Jesus once told a story - the Good Samaritan - which has been a favourite ever since. It’s a charming, human-interest story, but at the same time it carries a sharp message. All of us are guilty of committing many types of sin. There are sins of omission - things we don’t do which we should, and sins of commission - things we do which we shouldn’t. There are sins of the flesh and of the spirit, open sins and secret sins, and so-called "respectable" sins. It was a respectable sin that Jesus graphically pointed out in the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
This parable has been given many treatments over the years. In the Middle-Ages, parables were given an allegorical interpretation. The events and the characters in the story were given some symbolic, spiritual meaning. The exposition would be on these lines: The wounded man represents Adam; Jerusalem from which he journeyed represents the state of innocence from which Adam fell. The thieves who beat him up are the devil who deprived Adam of eternal life; the priest and the Levite are Old Testament religion which passed by and couldn’t help him. The Good Samaritan, of course, is the Lord Jesus Christ, who comes to his rescue and the inn to which he was taken is the church. What is the meaning of the two silver coins that were given to the innkeeper! I leave that to your imagination!
Well, that allegorical interpretation can be fitted in, and it’s not unknown in present day preaching. Although it has some valuable insights to offer, but it doesn’t seem that Jesus intended his story to be understood in that way. But it is true to say that Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of the command which the Good Samaritan illustrates. That command is to love. But the real meaning of the parable is not only concerned with a way of life, but a way to life, and for that we will find a clue as we consider:
THE OCCASION OF THE PARABLE
As Jesus developed his earthly ministry, the religious authorities became increasingly hostile toward him. They found his teaching contradicted their interpretation of the Law of Moses. They resented Jesus because he associated with people whom they despised. In the end they could stand it no longer so they plotted to bring about his downfall by either disgrace of death. One of the methods they adopted was to try to trip him up by making some incautious statement which they could use in evidence against him. And who could be better qualified to do this than a lawyer! It’s not the first time and probably won’t be last that a lawyer phrased a trick question!
It was one of these experts in the Jewish law who came to Jesus to give him a test of his orthodoxy. "Teacher", he asked, "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 10:25). What could be more innocent than that? It’s not the first time and probably won’t be the last time that a lawyer phrased a trick question. Jesus must have sized up his questioner very quickly. He sensed that, although it was put to him very respectfully and thoughtfully, the inner motive was not spiritual illumination. The inquirer wasn’t as genuine as he made out to be, as he was really trying to trap Jesus into making some wild messianic claim. But Jesus wasn’t falling for that! Instead, Jesus replies to him in his own terms by asking him a question, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" (26). This leads us to think about:
THE WAY TO ETERNAL LIFE
When the lawyer was asked the question "What is written in the Law?", he must have felt confident because he was an expert in this field. He had no hesitation in replying with quotations from Deuteronomy and Leviticus, part of the Shema, a confession regularly made in Jewish worship: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" and "Love your neighbour as yourself" (Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18). This was part of a confession regularly used in Jewish worship. And what’s more, her was right, at least in theory. The apostle Paul quotes Moses, "The man who does these things will live by them" (Romans 10:5; Lev 18:5). The trouble is that no-one ever succeeds in doing so! The lawyer was soon to learn how extreme those demands of the Law are. The thing is impossible. That is the real point of the story of the Good Samaritan.
Jesus heard the lawyer’s reply from Scripture with approval. "Excellent! You have answered correctly", Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live" (28). This tells us that Jesus didn’t deny the moral demands of the Old Testament law. The ceremonial and sacrificial systems were soon to pass away, having their complete fulfillment in Christ, but the moral law stands as God’s standard for all time.
The wording of the lawyer’s question is quite revealing as to his spiritual state, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Didn’t he see a contradiction in his own words? Nobody inherits anything by doing things. An inheritance is something you receive because you had a relationship with someone; it’s not something you achieve by some action you’ve done. By using those words the lawyer showed his muddled thinking as to how eternal life is received. Like so many people in the world, often well-meaning and decent living people, this man thought of eternal life as something purchased by your own good works rather than freely given by God’s grace.
This is a matter of fundamental importance. Eternal life isn’t a matter of "What must I do for God?", but rather "What God has done for me". Jesus’ questioner didn’t realise that he’d already failed the test imposed by the Law of Moses, of loving God with all of one’s heart, soul, strength and mind, and one’s neighbour as oneself. He may have wanted to do so by his unaided efforts, but it was a utter impossibility.
