Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 10:25
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
25-37. The Parable of the Good Samaritan.
25. a certain lawyer ] A teacher of the Mosaic Law differing little from a scribe, as the man is called in Mar 12:28. The same person may have had both functions that of preserving and that of expounding the Law.
tempted him ] Literally, “putting Him fully to the test” (Luk 4:12); but the purpose does not seem to have been so deliberately hostile as in Luk 11:54.
what shall I do to inherit eternal life? ] See Luk 18:18, and the answer there also given. It is interesting to compare it with the answer given by St Paul after the Ascension, Act 16:30-31.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
A certain lawyer – One who professed to be well skilled in the laws of Moses, and whose business it was to explain them.
Stood up – Rose – came forward to address him.
Tempted him – Feigned a desire to be instructed, but did it to perplex him, or to lead him, if possible, to contradict some of the maxims of the law.
Inherit eternal life – Be saved. This was the common inquiry among the Jews. They had said that man must keep the commandments – the written and oral law.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Luk 10:25
Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
—
The lawyers question
The question of the lawyer is the question of the human heart everywhere. You will find it asked and answered in all the worlds religions. The answers fall into two classes.
1. One set of replies thinks of the better life as a thing external to a mans own being, procurable by something that a man can do, by bodily self-denial or suffering, or by religious rites or ceremonies.
2. The other class of answers amounts to this–that nothing that is merely outside a man or comes to him from without can ever meet his wants. The true ideal life of humanity is in its very essence a life; it is not doing, it is being. The orthodox doctrine in Christs time taught very definitely what was the pathway to eternal life. The religious teachers laid it down that the life God wants men to live was a life of obedience to the law of Moses. The preaching of Jesus Christ did not quite tally with the orthodox teaching of the time. The Pharisee and the penitent, the harlots and publicans, were distinctly conscious that Christ was preaching a new gospel. The gospel of the Pharisees was orthodox; therefore the gospel of Christ was heresy. They were bent upon getting a case against Him, and yet it was not easy. Be Himself fulfilled the law, conformed to all its requirements and statutes, and never spoke disrespectfully of it. How were they to catch Him? One day a crafty lawyer had a very happy thought. He determined to cross-question Christ, to force Him to declare His inner hostility to the creed of the Pharisees, His inner antagonism to the law of God: What shall I do to inherit eternal life? A fair, honest question, and yet in the very wording of it the note of discord comes out. Jesus is confronted with a man whose notion of eternal life is utterly different from His. It is impossible to answer that man. Instead of answering, Jesus turns questioner. He must bring out the mans own notions, and then, when He has got them, it may be possible to show him how threadbare, how poverty-stricken, how wrong they are. What do you find in the law? How readest thou? The lawyer, taken aback, gives the regulation reply. He could not repeat the whole law, but there was a summary of it, a standing condensed statement of it, and this he repeats to Jesus: Thou shalt love Now, what have we to say to that answer? Is this the pathway to eternal life? What more could a man do to make the music of his life majestic, heavenly, splendid? Loving God utterly, and loving all men as you love yourself–no doubt that is life eternal. The scribes answer is the true answer; yet in the scribes mouth it was an utter lie, and a damning heresy, that was sending mens souls to ruin. Christ could accept the definition of the lawyer. Thou hast answered right. But then the meaning that He felt in those words was a meaning utterly different from that of the Pharisee; and there you have the explanation of His preaching. He took the very same text that the scribes took, but what a different sermon He preached from it, and what a different application against theirs! He did not say
Obey; He said the word that must come before obey: He said Love. The least bit of love will do more to make you keep the commandments than any amount of studying them, or any amount of selfish resolve to make a good thing out of the commandments for yourself. The essence of the Pharisees gospel was selfishness. Save yourself by keeping on the right side, and not giving God a chance against you. What a God, and what a soul! I think that Jesus, as soon as the scribe had given his reply, looked him straight in the face. The look meant, Dare you pretend that you do that? and the man felt it, and therefore, we read, was eager-to justify himself. The mans conscience was uneasy. He instantly said, Yes, but who is my neighbour? It is where the heart is cold that definitions come in. Who is my neighbour? How many men can claim love from me? said the scribe. Christ did not answer that, but He made a picture in order to ask the scribe this question, Who is the man who plays the neighbours part? He told of a man who started from Jerusalem to go to Jericho, and was attacked on the way by thieves, who certainly did not play the part of neighbour by him. There came on the road a priest and a Levite. Christ had not that foolish idea that the clergy should never be held up to rebuke or scorn when they deserve it. Do not misjudge the priest and the Levite. You say they did a heartless thing. They did not; they had not heart to do it. Their sin was not in not doing something, but in being heartless. That is the very point of the story. And if you had met these men after hearing of it, and had asked them how they could do such a thing, they would have assured you that they did not see any man like that. They would have told you that they saw a man who had been fighting, or who had got drunk, or who was an impostor. Or they would have told you they were going to a religious service at Jericho, and had not the time for it. All we can say of them is that they had not heart. And Christ paints the other side of it. There came along a Samaritan, a man of a different religion, a man who had been taught of the Jews that he owed them no kindness. He appeared to be a business man, and probably it would be more to him to lose his market than to the clergy to be late for the religious service. He saw the man, and he saw the first passer-by that had seen him; he saw the wretchedness of it–and he had a heart, and that is all. He did not say, Is there anything in the Decalogue bearing on this? And he certainly did not say, Is that man a neighbour? He is a Jew. Where does he come from? If he had begun going to the law, he would never have done it. And now, mark how the story has answered the question. As soon as it is finished Christ turns to the scribe, and asks, Who played the neighbours part? Not the priest, not the scribe, not his own fellow-countrymen. It was that Samaritan.
Nobody could deny it. Even the lawyer acknowledges it. That was a beautiful thing to do, and Christ drove it home with the rejoinder, Go thou and do likswise; and He sent that man away saying to himself, No amount of reading the law would ever make me able to do that; more than that, my reading of the law must be all wrong. Christ had made that man understand that what he wanted was the real love of the real, living, loving God, and the real, common human love to his fellow-men. Where have you and I to learn that love for God and love for man? I will tell you. At the feet of Christ, and by His side, in fellowship with Him, we shall learn to love God with all our heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and our neigh-bout as ourself; and that is eternal life. (Professor Elmslie, M. A.)
Inheriting eternal life
1. You will observe that the man who asked this question was a lawyer, a man of education and of good standing; a man, therefore, from whom good behaviour and reverence of spirit might reasonably have been expected. You would think that when such a man spoke he would speak soberly, he would mean, under such circumstances, exactly what he said. You find, however, that the inquiry–the very greatest that can possibly engage human attention–was put in a spirit of temptation. The lawyer was not an earnest man. He asked a right question, but he asked it in a wrong spirit. See, then, the possibility of asking religious questions irreligiously. Learn the possibility of asking great questions in a merely controversial spirit, without any profoundly anxious desire to know the answer that God will return to such inquiries. God understands the irony of our attitude. The Living One knows whether we are hungering and thirsting for Him; He can see through our hypocrisies and concealments, and only into the broken heart and the contrite spirit will He come with redemption and life and helpfulness and grace. So that at the very beginning there is to be no mistake about this. We know the conditions upon which alone we receive the revelations of God–that we be quiet, self.renouncing, reverent, sober, anxious about the business; and wherever these conditions are forthcoming, some light will be flashed upon the life, and some healing word will be dropped into the sorrow of the heart.
2. Jesus Himself answered one question by asking another; and so He not unfrequently disappointed men who had undertaken to ensnare Him in His speech. They thought that if they did but put a case to Him He would instantly commit Himself, and they would entrap Him and take Him captive, and make a fool of Him. Here is a man probably accustomed to put questions, and to put questions again upon the answers that are given, and so to cross-examine those with whom he came in contact. Jesus undertakes to deal with him according to the spirit which he presents; and before He lets him go He will show what the mans meaning is and his nature, and He will expose him as he never was exposed before. Thus quietly He begins: What is written in the law? Thou art a lawyer, a man of reading, a man of many letters, and of much understanding probably–how readest thou? God has never left the greatest questions of the human heart unanswered. The great answer to this question about eternal life was not given first of all by Jesus Christ as He appeared in the flesh. Jesus Himself referred to the oldest record; inferentially He said–That question has been answered from the beginning; go back to the very first revelation and testimony of God, and you Will find the answer there. Yet the question is put very significantly: How readest thou? There are two ways of reading. There is a way of reading the letter which never gets at the meaning of the spirit. There is a way of reading which merely looks at the letter for a partial purpose, or that a prejudice may be sustained or defended. And there is a way of reading which means, I want to know the truth; I want to see really how this case stands; I am determined to see it. He who reads so will find no end to his lesson, for truth expands and brightens as we study her revelations and her purposes. He who comes merely to the letter will get but a superficial answer in all probability. It was, therefore, of the highest importance that the lawyer should tell how he had been reading the law.
3. The lawyer, please to remember, knew the answer when he asked the question. He said, What shall I do to inherit eternal life? and all the time the answer was in his own recollection had he but known it. Alas I we do not always turn our knowledge into wisdom. We know the fact, and we hardly ever sublimate the fact into truth. We know the law, and we fail to see that under the law there is the beauty and there is the grace of the gospel.
4. This do, said Jesus, and thou shalt live. What had the lawyer to do? To love the Lord his God with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength and with all his mind. Love is life. Only he who loves lives. Only love can get out of a man the deepest secrets of his being and develop the latent energies of his nature and call him up to the highest possibility of his manhood. Criticism never can do it; theology never can do it; power of controversy never can do it. We are ourselves, in all the volume of our capacity, and in all the relations of our original creation, only when life becomes love and our whole nature burns with affection towards the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us look less at our knowledge and our intellectual capability and our training and our circumstances, and more at the degree of our religious love. The end of the commandment is charity; the summing up of all true law is love. Do we, then, know this mystery of religious love? or is ours a religion that hangs itself upon the outward letter and the ceremonial form? Then observe that the law goes still further than love to God, it includes love to ones neighbour. Hear the exact expression of the text–And thy neighbour as thyself. Love of God means love of man. Religion is the Divine side of philanthropy; philanthropy is the practical side of religion. We must first be right with God or we never can be right with man.
5. Was the lawyer satisfied? Read: But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neigbbour? It was the question of a sharp man, but not the inquiry of an honest one. Such a question as this does not need to be answered in words. Every man knows in his own heart who his neighbour is; and only he who wishes to play a trick in words, to show how clever he is in verbal legerdemain, will stoop to ask such a question as this. Why did he ask the question? Because he was willing to justify himself. It is precisely there that every man has a great battle to fight, namely–at the point of self-justification. So long as there is any disposition in us to justify ourselves are we unprepared to receive the gospel. One of the first conditions required of us at the Cross is self-renunciation. Am I to suppose that any one is asking now, What shall I do to inherit eternal life? Do not misunderstand that word do. It may be so employed as to convey a wrong sense. The obtaining of eternal life does not come through any action or merit of our own. There is not a certain journey that is to taken, a labour which is to be performed, a specific duty that is to be discharged. What, then, is there to be? Consciousness of sin, conviction of guilt in the sight of God, self-despair, self-torment, such a knowledge of the nature and reality of sin as will pain the heart to agony; and then a turning of the eyes of faith to the bleeding Lamb of God, the one sacrifice, the complete atonement; a casting of the heart, the life, the hope, upon the broken body of Jesus, Son of God! Dost thou so believe? Thou hast eternal life! This eternal life is not a possession into which we come by and by. We have hold of it now; for to love the Son of God is to begin eternity, is to enter upon immortality I How is this life to be exhibited? In other words, how is it to prove its own existence and defend its own claim? By love. God is love. And if we be in God we shall be filled with love. Let us then retire, knowing that there is in our hearts and minds information enough upon these great questions, if so be we are minded to turn that information to account. Let no man say he will begin a better life when he knows more. Begin with the amount of your present knowledge. Let no man delude himself by saying that if he had a good opportunity of showing charity to a stranger he would show it. Show charity, show piety at home. Let no man say that if he was going down a thief-haunted road, and saw a poor man bleeding and dying there, he would certainly bind up his wounds. Do the thing that is next thee; bear the Cross that is lying at thy feet; start even upon the very smallest scale to love, and thou shalt grow in grace. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 25. A certain lawyer] See Clarke on Mt 24:35.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
These four verses would incline one to think that Luke here records the same piece of history which we met with in Mat 22:35-40, and Mar 12:28-34; See Poole on “Mat 22:35” and following verses to Mat 22:40, See Poole on “Mar 12:28” and following verses to Mar 12:34; but neither of those evangelists have the following part of this discourse, which makes me doubtful whether Luke speaks of the same person coming to Christ which the others mention. A lawyer he was, who came to our Saviour upon a design to tempt, that is, to make a trial of him, whether he would deliver any doctrine contrary to the law of Moses. It is plain that he fancied that the eternal life which Christ preached was to be obtained by wing what the law required. Our Saviour agreeth it, that if he did what the law required, according as he himself had given an account of it, he should live. I apprehend no absurdity, to affirm that our Saviour speaks here of living eternally. It is rather absurd to fancy that our Saviour did not answer ad idem, to the thing about which the question was propounded. Neither is salvation impossible because the law in itself could not give life, but because of the weakness of our flesh, so as we cannot fulfil it. So that considering our infirmity, the law serveth to us only as a schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ; and as a mark which we ought to shoot at, though we cannot shoot home; a rule to direct us in our duty, though we cannot perform or fulfil it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
25. tempted him“testedhim”; in no hostile spirit, yet with no tender anxiety for lighton that question of questions, but just to see what insight thisgreat Galilean teacher had.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And behold a certain lawyer stood up,…. From his seat, having been hearing Christ preach, very likely, in some synagogue; when and where this was, is not certain. The Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions call this man a Scribe; and a lawyer and a Scribe were the same, as appears from Mt 22:35 compared with Mr 12:28
and tempted him; or tried him whether he understood the law, or whether he would say any thing contrary to it, and see if he could gain any advantage against him, and expose him, and get credit and applause to himself:
saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? the same question as was put by the young ruler in Mr 10:17 for they were both of the same complexion, and upon the same foundation, seeking eternal life by their own works: [See comments on Mt 19:16]
he said unto him; that is, Jesus, as all the Oriental versions express it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Who Is Our Neighbour. |
| |
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
We have here Christ’s discourse with a lawyer about some points of conscience, which we are all concerned to be rightly informed in and are so here from Christ though the questions were proposed with no good intention.
I. We are concerned to know what that good is which we should do in this life, in order to our attaining eternal life. A question to this purport was proposed to our Saviour by a certain lawyer, or scribe, only with a design to try him, not with a desire to be instructed by him, v. 25. The lawyer stood up, and asked him, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? If Christ had any thing peculiar to prescribe, by this question he would get it out of him, and perhaps expose him for it; if not, he would expose his doctrine as needless, since it would give no other direction for obtaining happiness than what they had already received; or, perhaps, he had no malicious design against Christ, as some of the scribes had, only he was willing to have a little talk with him, just as people go to church to hear what the minister will say. This was a good question: What shall I do to inherit eternal life? But it lost all its goodness when it was proposed with an ill design, or a very mean one. Note, It is not enough to speak of the things of God, and to enquire about them, but we must do it with a suitable concern. If we speak of eternal life, and the way to it, in a careless manner, merely as matter of discourse, especially as matter of dispute, we do but take the name of God in vain, as the lawyer here did. Now this question being started, observe,
1. How Christ turned him over to the divine law, and bade him follow the direction of that. Though he knew the thoughts and intents of his heart, he did not answer him according to the folly of that, but according to the wisdom and goodness of the question he asked. He answered him with a question: What is written in the law? How readest thou? v. 26. He came to catechize Christ, and to know him; but Christ will catechize him, and make him know himself. He talks to him as a lawyer, as one conversant in the law: the studies of his profession would inform him; let him practise according to his knowledge, and he should not come short of eternal life. Note, It will be of great use to us, in our way to heaven, to consider what is written in the law, and what we read there. We must have recourse to our bibles, to the law, as it is now in the hand of Christ and walk in the way that is shown us there. It is a great mercy that we have the law written, that we have it thereby reduced to certainty, and that thereby it is capable of spreading the further, and lasting the longer. Having it written, it is our duty to read it, to read it with understanding, and to treasure up what we read, so that when there is occasion, we may be able to tell what is written in the law, and how we read. To this we must appeal; by this we must try doctrines and end disputes; this must be our oracle, our touchstone, our rule, our guide. What is written in the law? How do we read? if there be light in us, it will have regard to this light.
2. What a good account he gave of the law, of the principal commandments of the law, to the observance of which we must bind ourselves if we would inherit eternal life. He did not, like a Pharisee, refer himself to the tradition of the elders, but, like a good textuary, fastened upon the two first and great commandments of the law, as those which he thought must be most strictly observed in order to the obtaining of eternal life, and which included all the rest, v. 27. (1.) We must love God with all our hearts, must look upon him as the best of beings, in himself most amiable, and infinitely perfect and excellent; as one whom we lie under the greatest obligations to, both in gratitude and interest. We must prize him, and value ourselves by our elation to him; must please ourselves in him, and devote ourselves entirely to him. Our love to him must be sincere, hearty, and fervent; it must be a superlative love, a love that is as strong as death, but an intelligent love, and such as we can give a good account of the grounds and reasons of. It must be an entire love; he must have our whole souls, and must be served with all that is within us. We must love nothing besides him, but what we love for him and in subordination to him. (2.) We must love our neighbours as ourselves, which we shall easily do, if we, as we ought to do, love God better than ourselves. We must wish well to all and ill to none; must do all the good we can in the world and no hurt, and must fix it as a rule to ourselves to do to others as we would they should do to us; and this is to love our neighbour as ourselves.
3. Christ’s approbation of what he said, v. 28. Though he came to tempt him, yet what he said that was good Christ commended: Thou hast answered right. Christ himself fastened upon these as the two great commandments of the law (Matt. xxii. 37): both sides agreed in this. Those who do well shall have praise of the same, and so should those have that speak well. So far is right; but he hardest part of this work yet remains: “This do, and thou shalt live; thou shalt inherit eternal life.“
4. His care to avoid the conviction which was now ready to fasten upon him. When Christ said, This do, and thou shalt live, he began to be aware that Christ intended to draw from him an acknowledgment that he had not done this, and therefore an enquiry what he should do, which way he should look, to get his sins pardoned; an acknowledgment also that he could not do this perfectly for the future by any strength of his own, and therefore an enquiry which way he might fetch in strength to enable him to do it: but he was willing to justify himself, and therefore cared not for carrying on that discourse, but saith, in effect, as another did (Matt. xix. 20), All these things have I kept from my youth up. Note, Many ask good questions with a design rather to justify themselves than to inform themselves, rather proudly to show what is good in them than humbly to see what is bad in them.
II. We are concerned to know who is our neighbour, whom by the second great commandment we are obliged to love. This is another of this lawyer’s queries, which he started only that he might drop the former, lest Christ should have forced him, in the prosecution of it, to condemn himself, when he was resolved to justify himself. As to loving God, he was willing to say no more of it; but, as to his neighbour, he was sure that there he had come up to the rule, for he had always been very kind and respectful to all about him. Now observe,
1. What was the corrupt notion of the Jewish teachers in this matter. Dr. Lightfoot quotes their own words to this purport: “Where he saith, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, he excepts all Gentiles, for they are not our neighbours, but those only that are of our own nation and religion.” They would not put an Israelite to death for killing a Gentile, for he was not his neighbour: they indeed say that they ought not to kill a Gentile whom they were not at war with; but, if they saw a Gentile in danger of death, they thought themselves under no obligation to help to save his life. Such wicked inferences did they draw from that holy covenant of peculiarity by which God had distinguished them, and by abusing it thus they had forfeited it; God justly took the forfeiture, and transferred covenant-favours to the Gentile world, to whom they brutishly denied common favours.
2. How Christ corrected this inhuman notion, and showed, by a parable, that whomsoever we have need to receive kindness from, and find ready to show us the kindness we need, we cannot but look upon as our neighbour; and therefore ought to look upon all those as such who need our kindness, and to show them kindness accordingly, though they be not of our own nation and religion. Now observe,
(1.) The parable itself, which represents to us a poor Jew in distressed circumstances, succoured and relieved by a good Samaritan. Let us see here,
[1.] How he was abused by his enemies. The honest man was traveling peaceably upon his lawful business in the road, and it was a great road that led from Jerusalem to Jericho, v. 30. The mentioning of those places intimates that it was matter of fact, and not a parable; probably it happened lately, just as it is here related. The occurrences of Providence would yield us many good instructions, if we would carefully observe and improve them, and would be equivalent to parables framed on purpose for instruction, and be more affecting. This poor man fell among thieves. Whether they were Arabians, plunderers, that lived by spoil, or some profligate wretches of his own nation, or some of the Roman soldiers, who, notwithstanding the strict discipline of their army, did this villany, does not appear; but they were very barbarous; they not only took his money, but stripped him of his clothes, and, that he might not be able to pursue them, or only to gratify a cruel disposition (for otherwise what profit was there in his blood?) they wounded him, and left him half dead, ready to die of his wounds. We may here conceive a just indignation at highwaymen, that have divested themselves of all humanity, and are as natural brute beasts, beasts of prey, made to be taken and destroyed; and at the same time we cannot but think with compassion on those that fall into the hands of such wicked and unreasonable men, and be ready, when it is in our power, to help them. What reason have we to thank God for our preservation from perils by robbers!
[2.] How he was slighted by those who should have been his friends, who were not only men of his own nation and religion, but one a priest and the other a Levite, men of a public character and station; nay, they were men of professed sanctity, whose offices obliged them to tenderness and compassion (Heb. v. 2), who ought to have taught others their duty in such a case as this, which was to deliver them that were drawn unto death; yet they would not themselves do it. Dr. Lightfoot tells us that many of the courses of the priests had their residence in Jericho, and thence came up to Jerusalem, when it was their turn to officiate there, and so back again, which occasioned abundance of passing and repassing of priests that way, and Levites their attendants. They came this way, and saw the poor wounded man. It is probable that they heard his groans, and could not but perceive that if he were not helped he must quickly perish. The Levite not only saw him, but came and looked on him v. 32. But they passed by on the other side; when they saw his case, they got as far off him as ever they could, as if they would have had a pretence to say, Behold, we knew it not. It is sad when those who should be examples of charity are prodigies of cruelty, and when those who should by displaying the mercies of God, open the bowels of compassion in others, shut up their own.
[3.] How he was succoured and relieved by a stranger, a certain Samaritan, of that nation which of all others the Jews most despised and detested and would have no dealings with. This man had some humanity in him, v. 33. The priest had his heart hardened against one of his own people, but the Samaritan had his opened towards one of another people. When he saw him he had compassion on him, and never took into consideration what country he was of. Though he was a Jew, he was a man, and a man in misery, and the Samaritan has learned to honour all men; he knows not how soon this poor man’s case may be his own, and therefore pities him, as he himself would desire and expect to be pitied in the like case. That such great love should be found in a Samaritan was perhaps thought as wonderful as that great faith which Christ admired in a Roman, and in a woman of Canaan; but really it was not so, for pity is the work of a man, but faith is the work of divine grace. The compassion of this Samaritan was not an idle compassion; he did not think it enough to say, “Be healed, be helped” (Jam. ii. 16); but, when he drew out his soul, he reached forth his hand also to this poor needy creature, Isa 58:7; Pro 31:20. See how friendly this good Samaritan was. First, He went to the poor man, whom the priest and Levite kept at a distance from; he enquired, no doubt, how he came into this deplorable condition, and condoled with him. Secondly, He did the surgeon’s part, for want of a better. He bound up his wounds, making use of his own linen, it is likely, for that purpose; and poured in oil and wine, which perhaps he had with him; wine to wash the wound, and oil to mollify it, and close it up. He did all he could to ease the pain, and prevent the peril, of his wounds, as one whose heart bled with him. Thirdly, He set him on his own beast, and went on foot himself, and brought him to an inn. A great mercy it is to have inns upon the road, where we may be furnished for our money with all the conveniences for food and rest. Perhaps the Samaritan, if he had not met with this hindrance, would have got that night to his journey’s end; but, in compassion to that poor man, he takes up short at an inn. Some think that the priest and Levite pretended they could not stay to help the poor man, because they were in haste to go and attend the temple-service at Jerusalem. We suppose the Samaritan went upon business; but he understood that both his own business and God’s sacrifice too must give place to such an act of mercy as this. Fourthly, He took care of him in the inn, got him to bed, had food for him that was proper, and due attendance, and, it may be, prayed with him. Nay, Fifthly, As if he had been his own child, or one he was obliged to look after, when he left him next morning, he left money with the landlord, to be laid out for his use, and passed his word for what he should spend more. Twopence of their money was about fifteen pence of ours, which, according to the rate of things then, would go a great way; however, here it was an earnest of satisfaction to the full of all demands. All this was kind and generous, and as much as one could have expected from a friend or a brother; and yet here it is done by a stranger and foreigner.
Now this parable is applicable to another purpose than that for which it was intended; and does excellently set forth the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards sinful miserable man. We were like this poor distressed traveller. Satan, our enemy, had robbed us, stripped us, wounded us; such is the mischief that sin had done us. We were by nature more than half dead, twice dead, in trespasses and sins; utterly unable to help ourselves, for we were without strength. The law of Moses, like the priest and Levite, the ministers of the law, looks upon us, but has no compassion on us, gives us no relief, passes by on the other side, as having neither pity nor power to help us; but then comes the blessed Jesus, that good Samaritan (and they said of him, by way of reproach, he is a Samaritan), he has compassion on us, he binds up our bleeding wounds (Psa 147:3; Isa 61:1), pours in, not oil and wine, but that which is infinitely more precious, his own blood. He takes care of us, and bids us put all the expenses of our cure upon his account; and all this though he was none of us, till he was pleased by his voluntary condescension to make himself so, but infinitely above us. This magnifies the riches of his love, and obliges us all to say, “How much are we indebted, and what shall we render?”
(2.) The application of the parable. [1.] The truth contained in it is extorted from the lawyer’s own mouth. “Now tell me,” saith Christ, “which of these three was neighbour to him that fell among thieves (v. 36), the priest, the Levite, or the Samaritan? Which of these did the neighbour’s part?” To this the lawyer would not answer, as he ought to have done, “Doubtless, the Samaritan was;” but, “He that showed mercy on him; doubtless, he was a good neighbour to him, and very neighbourly, and I cannot but say that it was a good work thus to save an honest Jew from perishing.” [2.] The duty inferred from it is pressed home upon the lawyer’s own conscience: Go, and do thou likewise. The duty of relations is mutual and reciprocal; the titles of friends, brethren, neighbours, are, as Grotius here speaks ton pros ti—equally binding on both sides: if one side be bound, the other cannot be loose, as is agreed in all contracts. If a Samaritan does well that helps a distressed Jew, certainly a Jew does not well if he refuses in like manner to help a distressed Samaritan. Petimusque damusque vicissim–These kind offices are to be reciprocated. “And therefore go thou and do as the Samaritan did, whenever occasion offers: show mercy to those that need thy help, and do it freely, and with concern and compassion, though they be not of thy own nation and thy own profession, or of thy own opinion and communion in religion. Let thy charity be thus extensive, before thou boastest of having conformed thyself to that great commandment of loving thy neighbour.” This lawyer valued himself much upon his learning and his knowledge of the laws, and in that he thought to have puzzled Christ himself; but Christ sends him to school to a Samaritan, to learn his duty: “Go, and do like him.” Note, It is the duty of every one of us, in our places, and according to our ability, to succour, help, and relieve all that are in distress and necessity, and of lawyers particularly; and herein we must study to excel many that are proud of their being priests and Levites.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
And tempted him ( ). Present active participle, conative idea, trying to tempt him. There is no “and” in the Greek. He “stood up (, ingressive second aorist active) trying to tempt him.” is a late form of and apparently only in the LXX, and N.T. (quoted by Jesus from De 6:16 in Matt 4:7; Luke 4:12 against Satan). Here and 1Co 10:9. The spirit of this lawyer was evil. He wanted to entrap Jesus if possible.
What shall I do to inherit eternal life? ( ;). Literally, “By doing what shall I inherit eternal life?” Note the emphasis on “doing” (). The form of his question shows a wrong idea as to how to get it.
Eternal life ( ) is endless life as in John’s Gospel (John 16:9; John 18:18; John 18:30) and in Mt 25:46, which see.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Lawyer. See on ch. Luk 7:30.
Tempted. See on temptation, Mt 6:13.
To inherit. See on inheritance, 1Pe 1:4.
Eternal [] . The word will be fully discussed in the second volume.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
A LAWYER INQUIRES OF ETERNAL LIFE V. 25-29
1) “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up,” (kai idou nomikos tis aneste) “And behold a certain lawyer stood up,” to confront or challenge Him, one whose business it was to teach the Law of Moses, well versed in the Law, Mat 19:16-22; Mat 22:35-40.
2) “And tempted him, saying, Master,” (ekpeirazon auton legon didaskale) “Tempting Him and inquiring, teacher,” perhaps as a matter of entrapment, with ulterior motives, Mat 16:1; Mat 22:35; Mar 12:28. It is a frequent approach that was made by both leaders of the Pharisees and Sadducees, as well as by the scribes.
3) “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (ti poiesas zoen aionion kleronomeso) “Just what may I do that I may inherit eternal life?” The truth is the lawyer was in error of premise of reasoning. Eternal life is received by faith in Jesus Christ, as a gift, not as an inheritance, or by deeds of doing, Joh 3:16; Eph 2:8-9. The question with a mistaken premise was put to Jesus on other occasions, as by the rich young ruler, Luk 18:18; Act 16:30-32.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES
Luk. 10:25. A certain lawyer.One whose business it was to teach the law. It was probably in Juda that this conversation was held; as we read (Luk. 10:38) that Jesus was on His way to Bethany. Tempted Him.The word seems to mean nothing worse than putting His skill to full proof, i.e. consulting Him on difficult questions. He probably wished to see if Jesus would teach him anything new; and an air of self-conceit is manifest in what little is said of him (see Luk. 10:29). What shall I do, etc.This question was put to Christ more than once: see Luk. 18:18; cf. with them Act. 16:30-31.
Luk. 10:26. How readest thou?A common Rabbinical formula for eliciting a text of Scripture. What? not how? i.e. to what purport (Alford).
Luk. 10:27. Thou shalt love, etc.Deu. 6:5; Deu. 10:12; Lev. 19:18. His answer was intelligent; his summary of duty such as Christ taught; it was in knowledge of himself that he came short.
