30<\/strong>. A certain man<\/em> ] Clearly, as the tenor of the Parable implies, a Jew.<\/p>\n went down from Jerusalem to Jericho<\/em> ] A rocky, dangerous gorge (Jos. B. J.<\/em> IV. 8, 3), haunted by marauding Bedawin, and known as ‘the bloody way’ ( Adommim<\/em>, Jerome, De loc. Hebr.<\/em> and on Jer 3:2<\/span> ).<\/em> The “went down” is strictly accurate, for the road descends very rapidly from Jerusalem to the Jordan valley. The distance is about 21<\/em> miles. For Jericho, see Luk 19:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n thieves<\/em> ] Rather, “robbers,” “brigands.”<\/em> Palestine was notorious for these plundering Arabs. Herod the Great had rendered real service to the country in extirpating them from their haunts, but they constantly sprung up again, and even the Romans could not effectually put them down (Jos. Antt.<\/em> Luk 20:6<\/span>, 1 ; B. J.<\/em> xi. 12,<\/em> 5). On this very road an English baronet Sir Frederic Henniker was stripped and murdered by Arab robbers in 1820. “He was probably thinking of the Parable of the Samaritan when the assassin’s stroke laid him low,” Porter’s Palestine,<\/em> I. 151.<\/p>\n wounded him<\/em> ] Rather, laying blows on him.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n half dead<\/em> ] Some MSS. omit the , ‘chancing to be still alive.’ So far as the robbers were concerned, it was a mere accident that any life was left in him.<\/p>\n Jesus answering – <\/B>Jesus answered him in a very different manner from what he expected. By one of the most tender and affecting narratives to be found anywhere, he made the lawyer his own judge in the case, and constrained him to admit what at first he would probably have denied. He compelled him to acknowledge that a Samaritan – of a race most hated of all people by the Jews – had shown the kindness of a neighbor, while a priest and a Levite had denied it to their own countrymen.<\/P> From Jerusalem to Jericho – <\/B>Jericho was situated about 15 miles to the northeast of Jerusalem, and about 8 miles west of the river Jordan. See the notes at Mat 20:29<\/span>.<\/P> Fell among thieves – <\/B>Fell among robbers. The word thieves means those who merely take property. These were highwaymen and not merely took the property, but endangered the life. They were robbers. From Jerusalem to Jericho the country was rocky and mountainous, and in some parts scarcely inhabited. It afforded, therefore, among the rocks and fastnesses, a convenient place for highwaymen. This was also a very frequented road. Jericho was a large place, and there was much traveling to Jerusalem. At this time, also, Judea abounded with robbers. Josephus says that at one time Herod the Great dismissed 40,000 men who had been employed in building the temple, a large part of whom became highwaymen (Josephus Antiquities, xv. 7). The following remarks of Professor Hackett, who visited Palestine in 1852, will furnish a good illustration of the scene of this parable. It is remarkable that a parable uttered more than eighteen hundred years ago might still be appropriately located in this region.<\/P> Professor Hackett (Illustrations of Scripture, p. 215, 216) says of this region: It is famous at the present day as the haunt of thieves and robbers. No part of the travelers journey is so dangerous as the expedition to Jericho and the Dead Sea. The Oriental pilgrims who repair to the Jordan have the protection of an escort of Turkish soldiers; and others who would make the same journey must either go in company with them, or provide for their safety by procuring a special guard. I was so fortunate as to be able to accompany the great caravan at the time of the annual pilgrimage. Yet, in spite of every precaution, hardly a season passes in which some luckless wayfarer is not killed or robbed in going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. The place derives its hostile character from its terrible wildness and desolation. If we might conceive of the ocean as being suddenly congealed and petrified when its waves are tossed mountain high, and dashing in wild confusion against each other, we should then have some idea of the aspect of the desert in which the Saviour has placed so truthfully the parable of the good Samaritan. The ravines, the almost inaccessible cliffs, the caverns, furnish admirable lurking-places for robbers. They can rush forth unexpectedly upon their victims, and escape as soon almost beyond the possibility of pursuit.<\/P> Every circumstance in this parable, therefore, was full of significance to those who heard it. The Saviour delivered it near Bethany, on the border of the frightful desert, Luk 10:25<\/span>, Luk 10:38<\/span>. Jericho was a sacerdotal city. The passing of priests and Levites between that place and Jerusalem was an everyday occurrence. The idea of a caravanserai or inn on the way was not invented, probably, for the sake of the allegory, but borrowed from the landscape. There are the ruins now of such a shelter for the benighted or unfortunate on one of the heights which overlook the infested road. Thus it is that the instructions of our Lord derive often the form and much of their pertinence from the accidental connections of time and place.