A young friend, new to the Bible asked for help understanding the context of the story of The Good Samaritan… here’s what I wrote for her interspersed with the story itself
LUKE 10: 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” 27 He answered, “ ‘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 neighbor as yourself.’ ” 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
The expert in the law was trying to trip Jesus up… trying to trap him with an ‘impossible’ question so Jesus asks him questions in return, knowing what the answers will be and that they will be from the Old Testament law – and foils the trap since the answer was never going to be something not consistent with the Old Testament laws.
Also these experts were in 2 groups of opposing beliefs – some believed the show was all over when they died (no eternal life) and some believed there was. So he may also have been trying to make Jesus either prove his own opinion for him – or create conflict by thinking he could trap Jesus into saying something controversial – which didn’t happen. So the ‘expert in the law’ has another go at it with a second question “who is my neighbour?”
LUKE 10:29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
So often, Jesus answers questions with a story. The people listening don’t know the point He’s going to draw from it and he often starts these stories with something they understand and agree with… engaging them before they even know what’s going on.
LUKE 10: 30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
So the story –
1) The man going from Jerusalem to Jericho – both cities in the southern part of Israel, so almost 100% likely to be a Jew. This matters to know because the Samaritan who end up helping him – is from the north (Samaria) and Jews and Samaritans HATED each other. They’d been at each other’s throats for about 700 years. The Jews considered the Samaritans unclean and wouldn’t ever speak to or enter a Samaritans home.
2) He was attacked by robbers. This tells us that he was likely to have been travelling alone. People tended to travel in groups – everyone was poor… no one had a horse, a donkey to ride on was also rare. So groups travelling on foot was always safer than solo or just a few – robbers were very violent and frequently on these roads.
3) The robbers beat him and left him half dead – enter the priest. The priests were of a very specific family line – the Levites. (Levi was one of the 12 sons of Jacob whose families became the nation of Israel). Priests could only be from the tribe of Levi – which was a very small and elite portion. They had rules about cleanliness that if not followed, meant they couldn’t fulfil their duties which was what have them power and prestige. So the priest not only didn’t want to bother, but didn’t want to break one of the laws for cleanness – which wasn’t something he’d get in trouble for – but would mean he couldn’t perform his tasks until pronounced clean again which would take a few weeks. Kinda like going into quarantine. So the priest didn’t want to get involved, didn’t want to bother helping the man but also didn’t want to touch the hurt man in case he died which is the thing that would disqualify him from service for a time. Essentially – he preferred to allow the possibility of the man dying to work its way through, than risk being delayed in his profession for a few weeks.
4) Next – the Levite… this is someone who is very similar to the priest in his reasons since he’s from the same family line. This family line had a distinctly different role to the other 11 tribes in that they were the only ones who could perform ANY of the temple tasks. They are a broader set of people but still with a level of prestige, who would not have helped for many of the same reasons. Inconvenience on many levels. Death over mercy. Horrible. AND – both the priest and the Levite got as far away as possible from the hurt man by crossing the road. Can’t even pretend they hadn’t seen or noticed.
5) Now the Samaritan comes along. This man is a LONG way from home… unusual to be in this region due to the hatreds – so he was there for a strong purpose… likely trade or business of some sort. At this point the ‘expert in the law’ who asked the question – is feeling mighty cranky. Jesus is dissing the revered priests and Levites (and he might have been a Levite himself) and his hackles are up yet he knows the scenario painted by Jesus of the Priest and Levite are accurate because of his own knowledge of the law. The SAMARITAN who the expert hates, is going to be the hero of the story! He is the one with compassion. He is the one far from home who will delay his business for days, losing time and money, even giving money to the innkeeper to take care of the injured man while he’s away. The Samaritan has a donkey, so he has some wealth but he’s humbling himself to get dirty and help out. Not only that though – the Samaritan is helping save the life of someone he would know (dress codes) was a Jew – someone of a race his own race hated – someone whose race looked down on his – but he did it anyway. He didn’t just help someone hurt – he overcame racial hatred and likely encountered it in his own face with the innkeeper who would have again been Jewish. He was not just compassionate – he was courageous.
6) Something interesting to me is that the Samaritan poured oil and wine on his wounds. The wine would have acted like a disinfectant… the oil would have soothed somewhat. But also oil and wine are symbols used in the old testament… oil for anointing/prayer and a symbol of the Holy Spirit, wine being what Jesus took to represent His blood at the last Passover when He taught them the then new ritual of communion. The symbolism matters here as the expert in the law was asking about eternal life – and eternal life comes through Jesus having spilled His blood at the crucifixion, and when the Holy Spirit fills a person when they believe in Jesus and HAVE new life! The bandaging also matters since the Bible tells us that God will “bind up our wounds” – He knows that this life brings pain and injury, but that in Him our wounds can be dressed and healed with new and eternal life as a part of what Jesus provided.
7) Then with no expectation of repayment, he both takes care of him for the day – paying for their shelter – and pays the innkeeper to help out – presumably while he completes his business, and is then going to return.
LUKE 10: 36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” 37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
8) By now, the law expert is spitting chips. Jesus asks which of the 3 was the neighbour. The law man can’t even say “the Samaritan” – as Jesus had called him – he skirted around that in answering Jesus – “The one who had mercy”.
And Jesus concludes “Go and do likewise”.
Only the Samaritan had loved his neighbour as himself – giving him the same care he’d have hoped for if it was he who’d been attacked. The priest and the Levite, meant to minister for God, had loved themselves more than the injured fellow… and therefore had also loved themselves more than they could love God since they ignored the injunction to LOVE their neighbour. Yes they had laws for cleanliness – but they were not punishable if not kept – they just meant a period of delay and cleansing which the law actually provided for.
In not loving their neighbour as themselves – they certainly had not loved God with all their heart, soul, mind or strength.