Luk. 10:28. This do, and thou shalt live.True in all cases: any one who can and does love God and his neighbour thus has already begun to live, has an earnest of eternal life (Popular Commentary).
Luk. 10:29. Willing to justify himself.I.e. to declare his obedience to this summary of the law, unless some other definition of neighbour than that which he held could be givenhis definition excluding Samaritans and Gentiles.
Luk. 10:30. Answering, said.Lit. taking him up: it is perhaps not too much to say that the phrase implies that Christ did more than answer himmade the answer the basis of teaching which corrected his faulty ideas. A certain man.We are to understand that he was a Jew; but no stress is laid on this. The Samaritan saw in him simply a wounded man. Perhaps this is not a fictitious story at all; it may be that the lawyer himself had been the traveller, had received kindness from a Samaritan, which he had not repaid, and which had not led him to form truer ideas as to who his neighbour was. Down from Jerusalem.About twenty-one miles, Jericho lying on a much lower level than Jerusalem. The road here described was, and one might almost say is, haunted by robbers. Jerome says that in his time it was called the bloody way, and that a Roman fort and garrison were needed there for the protection of travellers. Fell among thieves.Rather, robbers, brigands: into the midst of them, they surrounded him. Wounded him.Rather, beat him (R.V.), lit. laying blows on him.
Luk. 10:31. A certain priest.Probably on his way home from duties in the Temple; for Jericho was a priestly city. That way.Rather, on that road. It is emphatically mentioned because there was another road to Jericho, which was safer, and therefore more frequently used (Farrar). Passed by.Without showing the mercy inculcated by the law and the prophets (see Exo. 23:4-5; Deu. 22:1-4; Isa. 58:7).
Luk. 10:32. The conduct of the Levite was rather worse than that of the priest.
Luk. 10:33. Had compassion.It was this feeling which differentiated him from the priest and the Levite; and from this feeling sprang his deeds and words of kindness to the wounded man.
Luk. 10:34. Oil and wine.The usual remedy for wounds in the East. His own beast.Thereby depriving himself of the use of it. An inn.Not a caravanserai, as in Luk. 2:7, but a house for travellers kept by a host. Two different words are used in the respective passages.
Luk. 10:35. Two pence.The denarius was worth about eightpence halfpenny of our money, and was the days wages of an ordinary labourer (see Mat. 20:2). Probably the smallness of the sum named is intended to suggest that the Samaritan was a poor man, and thus to bring into clearer relief his generosity and kindness on this occasion.
Luk. 10:36. Was neighbour.Rather, proved neighbour (R.V.), lit. became neighbour. The neighbour Jews (priest and Levite) became strangers, the stranger Samaritan became neighbour, to the wounded traveller. It is not place, but love, which makes neighbourhood (Wordsworth).
Luk. 10:37. He that shewed mercy.It may be that Pharisaic haughtiness led to this indirect answer, as though the lawyer disdained to use the hated name, Samaritan. But no great stress need be laid on this. The lawyer was taught how one really becomes the neighbour of another, namely, by active love, irrespective of nationality or religion. His question, Who is my neighbour? was answered: He to whom you ought thus to show mercy in order to become his neighbour is your neighbour. The question is answered once for all. All are our neighbours, when we have thus learned what we owe to man as ma? (Popular Commentary). Go, and do thou likewise.The question had doubtless been asked in the spirit of hair-splitting casuistry; Jesus gives the matter a practical bent.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Luk. 10:25-37
Who is my Neighbour? versus Whose Neighbour am I?This lawyer merely wished to test our Lords orthodoxy. He was quite sure that he knew what to do to inherit eternal life. Christ shifts the question from intellect to conscience and practice, and that pinches. The scribes wish to justify himself refers to his failure in conduct, which, though unaccused, he tacitly confesses. The obtuseness as well as sensitiveness of conscience is brought out by the fact that he evidently thinks that he has kept the first requirement of perfect and all-engrossing love to God, and is only sensible of defect in the second.
I. The question, meant to excuse, but really condemning.And who is my neighbour? The lawyer pleads the vagueness of the precept, and wishes a clear definition of terms, that he may know whom he is bound to love as himself, and whom he is not. He fancies that love is only to run like a canal in a straight, artificial cutting. He will try to love all within the circle, but it must be clearly drawn; and, in the meantime, he does not feel any stirrings of love to anybody outside his own door. Is it not clear that to him love is simply a matter of obligation? and does not such a conception show that he has no notion of what it really is, nor has ever exercised it? Tell me whom I must love means, Tell me whom I may escape the necessity of loving; and he who says that has not a glimmer of what love is. In all matters of Christian living, the anxiety to have the bounds marked within which the action of the Christian spirit is to be confined, is a bad sign. It indicates latent reluctance and a total misconception of the free, spontaneous, all-embracing outgoings of the life which comes from Jesus.
II. The details of the lovely story.It is not a parable which needs to be interpreted; but a story framed as an example, and needing not to be translated but copied. It gives three picturesof the poor victim, the selfishly absorbed passers-by, and the compassionate helper. The sufferer is a man, nothing more. The others are designated by profession or nationality, but he has no label round his neck to ticket him as neighbour. That is the beginning of an answer to the lawyer. The picture of the mans desperate condition as he lay bleeding and insensible might well stir pity. What would the reality do? The two companion sketches of priest and Levite tell us. It does nothing. A glance, perhaps a thought of personal danger, but, at any rate, no stirrings of pity, and no pause, but, in the face of such a spectacle, they pass on. There is no sign that they were hindered by any pressure of time or duty from stopping to help. They did see, and it never struck them that they had anything to do in the matter. Is it an exaggerated picture of the conduct to which human nature is ever prone? How much less sorrow there would be in the world if we were not all guilty in this matter, and had not left misery which is forced on our notice to bleed or weep itself to death without lifting a finger to prevent it! The capacity for ignoring wretchedness and need is wonderful. Engrossment with self shuts eyes and heart to the piteous sights that fill the world. Christ might have taught His lesson without making the unsympathising pair a priest and a Levite. His boldness in thus weighing His story with unnecessary offence is striking. He sharpens it to a spear-point, and is careless about offending if He can reach the conscience. Toothless generalities offend nobody, and therefore do nobody good. Thou art the man needs to be pealed into the ears of culprits. But the lesson was not for the lawyer only. Formal religionists are always cold. It is possible to be so busy investigating the grounds and limits of religious duty as to forget to do it. So these heartless two teach us the terrible pitilessness of men, and its cause in self-absorption, and the special danger, in regard to it, of formal religion. The same boldness in bringing in causes of offence which might have been spared appears in making the rescuer a Samaritan. Note the details of his care. First, we have the source of all in compassion. He felt a shoot of love and pity in his heart to the man, and that set all in motion. His conduct may be taken as a picture of what true love to the neighbour should be. It is prompt, thorough, spares no pains, acts with judgment, is generous and self-denying (set him on his own beast, while he trudged by his side), provides for the future, and with all its liberality is not lavish, but thrifty and prudent. The lawyer had not asked, What is the love which I am bound to show? But Christ teaches him and us that it is not a mere lazy sentiment, but active, self-sacrificing, guided by common sense, and full of resources. It moves us to all kindly offices, and makes the needy sharers in our possessions, since they share our heart. But the nationality of the helper must not be passed by. Though the lesson could have been taught without it, it makes the lesson still more emphatic. It answers the question Who? by brushing away all national distinctions, all prejudices of race, all differences of creed, all enmities rooted in history. It is the first dawning of that great thought which nineteen centuries have been so slow to learn, the brotherhood of man. The very word humanity is Christian. The idea of philanthropy is Christian. And the practical realisation of the idea will only be attained when the great fact on which it rests is received. One is your Master, and all ye are brethren.
III. Note Christs inversion of the lawyers question.It makes a vast difference whether we say, Who is my neighbour? or Whose neighbour am I? for although the relation is, of course, mutual, to approach it on the one side is selfishness, and on the other is love. The one fixes attention on mens claims on me, the other on my debts to them; and while these are the same, they have a very different aspect from the two ends. The truth, therefore, which Christ would have us learn is, that to be a true neighbour is to render help, and that we are neighbours to all men in such a sense that our compassion should go out to them all, and our practical aid be given, no matter what may be the barriers of race, or creed, or colour, or distance. True love to men will cut its own channels, will not wait to be commanded, nor ask how far it is bound to go, but spontaneously and universally will own its kinship with all the needy and sad, and will seek to be as wide and as deep as the love of God, of which it is a reflection:Maclaren.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luk. 10:25-37
Luk. 10:25. Questions put to Christ.Questions were sometimes put to Christ
(1) by meek, receptive hearers, like Nicodemus, prepared to drink the sincere milk of the word that they might grow thereby;
(2) by enemies, both of the Pharisaic and Sadducean parties, to ensnare and destroy Him; and
(3) as in this case, to put His skill and wisdom to the test.
Do to inherit.The question as the scribe intended was incongruous: to do does not fit in with to inherit. It is as if one were to ask, What must I do to bring out sunshine? Without any bitterness, our Saviour takes up the question of the scribe in order to guide him to a knowledge of the fact that it was exactly that law of which he was so proud of keeping which condemned him. Our Lord wishes to teach him that if he only in real earnest will try to do, he will soon learn that he needs a Saviour who will do for him and in him what he himself cannot do.
To inherit eternal life.In Greece men sought for truth: in Israel the object of pursuit was salvation, and righteousness as the means of attaining it.Godet.
Inherit.The phrase inherit alludes to possession of the land of Canaan, which the children of Israel had received as an inheritance from the hands of God, and which remained in Jewish thought as a type of Messianic happiness.
What shall I do etc.Cf. the answer given by St. Paul after the Ascension (Act. 16:30-31).Farrar.
Luk. 10:27. Thou shalt love, etc.As this summary of duty is given by Christ Himself on another occasion in answer to a scribe, we may perhaps conclude that it had become in the Jewish schools an approved method of declaring the essence of the law. Otherwise it would be difficult to reconcile the enlightened and spiritual reply of this lawyer with the narrow and bigoted tone of mind which he manifested.
Two Great Commandments.The two great commandments of the law.
I. The duty of love to God.
1. A divinely implanted principle in the renewed hearts of believers.
2. It implies a high esteem of God.
3. It implies an earnest desire for communion with God and the enjoyment of Him.
4. It is a judicious principle, and not a blind enthusiastic feeling.
5. It is an active principle.
6. It is also a supreme love.
II. The duty of love to man.
1. It is, too, a divinely implanted principle.
2. It implies benevolent dispositions towards our neighbour.
3. Speaking well of him.
4. Doing him all the good offices in our power.Foots.
The Service of God and Man.
I. The Christian religion is one which most powerfully engages its disciples to service.It does so in two ways:
(1) it gives them a sense of boundless obligation;
(2) it exalts a life of service as the highest ideal of human life.
II. The service to which the Christian religion engages its disciples is the service of man.
III. The Christian religion brings us a revelation which makes the service of man hopeful.Brown.
Thy heart, etc.The heart in Scripture is the centre of the moral life; from it branch out the soul (the seat of feeling and emotion), the will (actual faculties), and the mind (the faculties of intelligence). Moral life proceeds from the heart, and displays itself in or by means of the other three forms of activityemotion, energy (or strength), and knowledge.
Luk. 10:29. To justify himself.Aware that the test of charity would prove unfavourable to him, he seeks concealment under the word neighbour, that he may not be discovered to be a transgressor of the law. But who accused him? Not the Lord. He had only said, This do, and thou shalt live. The mans own conscience was awakened and at work; well he knew at that moment that he had not done what his lips confessed he should do; he had not loved God with all his heart and his neighbour as himself (Arnot)
My neighbour.The design of the parable of the good Samaritan is to explain the word neighbour.
I. The explanation is rather the converse of what might have been expected.We might have thought that the person who is beloved is the neighbour; in the narrative the neighbour is the person who loves. The fact is, the Samaritan and the traveller were neighbours equally, each to the otherthe word being relative must be mutual; but the one who recognised the relationship is selected for the illustration, because there lay the example and the lesson. My neighbour then is every one who, in the providence of God, is brought into such connection with me, that I can and ought to affect him in some way for good.
II. The course of events is always being so ordered as to bring new persons within our circle, that we may act by them a neighbours part.There may be a nation on the other side of the earth with which to-day I have nothing whatever to do; but to-morrow, let a way of access be opened and presented to me, by which I could approach that nation, and let an occasion arise of doing it good which, in my conscience, I feel to be providential, and at once our neighbourhood is established and complete, and I am constrained to perform a neighbours, i.e. a near ones, part, whether it be for their souls, or whether it be for their bodies.Vaughan.
Luk. 10:29. The Law gave no Definition of Neighbour.The scribe does not think there is danger of his not loving God, but thinks that the law is defective in giving no exact description of who is to be understood by ones neighbour.
Luk. 10:30-37. The Good Samaritan.This parable reveals in the brightest light
I. The Christians heart.It is like the Samaritans. It is full of compassion. In the priest and the Levite prudence conquered humanity; in the Samaritan humanity conquered prudence, prejudice, and everything else. We are weak and slow in Christs work because we are weak in compassion. The religion of Jesus is the religion of humanity.
II. The Christians hand.It is the ready agent of a compassionate heart. First the heart, then the handthat is the order in the kingdom. Watch the Samaritans hand. It is not the hand of a sluggard. How quickly it moves! He did not linger till compassion was chilled by worldly prudence. First thoughts were best. I dare say he did not think of it at all; he just did it at once. Many a noble purpose dies of cold and decay in its infancy. It is not the hand of a weakling. It is not easily tired. It carries through what it begins, and leaves nothing half done, though the doing cost much. It is not the hand of a hireling. The Samaritan was not rich. He had one ass, and no servant. But he believed that it was more blessed to give than to receive. He could not be repaid, and knew it. Payment would have spoiled all his pleasure in the deed. He had reward enough in an approving conscience reflecting the smile of God. It is not the hand of earthly ambition. The Pharisees gave alms to be seen of men. Had the Samaritan been like them, he would have passed by on the other side. But there was nothing to feed the hunger for earthly applause in this adventure. And yet if he be a real man, if this is history as well as parable, what renown! Christ has immortalised him.
III. The Christians sphere.The lawyer made it very narrow. He loved his friends, and hated his enemies, and was sure that the Samaritans were no neighbours of his. But Christ teaches that there is no limit or exception to the love of man; and that the sphere of the Christians heart is the whole world, and that the sphere of his hand embraces every one he can help. The Samaritan never asked, And who is my neighbour? Nearness and need constitute neighbourhood. In every suffering stranger there is a God-sent candidate for your pity and aid. Be neighbourly in Christs spirit. The home mission spirit is the very genius of the gospel. Be not content with sluggard sympathies. Be a good Samaritan among the needy in our land. Heathen lands too are near us now, and every year are coming nearer. The field of Christian service is the world.Wells.
Luk. 10:30. A certain man.This answers the question, Who is my neighbour? No mention is made of nation, tribe rank, or character; but a certain man, some one or other. It is as men that we are related and owe love to one another.
Luk. 10:31. By chance.There is a certain touch of irony in the phrase; it was certainly not by chance that the priest and the Levite came to figure in the parable.
Chance a Nickname.Gods unseen providence, by men nicknamed Chance.Fuller.
Good Opportunities.Many good opportunities work under things which seem fortuitous.Bengel.
A Test of Character.This is a very significant touch. The wounded man was not carried to the priests door, or did not even call aloud for aid, or else it would have been morally impossible to refuse to help him. The chance encounter rendered it more easy to deny the claim; in other words, it served the more perfectly to test the real character of the priestto show whether mercy was in his heart or not.
A certain priest.Perhaps now on his way to Jerusalem, there to execute his office in the order of his course (chap. Luk. 1:8); or, having accomplished his turn of service, now returning home. But whether thus or not, he was one who had never learned what that meant, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice; who, whatever duties he might have been careful in fulfilling, had omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faithTrench.
He passed by.
I. All priests were not thus cold and heartless.Ministers are generally warm-hearted men. They ought all to be so; they ought to be like Christ. He was ever ready to help any in trouble. Many of the Jewish priests would be kind and generous. This one was not. One may occupy a very sacred place, and yet have a cold, hard heart. It is very sad when it is so.
II. This priest did not even stop to look at the sufferer.Much less did he ask how he came to be injured, or to inquire what he could do for him. Perhaps he even pretended not to see the wounded man. He had doubtless excuses enough to satisfy his own mind. He was tired, or in a hurry, or it was a hopeless case, or he could not bear to look on suffering. But whatever his motives
III. Let us avoid repeating his fault.Do we never pass by human wants that we know well we ought to stop to relieve? Do we never keep out of the way of those who need our help? This verse is an ugly mirror, is it not? It shows us blemishes that we did not know we had.Miller.
Excuses for Inhumanity.Excuses for inhumanity are only too easily found. The priest might allege
I. That he was in hastethat his business was urgent or sacred.
II. That the wounded man was past hope of recovery.
III. That the robbers were not far off, and that it was perilous to linger near the spot.
IV. That another was coming along the same road who might be able to render more efficient help.
Luk. 10:31-33. Two Kinds of Holiness.
1. The spurious holiness of priest and Levitesanctity divorced from charity.
2. The genuine holiness of the Samaritanholiness inspired by love.Bruce.
Samaritans and Levites.All Samaritans were not compassionate; all Levites were not hard-hearted. They were Samaritans who would not permit Jesus and His disciples, when they were weary, to pass the night in their village (Luk. 9:53); and he was a Levite (Act. 4:36) who was named Son of Consolation, and sold his property that he might distribute the proceeds among the poor.
Luk. 10:32. A Levite.The Levite in his turn may have thought with himself that it could not be incumbent on him to undertake a perilous office, from which the priest had just shrunk; duty it could not be, else that other would never have omitted it. For him to thrust himself upon it now would be a kind of affront to his superior, an implicit charging of him with inhumanity and hardness of heart. And so, by aid of these pleas, or pleas like them, they left their fellow-countryman to perish.Trench.
Looked on him.There are very few of us who have yet learned to exert ourselves as we might do for the relief of the general misery and destitution which we cannot but see about us. The world is full of it; but it is not full of that heavenly compassion which it was meant to call forth.Marriott.
Luk. 10:33. Samaritan.He was one of a nation with whom the Jews had no dealings (Joh. 4:9), whose name was a by-word of reproach (Joh. 8:48), who were regarded by them as aliens and foreigners (Luk. 17:18), and almost reckoned with the very heathen (Mat. 10:5). The wounded traveller could have no claims on him; and many reasons might have been found for passing him by.
The Law written in the Heart.This ignorant Samaritan possessed spontaneously (by nature, Rom. 2:14) the light which the Rabbis had not found or had lost in their theological investigations. There is a remarkable agreement between the conduct attributed by Jesus to the Samaritan and the saying of St. Paul about the law written in the heart and its partial fulfilment by the heathen (Rom. 2:14-16).Godet.
Heterodoxy and Orthodoxy.We have here heterodoxy with humanity, and orthodoxy without humanity. Our Lord has shown elsewhere, abundantly, that He has no thought of conniving at heterodoxy, or of disparaging orthodoxy. Only He teaches that humanity is better than orthodoxy, if only one may be had, and that inhumanity is worse than heterodoxy, if one must be endured.Schaff.
Had compassion.Moved with pity as to the past, help for the present, considerate care for the future.Stier.
A Mark of Genuine Love.It is the characteristic mark of genuine love that it does not ask whether the neighbour deserves love, but whether he needs love.
Love of the Brethren and of Ones Neighbour.There is a special distinction to be made between Christian love of the brethren (Joh. 13:34) and the love of our neighbour.
I. Love of the brethren has for its object the fellow-believer, the love of Christ for its standard, and faith in Him as its condition.
II. Love of our neighbour embraces all men, loves them as ones self, and is grounded on the natural relation in which all sons and daughters of Adam stand to each other as members of one great family here on earth.Van Oosterzee.
Luk. 10:33-35. Characteristics of Love.True love renders help
(1) with promptitude,
(2) with thoroughness,
(3) with self-denial,
(4) with unwearying patience,
(5) with tact,
(6) without sentimentality.
Luk. 10:34-35. Bound up his wounds, etc.He leaves nothing undone to mitigate the miseries that excited his compassion.
I. He applies healing remedies to his wounds.
II. He is regardless of fatigue and danger in ministering to the sufferer.
III. He leaves him in good keeping.
IV. He supplies his immediate wants, leaves careful injunctions for his treatment in the inn, and generously promises to repay any expenses that may be incurred.
Luk. 10:34. Manifestations of Love.The attentive look, the compassionate heart, the helpful hand, the willing foot, the open purse.Van Oosterzee.
Luk. 10:35. Take care of him. 1 will repay.After having brought the wounded man to the inn, the Samaritan might have regarded himself as free from all further responsibility in the matterhe might have left him to the kindness of his fellow-countrymen, and have said to them, He is your neighbour rather than mine. But compassion, which has prompted him to begin, compels him to end.Godet.
When he departed.This detail gives vividness to the story: we see him as it were already on horseback and busied with giving the host injunctions as to careful treatment of the invalid.
Luk. 10:36. Love like the Light.The Lord shows His questioner that love is like light: wherever it truly burns it shines forth in all directions, and falls on every object that lies in its way. Love that desires to limit its own exercise is not love. One of loves essential laws is expressed in those words of the Lord that the apostles fondly remembered after He had ascended, It is more blessed to give than to receive.Arnot.
Which was neighbour?The parable is a reply, not to the question, for to that it is no reply, but to the spirit out of which the question proceeded. You inquire, Who is my neighbour? Behold a man who asked quite another question, To whom can I be a neighbour? and then be yourself the judge whether you or he have most of the mind of Godwhich is most truly the doer of His will, the imitator of His perfections.Trench.
Was neighbour.Rather, proved neighbour (R.V.); literally, became neighbour. The neighbour Jews became strangers, the stranger Samaritan became neighbour, to the wounded traveller. It is not place but love which makes neighbourhood (Wordsworth).
Luk. 10:36-37. A Picture of Christs Redeeming Work.The older commentators find in this parable a typical representation of Christs redeeming love. The wounded traveller is man disabled by sin; the priest and Levite represent the law, which exercises no healing power; the good Samaritan is Christ; the inn the Church, etc. The suggestion is an ingenious one, though the identification of some of the details leads to grotesque results. We may, however, see in the parable a faint and unintentional reflection of the Saviours work. The wounds of the sick (Isa. 1:6), which they who sat in Moses seat left undressed, He whom they reviled as a Samaritan (Joh. 8:48) bound up with oil and wine.
Luk. 10:37. He that shewed mercy.He will not name the Samaritan by name, the haughty hypocrite!Luther.
Go, and do thou likewise.The lesson derived from the parable by our Lord Himself is not that every one who needs our mercy is to be taken for our neighbour. Nothing of the kind. Christ closes the conversation by proposing the conduct of the Samaritanthe active benevolence which he displayed even towards an enemyas a model for imitation. Thus the practice of religion is revealed as the best help to the understanding of it. The attention is diverted from considering who is the fit object of love, and guided instead to the exercise of love itself. As in every other part of the Bible, the object proposed is to school the heart, not to inform the understanding.Burgon.
A Reproof to our Shortcomings.We should never read the story of the good Samaritan without thinking of it as a type of deeds of holy love done by many who may be grievously deficient in religious knowledge, and as a reproof to our shortcomings.
Love and its Reward.Love of man is
(1) entirely unlimited;
(2) it reveals itself in unrestricted helpfulness; and
(3) its reward is in an approving conscience, the praise of those who witness it, and of the Lord Himself. It is true that mere kindness does not earn eternal lifethat even if we perfectly fulfil the second table of the law, we are guilty of so many offences against the first table as to forfeit eternal life. But it is also true that he who violates the dictates of kindly feeling is not on the road that leads to faith and salvation (1Jn. 4:20-21).
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Butlers Comments
SECTION 2
Promoting Kindness (Luk. 10:25-37)
25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26He said to him, What is written in the law? How do you read? 27And he answered, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself. 28And he said to him, You have answered right; do this, and you will live.
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, And who is my neighbor? 30Jesus replied, A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, 34and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back. 36Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers? 37He said, The one who showed mercy on him. And Jesus said to him, Go and do likewise.
Luk. 10:25-28 Love the Lord: A lawyer had been sitting among the crowds listening to Jesus teach. Lawyer (Gr. nomikos) was a term applied to an elite class of Jewish men trained in the Scriptural law and in the oral traditions (which had the force of law). His duty was to settle questions and disputes arising about matters of the Law in everyday Jewish life and to perpetuate the office of lawyer by teaching all young Jewish men who would come to him to learn. The term lawyer is synonymous with scribe. They are often found in association with the Pharisees but are distinguished from them in that Pharisees were a religious party while the lawyers-scribes held an office. Undoubtedly the majority of the lawyers-scribes belonged to the party of the Pharisees (cf. Mat. 5:20; Mat. 9:3; Mat. 12:38; Mat. 15:1; Mat. 23:2; Mat. 23:13; Mar. 2:16; Mar. 3:22; Mar. 9:14; Mar. 12:38-39; Luk. 5:21; Luk. 5:30; Luk. 6:7; Luk. 7:30; Luk. 10:25; Luk. 11:45; Luk. 15:2; Luk. 19:39; Joh. 8:3, etc.). Lawyers and scribes were revered and feared by the people; called rabbi (meaning, master); demanded an honor surpassing that due to parents. Proudly they claimed the positions of first rank, and dressed in long robes like the nobility. Along with the Pharisees, they were thought to be, and thought themselves to be, the most pious of all mankind. Because Jesus refused to be bound by scribal traditions, they fiercely opposed Him.
The foregoing characterization of lawyers and scribes makes this confrontation rather amazing. Luke says the lawyers question, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? was asked in order to put Jesus to the test. Some commentators think the lawyer had some wicked motive for the test. Perhaps he hoped to trap Jesus in some statement that would appear to be anti-rabbinical. Whatever the motive, Jesus put the onus back on the lawyer by asking, What is written in the law? How do you read? The answer of the lawyer is very impressive in view of his rabbinical background. One would expect a lawyer to have answered with a long list of rabbinical traditions one should do to inherit eternal life. But he said, You shall love the Lord your God . . . and your neighbor as yourself. Jesus told him he had spoken correctly.
It would take an uncommonly spiritually-minded Jewish rabbi to make a statement such as this lawyer made. The popular theology of the Jews (going all the way back to the days of the prophets; cf. Isa. 1:11 ff.; Jer. 7:21-26; Mic. 6:6-8) was that the sacrificial ritual was the heart and core of their covenant relationship to God. But it wasnt! God made covenant with their father, Abraham, long before the Mosaic sacrifices, based on Abrahams loving God with all his being. Eternal life is in a Personnot a religion. Of course, man must have some systematic way of expressing his devotion to his Loving Father so God ordains certain rituals and deeds acceptable to Him for such expression. Man was created in the image of His Creator; man must love. What, or whom, he loves determines his character (cf. Hos. 9:10). It is not just the doing of religious rituals or deeds of piety, but the motive for doing that makes what is done godly or not, (cf. Mat. 6:1-24). How does one love God? By loving his neighbor! There is no possibility of loving God without loving ones neighbor, (1Jn. 4:20-21).
Another lawyer asked Jesus practically the same question in the last week of His ministry (Mat. 22:34-40). Jesus gave the same answer, and added, On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. In other words, the essence of the law of God and the teaching of the prophets was to reveal Gods nature (faithfulness, justice, mercy, love, purity, etc.) so that men would trust Him, love Him and obey Him. Since the law of God reveals Him as loving all men, the essential core of mans relationship to God is that he love his fellow man just as God loves him. When Gods law to Moses required the Jew to be separate from the heathen, it was not meant to kill the love of man for man. It was intended to keep the Jew separate from the heathen wickedness which was spiritually destructive. The commandment to love the Lord is from the Hebrew shema (hear, obey) in Deu. 6:4-6. The commandment to love ones neighbor is found in Lev. 19:18. There are many more commandments in the Old Testament urging the Jew to be kind and merciful to his fellow man, even to aliens and sojourners, (cf. Lev. 25:35-38; Lev. 16:29; Lev. 25:6; Num. 15:15-16; Num. 35:15; especially, Lev. 19:33-34 and Exo. 22:21). Jesus makes it very plain in other teachings that if one loves God and His Son, he will keep Christs commandments (Joh. 14:15; Joh. 14:21; Joh. 14:23-24; Joh. 15:10; Joh. 15:12, etc.).
Luk. 10:29-37 Minister to Man: Theologically and theoretically, the lawyer knew the essence of Gods will for man. He was honest-hearted enough to see that the ritual observance of sacrifice and ceremony was not the core of mans relationship to God. He had seen from Gods revelation that surrender of the total man, heart-soul-strength-mind, to God and love of ones neighbor was the key to eternal life. But when it came to putting what he knew to practice, he was apparently not ready to give complete surrender. He wanted to reserve the right to be selective as to whom he should love among mankind. Knowing that he had loved some men, he sought to justify his own selectivity by asking Jesus, And who is my neighbor? Perhaps he expected Jesus (considered to be a Rabbi, since He had disciples) would define neighbor in the classical rabbinical exclusiveness as being, one of my fellow scribes. Jewish society in Jesus day was regimented within a strict caste system. There was first of all the religious fanatics (Pharisees, scribes, lawyers); then there were the pragmatic, vacillating politicians (Sadducees, Herodians); then there were the am-ha-aretz (the people of the land,), most of whom were poor and oppressed. Scribes were hated! Rabbi Akiba said to his disciples, Before I became a scribe myself, I thought, Ah, if only I had one in my grasp, I would bite him like an ass. One of his disciples replied, Master, would it not have been enough to bite him like a dog? Akiba replied, No, like an ass, for an ass bites better: he crushes the very bones. Pharisees and scribes considered all am-ha-aretz as ignorant of the law and therefore accursed (cf. Joh. 7:49). One Pharisee was shocked that the rabbi Jesus would allow a sinner-woman to touch Him (Luk. 7:39). If a Jewish scribe had difficulty considering a lower-class Jew his neighbor to love as himself, what would he think of neighborliness to a Gentile? So this Jewish scribe or lawyer was hoping Jesus would follow the traditional definition of neighbor. He could thus justify himself for he had probably acted quite neighborly to his fellow lawyers.
