{"id":25375,"date":"2022-09-24T11:04:23","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T16:04:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-luke-1029\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T11:04:23","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T16:04:23","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-luke-1029","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-luke-1029\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 10:29"},"content":{"rendered":"

But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

29<\/strong>. willing to justify himself<\/em> ] “before men” a thing which the Pharisees were ever prone to do, Luk 16:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n

who is my neighbour?<\/em> ] He wants his moral duties to be labelled and defined with the Talmudic precision to which ceremonial duties had been reduced.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

To justify himself – <\/B>Desirous to appear blameless, or to vindicate himself, and show that he had kept the law. Jesus wished to lead him to a proper view of his own sinfulness, and his real departure from the law. The man was desirous of showing that he had kept the law; or perhaps he was desirous of justifying himself for asking the question; of showing that it could not be so easily settled; that a mere reference to the words of the law did not determine it. It was still a question what was meant by neighbor. The Pharisees held that the Jews only were to be regarded as such, and that the obligation did not extend at all to the Gentiles. The lawyer was probably ready to affirm that he had discharged faithfully his duty to his countrymen, and had thus kept the law, and could justify himself. Every sinner is desirous of justifying himself. He seeks to do it by his own works. For this purpose he perverts the meaning of the law, destroys its spirituality, and brings down the law to his standard, rather than attempt to frame his life by its requirements.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 10:29-37<\/span><\/p>\n

And who is my neighbour?<\/em><\/p>\n

—<\/em><\/p>\n

Self-justification<\/strong><\/p>\n

The lawyer said–Then comes his own particular plea or excuse, to which I intend to pay little or no attention now, it was so completely and triumphantly answered by Jesus Christ. Read His parable in reply. Next to the parable of the prodigal son, it is the sweetest word ever spoken even by the lips of Jesus Christ. <\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>I intend each man to fill up the sentence for himself, only having from the lawyer the preface: He, willing to justify himself, said–What words do you insert after the word said? How is it with your self-justifying and self-excusing heart? Do I hear correctly when I say you are now reasoning thus–If I am sincere in my spirit and convictions, no matter whether I believe what is in the Bible or not, all will be well with me here and hereafter? Is that a correct statement of what you are now thinking? It sounds well. I admit, with all candour, that it seems to sound conclusively and to admit of no refutation. Yet it surely will admit of a question or two being put, in order that we may fully understand the position. You speak of sincerity. I ask, What are you sincere in? Does anything turn upon the object of your sincerity? If you are sincerely giving to a customer over your counter what you believe to be the thing he has asked for, will you be fully justified in the day that you find you have poisoned the man? You sincerely believed that you were giving him precisely the very ingredient that he asked for, and that he had paid for, but you do not give him that ingredient, but something else, and ere the sun go down the man will be dead. What does sincerity go for there? If you indicate to a traveller, sincerely, to the best of your knowledge, the road along which he ought to go to reach a certain destination; if it be the wrong road, and if in some sudden darkness the man should fall over a precipice, will your sincerity obliterate everything like self-reproach? Were you sure it was the road? No, but I was sincere in thinking it was. Did you explain to the man that you were speaking upon an assumption? No, I thought there was no occasion to do so, I felt so sure. But you see that the mere element of sincerity goes a very short way in cases of that kind. We love sincerity. Without sincerity life is but a mockery, the worst of irony! But what are we sincere in? Have we ascertained that the object of our sincerity is real, true, and deserving of our confidence? We are responsible not only for the light we have, but for the light we may <\/em>have. There is a sincerity of fanaticism, as well as a sincerity of philosophy. There is a sincerity of ignorance, as well as a sincerity of knowledge. Merely, therefore, to say, I am sincere, is to say nothing. We must inquire, what is the object upon which your sincerity fixes itself? what is the degree of its intelligence, and what is the degree of its conscience? When any man has returned clear earnest answers to these inquiries, my belief is that he will find himself short of something, and that that something which is absent will be found to be the truth as it is in Jesus–the Cross, the one Cross, out of which every other cross that is true anduseful must be made! <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>But he, willing to justify himself, said, I have been looking round, and it strikes me that I am every whir as good as other people that are about me. Would it be rude to contradict you? Will it be polite to admit the truthfulness, generally, of what you say? Either on the one hand or the other it does not touch the point at all. If the question lay between you and me, it would be right for each to compare himself with the other, and to exalt his superiority at the expense of his brothers infirmities. The case is not as between one man and another. We err in circumscribing the question so. The question is between the soul and God; between the heart and the absolutely right; between man and Jesus Christ; between right and wrong. When you compare yourself with another man, especially to your own advantage, you are not in the spirit which is likely to elicit the truth and lead you to sound and useful conclusions. Your disposition is wrong; your temper is wrong. You must cease such a method of comparing advantages and honours, and must go to the absolute and final standard of righteousness. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>But he, willing to justify himself, said, Though I do not believe and act as they do who call themselves Christians, yet I trust to the mercy of God. The man who makes this plea talks in some such fashion as this: I do not care for doctrines; I do not care for churches; theologies trouble me very little indeed; if I live as wisely as I can, and do what is tolerably fair between one man and another, I shall trust to the mercy of God, and I believe all will be right at last. Do you know what you are talking about in talking so? Do you understand the value and the force of your own words? Are you aware that the word mercy is one of the words in our language which it is very difficult to understand? What is mercy? In your estimation, perhaps, it is mere physical sensibility, simple emotion–a gush of feeling. Is that mercy? No. What is mercy? The highest point of justice–justice returning and completing itself by the return. Mercy is justice in tears! Mercy is righteousness with a sword just transforming itself into a sceptre! Is mercy a mere freak of sentimentality? Do you think God will say at last, Well, well, come in, come in, and say nothing more about it? I would not go into His heaven if the conditions were such l It would be no heaven. <\/p>\n

Where there is not righteousness at the centre, there is no security at the circumference. Where the throne is not founded upon justice, mercy is but a momentary impulse, to be followed by a terrible recoil. What do you mean, then, when you talk about trusting to His mercy at last? Trust to His mercy at first. Where is His mercy? It is in the life, the ministry, the death, the resurrection, and the whole mediation of Jesus Christ! <\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>But he, willing to justify himself, said, There is so much mystery about religion that I cannot really attempt to understand it. I answer, There is mystery about religion, but there is ten thousand times more mystery without it. There is mystery with the Bible, but there is nothing but mystery without it. There is a mystery of grace; yes, and there is a mystery of sin. Life is a mystery. All that is great touches the mysterious. Would I part with the mystery! Nay, verily. Are not the clouds Gods as well as the blue sky? Are not the mists around the mountain tops His, as well as the bases of the mountains and the foundations of the earth? Is He Himself the living God, not the culmination of all mysteries, the sum of all wonder–the Alpha and the Omega–not to be understood, but loved and served? There is a point in my religious inquiries where I must close my eyes, look no more, but rest myself in the grand transaction which is known as faith in the Son of God. <\/p>\n


V. <\/strong>But he, willing to justify himself, came at last to this: There are so many denominations of Christians, that it is impossible to tell which is right and which is wrong. Think of a man going off on that line! Think of a man saying that he has been looking round and sees that there are so many denominations, that really he has made up his mind to give up the whole thing! Does he know what he is talking about? Is he really serious when he speaks so? Shall I follow his example? If I do it will be to show how great is his folly. I have been looking round, and see so many different regiments in the country that really it is impossible to tell which is right and which is wrong, and I do not think I shall have anything to do with the country. Yes, there are many regiments, but one army; many denominations, but one Church; many creeds, but one faith; many aspects, but one life; many ways up the hill, but one cross on the top of it. Dont lose yourself among the diversities, when you might save yourself by looking at the unities. There are so many mountains about, that I really do not know that there can be any truth in geography. Many mountains–one globe! Conclusion: If, then, there is not to be self-justification, what is there to be? Self-renunciation. A man must empty himself of himself before he is in the right condition to understand lovingly and gratefully the offer which Jesus Christ makes men. God guests with the contrite and companies with the self-renouncing soul. I will go to my Father, then, and will say unto Him, not, Father, I was tempted; somebody lured me away; I did not intend to leave Thee, but I was beguiled; but I will say unto Him, Father, I have sinned! This, then, is the ground of coming to God; the ground of self-denial, self-renunciation, self-distrust, self-hatred, on account of sin. Oh! Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in Me is thy help. Come unto Me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. Jesus cried and said, If any man thirst let him come unto Me and drink. I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. Who accepts the invitation to-night? Some have accepted it. Pray that this word may not be spoken in vain! Some require just one more appeal, and they will decide. Take this, my friend, as the appeal you want. Now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation. (J. Parker, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Parable of the man who fell among thieves<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> By the man that went from Jerusalem to Jericho, I understand is meant fallen man, who originally in the first Adam went from God. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> By falling among thieves, may be meant that mischief and misery which hath befallen man by sin, Satan, and other enemies of the soul. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> By stripping him of his raiment, may be meant all our first or original righteousness. Righteousness being often compared to raiment, or to a garment. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> By wounding him, may be intended that sad and fearful privation of the soul in every faculty thereof by sin. <\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> By leaving him half dead, may be meant the spiritual death of the soul, which is half, nay the better half of the man. <\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> By the priest passing that way and going on one side, may be meant, the law or priesthood of Aaron; by the Levite may be meant legal sacrifices, and by their both passing by, and not pitying or helping this poor distressed man, may signify that there is no help, no cure, no salvation by the law, nor sacrifices of the law, for undone sinners. <\/p>\n

