carried away in his soul the barb of conviction.1 [Note: G. C. Peck, Vision and Task, 259.]
(1) The question is one which has been asked many times, springing to the heart and to the lips of many people, distressed, perhaps, by the consciousness of wrong, or lifted up perhaps to catch, as it were, the faint murmurs of some more beautiful world in some more beautiful time; or perhaps in the hour in which, conscious of the transitoriness of this life and the hateful persistence of material things, we have asked whether it is possible for us to take hold of some abiding vitality which will remain with us among the perishing things of this world.
The answer of Christ was in the form of a question, the best form in most cases where the motive of the inquirer lacks genuineness and reality. What is written in the law? how readest thou? Here was a lawyer, who read the law, studied the law, expounded the law, and he was sent to the law for an answer to his query. How readest thou? There seems to have been no hesitation in his reply. With wonderful coolness he gives the condensed summary and essence of the moral law, 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.
(2) The mans question was far too urgent and important to be dealt with merely by describing what would be intellectually in harmony with the question at issue, and therefore Jesus Christ immediately made an appeal to the mans conscience. He said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God; then said Jesus Christ: That is right; this do, go on doing this, and thou shalt live. That is the appeal to the conscience.
When we were leaving Liverpool, after my fathers death, I went with my mother, as she wished to bid Good-bye to Dr. McNeile. As we were leaving, my mother mentioned that I was to be ordained before long. Oh! he said, I wish I had known that. Then, coming near to me, he laid his hand upon my shoulder, and he said, At first you will think that you can do everything, then you will be tempted to think that you can do nothing; but dont let yourself be cast down: you will learn that you can do what God has for you to do.1 [Note: Bishop Boyd Carpenter, Some Pages of My Life, 117.]
2. Christ has touched the mans conscience; He has pricked the side of his moral sense, and you will see the indication of that in a moment. What is the refugethe almost continuous refugeof those whose consciences are just slightly disturbed? The refuge usually is a resort to a dialectical argument, and therefore the man immediately begins to enter into an argument. He wishes now to raise a side-issue, and he asks: Who is my neighbour?
(1) Here is a question which might be debated for days, for years, and yet not be fully answered, for it was exactly one of those questions which were so dear to those who in the Jewish world were anxious to make out that the privileges of Israel still existed. It is written: Thou shalt love thy neighbour; but if all the Gentiles should fall into the sea you are not bound to draw them forth, for these are not thy neighboursthat was the idea of the Jew. Therefore the question of what was the line of demarcation, the line of locality, or blood, or personality, or geographical or racial claim that constituted the difference between the man who was a neighbour and the man who was not a neighbourthose were the little dialectical questions which delighted the Jewish mind; and so the man, feeling that Christ has winged a shaft right into his conscience, begins immediately to turn the flank of the argument, as it were, and to enter upon a dialectical discussion. It is the refuge of the stricken conscience which wishes to evade that which is brought straight before the moral sense. This is the next step. When Jesus Christ perceives that He has stricken this mans conscience, and that he does not realize that the real difficulty of his life is that he has had magnificent theories which as yet have not been fully translated into action, then, knowing that the mans conscience is awake, He begins to strike for the mans heart.
(2) In answer to his second question, Who is my neighbour? Christ told him the parable of the good Samaritan. Now consider the deep principle of human conductwe might almost call it the philosophy of lifewhich the parable contains. We discover the clue to it when we notice that the parable does not answer the lawyers question. The question was: Who is my neighbour? The parable tells what it is to be neighbourly. It seems to be a case of logical non sequitur. In fact, it is a case of the truth which is deeper than logic. Our Lord could not teach the truth by answering the question. For the question itself was wrong; it revealed a wrong temperament of mind. It was facing not truth but fundamental error; to follow it would therefore have been to lose the truth. The lawyer, steeped in all the traditions and instincts of his class, wanted our Lord to give him a clear and precise definition of his neighbour; to mark him out, and set him apart from the general mass of mankind. But definition means limitation. If our Lord had said, This man is your neighbour, the inference in the lawyers mind would have been, Then that other is not my neighbour; I need not concern myself with him; I can pass him by. But this conclusion would have been the very error which Jesus came to banish. He could put the man right only by declining to answer the question; by taking him to a wholly different standpoint, and making him start there, namelyBe in your own spirit neighbourly, and then every man will be your neighbour.
In our religious and moral difficulties we throw out some question as a sort of challenge, persuading ourselves that it is really decisive. Often it remains unanswered. We are disappointed, discomfited. Under such failure of their self-chosen test questions, men often give up their faith or surrender their moral struggle. But, apart from the petulance, the impetuosity, or the effort to justify oneself which a little honest self-scrutiny would often discover in our questions, and which are sufficient to deprive them of any right to an answer, Gods wisdom may see that they spring from a wrong attitude of mind, that they are not facing the line of truth, and therefore may refuse to answer them. But all the while in some other way, at the moment perhaps not discerned, He may be leading us to the truth. While our mind remains a blank as to that particular difficulty which we thought of such crucial importance, He may be bringing some other truth before us, or shaping our lives by some special experience, so that after a time we shall find, perhaps without knowing how, that that old question has been answered in some other way, or has been proved futile or superfluous.1 [Note: C. G. Lang.]