When Jesus told His story of the Samaritan who had helped the robbed and beaten Jew on the road to Jericho, this lawyer and many others standing near must have gasped in utter shock! There was a violent hatred between most Jews and Samaritans in that age. Samaritan was one of the vilest epithets a Jew could use against any man (cf. Joh. 8:48). The animosity between Judeans and the people of the north of Jerusalem probably began with the division of the Solomonic empire when the ten northern tribes withdrew and formed the nation of Israel (about 935 B.C.). The two remaining tribes formed the southern kingdom, Judah. Israel formed its own religion, government, priesthood and army. Upon Israels captivity by the Assyrians in 722 B.C., most of the able-bodied Israelites were deported to Mesopotamia and heathen peoples were immigrated into that territory. The heathen immigrants intermarried with the Hebrews who had been left behind and this formed a half-breed Jewish population known as Samaritans. Judah was taken captive in 606586 B.C. and its people deported to Babylon. Seventy years later, 536 B.C., fifty thousand Judeans were allowed to return to their homeland by Cyrus, king of Persia. The Judeans reoccupied their farms and villages and this dispossessed many Samaritans who had moved into the southern part of Palestine when the Judeans had been carried off to Babylon. That added fuel to the fires of animosity between these two peoples. The Samaritans wanted to help the Judeans rebuild their Temple and their cities (cf. Ezr. 4:1 ff.), but were told bluntly and unceremoniously their help was not wanted! From that point on, the hatred intensified. Rabbinic tradition soon declared the Samaritans excommunicated from the Hebrew covenant (Talmud, Tanahim Luk. 17:4). About 333 B.C., Manasseh, grandson of the Judean high priest, but also son-in-law of Sanballat the governor of Samaria, persuaded Cyrus, king of Persia, to allow him to build a temple to Jehovah on Mt. Gerizim that would be a rival to the temple in Jerusalem. He made himself the high priest, convinced some priests from Jerusalem to join him there, and allowed them to marry heathen women, (cf. Josephus, Antiquities, Luk. 11:8). John Hyrcanus, Hasmonean king of Judea, destroyed the Samaritan temple on Gerizim along with the city of Samaria. Herod the Great rebuilt Samaria and called it Sebaste (Greek for Augustus) in honor of the Roman emperor. Herod also built the Samaritans another temple in the city of Sebaste, but the Samaritans refused to use it, preferring to continue their worship at the ruins on top of Mt. Gerizim (cf. Joh. 4:20-21). Conflict and invective continued between Jew and Samaritan for centuries. Around A.D. 69, according to annual custom, the gates of the temple in Jerusalem were opened at midnight, whereupon some Samaritans who had secreted themselves nearby, polluted the Jewish temple by scattering human bones in its porches. Samaritans were thereafter excluded from the services (Josephus, Antiquities 18:2:2). In 52 A.D., Samaritans attacked some Jewish pilgrims travelling south to one of their annual feasts. The Jews counterattacked and the struggle became so fierce the Roman legate of Syria had to send in troops. These troops crucified a number of Jews as punishment for the riot. The Samaritans were cursed by the Jewish people. One Talmudic proverb says, A piece of bread given by a Samaritan is more unclean than swines flesh. Remember, Samaritans refused lodging for Jesus and His disciples as they were on their way to Tabernacles (cf. Luk. 9:51-56).
But apparently not all Samaritans were like this. Jesus here relates that one Samaritan knew better than Jewish priests and Levites what mercy and neighborliness was. Another time (Luk. 17:12 ff.) a Samaritan was the only one of ten who knew how to express gratitude for being healed of leprosy. A Samaritan woman changed her life as a result of Jesus preaching and evangelized a whole city (Joh. 4:1-54). Multitudes of Samaritans became Christians at the preaching of Philip (cf. Act. 8:4-8).
Jesus began His parable, A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho was called Adummim (Jos. 15:7; Jos. 18:17) which means, The Pass of Blood. It was a notoriously thief-infested, steep, long road, crowded along its sides with caves and hiding places. Josephus records that Herod had dismissed 40,000 workmen from the Temple shortly before Jesus told this parable and a large part of them became vicious highway robbers, The Jewish traveler of the Lords parable was set upon by such thieves and robbed, stripped, beaten and left half-dead. A priest and a Levite came upon this man as they traveled the road, but they passed by on the other side. The Greek word antiparelthen is very expressive. It is a triple compounded word: anti, against; para, alongside; erchomai, come, go. These two Jewish holy-men came upon the victim, one of their own people, but quickly crossed over to the other side of the road. We really dont know why they crossed over to the other side of the road. Perhaps fear of ceremonial pollution from touching a dead body (as far as they could see he was dead); perhaps they were afraid to get involved lest the robbers might still be around. Whatever, Jesus doesnt give their reasons, because no reason they could give would be justifiable. But a Samaritan came alongand incredibly, unexpectedly, inexplicably stopped and helped the victim. Jesus said the Samaritan had compassion on the victim. The Greek word is esplagchnisthe and describes a gut-feeling type of compassion; one that describes literally hurting because someone else hurts. Splagchnon is a word often translated inward parts, bowels or tender mercies in the KJV. The Samaritan bound the mans wounds, put medicine on them, took him to an inn, cared for him, and paid the bill in full.
Now the point of this parable is not who is my neighbor, butbe sure you are always a neighbor when someone needs one! Neighborliness has nothing to do with geographical boundaries, but it has everything to do with need, anywhere one finds it. It was not the victim but the Samaritan who was the neighbor!
The Samaritan was a true neighbor. He could see need above other less important matters. He could have thought of just as many excuses that he shouldnt help the victim as the priest and Levite, but his conscience would not let him justify himself as had the others. There is only one justifiable way to love God and that is through helping people in need (1Jn. 4:20-21). We may do many other things and say we love God, but if we do not help those in need our profession is hypocritical. Mercifulness is the Christian way of lifeBlessed are the merciful. . . . (Mat. 5:7). The Samaritan got personal. We like to organize our goodness through benevolent organizations. If we hire others to do benevolence we dont have to get our hands dirty, smell unpleasant odors, lose sleep and get involved. We want to institutionalize goodness so we can spend our own time searching for our own happiness. And we never find happiness that way because it is found in doing good personally (Act. 20:35; Joh. 13:16). The Samaritan didnt turn the man over to anyone else until he was sure he had personally done everything he could for the man. He didnt give the victim money and tell him to go find an inn and a doctor. The Samaritan got down on his knees in the dirtexposed himself to dangergot his hands dirty, and helped. The Samaritan was flexible. The priest and Levite probably rushed on past because they were on very important missions with tight schedules and just didnt have time to stop. The Samaritan didnt do his goodness on a schedulehe did it when the need arose, no matter what his schedule was. The Samaritan was brave. There is always an element of danger in every effort to help someone; danger to ones reputation, to ones safety; to ones possessions. Helping others puts one in a position of vulnerability to be rejected, ridiculed and misunderstood. One must be brave to be good.
Finally, the Samaritan was realistic. He did not try to do more than he could. We are not commanded to be a miracle-worker or a slave to everyone we help. Not every cry for help will be a permanent assignment. The Samaritan did not take the victim home with him and adopt him into the family. He did what he could and departed. Some have to take over the victims life and manage it or dominate everyone they help. There are subtle pitfalls in too much helpfulness. Some want to help in order to put those they help forever in debt to them in order to hear the constant thank yous which build ego and identify and earn merit. The Samaritan did all he could, the best he could, and let it go at that. It is not even recorded that the victim thanked the Samaritan!
When asked, which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man, the lawyer apparently gagged on the word Samaritan and so he said, The one doing the mercy to him . . . The Lords reply, as recorded by Luke in Greek is, poreuou kai su poiei homoios. The word Go is in the imperative mood. Jesus is not suggesting this, He is commanding it! Literally translated, Jesus said, Go! and you keep on doing likewise.
Appleburys Comments
The Story of the Good Samaritan
Scripture
Luk. 10:25-37 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 And he said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? 30 Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance a certain priest was going down that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 34 and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow he took out two shillings, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee. 36. Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers? 37 And he said, He that showed mercy on him. And Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Comments
a certain lawyer.This incident is similar to the story of the Rich Young Ruler (Luk. 18:18-29), but there are striking differences. The ruler was evidently sincere in his desire to know what he had to do to have eternal life. The lawyer was deliberately trying to trap Jesus. Perhaps he was trying to get Jesus to set aside the Law of Moses or at least say something that could be used to condemn Him.
What shall I do to have eternal life?Under the Law of Moses the answer was simple and should have been understood by the lawyer, as his response shows. Paul says, Moses writeth that the man that doeth righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12). The law, of course, could not forgive the sinner who broke the law (Gal. 3:21). Only the blood of Christ could provide forgiveness which is made available under the New Covenant to the obedient believer in Christ through the grace of God (Rom. 3:21-26). This explains the difference between the answer of the lawyer which Jesus approved and the answer given on the Day of Pentecost to those who asked what to do for remission of their sins (Act. 2:36-38).
What is written in the law?Jesus was born under the law, and His ministry was carried out during the period in which the Law of Moses still held jurisdiction over Gods people. The Old Covenant did not give place to the New until the Day of Pentecost. Naturally, when He was asked about eternal life, He pointed to the Law of God for the age in which He lived.
Jesus answered the lawyers question by asking another, for He wanted him to think about it. He was aware of the purpose the lawyer had in asking it. So Jesus said, What is written in the law? How does it read to you?
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.The lawyers statement first summarized the Law of Moses with reference to duties to God. The manner in which they were to be carried out is stressed in these details: (1) with all your heart; (2) with all your soul; (3) with all your strength; and (4) with all your mind. Then he added the statement that summarizes the duties toward man: Love your neighbor as yourself.
desiring to justify himself.The embarrassed lawyer who had deliberately tried to embarrass Jesus asked, Who is my neighbor? Jesus answered his question by telling the story of the Good Samaritan. A man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers, but he was ignored by a priest and a Levite. Of all people, these should have gone to his rescue. But a Samaritanthey were despised by the Jewscame along and gave him aid. Then he took him to the inn where he could be cared for until he got well. As he was leaving, he said to the inn keeper, Whatever else you spend, Ill repay when I return.
Which of these three?Jesus question made the lawyer answer his own. There could be no doubt about it. The one who had shown mercy to the distressed and beaten man was the neighbor. Was the proud lawyer ready to be taught? The Master said, Go and do likewise.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(25) And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up.On the word lawyer and its difference from the more generic scribe, see Note on Mat. 22:35. Here, as there, the tempting does not necessarily imply hostile purpose. It was simply a test-question to see if the new Teacher was sound in His view of the ethical obligations of the Law.
The question, though the same as that of the young man in Mat. 19:16, is not asked in the same tone. There it was asked by one anxiously seeking to inherit eternal life. Here there is a certain tone of self-conscious superiority, which required a different treatment. As the method of Socrates was to make men conscious of their ignorance of the true meaning of words which they repeated glibly, so here our Lord parries the question by another, makes him repeat his own formulated answeran answer true and divine itself, identical with that which our Lord gave Himself (Mat. 22:37)and then teaches him how little he had realised its depth and fulness. The commandment was exceeding broad above all that the teacher of Israel had imagined.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
86. JESUS INSTRUCTS THE LAWYER BY THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN, Luk 10:25-37 .
This narrative is given by Luke alone, without assignment of time or place. It has no apparent connection with the preceding narration. The parable of the good Samaritan, which is embraced in it, has been celebrated for ages for its beauty and moral power.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
25. A certain lawyer The law embraced in this man’s profession consisted of two parts, the oral and the written. The written was contained in the Pentateuch of Moses; the oral was professedly derived by unwritten tradition from the seventy elders appointed by Moses to aid in the government of Israel. Num 11:16. Both these formed a mass of rules and regulations, civil, moral, and religious, boundless in extent, complicated in character, exercising a controlling influence over the whole of Jewish life, and forming a subject for an infinite variety of subtle distinctions, disputes, and questionings. The distinction between lawyer and scribe is not very clearly drawn. In fact the same person receives from different evangelists each of these titles. Mat 22:35; Mar 12:28. The title of the scribe would seem to indicate a more special relation to the text of the law and its transcription; that of lawyer more to the study of its principles.
Stood up Rose to indicate his purpose of a discussion.
Tempted him That is, proposed to try his depth of intellect and knowledge of the law. There was no malicious purpose in the case. It was simply a challenge to a keen encounter of wits and professional knowledge. Among the Jews there was the disciple and the doctor; the former was one able to answer questions which he bad specially read up; the latter was ready to answer questions on any part of the law. Similarly the Sophists among the Greeks would take a seat in public, and offer to discourse on any topic that any one would please to propose.
What shall I do? Though the lawyer proposes this question in the first person singular, he means it rather for a theoretical than a practical question. He is no convicted sinner asking the way to eternal life.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” ’
A Scribe approaches Jesus to ‘test Him out’. This may signify an attempt to make Him make a false move, or it may be a sign of genuine interest and a desire to discover His calibre. His question goes right to the heart of Pharisaic thinking. One of their main aims was to discover how they could receive eternal life. They believed that if only they could fully fulfil the covenant then they would receive it. That was what all their regulations and rule were aimed at. Seeking to ensure full compliance with the covenant of Moses so as to seal their place as the people of God. Possibly he expected Jesus to repudiate Moses, or possibly he had a genuine problem that he hoped would be resolved.
‘Inherit eternal life.’ Canaan had been Israel’s inheritance. But now that inheritance is replaced by ‘eternal life’, the life of the age to come, life under the Kingly Rule of God. That now was what all Israel sought for.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Testing of Jesus And the Parable of the Good Samaritan (10:25-37).
We should note that this passage, and the parable it contains, follows directly on the idea of the previous self-revelation of Jesus. It gives us the clue that within it Jesus is revealing more of Himself. And this is confirmed by the fact that it is itself followed by a further three examples of where seemingly simple stories bring out great spiritual truth. That confirms that this is thus to be seen as a section containing revelation about the work of God in bringing great spiritual blessing, for here we see that the physical food provided by Martha (Luk 10:38-42), the daily bread of the Lord’s Prayer (Luk 11:1-4), and the pleading for the food at midnight (Luk 11:5-8) are all symbolic of the reception of greater spiritual blessing, namely, Mary receiving ‘the good part’ (Luk 10:42), the seeking of ‘Tomorrow’s bread’ (Luk 11:3), and the asking for and receiving of the Holy Spirit (Luk 11:9-13). In conformity with this therefore we should expect to see, and should look for, some deeper truth underlying this passage also. This also is a parable with a dual significance.
The self-revealing of Jesus and full appreciation of the Father now leads on to His revealing something of His Father to ‘a certain lawyer (one of Luke’s words for a Scribe/Rabbi) in the parable that follows. The lawyer is said to be ‘making trial of Him’. This has in mind that Jesus will shortly be teaching His disciples to pray, ‘do not bring us into trial’ (Luk 11:4). Yet trial is always present for those who serve God.
But the Scribe here receives far more than he is expecting. He is not only to receive an important lesson on who his neighbour is, but he is also to be given an overall picture of what Jesus has come to do for those who are His. The parable that follows will also be an example of one who forgives others, not holding their sins against them, and provides daily bread, thus relating it to the Lord’s Prayer (Luk 11:4).
However, central to the whole thought here is of knowing and loving God, and as a result their neighbour. And the story that follows not only reveals who our neighbour is, but it also reveals a man whose life revealed his love of God, and what the love of God will supply to His needy people, thus providing the reason as to why we should love Him. For the overall search behind this passage is not just for an understanding of who our neighbour is, important though that may be. It is a search for eternal life, and how this may be enjoyed.
The placement of this parable is very important, for at first it seems almost out of place, and that in a writing where the writer places everything consummately. But a second glance reveals the very opposite. The growth of the proclamation of the Rule of God has been described, together with the defeat of the one who held men in his sway (which is then dealt with in depth in Luk 11:14-26), a defeat which in itself reveals that the Kingly Rule of God is here (the deliverance of the captives, and the release of those who are oppressed). Now that is revealed in a man who exemplifies what it is for a man to love God with all his heart and his neighbour as himself. To the poor broken man attacked by robbers (Isa 42:24), despised by the Temple, comes an unorthodox heretic (the main idea in the minds of Jews about Samaritans) from the north, who brings him life and good things, and will provide for his full restoration when he comes again. In context it is difficult not to see in this that Luke intends us to see the coming of the Son of Man, the Prophet from the north, to defeat Satan and release his victims (Luk 11:14-26), setting aside the Temple, and bringing light in the darkness (Luk 11:27-36) and delivering from the power of Satan to God (Act 26:18 for the whole)
The passage may be analysed as follows:
A certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (Luk 10:25).
He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” (Luk 10:26).
He answering said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself” (Luk 10:27).
He said to him, “You have answered right, this do, and you shall live” (Luk 10:28).
But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?” (Luk 10:29).
Jesus made answer and said, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead” (Luk 10:30).
“By chance a certain priest was going down that way, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side” (Luk 10:31).
“And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side” (Luk 10:32).
“But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was, and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion” (Luk 10:33).
“And came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine. And he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him” (Luk 10:34).
“And on the morrow he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said, ‘Take care of him, and whatever you spend more, I, when I come back again, will repay you.’ ” (Luk 10:35).
“Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?” (Luk 10:36).
And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.” And Jesus said to him, Go, and behave in the same way.” (Luk 10:37).
We note that in ‘a’ the question is what he shall ‘do’ to inherit eternal life, and the reply in the parallel is ‘show mercy’ in the same way as mercy has been shown (to him). In ‘b’ Jesus asks him a question, and in the parallel He does the same. In ‘c’ he answers that he is to love God with all that he is and has, and his neighbour as himself, and in the parallel the Samaritan shows love to his neighbour with all that he is and has. In ‘d’ he is told that if he does what he has outlined he will find life, and in the parallel the Samaritan restores life to the dying man (a picture of Jesus restoring life to Israel). In ‘e’ his question is ‘who is my neighbour?’ and in the parallel the reply is a description of the ‘neighbourly’ Samaritan. In ‘f’ the man is robbed and left half dead and in the parallel we have the Levite passing by on the other side. And central to the passage in ‘g’ is the fact that the priest also passes him by on the other side, presumably because he wants to avoid defilement, an indication of the Temple failing to provide mercy. The fact that this last is central confirms that Jesus sees in His parable a description of Israel like a half dead man, robbed by its foreign rulers, and despised by its priests and their hangers on, waiting for a ‘foreigner’ from unorthodox Galilee to come to its rescue. (Note that elsewhere Jesus can be described by people like the questioner as ‘a Samaritan’ (Joh 8:48). The name was used of those seen as heretics, outcasts or breakers of the Law).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Story of the Good Samaritan: Illustration of Loving Others With All of Our Hearts In Luk 10:25-37 Jesus is approached by a lawyer who asks Him the true meaning of eternal life. When Jesus defined it as loving God and loving our neighbours, He felt the need to illustrate with the story of the Good Samaritan. This is an illustration of how to serve the Lord with our hearts.
Proposed Allegory in the Story of the Good Samaritan – In the story of The Good Samaritan:
1. The thieves (Luk 10:30) represent the devil and demons and their work through evil people to destroy lives.
2. The traveling man could be any one traveling through this life without Jesus.
3. The priest (Luk 10:31) can be some religious leader without love and time to care due to the religious duties of man’s doctrine.
4. The Levite can be a layman who goes to church as a religious duty, but not out of love.
5. The Samaritan does what Jesus does to a lost and dying man in his sins.
a. He bound up his wounds – Jesus heals our hurts and scares.
b. He poured oil and wine – The Holy spirit and the cleansing sins.
c. To an inn – Jesus leads us to a church under the care of a pastor.
In regards to verse 35, Jesus gives the Pastor what is needed to care for the sheep. One day the Lord will repay us for our work.
Luk 10:27 Comments – The Ten Commandments can be grouped into two sections. The first four commandments refer to our relationship to God, while the last six refer to our relationships with men. In the parallel passage in Mar 12:29-31, Jesus quoted from Deu 6:4-5, which was a very famous passage of Scripture referred to by the Jews as “The Shema.”
Deu 6:4-5, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”
It was a passage of Scripture that every scribe knew by heart. Jesus was summarizing the first four commandments when He told the scribe to love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength. The first commandment refers to serving the Lord with our heart. The second commandment refers to serving the Lord with all of our soul, where our emotions, feelings and will exist. The third commandment refers to serving the Lord with all of our mind, and deals with the words of our mouth. The fourth commandment refers to serving the Lord with all of our strength, or bodies. He then summarized the last six commandments when He said to love our neighbour as ourselves. Perhaps the difference between the soul and the mind would be that one emphasizes our thoughts and attitudes, while the other emphasizes our words that we speak. Thus, our soulish realm has a two-fold aspect of thoughts and confession.
Luk 10:30 Comments – Josephus described Judea during this period of history as a place of much insecurity, with “ten thousand other disorders” and “full of robberies.”
“Now at this time there were ten thousand other disorders in Judea, which were like tumults, because a great number put themselves into a warlike posture, either out of hopes of gain to themselves, or out of enmity to the Jews.” ( Antiquities 17.10.4)
“And now Judea was full of robberies” ( Antiquities 17.10.8)
Thus, this was a story to which many people could easily relate.
Luk 10:31-32 Comments Justifications for Being a Good Samaritan – The priests and the Levites had plenty of Scriptures to justify themselves in not coming to the aid of a dying man. For examples, those who were under a Nazarite vow could not come near a dead body.
Num 6:6, “All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body.”
The high priests could not approach a dead body, not even his kin.
Lev 21:1, “And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:”
Lev 21:10-11, “And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes; Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;”
Even the common man became defiled when he touched a dead body so that he was not allowed to make an offering unto the Lord.
Num 9:6-7, “And there were certain men, who were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the passover on that day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day: And those men said unto him, We are defiled by the dead body of a man: wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering of the LORD in his appointed season among the children of Israel?”
Num 19:11, “He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.”
Num 19:13, “Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.”
Num 19:16, “And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The question of the lawyer:
v. 25. And, behold, a certain lawyer stood, up and tempted Him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
v. 26. He said, unto him, What is written in the Law? How readest thou?
v. 27. And he, answering, said, Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.
v. 28. And He said unto him, Thou hast answered right; this do, and thou shalt live. A lawyer, a man versed in the Law and the traditions of the Jews, one of those that belonged to the wise and prudent of the world, stood up before or against Jesus, as His opponent. His purpose was deliberately to tempt Jesus, to lead Him astray. He tried this with the question: Master, what shall, what must I do to inherit eternal life? His question is strangely put, for it can hardly be said that the heirs do anything to get the inheritance. He would have expressed his meaning more truthfully if he had said: What must I do to earn eternal life? Jesus, according to a disconcerting habit He had, answered with a counter-question. He did not give the results of any philosophy, but referred the questioner to the written Scripture. The first question with its general trend is supplemented by the second, which searches the mind of the man before Him. Note: Philosophy of the Christian religion is a dangerous term, and stands for a dangerous science. The Lord does not want us to philosophize and to think out our own religious scheme, but to follow the Word. The man was indeed well versed in the Old Testament, for he gave the summary of the Moral Law correctly, according to Deu 6:5; Lev 19:18. To love God the Lord with all the heart and with all the soul and with all the strength and with all the mind and understanding, that is the summary of the first table. And to love one’s neighbor as one’s self is the summary of the second table. “To love God with all the heart, to love God above all creatures, that is: although many creatures are pleasant that they please me and I love them, that I yet, for the sake of God, when God, my Lord, wants it, despise and give them all up. To love God with all the soul is that thy whole life be directed toward Him and thou mayest say, if the love of creatures or any persecution wants to overwhelm thee: All this I gladly give up rather than leave my God; they may throw me out, they may strangle me or drown me, let anything happen to me that God wills, all this I will gladly endure rather than leave Thee. Lord, to Thee I will cling more firmly than to all creatures, also to all that does not belong to Thee; all that I am and have I will give up, but Thee I shall not leave. To love God with all the strength is to bring all members into action, so that one will risk all that he can with his physical body rather than do what is opposed to God. To love God with all the mind is to accept nothing which does not please God; by this he means the self-conceit which a person has; but rather that the mind be centered in God and upon all things that please God. ” Jesus commended the answer of the lawyer as being correct. But He added a weighty word: This do, and thou shalt live. Here lay the real difficulty, for knowing and doing are two very different things. If that were possible, indeed, to keep the Law of God perfectly, then the person that could perform this wonderful feat would thereby earn eternal life. A perfect fulfillment of the Law has, as its reward of merit, the blessedness of heaven. But there is the rub. By the deeds of the Law is no man justified before God, because there is no man on earth that doeth good and sinneth not. “That is preaching the Law properly and giving a good, strong lesson, yea, catching him in his own words and in the right place, where He can show him what he still lacks.”
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Luk 10:25-28. And, behold, a certain lawyer If the connection with which St. Luke introduces the subsequent transaction implies that it happened immediately after what goes before in the history, it took its rise in the followingmanner: A doctor of the law, who it seems made one of the multitude which attended Jesus when the seventy returned, having listened to what he said to his disciples in private, concerning their enjoyment of a happiness which many prophets and kings had desired in vain to obtain,(namelythatofseeinghismiracles,andof hearing his sermons,) thought that he would make trial of that great wisdom which he said he possessed, by proposing to him one of the most important questions which it is possible for thehuman mind to examine, namely, what a man must do to inherit eternal life? For, that he asks the question, not from a sincere desire to know his duty, but merely to try our Lords knowledge, is evidentfrom the text. And further, he had probably an insidious design to ensnare him; for the question having been decided by the Jewish doctors, if Christ had answered differently, he might have been accused of heresy. Jesus, alluding to the scribes’ profession, made answer, by inquiring of him what the law taught on that point? And perhaps when our Lord says, how readest thou? he alludes to the daily service of the Jews, as appears more probable from the reply which the scribe makes; the words thou shalt love the Lord thy God, &c. being then, and continuing still, to be daily read in the morning service of the synagogues; though it is remarkable, that the last clause, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, is omitted by them. But see on Mat 22:35-40.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Luk 10:25 ff. This transaction is different from the later narrative of Mat 22:35 ff. (comp. Mar 12:28 ff.). The fact that the same passages of the law are quoted cannot outweigh the difference of time and place, of the point of the question, of the person quoting the passages, and of the further course of the conference. Comp. Strauss, I. p. 650 f., who, however, also holds Matthew and Mark as distinct, and thus maintains three variations of the tradition upon the one subject, viz. that Jesus laid stress on the two commandments as the foremost of the law; while Kstlin, p. 275, supposes that Luke arbitrarily took the question, Luk 10:25 , out of its original place in Matthew and Mark, and himself made it the entire introduction to the parable (Luk 10:30 ff.). Comp. Holtzmann: “two independent sections brought by Luke within one frame.”
] , Euthymius Zigabenus. As to ., to try thoroughly , see on 1Co 10:9 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
C. A School of Love, of Faith, and of Prayer. Luk 10:25 to Luk 11:13
1. The Good Samaritan (Luk 10:25-37)
(Luk 10:23-27, Gospel for the 13th Sunday after Trinity.)
25And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him [putting him to the 26proof], saying, Master [Teacher], what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself [Deu 6:5; Lev 19:18]. 28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves [robbers], which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32And likewise a Levite [also], when he was at [having come to] the place, came and looked on him, and [and seeing him] passed by on the other side. 33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed,came where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in [on] oil and wine, and set him on his ownbeast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35And on the morrow when he departed,12 he took out two pence [denarii], and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him: and whatsoever thou spendest more, [I] when I come again,I [om., I] will repay thee. 36Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbourunto him that fell among the thieves [robbers]? 37And he said, He that shewed mercy [ , the merciful act] on him. Then [And13] said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Luk 10:25. A certain lawyer.According to Strauss we have here only a different tradition of the occurrence which is related by Mat 22:37-40, and Mar 12:28-34. But whoever compares the two accounts attentively will probably come with us to the conclusion, that Luke relates something entirely different. Although almost superfluous, compare moreover Lange, Leben Jesu, ii. p. 1242.
Putting Him to the proof.It is as if Luke would by the very commencement: , draw our attention to the contrast between the joyful emotions of the circle of friends which had but just heard from Jesus, mouth words of approbation and joy, and the cold stranger who bestirs himself to prepare for the Master new snares. It is a , who is perhaps distinguished from the Pharisees in this (comp. Luk 11:44-45), that he, more than these, holds to the letter of the law of Moses; but in no case a Sadducee, or a Herodian, since his highest striving appears directed towards eternal life. He appears as an , and as this word is always used in an unfavorable sense, we are at least to assume that he wished to find out whether the Saviour also would teach anything which was in conflict with the law of Moses. His question springs therefore from a very different source from that of the rich young man, Mat 19:16, and without doubt he expects a very different answer from this one, which, on the position of the law, was the only possible one. He is first put to shame by the very fact that the Saviour gives him to hear nothing strange, but simply that which was perfectly familiar.
Luk 10:27. Thou shalt love.It speaks perhaps favorably for this that he does not name one or several special precepts, but immediately brings forward the spirit and main substance of the law, which the Saviour, in a case not wholly dissimilar, was obliged first to remind the inquirer of, Mat 22:38-39. So much the sadder was it here that with so clear a knowledge of the law, there was joined an utter lack of self-knowledge.
Luk 10:29. Willing to justify himself.Perhaps the scribe took the reply, this do, as an indirect reproach that he, to his own amazement, had not yet done it, and now apparently his conscience begins to speak. But he will justify himself, inasmuch as he intimates that he, in this respect at least, had already fulfilled the requirement of the law, unless it were that Jesus perhaps by the words thy neighbor might have some different meaning from himself. But better still, we are perhaps to conceive the matter thus: if the answer was so simple as it appeared to be from the words of our Saviour, there might undoubtedly be need of an excuse that he had approached Jesus with so trifling a question. He wishes, therefore, by this more particular statement to give the Saviour to feel that precisely this is the great question, namely, whom he is to regard as his neighbor and whom not; and as to this, our Lord now, in the immediately following parable, gives him a definite exposition.
Luk 10:30. From Jerusalem to Jericho.According to Lange, the journeying of the Saviour in Samaria, and the sending of the Seventy into the towns and villages of the Samaritans, had possibly offended this scribe, and our Lord, by the delineation here following, wishes indirectly to shame this narrow-heartedness. It may also be conjectured that our Lord on His own journey through Samaria towards Jerusalem was at this very moment on the way between Jericho and the capital, and had therefore chosen the scene of the parable precisely in loco. If we now add to this that the village, Luk 10:38, was Bethany, whither He must come before He entered the city, we then obtain at least some conception of the course of this journey of our Saviour.
And fell among robbers.The wilderness between Jericho and Jerusalem was known as insecure. See Josephus, De Bello Judaico, iv. 8, 3, and Hieronymus, ad Jerem. iii. 2. Wholly encircled by robbers (), he addresses himself fruitlessly to defence, and remains lying wounded on the road, while they, with his garments and the remaining booty, take themselves off. Already half dead, he must infallibly expire if help does not with all speed appear for him.
