Saint Luke - Chapter 10
 |
| The Good Samaritan. J-J Tissot |
And Jesus answering, said: A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, who also stripped him, and having wounded him went away, leaving him half dead.
And Jesus answering said. Taking up or continuing His discourse. Euthymius. l.c. answering the lawyer, and explaining fully and clearly to whom “neighbour” applied.
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves. A Jew, S. Augustine says; and an inhabitant of the holy city. Bede.
The parable is founded on incidents of at that time frequent occurrence, and is therefore a true history. For, as S. Jerome observes, between Jerusalem and Jericho was a place infested with robbers, called in the Hebrew tongue Adommim, or rather Addammim, i.e. red or bloody, because of the blood which was shed there. So Adrichomius describes Adommim as a place infamous even in later times for robberies and murders, terrible to behold, and so dangerous that no one dared to pass through it without an escort.
There the Samaritan met with this man who, like many another traveller, had been grievously wounded by robbers. The place itself lay four leagues to the west of Jericho, and was situated on the confines of Judah and Benjamin. A fort had been built there, and garrisoned with soldiers, for the protection of travellers. Close by was a large cavern, and the country round was hilly, so that robbers could see from afar the approaching wayfarer, and lie in ambush to attack him. Hence in Joshua 15:7 the place is called the going up to Adommim.
Which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Stripped him of his raiment, money, and all that he had, and left him half dead by the wayside, where he would have died of his wounds had no one come to succour him. For it is the custom of robbers, in order to avoid detection, to murder their victims. The Syriac version makes the meaning clear. “They wounded him, and left him when there was scarce any life remaining in him.”
[31] Accidit autem ut sacerdos quidam descenderet eadem via : et viso illo praeterivit.
And it chanced, that a certain priest went down the same way: and seeing him, passed by.
And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. By chance, humanly speaking, but really by the providence of God, for all things are foreordained by Him. Passed by on the other side, “ἀντιπαρῆλθεν.” The priest, terrified at his appearance, turned away from him, and went by on the other side. Christ here draws attention to the perversity of the priests of that day, who were zealous in carrying out all the outward observances of the law, but were utterly wanting in true religion and in showing mercy and pity. For this priest left his fellow-countryman and neighbour in his direst distress without even a word of consolation or comfort.
[32] Similiter et Levita, cum esset secus locum, et videret eum, pertransiit.
In like manner also a Levite, when he was near the place and saw him, passed by.
And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. The Levite amongst the Jews, like the deacons in the Church, assisted the priest in his ministrations. He was therefore of one mind with the priest, for as the priest so is the Levite, as the prelate so the deacon, as the master so the servant, as the teacher so the disciple. And so he also passed by on the other side.
[33] Samaritanus autem quidam iter faciens, venit secus eum : et videns eum, misericordia motus est.
But a certain Samaritan being on his journey, came near him; and seeing him, was moved with compassion.
But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him. A Samaritan one of an entirely different race and religion, and therefore, as a heretic and schismatic, more hateful to the Jews than any other of the Gentiles. Yet this despised Samaritan had pity on the poor traveller who had been abandoned by both priest and Levite. Hence we learn that not only our friends but also our enemies are our neighbours, and Christ holds up this Samaritan as an example of brotherly kindness and love, because he had compassion on one who was hateful to himself and his people.
[34] Et appropians alligavit vulnera ejus, infundens oleum et vinum : et imponens illum in jumentum suum, duxit in stabulum, et curam ejus egit.
And going up to him, bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine: and setting him upon his own beast, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine. Went to him, got off the horse or the ass on which he was riding, and poured into the wounds the oil and wine which he carried with him as refreshment for the way.
The order is inverted. He first, in accordance with the practice of the physicians of that day, washed the wounds with wine; for wine (1.) removes the coagulated blood; (2.) arrests corruption; (3.) closes the wound and strengthens the nerves against the effects of the bruises.
Then he anointed the wounds with oil—(1.) To sooth their smart; (2.) to allay the pain; and (3.) to help forward the cure.
Hence S. Gregory says (lib. xx. chap. 8, Moral.), By wine we may understand the gnawings of conscience; by oil the healing influences of religion—and so mildness must be mingled with severity if we would heal the wounds of the soul, and rescue sinners from the power of sin. But S. Chrysostom considers the wine to be the blood of the Passion, the oil the unction wherewith we are anointed, i.e. the unction of the Holy Spirit. Interlinear Gloss.
And set him on his own beast. On his ass. Syriac.
Allegorically. S. Augustin explains the beast to mean the flesh of Christ, and to be set thereon, to believe in the incarnation. S. Ambrose says, He places us on His beast whilst He bears our sins; and Theophylact, He made us to be His members and partakers of His body.
And brought him to an inn. εἰς πανδοχεῖον, in stabulum. Vulgate. The resting-place built for the accommodation of all—the stabulum, where travellers stopped or stood to rest.