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 30. And Jesus answering<\/B><\/I>] Rather, Then Jesus took him up<\/I>. This I believe to be the meaning of the word ; he threw out a challenge, and our Lord took him up<\/I> on his own ground. See WAKEFIELD’S Testament<\/I>.<\/P> <\/P> A certain<\/B><\/I> man <\/B>went down from Jerusalem<\/B><\/I>] Or, A certain man of<\/I> Jerusalem going down to Jericho<\/I>. This was the most public road in all Judea, as it was the grand thoroughfare between these two cities for the courses of priests, twelve thousand of whom are said to have resided at Jericho. See Lightfoot<\/I>.<\/P> <\/P> Fell among thieves<\/B><\/I>] At this time the whole land of Judea was much infested with hordes of banditti; and it is not unlikely that many robberies might have been committed on that very road to which our Lord refers.<\/P> <\/p>\n It is certain that the principal scope of our Saviour in this history, or parable, was to convince the lawyer, that every one is our neighbour to whom God offereth us an opportunity of doing good, whether he be of our nation or region or not. Every object of our mercy is our neighbour, whom God requireth us to love as ourselves. This was quite contrary to the common doctrine of the scribes and Pharisees interpreting the law, Thou shalt love thy<\/I> neighbour as thyself, <\/I>and excellently served our Saviours design, to show this lawyer that he understood not, much less observed, the law of God in that manner, as that he could justify himself from the violation of it. He also by the by showeth him, that the Samaritans, whom the Jews so much abhorred, better understood the law of God, than the ecclesiastical guides of those times, who yet pretended to be teachers of it to others; for some of them by the light of nature discerned themselves obliged to do good to every one that stood in need of their help, or if not by the light of nature, yet by the light of revelation in the law of Moses; but the scribes and Pharisees, by their false interpretation of the Divine law, had taught people to omit a great part of their duty required by the Divine law, and so could not hope to be justified, or to obtain eternal life and salvation, from the observation of it. <\/P> <\/p>\n 30. A certain man<\/B>a Jew. <\/P> from Jerusalem to Jericho<\/B>adistance of nineteen miles northeast, a deep and very fertilehollow”the Temple<\/I> of Judea” [TRENCH].<\/P> thieves<\/B>“robbers.”The road, being rocky and desolate, was a notorious haunt of robbers,then and for ages after, and even to this day.<\/P><\/p>\n And Jesus answering, said<\/strong>,…. The following things; which may either be considered as a narrative of matter of fact, or as a supposed case, and delivered by way of parable; and in either way, though the general design of it is in answer to the lawyer’s question, to show who may be called a neighbour; and that a man who is a stranger, and accounted an enemy, yet doing acts of mercy, kindness, and beneficence, to one in distress, ought to be accounted a neighbour: and has a much better title to such a character, than one of the same nation and religion, who takes no notice of a distressed object; yet it may be considered, as representing the sad estate and condition of mankind by the fall, and their recovery by Christ; whereby he shows himself to be their best neighbour, and truest friend:<\/p>\n a certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho<\/strong>. The distance between these two places, the Jews say p, was ten “parsas”, that is, forty miles; for every “parsa” was four miles, and ten “parsas” are expressly said q to be forty miles; which must be understood of the lesser miles, otherwise a parsa itself was but a mile: the Jews had two sorts of miles, the greater was 2000 cubits, the lesser 1000 cubits: the man is said to go down from the one to the other, because Jerusalem stood on high ground, and Jericho in a valley. This “certain man”, may represent mankind failing in Adam, from a state of happiness, into misery: human nature was originally in one man, but one man was created at first, and he had all human nature in him, and was the representative of mankind; he was made upright, but sinned, and fell from his uprightness, and all mankind in him: he may be said to go down, from Jerusalem, which signifies peace, and the vision of it; and was a city compact together, beautiful and well situated; where were the worship of God, and his Shekinah, or divine presence; to Jericho, a city accursed by Joshua, and a very wicked place in the days of Christ: since man by sinning against God, departed from his happy and peaceful state, from a state of peace and tranquillity with God, with the holy angels, and even with the beasts of the field; and also from peace and serenity in his own conscience, as well as from communion with God; and from his pure worship and service, to a sensual, earthly, worldly, wicked, and accursed state:<\/p>\n and fell among thieves<\/strong>: in the way to Jericho, was a place called Adomim, which signifies “bloods”, because much blood was shed there, by the frequent incursions of thieves and robbers, as Jerom observes r; and was about four hours journey from Jericho s: and by the man’s falling among thieves, may be expressed mankind coming into the hands of sin and Satan, which are as robbers, that steal, kill, and destroy; since these have robbed man of his honour, defaced the image of God in him, and deprived him of the glory of God, and were murderers of him from the beginning:<\/p>\n which stripped him of his raiment<\/strong>; as thieves and robbers are used to do; signifying the loss of original righteousness, by sin, which was a covering to man, in which he could appear before God; and was very ornamental to him, being pure and perfect in its kind, though only a creature’s righteousness, and a created one; and which was natural and loseable, as the event has shown: hence man is become a naked creature, has nothing to cover himself with, but stands exposed to the law, justice, and wrath of God; is destitute of a righteousness, nor can he work out one that will stand him in any stead, or justify him before God:<\/p>\n and wounded him<\/strong>: which is the common usage of such men; and may set forth the morbid and diseased condition that sin has brought man into; being from the crown of the head, to the sole of the foot, full of wounds, bruises, and putrefying sores; and such as are in themselves mortal, and incurable by any, but the great physician of souls, the Lord Jesus Christ; and yet men are naturally insensible of them, and unconcerned about there:<\/p>\n and departed, leaving him half dead<\/strong>; or “near death”, as the Arabic version renders it; which may be applied to death natural, spiritual, and eternal: to death natural, which comes by sin, seeing it is but one part, or half of the man that dies this death, namely, his body; and to a spiritual death, or the death of the soul, which is dead in trespasses and sins, whilst the body is alive; and to eternal death, to which men are exposed for sin, and are under the sentence of it, though not executed; and in each of these senses may be said to be “half dead”: and which is no ways to the advantage of the doctrine of man’s freewill, and the powers and abilities of; as if man was not in a spiritual sense so dead, that he can do nothing in a spiritual manner; but the phrase is used, to show the power of sin, and the malice of Satan, and yet that man is still recoverable by the grace of God.<\/p>\n p T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 20. 2. & 39. 20. Bartenora in Misn. Tamid, c. 3. sect. 8. q T. Bab. Pesachim. fol. 93. 2. & Gloss. in ib. r Ad Eustochium, Tom. I. fol. 59. I. K. s Masius in Josh. xv. 7.<\/p>\n Made answer <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Second aorist active participle of <\/SPAN><\/span> (see 7:43<\/span>), to take up literally, and then in thought and speech, old verb, but in this sense of interrupting in talk only in the N.T.<\/P> Was going down <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Imperfect active describing the journey.<\/P> Fell among robbers <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Second aorist ingressive active indicative of <\/SPAN><\/span>, old verb with associative instrumental case, to fall among and to be encompassed by (<\/SPAN><\/span>, around), to be surrounded by robbers. A common experience to this day on the road to Jericho. The Romans placed a fort on this “red and bloody way.” These were bandits, not petty thieves.<\/P> Stripped <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Of his clothing as well as of his money, the meanest sort of robbers.<\/P> Beat him <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Second aorist active participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>, a common verb. Literally, “placing strokes or blows” (<\/SPAN><\/span>, plagues) upon him. See Luke 12:48<\/span>; Acts 16:23<\/span>; Rev 15:1<\/span>; Rev 15:6<\/span>; Rev 15:8<\/span> for “plagues.”<\/P> Half-dead <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Late word from <\/SPAN><\/span>, half, and <\/SPAN><\/span>, to die. Only here in the N.T. Vivid picture of the robbery. <\/P> <\/p>\n Answering [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Used by Luke only, and in this sense only here. See on ch. Luk 7:43<\/span>. It means, strictly, to take up; and hence, of conversation, to take up another’s discourse and reply. <\/P> Fell among. See on Jas 1:2<\/span>. <\/P> Thieves [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. See on Mt 26:55<\/span>; and Luk 23:39 – 43<\/span>. These were not petty stealers, but men of violence, as was shown by their treatment of the traveler. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho passed through a wilderness (Jos 16:1<\/span>), which was so notorious for robberies and murders that a portion of it was called “the red or bloody way,” and was protected by a fort and a Roman garrison. <\/P> Stripped. Not of his clothing only, but of all that he had. <\/P> Wounded [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Lit., having laid on blows. Blows or stripes is the usual sense of the word in the New Testament. See ch. Luk 12:48<\/span>; Act 16:23<\/span>. It has the metaphorical sense of plagues in Rev 14:1<\/span>, 6<\/span>, 8<\/span>, etc. <\/P> Half dead [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The full force of the expression cannot be rendered into English. The word tugcanonta throws an element of chance into the case. Lit., happening to be half dead; or “leaving him half dead, as it chanced;” his condition being a matter of unconcern to these robbers. The word hJmiqanh, half dead, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The best texts, however, omit tugcanonta.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n THE GOOD SAMARITAN PARABLE V. 30-37 <\/p>\n 1) “And Jesus answering said,”<\/strong>(hupolabon ho lesous eipen) “Taking him (the lawyer up) Jesus said,” explaining by illustration in story form.<\/p>\n 2) “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho,” <\/strong>(anthropos tis katebainen apo lerousalem eis lericho) “A certain man was once going down from Jerusalem into Jericho,” a distance of about 18 miles. And it is to be understood that the certain man was a Jew. Jericho is of much lower elevation than Jerusalem, the road is haunted by robbers.<\/p>\n 3) “And fell among thieves,” <\/strong>(kai lestais periepesin) “And he fell in with robbers,” into the hands of robbers, thugs, bandits, or way-laying thieves and hijackers. The way was often referred to as “the bloody way” and here the man was way-laid.<\/p>\n 4) “Which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him,” <\/strong>(hoi kai ekdusantes auton kai plegas epithentes) “Who both stripped him and laid blows on him,” beat him up, wounding him with contusions. 40,000 men had been dismissed from work on the Temple of Herod at this time.<\/p>\n 5) “And departed, leaving him half dead.” <\/strong>(apelthon aphentes hemithane) “And went away from him in that condition, leaving him half dead,” or dying, not a neighbourly deed, or loving ones neighbor, as ones self, Mat 22:39<\/span>; Mar 12:31<\/span>.<\/p>\n Jericho is known as the “city of Palms,” and is located East of Jerusalem, about nine miles North of the Dead Sea, Jerusalem is 2550 feet above sea level and 3350 feet above Jericho, which is 800 feet below sea level.<\/p>\n 30. And Jesus answering said. Christ might have stated simply, that the word neighbor extends indiscriminately to every man, because the whole human race is united by a sacred bond of fellowship. And, indeed, the Lord employed this word in the Law, for no other reason than to draw us sweetly to mutual kindness. The commandment would have run more clearly thus: Love every man as thyself. But as men are blinded by their pride, so that every man is satisfied with himself, scarcely deigns to admit others to an equal rank, and withholds from them the duties he owes them, the Lord purposely declares that all are neighbors that the very relationship may produce mutual love. To make any person our neighbor, therefore, it is enough that he be, a man; for it is not in our power to blot out our common nature. <\/p>\n But Christ intended to draw the reply from the Pharisee, that he might condemn himself. For in consequence of the authoritative decision being generally received among them, that no man is our neighbor unless he is our friend, if Christ had put a direct question to him, he would never have made an explicit acknowledgment, that under the word neighbor all men are included, which the comparison brought forward forces him to confess. The general truth conveyed is, that the greatest stranger is our neighbor, because God has bound all men together, for the purpose of assisting each other. He glances briefly, however, at the Jews, and especially at the priests; because, while they boasted of being the children of the same Father, and of being separated by the privilege of adoption from the rest of the nations, so as to be God’s sacred heritage, yet, with barbarous and unfeeling contempt, they despised each other, as if no relationship had subsisted between them. For there is no doubt that Christ describes the cruel neglect of brotherly kindness, with which they knew that they were chargeable. But here, as I have said, the chief design is to show that the neighborhood, which lays us under obligation to mutual offices of kindness, is not confined to friends or relatives, but extends to the whole human race. <\/p>\n To prove this, Christ compares a Samaritan to a priest and a Levite. It is well known what deadly hatred the Jews bore to the Samaritans, so that, notwithstanding their living close beside them, they were always at the greatest variance. Christ now says, that a Jew, an inhabitant of Jericho, on his journey from Jerusalem, having been wounded by robbers, received no assistance either from a Levite or from a priest, both of whom met with him lying on the road, and half-dead, but that a Samaritan showed him great kindness, and then asks, Which of these three was neighbor to the Jew? This subtle doctor could not escape from preferring the Samaritan to the other two. For