There are, who darkling and alone,
Would wish the weary night were gone,
Though dawning day should only show
The secret of their unknown woe;
Who pray for sharpest throbs of pain
To ease them of doubts galling chain:
Only disperse the cloud, they cry,
And if our fate be death, give light and let us die.
Unwise I deem them, Lord, unmeet
To profit by Thy chastenings sweet,
For Thou wouldst have us linger still
Upon the verge of good or ill,
That on Thy guiding hand unseen
Our individual hearts may lean,
And this our frail and foundering bark
Glide in the narrow wake of Thy beloved ark,
So be it, Lord; I know it best,
Though not as yet this wayward breast
Beat quite in answer to Thy voice;
Yet surely I have made my choice:
I know not yet the promised bliss,
Know not if I shall win or miss;
So doubting, rather let me die,
Than close with aught beside, to last eternally.1 [Note: John Keble, The Christian Year.]
II
The Lessons of the Parable
The road from Jerusalem to Jericho, which nature has blasted with sterility, Christ has refreshed with a tale of the most delicious humanity. That tale, if regarded merely as a picture of the timeas painting with a few strokes its most marked forms of character, and distributing their genuine colours over its peculiar prejudices, vices and miseries, possesses inimitable beauty. There is the Priest, whom we are accustomed to see amid the stir of Jerusalemthe very model of pompous piety, the master of sanctimonious ceremonies, beating his breast in the market-place, and stretching forth his hands at the corners of the streets, the scrupulous adviser of the peoples conscience. We are invited to see him on the solitary ride. His back turned to the metropolis, he is a saint no more; he performs no charities among the hills; delivered from the public eye, he breaks loose from the moralities of life and the reverence of God. There is the Levite, a kind of menial of the sacerdotal order, whose conduct towards him that fell among thieves is true to his usual mimicry of the priests, with whose interests his own are interwoven, and whose habits and hypocrisy he copies to the life. And there is the Samaritanhalf foreigner, half apostate, and more wholly outcast than if he had been idolater downrightthe object of irritating historical recollection, the living memorial of captivity and schism, the centre of a hate both national and religious. With no office, or dignified caste, like the others, to protect him from peril by their sanctity, but traversing a hostile country, he stops to bind the wounds of a stranger.
No one has made the Good Samaritan so real to the souls eye as Watts in his picture of that name. It ceases to be a parable; it becomes a vivid incident of daily life. The naked, dead-alive condition of the Jew who had fallen among thieves, clinging with a despairing grip to the supporting arm of the stranger who has come at the last extremity to his help; the benevolent face of that stranger and alienso full of pity, so capable to save, so prompt to interpose, could not possibly have been presented in a more graphic way; while the lonely, desolate region, half-way between Jerusalem and Jericho, is depicted with a magic touch which adds immensely to the pathos of the scene. The whole story is seen as by a lightning flash, and it makes its appeal to the heart in a manner which cannot be resisted. Go, and do thou likewise is felt with irresistible power by every one who gazes upon that moving sight, and the selfishness that would make one pass by on the other side, and disclaim all connexion with a human brother in distress, whose creed and conditions of life are different from ours, becomes impossible.1 [Note: Hugh Macmillan, Life-Work of George Frederic Watts, 163.]
A Priest and Levite both passed by,
Sent out perchance, to vainly try
To do some good, in fashion high,
Upon the road to Jericho.
But praises of Jerusalem
A wounded sinner would condemn.
This fallen soul was not for them,
Nor journeys down to Jericho.
Their words he would not understand,
Their solemn priestly reprimand.
He needed but a helping hand
Upon the road to Jericho.
So both passed by on the other side.
But soon, a man who dare not chide
Came by, then stopped to save and guide
This traveller to Jericho.
He helped him up; he cheered him on;
He bound his bruises one by one;
And ere the daylight quite was gone
Their backs were turned to Jericho.
And still the good Samaritan,
With friendly words, as man to man,
And deeds which mercy far outran,
Stayed him whod go to Jericho.
Oh, more than ritualistic power,
To guard and help in dangers hour,
When clouds of sin and trouble lower
Upon the road to Jericho,
Is th good Samaritans command.
And may we all well understand
The value of this friendly hand,
Should we go down to Jericho.1 [Note: M. A. B. Evans, The Moonlight Sonata, 45.]
1. Religious profession and service have no necessary connexion with real goodness.This lesson gleams through the whole narrative. Here, for example, we have two Jews, both of them occupying official positions in the Temple worship and service, and yet neither of them possessed of the common sympathies of humanity, but both of them capable of seeing a fellow-mortal in suffering, extreme and possibly fatal, without devising for him any succour. Where should pity have been found if not in a priest of the Most High God? What did his very priesthood signify? In what had it its birth? Was he not a symbolic mediator between God and men? Had he not to deal with a service which culminated in a mercy-seat? A true priesthood implies a compassionate and forgiving God. A true priest was taken from among the people that he might have compassion on the ignorant and on them that were out of the way. As the representative of Him who pities the distressed, and whose tender mercies are over all His works, it was natural to expect that he would have succoured the pillaged and bleeding traveller. But it is clear that men may have much to do with religious service and have nothing to do with religion.
