Good Samaritan

[mindlight]

<<
Luke 10 v 25 - 37

10:25 Now an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus,saying, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 10:26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you understand it?” 10:27 The expert answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.” 10:28 Jesus said to him, “You have answered correctly;do this, and you will live.”

10:29 But the expert, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 10:30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him up, and went off, leaving him half dead. 10:31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, but when he saw the injured man he passed by on the other side. 10:32 So too a Levite, when he came up to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 10:33 But a Samaritan who was traveling came to where the injured man was, and when he saw him, he felt compassion for him. 10:34 He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 10:35 The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever else you spend, I will repay you when I come back this way.’ 10:36 Which of these three do you think became a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” 10:37 The expert in religious law said, “The one who showed mercy to him.” So Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”>>>>

I have to preach on this passage. BUt there is so much in it it is hard to know what to choose.

1) There is the love of the Good Samaritan for the injured man. This contrasts with the religious expert who treated him like a subject, the religious priest and Levite who treated him like a problem to be avoided, the robbers who stole from him and beat him up. The ways in which people justify a lack of love to their fellow man would be a part of this.

2) There is the fact that the good guy turns out to be the one that most people who were listening to Jesus speak would have generally regarded as social pariahs. So look beneath the stereotypes and see the person by their actions and the love that they demonstrate.

3) There is the question of salvation - is it something we inherit without doing anything or is it something that we demonstrate by our actions.

4) There is the focus on the one we are required to be a neighbour to. The destitute we come across, the unborn the victims of crime. Are we being true neighbours to such people.

Which one would you choose to preach on and why?

 

[PETE_]

I like to point out the powerful witness of the Samaritan. The priest and the Levite had the godliness on display for all to easy recognize. The priest and the Levite did not want to defile themselves by getting involved. Their religion could be seen but had no effect on the life of the man. The Samaritan got involves, goin to where the need was at that time. His actions affected the one in need and was an example of the love God has shown to us. I am sure it was a story he told for the rest of his life. Showing grace to other's extends the gospel farther than we will ever know.

 

[Beasley]

3 is both, we inherit salvation upon faith, and then demonstrate it to the world by our actions. We were created new creatures in Christ for the purpose of walking in the good works he designed for us before the foundation of the world. Eph 2:8-10

You could teach 2 or 3 months on this

 

[mindlight]

I like to point out the powerful witness of the Samaritan. The priest and the Levite had the godliness on display for all to easy recognize. The priest and the Levite did not want to defile themselves by getting involved. Their religion could be seen but had no effect on the life of the man. The Samaritan got involves, goin to where the need was at that time. His actions affected the one in need and was an example of the love God has shown to us. I am sure it was a story he told for the rest of his life. Showing grace to other's extends the gospel farther than we will ever know.

I've heard also that since the priest was following the route coming down from Jerusalem some 3300ft and 17 miles to Jericho where off duty priests tended to reside that he was most likely coming back from being on duty.
So if he was paid having done his shift at the temple he may have been carrying wages which he was anxious not to be robbed of. Both the pious religious and selfish materialistic explanations of his actions are however speculative. The point is he was not a good neighbour to the Samaritan and however he justified his actions he showed no love to this injured man. You are right actions speak louder than words about the state of our actual religion. The true gospel message is in the actions of the Samaritan to the injured man rather than in the pious or selfish Jew who walked on by.

It is the expert in the religious law who is being exposed by Jesus in this story. He knew the correct answer to the question he posed without understanding it. Jesus does not only give the correct answer for the academic question but also shows the man what it means and thereby exposes his heart. What does it mean to love God if in order to preserve our own lives, holiness or wealth we walk on by the destitute that Gods places in our path. His love for us is like the love for an injured man who cannot save himself. Without His love we are doomed. If we understand this then our response will be like that of the Good Samaritan. If we are his people then we to will go and do likewise.

This story is so deeply challenging. It is easier to just be academic about such matters. To allow these parables to actually transform our hearts is what seems so dangerous here.

 

[mindlight]

3 is both, we inherit salvation upon faith, and then demonstrate it to the world by our actions. We were created new creatures in Christ for the purpose of walking in the good works he designed for us before the foundation of the world. Eph 2:8-10

You could teach 2 or 3 months on this

I must admit I find this passage challenging to the doctrine of justification by faith which seems so obvious elsewhere.

