Which side of the road will you walk?
Study Luke 10:25–37 and ask yourself whether we do not, more often than we care to admit, walk on the other side of the road when we ought to be servants rather than be served. Here are a few notes, verse by verse, that you can use in your study of the Good Samaritan and the side of the road he walked.
The lawyer’s question
- The “certain lawyer” was a specific person who had knowledge of the law. The Greek used for “lawyer” (of the Mosaic law), nomikos (νομικός), means something like “attorney” in our time. He wanted to tempt Jesus because his motives were not right. From the outset this person had a conceited attitude. His question is actually very self-centred, even though at first it does not sound that way – what he must do to obtain eternal life.
- Jesus asks him what the law prescribes, and he answers from Deuteronomy 6:5; 10:12; and 30:6. It is correct to the letter, but something is missing.
- The lawyer refers to his neighbour as most likely an Israelite, according to Leviticus 19:18, but just a little further on we read in Leviticus 19:34 that your neighbour is also the stranger in your land, not only people of your own group. We will see that he therefore quotes the law only partially. We are like this too: what will convict someone else we are quick to use against them, but when it convicts us, we often stay silent about it.
- Jesus notes that he answered correctly. The person knew the law in theory, but probably did not want to apply it to himself. He does not live by the standard that has been set.
- He wants to justify himself, because he is perhaps already guilty himself, and asks very sarcastically, “And who is my neighbour?” This short question leads to a thorough answer. To begin a question with “And” often – perhaps always – carries a negative connotation. Look at two examples:
- When are you going to finish the work? This question is objective and simply requires an indication of time as an answer, versus
- And when are you going to finish the work? Here the question is subjective and sarcastic, as if the questioner implies that you are not going to finish the work. Small words carry great power!
The parable of the Good Samaritan
- The story that is sketched could possibly have been true, or it could be fictional in order to teach people a lesson. The “certain man” was probably a Jew; we do not know for certain, but that gives even more meaning to the story. The man “went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.” The road from Jerusalem was downhill, very steep, and very dangerous – so much so that it was known as the “Way of Blood.” That it was downhill is a fact given the geography of the area. Jerusalem is 760 m above sea level, but Jericho and the immediate surroundings are about 300 m below sea level. For the distance in those days, roughly 30 km, it was therefore a road with a steep gradient. The robbers who attacked the man stole everything he had, including his clothes. They thus stripped him of his dignity and left him “half dead.”
- When the priest came past, he was not sure whether the man was really dead, and the law forbade him to touch the body of a dead person. See Leviticus 21:1. There was also the chance that this could be a trap, just as we see in our time, and the priest did not want to take the risk. He walked past on the other side of the road, past the man lying in the road. That is the comfortable option.
- The Levite does the same. Both the priest and the Levite knew the law, but we might argue that they could at least have tried to offer help by checking whether the man was perhaps still alive. The Levite also chooses the comfortable option.
- The Samaritans were a hated nation among Israel. They were of mixed blood (Assyrian) and did not worship in Jerusalem but on Mount Gerizim. See Deuteronomy 11:29 and John 4:20. Go and do a little research on the Samaritans. This Samaritan was on a journey, and it is important to remember that. His journey is interrupted by what is about to happen. Where the priest and Levite walked away from the man, on the other side of the road, the Samaritan came to him and so became the main character of the story.
- Look at the details of the story:
- He went to the man. Unlike the other two who walked away, he did not think of his own safety, still less of laws about the dead. Where the priest and the Levite did not want to check whether the man might still be alive – and so would not have broken the law – this man acted immediately and reached out, without thinking of the consequences.
- He bound up the man’s wounds. What did he bind them with? It is unlikely that he would have had a medical kit, and he may have had to tear up some of his own clothing.
- He used oil and wine to treat the wounds – already expensive products that he might need during his journey. Not only did he use wine and oil, he poured it on the wounds – and probably used all of it to ensure the wounds were cared for and would not turn septic.
- He loads the man onto his own pack animal, probably a donkey or a mule, and walks alongside the animal to the inn.
- At the inn (a hotel or guesthouse) he cared for the man further himself. We infer from this that he had to book at least one room, which was not part of his travel plan, and that he stayed there until the next morning.
- The next day he had to continue his journey, but he gave the innkeeper two pence for further care. The word for penny is denarius, so two pence is two denarii, two days’ wages in that time. The man had been so badly attacked that he could not return home the very next day. The Samaritan also offers to cover any additional expenses. He thus did far more than could reasonably be expected, and that for someone his people did not get along with.
- The wounded man’s clothes had been stolen and he had been stripped of his dignity.
- He certainly had nothing left. He could not pay for his own treatment, nor could he repay the Samaritan.
- The man had no identification.
What do we learn from this?
Jesus asks who the lawyer thought the wounded man’s neighbour was. Look at his answer: He who showed mercy on him. It is a curt answer without respect. Jesus had identified the benefactor as a Samaritan. The lawyer is so full of himself and so full of hatred that he does not even want to acknowledge the Samaritan’s ethnicity, still less the victim. Jesus’ knockout blow is this: Go and do likewise. That is the challenge.
- Practical action meant more than the strict keeping of the law by the priest and the Levite. They should in any case first have established whether the man was still alive, but they made an assumption for the sake of convenience so as not to get involved – a problem in our time too.
- Perhaps this story is much more than just an incident on a dangerous road. Perhaps it says something about our attitude towards others. Which side of the road do we walk – the way of comfort and clean hands, or the one that demands sacrifice?
- Jesus clearly addresses cultural prejudice. Race, gender, and religion did not matter to Him. He was known for engaging with those who were rejected by the community – tax collectors, revenue officers, women in questionable circumstances, and people with illnesses. He healed them all in various ways and changed their lives. We must too.