But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30Jesus replied, “A man fell victim to robbers as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down that road, but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. 32 Likewise a Levite came to the place, and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. 33 But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him was moved with compassion at the sight. 34 He approached the victim, poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them. Then he lifted him up on his own animal, took him to an inn and cared for him. 35 The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction, ‘Take care of him. If you spend more than what I have given you, I shall repay you on my way back.’ 36 Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?” 37 He answered, “The one who treated him with mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
The legal expert (scribe) wanted Jesus to establish boundaries for his ethical obligation to love one’s neighbor, seeking a legalistic definition of neighbor. He questioned who belongs to God’s chosen people and is therefore worthy of neighborly love and eternal life? The boundaries of ethical obligation were frequently debated among Jewish scholars (Mt. 5:43-44; Lev. 19:18,34). It is a common human tendency to seek validation for one’s actions and avoid challenging one’s shortcomings. Jesus did not give the scribe a specific definition of neighbor but instead expanded the Scribe’s understanding of neighbor beyond ethnic and social boundaries.
The 18-mile road from Jerusalem to Jerico were uninhabited in many sections and travelers were frequently robbed. It was notorious for its danger, considered the scariest Judean road in Palestine at the time. It is implied that the man who was accosted by robbers was a Jew on his way to Jerusalem. He was beaten, stripped of his clothing, and left half dead. The priest, a representative of religious authority, avoided the injured man, possibly to maintain ritual purity, as contact with blood or a corpse would render him unclean (Lev. 21:1). His legalistic approach to his religious duty prioritized ritual purity over compassion. The Levite also avoided the victim for the same reasons.
The Samaritan, who was considered an outsider and despised by the Jews, was in Jewish territory and had the most valid reason to avoid the victim. However, out of compassion, he went to great lengths to help the unidentified victim. The use of oil and wine for healing reflects common medical practices of the time. He offered immediate first aid and became involved in the victim’s recovery by providing financial support for his ongoing care. The innkeeper trusted the Samaritan, a foreigner, to stop by at a later date to pay him any additional amounts owed. Jesus asked the scholar to identify the true neighbor, forcing him to reflect on his understanding of “neighbor.” The scholar correctly identified the Samaritan as the true neighbor. Jesus instructed him to go and actively show love, mercy, and compassion as demonstrated by the Samaritan.
Almighty God, teach us to love our neighbors as the Good Samaritan did, with compassion and without boundaries. In your tender mercy, help us to see those in need and to act with mercy and kindness so that we can be true neighbors reflecting your love. This we pray through Christ our Lord. Amen!
- Brown, Raymond Edward, et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall, 1990.
- Chiu, José Enrique Aguilar, et al. The Paulist Biblical Commentary. Paulist Press, 2018.
- Faculty of the University of Navarre. The Navarre Bible: New Testament Expanded Edition. Four Courts / Scepter, 2008.
- Orchard, Bernard, et al. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Feb. 1953.
Comments