The deadening influence of mere officialism was so keenly felt and feared by the Apostle Paul that he roused into activity every energy of his nature that he might vanquish it. He was an apostle, but he was fearful lest he should forget that he was a man. He had to blow the trumpet, and summon others to the battle with self and sin, but he was apprehensive lest he should neglect his own soul; and hence, with stirring earnestness and subduing pathos, he says, I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.1 [Note: E. Mellor, The Hem of Christs Garment, 185.]
Professor D. B. Towner, who was associated with Mr. Moody for the last fourteen years of his life, says: After his meetings in Oakland, Cal., in the spring of 1899, when I accompanied him as a singer, we took the train for Santa Cruz. We were hardly seated when in came a party of young men, one of whom was considerably under the influence of liquor and very badly bruised, with one eye completely closed and terribly discoloured. He at once recognized Mr. Moody, and began to sing hymns and talk very loudly for his benefit. Mr. Moody caught up his bag and said, Towner, let us get out of this. When I reminded him that the other car was full, he settled down, protesting that the company should not allow a drunken man to insult the whole car in such a manner. Presently the conductor came, and Mr. Moody called his attention to the poor fellow in the rear of the car. The conductor attended to his duty, and when he reached the young man he said a few words to him in a low voice, and the fellow followed him into the baggage car, where he bathed his eye and bound it up with his handkerchief, after which the young man soon fell asleep. Mr. Moody sat musing for a time, and then said, Towner, that is an awful rebuke to me. I preached against Pharisaism last night to a crowd, and exhorted them to imitate the Good Samaritan; and now this morning God has given me an opportunity to practise what I preached, and I find I have both feet in the shoes of the priest and Levite. He was reticent all the way to Santa Cruz, but he told the incident that night to the audience, confessing his humiliation.2 [Note: W. R. Moody, The Life of Dwight L. Moody, 439.]
2. Men may be neighbours though of different religious beliefs.Our Lord does not say that to be neighbourly a man must be of the Jewish religion, or of the Samaritan religion, or of any other religion. The Priest and the Levite were very religious; but, in spite of their religion, they were grossly unneighbourly. Notwithstanding their high religious rank, they were as cold and heartless as the most blatant infidel could be. On the other hand, the Samaritan was neighbourly, not because he was a religious man, but right in the teeth of his religious teaching. The best Samaritan lover of God, according to his creed, was the best Samaritan hater of the religion of his neighbours in Juda; just as among ourselves, the most approved Protestant is by some thought to be the most bitter anti-Catholic demonstrator.
A clergyman wrote to me, I am a Calvinist; belief in the Incarnation appears to me indispensable to salvation, and to my recognition of any one as a child of God. But I confess that the enormous difficulty of at least apparent facts staggers me; one of the most perfect characters I know is an aged Unitarian lady; but then are there not most exemplary people to be found who deny all Christianity in every shape and form? The more I think of it the more perplexed I am.1 [Note: J. Martineau, National Duties, 184.]
Some time ago, dismasted and waterlogged on the boundless sea, a barque had drifted about, until it was one thousand miles from any land, and all hope of relief had died out from the minds of her starving crew. The cry, A ship! a ship! roused the dying energies of the men, and at once shawls and shirts on the ends of oars and boat-hooks were waved as signals of distress. The stranger vessel changed her course and bore down upon the miserable wreck. The wretched sufferers tried with united voice to send a cry of welcome over the waves, and when they recognized their countrys flag they rejoiced at the sure prospect of relief. We cannot realize what they felt as help drew near, after having for days anticipated an awful death, but still less can we imagine their awful revulsion of feeling, and the howl of despair which rent the air, when the vessel, sailing near enough to see the ghastly wretches in their destitute condition, stayed in its course, tacked about, and sailed away, leaving them to their fate. Nor was this all; the same thing had been done by another vessel previously, which also bore their countrys flag and colours. So they endured the tortures of Tantalus, and abandoned themselves to despair. When death had thinned their numbers, and all were laid helpless, suddenly, by Gods pity, a Norwegian vessel sailed across their path. Compassion filled the hearts of the foreign sailors, and tender succour was afforded them. Nor was it until the last survivor had been carried on board the ship that they left the wreck to drift away, a derelict coffin, with its unburied dead.2 [Note: W. J. Townsend.]
3. Need is the measure of neighbourliness.Max Mller said that to the Greek every man not speaking Greek was a barbarian; to the Jew every man not circumcised was a Gentile; to the Muhammadan every man not believing in the prophet of Arabia was an infidel. It was Christianity that struck the word barbarian from the dictionaries of mankind and replaced it with the word brother. Under the influence of the teaching and spirit of Christ we are coming to see that all men everywhere are neighbours, and that it is open to us to do something to help the wounded pilgrim on lifes highway.
Longfellow spoke of his feelings at a banquet when so many were in the outer darkness and in direst need. He spoke of the poverty-stricken millions who challenge our wine and bread; and impeach us all as traitors, the living and the dead.
And whenever I sit at the banquet,
Where the feast and song are high,
Amid the mirth, and the music
I can hear that awful cry.
