Luke
10:25-37
The teachings of Messiah, 9:51-19:44
1. The kingdom and its message, 9:51-10:42
v] Who inherits eternal life?
SynopsisJesus is approached by an expert in Biblical law, a theologian, who asks what a person must do to gain eternal life. As a discussion-starter, Jesus asks him what he thinks the scriptures say on the matter. The theologian gives the standard answer, "love God, love neighbour." Jesus replies "Indeed, do this and you will live." Yet, here lies the problem, doing God's law is no easy matter, but it does help if our neighbour belongs to a select group of people we like. So, the theologian asks Jesus "who is my neighbour?" Jesus doesn't actually answer the theologian's question (eg., my neighbour is even my enemy), rather he illustrates, in a teaching parable, what it means to love "your neighbour as yourself"; he illustrates the nature of selfless love, of neighbourliness. Selfless love asks "not who is qualified for my help? But, what need can I meet?", Danker.
Teaching
In the face of the impossible perfection of God's law, "God can only relate to a person who, having lost self-confidence, humbles himself in repentance", Ellis.
Issues
i] Context: See 9:51-56. The parable of the Good Samaritan is the fifth episode in a group of six in the section The kingdom and its message, 9:51-10:42. In this section Luke tells us that the message of the kingdom concerns deliverance, not judgement, and that gaining this deliverance must take priority in our life. Inevitably, the capacity of the message to engage and renew derives from the gracious nature of our God and Father exercised through his Son, 10:21-24. Yet, even though Satan is brought low, v17-20, many will still reject the message, v1-16, resting in their own righteousness, v25-37.
ii] Structure: Who inherits eternal life?:
A legal question on inheriting eternal life, v25-28:
The scribe's question, v25;
"what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus' question, v26;
"what is written in the Law?"
The scribe's reply, v27;
love God, love neighbour.
Jesus' response, v28;
"do this and you will live."
A legal question on the application of God's Law, 29-37:
The scribe's second question, v29:
"who is my neighbour?"
Jesus' response, v30-35:
The teaching parable of the Good Samaritan.
Jesus' question, v36:
"which of these ..... was neighbourly ...."
The scribe's reply, v37a:
"the one who had mercy on him."
Jesus' reply, v37b:
"go and do likewise."
iii] Interpretation:
The long awaited kingdom of God has dawned in the person of Jesus. God, in his kindness, has freely offered entry into the kingdom to all who repent and believe. This offer from God is proclaimed for all to hear, 10:1-20, and those who believe are blessed, 10:21-24. Yet, in the face of the coming kingdom, not only are there those who ignore the message, 10:13-16, many still rest in their own righteousness. Beware, kingdom membership is neither gained, maintained, nor progressed, by obedience to the law, for who can love as the Good Samaritan loved?
A superficial reading of the parable of the Good Samaritan leaves us with an ethical imperative (be a good Sam), yet it is more likely a declaration of judgment (go and do likewise if you can! ). Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan, within the context of hearing and doing God's word, confronts the "expert in the law" with the full weight of God's law and thus leaves him without excuse.
It is only through the apostle Paul, the inspired exegete of Jesus, that we can properly understand Jesus' teaching at this point, namely that the function of the law is to expose sin and thus drive the righteous to rest on faith for God's mercy rather than their own self-righteousness. For Paul, covenant compliance / right-standing before God, is neither maintained nor advanced by obedience to the law, but is a gift of grace appropriated through faith in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Faith incorporates the believer in Christ, in his faithfulness (the cross) and his vindication (his resurrection). Thus, a believer stands approved before God, and thus an inheritor of "eternal life", not by works of the law, but as a gift of divine grace appropriated through the instrument of faith.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus confronts the expert in the law with the simple fact that eternal life is not secured by law-righteousness. He is going to have to find another way - maybe the example of Abraham will help! Faith? One thing is clear, doing "likewise" is out of the question; the be a good Sam pathway is beyond the best of us. Thankfully, unlike the theologian, the reader is provided with a clue in the following story of Martha and Mary - hearing and receiving, rather than doing. Martha was into doing, "serving", but Mary found the "better portion ..... at the Lord's feet, listening to his teaching".
The nomism of second-temple Judaism: For a religious Jew of the first century, law-obedience served to maintain covenant standing, not gain covenant standing. The story of the Good Samaritan exposes the heresy of nomism, a heresy that had infested second temple Judaism.
