“Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.”

Luke 10:36-37 (KJV)

The story

The setting is an examination, not a pastoral conversation. And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? A scholar of the law is testing a teacher in public. Jesus declines to be examined and instead examines: What is written in the law? how readest thou? The second question is the sharper one. It concedes that the man knows the text and asks how he reads it, which is where the actual disagreement will prove to lie. Luke 10:25-26

The lawyer's answer is exemplary, fusing Deuteronomy 6:5 with Leviticus 19:18: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. Jesus endorses it without amendment: Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. Nothing is added and nothing softened. The problem in this passage is never that the man does not know what God requires. Luke 10:27-28

Luke then supplies the motive with unusual directness. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? The follow-up is a legal manoeuvre. A command to love the neighbour is only enforceable, and only survivable, if the category has edges. Define neighbour tightly and compliance becomes possible; leave it open and no one has ever kept it. He is asking Jesus to certify a boundary that would place his existing conduct safely inside the law. Luke 10:29

Jesus answers with a case rather than a definition. A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. The details do specific work. Stripped of clothing and unable to speak, the man carries no marker of nationality, status, or religious party. Every category the lawyer might have used to sort him is gone, and what remains is need. The road itself was known to be dangerous, so the risk to any passer-by is genuine, not imagined. Luke 10:30

By chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. Jesus supplies no reasoning for either man, though his hearers could readily have furnished defences involving ritual defilement or personal danger. The narrative simply records seeing followed by avoidance, twice, and the Levite's added inspection makes his the more deliberate omission. Both men are defined by their religious office, and the office does not produce the required action. Luke 10:31-32

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him. The choice of protagonist is deliberately offensive to the audience, and it forecloses any reading in which righteousness tracks religious identity. His response escalates through seven actions: he went to him, bound up his wounds, poured in oil and wine, set him on his own beast, brought him to an inn, took care of him, and paid two pence with an open guarantee, whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Jesus then inverts the original question entirely. He does not ask who qualifies as a neighbour to be loved, but Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? The lawyer answers accurately while avoiding the word Samaritan: He that shewed mercy on him. The reply closes the discussion and reopens his life: Go, and do thou likewise. Luke 10:33-37

Quiz

1. What does Luke say the lawyer was doing in asking his question?

   • Seeking instruction
   • Tempting him
   • Defending the priests
   • Reporting to the council

2. What two questions does Jesus put to the lawyer first?

   • What is written in the law? how readest thou?
   • Who sent thee? what seekest thou?
   • Whom dost thou serve? what hast thou done?
   • What is thy name? whence comest thou?

3. How does Jesus assess the lawyer's summary of the law?

   • He corrects it
   • He adds a third command
   • Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live
   • He does not respond

4. What motive does Luke assign to the question about the neighbour?

   • He was willing to justify himself
   • He was moved with pity
   • He was afraid of the crowd
   • He was testing the priests

5. What three things did the thieves do to the traveller?

   • Bound, robbed, and abandoned him
   • Stripped him, wounded him, and left him half dead
   • Beat him, sold him, and fled
   • Robbed him and took him captive

6. How does the text describe the priest's approach?

   • He hurried past without looking
   • He sent his servant
   • By chance there came down a certain priest that way
   • He was travelling to Jerusalem

7. What distinguishes the Levite's response from the priest's?

   • He came and looked on him first
   • He left provisions
   • He reported it at the inn
   • He prayed over him

8. What is stated as the Samaritan's motive?

   • Obedience to the law
   • He had compassion on him
   • He recognised the man
   • He feared the thieves

9. What did the Samaritan pour into the wounds?

   • Water and myrrh
   • Balm and honey
   • Oil and wine
   • Vinegar and salt

10. What sum did the Samaritan give the host?

    • Two pence
    • Five pence
    • A piece of silver
    • Thirty pence

11. How does Jesus' closing question differ from the lawyer's?

    • It asks who kept the whole law
    • It asks which of the three was neighbour to the wounded man
    • It asks who was most religious
    • It asks who was at fault

12. How does the lawyer identify the one who acted rightly?

    • The Samaritan
    • The stranger from the north
    • He that shewed mercy on him
    • The third traveller

Reflection

1. The lawyer's question assumes that love has a defensible perimeter. Consider where you maintain one: a category of person whose need you have quietly classified as not your responsibility. What sustains that boundary, and what would it cost to remove it?
2. Jesus offers no excuse for the priest and the Levite, though good ones were available. Notice how readily you supply reasons for your own inaction that would sound thin if someone else offered them about you. Which of your reasons would survive being spoken aloud to the person you passed?
3. The parable is answered not with a definition but with an imperative, Go, and do thou likewise. Where has understanding a passage well substituted for obeying it, and what specific action would move this one from studied to done this week?

Cross references

Leviticus 19:18

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

1 John 3:17-18

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.