And hollow and haggard faces,
Look into the lighted hall,
And wasted hands are extended
To catch the crumbs that fall.
For within there is light and plenty,
And odours fill the air;
And without there is cold and darkness,
And hunger and despair.1 [Note: A. McLean, Where the Book Speaks, 83.]
We cannot read John Woolmans Journal without seeing howto use his own quaint and beautiful phraseologyhe was baptized into a feeling sense of all conditions. His sympathies knew neither barrier nor boundary. His devotion braced itself to the expenditure of any energy and the endurance of any sacrifice. Wherever he discovered a weary and oppressed man or woman, he recognized his neighbour and his brother. Whatever he could do for these forlorn and broken travellers, lying wounded by the wayside of life and forgotten by the majority who passed by, was done cheerfully, unpretentiously, graciously. In Pharais, Fiona Macleod tells asand Pharais is Celtic for Paradisethere are no tears shed, though in the remotest part of it there is a grey pool, the weeping of all the world, fed everlastingly by the myriad eyes that every moment are somewhere wet with sorrow, or agony, or vain regret, or vain desire. And those who go there stoop, and touch their eyelids with that grey water, and it is as balm to them, and they go healed of their too great joy; and their songs thereafter are the sweetest that are sung in the ways of Pharais. This was the paradise in which John Woolman sojourned through all his fifty years of life. He was always stooping and touching his eyelids with the grey water. His pity overleaped the fences and trammels which hem ours in.1 [Note: Alexander Smellie, in Introduction to The Journal of John Woolman, xxiii.]
(1) Martineau denies that we are bound to be neighbourly to those who are in need. He says, We are under no obligation to love as ourselves the selfish, the malignant, the depraved. Such are not our neighbours, but occupy the same position with respect to us as the Priest and the Levite in the parable, from whom, it is plain, Jesus withheld the appellation. That Christian morality is hostile to personal resentment, that it softens the irritations of natural passion by the memory of our common nature and common immortality, that it so lifts the eye above the little orbit of our earthly life that we may serenely study its seeming disorders, that it so enfolds us in consciousness of universal providence that nothing can seem totally deranged in the affairs of men, is perfectly true; but it does not stifle, it rather quickens our moral indignation and aversion against wrong; and while it disposes us to patient and practical exertion for the debased, while it creates for us new moral obligations towards them, which no other religion ever recognized, it yet renders the sentiment of interior affection for them more unattainable than ever. In spite of all the refinements of a sentimental morality, it is impossible to separate in our regard the agent and the act; disgust at intemperance is disgust at the intemperate; aversion to hypocrisy is aversion to the hypocrite; indignation at tyranny is indignation at the tyrant. That honour, which, for the sake of our universal Father, is due to all men, that respect which, in consideration of its great futurity, is to be rendered to every human soul, and that promptitude of beneficent effort which, in hope of abating misery, must be ready for every occasion, are never to be withheld from natures the most lost; but emotion of love like that which springs upward to God, the affection which even our self-respect must not be permitted to exceed, is too holy to be squandered on any but those who bear on them the signature of Divine approval.1 [Note: J. Martineau, National Duties, 183.]
(2) But on the other hand let us hear what Dr. Whyte has to say: It has been said of Goethe that, like this Priest and this Levite, he kept well out of sight of stripped and wounded and half-dead men. I hope it is not true of that great intellectual man. At any rate it is not true of Jesus Christ. For He comes and He goes up and down all the bloody passes of human life, actually looking for wounded and half-dead men, and for none else, till He may well bear the name of The one and only entirely Good and True Samaritan. They are here to whom He has said it and done it. When I passed by thee, and saw thee wounded and half-dead, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live. Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was a time of love. Then washed I thee with water, and I anointed thee with oil. And we ourselves are the proof of it.2 [Note: A. Whyte, Our Lords Characters, 237.]
O Christ the Life, look on me where I lie
Ready to die:
O Good Samaritan, nay, pass not by.
O Christ, my Life, pour in Thine oil and wine
To keep me Thine;
Me ever Thine, and Thee for ever mine.
Watch by Thy saints and sinners, watch by all
Thy great and small:
Once Thou didst call us all,O Lord, recall.
Think how Thy saints love sinners, how they pray
And hope alway,
And thereby grow more like Thee day by day.
O Saint of saints, if those with prayer and vow
Succour us now.
It was not they died for us, it was Thou.3 [Note: Christina G. Rossetti, Verses, 207.]
4. Neighbourliness means sacrifice.It is not difficult to imagine that the priest who passed the wounded man so heartlessly might say to himself, Poor man! he has been roughly handled by some highwaymen, but he has not long to live now, that is clear, and he might as well die where he is as anywhere else. Or he might say: Ah! this is a pitiable case; but really it is not the place for any man to linger in; and if I encumber myself with the care of him, the robbers, who may even now be hiding beneath some bush or behind some rock, may swoop like vultures down on me, and make of me another victim. Or he might say: I am anxious to get home, and if I charge myself with the duty of taking this poor man to Jericho, it will greatly retard my progress. All of which means that he would have been neighbour to him that fell among thieves if it had cost him nothingif it had left untouched his time, his comfort, and his ease. And there are thousands who would be neighbours on the same easy conditions, but such is not the spirit which our Saviour commends. The man who would be a follower of the good Samaritan must be one who is endowed with the spirit of sacrifice.