Religious Jews of the day believed that by obedience to the law they were able to perfect their standing before God and thus guarantee their place in the kingdom. Yet, the faithful application of Mosaic law, for someone possessing covenant standing, does not serve as the way to access the promised blessings of the covenant / the promised fullness of life under God, rather the law of the Sinai covenant serves primarily to expose sin, inculcating a divine curse and thus forcing a reliance on the basis of covenant standing established in the Abrahamic covenant, namely faith. So, the law serves to expose human corruption and its consequence, divine judgment, and thus forces the child of God to rest on divine mercy.
The "expert in the law" was obviously dulled to this function of the law, since he saw himself as a good law-keeper, although he did have a minor theological concern which he felt Jesus may be able to help him with. Yet, this religious Jew did not need a legal definition for "neighbour", he needed to act in a neighbourly way (with mercy) to inherit eternal life. The problem was, he had never loved as the Samaritan loved, nor could he. Therefore, he stood under the condemnation of God and was in dire need of divine mercy. "Jesus deliberately shocked the lawyer by forcing him to consider the possibility that a semi-pagan foreigner might know more about the love of God than a devout Jew blinded by preoccupation with pettifogging rules", Caird.
A survey of offered interpretations:
•iThe Samaritan is Jesus. Allegorical interpretations by the Fathers, eg. the Samaritan is Jesus and he is to be loved by sinners (the man attacked by thieves) as the neighbour who saves. Such interpretations are now mostly discounted, although ref. Gerhardsson The Good Samaritan - The Good Shepherd? who argues that Jesus is the good shepherd who binds up Israel's wounds;
•iAn authorisation of the Old Testament as a final authority in matters of faith;
•i"Righteousness and salvation are not the exclusive privilege of the Jew", Plummer.
•iThe answer to the theologian's question serves to make the point that love of God = "to accept what God in his grace has done and to trust in him", Stein / "engagement with his (Jesus') teachings", Nolland;
•iA lesson on discipleship - the law of love, Deut.6:5, Lev.19:18. "Love of the neighbour is to know no bounds or boundaries", Evans - "go and do likewise" = "go forth and live a life of true love to God and to your fellow-man through the power I give you", Geldenhuys. "Love of neighbour flows out of a radical love of God", Green, which commandments "Jesus' followers must obey .... in order to inherit eternal life", Marshall. "The point we learn, is not who deserves to be cared for but rather the demand to become a person who treats everyone encountered - however frightening, alien, naked or defenceless - with compassion..... One must take the same risks with one's life and possessions that the Samaritan did!", Johnson, so also Creed, Gooding, Leaney, Danker, Evans, Nolland, Bock, Marshall, Fitzmyer, Green, Tinsley.
•iThe law is self-defeating, particularly with regard to ritual defilement, cf., Jeremias, Parables
•iTraditional Reformed interpretation, cf., Hendriksen
With respect to the proposition that the parable is a lesson on discipleship, I fully accept that the parable serves as a powerful guide for Christian living, but that's not Jesus' purpose, so when the parable is used as a basis for discipleship instructions, it can lead to guilt-laden pharisaism - we live by grace, not law, and it is by grace, through faith, that we begin to live out the requirements of the law, albeit always imperfectly. It is at this point, the lived-out fruit of faith, that the ideal of merciful compassion can give direction to the Christian life.
iv] Synoptics:
See 3:1-20.. The parable is unique to Luke, but the initial discussion on the law finds parallels in Matthew 22:34-40 and Mark 12:28-34. Luke adds the question "who is my neighbour?", which of course, leads into the parable. In the other accounts, Jesus comments on the "scribes" declaration of the two great commands, by saying "you are not far from the kingdom of God." This is often read as a positive comment, but being "not far from" the kingdom of God is not being in the kingdom of God (Jesus' comment is tongue-in-cheek). In all the synoptic accounts, Jesus exposes the problem of self-righteousness, which is why Mark concludes with "and no one after that dared to ask him any questions", 12:34b.
v] Exposition: A simple exposition of this passage may be found in the linked pew-level Sermon Notes.
