Luke 10:36

Luk 10:36. Τριῶν, of the three) who were, the one a Priest, the second a Levite, the third a Samaritan. God does not accept the person [Act 10:35]: the three men, though different in position, are enumerated together.—πλησίον, neighbour) The Samaritan, in doing a benefit to a Jew, his national enemy, was his neighbour: but the lawyer had asked his question concerning the neighbour to whom love was to be exhibited [not concerning the neighbour who was to exhibit love to another]. The two are mutually related.[100] The Jews also are hereby reproved, inasmuch as they regarded the Samaritans with loathing.[101] It might happen that even the lawyer should want the help of a Samaritan, the very person whom he did not account as his neighbour.

[100] The one infers the other. Jesus’ mode of answering implies, that it is of more consequence for us to ask, Have we the true neighbourly spirit of love in ourselves? than to ask, What is the qualification needed in him (the neighbour) to whom we show that love?—ED. and TRANSL.

[101] It was wiser therefore to give an example of love in one of the despised Samaritans, than to offend Jewish prejudice directly by saving. The Samaritan is thy ‘neighbour,’ and therefore “love him as thyself.”—ED. and TRANSL.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 10:36 . Application of the story. γεγονέναι : which of the three seems to you to have become neighbour by neighbourly action? neighbour is who neighbour does.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Which . . . was neighbour?--a most dexterous way of putting the question: (1) Turning the question from, "Whom am I to love as my neighbour?" to "Who is the man that shows that love?" (2) Compelling the lawyer to give a reply very different from what he would like--not only condemning his own nation, but those of them who should be the most exemplary. (3) Making him commend one of a deeply hated race. And he does it, but it is almost extorted. For he does not answer, "The Samaritan"--that would have sounded heterodox, heretical--but "He that showed mercy on him." It comes to the same thing, no doubt, but the circumlocution is significant.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 36. Which - was neighbour] Which fulfilled the duty which one neighbour owes to another?

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(36) Which now of these three . . .?—There is a certain subtle discernment in the form of the question. The point under discussion was as to whom the Jew should look on as his neighbour. It is answered indirectly by the narrative, which showed who had proved himself a neighbour to the Jew. The Samaritan had shown himself a better interpreter of the commandment than the orthodox scribe. He had recognised a neighbour even in the Jew. The Jew therefore should recognise a neighbour even in the Samaritan. From the human point of view there is something noble in the manner in which our Lord thus singles out the Samaritan as a type of excellence, after His own recent repulse (Luk_9:53) by men of the same race; something also courageous in His doing so after He had been recently reproached as being Himself a Samaritan (Joh_8:48). It may be noted that His journey, “as it were in secret” (Joh_7:10), to the Feast of Tabernacles, must have probably led Him through Samaria, and that in all probability He must have spent the first day of the Feast in that country. (See Note on Joh_8:48.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he said, he that showed mercy to him,.... Meaning the Samaritan; which he was obliged to declare, though of another country and religion, and accounted as an enemy; yet the case was so plain, as put by Christ, that he could not with any honour or conscience, say otherwise:

then said Jesus unto him, go and do thou likewise; such like acts of beneficence and kindness, though to a person of a different nation and religion, and though even an enemy; and by so doing, thou wilt not only appear to be a good neighbour thyself, but to love thy neighbour as thyself.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

Ver. 36. {See Trapp on "Luk 10:29"} God delights to make men their own judges, that they may be self-condemned, αυτοκατακριτοι.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Was neighbour - Showed the kindness of a neighbor, or evinced the proper feelings of a neighbor. The lawyer had asked him who was his neighbor? Jesus in this beautiful narrative showed him who and what a neighbor was, and he did this in a way that disarmed his prejudice, deeply affected him in regard to his own duty, and evinced the beauty of religion. Had he “at first” told him that a Samaritan might be a neighbor to a Jew and deserve his kindness, he would have been at once revolted at it; but when, by a beautiful and affecting narrative, he brought the “man himself” to see that it might be, he was constrained to admit it. Here we see the beauty of a parable and its use. It disarmed prejudice, fixed the attention, took the mind gently yet irresistibly, and prevented the possibility of cavil or objection. Compare, also, the address of Nathan to David, 2Sa 12:1-7.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