January 23rd, 1827.Slept ill, not having been abroad these eight days. Then a dead sleep in the morning, and when the awakening comes, a strong feeling how well I could dispense with it for once and forever. This passes away, however, as better and more dutiful thoughts arise in my mind. I know not if my imagination has flagged; probably it has; but at least my powers of labour have not diminished during the last melancholy week. Wrote till twelve a.m., finishing half of what I call a good days workten pages of print, or rather twelve. Then walked in Princes Street pleasure-ground with Good Samaritan James Skene, the only one among my numerous friends who can properly be termed amicus curarum mearum, others being too busy or too gay, and several being estranged by habit.1 [Note: Journal of Sir Walter Scott, 90.]
III
The Exhortation
Now look more narrowly at the words of the text. Their exposition is the story which precedes, with its circumstances and its lessons.
And Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. This is the only human example commended to us. In what the Samaritan did our Lord saw no flaw. The Samaritan is for all times the model neighbour. What was it in the conduct of the Samaritan that won from our Lord this unique eulogium? It was the all-round love of a neighbour. He gave time, service, moneys worth, money. He gave everything. He kept back nothing. He grudged nothing. The Samaritans benevolence was all-rounded. He by the wayside had no further claim upon the Samaritan than thishe was a man.
1. Thus we have, first of all, an encouragement to a life of service like the Samaritans. Consider the character of this service.
(1) It is unselfish.There is a compassion which is selfish; and it is very common. Its motive sometimes is the indulgence of sentiment. The sentiment of compassion like other natural emotions craves satisfaction. It is really selfish when its primary motive is to satisfy itself rather than the need of its recipient. The charity which relieves itself by giving an alms to any beggar who asks, without thought or care for his real need, which does not consider that that alms may be a means of encouraging thriftlessness and imposture, may be thus a cruel wrong both to the beggar himself and to the really deserving poor; the charity which, moved by some sentimental appeal, takes no trouble to see whether that appeal is true to facts, or likely to do more harm than goodthis charity is fundamentally false; it is a form of self-indulgence. Or, again, the motive may be ones own spiritual good. To give an alms as a means of relieving ones conscience, or of acquiring credit in the eyes of God, is really a selfish act. It is not admirable, it is merely pitiable, to see the crowds of beggars at some church door in Italy, maintained in beggary rather than lifted out of it, encouraged to trade in the apparatus of misery, by the alms of the faithful. True charity, true neighbourliness, considers first not the indulgence of sentiment or the satisfaction of conscience, but the true need of the poor. And it has come to pass, through the abuse of charity, that the true need of the poor is often best served by withholding, not giving, the heedless and casual dole.
It is simply and sternly impossible for the English public, at this moment, to understand any thoughtful writing,so incapable of thought has it become in its insanity of avarice. Happily, our disease is, as yet, little worse than this incapacity of thought; it is not corruption of the inner nature; we ring true still when anything strikes home to us; and though the idea that everything should pay has infected our every purpose so deeply, that even when we would play the Good Samaritan, we never take out our twopence and give them to the host without saying, When I come again thou shalt give me fourpence, there is a capacity of noble passion left in our hearts core.1 [Note: Ruskin, Sesame and Lilies (Works, i. 31).]
(2) It is thorough.The service of the good Samaritan was thoroughgoing. We modern Samaritans reflect that the inn stands hard by, where this patient can get every attention, and that it must be his own fault if he does not go there; so we ride on with the comforting conclusion that so much is being done for people of that class. The ancient Samaritan did not pause to think whether he would soil his hands or stain his saddle. He understood that the rights of property must give way before the claims of necessity. His beast was his own no longer; for the time being it belonged to the man who was half dead. Here is the Christian law of possession. The thieves had said, All thine is ours, and had snatched it violently. The Samaritan says, All mine is thine, and yields it generously; becauseas Philip Sidney said when he gave up his cup of cold water to the dying soldierThy necessity is greater than mine.
Some years ago I lay ill in San Francisco, an obscure journalist, quite friendless. Stevenson, who knew me slightly, came to my bedside and said, I suppose you are like all of us, you dont keep your money. Now, if a little loan, as between one man of letters and anothereh? This to a lad writing rubbish for a vulgar sheet in California!2 [Note: Quoted from The Times by Graham Balfour in Life of R. L. Stevenson, ii. 40.]
(3) It is personal.The service which the Samaritan rendered was personal. He himself bound up the wounds, himself set the stranger on his own beast, himself brought him to the inn and took care of him. Charity is always incomplete unless it involves this element of personal service. We have become too much accustomed to acting the neighbour by deputy. We give money: we leave it to others to give personal service. Of course, to a large extent this is a necessity of modern life; and we can keep even this second-hand charity at least in touch with true principles if we take pains to follow our money with personal interest and sympathy. But we must never be satisfied with this. No amount of subscriptions can compensate for this want of the touch of person with person; of heart reaching heart; of will encouraging and strengthening will. Each one of us ought to be able to think at once of some individual or family in the ranks of the poor, the sick, the distressed, whom by personal thought and care and act we are trying to comfort and cheer and raise.