The Jews believed that they were members of Gods Kingdom because they were Jews. Many took pride in the fact that were the chosen ones and the Pharisees and teachers of the law especially loved the flowing robes of religiousity. But many of their hearts were unregenerate and there was a sickening hypocrisy to their lives. Because their hearts were hard and blind to this truth they thought they were doing Gods will when they rejected the Messiah who demonstrated these truthes most profoundly. They acted out a form of godliness without comprehending its heart and soul. They trusted that they were saved when the actions of their lives did not reveal that.

How many Christians today believe whole heartedly that they are saved when they do not live or love like Christians and they do not demonstrate the love of God in their lives. This passage should challenge false self assurance and force us to reexamine the faith we profess and look for evidence of it in our own lives and actions.

 

[FallingWaters]

<<
Luke 10 v 25 - 37

10:25 Now an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus,saying, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 10:26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you understand it?” 10:27 The expert answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.” 10:28 Jesus said to him, “You have answered correctly;do this, and you will live.”

10:29 But the expert, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 10:30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him up, and went off, leaving him half dead. 10:31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, but when he saw the injured man he passed by on the other side. 10:32 So too a Levite, when he came up to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 10:33 But a Samaritan who was traveling came to where the injured man was, and when he saw him, he felt compassion for him. 10:34 He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 10:35 The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever else you spend, I will repay you when I come back this way.’ 10:36 Which of these three do you think became a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” 10:37 The expert in religious law said, “The one who showed mercy to him.” So Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”>>>>

I have to preach on this passage. BUt there is so much in it it is hard to know what to choose.

1) There is the love of the Good Samaritan for the injured man. This contrasts with the religious expert who treated him like a subject, the religious priest and Levite who treated him like a problem to be avoided, the robbers who stole from him and beat him up. The ways in which people justify a lack of love to their fellow man would be a part of this.

2) There is the fact that the good guy turns out to be the one that most people who were listening to Jesus speak would have generally regarded as social pariahs. So look beneath the stereotypes and see the person by their actions and the love that they demonstrate.

3) There is the question of salvation - is it something we inherit without doing anything or is it something that we demonstrate by our actions.

4) There is the focus on the one we are required to be a neighbour to. The destitute we come across, the unborn the victims of crime. Are we being true neighbours to such people.

Which one would you choose to preach on and why?

I'm going to answer you from a different direction.

When I lived in Nashville, I got a very good piece of songwriting advice. And since then, I have heard such advice given to other writers. I believe this advice is extremely appropriate here. I was told "Write about what you know."

So my answer to you is preach about what you know. It's got to be personal. It's got to be real in your own heart. Preach from what God has transformed in your own life!

If God hasn't transformed you, pray that He would.
Your life ought to be upside down about half-way through Thursday!

 

[mindlight]

I'm going to answer you from a different direction.

When I lived in Nashville, I got a very good piece of songwriting advice. And since then, I have heard such advice given to other writers. I believe this advice is extremely appropriate here. I was told "Write about what you know."

So my answer to you is preach about what you know. It's got to be personal. It's got to be real in your own heart. Preach from what God has transformed in your own life!

If God hasn't transformed you, pray that He would.
Your life ought to be upside down about half-way through Thursday!

Spot on - thanks for that - authenticity is of course crucial.

Praying about this passage I have been especially challenged by Jesus's words and the impression they create of the expert in the law and also the Samaritan.

The Expert of the Law strikes me in the modern context as being a well educated academic type with a main interest in theology, possibly a key teacher/preacher in the church also. Having done a doctorate in philosophy and a degree in theology I see a lot of myself in this man and it worries me!

The Samaritan is also interesting. He is a well prepared traveller having the stuff necessary to treat an injured man on him. He sounds like he is a busy man with responsibilities as he must carry on down the road but is scheduled to return later. He is a decisive man who not only makes a quick decision to help the man but carries it through to its logical consequence. He is not forced into this decision but does it freely. He could well have been a trader or business man of some sort and so he has the means to pay for the innkeeper to look after the man. This would also help to explain why he was so far away from home. He is also a shrewd character and smart in the way he gives. He lets the inn keeper know he will return. This ensures that the inn keeper does indeed look after the man as he knows that he will be checked on later and can claim recompense if the costs exceed two silver coins. Also if the man was a regular traveller on this route it was a prudent thing for the inn keeper to look after the man to ensure the Samaritan remained a repeat customer. But most of all he is man with a heart of gold as he had compassion where others did not. He was a genuine help to this man. In short he was a compassionate, decisive, smart and practical man. I have long since left the academic world and am now in the business world. The kinds of criticisms that Jesus makes implicitly of the Expert in the Law are the ones that I would make of myself in the past and of academics in general. They live in their heads when actions and feelings witness much louder in todays post scholastic world. They very often say the right things but do not understand them at the heart level or level of actions.