Jesus knew that the expert in the law, like every other human being since Adam, had failed to keep it, but how could he convince him that that was the case? The man hadn’t come to Jesus as a seeker after truth. He had to be shown the folly of his thinking, not by argument, but by a simple story which would prick his conscience, puncture his self-confidence, and humble him to his real status as a sinner like everyone else. He really thought he could or did love God and his neighbour as the law demanded, and so he had to be shown that he was wrong, that he was morally complacent.
Jesus is a wonderful teacher. He didn’t try to score points over his legal inquirer in a theoretical debate. No, he rather complimented him on his answer which was theologically sound - the law of love towards God and neighbour. "Do this," said Jesus, "and you will live." When the lawyer heard this, he felt a trifle sheepish. He had asked what seemed to be a profound question but now it was apparent to the crowd who were listening to this fascinating conversation that he already knew the answer, so why on earth had he asked it in the first place? He’d already fallen a peg or two off his pedestal. He did some quick thinking to restore his dignity, and came up with another question as if to make out that something wasn’t absolutely clear, apparently anxious to define the limits of love’s liability. "And who is my neighbour?" he asked, again rather innocently. He really was digging a hole for himself now!
"Who is my neighbour?" - in other words - "To whom do I owe this kind of love? Is my neighbour only the person who lives next door to me? Surely he’s got to be an Israelite?" There certainly seems to be an implication that some people are my neighbour and some people aren’t. Writings have been discovered which tell us that there was an argument between rabbis as to whether Gentile converts to Judaism could be classed as a "neighbour". Perhaps the lawyer thought he could get Jesus embroiled in the controversy. And so we come to:
THE MEANING OF THE PARABLE
There are four distinct characters in the story that Jesus told. There’s the man travelling the road to Jericho, the victim of a vicious assault by robbers. The Jericho road was a dangerous road for a lonely traveller as it went through very barren countryside, with deep ravines, ideal cover for bandits hiding out in wait for someone to rob. Unfortunately for him, he was left for dead by the roadside, stripped of all his possessions.
The other three characters were travelling separately, probably the opposite way, to Jerusalem - a priest, a Levite and a Samaritan. The priest and the Levite ignored the plight of the victim, but the Samaritan had compassion on him and did his utmost to provide help and comfort in very dangerous circumstances. Jesus didn’t have to give an explanation of the story to the lawyer - it spoke for itself.
Although Jesus hadn’t said anything disapproving
to the lawyer, it’s clear he felt as though he had been rebuked when Jesus asked him, "Which of these three do you think proved neighbour to the man who fell among robbers" (36). The only answer he could possibly give was,"The one who showed mercy on him" (37). He couldn’t bring himself to say the word "Samaritan".
The religious establishment had added layers of detailed rules to the Law of Moses without any authority from God.
This self-justification by making up our own rules is something we probably all have to own up to, in calming our consciences. Let’s look at the techniques illustrated by Jesus in the parable and see if it points the finger at ourselves!
The first strategy adopted by the priest and the Levite in leaving the wounded victim to his fate was the "I don’t do anybody any harm" technique. It’s simply done by turning God’s positive command of "love your neighbour" into something less demanding, like "I don’t do anybody any harm". But the fact that we haven’t mistreated our neighbour doesn’t mean that we have shown love to him.
The priest and the Levite would doubtless justify their lack of real love and concern by saying that it could have been dangerous for them to do so - the robbers might still be nearby. They could argue that it would be unbiblical for them to stop - if the man was in fact dead they would be ritually defiled and thus unable to perform their religious functions without going through the inconvenient procedure of ceremonial cleansing. They could also justify their neglect of the injured man because their interpretation of the law of love put them under no obligation to those outside their own race and religion.
Another well used strategy is the "Charity begins at home" technique, by which limits are set in applying God’s command to love. The Jews of Jesus’ time were very racist and sexist in their outlook. We too, in our day, can easily become selective as to who benefits from expressions of our Christian love. It’s easy to raise barriers as to who is qualified for our caring. Jesus warned his disciples against restricting their hospitality to only those who could return it. It’s much harder to show love to those who appear to us as "unlovely". It’s only when we see these "neighbours" as beloved of God that our self-made barriers will collapse.