here, as in a mirror, we behold that common relationship of men, which the scribes endeavored to blot out by their wicked sophistry; (77) and the compassion, which an enemy showed to a Jew, demonstrates that the guidance and teaching of nature are sufficient to show that man was created for the sake of man. Hence it is inferred that there is a mutual obligation between all men. <\/p>\n The allegory which is here contrived by the advocates of free will is too absurd to deserve refutation. According to them, under the figure of a wounded man is described the condition of Adam after the fall; from which they infer that the power of acting well was not wholly extinguished in him; because he is said to be only half-dead. As if it had been the design of Christ, in this passage, to speak of the corruption of human nature, and to inquire whether the wound which Satan inflicted on Adam were deadly or curable; nay, as if he had not plainly, and without a figure, declared in another passage, that all are dead, but those whom he quickens by his voice, (Joh 5:25<\/span>.) As little plausibility belongs to another allegory, which, however, has been so highly satisfactory, that it has been admitted by almost universal consent, as if it had been a revelation from heaven. This Samaritan they imagine to be Christ, because he is our guardian; and they tell us that wine was poured, along with oil, into the wound, because Christ cures us by repentance and by a promise of grace. They have contrived a third subtlety, that Christ does not immediately restore health, but sends us to the Church, as an innkeeper, to be gradually cured. I acknowledge that I have no liking for any of these interpretations; but we ought to have a deeper reverence for Scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty to disguise its natural meaning. And, indeed, any one may see that the curiosity of certain men has led them to contrive these speculations, contrary to the intention of Christ. <\/p>\n (77) “ Par ur fausse glose et cavillation meschante;” — “by their false gloss and wicked sophistry.” <\/p>\n (30) A certain man went down.<\/strong>Better, was going down.<\/em> We enter here upon the first of a series of parables, which differ from those in St. Matthew in having more the character of actual human histories, illustrating a truth, rather than mere similitudes (parables in the usual sense of the word) composed for the purpose of illustration. There is obviously no reason why we should not believe them to have been (as in one case the mention of a proper name seems to imply, Lazarus, in Luk. 16:20<\/span>) statements of facts that had actually happened, and which had come under our Lords observation as He travelled on His work of preaching the gospel of the Kingdom.<\/p>\n From Jerusalem to Jericho.<\/strong>The journey was one of about twenty-one miles, for the most part through a rocky and desert country, with caves that were then haunted by bands of robbers, as they have been, more or less, in later times by predatory Arabs. In Jeromes time it was known as the red or the bloody way, in consequence of the frequency of such crimes.<\/p>\n Fell among thieves.<\/strong>Better, robbers,<\/em> as elsewhere.<\/p>\n 30<\/strong>. <\/strong> A certain man<\/em> This man is doubtless to be supposed a Jew, since he goes from Jerusalem. But our Lord chooses to state him to be simply and purely a <\/p>\n man. Went down from Jerusalem to Jericho<\/em> From the heights of the mountains upon which Jerusalem was built, to the vale of the Jordan, in which Jericho stood, (eighteen miles distant,) is almost a constant descent. This man, we may suppose, takes the usual route. Starting from what is now St. Stephen’s gate, through the eastern wall of Jerusalem, he crosses the garden and the southern slopes of the Mount of Olives to Bethany. Thence he proceeds through the road, once the channel of a stream and now a deep ravine; and at about ten miles from the city he enters that gloomy road through the desert wilderness called by St. Jerome the bloody way, <\/em> and which from that time to the present has been the haunt of Arab and other robbers. “If we might conceive the ocean,” says Professor Hackett, “as being suddenly congealed when its waves are tossed mountain-high and pitching in wild confusion against each other, we should then have some idea of the scene of the desert in which the Saviour has placed so truthful a parable as that of the good Samaritan. The ravines, the almost inaccessible cliffs, the caverns, furnish admirable lurking-places for robbers; they can rush forth upon their victims unexpectedly and escape as soon almost beyond the possibility of pursuit.” Scarce a season at the present day passes in which some murder does not vindicate its title to the name of the bloody way.