7.<\/strong> By the Samaritan, I understand is meant our Lord Jesus Christ, who is said to pass by and see us in our blood–Now as I passed by, I looked upon thee, and saw thee polluted in thy own blood (Eze 16:6<\/span>; Eze 16:8<\/span>). This was a blessed lock indeed, a look of pity and compassion–When he saw him, he had compassion on him. And he went to him, which may refer to two things. <\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> To Christs coming into the world to assume our nature. <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> It may refer also to His gracious coining to a wounded sinner by His Word and Spirit, in helping him to apply the virtue of His own precious blood to his wounded soul. <\/p>\n

8.<\/strong> Binding up his wounds, and pouring in oil and wine, may be meant, Christ infusing of His Spirit and precious grace into his soul; grace, as well as the Holy Spirit, being compared to oil. (B. Keach.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Mankind wounded and robbed by sin and Satan<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>In what respects sin and Satan may be compared to thieves. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Thieves are enemies to honest men, and of which they are in danger continually. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Thieves often in a secret and felonious manner have taken away all that men had in their possession, leaving them in a very poor and distressed condition who were very rich before. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Thieves many times lead poor travellers out of the kings highway, into some blind or secret place, and there bind them hand and foot, as well as take away all they have. So sin and Satan–<\/p>\n

(I)<\/strong> With the bond of ignorance. <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Hard heart. <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Unbelief. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Thieves are a great terror to honest men, and they strive to avoid them as much as they can, and also to defend themselves against them with their utmost power and skill. So the Lord Jesus arms us with spiritual armour, wisdom, and courage, to resist the flesh, world, and devil. <\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> Thieves wait a fit opportunity to come upon a person or family, even when they are most secure, or asleep in their beds. So Satan and other spiritual enemies watch a fit time when a child of God is most secure, or in a sleepy or slothful condition. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>Sin and the evil are the worst of thieves. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Because they are soul-thieves, and seek to rob us of our choice and chiefest treasure. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Because they are cruel and bloody thieves, murdering thieves. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Because none have escaped them. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Nay, and they have not only murdered the whole world of ungodly sinners, but they have also wickedly slain and murdered the Lord Jesus Christ. <\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> Sin and the devil, &c., are the worst of thieves, because they are old thieves and murderers. The devil was a murderer from the beginning Joh 8:44<\/span>). <\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> They are the worst of thieves, considering their great subtilty, policy, and craftiness. <\/p>\n

7.<\/strong> Because of their great power and strength. Who is a match for them? (B. Keach.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Parable of the Good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>The Saviour here reminds us that IN THE WORLD THERE IS SORE DISTRESS. Upon this man a band of ruffians rushed out: and, seizing, they stripped him of his raiment, beat him, and left him half dead; and all, so far as appears, with no fault of his own. There is poverty and pain and sorrow, for which the sufferer is not, at least directly, responsible. It must, however, be owned that the chief woes of the world come of sin. There are no thieves and robbers so cruel as worldliness and wrong doing, irreligion and vice. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>THERE ARE THOSE WHO TO ALL THIS PAY LITTLE HEED. The priest and the Levite were both in a hurry. They had been a month at Jerusalem, and were expected and wanted at home. Their wives and children were anxiously waiting for them. The sun would soon be down, and this was a lonely road even by daylight. Neither of them understood surgery, they could not bind up a wound to save their lives. Moreover, the poor man, already half dead, would be quite dead in an hour or two, and it was a pity to waste time on a hopeless case. The robbers, too, might be back again. Then, the man might die, and the person found near the body be charged with murder. Good excuses, every one! And so it comes to pass that the worlds miseries go unrelieved; the worlds sins unrebuked; the worlds perishing ones unsaved. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>But, now, in contrast with all this, our Saviour shows us that, IN THE PRESENCE OF DISTRESS, TRUE LOVE, FORGETTING SELF, HASTENS TO ITS RELIEF. (H. M. Grout, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Parable of the good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>THE DISTRESSED CONDITION OF A FELLOW-CREATURE. Of what vileness men are capable–in some respects more to be dreaded than the savage beast of prey that roams abroad in the forest. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>THE EMBODIMENT OF SELFISHNESS IN TWO TRAVELLERS WHO ARE PASSING BY. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>AN EXHIBITION OF LOVE AND MERCY WHERE WE SHOULD NOT HAVE EXPECTED TO FIND IT. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The Samaritans eye affected his heart. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> His feet hastened to the sufferer. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> His hands ministered to him. <\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION to which the querulous lawyer was forced. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Think of the Samaritan, and admire his spirit. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Have equally generous feelings toward all thy suffering fellow-creatures. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Imitate him when such circumstances shall be presented before thine eyes. <\/p>\n

Learn–<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The fallacy of that religion which is devoid of mercy and compassion.<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> See under what an awful delusion professors of religion may live. As in the case of the priest and Levite. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Cherish the spirit, and imitate the conduct of the Lord Jesus–Who went about doing good. (J. Burns, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> It is not always convenient to be good. A free-and-easy manner of life is not goodness, and no more is good-nature. There is no goodness without a self-denial which runs right against self-convenience. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Again, it is not always agreeable to be good. Thorns lacerate the hand which gathers roses. In the Divine service the quester is not what we would prefer. No one can enjoy the scene of suffering or be gladdened by its moans–this is not natural; yet we must always relieve such wants. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Once again, goodness implies a heavy cost. One who is truly good never locks up his pocket-book so that he cannot be benevolent. The Samaritan was good long before he bound up the bruises of the sufferer and provided for him. The event simply evoked what he already was. We do not become good by doing such acts as these, but such acts as these declare our nature. We observe yet further, this goodness wins the respect of the world. (David O. Meats.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Lessons from this parable<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>THAT MAN IN ALL HIS VARIETIES AND CONDITIONS IS TO BE RECOGNIZED AS OUR NEIGHBOUR AND BROTHER. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>THAT NATIONAL PREJUDICE AND RELIGIOUS DISTINCTION SHOULD ALL GIVE PLACE TO THE EXERCISE OF CHARITY. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>THAT IT IS OUR DUTY TO OVERCOME EVIL WITH GOOD. In conclusion; consider some motives which call for the exercise of charity. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The relation in which we stand to God and to one another in the present world. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> The genius of our holy religion demands it. (J. Pulling.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n

Two things must strike every attentive reader. The first is, that the parable was not so much an answer to the question formally put by the lawyer, as an exposure of the state of heart which the putting of that question revealed. The inquirer wanted a definition of the word neighbour. The Lord answers by showing him true neighbourliness in contrast with selfish indifference. Thus the parable does not tell us in form who our neighbour is, but it shows us how true love works. But the second peculiarity of this parable is, that it is not an allegory, each figure in which represents a spiritual analogue; but simply an illustrative example of the working of benevolence, as contrasted with that of selfishness. It is designed to show us what we must avoid, as well as what we must cultivate, if we would truly and fully love our neighbour as ourselves. <\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>THE KINDNESS OF THE SAMARITAN WAS OF THE SPIRIT, AND NOT MERELY OF THE LETTER. With him love meant the doing of everything within his power, for all who required his help; and, therefore, without asking any questions or making any excuses, he gave the poor man all the assistance he could. If we do that only which is formally prescribed, and if, where the law leaves a blank to be filled up by circumstances, we act as if there was no law at all, then we have yet to learn what true benevolence is; nay, more, we have yet to learn what kind of a book the New Testament is: for it is not a list of distinct precepts, each of which is applicable to only one case; but it is a book of living principles of universal application, and he who really understands them, and has a heart to feel their obligation, will be at no loss to find occasion for their manifestation. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>THE SAMARITANS BENEVOLENCE WAS NOT HINDERED BY ANY PREJUDICES OF NATIONALITY OR RELIGION. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>THE SAMARITANS BENEVOLENCE WAS NOT HINDERED BY ANY CONSIDERATIONS OF PERSONAL CONVENIENCE. What genuine neighbour-love does, it will do thoroughly. Love is ready to sacrifice up to the extent of the necessity which it seeks to meet. <\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>THIS MANS BENEVOLENCE-TOOK ITS FORM FROM THE NATURE OF THE MISERY WHICH HE SOUGHT TO RELIEVE. He did the very things which the sufferer needed to have done for him, and he did these at once. He might, indeed, have put himself about in many other ways, under the idea that he was helping the unfortunate traveller; but nothing could have met the case save the method which he adopted. He had no stereotyped mode of showing mercy, which he sought invariably to follow; but he did in each case just what each required. Now, this is very important, because, for lack of attention to it, many peoples benevolence, though it may be very well meant, is a total failure. <\/p>\n


