Who Was the Good Samaritan?

One of Christ’s most popular forms of instruction was the parable — a true-to-life story designed to illustrate important spiritual concepts.

Perhaps the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan are the two most recognizable of these twenty-nine New Testament instructional gems. Let’s reflect upon the Samaritan narrative (Lk. 10:25-37).

The Interrogating Lawyer

The background begins with an episode in those days when the Lord had started to make his way toward Jerusalem and his destiny at Calvary (cf. Lk. 9:51). During one of the Savior’s sessions with the seventy-two disciples who had been on a teaching mission, a “lawyer,” who had been listening (cf. Lk. 10:23), stood up and made trial of the Lord (Lk. 10:25).

The lawyer was not a specialist in civil litigation as we think of a lawyer, but he was an expert in Hebrew law. They were frequently designated as “scribes” (i.e., one who copied the Old Testament manuscripts; cf. Mt. 22:35; Mk. 12:28). He thus was a scholar of Jewish literature.

The expression “make trial” might or might not denote a malevolent disposition (cf. Mt. 22:35; Mk. 12:34). However, verse 29 does not cast the lawyer in the most favorable light. Nevertheless, he asked the question.

“Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Lk. 10:25).

The inquiry reveals that the gentleman had some insight into salvation matters.

Did he address Christ as “teacher” merely as a term of respect? Or did he acknowledge the Lord’s ability as an instructor of sacred information? Either way, he realized something was to be done to obtain salvation.

He also understood that life is associated with an inheritance, which involves a Father-child relationship. And he embraced the proposition that life (i.e., union with God) results in an eternal relationship. He was far more informed than numerous clerics today.

Christ’s Initial Response

Christ replied to the scribe with two questions:

“What is written in the law? How do you read it?” (Lk. 10:26).

These are two crucial points.

First, Jesus indicated that eternal life is connected with what is written. The Son of God placed great value on the testimony and authority of the Scriptures.

Second, he asserted there is a correct way to read (or interpret) the sacred word.

There are proper procedures for interpreting the Bible. This is the science of sacred hermeneutics. While thousands can quote passages they have memorized, many have no idea how to handle scripture correctly (2 Tim. 2:15; cf. 2 Cor. 4:2).

The lawyer correctly responded. One must love God as his Lord, and with his heart (passionately), soul (with the vigor of life), strength (sincere exertion), and mind (intellectual engagement) (Lk. 10:27).

This summarizes our vertical responsibility to our Creator (cf. Eccl. 12:13). Additionally, we must love our neighbor as we love ourselves. This suggests a horizontal obligation to love all creatures made in God’s image (cf. Gen. 9:6).

Further, there is this implication: There is a proper form of “self-love.” We must recognize that we are God’s offspring and are, therefore, to be valued and cared for in that light, with a view toward eternity.

The Lord responded that the man had answered correctly, adding:

“This do and you shall live.”

In the Greek New Testament, there is an interesting contrast between the verb “do” in verse 25, in the lawyer’s question, and the term “do” in Christ’s answer (Lk. 10:28). The first “do” is in the Greek aorist tense, suggesting a solitary act of obedience that could secure eternal life. Thus, the implied question is: “What one thing can I do to be finished with my religious obligation?”

Jesus responds with a verb in the present tense, indicating that obedience must be sustained (i.e., “practiced” as a way of life; cf. Plummer, 284-285). This negates the theory that once someone has “believed,” he has life eternally and never can lose it.

The Lawyer’s Rebuttal

The following verse throws a floodlight on the lawyer’s level of spirituality.

“Desiring to justify himself,” he asked, “And who is my neighbor?” (Lk. 10:29).

This was not a genuine quest for spiritual information! It did, however, provide an opportunity for the Master Teacher to introduce a parable, which would allow the lawyer to scrutinize his attitude (if honest enough to do so) and perhaps come to a better understanding of his Creator’s expectation of proper social attitudes.

Jesus introduces a parable for the lawyer to consider. Remember, one purpose behind Jesus’ parables was to solicit agreement to certain truths before the student recognized its application to himself (cf. Mt. 21:33-46).

The parable sets up a contrast between two classes of people. The prejudiced listener may assume the two categories were that of race. To the Jews, neither Gentiles nor Samaritans would be viewed as a “neighbor.” The Pharisees even disdained other Hebrews not of their sect. The term neighbor embraced a very narrow circle with many in those days.

The Crime Scene in the Story

The story occurs along the rugged, dangerous road connecting Jerusalem and Jericho. The distance is about seventeen miles, and the descent from the Mount of Olives to the priestly community of Jericho is nearly 4,000 feet (figures vary with different writers). A mountain pass on this road is still called the “Ascent of Blood” because of the violent robberies that have occurred there. The area is guarded even in modern times (Baez-Camargo, 221).

Under ideal conditions, it would take about six hours to traverse the distance between the cities, longer if rest stops were engaged.