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Should the traveller have escaped unharmed, as the priest and Levite did, in due time there would open before him in rare beauty the plains of Jericho and the distant towers of that city of palms. <\/em> It had been lately raised to its highest pitch of splendour by Herod the Great, who here built a favourite palace; and here, smitten, not by the vengeance of man, but by the hand of God, he died a most loathsome and terrible death. At the present day scarce do the ruins themselves remain to tell the spot where its towers, walls, and palaces stood. <\/p>\n Thieves<\/em> Rather robbers. <\/em> The thief takes by stealth, the robber by force. <\/p>\n Stripped him of his raiment<\/em> The word raiment is not in the Greek. The stripping <\/em> included, by force of the word, his property <\/em> as well as his <\/p>\n raiment. Half dead<\/em> So near dead <\/em> as to be unable to help himself; and yet not without hope if he were but helped.<\/p>\n ‘Jesus made answer and said, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead.”<\/p>\n The picture would be a familiar one to all Jews. There was always a possibility when travelling the mountain roads of Palestine of meeting robbers and bandits, and it was especially so on this road, as it twisted and turned through rocky mountainous country, surrounded on all sides by bandit hide-outs, which descended rapidly to Jericho and provided many good places of ambush. And many a Jew had been found lying in this mountain road, either dead or dying, stripped of all his possessions. Foolish or impoverished was the man who walked it alone. And it is a vivid picture of Israel who had also been stripped bare by robbers. Isaiah could ask the question, “Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? Did not the Lord, He against whom we have sinned? For they would not walk in His ways, neither were they obedient to His Law” (Isa 42:24<\/span>). And Jeremiah could add that even God’s Temple itself had become ‘a den of robbers’ (Jer 7:11<\/span>). Being made a spoil and being robbed very much pointed to Israel.<\/p>\n Luk 10:30<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>And Jesus, answering, said, A certain man, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Our Lord, who well knew how to convince and persuade, answered the scribe in such a manner as to make the feelings of his heart overcome the prejudices of his understanding. He convinced him of the mistake that he had imbibed, by a parable; <\/em>an ancient, agreeable, and inoffensive method of conveying instruction, very fit to be used in teaching persons who were prejudiced against the truth; and certainly nothing could be more amiable in the manner, and more pertinent to the purpose, than the parable which our Lord here delivers. Jericho was seated in a valley; whence we perceive the propriety of the phrase went down from Jerusalem, <\/em>&c. This circumstance is finely chosen; for so many robberies and murders were committed on this road, which lay through a kind of wilderness, that Jerome tells us it was called EdmimThe bloody way. <\/em>As Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem when he uttered this parable, it is not improbable that he was nigh to the place where the scene of it is laid; a circumstance which could not fail of making a strong impression on the audience, and which sets the whole parable in a very beautiful light. The phrase , which we render wounded him, <\/em>strongly implies that these robbers <\/em>[ ] did so with great barbarity, laying on stroke upon stroke, and wound upon wound. <\/p>\n Luk 10:30-31<\/span> . , in the sense of “taking up the discourse of another by way of reply,” occurs only here in the New Testament, and hence is probably taken by Luke from the source used by him. It is frequent in the LXX. ( ) and in the classical writers. Comp. Herod. vii. 101: ; Dem. 594. 21, 600. 20; Polyb. iv. 85. 4, xv. 8. 1.<\/p>\n ] without any more definite limitation, which, however, is not to be regarded as intentional (Paulus thinks that it is meant to intimate that the Samaritan asked no questions about his nationality, comp. also Schenkel), but leaves it to be understood of itself, by means of the context, that a Jew is meant (not a heathen, as Olshausen takes it), in virtue of the contrast between Jew and Samaritan.<\/p>\n ] See on Mat 20:29<\/span> . It was separated from Jerusalem by a desert region (Joseph. Bell. iv. 8. 3), which was unsafe because of robbers (Jerome on Jer 3:2<\/span> ). It was not a priestly city.<\/p>\n ] he met with robbers, fell among them, as , incidere in aliquem, is very often used in the classical writers (Herod. vi. 105, viii. 94, vi. 41; Dem. 1264. 26; Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 38; Polyb. iii. 53. 6). There is no question here about chancing upon unfortunate circumstances, for this would have required the dative of an abstract noun (such as , . . .).<\/p>\n . . .] This and the subsequent correspond to one another; et et. They took his clothes off him in order to rob him of them, and while doing so they beat him (because he resisted). The two participles therefore stand in the correct sequence of what actually occurred (in opposition to de Wette).<\/p>\n ] not equivalent to , but: they left him when he was just half dead [137] (this was the condition to which he was reduced). Comp. Plat. Prot.<\/em> p. 313 E, and elsewhere. See Ast, Lex. Plat.