V. <\/strong>IF OUR BENEVOLENCE WOULD BE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER, WE MUST EXERCISE IT OUT OF REGARD TO HIM WHO DIED TO SHOW MERCY TO OURSELVES. Thus our humanity will rise into Christianity, and our benevolence will be baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. I conclude with the story of an incident in the life of my grandfather, which I have often heard from my fathers lips. It was more than a hundred years ago, when wheeled conveyances were rarely used in the rural districts of Scotland, and the custom was to convey grain to the mill in a sack laid over a horses back. The good man was making such a journey once, over a rough bridle-path; and the horse stumbled, so that the sack fell off. As he was perplexed, and wondering what to do, he saw a man on horseback in the distance, and had lust made up his mind to ask him for assistance, when he recognized in him the nobleman who lived in an adjoining castle; and then his heart sank again within him, for how could he request him to help him? But he did not need to ask him, for he was noble by a higher patent than any monarch could confer; and, when he came up, he dismounted of his own accord, saying, Let me help you, John. So between them they put the load again upon the horse; and then John, who was a gentleman too, though he did wear hodden grey, taking off his broad Kilmarnock bonnet, made obeisance, and said, Please your worship, how shall I ever thank you for your kindness? Very easily, John, was the reply. Whenever you see another man as sorely needing assistance as you were just now, help him; and that will be thanking me. So, as we contemplate the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, we cry, What shall I render unto Thee, O Lord, for all Thy benefits toward me?–and there comes this answer: Whensoever thou seest a fellow-man needing thy succour as much as thou wast needing Mine when I gave My life for thee, help him, and that will be thanking Me. Inasmuch as ye do it, etc.(W. M. Taylor, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The good Samaritan <\/strong><\/p>\n

Take the scene of this parable as the wayside of life. The road through this world is a dangerous way, leading through the wilderness, stained by many crimes, haunted by many robbers. Travelling along this highway of life, I see crowds of persons, of all sorts and conditions of men. And I see, moreover, that all of them bear scars upon them, as though they had been wounded, and many I see are lying by the wayside in sore distress. All have at some time or other fallen among thieves. There is a famous picture by the great French painter which illustrates this. It represents a number of different people journeying through the valley of this world. The way is rough and gloomy, and all bear signs of having known weariness and sorrow. The king is there in his royal robes, and wearing his crown; but his brow is furrowed with care, and he seems to ask, like our own King Henry–<\/p>\n

Gives not the hawthorn bush a sweeter shade<\/p>\n

To shepherds, looking on their silly sheep,<\/p>\n

Than doth a rich embroiderd canopy<\/p>\n

To kings, that fear their subjects treachery? <\/p>\n

The poet is there crowned with laurel, but his eyes are sad, as though he felt how poor a thing is fame; how valueless the garland which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven. He looks with a yearning glance, as though searching for something not yet found. There, too, is the minister of state, who directed the fortunes of empires. Whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive. But his head is bowed with trouble, and he seems to look wistfully to the time when the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest. Among the crowd there are women; the widow with veiled head, and tearful eyes; the mother clasping her dead child; the poor slave, cowering beneath the lash of the taskmaster, and stretching out her chained hands for pity. There, too, are many sick folk. Blind men sit in darkness by the wayside; cripples drag their maimed bodies wearily along; beggars grovel in their sores and raggedness. And all these different people seem to turn their faces longingly to one place, where a bright light breaks over the dark valley, and where there stands One with outstretched arms, and loving smile. It is Jesus, the Good Samaritan, who is ready to help these travellers on the road of life; it is the Good Physician, who has medicine to heal their sickness; and who says to every suffering heart, king and beggar, desolate widow, weary warrior, childless mother, Come unto Me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (H. J.Wilmot-Buxton, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The lawyer and the Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>THE LAWYER <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> He had thus much to recommend him, that he was an orthodox Israelite. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> He seems to have been a sincere inquirer after truth. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Another thing we notice in this lawyer is the accuracy and truthfulness of his knowledge and views of the law. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> But there was one great deficiency in his case. Theoretical orthodoxy is not always accompanied with practical righteousness. A man may confess a good creed, and yet lead a very unworthy and sinful life. People may know and approve the law, and yet not keep it. He had answered right. But he was not righteous. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>THE SAMARITAN. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> A heretic as to his faith. He was an errorist, and in this respect compares very unfavourably with the Jewish lawyer. It was not his Samaritanism that the Saviour wishes to recommend to us. His churchliness was thoroughly defective and reprehensible. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> But there is one thing in him that is good, and this it is that the Saviour wishes to recommend to us. He had human sympathy. His mercy was not restrained by sectional antipathy and religious animosities. Conclusion: It was the Samaritans mercy that needed to be added to the lawyers orthodoxy, in order to a full and acceptable piety. Orthodoxy without humanity is worthless; humanity with heterodoxy is better as regards the comfort of this world; but orthodoxy with humanity–a pure worship with universal charity–fills out the complete picture of what the law requires, and what practical Christianity really is. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Christian compassion<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>ITS SPHERE OF ACTION. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> On whom it is exercised. On those who stand in need of it. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> How far it reaches. To all. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>ITS NATURE. It is–<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> A feeling. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Manifests itself in deeds. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>ITS WORKING. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> It gives help instantly and without delay. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Voluntarily. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Does what is required, and as well as it can. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Is full of self-denial, for <\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> It fears no dangers; <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> no troubles; <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> no cost; <\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> no labour. <\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> It is indefatigable, and completes the work. (F. G. Lisco.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Service of love<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Willingly begun. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Unweariedly continued. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Never completed. (Van Oostarzee.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Debt of love<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Measureless. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Undeniable. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Blessed. (Van Oostarzee<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Good Samaritan love<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Whom it profits. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> How it manifests itself. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Whence it come. (Harless.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The glory of true love<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> It inquires not. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> It hesitates not. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> It is not afraid. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> It tarries not. <\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> It willingly sacrifices, and leaves nothing unfinished. (Florey.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Love makes neighbours<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is love that makes man neighbour to man. The true neighbour is the man who has a compassionate heart and a friendly spirit. Where this is wanting, it avails not that a man lives next door, or belongs to the same congregation, or is a member of the same club or union or profession; it ought to be so, that these external associations quicken our friendliness, and so they often do, and where love exists they find expression for it in many suitable ways; but these external bends can never supply the place of love. No doubt the people who saw how careful the Samaritan was of his protege <\/em>would say, He must be his brother, or his neighbour, or an old friend; for the truth is that genuine compassion and affection make a man brother, neighbour, a friend, of all. It is not, then, by any marks in others that you can test who is your neighbour; but only by what is in yourself, viz., humanity of disposition, friendliness, compassion, or whatever name you choose to give it. Love alone can determine who is your neighbour. (Marcus Dods, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Humanitarianism<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>Earliest of all, there is indicated here that THE RECOGNIZED AIM OF THE ENTIRE GOSPEL IS SIMPLY TO SAVE HUMAN SOULS (see Luk 10:25<\/span>). <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>From the reply our Lord gave to him we learn, next, that THE GRAND SOURCE OF ALL INFORMATION ON THIS SUBJECT IS GODS WORD, REVEALED IN THE INSPIRED SCRIPTURES (see Luk 10:26-28<\/span>). <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>Hence, we reach another lesson: THE MAIN OFFICE OF THE LAW OF GOD THUS REVEALED IS TO CONVINCE MEN OF SIN (see Luk 10:29<\/span>). Evidently this man was not at all satisfied. There was just one subtle implication in this courteous commendation of Jesus that stung his conscience. He knew he had never obeyed the command he had quoted. <\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>Our Lord follows his extraordinary lead, and so we have another lesson: THE LAW OF GOD ACCEPTS EVEN HUMANITARIANISM AS ONE OF THE TRUTHFUL TESTS OF A REAL RELIGIOUS CHARACTER. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> In the beginning of the parable, Jesus shows what constitutes a neighbour, meeting the lawyers interrogatory in its exact terms: And who is my neighbour? (see Luk 10:30<\/span>). <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> A neighbour, so the story went calmly on to say, is one who is close to us in circumstances of common exposure. All these people were in the perilous and infested road between Jerusalem and Jericho. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> A neighbour is one who has received misfortune which might happen to any one of us in the same circumstances. Robbers are never specially particular concerning what respectable people they plunder. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> A neighbour is one who is left near us helpless, and must suffer more unless succoured at once. The force of the figure turns on that. Thus, having explained what it was to be a neighbour, Jesus proceeded to show further by the parable what it must mean to love ones neighbour as ones self (see Luk 10:31-35<\/span>). <\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> A priest (see Luk 10:31<\/span>). Perhaps he was one of these refined, fastidious men, full of soft sensibility, and could not force his delicate feelings to bear the sight of abject suffering, especially when no one was near to sustain and praise him. Possibly he could pity the wounded neighbour, but could not afford just then either the time or the twopence. It may be, housed in his comfortable quarters that night in Jericho, he took it out in blaming the Government for the tolerance. <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> A Levite (see Luk 10:32<\/span>). No better than the other: no reason to suppose he would be: a Levite was just a little priest: like master, like man. Still it is fair to say he went across to see what was the matter. Perhaps he found there was too much the matter. Perhaps prudence suggested the robbers might return. Now please remember these were the friends this lawyer would have stood up for; a sacred calling certainly involves sacred duties. <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> A Samaritan (see Luk 10:33-35<\/span>). He had love in his heart and succour in his hands. <\/p>\n


