Luke 10:37

Luke 10:37. He that shewed mercy on him. The conclusion is irresistible, but the lawyer does not call him ‘the Samaritan.'

Go, and do thou likewise. The lawyer was taught how one really becomes the neighbor of another, namely, by active love, irrespective of nationality or religion. His question, ‘who is my neighbor,' was answered: He to whom you ought thus to show mercy in order to become his neighbor, is your neighbor. The question is answered once for all. All are our neighbors, when we have thus learned what we owe to man as men.

The main lesson of the parable is one of philanthropy manifesting itself in humane, self-sacrificing acts, to all in need, irrespective of all other human distinctions. All through the Christian centuries, this lesson has been becoming more and more prominent; but has never of itself made men philanthropic. He who taught the lesson can and does give strength to put it into practice. In the highest sense our Lord alone has perfectly set forth the character of the Good Samaritan. The best example of what we call ‘humanity' must necessarily be found in ‘the Son of man.' The love of Christ is both the type and the source of this love to our neighbor. This truth has led to an allegorical interpretation of the parable. This interpretation, which has been a favorite from the early centuries, is suggestive and in accordance with revealed truth, though probably not the truth our Lord reveals here. According to this view, the traveller represents the race of Adam going from the heavenly city (Jerusalem) to the accursed one (Jericho; Joshua 6:26); the robbers, Satan and his agents; the state of the traveller, our lost and helpless condition by nature, ‘half-dead' (being sometimes urged against the doctrine of human inability); the priest and Levite, the in efficacy of the law and sacrifice to help us; the Good Samaritan, our Lord, to whom the Jews had just said (John 8:48): ‘Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil;' the charge to the inn-keeper, the charge to His ministers, the promised return, the Second Advent. Some go further and make the inn represent the Church; the two denarii, the two sacraments, etc. Such analogies are not interpretations. Finally, this parable refers to love of man as man, not Christian love of the brethren. A zeal for the latter, which overlooks the former, becomes Pharisaical. The parable, moreover, represents the humanity as exercised by one in actual doctrinal error, and the inhumanity by those who were nearer the truth, orthodox Jews. Our Lord could not mean to show how good deeds resulted from holding error and bad deeds from holding the truth; though such an inference is frequently forced on the passage. The Samaritan is brought in, not because of his theological views, but because he belonged to a race despised and hated by the Jews, so as to give point to a lesson meant for a Jew. At the same time our Lord does show us that one in speculative error may be practically philanthropic, and those holding proper religious theories may be really inhuman. The former is certainly the better man.