Traveling in this area was so perilous that citizens were advised not to make the trip alone. J. W. McGarvey and companions traveled this road by horseback in 1879, and he noted several areas along this precipitous trail where robbers might hide, assault unwary victims, and make a ready escape (468).

In the Lord’s illustration, a Hebrew man traveled down this road when robbers set upon him. The word “robbers” suggests they were not only thieves but also scoundrels willing to do bodily harm. The villains stripped the unfortunate man, beat him, and left him half-dead. Later, we learn the victim had multiple wounds that required tending, with several weeks of recuperation.

The Superficial Religionists

As the Hebrew victim lay by the road in his dire condition, a Jewish priest came that way, going down to Jericho.

Note the direction of his travel. Some liberal writers have attempted to excuse his lack of compassion by assuming he was headed to Jerusalem for priestly duties; hence, he was justified in not being delayed by this sensitive situation. This criticism is actually an underhanded slight directed at Jesus!

But the downward reference (i.e., away from Jerusalem) dissolves that quibble!

The priest was a descendant of Aaron. As a priest, he was a teacher of the law, performed certain cleansing rituals, and presided over some legal matters (Lev. 10:10-11; Lev. 13-15; Num. 5:11-21). This man should have been a model of true spirituality. But when he saw the unfortunate victim, he passed by on the other side of the road and hurried away.

Presently, a Levite came on the bloody scene. Originally, Levites were distinguished from priests (Num. 16:1-33). They were a subsidiary class, serving under the priests and doing various tasks like caring for the transportation and setup of the tabernacle (cf. Num. 4) in the pre-temple period. Later, they performed many spiritual services in the temple.

Again, as with priests, Levites should have been pristine examples of benevolence. But this one was not! He likewise “passed by on the other side.” Both men were so consumed with ceremonial duties — or perhaps gripped with fear — they exhibited no concern for a fellow human created in the image of God (cf. Hos. 6:6; Mt. 12:9-13).

The Courageous Samaritan

Strangely, the hero of the narrative is a Samaritan.

The identity of the Samaritans is a matter of some dispute. Some allege they were pagan Gentiles, brought into the land after the Assyrian invasions of the northern kingdom of Israel in the 8th century B.C.

Others suggest they were renegade Israelites — a remnant left in Palestine after the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations. However, these are not the most likely identifications since Samaritans are distinguished from the “house of Israel” and Gentiles in the Lord’s limited commission (Mt. 10:5-6).

The probable explanation is that they were a hybrid lineage of Jews and Gentiles that developed in the post-captivity periods of Old Testament history.

However, We cannot appreciate this parable without some sense of the rancor between these people.

Various events in the ministry of Christ amply illustrate the hostility between Jews and Samaritans. When Jesus conversed with a sinful Samaritan woman because he valued her soul, John comments that usually, “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (Jn. 4:9). Christ subsequently spent two days with these people. Many came to believe in him (Jn. 4:39-42).

Jewish leaders, hurling an insult toward the Son of God, charged: “You are a Samaritan” (Jn. 8:48). As the Lord made his way toward his redemptive destiny in Jerusalem, he entered a Samaritan community where some lodging accommodation was sought. But his need was refused (Lk. 9:53). The inclination of James and John to call down fire from heaven to consume these people likewise reflected a long-standing hateful disposition.

A rabbinic epithet was: “May I never set eyes on a Samaritan” (Edersheim, 1.401). Josephus mentions that on one occasion during Herod’s administration, when the Jews were celebrating Passover, some Samaritans slipped into the city at midnight and scattered dead human remains in the precincts of the Temple, thus defiling it (Antiquities, 18.2.2).

Therefore, the role of the neighborly Samaritan as the hero in this parable is truly remarkable. It is a commentary on the uniqueness of Jesus’ teaching.

Breathtaking Benevolence

The disposition and subsequent action of this charitable Samaritan is thought provoking. When this benevolent soul spotted the bloodied victim, he was “moved with compassion” (Lk. 10:33).

The Greek term behind this expression is interesting. The original word denoted one’s visceral organs (entrails). Just as we might speak of a “heartache” in expressing emotional anguish, the ancients would describe emotional trauma as “moved in the depths of my entrails” (Spicq, 3.273ff).

Interestingly, the term is used of the Savior’s feelings for various unfortunate souls that he encountered (Mt. 9:36; 15:32; 20:34), and it reflects the loving compassion God has for the lost (Mt. 18:27; Lk. 15:20).

In this context, the word suggests that the Samaritan was seized with a surge of pain for this wretched soul who lay half-dead before him. He was a sensitive person.

Five verbs in Luke 10:34 describe the action the Samaritan took in caring for the severely injured Jew. The recording of these words must have been meaningful to Luke, the “beloved physician” (Col. 4:14).

He bound up (bandaged) the man’s wounds (plural), pouring on oil and wine. The present tense of the verb pictures the flow of these medical interventions. Olive oil most likely soothed the wound (cf. Is. 1:6), and wine was used as an antiseptic.