V. <\/strong>So ends the parable; and now, as we return to the story for our final lesson, we learn that MERE FORMAL DEVOTION CANNOT EVEN ABIDE ITS OWN TEST, WHEN FORCED TO IT (see Luk 10:36-37<\/span>). (C. S.Robinson, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>THE WORLD IS VERY FULL OF AFFLICTION, <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Frequently the greater afflictions are not occasioned by the fault of the sufferer. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Very much distress is caused by the wickedness of others. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Certain paths in life are peculiarly subject to affliction. Our mines, railways, and seas show a terrible roll of suffering and death. Many a needlewomans life is truly a path of blood. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>THERE ARE MANY WHO NEVER RELIEVE AFFLICTION. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The two men here mentioned were brought to the spot by Gods providence on purpose to render aid to the sufferer. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> They were both of them persons who ought to have relieved him, because they were very familiar with things which should have softened their hearts. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> They were, moreover, bound by their profession to have helped this man. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> They were very well aware of the mans condition. <\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> Yet they had capital excuses. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>THE SAMARITAN IS A MODEL FOR THOSE WHO DO HELP THE AFFLICTED. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> He is a model if we notice who the person was that he helped. <\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> One who could not repay him. <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> A total stranger. <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> One rejected by his own people. <\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> One of a different faith from himself. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> He is a model to us in the spirit in which he did his work. <\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Without asking questions. <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Without attempting to shift the labour from himself on to others.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Without any selfish fear. <\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> With self-denial. <\/p>\n

(5)<\/strong> With great tenderness and care. <\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>WE HAVE A HIGHER MODEL than even the Samaritan–our Lord Jesus Christ. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Our Lord Jesus Christ has done better than the good Samaritan, because our case was worse. We were not only half but altogether dead in trespasses and sins. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> What the Samaritan gave to the poor man was generous, but it is not comparable to what the Lord Jesus has given to us. He gave him wine and oil; but Jesus has given His hearts-blood to heal our wounds: he lent <\/em>himself with all his care and thoughtfulness; but Christ gave <\/em>Himself even to the death for us. (C. H. Spurgeon.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>THE OCCASION OF THE PARABLE. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The general circumstances (Luk 10:25-28<\/span>) <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> The specific question (Luk 10:29<\/span>). <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>THE APTNESS OF THE PARABLE. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> This parable shows the Divine idea of true neighbourliness. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> This parable shows the grand principle and obligation of<\/p>\n

Christian endeavour at home and abroad.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> This parable shows the secret of true happiness. <\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> The robbers who stripped and wounded their victim did not become happy in their deed.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Neither priest nor Levite was happy in his cowardly selfishness. <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> It was the good, benevolent, tender-hearted Samaritan whose soul was filled with a happifying satisfaction. <\/p>\n

Practical lessons: <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Selfishness is not the Divine ideal of a true and noble life. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Happiness is not an emotion, but the fruit of love. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> The true good Samaritan is Jesus Christ Himself. (D. C. Hughes, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO THE UTTERANCE OF THIS PARABLE. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> A sinister question put to our Lord by a lawyer. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Our Lords method of meeting cavillers (see Luk 10:26<\/span>). <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> The lawyers remarkable answer to our Lords question. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Our Lords candour. <\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> The caviller unimpressed by his own profound answer, and still under the dominant power of self. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>THE PARABLE. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The topography of the scene is noticeable. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> The touching story of the parable. <\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> The pitiable victim of the thieves. <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> The pitiless passers-by. <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> The pitiful Samaritan. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>THE APPLICATION. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Jesus enabled the lawyer to answer his own perplexing question. This is a great gift. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Jesus brought home the truth to the lawyers conscience, so that he could not shake it off. <\/p>\n

Lessons: <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Let us learn not to despise the questionings of men, but seek to turn them to practical account. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Let us learn that the crown of all human excellencies, the unquestionable evidence of true piety, and the golden girdle which is yet to bind in one holy Christly brotherhood the human race, is to love God with all our heart, mind, and strength, and our neighbours as ourselves. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Let us learn the utter hollowness of formal religion. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Let us learn that an immortality of honour is only for those whose heart throbs with Christly sympathy. <\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> Let us learn that our Lord has hers drawn for us His own portrait in the delineation He has given us of the good Samaritan. (D. C. Hughes, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>A GRAPHIC PICTURE OF HUMAN NEED AND MISERY. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Much of mans suffering is inflicted by his fellow-man. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> His condition, apart from aid, human and Divine, appears helpless and hopeless. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>A SAD ILLUSTRATION OF MANS TOO COMMON INDIFFERENCE TO HIS FELLOW-MAN. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>AN INSTRUCTIVE EXAMPLE OF TRUE CHARITY. Note the several movements of benevolence, as exemplified in the story. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> An observant eye. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> A sensitive heart, that will not steel itself against a neighbours misfortunes, saying, All is owing to the operation of general laws, and it is unreasonable to allow ones self to be affected by the inevitable afflictions of mankind. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> An absence of bigotry. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> A ready hand, to carry out the benevolent desires of the heart. <\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> Self-forget-fulness and self-denial, leading to a disregard of personal comfort and even of personal safety. <\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> A combination of tenderness and wisdom. <\/p>\n

7.<\/strong> An endeavour to interest others in the work in which we are engaged ourselves. As this Samaritan procured the services of the host, so many good people multiply their own beneficence by calling forth that of others. <\/p>\n

8.<\/strong> Liberality. There are occasions for gifts as well as for services; it is well to be found responsive to such claims. <\/p>\n

9.<\/strong> Foresight. A wise man will look forward, and consider how that which is begun may best be carried on. <\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>A SUGGESTION OF THE DIVINE MOTIVE TO BENEVOLENCE. It is vain to disconnect morality from religion. Our relation to God governs out relation to our fellow-creatures. <\/p>\n


V. <\/strong>AN ILLUSTRATION OF REDEMPTION. (J. R. Thomson, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The bloody way<\/strong><\/p>\n

The road connecting Jerusalem with Jericho ran through a wild, dreary, and mountainous solitude, suited by the gloomy and inaccessible fastnesses on either side of it, to harbour thieves, robbers, and other outlaws from society, and so particularly infamous in the time of our Lord for the horrid depredations and murders perpetrated by the ruffians that infested it, that it went under the name of The Bloody Way. Herod the Great had dismissed about 40,000 men who had been engaged in building the Temple, many of whom, through want of employment, as Josephus informs us, became robbers and haunted the road to which this parable refers. <\/p>\n

Fallen among thieves<\/strong><\/p>\n

Among thieves! Come with me to the dead-house. There lies a lifeless form just brought in by rough yet kind-hearted men from the river. It is the body of a woman. Push back the masses of dishevelled hair, and you look into a young and beautiful face, and wonder whose child she is. Last night when the city was quiet, and those who had homes had sought them, and the poor street Arab had coiled himself into an empty cask, this child of sorrow noiselessly stole on to the bridge, climbed the parapet, gave one long, low wail of despair, then madly leaped into the river. There was a splash, a struggle, and then the dark waters rolled on as before, and as they have done over hundreds of such frail children of men as this one who lies before us in the dead-house. What does it mean? It means that she has fallen among thieves, who have robbed her and left her to die. Among thieves! Yonder stands a gloomy building, with high walls and gates, as heavy and massive as those of the old castles of the Middle Ages. Get inside. See that youth. Who is he? Where does he come from? His father is a godly man, his mother is a holy woman. Once he was the joy of the home. Now see his convicts dress, look at his sad, worn face, and you shudder as the lock clicks upon the door of his cell. What does it mean? It means that he fell among thieves. (C. Leach<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n