And took care of him. Providing everything which his case required.
[35] Et altera die protulit duos denarios, et dedit stabulario, et ait : Curam illius habe : et quodcumque supererogaveris, ego cum rediero reddam tibi.
And the next day he took out two pence, and gave to the host, and said: Take care of him; and whatsoever thou shalt spend over and above, I, at my return, will repay thee.
And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence—i.e. not two pence in the ordinary signification of the words, but sufficient to supply the wants of the wounded man until his return. S. Augustine says, “The two pence are the two precepts of love, which the apostles received for the evangelising of the world, or the promise of this life, and of that which is to come.”
And gave them to the host, &c. Learn hence how great was the love of the Samaritan, for he provided everything that was needful for the poor traveller’s cure.
Allegorically. The traveller is Adam wounded, and all but dead in trespasses and sins. For Adam went from Jerusalem to Jericho when he fell from grace into the power of Satan. For the thieves are the evil spirits who tempted Adam and Eve to sin, and corrupted the souls of all with the lust of concupiscence. The priest and Levite represent the ancient law, which was unable to remedy the consequences of Adam’s fall.
The Samaritan is Christ, by whom men are rescued from sin and promised salvation. The beast is his human nature, to which the divine is united, and on which it is carried and borne. The inn is the Church, which receives all believers. The wine is the blood of Christ, by which we are cleansed from sin. The oil represents his mercy and pity. The host, who is the head of the inn, i.e. of the Church, is S. Peter. So S. Ambrose, Origen, and the Fathers.
Hear also Origen more particularly: “A certain preacher thus interprets the parable. The man who went down from Jerusalem is Adam. Jerusalem is Paradise, Jericho the world. The thieves are the powers which are against us. The priest is the law, the Levite, the prophets. The Samaritan is Christ. The beast whereon he sat, the body of the Lord, i.e. His humanity. The inn the Church. By the two pieces of money we may understand the Father and the Son, and by the host, the head of the Church, him to whom its governance is committed. The return of the Samaritan is the second coming of the Lord;” and this interpretation seems reasonable and true.
Again the Fathers and Theologians teach from this parable that Adam was stripped of those gifts and good things which were of grace, but wounded in those things which were of nature, not indeed in his nature pure and incorrupt, for nature is the same after sin as before, but in his nature established by grace, cleansed and renewed by justification imputed by God. For in a nature of this kind all the appetites and passions as well as the lust of concupiscence are subjected to the understanding, so that a man does not wish or desire anything but that which is right. For deprived through sin of original justification we experience in ourselves, unwittingly and contrary to our will, evil desires. This is the wound which nature has received.
[36] Quis horum trium videtur tibi proximus fuisse illi, qui incidit in latrones?
Which of these three, in thy opinion, was neighbour to him that fell among the robbers?
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? The true meaning of the passage is this, Which of these three seems to thee to have acted as neighbour to the wounded man? and in this sense it was understood by the lawyer who answered, “He that showed mercy upon him.” Christ asked the lawyer which of the three by his actions showed that he looked upon the wounded man as a neighbour. For neighbour is a correlative term, and a man can only be a neighbour to a neighbour, just as a man can only be compassionate to one who needs pity.
Hence Christ indicates the one by the other, and thus answers the lawyer’s inquiry. Christ inverted His answer, in order to give an example of the perfection of brotherly love, so that the lawyer and all men might learn to imitate the Samaritan. Hence Jesus said, “Go and do thou likewise,” v. 37.
So also in the parable of the two debtors, Christ asks, “Which of them will love him most?” See chap. 7:42. S. Augustin, Bede, and all the Fathers.
[37] At ille dixit : Qui fecit misericordiam in illum. Et ait illi Jesus : Vade, et tu fac similiter.
But he said: He that shewed mercy to him. And Jesus said to him: Go, and do thou in like manner.
And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. Hereby we understand, says S. Augustine, “that he is our neighbour to whomsoever we must show compassion, if he need it, and would have shown it if he had needed it.” Hence it follows that even he who must in turn show us this duty is our neighbour. For the name of neighbour relates to something else, nor can any one be a neighbour except to a neighbour.
Hence it is clear that to no one, not even to our enemy, is mercy to be denied. And S. Augustin very appositely adds, “What more remote than God from men? For God possesses two perfections, righteousness and immortality. But man two evils, sin and death. God was made man, and so like unto us, yet not like us, for He was without sin, and by bearing the punishment, but not the guilt of sin, He abolished both the guilt and the punishment.”
Isidore of Pelusium assigns the cause. Relationship is reckoned according to nature, not virtue; in essence, not by worth; by compassion, not by place; by the manner of treatment, not by neighbourhood. For we must account him as a neighbour who is most in need of our aid, and be willing at once to render him help.
Totus tuus ego sum
Et omnia mea tua sunt;
Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam
Ad Jesum per Mariam
No comments:
Post a Comment