What is to be done for the unsaved masses? Mr. Moody asked while in Sheffield. In answering his own inquiry, he said that he had found a spiritual famine in England such as he had never dreamed of. Here, for instance, in this town of Sheffield, he said, I am told that there are one hundred and fifty thousand people who not only never go near a place of worship, but for whom there is actually no church accommodation provided, even if they were willing to take advantage of it. It seems to me, if there be upon Gods earth one blacker sight than these thousands of Christless and graceless souls, it is the thousands of dead and slumbering Christians living in their very midst, rubbing shoulders with them every day upon the streets, and never so much as lifting up a little finger to warn them of death and eternity and judgment to come. Talk of being sickened at the sight of the worlds degradation, ah! let those of us who are Christian hide our faces because of our own, and pray God to deliver us from the guilt of the worlds blood. I believe that if there is one thing which pierces the Masters heart with unutterable grief, it is not the worlds iniquity but the Churchs indifference. He then argued that every Christian man and woman should feel that the question was not one for ministers and elders and deacons alone, but for them as well. It is not enough, he said, to give alms; personal service is necessary. I may hire a man to do some work, but I can never hire a man to do my work. Alone before God I must answer for that, and so must we all.1 [Note: W. R. Moody, The Life of Dwight L. Moody, 195.]
2. Lay emphasis on the necessity of doinggo, and do thou likewise. Which of us has never allowed sensibility of feeling to pass muster with his conscience in the place of merciful action? The glow which warms our hearts when we are roused by a tale of oppression, or shed a tear over anothers woe, is so like the comfort of a self-approving conscience when a duty has been done that we need reminding roughly that in Heavens chancery fine feeling counts for nothing; that it is precious only so far as it leads to noble action; that the sensibility which ends where it began makes inaction more inexcusable; that
Faiths meanest deed more favour wears
Where lives and hearts are weighed
Than keenest feelings, choicest prayers,
Which bloom their hour and fade.
Action is the test of feelings. The pity raised in us by the sight of suffering must pass into the prompt energy which relieves it before we can claim a place in that noble army typified by the Good Samaritan.
Shall I tell you what I saw the other day? It made me laugh, and yet it made me sad. I saw, in one of your parks, a poor little ragged boy, who was evidently hungry, and who was anxious to appeal successfully to the pity of the public. He was met by a tall, lean, clean man, who set his long, bony fingers together stiffly and impressively, and lectured the child in very suitable language. I overheard him say, This is not proper. You ought to have been at school; you should not be prowling about here in this way; there are places provided for such as you, and I earnestly advise you to get away from this course of life. Every word he said was grammatically correct, and socially very true. As he was delivering his frosty lecture to the poor lad, there came a boya school-boy hastening to schoolwho was carrying a large lump of bread and butter in his hand, while he was eating as only school-boys can eat; and when he saw the poor ragged child, he pulled his bread and butter in two, put one half into the boys hand, and went on. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. That boy who gave his bread and butter away will stand a better chance than the ninety-nine legally upright, who apparently need no repentance!1 [Note: Joseph Parker.]
3. Finally lay stress on the examplego, and do thou likewisefor here lies the moral of the whole. School and train the sensibility and tenderness of heart which God has given to you into the practice of active mercy towards those who stand in need of it! Do, by ready and ungrudging bounty if God has blessed you with affluence; in any case by active kindness towards the sick and sorrowing and helpless who shall cross your path, strive in some small measure to pay back to Christ His own unspeakable compassion upon you! For the one prevision of earths final judgment let fall by Him in talk with His disciples measures acceptance or rejection, weal or woe, the right hand or the left, not by Godward consciousness, integrity of conduct, purity of life, but solely by the loving succour extended to the wounded on lifes way, to the suffering, the needy, the forlorn, imaged in whom He saw, and commanded them to see, Himself.
This day last year Livingstone dieda Scotchman and a Christian, loving God and his neighbour, in the heart of Africa. Go thou and do likewise!Mackays Diary, Berlin, May 4th, 1874.1 [Note: Mackay of Uganda, 10.]
Have you had a kindness shown?
Pass it on;
Twas not given for thee alone,
Pass it on;
Let it travel down the years,
Let it wipe anothers tears,
Till in heavn the deed appears
Pass it on.
Did you hear the loving word?
Pass it on;
Like the singing of a bird?
Pass it on;
Let its music live and grow,
Let it cheer anothers woe;
You have reaped what others sow,
Pass it on.
Twas the sunshine of a smile,
Pass it on;
Staying but a little while!
Pass it on;
April beam, the little thing,
Still it makes the flowrs of spring,
Makes the silent birds to sing
Pass it on.
Have you found the heavnly light?
Pass it on;
Souls are groping in the night,
Daylight gone;
Hold thy lighted lamp on high,
Be a star in some ones sky,
He may live who else would die
Pass it on.
Be not selfish in thy greed,
Pass it on;
Look upon thy brothers need,
Pass it on;
Live for self, you live in vain;
Live for Christ, you live again;
Live for Him, with Him you reign
Pass it on.
The Good Samaritan
Literature
Ashley (J. M.), A Promptuary for Preachers, i. 201.