36. Which… was neighbour?—Dr. Trench, and other commentators of the present day, with doubtful correctness, we think, say that our Lord here reverses the question. The lawyer, they suppose, asks, Who is to be held as a neighbour to be loved? Whereas the real present form of the question is, Who becomes my neighbour by loving? Our Lord supposes the lawyer to identify himself with the wounded Jew; and thereby proceeds to force him by the parable to confess that even a Samaritan may be and is his neighbour. Neighbourship, then, depends not upon blood, or sect, or profession, but upon humanity. If the Samaritan, in spite of his being a Samaritan, may, as a man, with the true sympathies of a man, be my neighbour, then any being within the unity of the species, by his very being human, is my neighbour. And all this the Saviour clinches with his Go and do thou likewise. Deal with a Samaritan as this Samaritan deals with a Jew; and so you will, Jew and Samaritan, be neighbours. And then the lawyer finds himself placed upon that high platform by which the divine law of love, ignoring the divisions of race, nation, and color, unites mankind into one neighbourship and brotherhood. It is not without propriety that Luke, a Gentile, should furnish this most beautiful parable.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 36, 37. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. The deep pathos of the little story, the meaning of which the trained-scholar mind of the lawyer at once grasped, went right home to the]mart. The Jewish scribe, in spite of prejudice anti jealousy, was too noble not to confess that the Galilaean Master"s estimate of a neighbour was the true one, and the estimate of the Jerusalem schools the wrong one; so at once he replies, "He that showed mercy on him. " Even then, in that hour of the noblest confession his lips had ever made, the lawyer trained in those strange and mistaken schools, the outcome of which is the Talmud, could not force himself to name the hated Samaritan name, but paraphrases it in this titan. The scene closes with the Lord"s charge, "Then imitate that act." Go, and do thou likewise. The parable thus answers the question Who is my neighbour? Any one, it replies, who needs help, and whom I have power and opportunity to help, no matter what his rank, race, or religion may be. Neighbourhood is made coextensive with humanity; any human being is my neighbour who needs aid, or to whom I can render aid. But it answers the other and the still larger and deeper question with which the scene which called the parable out began. "Master," asked the lawyer (ver. 25), "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Or in other words, "What is the virtue which saves?" The Scriptures teach that without holiness no one shall see the Lord, that is, shall inherit eternal life; and in this parable two kinds of holiness are set before us the one spurious, the other genuine. The spurious holiness is that of the priest and Levite, two officially holy persons; spurious holiness is sanctity divorced from charity. In the person of the Samaritan the nature of true sanctity is exhibited; we are taught that the way to please God, the way to genuine holiness, is the practice of charity. Another and a very different exposition of this great and loving parable treats it as a Divine allegory. It commends itself to the present generation less than the plain matter-of-fact exegesis adopted in the foregoing notes. In the allegory, the wounded traveller represents mankind at large, stripped by the devil and his angels; he is left by them grievously wounded, yet not dead outright. Priest and Levite were alike powerless to help. "Many passed us by," once wrote a devout mediaeval writer, "and there was none to save." Moses and his Law, Aaron and his sacrifices, patriarch, prophet, and priest, these were powerless. Only the true Samaritan (Christ), beholding, was moved with compassion and poured oil into the wounds. Among the ancients, Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria and Augustine might be cited as good examples of these allegorical expositors. Among mediaeval Churchmen, Bernard and his devout school. Although this method of exposition has not been adopted here, still an exegesis which has commended itself so heartily to learned and devout Churchmen in all the Christian ages deserves at least a more respectful mention than the scornful allusion or the contemptuous silence with which it is nowadays too often dismissed. Godet, for instance, describes this allegorical interpretation adopted by the Fathers as rivalling that of the Gnostics.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Which of these was the neighbour to him that fell among the robbers - Which acted the part of a neighbour?

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Which of these three do you think ... robbers?