<\/em> III. p. 420. might have been added besides, Lobeck, ad Phryn.<\/em> p. 277.<\/p>\n ] ex adverso praeteriit<\/em> (Winer, de verb. compos.<\/em> III. p. 18), he passed by on the opposite side. This gives a clear idea<\/em> of the cold behaviour of the hard-hearted passer-by. The word occurs elsewhere only in Strat. vii. 2 (Jacobs, Anthol.<\/em> III. p. 70) and Wis 16:10 (in which place, however, it means ex adverso advenire<\/em> ; see Grimm). Comp. , Xen. Anab.<\/em> iv. 3. 17; Hell.<\/em> v. 4. 38.<\/p>\n [137] The expression makes us feel the unconcernedness<\/em> of the robbers about the unfortunate man whom they left to his fate just as he was<\/em> .<\/p>\n DISCOURSE: 1516 Luk 10:30-35<\/span>. A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow, when he departed, he took out two-pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him: and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again I will repay thee<\/em>.<\/p>\n MUCH address is necessary in dealing with persons of a captious spirit: we should speak to them with faithfulness, yet avoid giving them any unncessary offence. Our Lord was continually beset with persons of this description, but in nothing was his Divine wisdom more conspicuous than in the answers he gave them. The parable before us admirably illustrates this observation<\/p>\n I.<\/p>\n Explain the parable<\/p>\n We cannot enter into the full meaning of the parable without attending particularly to the occasion of it<\/em><\/p>\n [A teacher of the law had interrogated our Lord respecting the way to life, and was desired by our Lord to state what the law required [Note: ver. 2529.]. The lawyer gave a just summary of its requirements, not doubting but that he had fulfilled them all. Our Lord suggested in reply, that though obedience to the law would entitle him to life, he was little aware of the extent to which that obedience must be carried. The lawyer (whether from fear of conviction, or confidence of having fulfilled it, we cannot say) passed over the first commandment, and asked for an explanation of the second. To convey the desired information, and to correct his self-justifying spirit, our Lord spake this parable.]<\/p>\n The circumstances<\/em> of the parable deserve also to be noticed<\/p>\n [A Jew is represented as having been robbed and wounded between Jericho, and Jerusalem [Note: This was probable enough, as a desert much infested with robbers lay between them.]. A priest, and a Levite (thousands of whom dwelt at Jericho) are supposed to have seen him in their way to Jerusalem; but, though from their very office they were called to exercise compassion, they passed by him without administering any comfort or relief [Note: The latter from curiosity came and looked on him; but turned away as the priest had done before him.]. A Samaritan is then introduced as performing the kindest offices towards him [Note: There was a most inveterate hatred between the Jews and Samaritans (compare Joh 4:9<\/span>; Joh 8:48<\/span>.), but the minute relation of the circumstances was well calculated to disarm the lawyers prejudice.], and as engaging for the whole expense of his maintenance and cure [Note: Two-pence was equal to about fifteen-pence of our money, and might be the amount of the expense already incurred; or perhaps might be as much as the Samaritan could spare at that time. His liberality was sufficiently manifest by his engagement to defray the whole sum that might become due.]. Thus our Lord shewed, that any person, of whatever nation, or whatever religion, must be esteemed our neighbour. By his artful statement also, he drew from the lawyer himself an express, though reluctant, acknowledgment of this truth [Note: The lawyer, though compelled to give honour to the Samaritan, studiously avoided mentioning his name.].]<\/p>\n But the peculiar suitableness of the parable to the occasion<\/em> is that which most needs explanation<\/p>\n [The lawyer was manifestly of a proud self-righteous spirit [Note: ver. 25.]. Though he knew the letter of the law, he was ignorant of its spiritual import. He supposed that he had merited eternal life by his obedience; yet he was far from shewing a loving disposition even towards our Lord himself. The parable opened to him more extensive views of the law: it shewed him that, so far from having practised his duty, he had not even understood it. Thus it destroyed at once all his self-righteous hopes, and, at the same time, inculcated the necessity of practical, and universal benevolence. Mild as the rebuke was, it could not but convince his judgment; yet was it so conveyed that it could not reasonably give offence.]<\/p>\n The parable thus explained, we may now proceed to,<\/p>\n II.