Even today though I feel especially challenged by the Samaritans compassion. This is however no advert for socialism this passage. Its a direct and individual challenge. What are you doing to help the destitute in your path? Forget the welfare state, forget the state and redistributive taxation its your choice what are you doing?

However the context does not carry completely in modern Britain. Even a failed Islamist suicide bomber who had injured himself trying to kill others would probably get picked up off the street of modern UK without being charged for it by an ambulance and dedicated health care professionals who would know what to do to treat his injuries - albeit with a police escort. So I have to look for social situations in which choices can be made and genuine compassion can be exhibited.

In work I help people all the time resolving complex technical issues they have but thats because its my job. It helps if you like the customer but it is not essential. Its hard to distinguish helpful compassion from professionalism in my job in that context. An ambulance man or paramedic does good Samaritan deeds every day is he compassionate or just professional in that? Also in a social situation very often we will help people because its right to help them and we know how to do that - but is that compassion. We may give to charity because we have decided to do that - but is that compassion.

I need to pray and think some more about that. Interested to know peoples thoughts on this.

 

[FallingWaters]

Do you have access to any commentaries?
I love Adam Clarke.
He knew the original languages, and also studied rabbinical documents and historical writings to get a full understanding of the circumstances.
The more you know about what was happening then, the better you can apply it now.

Perhaps he could help give you some direction.

 

[mindlight]

Do you have access to any commentaries?
I love Adam Clarke.
He knew the original languages, and also studied rabbinical documents and historical writings to get a full understanding of the circumstances.
The more you know about what was happening then, the better you can apply it now.

Perhaps he could help give you some direction.

Adam Clarke was helpful - these are a number of comments I found helpful. He focuses on the self-righteous racism of the Lawyer and how Jesus overturns it with a story of man of good character from a hated race. This was undoubtedly Jesus's original focus. Applying this message of compassion across prejudicial boundaries today is what I am finding difficult. Racism is not really a big issue to me or the people I live and work with. We work and live with foreigners and thats simply not a problem.

http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeluk10.htm

v 29 Wishing to make it appear that he was a righteous man, and that consequently he was in the straight road to the kingdom of God, said, Who is my neighbour? supposing our Lord would have at once answered, "Every Jew is to be considered as such, and the Jews only." Now as he imagined he had never been deficient in his conduct to any person of his own nation, he thought he had amply fulfilled the law.
But our Lord shows here, that the acts of kindness which a man is bound to perform to his neighbour when in distress, he should perform to any person, of whatever nation, religion, or kindred, whom he finds in necessity.
It is evident that our Lord uses the word plhsion (very properly translated neighbour, from nae or naer, near, and buer, to dwell) in its plain, literal sense. Any person whom you know, who dwells hard by, or who passes near you, is your neighbour while within your reach.
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.
Verses 31. - 32. Priest and Levite are mentioned here, partly because they were the most frequent travelers on this road, and partly to show that these were the persons who, from the nature of their office, were most obliged to perform works of mercy; and from whom a person in distress had a right to expect immediate succour and comfort; and their inhuman conduct here was a flat breach of the law, Deut. xxii. 1-4.
Verse 33. Samaritan is mentioned merely to show that he was a person from whom a Jew had no right to expect any help or relief, because of the enmity which subsisted between the two nations.
The certain man means Adam-went down, his fall-from Jerusalem, µwl hary yorih shalom, he shall see peace, perfection, &c., meaning his state of primitive innocence and excellence-to Jericho, ( yjry 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.

 

[Wizzer]

I must admit I find this passage challenging to the doctrine of justification by faith which seems so obvious elsewhere.
...