We live in a suffering world. There are people everywhere who are wounded and hurting. Some have been robbed by parental failure; others have been left half-dead as a result of their own folly and choice of evil. Some have been damaged by false teaching or let down by so-called Christians. We come across them very often in our daily contacts. We never know when our opportunity will come to be their "neighbour". What should we do? We can learn from:
THE TEACHING OF THE PARABLE
Jesus used a master-stroke when he selected a Samaritan as the hero of the story. It left the Jewish legal expert almost speechless. The reason was that the Jews held the Samaritans in utter contempt. They were looked down by the Jews as members of a corrupt race, as a nation of half-breeds. They were publicly cursed in the synagogues as heretics and prayers were offered begging God to deny them eternal life. There was no lost between the races.
If Jesus had told the story of a Jew helping out a Samaritan, it would have made a powerful point, but to turn it on its head as he did, and portray two pillars of the Jewish establishment as "non-neighbours" and a Samaritan as a true "neighbour" was radical teaching. Let’s see what we can learn from this Good Samaritan as an example of loving our neighbour as Jesus told it, in very human terms. He painted a picture of someone with:
THE LEGS OF MERCY
The Samaritan was walking the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, notorious for violence, and known as "the way of blood". It’s so like the world we live in, but we can’t isolate ourselves from contact with its casualties. Even though the priest and the Levite ignored their responsibilites, the Samaritan didn’t. Jesus made the point that his "legs of mercy" took him to "where the wounded man was" (33). How like Jesus himself; he didn’t dodge the call of his Father to come to our sin-stricken earth. But then we see:
THE EYES OF UNDERSTANDING
The Good Samaritan immediately saw the need. He didn’t need any prodding, no visions, no voices. As Jesus put it,"when he saw the wounded man" (33), he recognised the need. Our task is to look to God for guidance, to see genuine need, to have spiritual discernment, so that when we find ourselves alongside someone in need we can minister Christ to that person. Such a vocation requires the next characteristic that the Good Samaritan had. It was:
THE HEART OF LOVE
Jesus said that the Samaritan "took pity on him" (33). The Authorised Version uses the word "compassion" which is more descriptive. There was such a compelling power in the Samaritan’s heart that he couldn’t just stand still. He had to do something. A heart full of compassion is always followed by action. It might result in moving into situations which, humanly speaking, might be avoided. But the love of Christ breaks down barriers. The Good Samaritan broke through the racial barrier, putting the priest and the Levite to shame. A heart of love always results in some positive action, as we see in the next characteristic:
THE HANDS OF CARING
The Samaritan ministered to the victim of the mugging: "he bandaged his wounds, pouring in oil and wine" (34). Caring is costly. It took time to stop by the beaten-up man to give him first aid. The priest and Levite were both busy men, but they were too busy if they couldn’t spare the time to help a fellow traveller in need. Orderly lives are good and proper, but sometimes they have to give way to a priority call if the Spirit of God urges us in this way.
Caring can cost money. The Samaritan gave freely of his own resources: "he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him" (34), promising the innkeeper that he would pay the bill. Caring requires commitment, as the ancient prayer says, "to give and not to count the cost; to fight and not to heed the wound; to toil and not to seek for rest; to labour and not to ask for any reward save that of knowing we do your will". We can be sure that our Lord won’t ask of us more than we can give, for he knows all our circumstances.
After seeing this portrait of the Good Samaritan, I wonder if you can think of a person who fully fits the picture. The only one who matches it completely must be the Lord Jesus Christ himself. It’s rather striking that the previous chapter in the Gospel records that "Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem" (9:51). It was a journey which ended on the Cross. Here is the ultimate model of love. He cared when caring was expensive. Our guilt was enormous, but on the Cross he took on himself all our liabilities and, on the Cross, paid for us in full.
We cannot hope to keep the great commandments, "To love God ... and our neighbour", but having trusted in Jesus as our Saviour and Lord, our calling as Christians is to hear the words of Jesus to the lawyer who heard the Parable of the Good Samaritan, "Go and do likewise" (37).
It’s not always popular or convenient or cheap to follow the example of the Good Samaritan, but it is the right way. His is the way of joy. "Go and do likewise."