<\/p>\n Improve it<\/p>\n And<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n In a less appropriate way<\/p>\n [This good Samaritan was not intended to represent our Lord; and to put such a construction upon the parable, is utterly to pervert it. Yet, when contemplating the love of a fellow-creature, we may, without any impropriety, bring to your remembrance the infinitely richer love of our most adorable Redeemer. We justly admire the conduct of the benevolent Samaritan; and the consideration, that his kindness was shewn to a detested Jew, greatly enhances its value. How then must we admire the love of Christ towards our ruined race! We were robbed of the image of God in which we were made: we were left altogether dead in trespasses and sins: no created beings could administer any effectual relief; but Jesus beheld us lying in our blood [Note: Eze 16:6<\/span>.]; yet, though we were his enemies, he pitied us [Note: Rom 5:6<\/span>; Rom 5:8<\/span>.]. He not only took care of us, but laid down his life for us: he has taken upon himself also the whole charge of our cure: there is nothing that we want, which he has not freely bestowed upon us. Let us then magnify and adore our generous Benefactor. While we respect the exercise of love in a fellow-creature, let us study to comprehend the unsearchable love of Christ [Note: Eph 3:18-19<\/span>.]; and let us make his love to us the model of our love to others [Note: Joh 15:12<\/span>.].]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n In the way expressly intended by our blessed Lord<\/p>\n [We have observed that the parable was intended to correct the lawyers self-righteousness, and to unfold to him the true nature and extent of Christian charity. Let us therefore learn from it these invaluable lessons. Let us learn the folly of self-righteousness<\/em>.The law requires us to love God with all our hearts, and our neighbour as ourselves; and if we obeyed it perfectly without the smallest defect throughout our whole lives, we might be justified by it. But who ever loved and served God to the utmost extent of all his faculties and powers? Who ever incessantly occupied himself in labours of love towards those who hated and despised him? Who has not felt some backwardness to communion with God, and some want of sympathy with his neighbour? Yet the law can be satisfied with nothing less than perfect obedience: it denounces a curse against us if we transgress it in one single instance [Note: Gal 3:10<\/span>.]. Hence we are told that no flesh living can be justified by it [Note: Rom 3:20<\/span>.]. Let us then cease to expect life by our own obedience. Let us for ever shut our mouths and stand guilty before God [Note: Rom 3:19<\/span>.]. Let us acknowledge ourselves to need mercy as much as the Apostles [Note: Gal 2:16<\/span>.], and adopt the language of St. Paul [Note: Php 3:8-9<\/span>.] Let us learn also the true nature of Christian charity<\/em>. We are apt to imagine that persons of our own nation, sect, or party, are the proper objects of our love; but Christian charity extends itself to all mankind. The distinctions of religion or politics should be forgotten, whenever an object stands in need of our assistance; and we should sympathize as truly with our bitterest enemy, as with our dearest friend. Thus did St. Paul compassionate the unbelieving Jews [Note: Rom 9:2-3<\/span>.]; and our Lord weep over their murderous and devoted city [Note: Luk 19:41<\/span>.]. Let us then endeavour to mortify our narrow, selfish principles, and to abound in disinterested, self-denying offices of love [Note: If this were the subject of a Charity Sermon, it would be proper, in this place, to advert to the particular circumstances of the charity.].]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man<\/em> went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him<\/em> , and departed, leaving him<\/em> half dead. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 30. And Jesus answering<\/strong> ] Gr. . Taking the tale out of his mouth, being ready with his answer. For he is that Palmoni Hammedabber, <\/em> in Dan 8:13<\/span> , that prime prolocutor. <\/p>\n 30.<\/strong> ] <\/strong> ., taking him up,<\/strong> implies that the question was made an occasion of saying more than the mere answer<\/em> . See Herod. vii. 101: Thucyd. ver. 49.<\/p>\n <\/strong> .,<\/strong> both because Jerusalem was higher, and because ‘to go up’ is the usual phrase for journeying towards a metropolis.<\/p>\n <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> ,<\/strong> about 150 stadia distant. The road passed through a wilderness ( Jos 16:1 ) which was notorious for the robberies committed there. “Arabas qu gens, latrociniis dedita, usque hodie incursat terminos Palestin, et descendentibus de Hierusalem in Hiericho obsidet vias, cujus rei et Dominus in Evangelio recordatur.” Jerome, Comment. on Jer 3:2<\/span> , vol. iv, p. 857. The same Father mentions that a part of the road was so infamous for murders, as to be called the red or bloody way, and that in his time there was a fort there garrisoned by Roman soldiers, to protect travellers (De locis Hebris, under Adommim, vol. iii. p. 150).<\/p>\n <\/strong> .,<\/strong> exactly fell among.<\/strong> They surrounded him.<\/p>\n <\/strong> .,<\/strong> not merely of his clothing, but of all he had; ‘despoliaverunt eum,’ Vulg.<\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
THE GOOD SAMARITAN<\/strong><\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\nFuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n