Luk 10:31. By chance.Mult occasiones bon latent sub iis, qu fortuita videantur. Scriptura nil describit temere, ut fortuitum; hoc loco opponitur necessitudini. Bengel.A priesta Levite.It is well known that at Jericho many priests had their abode, who, when their turn came, discharged the service of the sanctuary at Jerusalem. Commonly they appear to have chosen the longer but safer road by Bethlehem, so that it was an exception when they travelled through the wilderness. It here brings into so much the more striking light their want of feeling, that the two do not pass on without first having come nearer and, more or less exactly, taken note of the state of the case. This inspection, however, merely persuades them of the greatness of the danger that awaits them also if they delay even for an instant, and therefore they make haste to quit the way of blood as quickly as possible. Neither the voice of humanity, nor that of nationality, nor that of religion, speaks so loudly to their heart as the desire of self-preservation.
Luk 10:33. A certain Samaritan, as he journeyed.From the very choice of this example, it is evident that the injured man was certainly no heathen (Olshausen), but a Jew, in whom, however, his benefactor views, before all, an unhappy man.Oil and wine.Customary remedies, see Isa 1:6 and Wetstein, ad loc.He had compassion on him.Animi motus sincerus prcedit, quem sequuntur facta, animo congruentia. Grotius. Mark the beautiful climax. First the compassionate heart, then the helping hand, next the ready foot, finally the true-hearted charge.
Luk 10:35. He took out two denarii., graphic: out of a girdle, Meyer. He leaves the unhappy man in rest, but takes care also that no difficulty shall arise to him after his departure on the score of payment. From his promise to make good what may be lacking on his return, we may perhaps draw the inference that the expresses not only the conditio, but also the habitus, of the Samaritan.
Luk 10:37. The merciful act, .The definite species of compassion, that is, which was described in the parable. It has been often remarked that the scribe by this circumlocutory answer wished to avoid mentioning the name of Samaritan. See, e.g., Bengel, ad loc. So has Luther also written in his Kirchenpostille, ad loc.: Will not name the Samaritan by name, the haughty hypocrite.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. By the question, How readest thou? the Saviour ascribes to the law absolute authority in the answer of the question proposed by the scribe. Here also the same principle as in Joh 10:34-36, and elsewhere. After such declarations from the Saviour, the answer to the inquiry hardly continues difficult, what authority must be ascribed to the Scripture in the decision of the highest question of life for mankind.
2. The answer given by the scribe stood, at least as far as concerns Deu 6:5, upon the broad phylactery which was worn by the Jews, and so far it may be said that this is to be taken as having been uttered by Jesus . As to the rest, it need not surprise us that the Saviour here gives another answer than, e.g., Joh 6:29. From the point of view of the scribe, the requirement of faith, if made to him would have been unintelligible. It is moreover literally true, that if any one indeed so fulfilled the law that his act in Gods eyes really bore the stamp of perfection, he would certainly enter into life. It is only if the scribe had answered that it was impossible to him to fulfil the law as God requires on account of his sin and weakness; it is only then that he would have been receptive of further instruction. The Saviour places first precisely the duty required by the law, in its full emphasis, in order to bring him to a knowledge of himself, and to give him a clear insight into his own imperfection in contrast with the supreme ideal. This conversation is, therefore, a striking proof of the deep didactic wisdom of the Saviour.
3. The parable of the Good Samaritan is certainly one of the most beautiful, considered from an sthetic point of view. The antithesis of the Samaritan on the one hand, of the Jew, the priest, and the Levite on the other; the extended description of his work of love in its full and entire compass; the perfect completion of the picture by the trait at the end,all this contributes to exalt the graphic vigor of the portraiture. No wonder that this parable has become one of the most popular, and that it has been seriously inquired whether here also an occurrence from actual life may not have been related, of which the Saviour in some way or other had obtained knowledge. This view, however (Grotius a. o.), natural as it is, appears nevertheless hardly admissible, for the reason that the Saviour was not wont to bring up without necessity, and in their absence, the chronique scandaleuse of the priests and Levites.
4. The purpose of the parable would be understood amiss, if we thought it was intended to serve directly to commend the duty of love to enemies. The Saviour does not once say that the object of the love here exhibited was a Jew, but only that it was a man, and will give the inquirer to feel that the word neighbor must be applied in a far wider sense than only that of Friend, Companion, or Countryman. It is the more beautiful that the Saviour makes no other than a Samaritan the type of the genuine love of man, if we consider that it was very shortly before that He had experienced the intolerance of the Samaritans in its full strength. Luk 9:51; Luk 9:56.
5. Here, however, there is a special distinction to be made between Christian love of the brethren, which is commended in Joh 13:34, and the general love of our neighbor, which is commended in this passage. The first has for its object the fellow-believer, the love of Christ for its standard, and faith on Him as its condition. The second embraces all men, loves them as ones self, and is grounded in the natural relation in which all the sons and daughters of Adam stand to each other as members of one great family here on earth. It is not uncommon that those in the right way, zealous for that which is specifically Christian, give themselves less concern regarding this general human duty. It is, therefore, well worth the trouble to consider somewhat more particularly the portrait here drawn by the Lord. We see then at the same time, also, why this parable is found in the Pauline and broadly human Gospel of Luke.
6. The element of the general love of man is that most pure feeling which does not ask, Who is my neighbor? but in every man beholds a brother, and in the unhappy man first of all (). Its extent, therefore, is entirely unlimited; it does not ask whether it has to do with a Jew, Samaritan, or heathen, but only whether it has to do with a man, as such. Its tokens reveal themselves in unrestricted helpfulness (oil and wine), self-denial (giving up of his own beast), heartiness (the commendation to the host), and continuance (afterwards as well as now he will pay all). And its reward is, besides the approving voice of conscience and the involuntary praise even of those far differently minded, above all, the testimony of the Lord, who sets such a deed of love before others as their example. A whole chapter of Christian ethics is, therefore, here written down in a few words.
[6 a. There is one thing to be taken note of in connection with the parable of the Good Samaritan, which we are apt to neglect, and thereby to lose much of its force. We are so much accustomed to look upon the Good Samaritan as a model of excellence, as to forget that he was a heretic, not in the Jewish notion merely, but in reality; and that our Lord, in His conversation with the Samaritan woman, Joh 4:22, distinctly and severely condemns his heresy. This parable, therefore, teaches us not only that true love to man knows no distinction of nationality or creed, but that this genuine philanthropy may be exhibited by one involved in grave speculative errors, and neglected by those whose speculative belief is sound. We have here Heterodoxy with Humanity, and Orthodoxy without Humanity. Our Lord has shown elsewhere, abundantly, that He has no thought of conniving at Heterodoxy, or of disparaging Orthodoxy. Only, He teaches that Humanity is better than Orthodoxy, if only one may be had, and that Inhumanity is worse than Heterodoxy, if one must be endured.C. C. S.]
7. If we inquire who has perfectly set forth the character of the Good Samaritan, and perfectly accomplished his work, then we know of only oneour Lord. So far we may say that He has depicted the portrait of perfect philanthropy with traits from His own immediate self-consciousness.
8. What has been hitherto said, already prepares the way for an answer to the question, how far the Christian homilete is at liberty to view in the Samaritan the image of the Saviour. As is well known, this was done very early by many of the ancient fathers, and by Luther and Melanchthon, and among the moderns by Stier and others [Alford]. This has been, on the one hand, powerfully defended, and it has been asserted that if we stop at the common conception, it is hard to find a Christian theme in this whole Pericope (Cl. Harms). On the other side, it has been wholly condemned as pious fantasy, and certainly not with injustice, if we remember how every particular of the parable has been expounded even to trifling, so that, for instance, Jerusalem must denote Paradise,Jericho, the world,the lodging, the Church,the two denarii, the two sacraments. This can only be reconciled when one knows how to make a distinction between historical exposition and practical application of the instruction here given. From the position of the former it is entirely inadmissible to say that the Saviour had here the intention to designate Himself as the Redeemer of man from sin and misery. No, the purpose is no other than to portray actual love of man in the sphere of actual life: this must, therefore, be and remain the chief point. But if now it is asked, in conclusion, in whom the ideal of the highest love of man is perfectly realized, then it is almost impossible to overlook here the image of the Saviour, and to pass over in silence what He, the Heavenly Samaritan, has become for Humanity sick unto death, already given up by priest and Levite, &c. For the love of Christ is not only the type, but is also no less the most powerful impulse to such an active love of our neighbor as is here required. A distinguished example of the treatment of this parable, in which the ethical and the Christological element alike receive full consideration, has been given by A. Vinet in the dissertation: Le Samaritain, in his Nouveaux discours sur quelques sujets religieux. Thus does this parable become in a certain sense the sublimest allegory of Sin on the one hand, and Grace on the other. Comp. Tholuck, Die wahre Weihe des Zweiflers, p. 63, and Lisco, ad loc., p. 239. It is, however, self-evident, that we are not therefore permitted to build on individual details a doubtful dogmatic view (e.g., Semipelagianism on the expression that the man lay half dead on the way), and that in a tropical use of it the great central thought must be adhered to, without pressing the particulars overstrongly. A certain spiritual tact will here show the way better than could be done by definite rules, and this of itself already introduces the
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The way to life the highest question of life.Jesus the best guide on the way to eternal life.A just question proposed from a perverted motive.Necessary and unnecessary questions in the sphere of religion and of life.The highest questions of life satisfactorily resolved in Gods word.Not What thinkest thou? but How readest thou?To the Law and to the Testimony, Isa 8:20.The requirement of love to God: 1. The extent, 2. the justice, 3. the reward of this requirement.Whoever actually fulfilled Gods commandment, would actually also live.Hopeless efforts to justify ones self against the Lord.The question: Who is my neighbor? 1 Its high moment; 2. its only answer; 3. its manifold application.A man plunged by men into wretchedness.Stand we not every hour in jeopardy? 1Co 15:30.The value of apparently fortuitous occurrences.A priest without love.The might of selfishness: it is stronger than the voice a. of humanity, b. of patriotism, c. of religion.Faithful Samaritan service.There is more evil, but also more good than we know.The attentive look, the compassionate heart, the helpful hand, the willing foot, the open purse.Service of love: 1. Willingly begun, 2. unweariedly continued, 3. never completed.The debt of love, Rom 13:8 : 1. A measureless debt, 2. an undeniable debt, 3. a blessed debt.True love gives not only its own, but itself wholly.Love not in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth, 1Jn 3:18.True love of our neighbor: 1. Its motive; 2. its character: open-handedness, self-denial, heartiness, steadfastness; 3. its reward.The Good Samaritan service of the disciples of the Saviour.The Good Samaritan the image of the Saviour.How He, the Saviour of sinners, still, 1. Lights upon the same misery; 2. expresses the same compassion; 3. prepares the same redemption; 4. demands the same temper of mind as is set forth in this parable.Who, then, is our neighbor?Not knowing, but doing, the first requirement of the Lord.As this scribe, so are, sooner or later, all put to shame who will take Jesus in their snares.
Starke:As the question, so the answer.Cramer:The law aims high and demands the whole heart, &c.Quesnel:Piety consists not in having, but in doing.Nova Bibl. Tub.:Oh ! the shameful priests, who pass by the poor.Ecclesiastics that have not the Spirit, are bare, fruitless trees, Jdg 9:14.True love takes on itself with much danger the necessity of the saints.Compassion has so bright a brilliancy that it shines even in the eyes of enemies.Majus:No one must be ashamed to follow even simple and mean people in good.Lisco:Christian love of our neighbor should be: 1. Universal; 2. self-sacrificing.The active compassion of the citizens of the kingdom: 1. Its sphere of activity; 2. its nature; 3. its portion.Heubner:Man does not lack so much the knowledge of his duty as the will for it.How little is close contact with, and administration of, that which is holy often wont to sanctify the heart. How deep has the priesthood often sunk!How often have the followers of the true religion been excelled by professors of false religions!Love seeks, where its means are not sufficient, to win others also to its ends.
On the Pericope:Heubner:How Jesus demands true love of man: 1. By His example; 2. by the most perfect doctrine.The peculiarity of Christian love of our neighbor: 1. Sources, 2. manifestations.The double eye of the Christian: 1. The eye of faith, Luk 10:23-24; Luke 2 the eye of love, Luk 10:25-35. The Christian is not to be one-eyed.Love, the true proof of faith.Palmer:How love again makes good what sin has ruined.Fuchs:Who is counted blessed by the Lord, is truly blessed.Schultz:How we in this world can become partakers of eternal life: 1. If we see that which Christ has revealed, Luk 10:23-24; Luke 2. if we so love as Christ requires, Luk 10:25-35; Luke 3. if we so work as Christ has enjoined, Luk 10:36-37.Happy he, 1. Who is a Samaritan; 2. happy he who finds one!Von Harless:Good Samaritan love: 1. Whom it profits; 2. how it manifests itself; 3. whence it comes.Florey:The glory of true love: 1. It inquires not, Luk 10:25; Luk 10:29; Luke 2. it hesitates not, Luk 10:33; Luke 3 it is not afraid; 4 it tarries not, Luk 10:34; Luke 5. it willingly sacrifices, and leaves nothing unfinished, Luk 10:35.F. Arndt:Active, helpful love.Burk:How we without the Lord Jesus nowhere, but with Him everywhere, may see our way.
The Pericope is admirably adapted for missionary sermons also.
Footnotes:
[12]Luk 10:35. (vox molestissima, Schultz). It is possible that it was omitted on account of the following (Meyer), but more probable that it is an explicative addition, since the mention of the would of itself direct attention to the continuance of the journey. [Om. B., D., L., Sin.; Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford retain it.C. C. S.]
[13]Luk 10:37.Rec.: . The reasons for preponderate.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
(25) And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (26) He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? (27) And he answering, said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. (28) And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. (29) But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? (30) And Jesus answering, said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. (31) And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. (32) And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. (33) But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion on him. (34) And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. (35) And on the morrow, when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him: and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. (36) Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? (37) And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
There can be no doubt but that this lawyer’s question was not with a view to learn from Christ, but to confound Christ; for it is said that he tempted him. And what a body of such critics have the servants of Jesus been tempted with ever since! How admirably our Lord sends the man to the law for conviction! When the law is used as Christ here useth it, the Holy Ghost makes it a school-master to Christ. By the law is the knowledge of sin, Rom 3:20 ; so that Jesus sent this lawyer to the law for self-condemnation. But how the man aimed to evade the force of it! He saith nothing about the love of God, but questions about his neighbour. The method the Lord took with this lawyer is both beautiful and striking: and though we have no authority to conclude the discourse ended in any saving work upon his heart, yet it could not but silence him with confusion. But, leaving the lawyer, it will be more for our purpose to observe some of the many precious things contained in this most interesting account of the wounded traveller and the kind Samaritan. Reader! we shall do no violence to the subject before us, if we behold, in this certain man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, our own nature in every individual instance of it, leaving the holy city, which Jerusalem represents, and going down to the cursed city, Jericho, so declared in the Scriptures of God, Neh 11:1 ; Jos 6:26 ; 1Ki 16:34 . As then this man, leaving the holy city, fell among thieves, which stripped him, wounded him, and left him half dead, so our nature, by the fall, is robbed by Satan, stripped of original righteousness, is made a whole mass of disease with the wounds of sin, and left more than half dead by the great enemy of souls. In soul – that is, spiritual death, truly dead in trespasses and sins. Eph 2:1 . And in body, exposed to natural death, certain and sure: and unless relieved, as this poor man was, during the present life, as certain of eternal death, both of body and soul forever. Such is the awful state of every man by nature.
Our Lord describes the passing, by of a Priest and a Levite, beholding the wounded traveller. The former immediately went on, seemingly regardless of his misery. The latter went and looked on him, but passed by on the other side. Probably, by these different characters, both equally unfriendly, might be meant, in allusion to our fallen helpless nature, the inability of either law or sacrifices, under the law, to heal the wounds of sin. But a certain Samaritan, Jesus describes as doing all the needful offices, nor departing from the wretched creature until he had brought him to an inn of safety. All commentaries, without hesitation, have considered this Samaritan as representing the Lord Jesus Christ. And there can be no doubt but that he, and he only, proved the divine Samaritan to our ruined nature. Yet, in the first view of the subject, Christ, in his human nature, was not a Samaritan, but a Jew. And moreover, if we trace the subject higher, and look at the Son of God, when first assuming our nature, he was indeed no Samaritan, that is, not a stranger, but from being the head, and husband of his Church, when he stood up as such, at the call of God, before all worlds, he, and he alone, was the nearest of all relations from all eternity. And his journeying, as is here represented, might be supposed to mean his coming down from the Jerusalem above, which is the mother of us all, to the Jericho of this world, brought under the curse by reason of the fall. But be this as it may, he proved the Samaritan to our nature. It is said that he saw him. Yes! Jesus beheld his Church from all eternity. Christ saw the Church when presented to him by his Father, before all worlds, in her native glory, in excellency in him. She was, from all eternity, a king’s daughter, all glorious within, being God the Father’s gift to his dear Son. Jesus saw her, loved her, delighted in her, for so the Scriptures speak: see Psa 21:1-2Psa 21:1-2 ; Pro 8:30-31Pro 8:30-31 . But the seeing our nature in the deplorable state of a robbed and wounded man here described, is in allusion to our Adam-nature , and time-state of sin and ruin, into which, by Satan, we are involved. And here comes in all those precious blessed offices the history represents, which so exactly corresponds to the mercies of Christ. If the Samaritan went to the wounded man, and poured in oil and wine, and bound up his mangled body, set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him, Jesus still more. The Son of God, in our nature, hath remembered us in our lowest estate, for his mercy endureth forever. He hath indeed not barely poured in the oil and wine, to heal the wounds of sin, but the precious balsam of his own blood. He hath set us not on his own beast, but borne us in his arms, and carried us in his bosom. He hath brought us to his Church, to the richest inn of plentiful provisions, in means of free and sovereign grace and ordinances of gospel worship; and having washed our wounds in the fountain he hath opened for sin and for uncleanness, he hath took care of us with all this care. And now, though as on the morrow of departure he is returned to glory, he hath commanded all his servants, who minister in his name, to be attentive to our wants, assuring them and us, that at his return, which he will assuredly make good his promise in coming, he will make ample amends to recompence all done for us during his stay. The two-pence spoken of , is in allusion to a Roman coin, about fifteen-pence in value, to our English money. Some have considered this two-pence as in allusion to the two Testaments; and some to the two ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But perhaps this may be fanciful. Yet though it were not necessary, nor perhaps proper, to strain the history to every minute, point, it may be well to gather from the whole, under divine teaching, what the Lord Jesus evidently intended from such a striking illustration of our ruin, and his mercy over us; so that every poor sinner, made sensible by grace of his lost estate by nature, and his wounded, ruined condition by Satan, may cry out, when contemplating Christ in the display of such mercy as is here set forth, and say, Lord Jesus! thou divine Samaritan, pass by and behold me, in my desperate circumstances, like this poor traveller. Pour in the precious balsam of thy blood, take me to thy Church, and heal me! The confession of the lawyer could be no other than what the Lord extorted from him. But it is not said that any other effect was wrought by it upon his mind.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
VII
THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN; JESUS, THE GUEST OF MARTHA AND MARY
Harmony, pages 111-112 and Luk 10:25-42
We commence this chapter with section 81 of the Harmony. Taking up Luk 10:25 , we have this statement: “And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tempted Jesus.” “Lawyer” here does not mean a pleader before a court, but an expounder of the Jewish law, which was both civil and ecclesiastical. The word “tempt” may have a good or a bad sense. May judgment is that the sense here is good. It means to try. “And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tempted Jesus, saying, Master [that means teacher], what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, What is written in the law?” i.e., You are a lawyer. Your business is to expound the law. “What is written in the law? How readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself.” Well, that is written in the law. It is a summary of the Ten Commandments. Not a New Testament summary, but the synopsis given by Moses himself, not all in one place, but in two different books of the Pentateuch. Here it is a quotation: “It is written in the law that thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind and thy neighbor as thyself.” “And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast answered right. Do this and thou shalt live.” Mark the answer: “Do this and thou shalt live.” “But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, Who is my neighbor? Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and he fell among robbers who both stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.”
That road from Jerusalem to Jericho was down hill all the way, the grade very steep and in certain parts of it almost a canyon through the mountains; a very narrow passway, with porous rocks on each side, honeycombed with caves. From time immemorial robbers have harbored in those caves and attacked travelers passing over that road from Jerusalem to Jericho and from Jericho to Jerusalem. In the time of the Crusaders an organization was formed called the “Knights Templars,” for the sole purpose of establishing their headquarters on that road and protecting travelers, keeping robbers off. That organization of the Knights Templars increased and changed its original form until it became the mightiest organized power of chivalry at one period, and of rascality at a later period. Kings found it necessary to the peace of their realms to banish them. Romance readers will recall Scott’s vivid description in Ivanhoe of their expulsion from England by Richard the Lion-hearted. In modern times we have the Knights Templars, a continuation of the old organization, only with different objects. Here it is well to note in passing that the illustrations of Jesus, while always supposititious, are always natural. His illustration is always a verisimilitude of real life; the thing could have naturally happened Just as he stated. “And by chance a certain priest was going down that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow he took out two-pence and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again will repay thee. Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor to him that fell among the robbers? And he said he that showed mercy on him. And Jesus said unto him, Go and do thou likewise.”
I ask the reader to note, first, our Lord’s method of dealing with men. He always addressed himself to the man’s standpoint in such a way as to awaken thought and produce self-conviction. Here was an expounder of the law relying upon his conformity to the law for eternal life; an expounder of the law who wanted to call out and try Jesus on this standard. Hence he comes with this most important of all questions: “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Oh, what a question! What a question for you, for me, for anybody, for everybody! “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Or, “What shall I do to escape eternal death?” Jesus says to him, “What does the law say?” “Well, the law says this: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength and with all thy mind and with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself.” Jesus replied to the man, “You have answered right. That is what the law says. That covers the scope of all the Commandments. That summary comprehends every detail, not only of the decalogue, but of every other statute, civil, ecclesiastical, ceremonial, or of any other kind. That is the whole of it. “On these two hang all the law and the prophets.” What was the question? “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Mark the answer: The law says, “Thou shalt love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself. Do this and thou shalt live. You are standing in the law. You are an expounder of the law. You are seeking justification before the law, from your standpoint. Here is your chance. Do this and thou shalt live. Fail to do this and thou shalt die.”
Just here comes up a question. As men now are am not talking about Adam and how he was, but as men now are, is this a practical way of life? That is, is it possible for eternal life to be obtained this way? And the answer to it is prompt and clear: “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in the sight of God.” That makes it absolutely impracticable. There is God’s inspired declaration that while it remains true if a man will do what the law requires, he shall inherit eternal life, yet under present conditions it cannot be done; no man can obtain eternal life that way. And here arises a question in morality. Why then did Jesus say, “Do this and thou shalt live?” Why did be answer the question that way? For this reason: It was the object of Jesus to convict that man. That man did not think he was a sinner. Jesus knew he was. The Bible says, “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” And Paul says, “I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came sin revived and I died.” Now that man stood before Jesus without any consciousness that he was a lost soul, and there in that delusion, he was going along a road that he thought would certainly land him in heaven, and the only way on the earth to cause him to turn from his hopeless and doomed path was to produce the conviction in his mind that he was a lost sinner. Hence Jesus says, “This is what the law says: Do it. Come and look in this mirror and let it, as you look, reflect back yourself to your sight, that you may see that you are not loving God with all your heart, with all your strength, with all your mind, and that you are not loving your neighbor as yourself.” In other words, he turned Mount Sinai, trembling with the touch of God’s foot and crested with the fire that shows his presence and throbbing with the thunders of his power, over on this man, not to save him, but to bring him to Calvary. Moses was a schoolmaster unto Christ. This lawyer stood there and said: “I am for the law. I am going to stand on my own record. I am going before the bar of God, at the last, and according to what I have done I will seek justification. Now, the sooner Jesus got that man to see what was the heart, the spirit, as well as the exceeding broadness of the divine commandment, the better it was for him. That was the object that Jesus had.
Pursuing the discussion our next question is: What is the constant attitude of the mind of a man who is trying to get to heaven that way? This passage says of the lawyer, “He, desiring to justify himself.” There it is. The constant attitude is a desire to justify himself. But what does that desire to justify himself prompt him to do? Here is that high, broad commandment of God: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself,” and here is a man trying to save himself by obedience to that law, and very anxious to justify himself. What result follows? He lowers that law to suit the grades of his obedience. How does this lawyer manifest that? By the question, “Who is my neighbor? “Oh, yes, I am seeking salvation by the law. The law says I must love my neighbor as myself. Now in order for my obedience to that law to be practicable, I must so limit I the meaning of that word ‘neighbor’ as that my obedience will be co-extensive with it.” The very first thing that it induces is the lowering of the divine commandment to suit the grade of the obedience. The lawyer in his mind was saying, “My neighbor is a Jew, and a Jew of my own sect, a Pharisee; of course not a Sadducee. He is not a neighbor of mine; an Essene, he is not a neighbor of mine; a Samaritan, pah! I would not even look toward a Samaritan. I love my neighbor as myself, but you must let me say who my neighbor is, that it means my brother Pharisee.” Now we can see why Jesus gave him that answer, and to expose that man’s profanation of the divine commandment and the sophistry with which he sought to justify himself, he gives the parable of the good Samaritan. As if he had said, “I will throw a side light on that subject of neighbor, and I will throw such a side light as you yourself with your own mouth shall condemn yourself.” Didn’t he condemn himself? What does the record say? When Christ got through with that story of the good Samaritan he puts the question to this lawyer: “Which of these three thinkest thou proved neighbor to him that fell among the robbers?” And out from his very lips the answer had to come, “He that showed mercy to him.” But where does this answer land his law-righteousness? “If that is what the word ‘neighbor’ means, looking back over your past life, O Pharisee, where is your Justification? How have you loved your neighbor as yourself? You that seek to be justified by the law, in the light of this parable defining neighbor, you are a lost soul and you know it. You know you hate a Samaritan. You know you hate a Sadducee. You know you hate the Gentile. You know that you have wrapt the mantle of your exclusiveness about you, lest you should come in contact, and by contact receive defilement, from other men, and you have kept narrowing the law, narrowing it until you have got a little bit of a circle here, described by the word ‘neighbor,’ that confines only you and your wife and your son and his wife, and nobody else in the world.”
I never saw a man on the face of this earth that stood on the basis of his morality, that stood on his own record, either before or after his conversion, that did not lower the divine law in order to make his obedience fill what the law required. A sliding scale! A sliding scale! I can keep the law perfectly if I may reach up and slide it down to fit what I do. So the parable of the good Samaritan disposes of the lawyer’s quibble on the Second Commandment.
Let us now take up section 82 (Luk 10:38-42 ), our Lord’s first visit to the home of Mary and Martha. Perhaps no part of the Bible has attracted more quiet, pleasing attention than the part which tells of the relation of Jesus Christ to this Bethany family, consisting of two sisters and a brother. We have four special accounts of it. This is the first one, where Jesus makes the acquaintance of the family, and Martha, who seems to be the head of the house, the elder sister, invites him to be her guest. The second account is when they send him a message that their brother is sick, and his coming after the brother dies, and raising him to life again. The third account is later, six days before his last Passover, when he visits Bethany again. The fourth is still later, when, in this very village, a certain man, once a leper, gives him a feast and invites to meet him his friends and his disciples. In this case, as in the first, Martha characteristically serves the outer man while Mary ministers to the spiritual nature of Jesus.
The first question that called for solution in my own mind as I began to study this passage, was this: What object had Christ in view in entering into this or any other house while he was here upon earth? If we once understand his purpose, the great reason prompting him to come, we can understand then what reception of him would be most consistent with that purpose and hence would best please him. He himself tells his purpose. He says, “I come not to be ministered unto, but to minister.” He did not come into the world to be made much of as a guest, to receive a stranger’s hospitality. He came to save the world, to minister to them. That purpose never left his mind. It follows that when he accepted this invitation he would approve as the better reception of him, that which best accorded with his object in going there.
The two sisters seem to have formed separate ideas of the kind of reception to tender Jesus. One of them, as we infer from what is said of her every time she is mentioned in the Bible, was a very careful housekeeper, with much pride in her housekeeping, and who, when she received a guest, thought that the best thing she could do would be to prepare a very sumptuous meal for him, and so she put herself to a vast deal of trouble in the preparation of this meal. She counted it a big thing, something well worthy of thought and anxiety and preparation. And so highly did she emphasize this part of hospitality that it drove everything else out of her mind. “Now the way I am to receive this guest who comes to my house this day is to spread before him such a table as he has not seen in a long time.” This involved a great deal of work. The other sister had this idea of hospitality that to receive a guest properly implies that he be given her company; that it did not suffice to feed him, for he could provide food elsewhere, but if he came to that house he came to enjoy the companionship of those who were there. So, while the one concluded to give him a dinner, the other decided to give him her company, to entertain him personally. This view of it would strike any thoughtful mind at once as being the best attention a thoughtful hostess could possibly pay to a guest; to show by her presence, by the delicate manner in which she listens to what he says, is the best way to receive him, far higher in the scale of hospitality than to so busy herself about less important matters as to allow no opportunity for personal conversation or communion with him. On this point then, all good judges of hospitality will say that Mary’s method was the better method.
But I pass to something very much higher than this. As was stated, our Lord came to minister to other people. He came to do them good. He was the great teacher of the way of life. He came to open up to them a plan of reconciliation to God. He came to save the souls of the people with whom he came in contact. Mary seemed to understand that: “Now as that is his mission, as his heart is on that, as he is thinking more of saving my soul than of eating a fine dinner in this house, I will receive him, not to my table but to my heart. Come and reign in my soul forever, Lord Jesus.” And I submit that the reception of Jesus into the soul, to give him a welcome into the heart, is far higher than simply to give him a welcome at the table. A great many people have kind thoughts about the Son of God and his kingdom who are ready enough at times to minister, with some degree of thoughtfulness, to what are called the external wants of the kingdom of God, and yet these people are very slow to welcome that kingdom into their own souls, very reluctant to say, “I will not only give a portion of my time, of my money, and of my best skill to attend to the external parts of the Christian religion, but independent of all this, and higher than all of this infinitely, I will give myself, and let the Lord Jesus Christ be the King of my soul.”
