Was neighbour – <\/B>Showed the kindness of a neighbor, or evinced the proper feelings of a neighbor. The lawyer had asked him who was his neighbor? Jesus in this beautiful narrative showed him who and what a neighbor was, and he did this in a way that disarmed his prejudice, deeply affected him in regard to his own duty, and evinced the beauty of religion. Had he at first told him that a Samaritan might be a neighbor to a Jew and deserve his kindness, he would have been at once revolted at it; but when, by a beautiful and affecting narrative, he brought the man himself to see that it might be, he was constrained to admit it. Here we see the beauty of a parable and its use. It disarmed prejudice, fixed the attention, took the mind gently yet irresistibly, and prevented the possibility of cavil or objection. Compare, also, the address of Nathan to David, 2Sa 12:1-7<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 36. Which – was neighbour<\/B><\/I>] Which fulfilled the duty<\/I> which one<\/I> neighbour owes to another<\/I>?<\/P> <\/p>\n 36. Which . . . was neighbour?<\/B>amost dexterous way of putting the question: (1) Turning the questionfrom, “Whom am I to love as my neighbour?” to “Who isthe man that shows that love?” (2) Compelling the lawyer to givea reply very different from what he would likenot only condemninghis own nation, but those of them who should be the most exemplary.(3) Making him commend one of a deeply hated race. And he does it,but it is almost extorted. For he does not answer, “TheSamaritan”that would have sounded heterodox, hereticalbut”He that showed mercy on him.” It comes to the same thing,no doubt, but the circumlocution is significant.<\/P><\/p>\n Which now of these three<\/strong>,…. The priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan,<\/p>\n thinkest thou, was neighbour to him that fell among the thieves<\/strong>? the priest and Levite that passed by, and took no notice of him, and gave him no relief, neither by words nor actions; or the Samaritan, that did all the above kind and generous things to him?<\/p>\n Proved neighbour to him that fell <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Second perfect infinitive of <\/SPAN><\/span> and second aorist active participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>. Objective genitive, became neighbour to the one, etc. Jesus has changed the lawyer’s standpoint and has put it up to him to decide which of “these three” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>, priest, Levite, Samaritan) acted like a neighbour to the wounded man. <\/P> <\/p>\n Was neighbor [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. More correctly, has become neighbor. Jesus throws himself back to the time of the story. So Rev., proved neighbor. “The neighbor Jews became strangers. The stranger Samaritan became neighbor to the wounded traveler” (Alford).<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Which now of these three,” <\/strong>(tis touton ton trion) “Who of these three,” of this trio that came by, one by one. Would you, as an attorney involved in legal matters of morals and ethics, express an expert opinion?<\/p>\n 2) “Thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him,” <\/strong>(plesion dokei sou gegonenai) “Do you think was or became a neighbor to him?” in the light of your law, your standard of -judgment, based on your law? Deu 6:5<\/span>; Lev 19:18<\/span>. Jesus almost had to twist the truth out of him, but He got it from him. Neighbor is as neighbor does.<\/p>\n 3) “That fell among the thieves?” <\/strong>(tou empesontos eis tous lestas) “Of the one who fell among the robbers?” thugs, bandits, muggers, hi-jackers, or thieves. The neighbor Jews, Priest and Levite bypassed him, as if a stranger, while the Samaritan stranger became a neighbor to the wounded man, See? And Jesus knew it, according to the law, but asked the lawyer the question to lead him to answer his own question, “who is my neighbor?” Luk 10:29<\/span>.<\/p>\n (36) Which now of these three<\/strong> . . .?<\/strong>There is a certain subtle discernment in the form of the question. The point under discussion was as to whom the Jew should look on as his neighbour. It is answered indirectly by the narrative, which showed who had proved himself a neighbour to the Jew. The Samaritan had shown himself a better interpreter of the commandment than the orthodox scribe. He had recognised a neighbour even in the Jew. The Jew therefore should recognise a neighbour even in the Samaritan. From the human point of view there is something noble in the manner in which our Lord thus singles out the Samaritan as a type of excellence, after His own recent repulse (Luk. 9:53<\/span>) by men of the same race; something also courageous in His doing so after He had been recently reproached as being Himself a Samaritan (Joh. 8:48<\/span>). It may be noted that His journey, as it were in secret (Joh. 7:10<\/span>), to the Feast of Tabernacles, must have probably led Him through Samaria, and that in all probability He must have spent the first day of the Feast in that country. (See Note on Joh. 8:48<\/span>.)