Text - 10:25
Who inherits eternal life?, v25-37. i] A legal question on inheriting eternal life, v25-28. "An expert in the law" asks how to gain "eternal life". He is a theologian, and wants to engage with Jesus on the mother of all issues.
idou "on one occasion" - [and] behold. Transitional, introducing a new episode; see kai idou, 1:31.
nomikoV (oV) "an expert in the law" - [a certain] person trained in biblical law. Nominative subject of the verb "to stand up." A person trained in the interpretation and application of Biblical law.
ekpeirazwn (ekpeirazw) pres. par. "to test [Jesus]" - [stood up] testing, tempting [him]. The participle is adverbial, final, expressing purpose, "in order to test him", but possibly attendant circumstance, "stood up and tested him", in the sense of putting a test question to Jesus. Not necessarily a question that tempts Jesus to say something incriminating, or testing him in a negative way. Johnson argues for a "hostile" intent, possibly "challenges", but the question seems anything but hostile, possibly even "friendly", Marshall, so Plummer.
legwn (legw) "he asked" - saying. A semi-redundant use of an attendant participle to introduce direct speech - Semitic form; see legwn, 4:35, but it may be treated as adverbial, modal, expressing the manner of the testing; "he stood up and tested him, saying, ...."
poihsaV (poiew) aor. part. "[what] must I do" - [what] having done [will i inherit]. The participle is adverbial, instrumental, expressing means; "I will inherit eternal life by doing what?" = "what do I have to do to obtain a share in eternal life?" Cassirer.
zwhn (h) "life" - [eternal] life. Accusative direct object of the verb "to inherit." "Life" in the sense of "life in the land of Israel" as part of the covenantal promise is certainly common to the Old Testament, but "life in the age (to come)", the eschatological promised new age, did not emerge until the later prophets, eg., Dan.12:2. It is very likely that the question concerns "life" in all its fullness, the full appropriation of all the promised covenantal blessings both now, and then (at the resurrection of the righteous).
v26
Jesus asks him what he thinks the scriptures say on the issue.
oJ de "-" - but/and he [said toward him]. Transitional, indicating a change in subject from the theologian to Jesus.
tiv "what" - what. Interrogative pronoun introducing a direct question.
gegraptai (grafw) perf. pas. "is written" - has been written. This passive perfect is commonly used of scripture, of what has been written and is still relevant. Jesus is asking for a scriptural answer to the question and certainly not the recitation of tradition, so Plummer.
en + dat. "in" - in [the law]. Local, expressing space / place. Note emphatic placement to emphasise the "law".
twV "how" - how. Introducing an interrogative clause.
anaginwskeiV (anaginwskw) pres. "do you read it?" - do you read it? In the sense of "understand"; "what does your reading tell you?", Rieu.
v27
The theologian thinks the answer lies in keeping God's law, summarised in the two great commands: love God and love neighbour. Elsewhere in the synoptics, Jesus himself recites this summary of the law, but here it comes from the Jewish expert on the law, and Jesus agrees with it. The two parts consist of the Shema, Deut.6:5, and Lev.19:18a. Both parts are idealistic and therefore beyond even the most faithful child of God. If "life" in all its fullness depends of the doing of the law, then the temptation for reductionism is always going to be present. This temptation prompts the theologian's next question, a question which attempts to limit those who are neighbour.
oJ de "he" - but/and he. Transitional, as for v26.
apokriqeiV (apokrinomai) aor. pas. part. "answered" - having answered [he said]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "he said". A common phrase; see apokriqeiV, 1:19.
agaphseiV (agapaw) fut. "love" - you will love. Imperatival (volitive) future tense.
sou gen. pro. "your [God]" - [the lord the god] of you. The genitive sou, "of you", with "heart", "soul", etc. is obviously possessive, "your heart", etc., but with "God" it is serving as a genitive of subordination; "the Lord God over us."
ek + gen. "with" - from. Expressing the source of the love, although best translated in English as NIV.
thV kardiaV (a) gen. "heart" - [all] the heart [of you]. Referring to the seat of intellect, not emotion, although the individual parts listed are not to be divided, but rather serve to define an allegiance and devotion of the whole person to God.
en + dat. "with" - in [all the soul of you, and] in [all the strength of you]. Here with an instrumental sense expressing means, "by means of", as NIV.
wV "as [yourself]" - [and the neighbour of you] as [you would love yourself]. Introducing a comparison, "as you would love yourself." "The neighbour is to be entrusted with the love we have for ourselves", Danker.