It is important next to observe that when he came to that house these two ways were optional. Martha chose one. Mary chose the other. I am not now discussing that high and mysterious and great doctrine of God’s election, God’s choosing us from before the foundation of the world, but I am speaking of the choice that we make. Here was a necessity of choice put upon these two women: “Jesus is coming to this house today. He will be a guest under this roof, and to both of us is an opportunity of election, as to the better method of receiving him.” Martha chose one way and Mary chose the other way. Let us see then what this choice was. It is said that, “Mary sat at his feet.” What does it mean? Does it mean that he occupied a high chair and that she took a stool or low chair, and literally and actually sat at his feet? There is not the slightest reference to that. Painters indeed catch that thought and so represent it in the great masterpieces given to the world on canvas, concerning this scene. But the expression “sitting at the feet” is what is called a Hebrew idiom. Paul refers to it. He says he sat at the feet of Gamaliel. What does it mean there? It means that Gamaliel was the teacher and Paul was the pupil. To sit at one’s feet then, in all the sense meant here, is to put one’s self under the instruction of another, to become a pupil, to be taught. Behold then, the scene! The great Teacher has come to this house. His object is to teach and to teach the greatest thing. He comes to teach as no other can teach. Now, if the Teacher is coming, which is the better, to be no more than an ordinary cook to furnish him a dinner, or to receive instruction from him, to put the life under his direction? Note this point: To submit one’s self to the tuition of Jesus is to become the disci- ple of Jesus. Jesus is the Master, the Teacher. Mary became the disciple or pupil. Approach that thought through a lower form. Suppose such a man as Socrates, the great teacher of philosophy, has come to the marketplace in Athens; and two services are there offered to him. First, a friendly huckster in the marketplace arranges for him a sumptuous repast, which is confessedly a very thoughtful, pleasant kindness; second, Alcibiades comes with lordly intellect, and princely form, and mighty influence to say, “O Socrates, teach me; impart to me thy wisdom. Let me receive thy familiar instruction.” Which service would please the great philosopher most? And when we consider that our Lord’s teaching was infinitely higher than the teaching of any earthly philosopher, that it involved a gathering back of all the clouds of darkness that hide the other world from human sight, that it revealed to the clear eye of faith the great hereafter, eternity and judgment and salvation and glory, and that this is the first time that this Teacher comes to that house, why did it not occur to Martha: “The supreme thing that I can do this day is to place myself at Jesus’ feet, saying, ‘O Lord, instruct me.’ “
The question recurs, Which would he like the better? Fortunately we have some examples from the Bible that show us which he liked best. On one occasion when traveling through Samaria, he stopped at Jacob’s well near Sychar. They were tired and hungry; Jesus was very weary; they had walked a long way, and the minds of the disciples were very much concerned about dinner and what they should eat. For this they left him. But there came a woman to this well, and instantly Jesus forgot the hunger of his body and began the joyous work of leading a soul to salvation and making that soul the instrument of leading many others to salvation. And when the disciples return with their baskets of dinner he waves them aside and says, “I have meat to eat that ye know not of. You ask me which I prefer, which I would esteem as the greater joy, for you to bring me food to minister to temporal and physical hunger, or for God my Father to open up a way for me to show a lost soul how to find salvation.” No wonder that his worldly minded brothers thought he was crazy on this very point, for we are told that on one occasion when word was brought to them that he was so much absorbed in teaching, in reaching out the hand to lead souls to eternal life, that he would not so much as eat, they said, “He is out of his mind.” They wanted to get out a writ of lunacy against him and apprehend him, to lay violent hands upon the one who was so crazy as to prefer teaching the plan of salvation and the way of eternal life to the satisfaction of temporal hunger.
These two cases show how much more the Son of God appreciated the reception that Mary gave him than the reception that Martha gave him. She sat at his feet and heard his words. He says, “Mary hath chosen that good part. Martha, thou art anxious and troubled about a great many things. There is only one thing in this world that it is needful to be anxious about, just one, and that is the obtaining of that good part which can never be taken away.” It is a waste of human energy; it is a degradation of human dignity; it is a reflection upon the majesty of the image of God in which a human being is made, that we should have distracting cares and anxieties about infinitesimally small things, the millions of them, when if they were all put together they would not weigh even as a particle of fine dust in the balance of God’s judgment, and that too, when the great question of eternal life is not solved. Look at the Sermon on the Mount. See how he addresses himself to this question. He says, “Be not anxious about what ye shall eat nor what ye shall drink, nor what ye shall put on. The life is more than the raiment, than the food of the body, but seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and afterward all these things shall be added to you.”
There was the wisdom of Mary; she chose the chief thing first. She made the great thing paramount. And there was the folly of Martha, that she disturbed her mind and fretted and fumed and took cares and burdens on her soul when that supreme question with her had not been settled. Here is a comparison between many things and one thing. “Martha, Martha, thou art disturbed about many things, but one thing is worth anxiety, only one thing in this world that you need to be deeply concerned about, and when that thing is settled, everything is settled, and when that is unsettled, all things are unsettled.” It is only another instance of our Lord’s manner of impressing upon his audience, whether that audience was a great crowd of people or a single individual, that we should first settle our relation with God, that we should fix our thoughts on the great need of the soul, and never allow anything else to be accounted as worthy of consideration until that supreme question was thoroughly and effectually settled. He gives as a reason for this that the good part that Mary chose could not be taken away from her.
This is the doctrinal point and I will discuss is briefly.
Our Saviour here certainly teaches that if one does choose God and eternal life, it can never be taken away from him.. I know there are some who teach that one may have that good part today and may lose it tomorrow. That puts it on an equality with the dinner that Martha made, with the perishable things, sweet to the taste and gladsome to the sight, here now and gone tomorrow, and the same hunger crying out to be appeased as if we had never stood at that feast. Over against the perishable in sublime contrast Christ puts the imperishable. Over against the things which slip through our fingers even while we grasp them, and the robes which fade even while we wear them, he puts the crown of eternal life, and predicates the wisdom of choice upon the fact that no change of season, no vicissitudes of life, no emergency that can arise under the sun, can ever jeopardize what we have gained when our souls once get that good part.
The psalmist refers to this in that precious division of the book of Songs that has always been a favorite with me, Psa 73 . After staling that God will guide him on earth with his counsel and afterward receive him into glory, he bursts into this rapture: “Though my heart fail, though my flesh fail, O God, thou art my portion forever.” “Mary hath chosen that good portion which shall not be taken away from her.” And in talking with his disciples about it he says, “I give unto them eternal life [mark the nature of it, eternal], and they shall never perish.” “None shall pluck them out of my hand.” “I am persuaded that neither life, nor death, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus.” The value then of this good part consists in that when we once get it, it is ours forever. It is inalienable.
There are no destroying forces of wind or wave, or fire or persecution, that can eliminate one grain of substance from the solid and enduring gift of God, but in its fulness and in its entirety it is ours forever and ever.
“Mary hath chosen that good part which can never be taken away from her.”
Let us notice in the next place that when we make an election of the good thing first that it shows the highest wisdom in this, that we secure the other things also. The apostle Paul referring to this says, “All things are yours. Is Peter a gifted apostle? If you are Christ’s, Peter is yours. Is Apollos, that great rhetorician from Alexandria, who being converted to God turned all of the powers of his cultured mind to the ministry of God, desirable? Then Apollos is yours, and life is yours, and death is yours, and heaven is yours.” All things are ours if we get the main thing, which is God.
We are so constituted, God made us so, that we can never be satisfied if we do not get that lasting portion that never can be taken away from us. The prophet Isaiah compares what are ordinarily called the good things of this world to a cistern. The cistern is a vessel limited, and a broken cistern can not hold any water. Not only is it limited in its capacity, while our cravings are unlimited on account of the eternity of our being, because we have a deathless soul, but even as a cistern it is cracked and lets the water out, whereas God, he says, is an unfailing fountain that is not wasted by its outgushing fulness and its overflowing, a fountain which comes from such deep reservoirs and such a great volume of accumulated waters that it commenced to sparkle and sing when the earth was created, and when the last day dawns on the world that fountain is still flowing. He says, “My people have committed two evils. They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have hewed out for themselves broken cisterns which can hold no water.”
Hear the words of a great and good man. Patrick Henry thus closed his last will and testament: “I have now disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing I wish that I could give them and that is the Christian religion. If they had that (and I had not given them one shilling) they would be rich; and if they have not that (and I had given them all the world) they would be poor.” Whoever has God and nothing else is rich indeed. Whoever has everything else and not God, is poor indeed. Then we see why one is called the good part. We see how there is no necessity to have any undue cares and anxieties about the little things. They are not worth it. The human soul ought not to vex itself over the nonattainable. Let them go if they do not come of themselves. Now we can understand what our Saviour meant when the disciples, the seventy that were sent out, came back rejoicing. “What are you so glad about?” “Lord, the devils are subject unto us.” “Rejoice not that the devils are subject unto you. Why? Because there is only one thing in which the soul should rejoice. Rather rejoice that your names are written in heaven. Rejoice that the good portion is yours; rejoice that the great question of salvation has been settled and settled forever, and can never become unsettled.” And that is why also those preachers who go out among the people, whose minds are so possessed with the value of a soul, who can enter into the depths of that question of Jesus, “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul when it is once lost?” why the preachers who go out with that great ruling thought in their heart and address themselves to saving men, become such grand preachers. It is a nice thing to get up in the pulpit and sometimes, if we do not take too much time for it, a profitable thing to tell how many miles it is from Dan to Beersheba, and what is the grade of the fall of the river Jordan, and how much lower the Dead Sea is than the Mediterranean. These are good points, but if a preacher’s mind is fixed on them, if he stops to look at landscapes, if his fancy is carried away with the height and blueness of mountains, if he stops to gaze at the trees and the flowers as he goes and forgets that souls are perishing, his ministry is barren, and the world could well do without him.
QUESTIONS
1. Recite the story of the good Samaritan.
2. What is the meaning of “lawyer” in this connection?
3. What are the two meanings of the word “tempt” and what its meaning here?
4. What question did the lawyer ask Jesus and how did Jesus turn the question upon him?
5. What was the lawyer’s reply and where do we find this teaching in the Old Testament?
6. What was Jesus’ reply to the lawyer’s statement?
7. How did the lawyer then try to evade the proposition and what was Jesus’ reply?
8. Describe the road from Jerusalem to Jericho.
9. What organization was formed as a result of such conditions as herein described and what of their later history?
10. What can you say of the illustrations of Jesus and what does this parable illustrate?
11. Who then is your neighbor?
12. What can you say of Jesus’ method of dealing with men, what our Lord’s purpose here and how is it here demonstrated?
13. What use does Jesus make of the law here and how does it con- form to the New Testament teaching on the same point? Discuss.
14. What is the constant attitude of a man who is trying to get to heaven by the works of the law and what result follows?
15. How does the parable of the good Samaritan explode the lawyer’s theory of “Who is my neighbor”?
16. What can you say of the Bible accounts of the relation of Jesus to the Bethany family? Recite these accounts.
17. What was the purpose of our Lord in entering this or any other house in his earthly ministry?
18. What were the different ideas of the two sisters respecting the entertainment of our Lord and which must have pleased him the better?
19. How do these two women illustrate the relative importance of the externals and internals of the kingdom?
20. What can you say of the freedom in the choice of Martha and Mary and what is meant by “Mary sat at the Lord’s feet?” Illustrate.
21. What illustrations from Christ’s ministry showing his appreciation of the spiritual over the temporal?
22. What of the teaching of our Lord here touching anxieties and how does it correspond to his teaching elsewhere?
23. How is Mary’s wisdom here seen above her sister Martha’s?
24. What is the doctrinal point here? Discuss.
25. How is the highest wisdom shown in the election of the “good thing” first?
26. Why is this called the “good part”? Discuss and illustrate.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Ver. 25. See Mat 22:35 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
25 37. ] QUESTION OF A LAWYER: THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN. Peculiar to Luke . As Stier remarks (iii. 101, edn. 2), it is well that Luke has related the other incident respecting an enquiry of the same kind, for the critics would be sure to have maintained that this incident was another report of Mat 19:16 . Such clear cases as this should certainly teach us caution, where no such proof is given of the independence of different narratives: and should shew us that both questions addressed to our Lord, and answers from Him, were, as matter of fact, repeated.
See however a case to which this remark does not apply, ch. Luk 9:57 ff.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
25. ] No immediate sequence from Luk 10:24 is implied.
, a kind of scribe, = , ch. Luk 5:17 whose especial office it was to teach the law, see Tit 3:13 ; = , Mar 12:28 .
There is no reason to suppose that the lawyer had any hostile intention towards Jesus, rather perhaps a self-righteous spirit (see Luk 10:29 ), which wanted to see what this Teacher could inform him, who knew so much already . Thus it was a tempting or trying of Jesus, though not to entangle Him: for whatever had been the answer, this could hardly have followed.
] He doubtless expects to hear of some great deed; but our Lord refers him back to the Law of which he was a teacher.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 10:25-37 . The lawyer’s question, and the parable of the good Samaritan . Many critics (even Weiss, Mk.-Evang., p. 400) think that Lk. or his source has got the theme of this section from Mat 22:35 ff., Mar 12:28 ff., and simply enriched it with the parable of the good Samaritan, peculiar to him. Leaving this critical question on one side, it may be remarked that this story seems to be introduced on the principle of contrast, the representing the , to whom the things of the kingdom are hidden as opposed to the , to whom they are revealed, i.e. , the disciples whom Jesus had just congratulated on their felicity. Similarly in the case of the anecdote of the woman in Simon’s house, Luk 7:36 , vide notes there. J. Weiss remarks that this story and the following one about Martha and Mary form a pair, setting forth in the sense of the Epistle of James (Luk 2:8 ; Luk 2:13-14 ) the two main requirements of Christianity, love to one’s neighbour and faith ( vide in Meyer, ad loc ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Luk 10:25 . , stood up; from this expression and the present tense of , how readest thou now? it has been conjectured that the scene may have been a synagogue. : the , like the of Luk 18:18 , is professedly in quest of eternal life.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Luke
NEIGHBOURS FAR OFF
Luk 10:25 – Luk 10:37
The lawyer’s first question was intended to ‘tempt’ Jesus, which here seems to mean, rather, ‘to test’; that is, to ascertain His orthodoxy or His ability. Christ walks calmly through the snare, as if not seeing it. His answer is unimpeachably orthodox, and withal just hints in the slightest way that the question was needless, since one so learned in the law knew well enough what were the conditions of inheriting life. The lawyer knows the letter too well to be at a loss what to answer. But it is remarkable that he gives the same combination of two passages which Jesus gives in His last duel with the Pharisees Mat 22:1 – Mat 22:46 ; Mar 12:1 – Mar 12:44. Did Jesus adopt this lawyer’s summary? Or is Luke’s narrative condensed, omitting stages by which Jesus led the man to so wise an answer?
Our Lord’s rejoinder has a marked tone of authority, which puts the lawyer in his right place. His answer is commended, as by one whose estimate has weight; and his practice is implicitly condemned, as by one who knows, and has a right to judge. ‘This do’ is a sharp sword-thrust. It also unites the two ‘loves’ as essentially one, by saying ‘This’-not ‘these’-’do.’ The lawyer feels the prick, and it is his defective practice, not his question, which he seeks to ‘justify.’ He did not think that his love to God needed any justification. He had fully done his duty there, but about the other half he was less sure. So he tried to ride off, lawyer-like, on a question of the meaning of words. ‘Who is my neighbour?’ is the question answered by the lovely story of the kindly Samaritan.
I. The main purpose, then, is to show how far off men may be, and yet be neighbours.
‘Neighbourhood,’ in his judgment, implied ‘nearness,’ and he wished to know how far off the boundaries of the region included in the command lay. There are a great many of us like him, who think that the obligation is a matter of geography, and that love, like force, is inversely as the square of the distance. A good deal of the so-called virtue of ‘patriotism’ is of this spurious sort. But Christ’s way of putting the question sweeps all such limitations aside. ‘Who became neighbour to’ the wounded man? ‘He who showed mercy on him,’ said the lawyer, unwilling to name the Samaritan, and by his very reluctance giving the point to his answer which Christ wished to bring out. We are not to love because we are neighbours in any geographical sense, but we become neighbours to the man farthest from us when we love and help him. The relation has nothing to do with proximity. If we prove ourselves neighbours to any man by exercising love to him, then the relation intended by the word is as wide as humanity. We recognise that A. is our neighbour when a throb of pity shoots through our heart, and thereby we become neighbours to him.
The story is not, properly speaking, a parable, or imaginary narrative of something in the physical world intended to be translated into something in the spiritual region, but it is an illustration by an imaginary narrative of the actual virtue in question. Every detail is beautifully adapted to bring out the lesson that the obligation of neighbourly affection has nothing to do with nearness either of race or religion, but is as wide as humanity. The wounded man was probably a Jew, but it is significant that his nationality is not mentioned. He is ‘a certain man,’ that is all. The Samaritan did not ask where he was born before he helped him. So Christ teaches us that sorrow and need and sympathy and help are of no nationality.
That lesson is still more strongly taught by making the helper a Samaritan. Perhaps, if Jesus had been speaking in America, he would have made him a negro; or, if in France, a German; or, if in England, a ‘foreigner.’ It was a daring stroke to bring the despised name of ‘Samaritan’ into the story, and one sees what a hard morsel to swallow the lawyer found it, by his unwillingness to name him after all.
The nations have not yet learned the deep, simple truth of this parable. It absolutely forbids all limitations of mercy and help. It makes every man the neighbour of every man. It carries in germ the great truth of the brotherhood of the race. ‘Humanity’ is a purely Christian word, and a conception that was never dreamed of before Christ had showed us the unity of mankind. We slowly approximate to the realisation of the teaching of this story, which is oftener admired than imitated, and perhaps oftenest on the lips of people who obey it least.
II. Another aspect of the parable is its lesson as to the true manifestations of neighbourliness.
The various acts are enumerated as showing the genius of true love. We notice the swift, cool-headed deftness of the man, his having at hand the appliances needed, the business-like way in which he goes about his kindness, his readiness to expend his wine and oil, his willingness to do the surgeon’s work, his cheerful giving up of his ‘own beast,’ while he plodded along on foot, steadying the wounded man on his ass; his care for him at the inn; his generosity, and withal his prudence, in not leaving a great sum in the host’s hands, but just enough to tide over a day or two, and his wise hint that he would audit the accounts when he came back. This man’s quick compassion was blended with plenty of shrewdness, and was as practical as the hardest, least compassionate man could have been. There is need for organisation, ‘faculty,’ and the like, in the work of loving our neighbour. A thousand pities that sometimes Christian charity and Christian common-sense dissolve partnership. The Samaritan was a man of business, and he did his compassion in a business-like fashion, as we should try to do.
III. Another lesson inwrought into the parable is the divorce between religion and neighbourliness, as shown in the conduct of the priest and Levite.
Let professing Christians especially lay to heart the solemn lesson that there does lie in their very religion the possibility of their being culpably unconcerned about some of the world’s wounds, and that, if their love to God does not find a field for its manifestation in active love to man, worship in the Temple will be mockery. Philanthropy is, in our days, often substituted for religion. The service of man has been put forward as the only real service of God. But philanthropic unbelievers and unphilanthropic believers are equally monstrosities. What God hath joined let not man put asunder. That simple ‘and,’ which couples the two great commandments, expresses their indissoluble connection. Well for us if in our practice they are blended in one!
It is not spiritualising this narrative when we say that Jesus is Himself the great pattern of the swift compassion and effectual helpfulness which it sets forth. Many unwise attempts have been made to tack on spiritual meanings to the story. These are as irreverent as destructive of its beauty and significance. But to say that Christ is the perfect example of that love to every man which the narrative portrays, has nothing in common with these fancies. It is only when we have found in Him the pity and the healing which we need, that we shall go forth into the world with love as wide as His.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 10:25-37
25And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” 27And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.” 29But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. 31And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, 34and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ 36Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” 37And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”
Luk 10:25-37 This dialogue and parable of the Good Samaritan is discussed from an eastern perspective in Kenneth Bailey, Through Peasant Eyes, pp. 33-56. It is so helpful to allow the culture of the original author to illuminate the text.
Luk 10:25 “lawyer” This refers to scribes (cf. Mar 12:28) and from Mat 22:34, a Pharisee. Scribes developed during the exilic period and supplanted the Levites as interpreters of the written OT and oral traditions (Talmud) to the contemporary situation. They could be Sadducees or Pharisees. Most in Jesus’ day were Pharisees. They will become the rabbis of our day. See SPECIAL TOPIC: SCRIBES at Luk 5:21.
“stood up” This shows that they were in an official teaching session of Jesus.
“test” This term implies evil motives on the scribe’s part; Luk 10:29 seems to substantiate this. This term is used in the NT in the connotation of “to test with a view toward destruction.” See Special Topic at Luk 4:2.
“what shall I do to inherit eternal life” This implies one great act or a series of human acts. This man, as most first century Jews (cf. Luk 18:18), based salvation on human actions and merits (keeping the Mosaic Law, cf. Lev 18:5; Deu 27:26; Gal 3:1-14). Luke, writing to Gentiles, asks about salvation instead of the greatest commandment of the Jewish Law. Since all humans are sinful (cf. Rom 3:9-18; Rom 3:23), they cannot be saved by their actions. This is where the gift of God in Christ’s death and resurrection is crucial (cf. Rom 5:6-11; Rom 6:23; Eph 2:8-9).
Notice that Jesus does not say here “trust Me,” but describes how a person who has trusted Jesus will act (cf. Mat 25:31-46). Jews thought they were right with God because of their lineage (i.e., seed of Abraham) and obedience to the Mosaic Law and its interpretation in the Oral Tradition. Jesus tries to startle this man’s thinking by highlighting “love,” unexpected, outrageous love.
“eternal life” “Eternal life” is a characterization used often by John to describe the life of the new age, God’s kind of life. This question shows that this was a Pharisee because the Sadducees denied the resurrection. He was interpreting this phrase in light of his own background so, therefore, eternal life was a continuation of the present order.
Luk 10:26
NASB”How does it read to you”
NKJV, NJB”What is your reading of it”
NRSV”What do you read there”
TEV”How do you interpret them”
This man was a trained Bible interpreter, so Jesus asked him about his personal understanding of the question. Jesus even affirms his interpretation. There are two concerns here.
1. All believers need to be able to document what they believe from Scripture, not from culture, traditions, or denominational indoctrination. This man knew his Bible!
2. Though right on a theological truth, he missed the most important thingsalvation through faith in Christ.
Luk 10:27 “What is written in the Law” This refers to the Mosaic Law (Genesis – Deuteronomy). Every Jewish person in first century Palestine went to Synagogue school as a child. This man had further training in the OT. He knew the OT well, especially the writings of Moses.
Jesus is testing his knowledge just as he was trying to test Jesus.
SPECIAL TOPIC: THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT
“he answered and said, ‘You shall love the Lord your God” This is from Deu 6:4-5, called the Shema (“to hear so as to do”). This man possibly pointed to his phylactery, which contained this verse. It shows that primary focus is on our attitude of commitment toward God that includes everything we are.
“and your neighbor as yourself” This is a quote from Lev 19:18 in the Septuagint. Jesus linked theological truth to practical, ethical demands. It is impossible to love God and hate those made in His image (cf. 1Jn 2:9-11; 1Jn 3:15; 1Jn 4:20).
It is impossible to love your neighbor (i.e., covenant brother or sister) as yourself if you do not love yourself. There is an appropriate self-love which is based on God’s priority love for mankind. We are His creation, fashioned in His image (cf. Gen 1:26-27). We must rejoice in our giftedness and accept our physical, mental, and psychological makeup (cf. Psalms 139). To criticize ourselves is to criticize our Maker! He can transform our fallenness into a reflection of His glory (i.e., Christlikeness).
Christianity involves a personal faith commitment to God through Christ. It starts as an individual volitional decision of repentance and faith. However, it issues in a family experience (so important in Eastern culture). We are gifted for the common good (cf. 1Co 12:7). We are part of the body of Christ. How we treat others reveals our true devotion to Christ. The oneness of God and mankind made in the image and likeness of God demands an appropriate response toward God and toward other humans, (i.e., especially those of the household of faith).
Luk 10:28 “do this” This is a present active imperative. We must act on our understanding of God’s truth and will. Remember that Jesus was speaking to a scribe.
“and you will live” This is not Jesus’ affirmation of potential works-righteousness, but a response geared to the man’s OT understanding (cf. Eze 20:11). For NT understanding of the place of the Mosaic Law in salvation see Gal 3:6-14 and Rom 3:20-21. The new covenant of Jer 31:31-34 is an internal, mercy-based covenant, not a performance-based covenant. Mankind was unable to choose the right and avoid the evil (cf. Rom 3:9-18; Rom 3:23). The Sermon on the Mount extends OT performance to attitude, yet it still demands holiness (cf. Mat 5:48). The first truth of the gospel is mankind’s inability and spiritual need (cf. Rom 3:9-18). One only needs a Savior when they realize their need!
Luk 10:29 “who is my neighbor” This was a hot question in Judaism. Mostly it was Jews only, and often only certain Jews.
Luk 10:30 “A man” The implication was a fellow Jew. For guidelines on interpreting parables, see the contextual insights in Luke 8, B.
“Jerusalem to Jericho” Jerome later called this highway “the bloody way” because of the violence which so often occurred there. It was a seventeen mile trip which descended 3000 feet.
Luk 10:31-32 “priest. . .Levite” These religious leaders were afraid of (1) thieves; (2) defilement (cf. Leviticus 21 or Num 19:11); (3) involvement; and (4) time constraints.
Luk 10:33 “Samaritan” Jesus really shocked these Jews by using a hated Samaritan as the hero of the parable. Samaritans were half Jew and half pagan, resulting from the resettlement policies of the Assyrian exile of the northern ten tribes in 722 B.C. (i.e., fall of Samaria). They had developed a rival temple (Mt. Gerizim) and a rival text (the Samaritan Pentateuch).
Luk 10:34 “oil. . .wine” These were medicines of the day, oil for softening the skin and wine, with its natural alcohol, for killing infections.
“brought him to an inn” Today there are archaeological remains of two caravan-stop compounds about halfway between Jerusalem and Jericho.
Luk 10:35 “two denarii” One denarius was a day’s wage for a laborer or soldier. This amount would pay for about 14 days’ room and board.
“when I return I will repay you” Apparently the man was a regular customer. His care and concern was consistent and persistent.
Luk 10:36 Here is the key point of the parable and Jesus’ answer to this man’s question in Luk 10:29.
Luk 10:37 “The one who took showed mercy toward him” The scribe could not bring himself to say “Samaritan.”
“Go and do the same” This is a present middle (deponent) imperative and a present active imperative. This verse links up contextually to Luk 10:28.
This extension of “neighbor” from OT “covenant partner” (i.e., fellow Jew) to the hated Samaritan would have shocked this lawyer/scribe. Yet, it is this very extension that characterized Jesus’ teaching (and Luke’s emphasis). The OT categories of national and racial emphasis are expanded into global spheres. The new paradigm is believer vs. unbeliever, not Jew vs. Gentile (cf. Rom 3:22; Rom 10:12; 1Co 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). No NT author reaffirms OT national, racial, or geographical promises. Jerusalem is no longer a city in Palestine, but the “New Jerusalem” coming down out of heaven to a recreated earth (cf. Rev 21:2). The new age is not Jewish!! The gospel is not about Israel but about Jesus!
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
lawyer = doctor or teacher of the Law.
and tempted Him = putting Him to the test.
Master = Teacher. App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
25-37.] QUESTION OF A LAWYER: THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN. Peculiar to Luke. As Stier remarks (iii. 101, edn. 2), it is well that Luke has related the other incident respecting an enquiry of the same kind, for the critics would be sure to have maintained that this incident was another report of Mat 19:16. Such clear cases as this should certainly teach us caution, where no such proof is given of the independence of different narratives: and should shew us that both questions addressed to our Lord, and answers from Him, were, as matter of fact, repeated.
See however a case to which this remark does not apply, ch. Luk 9:57 ff.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 10:25-26. And, behold a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
That was a most appropriate answer to a lawyer. You ask me what you should do; well, you profess to be a teacher of the law, you ought, therefore, to know what is written in the law.
Luk 10:27-28. And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
This lawyer was one of those people who know the law, yet do it not. No doubt Jesus struck the nail on the head when he gave him that very pertinent answer, This do, and thou shalt live. This lawyer was trying to live by teaching the law, by his knowledge of it, but Christ insists that nothing will do but a practical carrying out of its precepts.
Luk 10:29. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
He probably meant to say, I have not any neighbours; I have no near relations; my father and mother are dead and gone, I have no brothers and sisters, and therefore I may be excused from the duty of loving anyone else as I love myself. Jesus did not answer the lawyers question, Who is my neighbour? He did not turn the eyes of the man to the poor mendicants who needed charity, but he made him look at himself.
Luk 10:30-31. And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
This priest had been up to the temple to perform his part of the service; he was much too good, in his own opinion, to go and touch a man who was wounded, he passed by on the other side.
Luk 10:32. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, He did a little more than the priest, who would not even cross the road.
Luk 10:32-34. And passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he say him, he had compassion on him and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, Denying himself, therefore, because of course he had to walk-
Luk 10:34-35. And brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence,
A much more valuable sum than two pence of our money
Luk 10:35-36. And gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
He might have said, The Samaritan, but he would not, for the Jews hated them.
Luk 10:37. And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Here was a dismission, and here was a commission too. Jesus dismissed him. I have nothing more to say to you; Go. Here was the commission:
Do thou likewise. Alas! I am afraid that, after most sermons people get the dismission: Go; but they forget the commission: Go, and do thou likewise. It is your privilege as well as your duty, O Christians, to assist the needy; and whenever you discover distress, as far as lieth in you, to minister practically to its relief.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Luk 10:25. , stood up) on purpose that he might question Him.- , by doing what) It is just the same as if he were to say: By doing what shall I see the Sun of Righteousness? Nay, it is not by doing but by seeing that He is to be seen: see Luk 10:23. It is to this , doing, that the verb, , do, in Luk 10:28; Luk 10:37, has reference; just as , thou shall live, Luk 10:28, refers to , in this verse.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Luk 10:25-37
4. THE GOOD SAMARITAN
Luk 10:25-37
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up-This parable is peculiar to Luke. “A certain lawyer,” that is, one who was skilled in the law of Moses, one who could interpret the law and who could teach it. The lawyer “stood up,” which showed this was some formal meeting or gathering. His purpose was to make trial of Jesus. He was not wanting to know the truth; the question of the ensnaring lawyer and the answer with their explanatory parable were fitted to give truer views of God’s law, further break down Jewish exclusiveness, and to prepare the way for the acceptance of the universal brotherhood of man. The question asked was “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26, 27 And he said unto him,-The lawyer’s question implied that he knew what the rabbis taught, but you are a new teacher; what do you say? Jesus did not ask what the law taught, but he asked, “What is written in the law? how readest thou?” Jesus asked how do you understand the law to teach regarding this? How would you sum up the law respecting this particular matter? The lawyer answered by quoting Deu 6:3; Deu 11:13, which were written on the phylacteries. The second part of his answer was from Lev 19:18 and shows that the lawyer knew the law. At a later time Jesus himself in the temple gave a like summary of the law to a lawyer who wanted to catch him by his question. (Mat 22:34-40 Mar 12:28-34.)
