In Luke 10:30-37 Jesus challenges his listeners to love their neighbor in need, when religious people ignore him.

Religion can blind us to the needs of people.

Before we begin the exegesis …..

Quick definition of a parable:

Literally, the word parable (parabolē in Greek) combines para– (pronounced pah-rah) and means “alongside” and bolē (pronounced boh-lay) which means “put” or even “throw”). Therefore, a parable puts two or more images or ideas alongside each other to produce a new truth. […] The Shorter Lexicon says that the Greek word parabolē can sometimes be translated as “symbol,” “type,” “figure,” and “illustration,” the latter term being virtually synonymous with parable.

For more information on what a parable is and its purposes, click on this link:

What Is a Parable?

The translation is mine. If you would like to see other translations, click here:

biblegateway.com.

If you don’t read Greek, ignore the left column.

I often quote scholars in print because I learn many things from them. They form a community of teachers I respect (1 Cor. 12:28), though I don’t agree with everything they write. But they do ensure I do not go astray. There is safety in numbers (for me at least).

Now let’s begin.

Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37)

[…] 30 Ὑπολαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἄνθρωπός τις κατέβαινεν ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἰεριχὼ καὶ λῃσταῖς περιέπεσεν, οἳ καὶ ἐκδύσαντες αὐτὸν καὶ πληγὰς ἐπιθέντες ἀπῆλθον ἀφέντες ἡμιθανῆ. 31 κατὰ συγκυρίαν δὲ ἱερεύς τις κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἐκείνῃ καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν ἀντιπαρῆλθεν· 32 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Λευίτης [γενόμενος] κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ἀντιπαρῆλθεν. 33 Σαμαρίτης δέ τις ὁδεύων ἦλθεν κατ’ αὐτὸν καὶ ἰδὼν ἐσπλαγχνίσθη, 34 καὶ προσελθὼν κατέδησεν τὰ τραύματα αὐτοῦ ἐπιχέων ἔλαιον καὶ οἶνον, ἐπιβιβάσας δὲ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον κτῆνος ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς πανδοχεῖον καὶ ἐπεμελήθη αὐτοῦ. 35 καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον ἐκβαλὼν ἔδωκεν δύο δηνάρια τῷ πανδοχεῖ καὶ εἶπεν· ἐπιμελήθητι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὅ τι ἂν προσδαπανήσῃς ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ ἐπανέρχεσθαί με ἀποδώσω σοι. 36 τίς τούτων τῶν τριῶν πλησίον δοκεῖ σοι γεγονέναι τοῦ ἐμπεσόντος εἰς τοὺς λῃστάς; 37 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔλεος μετ’ αὐτοῦ. εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· πορεύου καὶ σὺ ποίει ὁμοίως.

[…] 30 Jesus took up his reply and said, “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was surrounded and attacked by highway robbers who stripped him and rained down blows on him and left, leaving him half dead. 31 By coincidence a priest came down that road and saw him and passed by on the opposite side. 32 Likewise also a Levite happened upon that place and went and saw him and passed by the opposite side. 33 But a Samaritan was traveling, came upon him, saw him, and felt compassion. 34 And approaching him, he bandaged his wounds and poured olive oil and wine on them and put him on his own mount and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day, while he was leaving, he gave two denarii to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him, and whatever you spend, on my return I’ll repay you.’ 36 Which one of these three men do you think was a neighbor to the man attacked by highway robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who had compassion on him.” Jesus told him, “Go, and you do the same!”

This parable has a context. It is about answering the question from a teacher of the law about what the greatest commandment is.

Click here for who a teacher of the law was:

Quick Reference to Jewish Groups in Gospels and Acts

You may click here to read about the larger context:

Luke 10 (scroll down to v. 25)

This is the one of the most beloved parables.

Now begins the parable proper, verse by verse.

Do you see yourself in the parable? Or are you above it? (Hint: you are not above it.)

30:

Jesus took up his own reply,

“went down from Jerusalem”: Going from Jerusalem, you go down, because the city is on the high ground, particularly going eastward towards Jericho. (Please google a Bible map.) Along that road, “road robbers” or highway robbers skulked and lay in wait. The road to Jericho was known for it.

