03-05-2022, 04:20 PM
Everyone knows the basic story of the Good Samaritan. Most people don't understand it in context. The context is the Covenant of Moses, wherein "neighbor" means very specifically "covenant brother" and not just random folks in your vicinity. Covenant blessings are only for those within Covenant boundaries.
Luke is the only one to mention this story. We can safely assume it took place in or near Jerusalem shortly after the seventy returned from their mission. A Pharisaical lawyer imagined he had a good test question that might trip Jesus up. He asked Jesus to summarize how someone becomes an heir to the Kingdom of Heaven, using the phrase "eternal life".
Jesus said the answer was pretty simple, since it was already revealed in the Law of Moses. What was the popular rabbinical summary of that? It was a feudal commitment to Jehovah as Lord, and to love your covenant family as yourself. As noted elsewhere, on these two principles hung all the Law and the Prophets. We have already established how the Pharisees maintained a graded standard of who was a genuine covenant brother. They reserved the deepest respect for each other, a limited respect for their fans, and regarded the average Jewish peasant with contempt. Everyone else was a nasty dog.
So, the lawyer than asked Jesus to define "neighbor" believing this would trip Him up for sure. Jesus cited a peculiar case.
The road between Jerusalem and Jericho ran about 12 miles, up the Mount of Olives ridge to the east, across a substantial valley on the far side followed by another hill, then on the southern crest of a ridge above a very large wadi running northeasterly. The road wound back and forth as it dropped into the Jordan River Valley, leaving one at the Roman Jericho, which was a couple of miles south of the original Canaanite Jericho. It's that middle portion following the course of the wadi that appears to have been so dangerous because it's isolated and there are all kinds of hiding places along the way.
Robbers took a traveler's property, leaving him badly beaten in only his underwear. He appeared dead. A priest passed by, heading down to Jericho. He couldn't use the excuse he was headed up to the Temple for his duties, which would mean he could not touch a dead body. He just couldn't be bothered. Same story with a Levite. Both of these would have been wealthy men, so perhaps their excuse was to avoid being caught in a baited trap.
Clearly these men were highly respected as Jews of Jews, blessed of the Lord. But they failed to qualify as covenant brothers of the man lying nearly dead on the side of the road. Then came a Samaritan traveler. He was dismayed by the condition of the man and stopped to help. After rendering first aid, he put the injured man on his mount and continued to an inn. Today there's a museum to this heroic fellow, but as with most tourist traps in Israel, it's not likely the placed where the inn actually stood. It's a safe bet the Samaritan took the victim down to the Roman Jericho, where there surely would have been inns.
The Samaritan kept the man with him in his room. The next day, he paid the innkeeper to look after the victim. Apparently the Samaritan was a regular, because he was in a position to make a promise to come back and pay any extra if the innkeeper deemed it justified in getting the man back on his feet.
So who was the Jewish man's covenant brother? Never mind whether the priest and Levite regarded each other as covenant brothers. Whom would the victim have come to regard as a covenant brother, doing for him justice under the Law of Moses? The obvious answer is that the Samaritan traveler qualified as his covenant brother.
Everyone knows that the Samaritans had a slightly edited version of the Law of Moses, and claimed to worship Jehovah at the place they say He appointed on Mount Gerizim. That's what their Book of the Law said. But aside from changing Zion to Gerizim, there were almost no differences. The real difference was that the Samaritans remained faithful to their "Old Testament" religion, while Jews had long departed from theirs. So, this Samaritan felt obliged to show mercy, regardless of the victim's national identity, as his mystical duty of faith to his God.
The Law of Moses was a written record of the Covenant, but God Himself said several times that faith in Him was more important than ritual purity. What does it really mean to hold a feudal obeisance to God? How does one stand before Him as an heir to His promises? Jesus ended by telling the lawyer that we should all live like that Samaritan, because that's how we inherit eternal life. Do you suppose that Samaritan was already living eternally?
Luke is the only one to mention this story. We can safely assume it took place in or near Jerusalem shortly after the seventy returned from their mission. A Pharisaical lawyer imagined he had a good test question that might trip Jesus up. He asked Jesus to summarize how someone becomes an heir to the Kingdom of Heaven, using the phrase "eternal life".
Jesus said the answer was pretty simple, since it was already revealed in the Law of Moses. What was the popular rabbinical summary of that? It was a feudal commitment to Jehovah as Lord, and to love your covenant family as yourself. As noted elsewhere, on these two principles hung all the Law and the Prophets. We have already established how the Pharisees maintained a graded standard of who was a genuine covenant brother. They reserved the deepest respect for each other, a limited respect for their fans, and regarded the average Jewish peasant with contempt. Everyone else was a nasty dog.
So, the lawyer than asked Jesus to define "neighbor" believing this would trip Him up for sure. Jesus cited a peculiar case.
The road between Jerusalem and Jericho ran about 12 miles, up the Mount of Olives ridge to the east, across a substantial valley on the far side followed by another hill, then on the southern crest of a ridge above a very large wadi running northeasterly. The road wound back and forth as it dropped into the Jordan River Valley, leaving one at the Roman Jericho, which was a couple of miles south of the original Canaanite Jericho. It's that middle portion following the course of the wadi that appears to have been so dangerous because it's isolated and there are all kinds of hiding places along the way.
Robbers took a traveler's property, leaving him badly beaten in only his underwear. He appeared dead. A priest passed by, heading down to Jericho. He couldn't use the excuse he was headed up to the Temple for his duties, which would mean he could not touch a dead body. He just couldn't be bothered. Same story with a Levite. Both of these would have been wealthy men, so perhaps their excuse was to avoid being caught in a baited trap.
Clearly these men were highly respected as Jews of Jews, blessed of the Lord. But they failed to qualify as covenant brothers of the man lying nearly dead on the side of the road. Then came a Samaritan traveler. He was dismayed by the condition of the man and stopped to help. After rendering first aid, he put the injured man on his mount and continued to an inn. Today there's a museum to this heroic fellow, but as with most tourist traps in Israel, it's not likely the placed where the inn actually stood. It's a safe bet the Samaritan took the victim down to the Roman Jericho, where there surely would have been inns.
The Samaritan kept the man with him in his room. The next day, he paid the innkeeper to look after the victim. Apparently the Samaritan was a regular, because he was in a position to make a promise to come back and pay any extra if the innkeeper deemed it justified in getting the man back on his feet.
So who was the Jewish man's covenant brother? Never mind whether the priest and Levite regarded each other as covenant brothers. Whom would the victim have come to regard as a covenant brother, doing for him justice under the Law of Moses? The obvious answer is that the Samaritan traveler qualified as his covenant brother.
Everyone knows that the Samaritans had a slightly edited version of the Law of Moses, and claimed to worship Jehovah at the place they say He appointed on Mount Gerizim. That's what their Book of the Law said. But aside from changing Zion to Gerizim, there were almost no differences. The real difference was that the Samaritans remained faithful to their "Old Testament" religion, while Jews had long departed from theirs. So, this Samaritan felt obliged to show mercy, regardless of the victim's national identity, as his mystical duty of faith to his God.
The Law of Moses was a written record of the Covenant, but God Himself said several times that faith in Him was more important than ritual purity. What does it really mean to hold a feudal obeisance to God? How does one stand before Him as an heir to His promises? Jesus ended by telling the lawyer that we should all live like that Samaritan, because that's how we inherit eternal life. Do you suppose that Samaritan was already living eternally?