28, 29 And he said unto him,-The rich young ruler had asked the same question and this lawyer was not as sincere as the ruler. Jesus gave an unexpected turn and said: “This do, and thou shalt live.” The lawyer was not prepared for this answer of Jesus; he expected Jesus to give a different answer. He did not see that following the law in its deep significance would lead him to accept the Messiah; he did not see that every sacrifice offered unto the law pointed to Jesus as the great sacrifice for the sins of the world; he did not see that the law was tutor to bring one to Christ. The lawyer seeking to justify himself, asked: “Who is my neighbor?” The lawyer admitted that it was hard to keep this law fully, and that Jesus had answered him correctly. He was seeking a loop-hole by which he could escape. He had come to ensnare Jesus, but had been caught in his own trap; hence he sought to justify himself by asking a question which diverted the mind from the main question. The lawyer asked whom he was to love as himself. He was hoping, perhaps, that Jesus would limit the word neighbor to the Jews. (Mat 5:43.) The Pharisees restricted the term so as to exclude not only Gentiles and Samaritans, but also publicans and those who shared not their own peculiar views. If Jesus should make a different application, the lawyer would have hope to refute Jesus. The word “neighbor” signified one living near, and was used in a limited sense to mean a friend; in its broader sense, Jesus shows that it meant a fellow man in need.
30 Jesus made answer and said,-This is a very good point with respect to the teachings of Jesus. The lawyer had given this turn to his question and asked whom he is to love as himself. How near must he live to him; how near in the gradations of social life; how exactly on the same plane of social rank? This shows that the astuteness of the lawyer was brought to his aid in this conversation; he presents the many difficulties of interpreting the second table of the law so as to make it thoroughly practical. Jesus presents the case of a Jew who was journeying from Jerusalem to Jericho. This road was indeed a going “down,” for Jericho was about eight hundred feet below the Mediterranean Sea, while Jerusalem was about two thousand five hundred feet above it, making a descent of three thousand three hundred feet in about sixteen to eighteen miles. This road to Jericho was through a narrow, deep ravine with holes, caves, and hiding places for robbers.
31 And by chance a certain priest-It seems accidental, yet there are no accidents in God’s arrangements. Jericho was a city of priests, where twelve thousand lived. As they served at Jerusalem, it would be no uncommon thing for a priest to be traveling that road, even though they more commonly took the longer route by Bethlehem. When the priest saw this man wounded and dying, he passed by “on the other side.” This presents a vivid and powerful picture of the vice of Jewish ceremonial cleanliness at the cost of moral principle and duty. This priest was under obligation to help this man, but he did not do so.
32 And in like manner a Levite also,-“A Levite” was one who belonged to a class, the descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari; these were the sons of Levi who assisted the priest in sacrificing and other services; they also guarded the temple. (Num 3:17; Num 8:5-22.) The Levite was probably returning to Jericho from the temple service at Jerusalem. When he drew near to the wounded man, he just looked at the miserable object and got an idea of the critical condition of the poor, wounded sufferer. He immediately crossed the road, passing on without doing anything to relieve the man. The priest had showed great and even selfish indifference, but the Levite showed a cool and calculating selfishness; both acted in a manner unbecoming humanity and utterly unworthy of their sacred professions and office. Their conduct was a striking violation of the law. (Exo 23:4-5; Deu 22:1-4; Isa 58:7; Mal 2:6-7.)
33-35 But a certain Samaritan,-The wounded man was apparently a Jew, and the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans. (Joh 4:9.) This Samaritan traveling the same road found the man who had been robbed and wounded; he had mercy on him; he took him up and gave him treatment, “pouring on them oil and wine,” and put him on his own beast and took him to an inn. Of all men in the world to do a neighborly act, a Jew would not expect this of a Samaritan. The Samaritan did not side-step or dodge the wounded man, but had compassion on him. Oil and wine were used for medicinal purposes in the East. (Isa 1:6.) They were very commonly carried by travelers. (Gen 28:18; Jos 9:13.) The wine may have been used for bathing and cleansing the wounds, and the olive oil for relieving the pain and for its healing qualities. Jews also used a mingling of oil and wine together for healing wounds. The Samaritan was not contented with merely taking him to the inn and seeing that he had a place of safety, but he took care of him during the remainder of the day and night, attending to his wants, nursing him, and thus denying himself of needed rest and sleep.
36, 37 Which of these three,-Jesus is now ready to have the lawyer answer his own question. The lawyer had asked who was his neighbor and the great Teacher has led him up to the point that he can answer his own question. So Jesus asks the lawyer which of the three “proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers?” The lawyer answered promptly and said: “He that showed mercy on him.” The Master Teacher had changed the lawyer’s standpoint and put it up to him to decide, and the lawyer could not answer the question incorrectly; the lawyer could not say that the priest or the Levite acted neighborly toward the wounded man; such an answer would have stulified his own intelligence; he had to answer the question correctly; there was no way to evade. He had come to ensnare Jesus, but is now entangled in his own net. Jesus then said to him: “Go, and do thou likewise.” He had asked what he should do to inherit eternal life, and he now has his answer. He avoided in answering Jesus’ question, saying “the Samaritan” proved neighbor, and used the clause, “he that showed mercy on him.”
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
the Man Who Loved His Neighbor
Luk 10:25-37
This parable was probably suggested by the journey up to Jerusalem. It may be founded on an actual occurrence. Notice how the Master answered the inquiry, Who is my neighbor? He said in effect: The question is not, Who will neighbor you? but, Whom will you neighbor? You ought to ask, Who wants my help? Neighborhood consists, not in what you receive, but in what you give. It is independent of race, creed and the ordinary sentiment of pity. Love overleaps all these distinctions and risks its very life in order to render help. In fact, this parable is a very poem of Love. It is to be compared with 1Co 13:1-13.
Notice those two clauses, He took care of him and Take care of him, Luk 10:34-35. It is thus that our Lord deals with us. When we are too far gone to ask for His help, He comes to our side and restores our ebbing life; and He raises up others to do the same. At the best, we are pilgrims and refresh ourselves in inns, but the home awaits us yonder! Begin by loving with your strength and you will end with the heart!
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Self-Righteousness Exposed — Luk 10:25-27
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And He said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise- Luk 10:25-37.
This to my mind is one of the most misunderstood passages in the Gospel records. It is related only by Luke, and he tells it for a very definite purpose. People generally think of the parable of the Good Samaritan as simply setting-forth a lesson in charity and concern for those who are less fortunate than we. Recently one said to the present writer, I do not need an atonement for my sins. The religion of the Good Samaritan is good enough for me. He was basing his hopes for eternity upon doing good to his fellow-men, forgetting that on this ground all are under condemnation, for no man, save our blessed Lord, ever truly loved his neighbor as himself. To face the implication of this story honestly is to realize the utter impossibility of obtaining eternal life by doing. We can only be saved by what Christ has done. It is when we realize that we are helpless, like the man dying on the Jericho road, that we are ready to submit to the gospel and receive the salvation the Lord Jesus came to make possible.
While we should recognize the fact that the Lord was seeking to awaken the lawyers conscience as to his responsibility to his neighbor, yet it is evident that there was something far more than that in His mind. During the early ministry of our Lord, He made clear to His followers the principles that should guide them as they looked forward to the setting up of His kingdom. It was in order to show a lawyer his need of a Saviour that He related the parable of the Good Samaritan. What we have before us is the story of a man who was trying to maintain his own righteousness and did not recognize his lost condition. We are told, Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? The lawyer who asked this question was not a sincere inquirer. He was endeavoring to draw Jesus into a controversy as to the Law of Moses, which declared that he who obeyed its precepts should live, and he who violated them should be accursed.
By the term lawyer is meant one who was an exponent of the law of Moses: that is, one who was well versed in the Old Testament Scriptures, particularly the Pentateuch, and who was therefore looked upon as an authority by the people generally. I suppose we would be right in saying that he would answer very much to an accredited doctor of divinity in our day. He should have known, therefore, that no man could ever obtain eternal life by keeping the law of Moses, because no man had ever yet been found who had fully obeyed its holy precepts.
Jesus answered him by asking, What is written in the law? How readest thou? Jesus never attempted to argue with one who was unreal. He, in this instance, put the lawyer on the defense, as it were, leaving it to him to answer his own question as far as he thought he could. In this way the lawyer would expose his own attitude toward both God and his neighbor. This was exactly what took place. The law was given to show up the corruption of the human heart, to give sin the specific character of trangression, and to make manifest the utter helplessness of any natural man to obtain salvation by human merit, and to convict of their folly all who, being ignorant of Gods righteousness, are going about to establish their own righteousness. The question comes with terrific force: What is written in the law? How readest thou? If conscience be in activity the law must fill the soul with terror as one realizes his utter inability to reach the high standard it sets forth. Apparently the lawyer had no such exercise, for he unhesitatingly replied, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. In so replying, the lawyer epitomized the two tables of the law, according to Deu 6:5 and Lev 19:18. It was a sad commentary on the state of his soul that he could recite these words so glibly and yet evince no sense of his own lost condition. Who has always lived up to these commands? Yet failure in one point puts man in an utterly hopeless state so far as satisfying the laws demands is concerned. The Lord Jesus calmly replied, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. It was a sharp thrust with the two-edged sword of the Word of God, but it made little impression on the smug, self-righteous heart of this lawyer. Yet it was but insisting on that which the law demanded, and because of which it became the ministration of death (2Co 3:7) to all who were under it. Had there been any true conscience-exercise, the lawyer would have confessed that he had violated the law already and he would have inquired if there was any way by which he might be delivered from its curse. Instead of this, he attempted to justify himself by asking, Who is my neighbor? It was a telltale question! It showed up the true state of this mans heart. Think of one who hoped to gain eternal life by his doings, who could be so indifferent to the needs of suffering humanity all about him that he had not yet discovered the neighbor needing his love and care! And yet he might better have asked, Who is my God? For if one does not love his brother, whom he has seen, he can have no real love for the God he has not seen (1Jn 4:20). It was in reply to this question that the Lord related what is commonly called the parable of the Good Samaritan. Undoubtedly it was a story of fact, for we need to remember that our Lord Jesus Christ was Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It is unthinkable that He would make up an illustration which had no factual foundation, even in order to press home a definite line of truth, unless He made it clear that He was doing this, as on some occasions when He said, Hear a parable. In this case He speaks very definitely of a certain man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves who wounded him and robbed him, stripping him of his garments and leaving him half-dead by the wayside. In this man we may see pictured unfortunate victims of sin and violence of every type, whose lives have been wrecked and ruined by adverse circumstances, and whose plight should excite the pity and give the urge to help, of every kindly-disposed person. But in telling this story it is evident that Jesus had more than this in mind. The stricken man on the Jericho road is a vivid picture of all men in their natural state, who have been robbed of their comparative innocence and purity and now are helpless and defiled, unable to regain their former state, needing one who can save them from their sin and the consequences thereof.
We next read that by chance (or, rather, coincidence) there came down a certain priest, who looked upon the man and then passed by. He represented the spiritual side of the legal covenant. He saw the afflicted man, but evidently feared to defile himself by touching- one so near to death and polluted with his blood (Lev 21:1). So he passed by on the other side. Next a Levite came. He seemed to be more interested in the poor, wounded victim of the thieves, for we are told that he came and looked on him, but again we read that he passed by on the other side. He represented the manward aspect of the law, but he did not consider it part of his duty to assist one in so deplorable a condition. How possible it is to be intensely religious, devoted to some church or society, and yet have no real exercise of heart for those who are in trouble and distress, or who are perishing in their sins. The Levite was presumably a servant of God, dedicated to ministering in Israel, but in his self-conplacency he ignored the need of the poor, dying wretch, lying on the Jericho road. God grant that all who profess to be servants of the Lord Jesus Christ may ever remember that we have a great responsibility, not only to preach the gospel, but, as much as lieth in us, to do good unto all men.
Finally help came from a most unexpected source. The Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans. A certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, saw the man in his wretched condition and had compassion on him. This was almost the last man in the world from whom the poor, wounded Jew had any right to expect mercy. But the Samaritans heart was filled with sympathy for the helpless sufferer. When the Jews sought to express their contempt for Jesus, they called Him a Samaritan (Joh 8:48). It is easy to see in the one who succored the dying traveler, a picture of our blessed Lord Himself, who came to us when we were in our sin and need, and manifested His boundless grace toward us.
The Samaritan bound up the wounds of this poor man, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn. Using the best remedies he knew, the Samaritan proved himself a real neighbor to the afflicted one. He did not leave him by the roadside, but took him to an inn where he might have proper care. It is an interesting fact that halfway between Jericho and Jerusalem, there remains to this day an inn which is commonly known as that of the Good Samaritan, where travelers may rest on their way up the long incline from the Jordan valley to the city of the Great King.
Nor did the Samaritans interest in his patient cease when he had brought him to the inn, but ere he left to go on his own journey, we are told that he took out two pence, that is, two denarii- Roman coins about the size of our twenty-five cent piece, but with the purchasing power, in those days, of many times that amount. He gave the money to the innkeeper and bade him, Take care of him, promising to meet all further charges on his return, Note his exact words-When I come again, I will repay thee. How suggestive this promise is! Does it not remind us of the fact that our blessed Lord, who has gone back to heaven, is coming again, and when He returns He will repay for everything that has been done for Him.
One can imagine the object of the Samaritans bounty growing stronger day by day. As his strength increased, we may think of him as going to the entrance of the inn and looking up the road expectantly. If someone inquired for what or whom he was looking, I think he might have replied, My friend, the one who was such a good neighbor to me in my need; the one to whom I owe my life. He said, I will come again. I am waiting for his return. I want to fall at his feet and express my gratitude for what he has done for me.
To the lawyer the Lord Jesus put the question, Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among thieves? It was indeed a searching inquiry, designed to manifest the selfishness of the lawyers heart and cause him to realize that he was the man on the Jericho road needing Someone who could deliver him from the plight into which his sin had plunged him. But alas! He had no such realization of his need. He replied, He that showed mercy on him. No thoughtful man could have answered otherwise, and so the lawyer convicted himself out of his own mouth. Jesus simply enjoined him, Go, and do thou likewise. He left the lawyer then to his own thoughts. Had he been an upright inquirer, he would have acknowledged that so far as obtaining eternal life by law-keeping was concerned, his case was hopeless, for he had violated it already and was under its curse. If he had maintained a right attitude toward God, he would never have been indifferent as to his neighbors. There was no evidence of conviction, for otherwise he would have exclaimed, I am that man on the Jericho road-I am the one who needs mercy. And then Jesus would not have pointed him to the Levite or the priest for help, but would have said, I am come to seek and to save that which was lost; I can heal your soul and undertake for you. I have come to give eternal life to all who put their trust in Me.
Legal religion can do nothing for a man already fallen and defiled. The priest and the Levite represented the two tables of the Law, Godward and manward, but once broken, they become a ministry of death and condemnation. Jesus Himself bore that condemnation and died in our place, the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. Thus He has manifested Himself as able to meet every need and to save for eternity all who put their trust in Him.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Chapter 67
The Good Samaritan
We are not told whether this is a narrative of fact or merely a story, a parable, our Lord used to illustrate the gospel, because that is really unimportant. The story here given by our Saviour, like all those he so masterfully wove into his preaching, was intended to teach spiritual, eternal truths of the gospel.
Parables Purpose
Our Masters purpose in giving us this story was to show us the utter impossibility of salvation by the works of the law, and his own glorious, sweet blessedness and efficacy as the sinners only Friend.
That this is the intent of the narrative before us is obvious. The story was given in response to the question raised by a lost, self-righteous religionist, a man who hoped to justify himself before God and in his own conscience by his religious devotion. That proud worm, by his pretence of sincerity, tempted (tried to confuse) the Lord Jesus. His only intent was to catch the Lord Jesus in his snare; but the Saviour seized the opportunity to teach the gospel, causing the wrath of man to praise him (Psa 76:10).
You will observe that the Lord Jesus sent this proud lawyer to the law to show him his evil, to convince him of his sin, to silence him. That is the purpose of the law.
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:19-20).
When blessed of God to the sinners heart, the law is our schoolmaster, pointing us to Christ and always bringing us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith in him (Gal 3:24). It is never made a yoke of bondage to Gods saints. We who trust Christ are dead to the law; and the law is dead to us (Rom 7:4; Gal 2:19). We are not under the law, but under grace. We are assured of this blessed fact so often and in so many ways that error concerning the believers freedom from the law is inexcusable (Rom 6:14-15; Rom 10:4; Gal 5:1-4; Gal 5:18). The law was made, not for a righteous (justified) man; but for the unrighteous (1Ti 1:5-11). Therefore, when this proud lawyer sought to trap our Lord Jesus, the Master sent him to the law to condemn him in his own conscience.
A Lawyer And The Law
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? How readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself (Luk 10:26-27).
The word lawyer here does not refer to the kind of lawyer we think of when we use that term. This lawyer was a lawyer of the absolute worst kind. He was worse than an ambulance chaser or one of those Call Me, Lets Sue men you see in television ads. This man was a religious lawyer, a scribe. He was one of those men who was absolutely devoted to religion, religious works, and religious activity. He was a man who thoroughly believed he could make himself worthy of Gods acceptance, if he just put his mind to it. He is called a lawyer because he was a scribe, a promoter of law religion.
As I said before, his purpose in raising his learned and pious question was to tempt the Son of God. He was trying to get him to say something against the law. He was trying to catch him in a slip up, and thereby demonstrate the Masters ignorance of holy scripture. He wanted to discredit the Lord of Glory and discredit the gospel of Gods free, sovereign, saving grace in him. So he asked a very sincere sounding question. Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? You will remember that this was the same question raised by the rich young ruler in Mar 10:17. They were both cut from the same bolt of cloth. Both sought eternal life by the works of the law, by the doing of their own hands.
The Master answered him with a question of his own. What is written in the law? How readest thou? The man came seeking to justify himself by the law, so the Master sends him to the law, because those who seek righteousness by the law simply do not understand the law (Gal 2:19-21; Gal 3:10; Gal 4:21).
When the Lord Jesus asked him what the law required, this fine specimen of religion answered him without the least hesitation. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. He had a bad case of versitus. Like most religious people, he had a verse for everything. This was one of those scriptures the Pharisees carried in their phylacteries. They recited it morning and evening, like a papist rubs his rosary beads, for good luck. This poor, deluded soul, this empty-hearted, empty-headed religionist, like the Jews at Sinai, was perfectly confident that he had done this and would continue to do it in a manner completely acceptable to God.
This Do
Then, in Luk 10:28 the Lord Jesus said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. This man understood the letter of the law, but nothing of the spirit. Our Lord here declares what this poor man did not understand, and, indeed, few men understand: Eternal life is not to be had without a complete and perfect obedience to all that is required in the law. If you would be saved (justified, sanctified, assured of acceptance, made righteous in any way or to any degree) by keeping the law, you have got to keep it! You must love God perfectly. You must love your neighbour (your worst, most implacable enemy) perfectly. In other words, it is impossible to obtain eternal life by obedience to the law for one very obvious reason: no sinful man can obey Gods law!
The Masters declaration is this: righteousness cannot be obtained by law obedience, by anything a man can do. Like most people, this man ignored the Lords word and, rather than acknowledging his failure and sin, attempted to justify himself. Embarrassed he had to cover himself. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? (Luk 10:29).
If only he could make the law say and require less than it does, he might have been able to find comfort in it, or at least make people think he found comfort in it. Therefore, ignoring what he had just quoted about loving God with all his heart, he says, And who is my neighbour? The indication seems to have been. I have loved my neighbour and do. Perhaps he was saying, I love my family, my relatives, my kinsmen, my friends, and my nation. That is easy. Theyre yours. But your neighbour, those God requires us to love, and love as ourselves, are not our family and friends, but our worst enemies.
The whole purpose of this story of the good Samaritan is to show us that the law of God requires that we do what no man can do; and that Christ Jesus, the God-man our Mediator, has done for his elect precisely what the law requires. The Lord Jesus Christ came down here to fulfil the law for us, loving God with all his heart and his neighbour as himself. This is what the story of the good Samaritan declares (Rom 5:6-8).
A Certain Man
And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead (Luk 10:30).
Remember, our Lords purpose here is to answer this religious legalist who desired to justify himself. He is not giving out a lesson on brotherly love. He does that elsewhere. To do so here would be like saying to this self-righteous legalist, Youre on the right course. See that you follow through and you will be just fine. Our Lords purpose here was to expose this mans sin, show him the utter folly of his hope, and tear down his refuge of lies. Our Lords purpose was to show this man, and us, the utter necessity of salvation by a Substitute.
This certain man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho is our father Adam[12] who went down from his original state, fell among thieves, who stripped him, wounded him, and left him half dead.
[12] There are only two certain men mentioned in the text. The thieves, the priest, and the Levite were utterly insignificant. So there are but two men with whom God works, two men by whom God deals with all men: The First Adam and The Last Adam (A Certain Man and a Certain Samaritan) (Rom 5:12-20).
This describes the sin and fall of our race in that certain representative man Adam. As this man went down from Jerusalem, which stood on high ground, to Jericho, which was in a low place, so our father Adam and all the human race in him went down. How far down we went, how far we fell, when Adam sinned in the Garden, when we sinned against God in him, no mortal can know, let alone declare! Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions (Ecc 7:29).
Adam fell from a state of happiness into misery, from a state of uprightness into a state of grovelling baseness, and from a state of righteousness into a state of sin. Our father Adam fell from a state of acceptance and communion with God into a state of separation and woe, from a state of blessedness into a state of cursedness, and from a state of peace (Jerusalem) into a state of condemnation (Jericho). He fell from a state of unity with God into a state of enmity against God, from a state of worship into a state of sensuality, and from a state of knowledge and prosperity into a state of ignorance and poverty.
This man, in his journey from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell among thieves. So did we! When we forsook our Creator, when we rebelled against God, our race fell into the hands of two thieves, sin and Satan. How they have robbed us! They robbed us of great honour, the image of God in which we were created. They robbed us of great nobility, living for the glory of God! These thieves left us in a state of utter depravity and spiritual deprivation. They have stripped us of righteousness, leaving us naked. Fallen man is a naked creature, has nothing with which to cover himself, and stands exposed to the law, justice, and wrath of God. We are a people totally destitute of righteousness, with no ability to perform righteousness, justify ourselves, and bring ourselves back into Divine favour!
As they have stripped us and robbed us, sin and Satan have wounded us and left the entire human race half dead. This does not suggest anything to deny the total depravity and spiritual death of our race. Rather it is an accurate picture of it. We are alive physically, but dead spiritually. We are under the sentence of eternal death; but it is a sentence that is not yet executed. Like the nation described in Isaiah 1, we are a people wounded with an incurable wound, and but for the balm of sovereign grace, covered from head to toe with wounds and bruises, and putrefying sores. The plague of our race is a heart plague that none can heal but the Son of God.
A Priest And A Levite
And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side (Luk 10:31-32).
These two men represent the whole law of God, moral and ceremonial, and show us the utter inability of the law to save, or even to help fallen man. As such, they represent the whole of works religion. They declare in loud, clear, thunderous words, By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified (Rom 8:1-4; Heb 10:1-9).
Look at the picture drawn by our Lord in Luk 10:31-32. When this priest saw this poor wretch, he passed by on the other side. When he saw the poor soul, naked and in such a bloody condition, he crossed the road, lest he be defiled by coming into contact with such a corrupt, vile thing. Nothing so hardens the hearts of men as self-righteous, legalistic religion. Nothing on earth makes a man more useless to men than legalism! Nothing is more cruel than religion without Christ; and nothing makes men more cruel to one another!
Likewise, a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. Can you picture the scene? This fine Levite comes over, takes a look at the poor creature laying in the gutter, wallowing in his blood, and shakes his head. I can almost hear him as he crosses the street: he shakes his head and says in very humble, teary tones, There, but for the grace of God, go I. But he still crossed the street without any effort to help, comfort, or assist the man.
The priest and the Levite both passed by without the slightest movement of heart toward this poor soul. They did not help. They could not help. They did not and could not fetch any help. And they did not even point the poor man in the direction of help. They left him exactly as they found him. He was not one wit better off because they passed his way! O Heavenly Father, do not allow me to come into contact with any needy soul and leave him no better off than he was before!
Still, the thing our Lord is showing us here is the utter inability of the law to help fallen man. It was never the purpose of the law to do so. Be sure you hear and understand what God says about this. The law is unbending. There is no mercy in the law.
The law will not and cannot abate its demands. The law makes no allowance for the weakness of our condition. The law gives no consideration to age, position, knowledge, environment, or circumstance. The law simply demands perfection or death. The law leaves us where it finds us. The law is no milder in this gospel age than it was at Mount Sinai. It will not and cannot accept an imperfect, though very sincere, obedience. It demands perfect holiness, inward and outward, without a flaw.
The law is deaf to the cries of sorrow, repentance, and fear. It demands perfection. It offers no relief, no hope, no cure to anyone. The law can do nothing except show us our nakedness, our wretchedness, our helplessness, our guilt, and our doom. It can do nothing else. All the law does is condemn and kill. It cannot give life. It is a ministration of death, nothing else. It terrifies, but never comforts. It condemns, but never gives hope. It brings despair, but never peace. It wounds, but never heals. The law cannot come down to us. The law cannot touch us. All the law can do is condemn and kill.
The gospel does not teach men and women to live by or obey the law. The gospel teaches us to seek to honour God in all things; but it never threatens condemnation or punishment. It never inspires or motivates by law. Gods elect are free from the law. Yet, the law demands satisfaction. The law must be fulfilled.
Help must be had from another. We need someone to come to us in our low, fallen, depraved, helpless ruin, someone who will be a true friend, a friend to meet our need, without looking to us for anything. Thanks be unto God, the Lord Jesus Christ is just such a Friend! Look at Luk 10:33-35.
A Certain Samaritan
But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
This Good Samaritan is the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. No, our Saviour was not a Samaritan, but a Jew, a son of Abraham. But the Jews called him a Samaritan (Joh 8:48) and treated him as such, as one who was utterly hated and despised by them. Our Lord takes the title. He came here to love his neighbour, to do good to his neighbour, to help his fallen neighbour, to save those who are his sworn enemies (Rom 5:6-8).
Look at these three verses in Luke 10, and learn how the Son of God saves poor, needy sinners by his almighty grace. He took a journey. That represents our Saviours incarnation and sojourn in this world (2Co 8:9). He came to where we were. Not only did the Lord of Glory take into union with himself our nature and come into this world, in his substitutionary, sin-atoning death our blessed Saviour came to where we were. He was made to be what we are by nature, made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2Co 5:21). He was made a curse for us, his cursed people, that we might receive the gift of life by his Spirit (Gal 3:13-14).
When he saw us, he had compassion on us. He saw us, loved us, and delighted in us as his chosen bride and companion from everlasting (Psa 21:1-2; Psa 45:13-14; Pro 8:22; Pro 8:30-31; Jer 31:3). His love and compassion remains the same, unchanged and perfect, through all the ages of time and in all the circumstances of our lives!
At the appointed time of love, he came to us! First, the Samaritan came to where this man was. Then, he went to him. When we could not and would not come to him, he came to us in sovereign, saving mercy. He did not come to offer help. He came to help! He bound up all our wounds: heart wounds and conscience wounds. He healed our wounds by pouring in the oil of his Spirit (grace) and the wine of his blood.
Then, he set us on his own beast. I cannot say with certainty what this beast refers to; but it may refer either to the red horse of his holy humanity (Zec 1:8), or to the white horse of his gospel, upon which he rides triumphantly through the ages of time.
Next, he brought us into his Inn, the Church and House of God, where he sees to our constant care. The host of the inn is a faithful pastor, a gospel preacher, one who feeds the Lords people with knowledge and understanding (Jer 3:15). The two pence is the price of redemption under the law an half shekel (Exo 30:11-16). Two things are required for the redemption of our souls: his blood and his righteousness. The Lord Jesus has charged his servants to take care of his people; and he promises his servants that whatever it costs to care for his people, he will repay when he comes again.
An Impossible Command
Now, look at Luk 10:36-37. Here, our Lord shuts us up to the free grace of God in him. He does so by issuing an impossible command.
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, he that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
If you would justify yourself, this is all you have to do. Be a neighbour, be a good Samaritan. Love your most implacable enemies, all of them, just like you love yourself. Pay all their debt to God. Lift them from the dead. Deliver them from the curse. Bring them to Glory. If you would justify yourself, all you have to do is meet all the demands of Gods holy law perfectly, without a flaw. The only way a sinner can ever be saved, the only way we can ever be justified with God is by Christ, by faith in the Son of God (Rom 3:19-26; Rom 3:31; Rom 5:12-21).
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
a certain: Luk 7:30, Luk 11:45, Luk 11:46, Mat 22:35
Master: Luk 18:18, Mat 19:16, Act 16:30, Act 16:31
to: Gal 3:18
Reciprocal: Mic 6:6 – Wherewith Mal 4:4 – the law Mat 16:1 – tempting Mat 22:18 – Why Mar 8:11 – tempting Mar 10:3 – What Luk 12:17 – What Joh 5:39 – ye think Joh 6:28 – What Joh 8:6 – tempting Act 13:39 – from which Rom 2:13 – but the Rom 7:9 – For I Gal 2:16 – that Gal 3:12 – The man Phi 3:9 – which is of the Tit 3:13 – the lawyer 1Pe 3:9 – that
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
The Message of the Jericho Road
Luk 10:25-37
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
1. THE MAN WHO MADE HIS BOAST OF THE LAW
A certain lawyer tempted Christ, asking Him what he should do to inherit eternal life. The Lord knew that the lawyer boasted himself concerning the Law, therefore, He asked him, “What is written in the Law? how readest thou?” The lawyer quickly replied; “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy hearts and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.”
The Lord Jesus accepted the lawyer’s response and said; “This do, and thou shalt live.”
