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.