<\/p>\n 36<\/strong>. <\/strong> Which was neighbour?<\/em> Dr. Trench, and other commentators of the present day, with doubtful correctness, we think, say that our Lord here reverses the question. The lawyer, they suppose, asks, Who is to be held as a neighbour to be loved? <\/em> Whereas the real present form of the question is, Who becomes my neighbour by loving? <\/em> Our Lord supposes the lawyer to identify himself with the wounded Jew; <\/em> and thereby proceeds to force him by the parable to confess that even a Samaritan may be and is his neighbour. Neighbourship, <\/em> then, depends not upon blood, or sect, or profession, but upon humanity. If the Samaritan, in spite of his being a Samaritan, may, as a man, with the true sympathies of a man, be my neighbour, <\/em> then any being within the unity of the species, by his very being human, is my neighbour. And all this the Saviour clinches with his Go and do thou likewise. <\/em> Deal with a Samaritan as this Samaritan deals with a Jew; and so you will, Jew and Samaritan, be neighbours. <\/em> And then the lawyer finds himself placed upon that high platform by which the divine law of love, ignoring the divisions of race, nation, and color, unites mankind into one neighbourship and brotherhood. It is not without propriety that Luke, a Gentile, should furnish this most beautiful parable.<\/p>\n “Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?”<\/p>\n And then having revealed the extreme generosity and compassion of the Samaritan Jesus asked the crunch question. “Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?” Notice His tact. He knows that the Scribe is going to find the next few moments difficult. So He does not say, ‘who then is your neighbour on the basis of this story?’, He says ‘who was neighbour to him who fell among robbers?’ It will make the reply a little easier. But they are both really the same question, and the answer will be the same.<\/p>\n Had He suggested to the Scribe two minutes earlier that he would admit to a Samaritan being his neighbour he would no doubt have looked at Him as though He was mad, and probably written Jesus off as weirdo, and have stalked off without more ado bristling with indignation. Now he could only look at Him in dismay while his own senses were reeling. The whole of his past rebelled against the answer that he knew that he was expected to give. And even then he could not bring himself to say ‘the Samaritan’.<\/p>\n Luk 10:36<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Which now of these three, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Great pains have been taken by some, so to adjust this case, as that it might yield a proper answer to the lawyer’s question. He asked, Who is my neighbour? <\/em>That is, “Who am I obliged to love as myself?” So that our Lord, say they, ought to have determined the extent and right of neighbourhood, and thence deduced the obligations of love and assistance: whereas, the case supposes the love and assistance, and thence infers the relation of neighbourhood. The priest <\/em>and the Levite <\/em>were not neighbour’s, because they did not assist the wounded man: the Samaritan <\/em>was his neighbour, because he shewed kindness to him. And if this be to, that no man is our neighbour, till we have either shewed or received kindness from him, we cannot then from the right of neighbourhood infer the obligations of love; but must determine, from the mutual exercise of love, the notion and extent of neighbourhood. And if this be the case, no man can offend against the law of loving his neighbour; for if none <\/em>are ourneighbours <\/em>but those whom we love, <\/em>then every man certainly loves his neighbour. <\/em>But if we consider the case fairly, and view it in its due light, this supposed difficulty will vanish. The question was asked by the lawyer out of a desire to justify himself. <\/em>He had learned to call no man hisneighbour <\/em>who was not of the same stock and religion with himself: Samaritans he expressly hated, and justified his hatred because they were dissenters from the true worship, and despisers of the temple at Jerusalem. This great error our Lord was to wrest from him, which was not to be done by combating his prejudices, and arguing upon the true sense and meaning of the law: the lawyer, not unaccustomed to such exercises, would have held up the dispute, and stood resolute against any such convictions. Our Saviour