Frequently the two were mixed for medication purposes (Plummer, 288). Hippocrates, the “father of medicine,” gave this prescription: “Bind with soft wool, and sprinkle with wine and oil” (Robertson, 2.153). How wonderfully precise is the biblical record.

He placed the injured man on his own animal. The word “beast” is generic and suggests a domesticated animal used either for packing merchandise or for riding (cf. Acts 23:24). Probably the latter in this case. Presently, the gracious stranger brought the wounded Hebrew to an inn.

The Greek term for “inn” means “all receiving.” Traditionally these were spacious two-story, quadrangular buildings with an enclosed courtyard containing a well in the center and a strong gate for keeping robbers outside. Guests would stay upstairs or down with animals lodged in stalls off the courtyard. Food and supplies might be sold at these resting places. The ancient ruins of two such accommodations on the Jericho road were described by Vincent (182).

At the inn, the gracious Samaritan took care of the severely wounded Jew. The Greek term is a tender one, “used especially for the care and devotion shown by parents and nurses to children” (Spicq, 2.50). He apparently watched over him all through the night, for he resumes his journey early the next day, so the original suggests.

Before he departs, he takes two denarri from his money bag to pay for further lodging (Lk. 10:35). This was the equivalent of two days wages for a working man (cf. Mt. 20:2). The modern reader may figure what two days wages would be today.

The cost of a room in those times was approximately 1/12 of one denarius (Jeremias, 1950). Thus, the Samaritan provided for slightly more than three weeks lodging. In a moderately priced room today that would be the equivalent of over $2,000. The generosity of the parable’s unnamed Samaritan is staggering.

Beyond this, there is the curious instruction from the Samaritan to the inn-keeper.

“Take care of him; and whatever more you need to spend, when I return this way, I will reimburse you.”

We cannot resist raising these questions:

1. How did the Samaritan know he could trust the inn-keeper with the funds left with him?
2. How would the inn-keeper be confident that, if the subsequent charges went beyond the two denarri, the Samaritan would make good on his pledge?
3. Did the two know one another from past associations?
4. Or was the inn-keeper so impressed with the compassion and care of this man who was known to be a natural enemy of his Hebrew victim, that he himself was “moved with compassion” to accommodate the request?

These are thrilling possibilities that excite our imagination!

Jesus: The Most Skillful Teacher

Scholars have made a special study of the matter noting how skilled the Lord Jesus was in guiding people to truth by the use of “leading” questions. One writer has cataloged 225 different questions the Savior employed during his ministry (Zuck, 235-276). Others say there were even more.

The narrative under consideration in this study provides an excellent example of the Lord’s skillful use of this method of instruction.

Let us briefly remind ourselves how this exchange started. In some fashion, a lawyer (a Hebrew expert in religious law) “stood up, and made trial” of Christ (Lk. 10:25).

First, there is a questionable motive in the scholar’s interrogation. Second, his attempt to avoid personal responsibility for his actions (Lk. 10:29) made him an ideal candidate for a probing question from the Master Teacher. Jesus thus asked:

“Which of the three [priest, Levite, or Samaritan] proved [do you recognize as] neighbor [one who is kind, helpful, etc.] to the victim of the robbery?” (Lk. 10:36).

The question was a multiple choice test, and the answer was not difficult!

The scribe responded:

“He who showed compassion.”

Robertson says he gulped at saying the word, “Samaritan,” preferring the more distant, generic expression, “he who”! Even so, he at least drew a logical conclusion and expressed it.

But Jesus was not quite finished. He addressed his challenger:

“You go, and do likewise” (Lk. 10:37).

There are a couple of important points remaining.

1. There is emphasis on the pronoun “you.” This is no abstract recommendation. It is a personal directive.
2. Both verbs, “go” and “do” are present imperative forms. They are commands that require consistent action.

If we may have the license to paraphrase: “You, get going and start practicing this—as a lifelong duty!” (cf. Geldenhuys, 314).

Three Rules of Human Relationships

There is one final point I would like to make. T. B. Larimore (1843-1929) was one of the great eloquent preachers of the second generation American “restoration” preachers. In 1949, B. C. Goodpasture, then editor of the Gospel Advocate, published a volume titled, Letters and Sermons of T. B. Larimore.

One of the marvelous sermons in this book was titled, “The Iron, the Silver, and the Golden Rule.” In his lesson, Larimore used the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate three “rules” of social activity that prevail in human relationships.

The Iron Rule is the philosophy that “might makes right.” This was the practice of the robbers. Take from others whatever you please! (cf. Hab. 1:11b). The Silver Rule essentially is this: “do no harm to others, but look out primarily for your own interests. The plight of others cannot be of concern.” This was the practice of the priest and Levite.

The Golden Rule was simply this: “Treat others as you would like to be treated” (cf. Mt. 7:12). This was the Samaritan’s disposition. He put a wounded natural adversary above his own safety and his financial interest.

This parable has echoed its compassion and responsibility for the past twenty centuries. It has thrilled us and challenged us. We are humbly thankful to our Lord Jesus for his life-changing instruction. There has been none to rival him!