This parable reveals in the brightest light–<\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>THE CHRISTIANS HEART. It is like the Samaritans as he stands over yon panting, bleeding man: it is full of compassion. This word compassion, as used by Christ, has the greatest force and feeling in it. It means that His whole body tingled, and thrilled, and was warmed with loving pity, as your body was when you stood over against your dying brother or sister, and felt as you had never felt before. Very great must have been the Samaritans compassion when, without a moments delay, he stooped to the bleeding man. We are weak and slow in Christs work because we are weak in compassion. A boy was showing me his model steam-engine, in which the steam was made by a spirit-lamp. He lighted his lamp, but the engine moved not till a certain temperature was reached. Compassion is the moving force in us, but it does not move us till it grows hot within the heart. The Samaritan also reveals–<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>THE CHRISTIANS HAND. It is the ready agent of a compassionate heart. First the heart, then the hand; that is the order in the kingdom. Watch the Samaritans hand. It is not the hand of a sluggard. How quickly it moves! The story gives us the idea of hearty haste. He did not linger till compassion was chilled by worldly prudence. He knew that his first thoughts were best. I dare say he did not think about it at all: he just did it at once. A new book tells that a Glasgow merchant died lately without a will, leaving a widow, one son, and two daughters. The son in London received a telegram, came down the same evening, and settled his fathers fortune on his mother and sisters. He was asked why he had been in such a hurry. I dared not wait, was his noble reply. Had I waited, my resolution might have cooled, and I might have claimed all the law allowed me. I felt that it was right to do what I have done, and I wished to commit myself before selfishness could come in. Many a noble purpose dies of cold and delay in its infancy. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> It is not the hand of a weakling. See it binding up wounds, pouring m oil and wine, setting the traveller on his beast, bringing him to the inn, tending him all through the night, taking out the purse and giving to the host. The hand moved by love is not easily tired, is not flighty but steady, and carries through what it begins. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> It is not the hand of a hireling, who works only for pay. The Samaritan was not rich: he travelled with one ass and without a servant. Besides the wine, and oil, and bandages, and two pence to the host, he lost a whole days work, and probably a whole nights rest. He had reward enough in an approving conscience reflecting the smile of God, in the home-bred sweets of a benevolent mind, and in the thought that he was imitating his Father in heaven. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> It is not the hand of earthly ambition. The Pharisees gave alms to be seen of men. Had the Samaritan been like them, he also would have passed by on the other side. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>THE CHRISTIANS SPHERE. The lawyer made it very narrow. He loved his friends and hated his enemies, and was sure that these Samaritans were no neighbours of his. But Christ teaches that there are no limits or exceptions to the love of man. (J. Wells, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The parable of the good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>THAT God has established a principle of universal dependence through every part of His intelligent creation. As creatures we have a twofold dependence–a dependence upon God, and upon our fellows. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>THAT among men, and especially among fallen and guilty men, the principle of benevolence, which expresses itself in a readiness to administer to the necessities of others, is not only a mere arrangement of wisdom and goodness, but has in it the force of duty and obligation. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>The benevolence enjoined in the parable before us derives great force from the terms in which it is expressed. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself is the language of the law. Who is my neighbour? asks the lawyer. The answer is, Every man in distress is thy neighbour. <\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>THAT they are unhappily often counteracted in practice. The introduction of sin has subjected us to misery, and rendered us more dependent open each other; but it has also introduced principles into the heart which are subversive of those charities to which our very necessities and common dangers ought to give birth. Like mariners in a storm, like soldiers in a battle, we ought to be at hand to each other; but there are principles which too frequently separate man from man, and harden the heart against every emotion of pity. We might specify many of these, but we will confine our attention to one, suggested by the parable; I mean religious bigotry. <\/p>\n


V. <\/strong>LASTLY, let me observe, that the universal and undistinguishing philanthrophy, so affectingly urged in the parable of our Lord before us, must be fostered and matured by every consideration we can pay to the nature of our religion. (R. Watson.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Chance<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are some who utterly proscribe the name of chance <\/em>as a word of impious and profane signification; and indeed, if it be taken by us in that sense in which it was used by the heathen, so as to make anything casual, in respect of God Himself, their exception ought justly to be admitted. But to say a thing is a chance, <\/em>or casualty, as it relates to second causes, is not profaneness, but a great truth, as signifying no more than that there are some events, besides the knowledge, purpose, expectation, and power of second agents. And for this very reason, because they are so, it is the royal prerogative of God Himself, to have all these loose, uneven, fickle uncertainties under His disposal. (Dr. South.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Unrelieved misery<\/strong><\/p>\n

Which of us has not been guilty of passing by on the other side, of leaving misery unrelieved because it was not clamorous? This unfortunate, lying half dead by the roadside, could make no importunate supplications for relief, could not sit up and prove to the priest that it was his duty to help him, could not even ask help, so as to lay on the priest the responsibility of positive refusal; and so he got past with less discomfort, but not with less guilt. The need is often greatest where least is asked. And how many forms of misery are there lying within our knowledge as we journey along the bloodstained road of life, but which we pass by because they do not bar our progress till we give our help, or because it is possible for us to put them out of our mind and live as though these things were not. A lost child is crying on the streets, but it is awkward to be seen leading a dirty, crying child home, so we refuse to notice that the child is lost; a man is lying as if he were ill, but he may only be intoxicated, and it looks foolish to meddle, and may be troublesome, so we leave him to others, though another minute in that position may, for all we know, make the difference between life and death. You read a paragraph of a paper giving a thrilling account of a famine in China, or some other great calamity; but when you come to a clause intimating that subscriptions will be received at such and such a place, you pass to another column, and refuse to allow that to make the impression on your mind which you feel it is beginning to make. In short, you will, in these and many like circumstances, wait till you are asked to help; you know you could not in decency refuse if you were asked, if the matter were fully laid before you and all the circumstances detailed, but you will put yourself out of reach before this can be done, you will not expose yourself to the risk of having your charitable feelings stirred, or at any rate of having your help drawn upon; you will, if possible, wipe the thing from your mind, you will carefully avoid following up any clues or considering steadily any hint or suggestion of suffering. (Marcus Dods, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Backwardness to good works<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>The first and chief plea, under which men generally take shelter, is that of inability, because of straitened circumstances, heavy taxes, &c. Before this plea can be accepted, we must ask ourselves whether there be no unnecessary expenses that we support, such as are unsuitable to our circumstances. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>There are those that plead unsettled times, and an ill prospect of affairs (whether wrongly or rightly, is not the case; but there are those that plead these things) as impediments to the exercise of charity. For in such an uncertain world, who knows but that he may want to-morrow what he gives to-day? <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>There are men sensible enough of their obligations to charity, and resolved, some time or other, to discharge them; but they desire to be excused from that duty for the present, and put it off, perhaps, to a will and a deathbed, and think it sufficient if they begin to do good in the world any time before they leave it. Seldom do either of these proceed from a principle of goodness; nor are they owing to a love of virtue, but to a fear of punishment. <\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>It is alleged that the increase of charity tends often to the increasing and multiplying the poor; and by that means proves a mischief to the commonwealth, instead of a support and benefit. <\/p>\n


V. <\/strong>And last thing (I shall mention) by which we are apt to excuse our backwardness to good works, is, the ill success that hath been observed to attend well-designed charities; with relation both to the objects on which they are placed, and the hands through which they are conveyed. Our part is, to choose out the most deserving objects, and the most likely to answer the ends of our charity; and when that is done, all is done that lies in our power; the rest must be left to Providence. (Bishop Horne.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

A certain Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n

Good news for you<\/strong><\/p>\n

The good Samaritan is a masterly picture of true benevolence. <\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>The sinner is WITHOUT MORAL QUALIFICATION FOR SALVATION, but Christ comes where he is. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Remember first, that when the gospel was first sent into the world, those to whom it was sent were manifestly without any moral qualification. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Recollect again, the Biblical descriptions of those whom Christ came into the world to save, which prove to a demonstration that He comes to the sinner where he is. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> But, thirdly, it is quite certain from the work of grace itself, that the Lord does not expect the sinner to do anything or to be anything in order to meet Him, but that He comes to him where he is. <\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> The godlike character of the grace of God proves that He meets the sinner where he is. If God forgive little sinners only, then He is little in His mercy. <\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> The spirit and genius of the gospel utterly forbid the supposition that God requires anything in any man in order to save him. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>In the second place, there are very many of the lost race of Adam, who say that they are WITHOUT ANY MENTAL QUALIFICATION. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>But yet again, I think I hear another say, I am in despair, for I CANNOT FIND ANY REASON IN MYSELF, OR OUT OF MYSELF, WHY GOD SHOULD FORGIVE SUCH A PERSON AS I AM. SO then, you are in a hopeless state, at least you see no hope. The Lord meets you where you are by putting the reason of your salvation altogether in Himself. <\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>We proceed to our fourth point. Oh, says one, but I am WITHOUT COURAGE; I dare not believe on Christ, I am such a timid, trembling soul, that when I hear that others trust to Christ I think it must be presumption; I wish I could do the same, but I cannot; I am kept under by such a sense of sin, that I dare not. <\/p>\n