The lawyer was not satisfied, however, and wanted to justify himself; therefore, he asked Christ; “Who is my neighbour?”
In answer to this question, Jesus gave the story of the stripped and wounded Jew who was left half dead on the Jericho road.
2. THE MAN WHO LEARNED A NEW MEANING GIVEN TO THE LAW
Christ had told the story of the stricken Jew, and of the priest and Levite, who had passed by, while the Good Samaritan rescued him and carried him to the inn. Then He asked the lawyer, “Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?”
The lawyer replied, “He that shewed mercy on him.” Then said Jesus unto him, “Go, and do thou likewise.”
The lawyer had no more to say. He doubtless realized a new depth, and a new meaning to the second great commandment.
1. Christ was not teaching that to love our neighbor was to show toward him more than kindly and humanitarian deeds. It is all right to give money, food, and clothing to the poor; it is all right to build hospitals, and schools, and public libraries for the needy; but that was not what the Lord desired pressed. It is all right to teach the fallen good morals, and to seek to create and enforce good laws in behalf of the downtrodden. All of these things and many more are right, in their place, and belong under the sphere of human betterment agencies.
2. Christ, however, had a far deeper meaning in. His conception of loving our neighbor. The Lord Jesus was not speaking along humanitarian lines at all. He was teaching us that, to love our neighbor was to go to the one who was left stripped, bruised and half dead on the roadside, and bind up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine. In this, would be fulfilling just what is written of Christ in Luk 4:18 : “He hath anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor; He hath sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind.” Isaiah adds, “To give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.”
I. WHERE OUR NEIGHBORS MAY BE FOUND (Luk 10:30)
The lawyer asked Christ, saying, “Who is my neighbour?” The Lord gave the parable we are now about to consider, as His response. The opening verse, which we have just read, suggests three things about where we may search for our neighbor:
1. He may be found on the road that goeth down. Whatever we may think, the man who is in need of the Saviour is not on the way that leadeth up to life and Heaven and Home.
Hell is down in more ways than one; and the sinner is on the downward way, the hell-bound road.
2. He may be found, stripped, wounded, and half dead. Not ail men who are traveling the way to death are in so evident a plight; but sooner or later the tragedy of a sinful life will tell the same tale of sorrow and of shame. Sin robs men. It steals away all that is high and holy. It strips one of the garments of righteousness; it wounds, and then leaves the wounded on the roadside, half dead and deserted.
Where is he who can describe the wreckage of sin-driven men? The earth is a graveyard of blighted hopes, crushed hearts, and spoiled prospects.
3. He may be found deserted and alone. The prodigal boy was feasted and feted when he first arrived in the far country; but as soon as he had been sapped of his money, he was sent to the swine-herd. Then it was that he must have said, “No man careth for my soul.”
The South American bat will hang over its sleeping victim, fanning him with his wings until he sees his victim is in soundest slumber. Then he will enter his beak, and, as he fans, he will suck away the lifeblood of his victim.
Satan and sin have no more heart toward the victims which they plunder. They will first destroy every prospect and every hope, and then leave their victim half dead without any ray of possible redemption.
II. THE HELPLESSNESS OF HUMAN RELIGION (Luk 10:32)
The priest who passed by was the representative of Judaistic theology. What did he do? He came down by chance. He saw the stricken man, and he passed by on the other side.
1. A religion that does not seek for sinners is foreign to Christ. Churches are not established for mutual admiration. They are not meant to be a finely equipped pullman train, or a wonderfully prepared ocean liner, where people may lounge in all comfort on their Heavenly way.
The Church was commissioned to go into all the world, and to preach the Gospel to every creature. Out into the byways and hedges; out into the lanes of the city, she was to seek the lost.
A church that is not a soul-saving institution should write “Ichabod” over its door, and own itself forsaken.
2. A religion without solicitude for the smitten, is foreign to Christianity. When Christ saw the hungry multitude, He was moved with compassion, and He commanded His disciples, saying; “Give ye them to eat.” When Christ saw the crowd at the last day of the feast, He cried, “If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink.”
We imagine that we now hear the Lord saying, “Mark every one that sighs and cries for the lost.”
3. A religion without succor for the half dead is a useless formality. The priest did not seek the sinner. He only found him by chance. He had no solicitude; for he passed by on the other side. He offered no succor, and gave none; for he went on his way.
There is a verse in the Epistle of John which says, “Whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?”
May we not apply this also toward the lost sinner. The church that refuses to provide every possible aid to lost and dying men, knows nothing of the heart of their Lord, and is disobedient to His command.
III. THE HOPELESSNESS OF LEGALIZED REDEMPTION (Luk 10:32)
We do not know that our caption says just what we want it to say. What we want to express is the utter failure of the Levite, and the Law which he represents, to meet the sinner’s need.
1. The province of the law. We do not contend that there is no place for the government and for Law. The Spirit teaches that the Law is a terror to evil workers, and that rulers are the avengers of God; however, the province of the Law is not the seeking, nor the saving of the lost. The Law speaks wrath and judgment, and vengeance. It has no place for mercy and peace and grace. The Law is loveless, joyless, hopeless, to those who are offended.
We do not wonder that the Levite passed by on the other side.
2. The failure of the law. The Law must always fail, so far as its power to redeem is concerned; because as we have just said, there is nothing in it that shows mercy. The Law is just, but not gracious. It is even good, if a man uses it lawfully. It protects the righteous, but it condemns the guilty.
There is, however, another and deeper reason why the Law must fail, in seeking to rescue the man who is stricken on the roadside. It is impossible for the Law to redeem the sinner, because it is impossible for the sinner to keep the Law. The Law’s reason for failure lies in the fact that all men are sinners, and have broken the Law. There is not a just man on the face of the earth that doeth good and sinneth not.
3. The failure of the Law drives the sinner to Christ. The Law can reveal the fact of sin; it can deepen the sense of sin, and cause the sinner to see the depths of his depravity. All of this would leave the Law-breaker in utter distress, were it not for the fact that Christ, who alone perfectly kept the Law, was seen coming down the Jericho road in the form of the Good Samaritan. Upon this Christ the Law, unconsciously, casts the sinner.
IV. THE MISSION OF CHRIST (Luk 10:33-34)
1. Christ came to seek the sinner. The priest and the Levite came by chance, or happened to pass by the place where the assaulted Jew lay half dead. The Samaritan, as he journeyed, came purposely to where he was.
The Lord Jesus did not accidentally come to earth. His coming was promised, announced, ordained. He came, sent by the Father. He came, seeking to save.
2. Christ came to save the sinner. When the Samaritan saw the smitten Jew, he had compassion upon him and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine. This is just what our Lord is doing, even unto this very hour. He is the Saviour of all who believe. He came to undo the works of the devil; He came to break the power of bonded sin; He came to preach deliverance to captives; the recovering of sight to the blind; to set at liberty them that were bruised.
The Lord Jesus has come to redeem the sinner from Satan’s snare.
3. Christ came to succor the sinner. The Good Samaritan did more than to come to where the Jew lay bruised and half dead. He did more than to bind up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine. He also set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
Our Saviour, when He begins a good work, completes it. He who saves, also keeps. Christ is not satisfied with having the sinner saved; the child born. He wants the one who has been saved and begotten to be child-trained. He wants him to grow in the nurture of the Lord.
V. THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH (Luk 10:35)
1. The Church is the inn, the refuge for saved sinners. We suppose that this thought had already come to your mind as you just heard of how the Good Samaritan took the stricken Jew to an inn. Even so, the Lord ordained that scattered here and there over the world, there should be inns erected, churches formed, where those who were saved from the Jericho road, might find a refuge, and a place for restoration, and for growth.
The Church has never fulfilled its God-given task until it goes out to bring in the lost.
The Church should not feel that it has fulfilled its task, however, when the lost have merely received an initiative church rite. The mother does not feel her duty done, her work completed, when a little one is born into the world; she feels that the child must be fed, and clothed, and trained. So, also, the Church should mother her children. New converts need to be taught the deeper things of God.
2. The Church is the inn, panoplied of God to care for saved sinners. The Good Samaritan gave the innkeeper two pence with which to care for the stricken Jew. The innkeeper was not to house the needy one upon his own resources; but upon the resources of the Samaritan.
The Church cannot undertake, in her own strength, to do for saved sinners that which needs to be done. Before the Lord Jesus went away, He told His Church that He would be with them. He also said: “Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.” He likewise committed His precious Word unto their trust Thus it is, that until this hour we are serving the lost, and those saved from Satan’s domain, through the Holy Ghost, an imparted power; and through the Word of God, an entrusted gift.
VI. THE FINAL RECKONING (Luk 10:35)
1. We have here suggested the age service of the Church. The innkeeper was to take care of the smitten Jew from the time of the Samaritan’s departure, and until He had come again. The Church is to occupy from the time that the Lord Jesus left from the Mount of Olives until the time of the rapture of the saints.
This thought is expressed to us in every remembrance of the Lord’s Supper. The Word says: “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till He come.”
2. We have here suggested the rewards of the Church. “When I come again, I will repay thee.” This is what the Good Samaritan said to the host at the inn. This is also what Christ has said unto us.
To the pastor Peter says; “Feed the flock of God * *. And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory.”
To saints as a whole Paul has said: “God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward His Name, in that ye have ministered to the saints.”
Behold, He will come, and come quickly. Then shall everyone receive according as his work shall have been.
AN ILLUSTRATION
Recently two strangers visited a noted Chicago church. As they entered, they sensed not only a spiritual atmosphere, but a friendly spirit that seemed to reach out and draw them within its circle. As they took their seats, they felt at home; though far from familiar faces and scenes, they were among God’s children. They lifted up their hearts in worship and gratitude, and went out better men because of the sweet fellowship they had experienced there.
How different is this kind of church from the one which the writer attended for two years in a certain college town. Students entered the church, were chilled by its unresponsive atmosphere, and went home again feeling a peculiar sense of loss. No one shook hands with them, invited them to come again, or seemed to care whether they existed. Yet, Sunday after Sunday, they sought this sanctum, longing for some spiritual contact. Is it a wonder that these same young people came to regard church-going as an irksome duty? It may take a little time, it may require a little energy, it may even involve going out of one’s way to give that smile and to clasp the hand of the stranger. But those people who have tried it know the warm glow that floods the heart of the stranger and his own heart as well. Our Lord Jesus said, “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
5
A lawyer was a man informed in the law of Moses and who taught it to the people. The question he asked was a proper one as far as its form was concerned. But the inspired writer tells us the man’s motive was wrong, that he wished to tempt Jesus.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
[Behold, a certain lawyer stood up.]
Some few Notes concerning the Jewish Doctors.
The word lawyer we meet with in Mat 22:35; where the Syriac hath it a scribe. So Luk 7:30; as also in this place, and Luk 11:45. Nor without reason, when he in St. Matthew, one of them which was a lawyer; is said to be, Mar 12:28; one of the scribes.
However there seems some difficulty from a passage in our evangelist, where woe unto you scribes; and Then answered one of the lawyers; seems to make some distinction betwixt them. As to this, we shall make some remarks in its proper place. In the mean time let it not seem tedious to the reader, if we discourse some things concerning the doctors of the law, with the various classes and orders of them, that we may the better judge of that sort of men of which we have so frequent mention in the holy Scriptures. And,
I. It is not unknown how the name scribe was a general title given to all the learned part of that nation, as it is opposed to the rude and illiterate person. “If two persons eat together, and are both scribes; they each of them say grace singly for themselves: but if one of them be a scribe, and the other an illiterate person; the scribe saith grace, and it sufficeth for the other that is unlearned.”
Indeed, the first original of the word scribes did more peculiarly signify the numberers. “The ancients were called numberers; because they numbered all the letters of the law…” The Gloss gives another reason out of the Jerusalem Talmud; namely, “because they numbered all the points and contents of the law, as the forty principal servile works save one,” etc.
Should we indeed grant that the first original of the word had such narrow bounds as this, yet does not this hinder but that it afterward enlarged itself so far as to denote any person learned in the law, and every doctor of it; nay, that it extended itself even to the schoolmasters that taught children; if not to the very libellarii; those whose business it was to write out bills of divorce and forms of contracts, etc. Of which two there is mention made amongst the ten sorts, whereof if none should happen to be in a city, it was not fit for any disciple of the wise to abide in it.
II. That the fathers of the Sanhedrim were more emphatically called the scribes is so well known that it needs no confirmation. That passage in the evangelist sufficiently shews it; “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”: that is, on the legislative bench, or in the Sanhedrim: where also the Sadducees that were of that council are called scribes; and the scribes are distinguished there from the Pharisees; not that they were not scribes; but because all the scribes there were not Pharisees.
III. There was a certain degree of doctors or scribes that were in the Sanhedrim, but were not members of it: these are commonly called those who gave judgment in the presence of the wise men, fit for the office of legislators; but not yet admitted. Such were Simeon Ben Azzai, and Simeon Ben Zumah. Such also was Simeon the Temanite, of whom we have made mention elsewhere, (out of Sanhedrin; folio 17. 2) He judged in the presence of the Sanhderim, sitting upon the ground. He did not sit on the bench with the fathers, as not being one of their number, but on the seats below, nearer the ground: him the fathers consulted in difficult matters. A shadow of which we have in England of the judges, men learned in the laws, who have their seats in our house of lords.
Whether he that was particularly called the wise man was of the number of the fathers, or only of this kind of judges, I shall not at present dispute, but leave the reader to judge from this story: “Rabban Simeon Ben Gamliel was the president of the Sanhedrim: R. Meir was chacam; or the wise man; and R. Nathan, the vice-governor.” Now when Rabban Simeon had decreed something that disparaged R. Meir and R. Nathan, “Saith R. Meir to R. Nathan, I am the chacam [or the wise man], and thou art the vice-president. Let us remove Rabban Simeon from the presidency, then thou wilt be the president, and I the vice-president.”
There is nothing more common, and yet nothing more difficult than that saying, “The school of Hillel saith so and so, and the school of Shammai so: but the wise men say otherwise.” It is very obscure who these wise men should be. If we should say the Sanhedrim, it is plain that one part of it consisted of the Shammaeans, and another part of the Hillelites. If so, then it should seem that these wise men are those judges of whom we have spoken: unless you will assign a third part to the Sadducees, to whom you will hardly attribute the determination of the thing, and much less the emphatical title of the wise men. But this we leave undecided.
IV. Let us a little inquire out of the Sanhedrim; we shall find variety of scribes and doctors of the law, according to the variety of the law itself, and the variety of teaching it. Hence those various treatises amongst the Rabbins; the Micra, Misna, Midras, Talmud, Agadah; etc.
1. Micra; is the text of the Bible itself: its reading and literal explication.
2. Misna; the doctrine of traditions and their explication.
3. Midras; the mystic and allegorical doctrine and exposition of the Scriptures: “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” Now these were the ways and methods of preaching him:
I. As to the written law (for every one knows they had a twofold law, written and oral; as they call it), they had a twofold way of declaring it, viz., explaining and applying it according to the literal sense of it, for edification, exhortation, and comfort; as the apostle hath it; or else by drawing allegories, mysteries, and far-fetched notions out of it. As to the former way, the rulers of the synagogue seem to have respect to it in what they said to Paul and Barnabas: If ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. As to the latter, the instances are endless in the Jewish writings every where; so far, that they have even melted down the whole volume of the Scriptures into tradition and allegory.
It is not easily determined whether those preachers were so of a different order, that one should wholly addict himself to the plain and literal exposition and application of the Scriptures, the other only to the mystical and more abstruse way of teaching. There is no question but both these did frequently meet both in one preacher, and that in one and the same sermon: and indeed I cannot tell but that the word Agadah may sometimes denote both these ways of expounding and interpreting the law. When a certain person, being interrogated about certain traditions, could give no answer, the standers by said, Perhaps he is not skilled in the [traditional] doctrine: but he may be able to expound. And so they propound to him Dan 10:21 to explain. To which that also agrees well enough, “The masters of the Agada or expositions, because they are ‘Darshanin’ [or profound searchers of the Scriptures], are honoured of all men, for they draw away the hearts of their auditors.” Nor does that sound very differently as to the thing itself: On the sabbath day they discussed discussions [i.e. In the Scriptures, searching the Scriptures] “to the masters of families, who had been employed in their occasions all the week; and while they were expounding, they taught them the articles about things forbidden and things permitted them,” etc.
To these kind of mystic and allegorical expositions of Scripture (if at least it be proper to call them expositions) they were so strangely bewitched, that they valued nothing more than a skill in tickling or rubbing the itching ears of their auditors with such trifles. Hence that passage, “R. Joshua said to R. Jochanan Ben Bruchah, and to R. Eleazar the blind, What new thing have you met with today in ‘Beth Midras’? They answered and said, ‘We are all thy disciples, and drink wholly at thy waters.’ To whom he; ‘It is impossible but you should meet with something novel every day in Beth Midras.’ ”
II. As to the oral law, there was also a twofold way of explaining it, as they had for the written law:
1. The former way we have intimated to us in these words: “The book of the Law, when it grows old, they lay up with one of the disciples of the wise men, even although he teach the traditions.” The passage seems very obscure, but it is thus explained by the Gloss: “Albeit it doth not any way help the disciples of the wise men in Talmud and Gemara, but in Misnaioth and Beriathoth;” that is, he that would only read the body of the traditional law, and render the literal sense of it, — and not he that would dispute scholastically, and comment upon it. For,
2. There were doctors that would inquire more deeply into the traditions, would give some accounts (such as they were), of them, would discuss difficulties, solve doubts, etc.; a specimen of which is the Talmudic Gemara throughout.
Lastly, amongst the learned, and doctors of that nation, there were the Agadici; who would expound the written law in a more profound way than ordinary, even to what was cabalistical. These were more rare, and (as it should seem) not so acceptable amongst the people. Whether these are concerned in what follows, let the reader judge: “R. Joshua Ben Levi saith, So and so let it happen to me; if in all my life I ever saw the book Agada above once; and then I found a hundred seventy-and-five sections of the law, where it is written, ‘The Lord hath said, hath spoken, hath commanded.’ They are according to the number of the years of our father Abraham, as it is said, To receive gifts for men; etc. A hundred forty-and-seven Psalms, which are in the Book of Psalms [mark the number] are according to the number of the years of our father Jacob; as it is written, ‘Thou art holy, and inhabitest the praises of Israel.’ A hundred twenty-and-three turns, wherein Israel answereth Hallelujah [to him that repeats the Hallel], are according to the number of the years of Aaron,” etc. And as a coronis; let me add that passage in Sanhedrim, “If they be masters of the textual reading; they shall be conversant in the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. If they be masters of the Misna; they shall be conversant in Misna Halacoth and Haggadoth. And if they be masters of the Talmud; they shall be conversant in the traditions of the Passover, in the Passover: in the traditions of Pentecost, in Pentecost: in the traditions of the feast of Tabernacles, in the feast of Tabernacles.”
These all, whom we have mentioned, were scribes and doctors and expounders of the law; but which of these may properly and peculiarly challenge to themselves the title of lawyers; whether all, or any particular class of them? The latter is most probable: but then, what class will you choose? Or will you distinguish betwixt the lawyer and the teacher of the law? I had rather the reader would frame his own judgment here. And yet, that I might not dismiss this question wholly untouched, and at the same time not weary the reader with too long a digression, I have referred what is to be alleged in this matter to my notes upon Luk 11:45.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
WE should notice in this passage, the solemn question which was addressed to our Lord Jesus Christ. We are told that a certain lawyer asked Him, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” The motive of this man was evidently not right. He only asked this question to “tempt” our Lord, and to provoke Him to say something on which His enemies might lay hold. Yet the question he propounded was undoubtedly one of the deepest importance.
It is a question which deserves the principal attention of every man, woman, and child on earth. We are all sinners-dying sinners, and sinners going to be judged after death. “How shall our sins be pardoned? Wherewith shall we come before God? How shall we escape the damnation of hell? Whither shall we flee from the wrath to come? What must we do to be saved?”-These are inquiries which people of every rank ought to put to themselves, and never rest till they find an answer.
It is a question which unhappily few care to consider. Thousands are constantly inquiring, “What shall we eat? What shall we drink? Wherewithal shall we be clothed? How can we get money? How can we enjoy ourselves? How can we prosper in the world?” Few, very few, will ever give a moment’s thought to the salvation of their souls. They hate the subject. It makes them uncomfortable. They turn from it and put it away. Faithful and true is that saying of our Lord’s, “Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth unto destruction, and many there be that go in thereat.” (Mat 7:13.)
Let us not be ashamed of putting the lawyer’s question to our own souls. Let us rather ponder it, think about it, and never be content till it fills the first place in our minds. Let us seek to have the witness of the Spirit within us, that we repent us truly of sin, that we have a lively faith in God’s mercy through Christ, and that we are really walking with God. This is the character of the heirs of eternal life. These are they who shall one day receive the kingdom prepared for the children of God.
We should notice, secondly, in this passage, the high honor which our Lord Jesus Christ places on the Bible. He refers the lawyer at once to the Scriptures, as the only rule of faith and practice. He does not say in reply to his question,-“What does the Jewish Church say about eternal life? What do the Scribes, and Pharisees, and priests think? What is taught on the subject in the traditions of the elders?”-He takes a far simpler and more direct course. He sends his questioner at once to the writings of the Old Testament: “What is written in the law? How readest thou?”
Let the principle contained in these words, be one of the foundation principles of our Christianity. Let the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, be the rule of our faith and practice. Holding this principle we travel upon the king’s highway. The road may sometimes seem narrow, and our faith may be sorely tried, but we shall not be allowed greatly to err. Departing from this principle we enter on a pathless wilderness. There is no telling what we may be led to believe or do. Forever let us bear this in mind. Here let us cast anchor. Here let us abide.
It matters nothing who says a thing in religion, whether an ancient father, or a modern Bishop, or a learned divine. Is it in the Bible? Can it be proved by the Bible? If not, it is not to be believed. It matters nothing how beautiful and clever sermons or religious books may appear. Are they in the smallest degree contrary to Scripture? If they are, they are rubbish and poison, and guides of no value. What saith the Scripture? This is the only rule, and measure, and gauge of religious truth. “To the law and to the testimony,” says Isaiah, “if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isa 8:20.)
We should notice, lastly, in this passage, the clear knowledge of duty to God and man, which the Jews in our Lord’s time possessed. We read that the lawyer said, in reply to our Lord’s question, “Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” That was well spoken. A clearer description of daily practical duty could not be given by the most thoroughly instructed Christian in the present day. Let not this be forgotten.
The words of the lawyer are very instructive in two points of view. They throw a strong light on two subjects, about which many mistakes abound. For one thing, they show us how great were the privileges of religious knowledge which the Jews enjoyed under the Old Testament, compared to the heathen world. A nation which possessed such principles of duty as those now before us, was immeasurably in advance of Greece and Rome. For another thing, the lawyer’s words show us how much clear head-knowledge a person may possess, while his heart is full of wickedness. Here is a man who talks of loving God with all his soul, and loving his neighbor as himself, while he is actually “tempting” Christ, and trying to do Him harm, and anxious to justify himself and make himself out a charitable man! Let us ever beware of this kind of religion. Clear knowledge of the head, when accompanied by determined impenitence of heart, is a most dangerous state of soul. “If ye know these things,” says Jesus, “happy are ye if ye do them.” (Joh 13:17.)
Let us not forget, in leaving this passage, to apply the high standard of duty which it contains, to our own hearts, and to prove our own selves. Do we love God with all our heart, and soul, and strength, and mind? Do we love our neighbor as ourselves? Where is the person that could say with perfect truth, “I do”? Where is the man that ought not to lay his hand on his mouth, when he hears these questions? Verily we are all guilty in this matter! The best of us, however holy we may be, come far short of perfection. Passages like this, should teach us our need of Christ’s blood and righteousness. To Him we must go, if we would ever stand with boldness at the bar of God. From Him we must seek grace, that the love of God and man may become ruling principles of our lives. In Him we must abide, that we may not forget our principles, and that we may show the world that by them we desire to live.
==================
Notes-
v25.-[A certain Lawyer stood up.] An English reader must re member that the “Lawyers” spoken of in the Gospels were men who devoted themselves to the study of the law of God.
[What shall I do, &c.] The literal rendering of the Greek would be, “What having done shall I inherit eternal life?” Let us note that this kind of question was asked of our Lord three times. Once it was asked by the rich young ruler, whose case is mentioned in all the three first Gospels. Once it was at the end of our Lord’s ministry, by one who said, “Which is the great commandment?” The third case is the one before us now, which is related only by Luke.
It is probable that questions like these were much discussed and disputed among the Jews.
v26.-[How readest thou?] Let the following quotation from Quesnel, the Roman Catholic writer, be observed. “Jesus Christ himself refers us to the law of God, though he was truth itself, and could give souls holy instruction. In vain do we seek after other lights and ways besides those which we find there. It is the Spirit of God which dictated the law and made it the rule of our life. It is injurious to him for us either not to study it, or to prefer the thoughts of man before it. The first question which will be put to a Christian at the tribunal of God will be to this effect. ‘What is written in the law? What have you read in the Gospel? What use have you made thereof?’ What answer can that person return who has not so much as read it, though he has sufficient ability and opportunity to do it?”
v27.-[Thou shalt love the Lord, &c.] This seems to have been a formulary or confession of faith with which Jews were well acquainted.
Vitringa observes, “What the lawyer replies, Thou shalt love the Lord, &c., was daily read in their synagogues.”
Doddridge says, “This passage of Scripture is still read by the whole assembly of a Jewish synagogue, both in their morning and evening prayers, and is called, from the first word of it, the Shemah. Only it is observable that they leave out the clause, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
v28.-[This do, and thou shalt live.] These words must needs mean that if a man really and truly lived up to the standard described in the formulary quoted by the lawyer, he would be justified by his life. But that no man ever did or could so live, and that consequently all need the righteousness of another, even Christ, is clear from the whole tenor of the Gospel. To this our Lord would gradually lead the lawyer’s conscience.
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Luk 10:25. A certain lawyer. A kind of scribe whose business it was to teach the law.
And tempted, or, trying, him. This implies a cold, self-righteous spirit, rather than a hostile one. He probably wished to see whether our Lord would teach anything in conflict with the law of Moses, or simply whether He could teach him anything new. The two states of mind are not very far removed from each other: Pharisaism, in its self-righteousness, may present either a conceit of orthodoxy or self-conceit.
Matter, what shall I do? He doubtless expected in reply the mention of some new thing, or at least some great thing.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here we have a lawyer, that is, an interpreter and expounder of the law of Moses, tempting our Saviour; that is, making a trial of him, whether he would deliver any doctrine contrary to the law of Moses; he propounds therefore a question, What he should do to inherit eternal life?
Where note, he believed the certainty of a future state.
1. He professes his desire of an eternal happiness in that state.
2. He declares his readiness to do something in order to the obtaining of that happiness.
Hence learn, that all religion, both natural and revealed, teaches men that good works are necessary to salvation, or that something must be done by them who desire to enter into life: What shall I do to inherit eternal life? It is not talking well, and professing well, but doing well, that entitles us to heaven and eternal salvation; and this the very light of nature teaches.
Observe, 2. Our Saviour’s answer: What is written in the law? How readest thou? Intimating to us, that the word and law of God is the rule and measure of our duty; our guide to direct us in the way to eternal life.
The man replies, that the law of God requires that we love God with all our heart, soul, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves.
Where note, 1. That the fervor of all our affections, and particularly the supremacey of our love, is required by God as his right and due. Love must pass through and possess all the powers and faculties of our souls. The mind must meditate upon God, the will must choose and embrace him, the affections must take complacency and delight in him, the measure of loving God is to love him without measure.
Note, 2. That the best evidence of our sincere love to God is, the unfeigned love of our neighbor: love to man is both a fruit and testimony of our love to God. For he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?
Note, 3. That as it is every man’s duty to love himself, so is he to love his neighbor as himself; not as he does love himself, but as he ought to love himself; not with the same measure and degree of love, but in the same manner and kind of love that we love ourselves.
Do we love ourselves freely and readily, sincerely and unfeignedly, tenderly and compassionately, constantly and perseveringly? So should we love our neighbor also. Though we are not required to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves, yet are we commanded to love him like we love ourselves.
Observe lastly, Our Lord’s reply: Thou hast answered right. This do, and thou shalt live.
Where note, that Christ intimates to him, that the law considered in itself could give life, but then a person must keep it perfectly and exactly, without the least deficiency; which is impossible to man in his fallen state; for the law is not weak to us, but we are weak to that. Rom 13:3 The law becomes weak through the weakness of our flesh. Such as seek salvation by the works of the law, must keep the law perfectly and exactly; which being impossible in our fallen estate, Christ has obtained of his Father, that for his sake our sincere, though imperfect obedience, shall find acceptance with God and be available to our salvation.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Luk 10:25-28. And behold, a certain lawyer A doctor of the law; stood up and tempted him Greek, , trying him. It seems this lawyer was one of the multitude which attended Jesus when the seventy returned, and having listened to what he said to his disciples in private, concerning their enjoying a happiness which many prophets and kings had desired in vain to obtain, namely, the happiness of seeing his miracles, and of hearing his sermons, thought he would make trial of that great wisdom which some said he possessed, by proposing to him one of the most important questions which it is possible for the human mind to examine, namely, What a man must do to inherit eternal life. For, that this learned doctor asked the question, not from a sincere desire to know his own duty, but merely to try our Lords knowledge, is evident from the text, which informs us, that he did it tempting, or trying him, expecting, perhaps, that, on this head he would teach differently from Moses. He said unto him, What is written in the law? Jesus, alluding to his profession, made answer by inquiring of him what the law taught on that point. And he, answering out of Deu 6:5, said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. That is, Thou shalt unite all the faculties of thy soul to render him the most intelligent and sincere, the most affectionate and resolute service. We may safely rest in this general sense of these important words, if we are not able to fix the particular meaning of every single word. If we desire to do this, perhaps the heart, which is a general expression, may be explained by the three following; With all thy soul With the warmest affection; with all thy strength The most vigorous efforts of thy will; and with all thy mind Or understanding, in the most wise and reasonable manner thou canst, thy understanding guiding thy will and affections. And thy neighbour as thyself See on Mar 12:30-31. And he said, Thou hast answered right Jesus approved of his answer, and allowed, that to love God as the law enjoined is the means of obtaining eternal life, because it never fails to produce obedience to all the divine revelations and commands, consequently even to the gospel, which he was then preaching. Observe well, therefore, reader, our Lords words are not spoken ironically, but seriously; and contain a deep and weighty truth. He, and he alone, shall live for ever, who thus loves God and his neighbour in the present life.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
4. The Conversation with the Scribe, and the Parable of the Samaritan: Luk 10:25-37.
Jesus slowly continues His journey, stopping at each locality. The most varied scenes follow one another without internal relation, and as circumstances bring them. Weizscker, starting from the assumption that this framework is not historical, has set himself to seek a systematic plan, and affects to find throughout an order according to subjects. Thus he would have the parable of the good Samaritan connected with the sending of the seventy by its object, which was originally to prove the right of the evangelists, to whatever nationality they might belong. But where in the parable is there to be found the least trace of correspondence between the work done by the good Samaritan, and the function of the evangelists in the apostolic church? How could the original tendency fail to come out at some point of the description? Holtzmann thinks that in what follows Luke conjoins two distinct accountsthat of the scribe (Luk 10:25-28), which we find in Mar 12:28 and Mat 22:35, and the parable of the good Samaritan taken from the Logia. The connection which our Gospel establishes between the two events (Luk 10:29) is nothing else than a rather unskilful combination on the part of Luke. But there is no proof that the scribe of Luke is the same as that spoken of by Mark and Matthew. It is at Jerusalem, and in the days which precede the passion, that this latter appears; and above all, as Meyer acknowledges, the matter of discussion is entirely different. The scribe of Jerusalem asks Jesus which is the greatest commandment. His is a theological question. That of Galilee, like the rich young man, desires Jesus to point out to him the means of salvation. His is a practical question. Was there but one Rabbin in Israel who could enter into discussion with Jesus on such subjects? It is possible, no doubt, that some external details belonging to one of those scenes got mixed up in tradition with the narrative of the other. But the moral contents form the essential matter, and they are too diverse to admit of being identified. As to the connection which Luk 10:29 establishes between the interview and the parable which follows, it is confirmed by the lesson which flows from the parable (Luk 10:36-37), and about the authenticity of which there is no doubt.