therefore puts him a case; and states it so, that his prejudices were all shut out, and could have no influence in the determination. A Jew therefore is put into the place of distress: A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves. <\/em>Here could be no exception taken against the person. Had the Samaritan <\/em>been placed in the same case, and his calamities painted in the most moving colours, he would have found no pity from the Jews who would have excepted to his religion, and thought himself very much in the right to have been an enemy to the enemy of God: but, when one of his own nation was represented in misery, he saw reason in every thing that was done for his relief. A priest and a Levite are said to pass by and neglect him: these persons stood in all those relations to the distressed, which the lawyer owned to be the just bonds and ties of neighbourhood: they wereof his kindred, and they met at the same altar to worship the same God; he could not therefore but condemn their want of bowels to their brother. A Samaritan is represented as passing by, and shewing the greatest tenderness and compassion to the poor Jew. This could not but be approved: even the prejudice of the lawyer carried himin these circumstances to a right judgment; for knowing how inveterately the Jew <\/em>hated the Samaritan, <\/em>he could not but the more admire and approve the Samaritan’s <\/em>kindness to the Jew. <\/em>Upon this case our Lord puts him to determine which was neighbour to the man in distress; or, which is the same thing, which of the three acted most agreeably to the law of God, commanding that we should love our neighbour as ourself? <\/em>The lawyer answers, He that shewed mercy; <\/em>confessing that the Samaritan had fulfilled the law, which was condemning the Jewish exposition, and his own prejudices. For if a Jew was rightly forbidden to shew kindness to a Samaritan, because of the difference in religion between them, the same reason made it unlawful for a Samaritan to assist a Jew. Our Saviour approves his judgment, and bids him only apply it to himself, Go thou, and do likewise; <\/em>that is, “Since you commend the Samaritan for acting like a neighbour to the Jew, do you learn to act like a neighbour to the Samaritan;” for this is the true force of the word likewise. <\/em>For a Jew to be kind to a Jew only, is not to do like the good Samaritan, who was kind, not to a Samaritan only, but to a Jew also. And thus, we see, the case led to a full determination of the question proposed, and shewed that no restrictions were to be laid upon the law of God; that even those whom the lawyer accounted as his worst enemies, the very Samaritans, <\/em>were intitled to the benefit of it, and ought to be treated with the love and kindness which is due to our neighbours. <\/p>\n 36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 36. See Trapp on “<\/em> Luk 10:29 “<\/em> God delights to make men their own judges, that they may be self-condemned, . <\/p>\n 36.<\/strong> ] It will be observed that our Lord not only elicits the answer from the questioner himself, but that it comes in an inverted form<\/em> . The lawyer had asked, to whom<\/em> he was to understand himself obliged to fulfil the duties of neighbourship? but the answer has for its subject one who fulfilled them to another<\/em> . The reason of this is to be found, partly in the relation of neighbourship being mutual<\/em> , so that if this man is my neighbour, I am his also; but chiefly in the intention of our Lord to bring out a strong contrast by putting the hated and despised Samaritan in the active<\/em> place, and thus to reflect back the <\/strong> more pointedly. “Observe , to have become<\/em> neighbour. The neighbour Jews became strangers, the stranger Samaritan became neighbour, to the wounded traveller. It is not place, but love, which makes neighbourhood.” Wordsworth.<\/p>\n Luk 10:36<\/span> . Application of the story. : which of the three seems to you to have become<\/em> neighbour by neighbourly action? neighbour is who neighbour does.<\/p>\n now = therefore. Om. by [L] T [Tr. ] AWI R. <\/p>\n thinkest thou = seems to thee. <\/p>\n was = to have become. <\/p>\n among. Greek. eis. App-104. <\/p>\n 36.] It will be observed that our Lord not only elicits the answer from the questioner himself, but that it comes in an inverted form. The lawyer had asked, to whom he was to understand himself obliged to fulfil the duties of neighbourship? but the answer has for its subject one who fulfilled them to another. The reason of this is to be found,-partly in the relation of neighbourship being mutual, so that if this man is my neighbour, I am his also;-but chiefly in the intention of our Lord to bring out a strong contrast by putting the hated and despised Samaritan in the active place, and thus to reflect back the more pointedly. Observe , to have become neighbour. The neighbour Jews became strangers, the stranger Samaritan became neighbour, to the wounded traveller. It is not place, but love, which makes neighbourhood. Wordsworth.