Hello mindlight,

I believe this is avery important passage, and one which is most often misunderstood. In fact, that pastor at my church spoke on it. His interpretation basically discounted the whole passage. I was so shocked when I heard his take on it, that I emailed him about it. Needless to say, he retracted nothing.

Below is a copy of my letter to him, with his name removed. Let me know what you think. Was Jesus giving a serious answer to a serious question, or did He avoid giving a direct answer, as my pastor thinks.


Wizzer



====================================


Hello Pastor,

I&#8217;m not sure how this is going to come across, but I was wondering if I could ask you to consider something. I&#8217;m sure you remember a few weeks ago how I mentioned to you that I had recently visited a church which was so dispensational in their theology that they claimed that none of Jesus&#8217; teachings in the gospels were directly applicable to the church. Well, this letter has something to do with that same general topic (in a very roundabout way).

To regress just a bit concerning the hyper-dispensationalists and their approach to scripture, I believe the real problem for them is that they recognize two apparently contradictory sets of scriptures for which their only recourse is the invention of a "dispensational" distinction between what they call the kingdom age and what they call the church age. On the one hand they see scripture which clearly ascribes salvation by faith (more so in Paul&#8217;s writings, but in Christ&#8217;s teachings as well), but on the other hand they also see scripture which rightly connects salvation to one&#8217;s behavior (more so in Jesus&#8217; teachings, but in Paul&#8217;s teachings as well). Since these dispensationalist can not accept these two sets as parts of a single, unified gospel, they (in order to resolve the apparent contradiction they see) devise their dispensational scheme which enables them to direct these two sets of teaching at two different audiences: obedience to the kingdom age and faith to the church age.

But we know the need to resolve apparent scriptural conflicts is not unique to dispensationalist. All of us suffer from the same limitations: we see in part and understand in part (and sometimes part of what we think we see and understand does not line up with other parts). When we see apparently contradictory things in scripture, we do our best to resolve them, but often (at least from personal experience) we are not fully satisfied with the resolution, and we long for something better. Where I am trying to go with all this is that I sensed from your sermon last week that you probably "see" a similar conflict between a straightforward acceptance of Jesus&#8217; answer to the lawyer&#8217;s question in Luke 10 and your own understanding of the gospel. This bothers me because although I believe the explanation you gave is a fairly common one in Protestant Christianity, I do not think it is the best one. If you are willing to read it, I would like to take this opportunity to respectfully offer an alternative explanation which in my opinion is much more satisfactory. Who knows, perhaps you yourself are a somewhat dissatisfied with the interpretation you presently hold concerning this passage, and would be willing to consider an alternative, if only a satisfactory one could be found. Please allow me the chance to offer such an alternative. Now you may have already discounted an interpretation of this sort, but at least I wanted to share it with you in case you haven&#8217;t considered it before.

The interpretation I hold to is that Jesus&#8217; answer in Luke 10:28 ("...do this and you will live") is very much straight to the point. I do not believe His answer was in any way meant to allude to a standard that no man can met. The interpretation you recited, in my opinion, effectively discounts this portion of Christ&#8217;s teaching (or at least redefines it). I believe that many have adopted this interpretation because, in their opinion, a straightforward acceptance of Jesus&#8217; answer would be contradictory to their understanding of the gospel. (By the way, this is exactly the same kind of thing the dispensationalists do throughout the gospels.) The reason I am writing this letter is that from my point of view, a straightforward acceptance of Jesus&#8217; answer here is actually crucial to an accurate understanding of His gospel message. I believe this passage deals with a central aspect of His gospel message - love.

In a nutshell, the interpretation you currently accept is that Jesus was saying, in effect, that the only way the man could inherit eternal life was to live sinlessly. The underlying assumption being that the commandments to "love the Lord your God with all your heart ... and your neighbor as yourself" constituted an implicit call to sinless behavior. Please consider the alternative that these are calls to love both God and man in sincerity and truth, as opposed to half-heartedly or deceitfully. (Jer. 3:10 illustrates such a distinction very clearly.) I believe our understanding of this passage in Luke becomes confused if we think the command to love from a sincere heart means a requirement for sinless perfection. I believe much of modern Christianity has confused God&#8217;s call to sincere discipleship (and confused much of Jesus&#8217; teachings as well) with an imagined command for sinless perfection: God knows better than to expect sinless perfection of His people, but He does have the right to demand their response to be sincere and fervent, which is what I believe this passage is about. Recall Jesus&#8217; quote of Isaiah in Matthew 15: "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me." God wants a sincere and passionate response, and that means one from the heart - but this need not be considered synonymous with an expectation of sinlessness.