v28
Jesus agrees, "Do this and you will live". A person's standing, as a member of the kingdom of God, is guaranteed if they keep the whole law. Yet, Jesus' response is conditional; "If you do this, then you will live." And there's the rub, perfectly doing the law is problematic. The theologian is now in a corner, so prompting his self-justifying question, v29.
de "-" - but/and. Transitional, as v26.
autw/ dat. pro. "[Jesus replied]" - [he said] to him. Dative of indirect object.
poiei (poiew) pres. imp. "do" - do [this]. The present tense, being durative, expresses continued action. The imperative takes the force of a condition; "if you do this", TH.
zhsh/ (zaw) fut. "you will live" - [and] you will live. The "live" obviously as v25, "eternal life" / "life in all it's fullness" / the promised covenant blessings of new life.
v29
ii] A legal question on the application of God's law, v29-37: The theologian could be asking a genuine heart-felt question, but Luke exposes his self-righteous motive. The question, "Who is my neighbour?", is a thorny technical issue, and it is likely that the theologian wants to nail home the commonly held view that one's neighbour, the one to whom love must be offered as a duty, is the righteous person, the godly law-keeping Jew (we might say church member, or good clean-living folk!!). By means of reductionism, the law is made doable, but Jesus will have none of it.
oJ de "but" - but/and he. Transitional, as for v26.
qelwn (qelw) pres. part. "he wanted" - wishing, wanting. The participle is adverbial, best treated as causal, "but he, because he wanted to justify himself, said."
dikaiwsai (dikaiow) aor. inf. "to justify" - to justify [himself]. The infinitive is complementary, completing the verbal sense of the participle "wanting". This word provides the motive behind the theologian's question, although the motive is not overly clear. Possibly "to show how expert he was", Barclay ("vindicate"), but better "wishing to put himself in the right", Cassirer ("justify"). He wants, for himself (rather than "before men", 16:15), to confirm a recognition of covenant inclusion through his faithful attention to the obligation of love.
kai "and [who is my neighbour?]" - [said toward jesus,] and [who is my neighbour]? Here indicating a subsequent question in the discussion - best left untranslated.
v30
Addressing the theologian's question, Jesus tells the story of a man attacked by thieves and left for dead, v30-35. Religious Jews, who come across a wounded man on the side of the road, fail to show mercy - probably for good religious reasons (eg., the prohibition on touching a corpse). Yet, a Samaritan shows mercy, and that to a man who may well be a Jew.
uJpolabwn (uJpolambanw) aor. part. "in reply" - having replied [jesus said]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "said"; "Jesus continued the discussion and said."
katebainen (katabainw) imperf. "was going down" - [a certain man] was coming down. The imperfect is durative, expressing the action of traveling. The "going down" expresses movement from a high place to a low place, the low place being Jericho. In Australia going down to somewhere represents a movement from North to South.
apo + gen. "from" - from [jerusalem to jericho]. Expressing separation, "away from."
periepesen (peripiptw) aor. "fell" - [and] he encountered, fell among, was surrounded by [thieves]. "Fell into the hands of brigands", Rieu .
lhstaiV (hV ou) dat. "robbers" - thieves, robbers, highwaymen, brigands. Dative of direct object after the verb "to be attacked by."
oi} kai "-" - who and = and who. Possibly just correlative, "who both ........ and ...." Zerwick suggests that here the construction "is without apparent significance", as NIV, although BAGD argues that it reinforces the independence of a relative clause, lit. "who also having stripped him", "who, as you would expect, .....", Creed, "who went so far as to ...", Nolland, "who, in addition to other violence, ...", Plummer.
ekdousanteV (ekduw) aor. part. "they stripped" - having stripped [him and having inflicted blows]. As with "having inflicted [blows]", the participle is adverbial, best treated as temporal; "after they stripped ... and beat him they went away."
afenteV (afihmi) aor. part. "leaving" - [they went away] having left [him half dead]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to go away", "they went away and left him half dead"; "left him half-conscious lying in a pool of his own blood", Junkins.
v31
kata sugkurian "happened" - [but/and] according to chance. Adverbial use of the preposition to form an idiomatic expression meaning "by chance", "by coincidence", TH; "it so happened", Phillips.
katebainen (katabainw) imperf. "to be going down" - [a certain priest] was coming down. The imperfect is durative expressing the action of travelling. "The road drops 3,300 feet in 17 miles", Evans.
en/ + dat. "[the same road]" - on, in [that way]. An idiomatic expression meaning "on the road." "The road was notorious for its hazards", Danker.