<\/p>\n Luk 10:36. , of the three) who were, the one a Priest, the second a Levite, the third a Samaritan. God does not accept the person [Act 10:35]: the three men, though different in position, are enumerated together.-, neighbour) The Samaritan, in doing a benefit to a Jew, his national enemy, was his neighbour: but the lawyer had asked his question concerning the neighbour to whom love was to be exhibited [not concerning the neighbour who was to exhibit love to another]. The two are mutually related.[100] The Jews also are hereby reproved, inasmuch as they regarded the Samaritans with loathing.[101] It might happen that even the lawyer should want the help of a Samaritan, the very person whom he did not account as his neighbour.<\/p>\n [100] The one infers the other. Jesus mode of answering implies, that it is of more consequence for us to ask, Have we the true neighbourly spirit of love in ourselves? than to ask, What is the qualification needed in him (the neighbour) to whom we show that love?-ED. and TRANSL.<\/p>\n [101] It was wiser therefore to give an example of love in one of the despised Samaritans, than to offend Jewish prejudice directly by saving. The Samaritan is thy neighbour, and therefore love him as thyself.-ED. and TRANSL.<\/p>\n thinkest: Luk 7:42, Mat 17:25, Mat 21:28-31, Mat 22:42 <\/p>\n was: Luk 10:29 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 1Sa 30:11 – gave him Mar 12:31 – Thou<\/p>\n THE WORKER AND THE WORK<\/p>\n Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.<\/p>\n Luk 10:36-37<\/p>\n I. Each has his special work.Every true child of God resembles our Blessed Lord and Master in this respect, that he is sent to do some special work. He was sent into the world to save sinners, and the same may be said of us in our degree; every real follower of the Lord Jesus is himself a saviour. Every one is sent into the world to do something, so far as in us lies, to counteract those mysterious agencies of evil; each one is privileged to be associated with our Divine Lord in the great work which brought Him down from His glory to this world of sin and sorrowthe work of saving sinners. The lesson which our Lord primarily intended to inculcate by this parable is the claim which Divine Love has upon us, that as He is, such should we be in this world; the moral of the parable is expressed in the text, Go, and do thou likewise.<\/p>\n II. The Gospel and the law.The narrative, of which this parable forms part, brings to light the prominent sin of the Pharisees; they approached Gods law with the desire to justify themselves, if not by proving their lives to be in accordance with the law, by making the law coincide with their conduct. The spirit of the Gospel is ever seeking for opportunities of exhibiting its own true genius, while the spirit of the law is always seeking for opportunities of escaping from obligations which it reluctantly recognises. This is clearly set forth in the parable; the priest passes by; he argues from the legal standpointthis is no case for him. The same considerations influenced the Levite; moreover, he was probably averse to wish to appear more liberal-minded than his superior. In the midst of a world stricken with sorrow, suffering, and sin, is it possible that there are any now who have sunk to the same, or perhaps to a lower level than these two men? How many there are who require to be reminded of that solemn warning given in the Book of Proverbs (Luk 24:2).<\/p>\n III. A compassionate heart.And now turn and consider the conduct of the good Samaritan. He too might naturally have turned aside; he had to overcome national prejudice; his journey also had an object; the place was infested by murderous robbers; but his heart is filled with compassion; his mind rises above all lower considerations; a work of mercy is before him, and has to be done, done at the risk of his own life, and done at the cost of considerable self-sacrifice and self-denial. We hear a Voice sounding in our midst, and saying, Go, and do thou likewise.<\/p>\n Illustration<\/p>\n There are different kinds of Christians; there are those who have their sense exercised, who live as in the light of eternity, and as in the presence of God; there are others who seem to lead a dreamy life, who scarcely ever grapple with realities; they sleep away one opportunity after another, and lead idle, useless lives. When we are really living in the light of eternity, O God! what scenes surround us! Now, it is quite possible to shut off sympathy, to train ourselves to something like moral hardness of heart; on the other hand, we may cultivate our spiritual sensibility, and then it will be with us as with our Blessed Lord. Every scene of misery, every exhibition of sin, the groans, the tears, the cries of suffering humanity, will elicit ready action, and be calls to us to go forth and rescue the perishing. Will you turn and look in His face, Who hath said, All souls are Mine, and say, I cannot?