Vers. 25-28. The Work which saves.
In Greece the object of search is truth; in Israel it is salvation. So this same question is found again in the mouth of the rich young man.
The expression stood up shows that Jesus and the persons who surrounded Him were seated. Several critics think this scenery (Holtzmann) inconsistent with the idea of a journey, as if we had not to do here with a course of preaching, and as if Jesus must have been, during the weeks this journey lasts, constantly on His feet!
The test to which the scribe wished to subject Jesus bore either on His orthodoxy or on His theological ability. His question rests on the idea of the merit of works. Strictly, on having done what work shall I certainly inherit…? In the term to inherit there is an allusion to the possession of the land of Canaan, which the children of Israel had received as a heritage from the hand of God, and which to the Jewish mind continued to be the type of the Messianic blessedness. The question of Jesus distinguishes between the contents () and the text () of the law. It has been thought that, while saying, How readest thou? Jesus pointed to the phylactery attached to the scribe’s dress, and on which passages of the law were written. But at Luk 10:28 we should find thou hast well read, instead of thou hast answered right. And it cannot be proved that those two passages were united on the phylacteries. The first alone appears to have figured on them.
It is not wonderful that the scribe instantly quotes the first part of the summary of the law, taken from Deu 6:5; for the Jews were required to repeat this sentence morning and evening. As to the second, taken from Lev 19:18, we may doubt whether he had the readiness of mind to join it immediately with the first, and so to compose this magnificent resum of the substance of the law. In Mark 12 and Matthew 22 it is Jesus Himself who unites those two utterances. It is probable, as Bleek thinks, that Jesus guided the scribe by a few questions to formulate this answer. Luk 10:26 has all the appearance of the opening of a catechetical course.
The first part of the summary includes four terms; in Hebrew there are only three, H4213, heart; , H5883, soul; , H4394, might. The LXX. also have only three, but they translate , H4213, heart, by , mind; and this is the word which appears in Luke as the fourth term. In Matthew there are three: is the last; in Mark, four: takes the place of , and is put second. , the heart, in Mark and Luke is foremost; it is the most general term: it denotes in Scripture the central focus from which all the rays of the moral life go forth; and that in their three principal directionsthe powers of feeling, or the affections, , H5883, the soul, in the sense of feeling; the active powers, the impulsive aspirations, , H4394, the might, the will; and the intellectual powers, analytical or contemplative, , mind. The difference between the heart, which resembles the trunk, and the three branches, feeling, will, and understanding, is emphatically marked, in the Alex. variation, by the substitution of the preposition , in, for , with (from), in the three last members. Moral life proceeds from the heart, and manifests itself without, in the three forms of activity indicated. The impulse Godward proceeds from the heart, and is realized in the life through the affection, which feeds on that supreme object; through the will, which consecrates itself actively to the accomplishment of His will; and through the mind, which pursues the track of His thoughts, in all His works.
The second part of the summary is the corollary of the first, and cannot be realized except in connection with it. Nothing but the reigning love of God can so divest the individual of devotion to his own person, that the ego of his neighbour shall rank in his eyes exactly on the same level as his own. The pattern must be loved above all, if the image in others is to appear to us as worthy of esteem and love as in ourselves.
Thus to love is, as Jesus says, the path to life, or rather it is life itself. God has no higher life than that of love. The answer of Jesus is therefore not a simple accommodation to the legal point of view. The work which saves, or salvation, is really loving. The gospel does not differ from the law in its aim; it is distinguished from it only by its indication of means and the communication of strength.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
LXXXIV.
PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN.
(Probably Juda.)
cLUKE X. 25-37.
c25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? [For the term lawyer see Deu 6:4, Deu 6:5, Lev 19:18. Having made himself conspicuous by standing up, the lawyer had to give the best answer he knew or sully his own reputation for knowledge. He therefore gives the two great laws which comprise all other laws.] 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. [The lawyer had asked his question simply as a test. With him the law was simply matter for speculation and theory, and the word “do” was very startling. It showed the difference between his and the Master’s views of the law. He had hoped by a question to expose Jesus as one who set aside the law, but [475] Jesus had exposed the lawyer as one who merely theorized about the law, and himself as one who advocated the doing of the law.] 29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? [He could justify his conduct if permitted to define the word “neighbor.” He asked his question, therefore, in the expectation of securing such a definition of the word as would enable him to maintain his public standing and quiet his conscience.] 30 Jesus made answer and said, A certain man [evidently a Jew, for otherwise the nationality would have been specified] was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. [The road from Jerusalem to Jericho is eighteen miles long, and descends about 3,500 feet. About two miles from Jerusalem it passes through the village of Bethany, and for the rest of the eighteen miles it passes through desolate mountain ravines without any habitation save the inn, the ruins of which are still seen about half way to Jericho. This district from that time till the present has been noted for robberies, and Jerome tells that the road was called the “bloody way.”] 31 And by chance a certain priest was going down that way [a very natural thing for a priest to do, for there was a very large priestly settlement at Jericho]: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. [He did this although the law commanded mercy and help to a neighbor– Exo 23:4, Deu 22:1-4.] 32 And in like manner a Levite also [A temple minister. The tribe of Levi had been set apart by God for his service], when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. [In the priest and Levite the lawyer saw the picture of his own life, for he saw in them those who knew the law, but did not practice it. There may have been many excuses for this neglect of the wounded man: danger, hate, dread of defilement, expense, but Jesus does not consider any of them worth mentioning.] 33 But a certain Samaritan [the hereditary enemy of the Jew– Joh 4:9], as he journeyed, came [476] where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 34 and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine [the ordinary remedies for wounds– Isa 1:6]; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow he took out two shillings [the shilling or denarius was worth about seventeen cents, but it represented the price of a day’s labor], and gave them to the host [the inn-keeper], and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee. [The compassion of the Samaritan bore full fruitage. However heterodox he was, he was after all a worshiper of Jehovah and more orthodox at heart than either the priest or the Levite. Though it was not customary for an inn-keeper to furnish food either for man or beast, he could do so if he chose out of his own stores. The scant cash left by the Samaritan indicates a poverty which made his charity the more praiseworthy. His eye and heart and hand and foot and purse were all subservient to the law of God.] 36 Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers? [Instead of answering didactically, “Everybody is your neighbor,” Jesus had incarnated the law of neighborliness in the good Samaritan, and had made it so beautiful that the lawyer could not but commend it even when found in a representative of this apostate race. He showed, too, that the law was not for causistry but for practice.] 37 And he said, He that showed mercy on him. [The lawyer avoided the name Samaritan so distasteful to his lips. Jesus gave countenance to no such racial prejudice, even though the Samaritans had rejected him but a few weeks before this– Luk 9:53.] Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. [All the laws and teachings of God are to be generously interpreted ( Mat 5:43, Mat 5:44) and are to be embodied in the life– Mat 7:24-27.] [477]
[FFG 475-477]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
CHAPTER 4
ENTANGLEMENT OF A THEOLOGIAN
Luk 10:25-28. And, behold, a certain theologian stood up, tempting Him, and saying, Teacher, having done what shall I inherit eternal life?
The word here translated lawyer in E. V., is nomikos, from nomos, law.
When you remember that their laws were all written in the Old Testament, you will know that a lawyer with them was not identical with the profession in our day, as their lawyers, were exponents of the Old Testament Scriptures. If you do not keep in mind this fact, you will utterly misapprehend the meaning of lawyer in the New Testament. He was not a lawyer in any modem sense, but a Biblical exegete; i. e., a theologian. This elegantly-cultured clergyman interviews our Savior in reference to the economy of grace, by which he might inherit eternal life, and, as the record says, tempting Him, doubtless realizing his own proficiency in the law, and thinking to entangle Jesus on some point of legal complicity. And He said to Him, What has been written in the law? How readest Thou? And responding, He said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with Divine love, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said to Him, You answered correctly; do this, and thou shalt live. He threw the boomerang; but being unskillful, it came back, settled down on him, and took his head off. Thinking to puzzle Jesus in a complicated legalism, he gets caught in his own trap. Our Lord simply puts him on the witness-stand. He can not go back on his theological profession; consequently He makes him witness to the verdict of the law. You see, he comes out in a frank confession, admitting to all that perfect love is the Bible standard of life and salvation.
Many a modern theologian forfeits his reputation for candor or proficiency in the law of the Lord when, like this man, put on the witness-stand. We are bound to give him more credit than many of his successors, who, in the pulpit, labor to evade the grand issue, dodging all around the great, salient Bible truth that perfect love is the condition on which we must all inherit eternal life, or forfeit it, world without end. Modern theologians would do well to sit at the feet of this man, who unhesitatingly rings out the Bible standard of salvation, though it was his own death-knell, as we are satisfied he did not have it. O that all who stand before the people as Biblical exegetes would so study the Word of the Lord as to know the way of salvation, and be candid enough always to ring it out to every inquirer, regardless of consequences! Jesus fully endorses his admission, telling him to go and practice what he preaches.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Luk 10:25-37. The Greatest Commandment (Mar 12:28-34*, Mat 22:34-40*), and the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. only).The inquirer puts his question in a different form, but the meaning is the same. And in Lk. Jesus elicits the answer from the questioner, and commends him. Luk 10:29 is thought by some to be merely Lk.s device, a peg on which to hang the parable, which existed in an independent form. For the parable answers the question Whose neighbour am I? not Who is my neighbour? (cf. Luk 7:41-43*). But the question Whose neighbour am I? is after all the more important, and it would be like Jesus to turn the problem round so as to emphasise this. True, one would have expected a story showing how Jew should help Samaritan, not Samaritan a Jew, but neighbourliness is independent of nationality, and here the Samaritan puts the Jew to shame. If we consider the parable apart from the context the moral is that people despised by the Jews may be much better than they and much nearer the Kingdom. The Samaritans, as such, are not put above the priests and Levites, but a charitable Samaritan is worth more than a priest without charity (Loisy). Halvy thinks that in the original story the three men were priest, Levite, and Israelite, a frequent and familiar collocation. A Samaritan was not likely to be passing and repassing between Jericho and Jerusalem or to be friendly with the innkeeper. There would certainly be point in a simple layman doing what the clergy had failed to do. Perhaps for his Gentile readers, to whom priest and Levite were Israelites, Lk. has corrected (and exaggerated) the third term. But, as Montefiore (p. 936f.) says, the Samaritan is in the parable now and the world will not easily let him go. And rightly. The parable is one of the simplest and noblest of all. Love, it tells us, must know no limits of race and ask no inquiry. Who needs me is my neighbour. Nowhere in OT is this doctrine so exquisitely and dramatically taught.
Luk 10:25. tempted: tested.eternal life: cf. 1Jn 1:2*.
Luk 10:30. going down: Jericho is nearly 4000 feet lower than Jerusalem; the distance is twenty miles, and the road is full of caves and gorges.
Luk 10:37. showed mercy: lit., did mercy.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
10:25 {8} And, behold, {i} a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
(8) Faith does not take away but establishes the doctrine of the law.
(i) One of those who proclaimed himself to be learned in the rites and laws of Moses.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
1. The relation of disciples to their neighbors 10:25-37
The question that a lawyer put to Jesus provided the opportunity for this lesson. Jesus answered it but then followed up His answer with a parable that was the climax of His teaching on the subject. The parable amplified the second great commandment (Luk 10:27). The teaching that followed the parable (Luk 10:38 to Luk 11:13), while not addressed to the lawyer, expounded the first great commandment (Luk 10:27). The present section also reminds the reader of Jesus’ allegiance to the Old Testament Scriptures, which He viewed as authoritative. Thus it balances Jesus’ former words about Him revealing the Father (Luk 10:22) with the importance of Scripture in that process.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The lawyer’s question and Jesus’ answer 10:25-29
The incident that Mark recorded in Mar 12:28-34 is quite similar to this one, but the differences in the accounts point to two separate situations. In view of the question at stake it is easy to see how people might have asked it of Jesus many different times. Furthermore this particular question was of great concern to the scribes, who studied the law professionally. The fact that the Holy Spirit recorded the same lesson twice in Scripture is a testimony to His greatness as a teacher since great teachers deliberately repeat themselves.
". . . in the first century A.D. in Palestine the only way of publishing great thoughts was to go on repeating them in talk or sermons." [Note: T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, p. 260.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Lawyers (scribes) were experts in the Mosaic Law. The Greek word translated "test" (ekpeirazon) does not necessarily imply hostility (cf. Luk 4:12). The man simply could have been wanting Jesus’ opinion. He addressed Jesus as a teacher or rabbi. This title tells us nothing about his motivation, only that He viewed Jesus as less than a prophet, the Messiah, or God. He assumed that people had to do something to obtain eternal life (cf. Luk 18:18). The term "inherit" had a particular significance for Jewish readers distinguishing a special way of receiving eternal life (cf. Mat 5:5; Mat 19:29; Mat 25:34). However, Gentiles readers for whom Luke wrote would have regarded it as synonymous with obtaining eternal life (cf. Mar 10:17). Eternal life is the equivalent of spiritual salvation and included entrance into the messianic kingdom.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
B. The relationships of disciples 10:25-11:13
The three incidents that compose this section all concern various aspects of the life of disciples. Luke continued to focus Jesus’ teaching on discipleship by his selection of material. All three incidents are unique to Luke’s Gospel, though again there is evidence that Jesus taught similar lessons and made similar statements at other times that the other evangelists recorded in other contexts.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 19
THE GOOD SAMARITAN.
Luk 10:25-37
IT would scarcely have accorded with the traditions of human nature had the teachers of religion looked favorably upon Jesus. Stepping, as He did, within their domain, without any human ordination or scholastic authority, they naturally resented the intrusion, and when the teaching of the new Rabbi so distinctly contravened their own interpretation of the law their curiosity deepened into jealousy, and curdled at last into a virulent hate. The ecclesiastical atmosphere was charged with electricity, but it only manifested itself at first in the harmless play of summer lightning, the crossfire of half-earnest and half-captious questions; later it was the forked lightning that struck Him down into a grave.
We have no means of localizing, either in point of time or place, the incident here recorded by our Evangelist, and which, by the way, only St. Luke mentions. It stands by itself, bearing in its dependent parable of the Good Samaritan as exquisite and perfect flower, from whose deep cup has dropped the very nectar of the gods.
It was probably during one of His public discourses that a “certain lawyer,” or scribe-for the two titles are used interchangeably-“stood up and tempted Him.” He sought to prove Him by questions, as the word means here, hoping to entrap Jesus amid the vagaries of Rabbinical tradition. “Teacher,” said he, hiding his sinister motive behind a veil of courtesy and apparent candor, “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Had the question been sincere, Jesus would probably have given a direct answer; but reading the under-current of his thought, which moved transversely to the surface-current of his speech, Jesus simply answered his question by asking another: “What is written in the law? How readest thou?” With a readiness which implied a perfect familiarity with the Law, he replied, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” Some expositors have thought that the Evangelist here gives the summary of what was a lengthened conversation, and that Jesus Himself led the mind of the lawyer to join together these detached portions of Scripture-one Deu 6:5, and the other from Lev 19:18. It is true there is a striking resemblance between the answer of the lawyer and the answer Jesus Himself gave subsequently to a similar question; {Mar 12:30-31} but there is no necessity for us to apologize for the resemblance, as if it were improbable and unnatural. The fact is, as the narrative of Mar 12:1-44. plainly indicates, that these two sentences were held in general consent as the epitome of the Law, its first and its second commandment. Even the scribe assents to this as an axiomatic truth he has no wish to challenge. It will be observed that a fourth term is added to the three of the original, possibly on account of the Septuagint rendering, which translated the Hebrew “heart” by “mind.” Godet suggests that since the term “heart” is the most general term, denoting “in Scripture the central focus from which all the rays of the moral life go forth,” that it stands in apposition to the other three, the one in its three particulars. This, which is the most natural interpretation, would refer the “mind” to the intellectual faculties, the “soul” to the emotional faculties, the sensibilities, and the “might” to the will which rules all force; while by the “heart” is meant the unit, the “centered self,” into which the others merge, and of which they form a part.
Jesus commended him for his answer: “Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live”-words which brushed away completely the Hebraic figment of inherited life. That life was not something that should be reached by processes of loving. The life should precede the love, and should give birth to it: the love should grow out of the life, its blossoming flower.
Having the tables so turned upon himself, and wishing to “justify,” or to put himself right, the stranger asks still another question: “And who is my neighbor?” doubtless hoping to cover his retreat in the smoke of a burning question. To our minds, made familiar with the thought of humanity, it seems as if a question so simple scarcely deserved such an elaborate answer as Jesus gave to it. But the thought of humanity had not yet possessed the world; indeed, it had only just come to earth, to be spoken by, and incarnate in, Him who was the Son of man. To the Jew the question of the lawyer was a most important one. The word “neighbor” could be spoken in a breath; but unwind that word, and it measures off the whole of our earthly life, it covers all our practical, every-day duties. It ran through the pages of the Law, the ark in which the Golden Rule was hidden; or, like a silent angel, it flashed its sword across life s forbidden paths. But if the Jew could not erase this broad word from the pages of the Law, he could narrow and emasculate its meaning by an interpretation of his own. And this they had done, making this Divine word almost of none effect by their tradition. To the Jewish mind “neighbor” was simply “Jew” spelt large. The only neighborhood they recognized was the narrow neighborhood of Hebrew speech and Hebrew sympathies. The Hebrew mind was isolated as their land, and all who could not frame their Shibboleths were barbarians, Gentiles, whom they were at perfect liberty to spoil, as with anathemas and swords they chased them over their Jordans. Jesus, however, is on the alert; and how wisely He answers! He does not declaim against the narrowness of Hebrew thought; He utters no denunciatory word against their proud and false exclusiveness. He quietly unfolds the word, spreading it out into an exquisite parable, that all coming times may see how beautiful, how Divine the word “neighbor” is.
He said, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, which both stripped him, and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead.” The parables of Jesus, though drawn from real life, had no local coloring. They grouped themselves around some well-known fact of nature, or some general custom of social life; and so their spirit was national or cosmopolitan, rather than local. Here, however, Jesus departs from His usual manner, giving to His parable a local habitation. It is the road which led steeply down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and which for centuries has been so infested with robbers or bandits as to earn for itself the darkly ominous name of “the Bloody Way.” Possibly that name itself is an outgrowth from the parable; but whether so or not, it is scarcely to be supposed that it had so evil a character in the days of Christ. As Jericho then was a populous city, and intimately connected with Jerusalem in its social and business life, the road would be much frequented. Indeed, the parable indicates as much; for Jesus, whose words were never untrue to nature or to history, represents His three travelers as all journeying singly; while the khan or “inn” shows, in its reflection, a constant stream of travel. Our anonymous traveler, however, does not find it so safe as he had anticipated. Attacked, in one of its dusky ravines, by a band of brigands, they strip him of his clothing, with whatever the girdle-purse might contain, and beating him out of sheer devilry, they leave him by the road-side, unable to walk, unable even to rise, a living-dying man.
“And by chance, a certain priest was going down that way; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.” As in tableaux vivants, Jesus shows us the two ecclesiastics, who come in sight in the happy, coincidental way that Romance so delights in. They had probably just completed their “course” of Temple service, and were now going down to Jericho, which was a favorite residence of the priests, for the somewhat long interval their sacred duties allowed them. They had, therefore, no pressure of business upon them; indeed, the verb would almost imply that the priest was walking leisurely along. But they bring no help to the wounded man. Directly they see him, instead of being drawn to him by the attractions of sympathy, something, either the shock or the fright, acts upon them as a centrifugal force, and sends them describing an arc of a circle around that center of groans and blood. At any rate they “passed by on the other side,” leaving behind them neither deed nor word of mercy, but leaving behind them a shadow of themselves which, while time itself lasts, will be vivid, cold, and repelling. It is just possible, however, that they do not deserve all the unmeasured censure which the critics and the centuries have given, and are still likely to give. It is very easy for us to condemn their action as selfish, heartless! But let us put ourselves in their place, alone in the lonely pass, with this proof of an imminent danger sprung suddenly upon us, and it is possible that we ourselves should not have been quite so brave as by our safe firesides we imagine ourselves to be. The fact is it needed something more than sympathy to make them turn aside and befriend the wounded man; it needed physical courage, and that of the highest kind, and this wanting, sympathy itself would not be sufficient. The heart might long to help, even when the feet were hastening away. A sudden inrush of fear, even of vague alarm, will sometimes drive us contrary to the drift of our sympathies, just as our feet are lifted and we ourselves carried onwards by a surging crowd.
Whether this be a correct interpretation of their conduct or not, it certainly harmonizes with the general attitude of Jesus towards the priesthood. The chief priests were always and bitterly hostile, but we have reasonable grounds for supposing that the priests, as a body, looked favoringly upon Jesus. The bolts of terrible “woes” are hurled against Pharisees and scribes, yet Jesus does not condemn the priests in a single word; while in that aftermath of the Pentecost the Temple courts yielded the richest harvests, as “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” If, then, Jesus now holds up the priesthood to execration, setting these ecclesiastics in the pillory of His parable, that the coming centuries may throw sharp words at them, it is certainly an exceptional mood. The sweet silence has curdled into acrid speech. But even here Jesus does not condemn, except, as it would seem, by implication, the conduct of the priest and Levite. They come into the parable rather as accessories, and Jesus makes use of them as a foil, to throw out into bolder relief the central figure, which is the Samaritan, and so to emphasize His central truth, which is the real answer to the lawyers question, that “neighbor” is too broad, and too human, a word to be cut off and delimited by any boundaries of race.
But in thus casting a mantle of charity around our priest and Levite, we must admit that the character is sometimes true even down to recent days. Ecclesiasticism and religion, alas l are not always synonyms. Revolted Israel sins and sacrifices by turns, and seeking to keep the balance in equal poise, she puts over against her multitude of sins her multitude of sacrifices. Religiousness may be at times but a cloak for moral laxity, and to some rite is more than right. There are those, alas! Today, who wear the livery of the Temple, to whom religion is a routine mechanism of dead things, rather than the commerce of living hearts, who open with hireling hand the Temple gates, who chant with hireling lips how “His mercy endureth forever,” and then step down from their sacred Jerusalem, to toss justice and mercy to the winds, as they defraud the widow and oppress the poor.
“But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.” At first sight it would appear as if Jesus had weakened the narrative by a topographical inaccuracy, as if He had gone out of His way to place a Samaritan on the road to Jericho, which was altogether out of the line of Samaritan travel. But it is a deliberate purpose on the part of Jesus, and not a lapsus linguae, that introduces this Samaritan; for this is the gist of the whole parable. The man who had fallen among the robbers was doubtless a Jew; for had it been otherwise, the fact would have been stated. Now there was no question as to whether the word “neighbor” embraced their fellow-countrymen: the question was whether it passed beyond their national bounds, opening up lines of duty across the outlying world. It is therefore almost a necessity that the one who teaches this lesson should be himself an alien, a foreigner, and Jesus chooses the Samaritan as being of a race against which Jewish antipathies were especially strong, but for which He Himself had a special regard and warmest sympathy. Though occupying adjacent territory, the Jews and the Samaritans practically were far apart, antipodal races we might almost call them. Between them lay a wide and deep chasm that trade even could not bridge, and across which the courtesies and sympathies of life never passed. “The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans,” said the flippant woman of Samaria, as she voiced a jealousy and hatred which were as mutual as they were deep. But here, in this ideal Samaritan, is a noble exception. Though belonging to a lowly and obscure race, his thoughts are high. The ear of his soul has so caught the rhythm of Divine harmonies that it does not hear longer the little lisping Shibboleths of earthly speech; and while the sympathies of smaller hearts flow like a stream down in their well-defined and accustomed channel, seldom knowing any overflow, save in some rare freshet of impulse and of feeling, the sympathies of the Samaritan moved outward like the currents of the wind, sweeping across all chasms and over all mountain heights of division, bearing their clouds of blessing anywhither as the need required. It makes no difference to him that the fallen man is of an alien race. He is a man, and that is enough; and he is down, and must be raised; he is in need, and must be helped. The priest and Levite thought first and most of themselves, and giving to the man but a brief and scared look, they passed on with a quickened pace. Not so with the Samaritan; he loses all thought of himself, and is perfectly oblivious to the danger he himself may be running. Upon his great soul he feels the pressure of this “must”; it runs along the tightened muscles of his arm, as he checks his steed, lie himself comes down, dismounting, that he may help the man to rise. He opens his flask and puts his wine to the lips, that their groans may cease, or that they may be soothed down into inarticulate speech. The oil he has brought for his own food he pours upon the wounds, and when the man has sufficiently recovered he lifts him upon his own beast and takes him to the inn. Nor is this enough for his great heart, but continuing his journey on the morrow, he first arranges with his host that the man shall be well cared for, giving him two pence, which was the two days wages of a laboring man, at the same time telling him that he must not limit his attention to the sum he pays in advance, but! That if anything more should be needed he would pay the balance on his return. We do not read whether it was needed or not, for the Samaritan, mounting his steed, passes out of our hearing and out of our sight. Not quite out of our hearing, however, for Heaven has caught his gentle, loving words, and hidden them within this parable, that all coming times may listen to their music; nor out of our sight either, for his photograph was caught in the sunlight of the Masters speech; and as we turn over the pages of Inspiration there is no picture more beautiful than that of the nameless Samaritan, whom all the world calls “the Good,” the man who knew so much better than his age what humanity and mercy meant.
In the new light the lawyer can answer his own question now, and he does; for when Jesus asks, “Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers?” he replies, with no hesitation, but with a lingering prejudice that does not care to pronounce the, to him, outlandish name, “He that showed mercy on him.” The lesson is learned, the lesson of humanity, for the whole parable is but an amplification of the Golden Rule, and Jesus dismisses the subject and the scholar with the personal application, which is but a corollary of the proposition He has demonstrated, “Go thou and do likewise.” Go and do to others as you would have them do to you, were the circumstances reversed and your places changed. Read off your duty, not from your own low standpoint merely, but in a binocular vision, as you put yourself in his place; so will you find that the line of duty and the line of beauty are one.
The practical lessons of the parable are easy to trace, as they are of universal application. The first lesson it teaches is the lesson of humanity, the neighborhood and brotherhood of man. It is a convenience, and perhaps a necessity, of human life, that the great mass of humanity should be broken up into fragments, sections, with differing customs, languages, and names. It gives to the world the stimulus of competition and helpful rivalries. But these distinctions are superficial, temporary, and beneath this diversity of speech and thought there is the deeper unity of soul. We emphasize our differences; we pride ourselves upon them; but how little does Heaven make of them! Heaven does not even see them. Our national boundaries may climb up over the Alps, but they cannot touch the sky. Those skies look down and smile on all alike, Divinely impartial in their gifts of beauty and of light. And how little of the provincial, or even national, there was about Jesus! Though He kept Himself almost entirely within the borders of the Holy Land, never going far from His central pivot, which was Jerusalem, and its cross, yet He belonged to the world, as the world belonged to Him. He called Himself the Son of man, at once humanitys flower, and humanitys Son and Savior. And as over the cradle of the Son of man the far East and the far West together leaned, so around His cross was the meeting-place of the races. The three chief languages inscribed upon it proclaimed His royalty, while the cross itself, on which the Sacrifice for humanity was to be offered, was itself the gift of humanity at large, as Asia provided it, and Europe prepared it, and Africa, in the person of the Cyrenian, bore it. In the mind of Jesus, as in the purpose of God, humanity was not a group of fractions, but a unit one and indivisible, made of one blood, and by one Blood redeemed. In the heart of Jesus there was the “enthusiasm of humanity,” all-absorbing and complete, and that enthusiasm takes possession of us, a new force generated in our lives, as we approach in spirit the great Ideal Man.
The second lesson of the parable is the lesson of mercy, the beauty of self-sacrifice. It was because the Samaritan forgot himself that all the world has remembered and applauded him. It is because of his stoop of self-renouncing love that his character is so exalted, his memory so dear, and that his very name, which is a title without a name, floats down the ages like a sweet song. “Go and do thou likewise” is the Masters word to us. Discipline your heart that you may see in man everywhere a brother, whose keeper you are. Let fraternity be, not a theory only, but a realized fact, and then a factor of your life. Train your eye to watch for others needs, to read anothers woe. Train your soul to sympathy, and your hand to helpfulness; for in our world there is room enough for both. Bethesdas porches stretch far as our eye can reach, all crowded, too, with the sorrowing, the sick, and the sad-thick enough indeed, but not so close as that an angels foot may not step between them, and not so sad but an angels voice may soothe and cheer. He who lifts anothers load, who soothes anothers smart, who brightens a life that else would be dark, who puts a music within a brothers soul, though it be only for a passing moment, wakes even a sweeter music within his own, for he enters on earth into his Masters joy, the joy of a redeeming, self-sacrificing love.