Blunt (J. J.), Plain Sermons, ii. 40.
Bourdillon (F.), The Parables of our Lord, 136.
Burrell (D. J.), The Gospel of Gladness, 212.
Crookall (L.), Topics in the Tropics, 8.
Darlow (T. H.), The Upward Calling, 262.
Gray (W. H.), Our Divine Shepherd, 291.
Hill (J. E.), Queen Charity, 171.
Hodgson (A. P.), Thoughts for the Kings Children, 53.
Hyde (T. D.), Sermon-Pictures, i. 287.
Jeffrey (J.), The Personal Ministry of the Son of Man, 121.
Johnson (G. B.), The Beautiful Life of Christ, 33.
Lang (C. G.), The Parables of Jesus, 123.
McLean (A.), Where the Book Speaks, 77.
Macnicol (D. C.), Some Memories, 48.
Martineau (J.), National Duties, 173.
Mellor (E.), The Hem of Christs Garment, 177.
Meyer (F. B.), The Souls Pure Intention, 191.
Paget (F.), Studies in the Christian Character, 221.
Parker (J.), The Gospel of Jesus Christ, 88.
Peck (G. C.), Vision and Task, 259.
Pulsford (J.), Loyalty to Christ, ii. 32.
Smith (J.), Short Studies: The Gospels, 16.
Snell (B. J.), Sermons on Immortality, 79.
Townsend (W. J.), in The Parables of Jesus, 287.
Tuckwell (W.), Nuggets from the Bible Mine, 154.
Walker (G. S.), The Pictures of the Divine Artist, 105.
Webster (F. S.), My Lord and I, 110.
Westcott (B. F.), Village Sermons, 343.
Whyte (A.), Our Lords Characters, 231.
Wilmot-Buxton (H. J.), By Word and Deed, ii. 114.
Christian World Pulpit, xxxviii. 305 (F. W. Farrar); xxxix. 173 (F. O. Morris); xl. 76 (F. C. Hill); li. 52 (J. Bush); liv. 145 (H. Scott Holland); 212 (R. F. Horton).
Contemporary Pulpit, 2nd Ser., iv. 95 (T. Guthrie).
Guardian, July 15, 1910, p. 982 (W. Boyd Carpenter).
Preachers Magazine, xxiii. 161 (W. J. C. Pike).
Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible
He that: Pro 14:21, Hos 6:6, Mic 6:8, Mat 20:28, Mat 23:23, 2Co 8:9, Eph 3:18, Eph 3:19, Eph 5:2, Heb 2:9-15, Rev 1:5
Go: Luk 6:32-36, Joh 13:15-17, 1Pe 2:21, 1Jo 3:16-18, 1Jo 3:23, 1Jo 3:24, 1Jo 4:10, 1Jo 4:11
Reciprocal: 1Sa 30:11 – gave him Mar 12:31 – Thou 1Jo 4:21 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY
Go, and do thou likewise.
Luk 10:37
The parable of the Good Samaritan has been so frequently, so fully, so effectively dealt with that there is no need to dwell upon its details or to attempt once more to develop its spiritual teaching. It is my purpose to show in what ways we may obey the teaching which underlies the command of our Lord: Go, and do thou likewise. To obey to the letter these words of the Lord might be to misread their meaning. The age in which we live, the land in which we live, the circumstances by which we are surrounded, differ as widely as possible from the age, the land, the circumstances of our Lords time. These things must be taken into account in trying to realise how we may do our Lords bidding.
I. In estimating our duty to our fellow-men, we must not take a narrow view of what that duty is.When men read some sad story of distress they are always ready to throw the blame on some one else, the clergy by preference. Of course, the clergy have, within certain limits, a very clear duty to perform, even as regards the temporal needs of parishioners. They can hardly help getting to know where help is needed. But we know that they do not, as a rule, neglect this part of their duty. Very rightly they remember that a clergyman is not a relieving officer; that there is such a thing as the Poor Law; that in theory, at any rate, no one need starve in England. It is disastrous to spiritual influence if the clergy come to be looked upon as persons whose main duty is to relieve distress. But, whilst this is true, it is also true that they cannot neglect the bodily needs of their people without justly incurring blame. If, however, they are not to be absolutely overwhelmed by the mere serving of tables, aye, and to be crushed under a sense of the hopelessness of the task assigned them, their number in large parishes must be greatly increased, as also must the resources placed at their disposal; for both these matters there is opportunity to obey the Masters command.
II. We are bound to remember that this command is to be obeyed in spirit rather than in letter.What are the lessons for us now? Certainly not that we are to relieve every beggar we meet in the street, every person who comes to our door, every sturdy applicant for charity. Prevention is better than cure. Men are obeying the spirit of our Lords teaching when they strive to improve the condition of the people generally.
III. Christians are bound to obey the teaching of this parable because
(a) By so doing they will commend spiritual religion to those who love it not.
(b) Christians will have many opportunities of pressing home spiritual truths which would never have been theirs had they neglected the temporal needs of their neighbours. Our Blessed Lord Himself won the hearts of the multitude by miracles of mercy. In such matters the Church as a whole, not the clergy alone, must take part. The religious layman who will take the time and trouble to share actively in improving the lot of his fellow-men is ever a power for good in spiritual things.
