This is a case of all of what has been said by both of us being Scriptural and being teachable from other passages in the Bible. So there is no disagreement in doctrine. But every passage has an interpretation and an application or maybe applications. So I tend to think you are giving the application while my comment that the Lord is the Good Samaritan and that we are to do “likewise” or “according to the parable” means that we are to do like the man who fell among the thieves who would have loved a man that his nation rejected. A man that by nature should have passed him by. And I base that on the fact that we obtain eternal life that way.

But maybe I am making the application.

I hadn’t ever considered the parable from that angle before. I’ve given it a lot of thought over the past week or so (hence the delayed response). As you said, the parables can be looked at in more than one way—and every time I realize another of these layer of meaning below something I thought I already understood, it deepens my appreciation for Jesus. So thank you for that!

However, I don’t think that the primary interpretation of the parable (the way Jesus meant it and the way His audience understood it) was that He was the Good Samaritan. (I don’t think you do either, but it helps me internalize all this if I type it all out, so bear with me!) This parable ties back into the age-old faith vs. works discussion—in this case, it’s not just thematically tied but also cross-referentially: James mentions the “royal law”, the same one being discussed here, in 2:8. Then, later on, 2:14-17:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

By asking “Can such a faith save him?” James was directly addressing the question of eternal life, as Jesus was. Not because the works are in any way required for salvation, but because they are tied together in such a way that if a person’s faith was unaccompanied by a change of heart (which leads to actions), it might not be saving faith.

So it’s clear from James’s context, as well as its original context in Leviticus, that the “royal law” really does mean to love your neighbor, your fellow human being, in a way that is second only to your love for God. And so to the expert in the law in Luke 10, the one who by his question was hoping to have the concept of neighbor shrunk rather than expanded, Jesus shot down any possibility that the teacher would be able to exclude someone from the second-greatest commandment. There are no free passes that let you ignore a person in need.

Another thought though. Since the original question had to do with eternal life, Luke 10:25, is the whole passage disagreeing with the concept that faith and only faith in Christ saves or is the passage saying, go and do like the man who fell among thieves–love the Good Samaritan who is your neighbor! And who is the rejected despised Samaritan today? Wouldn’t it be the Lord? He came where we were when we were robbed by sin, he picks us up, fixes us up and puts us up in an inn (if you consider that to be a picture of a good fellowship of Christians). I think these parables can be looked at in more than one way.