Today at Ward Conference the first counselor in the Stake Presidency mentioned the good Samaritan and I began looking at the parable in Luke 10:25-37. Maybe one of the things in the talk pricked me to think about it, the fact that he pronounced "shewed" as "shooed" instead of "showed" (for some reason that mistake always gets to me, sort of making the scriptures less readily understandable for the sake of phonetics).
Anyway, there is a parallel example of being tempted by a lawyer on the same point in Matthew 22:35-40, though it only emphasizes the two highest laws. Back in Luke, I realized that the response to the question put to the savior "who is my neighbor?" is a return question "Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?" and the answer is "He that shewed mercy on him" that is, the Samaritan, who represents the Savior in the parable. What occurred to me was that logically speaking, the implication seems to be that the neighbor whom the lawyer was to love as himself is the Savior and the lawyer may be the victim of the thieves (though he may not realize it) and he should be loving the Savior as he loves himself.
To sort of back this up, the surrounding verses in Luke 10 and those in Matthew 21 and 22 seem to be emphasizing the Savior's power and authority, not lessons in treating each other compassionately. Of course, this doesn't take away anything from the point of our behavior being supposed to be emulating that of the good Samaritan, which is mostly what this story is used for. But I thought the way the Savior framed the question to the lawyer (who was neighbor to the victim?) as opposed to how it might have been phrased (who treated the victim as a neighbor?) seems to be purposely including another teaching a little different than the typical point of the parable.
Love, Dad
That is a really neat perspective that I have never thought of before! Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDelete