Читать книгу Boyd's Commentary - R.H. Boyd Publishing Corporation - Страница 64

Jesus answered the lawyer’s second question with a parable about a man who fell among thieves. He was stripped of his clothing, wounded, and left half-dead. To draw contrast, Jesus introduced a priest who came down that road and encountered the wounded man. By identifying the priest, Jesus made the implication that if anyone should be concerned for the well-being of a suffering person it should be the priest. But in Jesus’ parable, the priest did the opposite of what was expected. He passed by on the other side. Jesus added that a Levite came, looked, and passed by on the other side as well. Regardless of the various speculations as to why they chose to disregard the wounded man, the point of the lesson was to not ignore religious responsibility. When Jesus introduced the Samaritan in the parable, he remedied the actions of the priest and Levite. Jesus deliberately chose an outsider, a hated one at that, to be His example to emphasize what it means to be a neighbor. Being a neighbor is not a matter of nationality, race, religious affiliation, or any of the identity markers we use to separate ourselves. By contrast, when the Samaritan came to the wounded man, he had compassion and bandaged his wounds. In addition to treating his wounds, the Samaritan furthered his commitment to helping the wounded man by setting him on his own animal and taking him to an inn to take care of him.

Jesus’ depiction of the Samaritan’s kindness was further stressed by indicating the Samaritan stayed with the wounded man throughout the night, then as he departed the next day, paid for the man’s lodging and care throughout his recovery. He even promised to repay any debt incurred while taking care of the man upon his return to the area.

The Samaritan’s care for the man who fell among the thieves would have stuck out to the law expert. Samaritans and Jews were not friendly. Through a long history of rivalry, Jews and Samaritans regarded each other as enemies even as they were partially of common ancestry both in terms of ethnicity and religion (Samaritans were bound by the Torah). Because of their common religious background, the Samaritan would have been under similar compulsion to help a man hurt on the road. Though the Old Testament Law does not specifically mention a case like this, Exodus 23:4–5 (NRSV) states, “When you come upon your enemy’s ox or donkey going astray, you shall bring it back. When you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden and you would hold back from setting it free, you must help to set it free.” By deductive reasoning, as the Torah compels one to help an enemy with his or her ox or donkey, why would one not be compelled to help the enemy? The Samaritan was bound to the Torah and simply fulfilled his duty to the Law, a duty the priest and Levite chose to ignore for reasons unknown.