“surrounded and attacked”: the verb is peripiptō (pronounced peh-ree-peep-toh or peh-rih-pip-toh), and it means, depending on the context, “fall in with, encounter” or “fall into the hands of, strike,” “become involved with.” The prefix peri– means “around,” which in this case means “surround,” and the main part piptō means “fall.” Thus the unnamed man fell into the hands of the robbers who surrounded him—as I see things.

“stripped him”: he must have had an expensive set of clothes on, for the robbers to take them.

“rained down blows”: it can be translated as the more benign “put or place blows.” Or it can mean “inflict” or “bring upon, add,” or “set upon, attack.” The latter definition is the best one, but I like “rain down” because “put” or “place” is too gentle.

“half dead”” this severe and (seemingly) small element is important for the rest of the story. Touching a corpse was a big deal in Jewish culture.

31:

Now we come to the main points. Three men are about to see him. The same verb for “seeing” is used of the three men. They did not glance at him but saw him. What will each one do?

First, a priest came down the same route or road. “Came down” indicates that he too just left Jerusalem, without Luke having to name the city; the priest was probably fulfilling his priestly duties. Recall that Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, was a priest from the hill country of Judea who went to Jerusalem to carry out his duties (Luke 1:8-9). This priest was likely doing the same thing, and he just completed his duties.

Even though the priest saw the man, he wasn’t sure whether the beaten man was dead. He was not allowed to touch a corpse, or else he would be unclean for seven days (Num. 19:11-12). So he walked by on the other side. Purity laws trumped basic human compassion.

Leviticus 19:16b gives permission to the priest to help the man, but “later Judaism exhibited efforts to get around the text (b. Sanh. 57a)” (Bock, p. 1030).

“It is remarkable and probably significant that no inside information regarding the incentive(s) of the priest and Levite is provided. The stark reality is simply that they do nothing for this wounded man” (Green, p. 430).

My take: These two men are hyper-religious, and their badness takes on a religious dimension. They are a priest and a Levite. It’s an indirect critique of the impersonal religious system.

But the motive of the priest to neglect the needy man is not offered. Let’s take it as a story element.

32:

Here is the second man. A Levite came along to that same place. The verse doesn’t say that he “came down” the road from Jerusalem, so he may have walked from another direction. Levites were the assistants to the priests, and priests had a little more status because they could go directly closer into the Lord’s presence, and the high priest could go into the Most Holy Place (a.k.a. Holy of Holies).

In any case, he too was unsure whether the robbed man was dead, so the Levite did not want to make himself impure for seven days. He too passed by on the other side of the road. Purity laws trumped compassion.

Priests	Levites
Offer sacrifices	Perform music accompanying sacrifices
Disqualified by impurity and blemish	Disqualified by impurity but not blemish
Serve God directly	Serve the priests
Guard the Court of the Priests	Guard the non-priestly courts
Superintend maintenance of temple complex	Maintain the temple complex
Not marry a widow or divorcee	May marry a widow or divorcee
May only mourn close relative	May mourn anyone
Garland, comment on 10:32, who gets it from Harrington, Holiness, Rabbinic Judaism, and the Graeco-Roman World.

The original people listening to this wonderful parable would have expected the third man to be one of the “people,” that is, an Israelite because post-exilic texts in Judaism often have the trilogy of priests – Levites – people (Liefeld and Pao, comments on vv. 31-32).

But here comes a shock.

33:

Here is the third man. And now a despised Samaritan traveled along the same road, and the verse does not say he was “coming down” from Jerusalem, so he must have taken a different route. It is known from other passages that Jews and Samaritans did not like each other (John 4:9). In fact, some extra-devout Jews walked around the entire region instead of passing through it. But what was so despicable about the Samaritans? They were remnants of Israelites who were not deported when Assyria conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. They were also foreign colonists who were imported from Babylonia and Media by the Assyrians into Israel (in the north), so the newcomers would be loyal to Assyria. So these two groups intermingled and became unorthodox in their beliefs and mixed in their ethnicity, by the standard of “pure Jews.” Many Jews of Galilee and especially Judea and Jerusalem avoided the region of Samaria and Samaritans.

See my post about Jewish groups and scroll down until you find the term in alphabetical order:

Quick Reference to Jewish Groups in Gospels and Acts

So his being a Samaritan is an unexpected element to the story. The priest and Levite did not show compassion, but the despised Samaritan did.

“felt compassion”: The verb is splanchnizomai (pronounced splankh-nee-zoh-my) and is used 12 times, exclusively in the Gospels. “It describes the compassion Jesus had for those he saw in difficulty” (Mounce, New Expository Dictionary, p. 128). BDAG defines the verb simply: “have pity, feel sympathy.” (BDAG is a thick Greek lexicon.)

Let’s explore the concept more thoroughly.

BDAG further says the noun splanchnon (pronounced splankh-non) is related to the inward part of the body, especially the viscera, inward parts, entrails. But some update their translation with the noun as “heart.” So the verb is also related to the inward parts of a person. It could be translated as “He felt compassion in the depths of his heart.”

As an important side note, in Hebrew the verb raḥam (pronounced rakh-am, and used 47 times) means “to have compassion on, show mercy, take pity on and show love.” The noun raḥ^amim (39 times) (pronounced rach’meem) means “compassion, mercy, pity.” Both words are related to the word for “womb,” when a woman feels close to and love for the human life growing there. It’s deep in God, too.

Do I Really Know God? He Is Compassionate and Merciful

34:

Instead of passing by on the opposite side, the Samaritan approached the half-dead man. He immediately bandaged his wounds, so the Samaritan must have been carrying some equipment with him. One can imagine that if he was a traveler, he brought a lot of supplies for a long trip. Wise move. He had olive oil and wine, which he mixed together. Alcohol sanitized the wounds, and oil soothed them. Then he placed him on his domestic animal. The Greek is generic, not specifically a mule or donkey, but most translations reasonably have “donkey.”

“inn”: it is the noun pandocheion (pronounced pan-doh-khay-on), which literally means “all-welcome,” and only Luke uses it and only in this verse. It is a wonderful word choice for an image or metaphor for how God welcomes all.

“innkeeper”: it is the noun pandocheus (pronounced pahn-doh-kheh-us), and it literally means “he who welcomes all.” Only Luke uses the word, and only in this verse. Once again, this word choice is wonderful because it reveals God’s heart. He is the “all welcomer” or “he welcomes all.”

35:

The Samaritan cared for him for the entire night. He went beyond the call of duty and demonstrated his feelings of compassion. During your wounded state, God will care for you throughout the night. He will be there with you in the dark moments of your body or soul.

“two denarii”: one denarius was worth a day’s wage for a farm laborer (Matt. 20:2-13), but even this valuation can be misleading, because farm labor was seasonal, during the harvests. So one denarius was precious. This was a very generous offer from the despised Samaritan, who was probably a traveling merchant (but we don’t know for sure). And he was so trusting and generous that he would take the word of the innkeeper when he itemized the bill after he had cared for the half-dead man.

36:

Here is the punch line. Which of the three men was the neighbor to the man who was robbed? Jesus repeats the devastating element to the story—the man was beaten and attacked by robbers. He was emphatic. “The Jewish ‘expert’ would have thought of the Jewish victim as a good person and the Samaritan as an evil one; to a Jew there was no such person as a ‘good’ Samaritan. Jesus could have told the story with a Samaritan victim and a Jewish helper, but the role reversal drives the story home by shaking the hearer loose from his preconceptions” (Liefeld and Pao, comments on v. 36). I add: the extra-devout legalistic Jew may not believe in a “good” Samaritan, but ordinary people learn to get alone. However, the trilogy of terms priest—Levite—Samaritan would have shocked all listeners.

37:

The expert in the law, who had originally intended to test Jesus, replied correctly. “He who had compassion.” In Greek, the legal expert said, “did compassion.” But notice that he did not say, “The Samaritan.”

“Go and you do likewise!” Or “Go and do likewise—yourself!” “Do” is the same verb in the expert’s reply: “Did compassion.” “You do likewise.” Love and compassion must act and be demonstrated.

So rather than slinking away from a test given by the legal expert, Jesus won—yes, won—the verbal sparring match. The expert lost the tussle.

GrowApp for Luke 10:25-37

A.. Supposedly, parables have one main point at the end. Maybe that’s true, but there are many subpoints worth exploring. Who are you in the parable? Explore this challenge.

B.. How has God taken care of you when you were wounded? Whom did he send in your life?

C.. Samaritans were despised by extra-pure Jews. Have you been despised like the Samaritans? How have you moved forward anyway and done the ministry or helped people along your path of life?

D.. Or maybe you have done your share of despising undesirable people. How did you overcome this sin?

At this link you will find the bibliography at the very bottom.

Luke 10