T

VII

THE GOOD SAMARITAN

LUKE 10: 25-37

HE lawyer mentioned in this passage wished to test the ability and the orthodoxy of our Lord. There

is no evidence of malicious intention; he was not seeking, as some critics and enemies did, to entangle Him in His talk. He had heard of His fame as a teacher in Galilee, and he wished to put Him to the proof. It may be that he wished to air his own knowledge also and to show his skill in debate, and for this reason undertook to fence with Jesus. He proposed the question of all questions, "Doing what good thing shall I inherit eternal life?" Had he been seeking information our Lord would have given him a direct answer. But reading his heart and purpose He answered one question with another. This man was a student and expounder of the Mosaic Law. Our Lord's question was this, "In the law, what is written? How readest thou?" The lawyer promptly quoted two passages, which are an admirable summary of all that Moses taught. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." Our Lord said, "Thou hast answered right; this do, and thou shalt live." The comment implied that, though the lawyer was a professional teacher of the law, he had not lived according to the law. The lawyer's conscience was touched. He felt that he was on the defensive. He stood up to test our Lord; he now recognized that he was being weighed in the balances and was found wanting. The record states that he, desiring to justify

himself, or to set himself right, said unto Jesus, "And who is my neighbour?" There was no thought that he was lacking in his duty towards God. Doubtless he paid tithes of all that he possessed. He kept the fasts and the feasts prescribed by Moses. He prayed much. The only question was as to his neighbour. To the Jewish mind, we are told, that neighbour was Jew writ large. The lawyer wished a statement from the Prophet of Galilee on this subject. Who had claims upon him? Trench says the question shows how little the man knew of that love whose essence is that it owns no limit except its own ability to proceed farther and to do more. What the lawyer needed was that his eye should be taken from those to whom love should be shown and turned in upon him who should show this love. It was the purpose of the parable that follows to do this.

In response to the question, "And who is my neighbour ?" our Lord said, "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho." He did not say whether the man was rich or poor, learned or ignorant. The natural inference is that the man was a Jew, though even that is not stated. The only thing said is that he was a man. He was a human being, and as such had claims upon other members of the race. This man fell among robbers, who both stripped him, and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. The road was through a desolate and rocky region. The sharp turns and the projecting rocks enabled the robbers to take a traveller by surprise, and to get away with their plunder and escape capture and punishment. The road was called the "Bloody Way" because of the deeds of blood done in it. To this day no one goes from Jerusalem to Jericho without an armed Turkish escort. The robbers were not satisfied with relieving their victim of his purse; they took his clothing also. And because he resisted, or out of sheer cruelty, they beat him and left him half dead.

"And by chance a certain priest was going down that way."

Jericho had many priests living within its walls. When the time came for them to minister in the temple they went up to Jerusalem. When they finished their course they returned to their homes. On seeing the wounded man this priest passed by on the other side. He did not stop to inquire if he could render any assistance. He did not even hesitate, but kept right on in his journey. However unfriendly the Jews were to the rest of the world, they were usually ready to pity and to help members of their own race. The priest was obliged by his profession to show compassion. This redeeming grace is wanting here. The law went farther and said, "Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again." Here it was not an ass or an ox, but a brother Jew that needed instant help, for his life was fast ebbing away. This particular priest may have been very diligent and faithful to his duties in the temple, but he did not illustrate in his practice those great words, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." He may and very likely did tithe mint and cummin and anise and fast twice a week, but he omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment and mercy and faith.

The priest was able to excuse his heartless conduct to himself. The robbers might be near at hand and ready to pounce upon him if he should stay to assist the dying man. They might strip and beat him and depart, leaving him half or wholly dead. There was danger in stopping. The law of self-preservation led him to continue his course with all possible speed and without regard to the condition of his countryman and coreligionist. Besides, the sufferer was possibly beyond the reach of all human aid. Not only so, but he could do nothing for him without considerable trouble and expense and loss of time. He could not help without getting his priestly robes soiled. If the man should die on his hands he would be polluted. Moreover, he had been away from home for some considerable time, and his family would be expecting him for

dinner, and it would not do to disappoint them. Furthermore, the Levite was behind, and it was more fitting that a Levite should undertake a task of relief than a priest. Whatever excuses occurred to his mind, the fact is, he passed by on the other side. One glance at the man in distress and need was

enough.

"And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side." It would seem that the conduct of the Levite was less excusable than that of the priest. He came to the place where the man was lying. He saw the wounded man as the priest did not. One who comes face to face with trouble or sorrow feels as no one else can. There is something in nearness that appeals to the human heart and calls out its sympathies. The Levite came closer than the priest; the appeal to his compassion was stronger on this account. If the Levite felt disposed to help, he strangled his kindly feelings and generous impulses, and passed by on the other side. He could have made the same excuses the priest made. He could urge the peril and trouble and expense and inconvenience involved in stopping to lend a helping hand. Besides, he may have thought that it would be manifestly improper for him to do what the priest neglected. If it had been a duty to assist this man in the circumstances, the priest would have done it. If he should stop and help, his act might be considered an affront to his superior and an implied condemnation of his course. To the Levite's mind there was only one thing to do, that was, to get away as fast as he could.

"And a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was, and when he saw him he was moved with compassion, and came 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." The Samaritan was exposed to the same dangers as the priest and Levite. That made no difference. In the presence of distress he did not think of himself; he did not take counsel of his fears or comfort or

convenience. He did not recall the fact that the wounded man was not a Samaritan but a Jew, and that as a Samaritan he was bound to hate him and to have no dealings with him. To the Jew the Samaritan was of an alien and hostile race. religion he was a heretic. He worshipped on Mount Gerizim, and not on Mount Zion. The Jew cursed him publicly in the

In

temple and prayed that he might have no part in the resurrection, and refused to admit him as a proselyte. He would not accept his testimony in court. To eat a morsel of his bread To receive any favour from a

was to eat the flesh of swine. Samaritan was to entail a curse upon his own children. It is natural to repay hate with hate, and insult with insult, and injury with injury. The Samaritan as a rule was not behind the Jew in cursing and in demonstrations of enmity and ill-will. He repaid the treatment he received in kind and with interest. It was an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. This man could have left the wounded Jew in his blood without any scruples of conscience. His countrymen would have commended him for it.

There is nothing to show that it ever occurred to the Samaritan that the victim of the robbers was a Jew. "He was a man; that was enough; he was down, and must be raised; he was in need, and must be helped." For when he saw him he had compassion. His heart was stirred with a great pity. He went to him, and bound up his wounds, taking some of his own garments for the purpose. He poured in wine to cleanse and oil to heal. Having done this he set the man on his own beast, and walked himself. He brought his patient to an inn and took care of him. Having saved his life and having brought him to the attention of one of his own race, he might have thought he had done enough. But having done so much he felt constrained to do more. He not only took care of him during the night, but before leaving next morning he paid for his entertainment, and told the keeper of the inn to take care of him, and assured him that on his return he would pay him