V. <\/strong>I hear one more complaint. I am WITHOUT STRENGTH, saith one; will Jesus come just where I am? Yes, sinner, just where you are. You say you cannot believe; that is your difficulty. God meets you, then, in your inability. First, He meets you with His promises. Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise Cast out. Cannot you believe now? (C. H. Spurgeon.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n

The first object that arrests our attention is a man lying by the wayside robbed, stripped, wounded, half dead. Now, all that we know about this man was that he had been taking a journey from Jerusalem to Jericho; and even this is full of suggestion. He had his back turned upon the city of the vision of peace and his face turned towards the city of the curse. Cursed was Jericho–cursed in the moment of its first destruction, and cursed in the moment of its restoration. He was turning his back upon the place which had been built for Gods glory, for the especial abode, so to speak, of the Divine presence, and his face towards the place which had been built in distinct defiance of the Divine will, the very existence of which was a monument of human rebellion. Such is the ill-omened character of the journey which the traveller has undertaken. Is it not just such a journey that man has undertaken? If we look at human history, what is it but a continuous going down from Jerusalem to Jericho? Dear friends, as it has been with human history in the abstract, so has it been with each of us individually. As we look upon our own history, what has it been? One continual going away farther and farther from God, wandering from the city of peace, and voluntarily exiling ourselves into the region which is blighted with Gods curse. First, there is the robbing. Satan is the great master robber. How much has he robbed us of? First, he has robbed us of all the blessedness of Paradise. Further, this man was not only robbed, he was also stripped. They were not content with taking his money, they must needs take his garments. That is just what Satan has done with us. He has stripped us of all with which we cover our shame. There are some of us who have endeavoured to put on a garb of respectability, and to cover ourselves with that, just as our first parents sewed fig-leaves together to cover themselves. And that is not all. He is not content with robbing and stripping you; he goes even further; with ruthless hands he wounds those whom he has already robbed. How many of us are there here who do not know what it is to be wounded, inwardly wounded? Ah! he knows how to wound. Wounded! How are you wounded? not only by the malice of Satan, but by the accusations of conscience. How are you wounded? Not only wounded by Satan, not only wounded by conscience, but also wounded by your truest and best Friend. For there is One who wounds that He may heal. Faithful are the wounds of a friend! But that was not all. The man was not only wounded, but he was left half dead. In what sense is the sinner half dead? So far as his spiritual condition is concerned he is quite dead, but so far as his moral nature is concerned he is half dead; that is to say, he is rapidly losing all his moral powers, but he is not altogether lost. The man is not only half dead; he is fast dying; his life is ebbing out in that flowing blood. Every moment that he lies there he grows weaker. Now let us look at it again. The first that passes that way is the priest. The priest cannot do anything for him, or does not do anything for him. And, dear friends, all the ordinances in the world, however precious and however valuable they are in themselves, will not restore lost vitality. The Levite passes by–he can do nothing. If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. This is just where the law fails. But the next to come along that road is one of a different race. He was the very last man that this poor dying Jew had a claim upon. He was a Samaritan. And Jesus passes by, not on the wings of His sovereign power, not in the majesty of His eternal sway, but He passes by in human form, a traveller amongst the sons of men. He passes by along lifes dreary, dusty journey; He threads the mazes of lifes wilderness, and on His way He hears the groanings of such as are in captivity, and the sorrowful sighing of those who are appointed to die. (W. H. M. H. Aitken, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Compassion<\/strong><\/p>\n

He had compassion on him. Premising that, we can rest assured there is more to follow. He began with pity, and all the rest is a mere matter of detail. In the light of this one luminous word compassion, the poor man is seen already right away home, the idol of his happy family, surrounded with bright-eyed, curly-headed, pretty little prattlers, bounding with joy, and his fond wife heaping blessings on the nameless benefactor. He had compassion on him–an expression this, big with salvation. He drew out his sympathetic soul first of all, and wrapped that warm around him, and made him understand that smaller gifts and minor mercies would soon be forthcoming. The oil, the wine, the bandages, the beast, the inn, the pence, the care, are all only so many forms of the large-hearted compassion with which he started. And the unfortunate individual, who had been callously passed by with indifference by cold and formal ecclesiasticism, is now at length happily rescued by the religion of humanity. (D. Thomas.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Sympathy more than pity<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/em>He set him on his own beast–the one act in which the Samaritans Samaritanism was most deeply lodged, and most gently and suggestively evinced. The Samaritan had nothing left him but to walk. So we conclude. The weariness of it denoted less to him than his co-travellers comfort denoted. His own comfort was in having his companion comfortable. His consciousness was of the other man. He became <\/em>practically the other man for the time; felt his bruises as his own bruises; forgot that he was not working for himself in working for him. He felt not for him, which is nothing but pity; but he felt with <\/em>him, he felt in <\/em>him, which is sympathy and gospel. Becoming the other man–that is Samaritanism: seeing with his eyes, feeling with his sensibilities, subject to his limitations, obnoxious to his exposures. Sympathy is two hearts tugging at one load, bent beneath one sorrow. (C. H. Parkhurst, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

True help<\/strong><\/p>\n

We can help a man only by identifying ourselves with him, getting into his circumstances, getting into him, becoming he If you have a temptation that you want to get the mastery over, the man for you to go to for counsel and relief is the man who has been in your place and gained the victory that you want to gain. The heat man to convert a drunkard is a converted drunkard. The power to appreciate temptation is the prime condition to being able to help others out of temptation. In a certain way it holds that the more bad and awkward situations a good man has been in, the richer may prove his ministry and the more various his apostleship. Almost all the men in the Scripture story that ever proved a great advantage to anybody had at some time been themselves in sad need of succour. The first step God took towards making us become like Him was for Him to become as far as He could like us. If you have any doctrinal perplexity, your resort for assistance will always be to some one whose doctrinal experience has been complicated in the same way. And it is not by any means enough to be able to understand another mans difficulty, burden, temptation; we need to go a little farther and feel it as our own difficulty, burden, temptation, just as the Samaritan not only appreciated his fellow-travellers distresses, but felt them as his own distresses, and therefore set him on his own beast; and as Christ not only understood our sins, but Himself put Himself behind our sins, underneath them, carried them, and in such a whole-hearted way, as really to suffer the pain and penalty of them. There is always more or less of the vicarious when there is any good done, any release wrought, any redemption effected. (C. H.Parkhurst, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

A good Samaritan among the Maoris<\/strong><\/p>\n

In our journeyings, says the Waikato Times, a <\/em>newspaper published in New Zealand, we have to record the various traits of man be he European or Maori–all have to be faithfully noticed by our pen. Whether his characteristics are of the animal or intellectual kind, whether his sympathies are with the refined or debased. In this instance it is our great pleasure to have to record one of the most Christian and good Samaritanlike acts that we remember to have read or published. A few nights ago–a bitter cold night it was–Amopui, a native, was returning to Cambridge, and when some distance from the township saw the prostrate form of a man–a European–on the road. It appears that the poor fellow, with one leg only, had travelled overland all the way from Napier, had crossed creeks, surmounted hills, and threaded his way through the bush. But nature gave way at last, and he fell, when Amopui found him, utterly worn out, helpless and exhausted. But for this timely assistance, Charles Parmeters (for this was the Europeans name)would in all probability never have seen the light of another day. The Maori lifted him up, and carried him into Cambridge, and those who know the heavy, sandy road on the other side of the bridge can judge what the labour must have been. Amopui took him to his tent, and attended to him the night through; but the noble fellows good deeds did not end here. In the morning he got a subscription list, and by dint of perseverence collected nearly 9, which he handed over to the police authorities to be expended in sending the poor cripple on to Auckland. Amopui is well known in Cambridge as being a straightforward and honest native, and will now more than ever be universally respected. If there be no other recognition in this sphere of this good action, the story should find a corner in every paper and magazine in the world, and should be printed in gold. <\/p>\n

Humane assistance<\/strong><\/p>\n

The day after the action near Alexandria, where the brave Abercrombie fell, the General was riding over the field of battle, attended by two orderly dragoons, to see if there were any wounded, French or English, who had escaped notice the evening before, when, on turning round a wall by the seaside, he was struck with the appalling sight of more than a hundred French soldiers, who, with their officers, huddled together, desperately wounded by grape and cannon shot from an English brig of war. From being collected in the recess of the wall they had escaped notice on the previous day of search, and were exposed to the night air, and with undressed wounds. Here the General saw a man, evidently English, in the garb of a Quaker, actively employed in the heavenly task of giving his humane assistance to those poor, brave sufferers; giving water to some, dressing the wounds of others, and affording consolation to all. Upon inquiry, he found the benevolent individual to be Dr. John Walker, who was himself almost exhausted, having been thus nobly employed from daybreak without any assistance. <\/p>\n