Another point to consider is that at the end of the dialogue Jesus tells the man (and all those listening) to "go and do likewise." The parable of the Good Samaritan was a single illustration of how one, in Jesus&#8217; view, would actually perform these commandments in real life. His command to "go and do likewise" is simply a reiteration of the commandment to love sincerely from the heart. Now if the original commandment were an impossibility, and if His command to "go and do likewise" echos that same commandment, then what meaningful purpose would this parable serve? I believe the real purpose of the parable is that it illustrates from Jesus&#8217; point of view how one lives out these commandments as God intended. (And since Jesus is God, He should know what He expects.) To love as the Samaritan did is not impossible, for in the parable the Samaritan did it! This is why Jesus says "go and do likewise." It is a commandment to love in sincerity and truth.

Anyway, I have tried to relay what in my mind is a far better explanation of Jesus&#8217; answer to the lawyer&#8217;s question . His answer, in my opinion, is not only fully consistent with the gospel message, it is an integral part of that message. Unless one loves both God and man sincerely from the heart, there is no eternal life. Recall the Sheep and Goats judgement in Matthew 25. Those who inherited eternal life did so because they loved their fellow man (and thereby loved God); those who did not inherit eternal life did not love so. According to Christ&#8217;s gospel, a sincere love of both God and man is crucially related to the question of where a man will spend eternity. Please reconsider the notion of taking Jesus&#8217; response to the lawyer out of the gospel equation, for I believe it is intimately tied to His gospel message. If a person claims that a straightforward acceptance of Jesus&#8217; answer is contradictory to the gospel, then I believe that person has somehow misunderstood either this passage, or the gospel itself (or possibly both). In the case of the dispensationalists, they misunderstand the gospel; in your instance, I humbly suggest that you have misunderstood this passage. The dispensationalist therefore has an extremely difficult handicap to overcome - for he must totally rethink his understanding of the gospel.

I hope I have presented myself clearly. I have meant no ill-will and will take no offense if you do not accept the interpretation I have offered. (Though I would wonder why one wouldn&#8217;t accept it.) I get very concerned when I hear the gospel message (or portions of it) discounted in one fashion or another. It is my truest wish that all men have as clear an understanding of the gospel as possible. I don&#8217;t consider myself to have all the answers, but at least concerning this passage I feel that there is a much preferred alternative.

I have written this as if Christ Himself were reading over my shoulder. Please read it in the same manner. Prayerfully ask Him what He could possibly mean when He says "go and do likewise"? If He was simply echoing an impossible command, then what could be His point? But, if on the other hand, He is echoing a command that He as Lord expects us to observe, then perhaps we should heed His words (recall the sheep and goats judgement again). Recall also in Luke 6 where Jesus says, "Why do you call Me &#8216;Lord, Lord,&#8217; yet do not do the things which I say?" There are many, like the dispensationalists, who although they have cut out many of His commands, still think they can call Him &#8216;Lord.&#8217; (And at what point they have gone too far, I do not know, but I do know that they are at best on thin ice.) As for you, I do know that He is indeed your Lord, but I do ask you to consider the possibility that you have, at least in this instance, opted for an incorrect interpretation of what is actually a very important passage, as it relates to the gospel (at least to my way of thinking).

 

[mindlight]

Hello mindlight,

I believe this is avery important passage, and one which is most often misunderstood. In fact, that pastor at my church spoke on it. His interpretation basically discounted the whole passage. I was so shocked when I heard his take on it, that I emailed him about it. Needless to say, he retracted nothing.

Below is a copy of my letter to him, with his name removed. Let me know what you think. Was Jesus giving a serious answer to a serious question, or did He avoid giving a direct answer, as my pastor thinks.


Wizzer

Thanks for your posting and the letter you posted which I broadly agreed with.

I am not a dispensationalist though I do believe that in the end it is our faith and not our deeds that save us. BUt we need to qualify what that means in the light of passages like this one and the book of James for instance. Faith without deeds is dead and a genuine faith will express itself in the works that God has prepared for us in advance.