Rev. Canon Scott.
Illustration
Lord Shaftesbury was obeying the spirit of this parable when he did his best to shorten hours of labour in Lancashire factories, and to prevent children under a certain age being employed in factory work. Mr. Plimsoll was obeying the spirit of this parable when he sought to render it impossible for ships to be sent to sea in an unfit condition, with unsuitable cargo, without a sufficient number of sailors. Mr. Raikes was obeying the spirit of this command when he instituted Sunday-schools. Mr. Cadbury was obeying the spirit of this command when he furnished what had been his own home as a holiday retreat and hospital for sick children. Every effort honestly put forth to make the world a happier and a better place, whether it be by distinctly evangelistic plans or by those which have as their first aim the improvement of the material condition of the people, is obedience to this command. But let us remember that such effort cannot be done by proxy. There must be personal work. It is quite true that those who are willing to give their money may do much; but all experience shows that the personal interest of a great many people is absolutely needful if large results are to be attained.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Luk 10:37. He that shewed mercy on him. The conclusion is irresistible, but the lawyer does not call him the Samaritan.
Go, and do thou likewise. The lawyer was taught how one really becomes the neighbor of another, namely, by active love, irrespective of nationality or religion. His question, who is my neighbor, was answered: He to whom you ought thus to show mercy in order to become his neighbor, is your neighbor. The question is answered once for all. All are our neighbors, when we have thus learned what we owe to man as men.
The main lesson of the parable is one of philanthropy manifesting itself in humane, self-sacrificing acts, to all in need, irrespective of all other human distinctions. All through the Christian centuries, this lesson has been becoming more and more prominent; but has never of itself made men philanthropic. He who taught the lesson can and does give strength to put it into practice. In the highest sense our Lord alone has perfectly set forth the character of the Good Samaritan. The best example of what we call humanity must necessarily be found in the Son of man. The love of Christ is both the type and the source of this love to our neighbor. This truth has led to an allegorical interpretation of the parable. This interpretation, which has been a favorite from the early centuries, is suggestive and in accordance with revealed truth, though probably not the truth our Lord reveals here. According to this view, the traveller represents the race of Adam going from the heavenly city (Jerusalem) to the accursed one (Jericho; Jos 6:26); the robbers, Satan and his agents; the state of the traveller, our lost and helpless condition by nature, half-dead (being sometimes urged against the doctrine of human inability); the priest and Levite, the in efficacy of the law and sacrifice to help us; the Good Samaritan, our Lord, to whom the Jews had just said (Joh 8:48): Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil; the charge to the inn-keeper, the charge to His ministers, the promised return, the Second Advent. Some go further and make the inn represent the Church; the two denarii, the two sacraments, etc. Such analogies are not interpretations.Finally, this parable refers to love of man as man, not Christian love of the brethren. A zeal for the latter, which overlooks the former, becomes Pharisaical. The parable, moreover, represents the humanity as exercised by one in actual doctrinal error, and the inhumanity by those who were nearer the truth, orthodox Jews. Our Lord could not mean to show how good deeds resulted from holding error and bad deeds from holding the truth; though such an inference is frequently forced on the passage. The Samaritan is brought in, not because of his theological views, but because he belonged to a race despised and hated by the Jews, so as to give point to a lesson meant for a Jew. At the same time our Lord does show us that one in speculative error may be practically philanthropic, and those holding proper religious theories may be really inhuman. The former is certainly the better man.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The answer to Jesus’ question was simple and obvious. The lawyer seems to have understood the point of the parable because he did not describe the true neighbor as the Samaritan but as the man who showed mercy. On the other hand he may have avoided the use of the word "Samaritan" out of disdain. Showing mercy was the key issue, not the nationality of the neighbor. Racial and religious considerations were irrelevant.
Jesus ended the encounter by commanding the lawyer to begin to follow the Samaritan’s example. This is what he needed to do if he wanted to earn eternal life (cf. Luk 10:25). If he treated everyone with whom he had any dealings with compassion and mercy, he would be loving his neighbor in the sense that God commanded (Luk 10:27; Lev 19:18). Thus Jesus showed that the real test of love is action, not just profession (cf. Jas 2:15-16; 1Jn 3:17-18). He also faced the lawyer with a humanly impossible obligation. Hopefully the man finally realized that and turned to Jesus for His justification (Luk 10:29).
This parable obviously teaches that people should help other people who are in need when they encounter them, even though they may not have anything in common but their humanity. It is also a powerful polemic against prejudice and for compassion. Jesus Himself was the great example of the attitudes and actions that He advocated in this parable. The parallels between Jesus and the Samaritan are striking. However, it seems clear that Jesus did not give this parable to draw attention to Himself but to teach His disciples and the lawyer what it means to love one’s neighbor. They also learned that, properly understood, God’s demands are impossible to keep perfectly, so one must cast himself on God’s mercy if he hopes to obtain eternal life.
"The Parable implies not a mere enlargement of the 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 from that of Judaism. The question now is not ’Who is my neighbour?’ but ’Whose neighbour am I?’" [Note: Edersheim, 2:239.]