The question that a lawyer put to Jesus provided the opportunity for this lesson. Jesus answered it but then followed up His answer with a parable that was the climax of His teaching on the subject. The parable amplified the second great commandment (v. 27). The teaching that followed the parable (10:38-11:13), while not addressed to the lawyer, expounded the first great commandment (v. 27). The present section also reminds the reader of Jesus' allegiance to the Old Testament Scriptures that He viewed as authoritative. Thus it balances Jesus' former words about Him revealing the Father (v. 22) with the importance of Scripture in that process.
The incident that Mark recorded in Mark 12:28-34 is quite similar to this one, but the differences in the accounts point to two separate situations. In view of the question at stake it is easy to see how people might have asked it of Jesus many different times. Furthermore this particular question was of great concern to the scribes who studied the law professionally. The fact that the Holy Spirit recorded the same lesson twice in Scripture is a testimony to His greatness as a teacher since great teachers consistently repeat themselves.
". . . in the first century A.D. in Palestine the only way of publishing great thoughts was to go on repeating them in talk or sermons."273
10:25 Lawyers (scribes) were experts in the Mosaic Law. The Greek word translated "test"(ekpeirazon) does not necessarily imply hostility (cf. 4:12). The man could have simply been wanting Jesus' opinion. He addressed Jesus as a teacher or rabbi. This title tells us nothing about his motivation, only that He viewed Jesus as less than a prophet, the Messiah, or God. He assumed that people had to do something to obtain eternal life (cf. 18:18). The term "inherit"had a particular significance for Jewish readers distinguishing a special way of receiving eternal life (cf. Matt. 5:5; 19:29; 25:34). However, Gentiles readers for whom Luke wrote would have regarded it as synonymous with obtaining eternal life (cf. Mark 10:17). Eternal life is the equivalent of spiritual salvation and included entrance into the messianic kingdom.
10:26 Rather than answering the lawyer's question outright Jesus directed him to the authority they both accepted, the Old Testament. He asked for the lawyer's interpretation of its teaching. Thus Jesus avoided the situation of two teachers of the law giving conflicting opinions about the law. He turned the discussion into a more fundamental issue of correct interpretation of the law. Moreover by asking this counter-question Jesus put Himself in the position of evaluating the lawyer's answer rather than having the lawyer evaluate His answer.
10:27-28 This lawyer gave virtually the same answer that Jesus Himself gave to the same question on another occasion (Matt. 22:37-40; Mark 12:29-31). Jesus affirmed that the lawyer had answered correctly (Gr. orthos, from which we get the word "orthodox"). However, He proceeded to assure the lawyer that orthodox thinking would not gain him eternal life by itself. He needed orthodox practice too; he needed to practice what the law required. Jesus quoted the law to drive this point home (Lev. 18:5).
10:29 The lawyer realized that the only way he could possibly fulfill the law's demand was to limit its demand. He should have acknowledged his inability to keep these commands and asked Jesus what He should do. Instead he tried to "justify"himself (i.e., to declare himself righteous) by limiting the demand of the law and then showing that he had fulfilled that limited demand.
His question set up a distinction between neighbors and non-neighbors. The word "neighbor"(Gr. plesion) means one who is near (cf. Acts 7:27). The Hebrew word that it translates, rea, means a person with whom one has something to do. The Jews interpreted the word in a limited sense to mean a fellow Jew or someone in the same religious community. They specifically excluded Samaritans and foreigners from this category.274
Jesus told this parable to correct the lawyer's false understanding of who his neighbor was and his duty to his neighbor.
10:30 The man in view may have been a real person and the incident Jesus described could have really happened. Yet the fact that Jesus told this story as He did, similar to other parables, has led most students of the passage to conclude that He invented it to teach a lesson.
Jesus left the man's race and occupation unspecified, though His hearers would have assumed that he was a Jew. The 17 mile desert road that descended about 3,300 feet from Jerusalem to Jericho was treacherous, winding, and a favorite haunt of robbers.275Clothing was a valuable commodity in Jesus' society, and this fact probably explains why the bandits took the man's clothes. Perhaps the man resisted his attackers, which would have been a common reaction, and suffered a near fatal beating.
10:31 Jesus described the priest as happening to take the journey that brought him into contact with the unfortunate victim. This fact in no way excused the priest's failure to show love, but it may suggest that from the priest's viewpoint his discovery was accidental. Jesus simply recorded the priest's unloving act without complicating the story with his motivation. For whatever reason, and the reason is unimportant, the priest failed to act in love even though common courtesy demanded that he stop and render aid. However a priest, of all people, should have shown compassion. He served in a "helping occupation,"and he had frequent contact with the Scriptures and their demands. Moreover this priest had recently been in Jerusalem, the center of worship and spiritual influence.
10:32 The Levite repeated the priest's act. He was a less likely person to offer help since his duty, assuming he fulfilled it, involved just assisting the priests in the mundane affairs involved in worship. By omitting his motives Jesus again focused attention on the man's unloving act.
10:33-35 The Samaritan was the least likely of the three travelers to offer help, yet he did so (cf. 9:52). By placing "Samaritan"in the emphatic first position in the sentence Jesus stressed the contrast between him and the other two travelers. The compassion that he felt overcame his racial prejudice against Jews. Jesus explained his attitude but not his other motives that were again irrelevant. The Samaritan's compassion contrasts with the callousness of the priest and the Levite toward one of their own "neighbors."Oil soothed the victim's wounds, and wine disinfected them.276The Samaritan's love was obvious in his willingness to inconvenience himself and to make generous and costly sacrifices for the other man's good (cf. 2 Chron. 28:8-15). The genuineness of his love is clear from his provision of further care the next day (v. 35).
10:36 Jesus then applied the teaching of the parable to the lawyer by asking him which of the three passersby behaved as a neighbor. He reversed the lawyer's original question (v. 29) and focused attention where it should be, on the subject showing love rather than the object receiving it.
10:37 The answer to Jesus' question was simple and obvious. The lawyer seems to have understood the point of the parable because he did not describe the true neighbor as the Samaritan but as the man who showed mercy. On the other hand he may have avoided the use of the word "Samaritan"out of disdain. Showing mercy was the key issue, not the nationality of the neighbor. Racial considerations were irrelevant.
Jesus ended the encounter by commanding the lawyer to begin to follow the Samaritan's example. This is what he needed to do if he wanted to earn eternal life (cf. v. 25). If he treated everyone with whom he had any dealings with compassion and mercy, he would be loving his neighbor in the sense that God commanded (v. 27; Lev. 19:18). Thus Jesus showed that the real test of love is action, not just profession (cf. James 2:15-16; 1 John 3:17-18). He also faced the lawyer with a humanly impossible obligation. Hopefully the man finally realized that and turned to Jesus for His justification (v. 29).
This parable obviously teaches that people should help other people who are in need when they encounter them even though they may not have anything in common but their humanity. It is also a powerful polemic against prejudice and for compassion. Jesus Himself was the great example of the attitudes and actions that He advocated in this parable. The parallels between Jesus and the Samaritan are striking. However, it seems clear that Jesus did not give this parable to draw attention to Himself but to teach His disciples and the lawyer what it means to love one's neighbor.