Rescue the perishing<\/strong><\/p>\n

A venerable servant of Christ said to me just at the time that I was accepting my first living, If you would really wish to be useful to those with whom you are brought into contact, remember there is only one way of doing it: like the blessed Master of old, you must yourself be moved with compassion, or else you never can help them. The man who has been himself much in the society of the good Samaritan will partake of his feelings, and, like his Master, will be moved with compassion. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when be saw him, he had compassion on him. He might naturally have turned aside and said, Oh, it is only one of those miserable Jews; the fewer we have of them the better; let him be. The first thing he had to overcome was natural prejudice, and it is rather a strong one with some people. But he did not stop to inquire whether he was a Jew or a Samaritan; he was a man–a brother; and the Samaritan acted accordingly. I remember hearing the story of a little incident that occurred in the streets of Edinburgh some years ago. A coach was driving rapidly down the narrow streets of the town. A poor little child of some two years of age crept into the middle of the road, and there it was in utter helplessness standing by itself, while the galloping horses were drawing nearer and nearer every moment. Just as they approached the spot where the poor little helpless infant was standing, a woman, who had just happened to come to the door of her house, darted forth like a flash of lightning, grasped the child in her arms, and, at the peril of her own life, saved it from imminent destruction. A passer-by remarked to the poor terrified woman when she reached the other side, Well, woman, is that your child? Na, ha, she said, its nae my bairn. Well, woman, he said, what for did you risk your life for a child when it was not yours? With a beaming eye and a flushed face, the noble woman replied, Aye, but its somebodys bairn. That was real humanity! The true spirit of a woman asserted itself within her nature. And if that be humanity, dear friends, what ought to be Christian humanity? What would have become of us if the Lord Jesus Christ had asked the question, Who is My neighbour? He might have pointed to where Gabriel, Michael, and the other ministering spirits stand before the throne, and say, Behold My neighbour. What daring intelligence of heaven or hell would ever have suggested that the Lord Jesus Christ could find His neighbour in a fallen world, amid the children of sorrow and the slaves of hell? Who would have ever thought that God would have chosen us to be His neighbours? that He should have come where we are, that He should bend over us with a heart glowing with love, and pour into our wounds the sweet solace of His own anointing oil, or breathe into our lifeless being the supernatural energy of His own eternal life–who would so much as have suggested this? Not less than this Divine love has actually effected. Here is a call for each of us, children of God. Go to your own home as a saviour. Go to the crowded streets, and courts, and lanes of this town as a saviour. (W. H. M. H. Aitken, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Who is my neighbour?<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>That religious profession and service have no necessary connection with real goodness. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>We see that neighbourship is not cancelled by a difference of religion. But surely no differences of religion can cancel the duties which are anterior to all revealed religion whatsoever. If men do not see as we see, they are still men. And vet who does not know that a diversity of religious faith frequently operates as a check on all natural sympathy, and that poverty has often to starve on because it does not happen to lie within the enclosure of some theological shibboleth? <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>We see from this parable that true neighbourliness involves the spirit of sacrifice. (E. Mellor, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The obligation of the strong to the weak<\/strong><\/p>\n

The phrase by chance used in the parable describing the coming of the three men upon the wounded traveller is the same in structure with our word concurrent. The priest, the Levite, and Samaritan were not travelling that road and did not meet the half-dead stranger by hazard, but by the concurrence of events which Providence controlled the three were brought to one who needed help. Such is the claim of Christian charity, the combination of events which brings us into proximity to suffering involves the obligation of ministering to it. This claim has its binding force from two principles–<\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>Power or advantage of any kind is not a personal possession, but a trust. I am a debtor both to the Greeks and to the barbarians; both to the wise and to the unwise, wrote Paul. He owed the Greeks nothing. They had persecuted him. The barbarians he had never seen. But Paul was conscious that God had conferred upon him great gifts and experiences. Because he had them he was bound to make others partake of them. Every such man had a claim upon Paul. His ignorance and wickedness gave the claim. That is the claim that the heathen and the newly-settled portions of our land have upon us. Communism, as one has said, is only the refracted image of a supreme truth, the truth of the indebtedness of the strong to the weak, as that however is dimly discerned by intoxicated brains, through bloodshot eyes. The half-dead man had a claim upon priest and Levite and Samaritan. Priest and Levite were faithless to the trust Gods providence brought them opportunity to administer. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>Love to men also makes the claim of the weak upon the stronger of binding force. This love comes into our hearts when we are awakened to the truth of the brotherhood of man, and realize Gods love toward us. In antiquity there was nothing beyond national ties to bind man to man. (G. E.Horr.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The humanity of Christianity and other religions<\/strong><\/p>\n

A Chinese Christian thus described the relative merits of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Christianity:–A man had fallen into a deep, dark pit, and lay in its miry bottom groaning and utterly unable to move. Confucius walked by, approached the edge of the pit, and said, Poor fellow, I am sorry for you; why were you such a fool as to get in there? Let me give yon a piece of advice: if you ever get out, dont get in again. I cant get out, groaned the man. That is Confucianism. A Buddhist priest next came by, and said, Poor fellow, I am very much pained to see you there. I think if you could scramble up two-thirds of the way, or even half, I could reach you and lift you up the rest. But the man in the pit was entirely helpless and unable to rise. That is Buddhism. Next the Saviour came by, and, hearing his cries, went to the very brink of the pit, stretched down and laid hold of the poor man, brought him up, and said, Go, sin no more. That is Christianity. <\/p>\n

A good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n

Oberlin was travelling on one occasion from Strasbourg. It was in winter. The ground was deeply covered with snow, and the roads were almost impassable. He had reached the middle of his journey, and was so exhausted that he could stand up no longer. He commended himself to God, and yielded to what he felt to be the sleep of death. He knew not how long he slept, but suddenly became conscious of some one rousing him up. Before him stood a waggon-driver, the waggon not far away. He gave him a little wine and food, and the spirit of life returned. He then helped him on the waggon, and brought him to the next village. The rescued man was profuse in his thanks, and offered money, which his benefactor refused. It is only a duty to help one another, said the waggoner; and it is the next thing to an insult to offer a reward for such a service. Then, replied Oberlin, at least tell me your name, that I may have you in thankful remembrance before God. I see, said the waggoner, that you are a minister of the gospel. Please tell me the name of the good Samaritan. That, said Oberlin, I cannot do, for it was not put on record. Then, replied the waggoner, until you can tell me his name, permit me to withhold mine. <\/p>\n

Neighbourly kindness<\/strong><\/p>\n

A fire having broken out in a village of Denmark, one of the inhabitants, a poor man, was very active in affording assistance; but every endeavour to extinguish the flames was in vain. At length he was told that his own house was in danger, and that if he wished to save his furniture, not a moment was to be lost. There is something more precious, replied he, that I must first save. My poor sick neighbour is not able to help himself: he will be lost if I do not assist him. I am sure he relies upon me. He flew to his neighbours house, rushed, at the hazard of his life, through the flames, and conveyed the sick man in his arms to a place of safety. A society at Copenhagen showed their approbation of his conduct by presenting him with a silver cup filled with Danish crowns. <\/p>\n

Generosity and liberality<\/strong><\/p>\n

This parable is very strong as a dramatic representation. It touches the common sense of all races. It is just as plain to the ignorant as it is to the learned. The good Samaritan stands admired by all sects and races, and occasionally is imitated. There is to be drawn, however, something further from this narrative. A fine philosophical distinction lies hidden here, quite aside from its general drift. The breaking down of all limitations to kindly feelings is the main drift; and in executing that something else was accomplished. When the Samaritan rescued the sufferer, that was GENEROSITY. He acted upon the impulse of his heart. Generosity springs out of the heart; it is the child of emotion. It acts in an inferior sphere. It acts quickly. But how easily might one, after relieving this man who had suffered from the thieves, have left him for other folks kindness, saying, I have done my part. When, having rescued him, he began to think for the unseen wants of the days to come, and provided for them, that was LIBERALITY. It was not generous. It was not acting from the senses and sight. It was acting from reflection, from a higher moral quality of equity. (H. W. Beecher.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The good Samaritan;<\/strong><\/p>\n

From this story there are many lessons to be learnt. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> It shows how easy it is for us men of the sanctuary to be far less tenderhearted than the laymen who pass their lives amid matters which have nothing absolutely to do with God. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> It shows how easily the religious conscience can reason itself out of the responsibilities resting upon it for the discharge of the everyday duties of life. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> It has also a lesson in the practical character of general philanthropy, for behind the persons of the narrative it shadows out the character of the Divine Person taking compassion on suffering humanity, and placing the wounded man in the true home of souls to the end of time. (Canon Liddon.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n