Dispensationalism strikes me as too convenient and too much of a comprehensive package deal. It reminds me of the thinking of the majority of Jews at the time of the Messiah. They thought it would happen in a certain way and in accordance with the prophecies that they regarded as most significant, but Jesus overturned all that. The conservatives of the time got it very wrong cause they did not read the scriptures correctly and were not flexible enough or honest enough to see the challenge that Jesus posed to their interpretations. It was they who condemned Christ on the charge of blasphemy cause they just could not reconcile his life and teaching to the theology/worldview they had worked out in their heads.

The parable of the good Samaritan is a disturbing challenge to the complacency of the mature religious type, it cannot be written off as not applying to us today but rather it speaks to us today also. If we examine our lives and actions honestly do we see evidence of the same love that Jesus urges here.

It is also interesting how Jesus affirms an answer drawn from the Mosaic law. The whole of scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness. The love of God and our neighbour is a theme throughout scripture and not unique to one dispensation or another. Jesus repeatedly quotes from Old testament scripture and affirms that not a dot or an iota of it will pass away until heaven and earth passes away.

There are too many who assume salvation is a product of membership of a particular theological group or denomination. This passage is a direct challenge to that view as it is a heretical Samaritan who is hailed as the hero of the story and one who most adequately reflects the spirit of the law which the expert on the law had assumed he understood so well. I know Hindus and Muslims who are more Christian in their behaviour to their neighbours than many Christians I know. That does not get them saved but it is a rebuke to the witness and lifestyles of many Christians.

 

[filosofer]

I would say that the entire passage is about salvation. Several critical passages in the text point to that:

The scribe "wishing to justify himself".

The word describing the Samaritan is a word that is used (in basic form) only of God or Jesus in the NT, no one else. Jesus is the Samaritan, the outsider who was reviled by the "good people".

"Go and do likewise" - not once, not twice, but "keep on doing likewise" if you wish to inherit eternal life or justify yourself." The impossibility of doing that is the point; only one can do enough, namely Jesus Christ.

In Christ's love,
filo

 

[mindlight]

I would say that the entire passage is about salvation. Several critical passages in the text point to that:

The scribe "wishing to justify himself".

The word describing the Samaritan is a word that is used (in basic form) only of God or Jesus in the NT, no one else. Jesus is the Samaritan, the outsider who was reviled by the "good people".

"Go and do likewise" - not once, not twice, but "keep on doing likewise" if you wish to inherit eternal life or justify yourself." The impossibility of doing that is the point; only one can do enough, namely Jesus Christ.

In Christ's love,
filo

Interesting post - thanks for that. The similarity between Christ and the Samaritan is more than just the word used to describe the samaritan or the similarity in their outsider status vis a vis the Moral majority of the time. People have allegorised the injured man as the archetypal sinner - the Adam who went down from Jerusalem and fell into trouble in this spiritual descent. In this sense the Saviour of the man like the Saviour of the sinner is the second Adam Jesus Christ. The attempt to justify ones self is as futile as the attempts of the injured man to save himself.

Yet Jesus does not presumably think that the example of the Samaritan is impossible to copy as he commands go and do likewise - a pointless thing unless there was a possibility of success. The final command is not a sarcastic - if you think you can save yourself then go and do so- it is a you know the right thing to and have understood what I have said now go and treat your neighbour like the Samaritan treated this injured man on the road. Thus while salvation by ones own resources remains impossible the example of Jesus can be followed in the way in which we treat those near to us who God places in our paths.

Another thing that I have just noticed is that we do not know the nationality of the injured man - he came from Jerusalem but that by itself does not make him Jewish. Being stripped and beaten I suppose it would have been impossible to tell who he was. The point of this is I suppose that it does not matter where he was from. The point was his need and the compassion shown by his Saviour.

 

[mindlight]

I have now given this talk which was well received- thanks for your helpful comments.

One extra thing that came out of it which I neglected to mention before:

People have hypothesised that the priest who was going down from Jerusalem did not help the injured man for fear of the ceremonial uncleaness e.g. Lev 22 v 3-5 associated with touching a dead man for instance. But if the priest was coming down from Jerusalem surely he was coming off duty in which case ceremonial uncleaness was not as important as he had no sacrifices to make that day. He could have received cleansing before his next job. Thus his lack of love seems to be founded on a misguided and exagerrated religiousity if indeed this was the main reason for passing on the other side.