<\/p>\n 7<\/p>\n Which . . . was neighbor? Jesus switches the direction of the subject from the neighbor to be loved to the one acting the part of a neighbor. Upon the lawyer’s answering the question of Jesus correctly, he was told to go and do likewise.<\/p>\n It all sums up the matter by answering the lawyer’s question stated in verse 29 by showing that whoever needs our help is our neighbor.<\/p>\n Luk 10:36. Which became neighbor to him that fell among the robbers? The original implies a permanent condition; the result of what had been done. Our Lord takes the matter out of the reach of previous circumstances of nationality and religion, and compels a reply on the ground of what had been done. Further, the lawyer had asked Who is my neighbor, i.e., whom I should love. A direct counter-question would have been: Whom did the Samaritan regard as his neighbor? But our Lord inverts the question, because the relation of neighbor is a mutual one, and also, because He wished to hold up the active duty of the despised Samaritan.<\/p>\n Vers. 36, 37. The Moral.<\/p>\n The question with which Jesus obliges the scribe to make application of the parable may seem badly put. According to the theme of discussion: Who is my neighbour? (Luk 10:29), it would seem that He should have asked: Whom, then, wilt thou regard as thy neighbour to guide thee to him, as the Samaritan was guided to thy compatriot? But as the term neighbour implies the idea of reciprocity, Jesus has the right of reversing the expressions, and He does so not without reason. Is it not more effective to ask: By whom should I like to be succoured in distress? than: Whom should I assist in case of distress? To the first question, the reply is not doubtful. Self-regard coming to the aid of conscience, all will answer: By everybody. The scribe is quite alive to this. He cannot escape, when he is brought face to face with the question in this form. Only, as his heart refuses to pronounce the word Samaritan with praise, he paraphrases the odious name. On the use of , Luk 10:37, see on Luk 1:58.<\/p>\n In this final declaration, Jesus contrasts the doing of the Samaritan with the vain casuistry of the Rabbins. But while saying, Do thou likewise, He does not at all add, as at Luk 10:28, and thou shalt live. For beneficence does not give life or salvation. Were it even the complete fulfilment of the second part of the sum of the law, we may not forget the first part, the realization of which, though not less essential to salvation, may remain a strange thing to the man of greatest beneficence. But what is certain is, that the man who in his conduct contradicts the law of nature, is on the way opposed to that which leads to faith and salvation (Joh 3:19-21). <\/p>\n The Fathers have dwelt with pleasure on the allegorical interpretation of this parable: The wounded man representing humanity; the brigands, the devil; the priest and Levite, the law and the prophets. The Samaritan is Jesus Himself; the oil and wine, divine grace; the ass, the body of Christ; the inn, the Church; Jerusalem, paradise; the expected return of the Samaritan, the final advent of Christ. This exegesis rivalled that of the Gnostics. <\/p>\n Jesus then applied the teaching of the parable to the lawyer by asking him which of the three passersby behaved as a neighbor. He reversed the lawyer’s original question (Luk 10:29) and focused attention where it should have been, on the subject showing love rather than the object receiving it. The priest and the Levite had avoided contamination and ritual uncleanness, while the Samaritan had contracted it. Yet the two Jews had not showed compassion, whereas the true neighbor had.<\/p>\n Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves? Was neighbour – Showed the kindness of a neighbor, or evinced the proper feelings of a neighbor. The lawyer had asked him who was his neighbor? Jesus in this beautiful narrative showed him who and what a neighbor was, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 10:36”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25382","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}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: 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: 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: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"