Just for the record, Jesus never said that the
Samaritan was good. He just tells the story and
says what the guy did, and that he behaved as a
neighbor when the others did not.
The Samaritan’s actions, per the story, don’t get
him any special recognition: he just did what would
be expected. Calling him good' it implies that he went above and beyond the call of duty; but nothing Jesus said supports the above and beyond’ interpretation.
I suppose we call him the Good Samaritan because, by
comparison, we are so awful. But Jesus presents the
Samaritan’s actions as merely what is expected, and not
as being exceptionally `good’.
It is helpful, when starting a new topic, to provide a link to the Staff Report that you are commenting on. That way, everyone can be on the same page (and we avoid people repeating points that are already made in the Staff Report.)
While Jesus doesn’t use the word “good”, he uses the word “neighbor”… and I think there is room for disagreement about whether his actions were exceptional or expected. After all, the whole point is that the Samaritan (whom one would expect to by-pass a wounded Israelite) stopped to help, while two Israelites (whom one WOULD expect to help) did not.
Regarding your comments, davidh explains in his thread (linked above) that Samaritans were considered cruel and intolerant. This Samaritan defied that stereotype and took the actions that were expected of a priest and a Levite, both considered more respectable and caring types. Thus he was the good Samaritan as opposed to all the other Samaritans.
The phrase has so entered the vocabulary that the original meaning of the word Samaritan is lost. Last night on the news there was a story on a guy who stopped on the interstate to help another driver and was struck and killed by a car. The news anchors and reporters repeatedly referred to him as “the Samaritan”.