This could be written as two questions. AT: "What do you think? Which of these three men was a neighbor ... robbers?"

was a neighbor

"showed himself to be a true neighbor"

to him who fell among the robbers

"to the man whom the robbers attacked"

Go and do the same

It might be helpful to give more information. AT: "In the same way, you should also go and help everyone you can" (See: Ellipsis)

translationWords

neighbor

mercy

Jesus

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

36. πλησίον … γεγονέναι. ‘To have proved himself a neighbour.’

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

36.] It will be observed that our Lord not only elicits the answer from the questioner himself, but that it comes in an inverted form. The lawyer had asked, to whom he was to understand himself obliged to fulfil the duties of neighbourship? but the answer has for its subject one who fulfilled them to another. The reason of this is to be found,—partly in the relation of neighbourship being mutual, so that if this man is my neighbour, I am his also;—but chiefly in the intention of our Lord to bring out a strong contrast by putting the hated and despised Samaritan in the active place, and thus to reflect back the ὁμοίως more pointedly. “Observe γεγονέναι, to have become neighbour. The neighbour Jews became strangers, the stranger Samaritan became neighbour, to the wounded traveller. It is not place, but love, which makes neighbourhood.” Wordsworth.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

36, 37. The Moral of the Parable. Christ not only forces the lawyer to answer his own question, but shows that it has been asked from the wrong point of view. For the question, “Who is my neighbour?” is substituted, “To whom am I neighbour? Whose claims on my neighbourly help do I recognize?” All the three were by proximity neighbours to the wounded man, and his claim was greater on the priest and Levite; but only the alien recognized any claim. The γεγονέναι is very significant, and implies this recognition: “became neighbour, proved neighbour”: comp. 19:17; Heb 11:6 “The neighbouring Jews became strangers, the stranger Samaritan became neighbour, to the wounded traveller. It is not place, but love, which makes neighbourhood” (Wordsworth). RV. is the only English Version which takes account of γεγονέναι: Vulg. Luth. and Beza all treat it as εἶναι.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Was neighbor [πλησιον γεγονεναι] . More correctly, has become neighbor. Jesus throws himself back to the time of the story. So Rev., proved neighbor. "The neighbor Jews became strangers. The stranger Samaritan became neighbor to the wounded traveler" (Alford).

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 36, 37. The Moral.

The question with which Jesus obliges the scribe to make application of the parable may seem badly put. According to the theme of discussion: “Who is my neighbour?” (Luk 10:29), it would seem that He should have asked: Whom, then, wilt thou regard as thy neighbour to guide thee to him, as the Samaritan was guided to thy compatriot? But as the term neighbour implies the idea of reciprocity, Jesus has the right of reversing the expressions, and He does so not without reason. Is it not more effective to ask: By whom should I like to be succoured in distress? than: Whom should I assist in case of distress? To the first question, the reply is not doubtful. Self-regard coming to the aid of conscience, all will answer: By everybody. The scribe is quite alive to this. He cannot escape, when he is brought face to face with the question in this form. Only, as his heart refuses to pronounce the word Samaritan with praise, he paraphrases the odious name. On the use of μετά, Luk 10:37, see on Luk 1:58.

In this final declaration, Jesus contrasts the doing of the Samaritan with the vain casuistry of the Rabbins. But while saying, Do thou likewise, He does not at all add, as at Luk 10:28, and thou shalt live. For beneficence does not give life or salvation. Were it even the complete fulfilment of the second part of the sum of the law, we may not forget the first part, the realization of which, though not less essential to salvation, may remain a strange thing to the man of greatest beneficence. But what is certain is, that the man who in his conduct contradicts the law of nature, is on the way opposed to that which leads to faith and salvation (Joh 3:19-21).

The Fathers have dwelt with pleasure on the allegorical interpretation of this parable: The wounded man representing humanity; the brigands, the devil; the priest and Levite, the law and the prophets. The Samaritan is Jesus Himself; the oil and wine, divine grace; the ass, the body of Christ; the inn, the Church; Jerusalem, paradise; the expected return of the Samaritan, the final advent of Christ. This exegesis rivalled that of the Gnostics.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.