A question of love and ethics in the parable of the good samaritan

[Tarheel Baptist]

I don’t really see an issue here, but I’m shallow.

 

[Ransom]

In this case, I’m putting myself in the shoes of the person who has been wronged, not as the person who observed the wrongdoing of another.

The question raised by the parable isn't so much, what is the obligation of a Christian to forgive a criminal; but, with respect to the victim, who is his neighbour (Luke 10:29). Jesus' question at the end of the parable asks, "Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" (v. 36). The "three" are the priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan.

Jesus' question, and the lawyer's answer, implies that the Samaritan was neighbourly and the other two were not, and the robbers aren't even in the running, apparently. Jesus has other things to say about showing compassion to prisoners (e.g. Matt. 25:36), but I don't think we can really find it in Luke 10.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I think it starts (step 1) with a forgiving spirit on the part of the Christian, otherwise we risk becoming the one in sin for going contrary to God’s command. As for step 2, it depends on the offense of the wrongdoer in terms of what restoration/retribution looks like. I believe you’re being too vague and capricious in your questioning (I don’t mean that in a degrading way). I did come across an interesting article along the lines of your questions that I skimmed through. I’d like to reread it later a little more carefully, but I’ll share for now. https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/163072.pdf

Not trying to be intentionally vague, just not wanting to put words in your mouth or bias you by narrowing the question with language that is too leading. So what was the most relevant points from the article you linked in your opinion?

 

[ALAYMAN]

The question raised by the parable isn't so much, what is the obligation of a Christian to forgive a criminal; but, with respect to the victim, who is his neighbour (Luke 10:29). Jesus' question at the end of the parable asks, "Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" (v. 36). The "three" are the priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan.

Jesus' question, and the lawyer's answer, implies that the Samaritan was neighbourly and the other two were not, and the robbers aren't even in the running, apparently. Jesus has other things to say about showing compassion to prisoners (e.g. Matt. 25:36), but I don't think we can really find it in Luke 10.

While I am not in any way denying the appropriateness of your response regarding the pointedness of focus on the definition of "neighbor", it seems, at least tangentially, that the parable teaches the idea that love is the greatest motivator in leading us to seek restoration/healing in relationships with others where animosity and/or contempt for them personally has caused potentially harsh or even vengeful attitudes (Samaritans vs Jews). Analogically that principle of loving those that are in our unlovable category could/should have great implications towards our attitude toward lost sinners, seeking change/repentance in those who are out of the way of God.

 

[AverageJoe]

No, Jesus said, Matt 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

There are conditions in many places.

One can still forgive, and should. The principle is clear. This is a process to reconcile the brother, not the excuse NOT to forgive them.