idwn (oJraw) aor. part. "when he saw" - [and] having seen [him]. The participle is adverbial, best treated as temporal, as NIV.
antiparhlqen (antiparercomai) aor. "he passed by on the other side" - he passed by on the other side. The aorist expresses punctiliar action. It is only a story, but the reason for this action is usually taken as fear of the robbers, or fear of defilement from a corpse.
v32
kai "[so] too" - [but/and likewise] and = also. Adjunctive. "And in the very same way", TH.
genomenoV (ginomai) aor. part. "-" - [a levite] having happened. Variant, cf., Metzger, 152. The participle would be adjectival, attributive, limiting "a Levite", "who happened [on the scene / place, and having gone and taken a look]", cf., Zerwick. If the longer reading is accepted, the actions of the Levite are more heartless than the priest because "he came up to him, quite close, and passed on", Plummer.
kata + acc. "to [the place]" - to, up to, upon [the place]. Spatial, expressing the direction of the action; "toward, up to."
elqwn (ercomai) aor. part. "when he came" - having come [and having seen, he passed by on the other side]. The participle, as with idwn, "having seen", is adverbial, best treated as temporal, as NIV.
v33
The actions of the Samaritan serve to illustrate what love / compassion is. It is most evident in showing mercy.
oJdeuwn (oJdeuw) pres. part. "as he travelled" - [but/and a certain samaritan] traveling. The participle is could be treated as adverbial, temporal, as NIV, but also adjectival, attributive, limiting "a Samaritan", "who was travelling"; "a Samaritan, who was on the road", Barclay (attributed?? "a Samaritan traveller", Moffatt). The forward position of SamarithV, "Samaritan", aids transition to the new subject in the narrative, from "a Levite" to "a Samaritan."
kat (kata) + acc. "where [the man was]" - [came] up to / upon [him]. Again, this preposition takes a spatial sense here.
idwn (eidon) aor. part. "when he saw him" - [and] having seen him. The participle is adverbial, best treated as temporal, as NIV.
esplagcnisqh (esplagcnizomai) aor. pas. "he took pity on him" - he was filled with compassion, deeply moved with pity. The aorist is punctiliar; "he was instantly moved with compassion."
v34
proselqwn (prosercomai) aor. part. "he went to him" - [and] having approached. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "he bound up", as NIV.
epicewn (epicew) pres. part. "pouring on" - [he bound up the wounds of him] pouring on [oil and wine]. The participle is adverbial, modal, expressing the manner of attending to his wounds; "bound up, pouring on as he bound, oil and wine", Plummer. Oil was used on wounds as a liniment, while wine (alcohol) was used as an antiseptic.
epibibasaV (epibibazw) aor. part. "then he put" - [and] having put, placed [him upon the = his own animal]. The participle is adverbial, probably temporal, as NIV. "He then put him on his own pack animal", Cassirer.
pandoceion (on) "an inn" - [he brought him to, into] a public inn. A hapax legomenon, once only use in the NT.
epemelhqh (epimeleomai) aor. pas. "took care of" - [and] cared for. The picture presented in the parable is of the Samaritan taking the man to the inn, staying the night with him to care for him (rather than just dumping him there) and paying for ongoing care the next day. "As a neighbour, the Samaritan did everything he could", Bock.
autou gen. pro. "him" - him. Genitive of direct object after the verb "cared for."
v35
epi + acc. "-" - [and] upon [the next, tomorrow]. The preposition with the articular adverb "next", forms a temporal construction, "towards the morrow", Plummer; "on the next day."
ekbalwn (ekballw) aor. part. "he took out" - having taken out [he gave]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the main verb "he gave"; "he took out and gave ...."
tw/ pandocei (uV ewV) "to the innkeeper" - [two denarii] to the inn keeper. Dative of indirect object; "gave two silver coins to the innkeeper."
autou gen. pro. "[look after] him" - [and said, take care of] him. Genitive of direct object after the epi prefix verb "to take care of."
en tw/ + inf. "when" - [i], on the = when [i return]. This construction, the preposition en with the dative articular infinitive, is temporal, introducing a temporal clause; "I shall pay you back when I am on my journey home", Cassirer. The personal pronoun egw, "I", is emphatic by position and use.
soi dat. pro. "[I will reimburse] you" - [i will repay any money] to you. Dative of indirect object.
o{ ti an + subj. "any extra expense" - whatsoever [you may spend further, in addition]. This construction introduces an indefinite relative clause, which in this context is conditional; "whatever / if you spend in addition, then I will repay you."
v36
Jesus' parable answers the question "Who qualifies for my help?", prompting the answer "everyone". Jesus now rephrases the question in the terms of "Who helped?", prompting the answer "The one who showed mercy." The punch-line ends the discussion; "Go and do likewise." If the theologian wants to stand right before God and so possess the fullness of covenant-life, his mercy can have no bounds.
tivV "which" - who. This interrogative pronoun serves as the subject of the verb dokei, "to think, suppose, seem", and serves to introduce a question; "who seems to you of the three to have become neighbourly to the one having fallen into the robbers?"
twn triwn (eiV a) gen. "of [these] three" - of [these] the three. The genitive is adjectival, partitive.
soi pres. "you" - [seems] to you. Dative of direct object after the verb "to think, suppose, seem"; "Which of these three, in your opinion", Moffatt.
gegonenai (ginomai) perf. inf. "was" - to have become. The infinitive is complementary, completing the sense of the verb "to think, seem." "Which of these three do you think to have become = proved himself to be ("by what he had done", Meyer), neighbourly?" = "proved himself to be neighbour", Cassirer; "proved himself neighbour", NJB, Knox; "proved a neighbour", Moffatt; or simply "was really neighbour", Berkeley. The tense is interesting, suggesting that the Samaritan became, and continued to be, neighbourly in his compassionate actions.
plhsion adv. + gen. "a neighbour" - near, neighbour. Adverb of place. An adverb, rather than the noun is intended, as the adverb takes a genitive, here the participle tou empesontoV, "the one having fallen in." The twist in Jesus' illustration comes out at his point. The theologian asked "who is my neighbour?" Jesus reshapes the question to "who was neighbourly?" This, of course, is the nub of the issue. The full blessings of covenant life rest on doing neighbourly love, of showing mercy as the Samaritan showed mercy.
tou empesontoV gen. aor. part. "to the man who fell" - of the one having fallen [into the thieves]. The participle serves as a substantive, genitive after the adverb plhsion.
v37
In answering Jesus' question, the theologian rightly identifies the neighbourliness of the Samaritan, but he is left facing Jesus' command, "You go and do likewise." He can never do likewise, for who can love as the Samaritan loved? This being the case, the theologian is reminded that the possession of life in all its fullness, "eternal life", is beyond him. Unlike the theologian, this conundrum is solved for the reader in the next episode. The promised blessings of the covenant ("eternal life") are not gained by doing, but are received at the feet of Jesus, listening to what he has to say. Righteousness is a gift of grace through faith apart from works of the law.
oJ poihsaV (poiew) aor. part. "the one who had" - [and he said,] the one having done. The participle serves as a substantive, "the one who showed." Plummer notes that the theologian cannot bring himself to use the designation "Samaritan". At any rate, the use of the descriptive "mercy" is far more powerful in that it encapsulates neighbourly love. The expression is Semitic, and reflects scripture, eg. Mic.6:8. As God is gracious and merciful to his people, so his people should be gracious and merciful.
met (meta) + gen. "mercy on" - [mercy] with = upon [him]. This preposition, when used with "mercy", produces the Semitic idiomatic phrase, "to show mercy to."
autw/ dat. pro. "him" - [but/and jesus said] to him. Dative of indirect object.
su "-" - [go and] you [do likewise]. The pronoun is emphatic by position and use; "you yourself do likewise." The imperative verb, poiei, "do" takes a durative present tense, so the command is "you yourself adopt the Samaritan's way of behaving / doing and keep on doing it."
The punch line is not so much a command to do, but is a reality check, for who can claim that they have any chance whatsoever of doing "likewise"? Many a sermon has placed this obligation on a congregation, leaving them to wrestle with failure and guilt. Those who have decided not to give up because it's all too hard, usually develop a sophisticated guilt-transference system identified by Jesus as speck removal - the exposure of another's sins to effectively cover one's own. There is an ideal to aim at in the command, but the command's prime purpose is to expose the state of human sin and so prompt a search for divine mercy. In Jesus, that search comes to fruition.
![[Pumpkin Cottage]](images/cottage1s.gif){kind=small}
lectionarystudies.com