No words, perhaps, ever spoken on earth have had more effect than those of this parable. What was the power and the spirit of this parable? What gave it its strength in the hearts of men? This–that it told them that they were to help their fellowmen simply becausethey were their fellow-men. Not because they were of the same race, the same religion, the same sect or party, but simply because they were men. In a word, it commanded men to be humane, to exercise humanity, which signifies kindness to human beings simply because they are human beings. One can understand our Lord preaching that; it was part and parcel of His doctrine. He called Himself the Son of Man. He showed what He meant by calling Himself so by the widest and most tender humanity. But His was quite a new doctrine, and a new practice likewise. The Jews had no notion of humanity. All but themselves were common and unclean. The Greek, again, despised all nations but his own as barbarians. The Romans, again, were a thoroughly inhuman people. Their calling, they held, was to conquer all the nations of the earth, to plunder them, to enslave them. They were the great slave-holding, man-stealing people. Mercy was a virtue which they had utterly forgotten. Their public shows and games were mere butcheries of blood and torture. To see them fight to death in their theatres, pairs after pairs, sometimes thousands in one day, was the usual and regular amusement. And in that great city of Rome, which held something more than a million human beings, there was not, as far as I am aware, one single hospital or other charitable institution of any kind. There was, in a word, no humanity in them. But the gospel changed all that miraculously and suddenly, both in Jew, in Greek, and in Roman. While men had been heathens, their pattern had been that of the priest, who saw the wounded man lying, and looked on him, and passed by. Their pattern now was that of the good Samaritan, who helped and saved the wounded stranger simply because he was a man. In one word, the new thing which the gospel brought into the world was humanity. The thing which the gospel keeps in the world still is humanity. (Charles Kingsley.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Between Jerusalem and Jericho<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>A certain man fell among thieves. HERE IS THE BLACK MARGIN WHICH SURROUNDS CIVILIZED SOCIETY. <\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>There came a priest that way, as also a Levite and a Samaritan. So, THE ESCAPE OF SOME IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS A CONDEMNATION OF OTHERS. All the four went down the same road, yet only one of them was unfortunate! What a temptation for the three who escaped to say, It must have been his own blame; we passed down the very same road, and did not hear so much as the fluttering of a leaf. <\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>The priest passed by on the other side; so did the Levite–THE THING WHICH IS ALWAYS BEING DONE BY A NEGATIVE AND DO NOTHING. RESPECTABILITY. There are two sides in life. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> The side on which men are dying; and–<\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> The other side. We can choose our side. On the first side we shall find–<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Something to shock our sensibilities. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Something to interrupt our speed. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Something to tax our resources. On the opposite side we shall find a clear path to infamy and the hell of eternal remorse. <\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>The priest passed by, and so did the Levite–so SACRED NAMES ARE NO GUARANTEE FOR SACRED SERVICES. It is a terrible thing for the nature to fall below the name. A name is a promise. A profession is a responsibility. <\/p>\n


V. <\/strong>But a certain Samaritan had compassion on him. THERE ARE UNEXPECTED SOURCES OF HELP IN LIFE. YOU have found it so in business; others have found it so in sympathy; others in periods of great perplexity. This reflection of great value as showing–<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> That we all need help. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> As protecting men from despair. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> As showing that we ourselves may become the unexpected helpers of others. In the distribution of help we are not to be limited <\/p>\n

(a)<\/strong> by theological creeds; <\/p>\n

(b)<\/strong> by natural prejudices; <\/p>\n

(c)<\/strong> by personal dislikes. <\/p>\n

We are to help humanity as such. The Christian application of this study is obvious. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Life is a perilous journey. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Lost men will never be saved by formal piety. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> The true Helper is the very Being whom we have offended. <\/p>\n

The Teacher of this parable is the Exemplar of its beneficent doctrine. The teacher should always be the explanation of his own lesson. (J. Parker, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The spirit of love<\/strong><\/p>\n

The priest and the Levite knew the law, which was written in a book, perfectly. They had nothing to learn about that. The words of it rose at once to their lips; they could confound any one who disputed it. And yet when they were called to fulfil this law–when their neighbour lay on the ground needing their help, they did not remember it at all. It was a long way from them. They were to love their neighbour as themselves, no doubt. But who was their neighbour? Not this poor creature, though he was a Jew, a son of Abraham, an heir of the covenant. They owed him nothing; they were going on their own errands; what was he to them. That is to say, they had the law of love upon tables, but they had it not written on their hearts. They were serving God for hire; they could do things which they thought would profit them, and avoid things which they thought would injure them, but they did nothing because they had Gods mind; they did nothing because they felt to men as He feels towards them. But this Samaritan, although he had never studied the words of the law as they had; though he had not a hundredth part of the blessings which belonged to them; though he had probably a great many mistakes and confusions in his head from which they were free, had this law of love in his heart, and showed that he had. God had written it there. And therefore he did not ask whether this poor half-dead traveller by the roadside belonged to his village, or his town, or his country, or his religion. He had nothing to do with any of those questions, supposing there was any one able to answer them. This was his neighbour, for he was a man. That was quite enough, and therefore he at once did what his neighbour wanted, what he would have had another do to him. Here was a lesson for the lawyer; one which he might be learning day by day, which would last him as long as he remained on earth, and long after that. If he would keep Gods commandments, he must give up his pride as a lawyer, his pride as a Jew; he must become simply a man, just like this poor despised Samaritan. He must understand that God cared for men, and therefore he must care for them. (F. D. Maurice, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Christian socialism <\/strong><\/p>\n

The attention drawn to the condition of the poor is one of the most encouraging signs of the times. Is that a desirable state of civilization in which such multitudes are doomed to so degraded and wretched a condition? Can it be that this is a necessity, or that it can be consistent with the will of that loving Father of whom we are told that it is not His will that one of His little ones should perish? What has Christianity to say to such questions as these? It will not do for it to stand dumb and helpless in the presence of these perplexities, which are troubling numbers of thoughtful minds, and that dense mass of wretchedness which lies as a heavy burden upon loving hearts. There is special need for the exercise of Christian influence because of the perils by which our social system is at present menaced. It is the imperative duty of the Christian teacher to discount the extravagant expectations which too many indulge as to what others–Parliament, or the Church, or rich people–can do for them, and to make them understand that it is but little real and enduring help which all combined can give to those who have not learned how to help themselves. This is one part of the message of Christianity to the poor; but those who speak it can only hope to succeed if they are able also to teach some lessons, equally necessary to be learned, and perhaps equally impalatable, to those on the opposite side. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> One of the first of these certainly is that the well-being of men is of infinitely higher importance than the success of trade. A nation can afford to lose some of its wealth; but it cannot afford to have in its midst a number of men whose condition is a scandal to its religion, a reproach to its civilization, a standing menace to its institutions. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> The principle which must govern a Christians conduct in the transaction of his business must also regulate the distribution of his wealth. He cannot indulge in the arrogant spirit which says, This is all my own, and I can do with it as I will. It is not his own, for the reason that he himself is not his own. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> But behind all this must be the spirit of true sympathy–a love without hypocrisy–gracious, generous, spontaneous, free. The change wanted is in human hearts, rather than in the arrangements of society. The true sympathy will quietly produce these, and when that sympathy is not active, even they would fail of the desired result. (J. G. Rogers, B. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The good Samaritan<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here is my neighbour, here is one for whom I am bound to care. It matters not what the need or distress may be, love will be ready to supply the need or relieve the distress to the utmost of its power. <\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> It may be bodily suffering. It was bodily suffering that the good Samaritan was represented as displaying his compassion for. Christs miracles were mostly miracles of mercy. If we had enough of true love, I believe we should send out medical missionaries to the heathen, even though we had no hope of securing converts to the gospel. The crowding together of human beings into wretched dwellings under conditions obnoxious to both physical and moral life are evils which might engage the most anxious thoughts, and elicit the deepest sympathies of every Christian man and woman in our large towns. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> It may be the subtle mischief of unbelief, which is, no doubt, slaying its thousands in the present age, and sapping the strength and endangering the future of society. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> It may be the burdens of a spirit labouring under a sense of sin, burdens only to be removed by the souls directly closing with Christs invitation to come unto Him for rest. It may, in a word, be any sorrow and any sin. All around us there are multitudes of wounded men and women whom we ought not to pass by without helping them. Have we, then, been striving, as in duty bound, to fulfil the old, old law of love, the royal law which sums up all law? Have we been faithfully endeavouring to meet the demands made upon us by a world around us with its multitudinous mass of wounded and dying men? Surely we need to humble ourselves, because we have so greatly failed in this respect. (Professor Flint, D. D. , LL. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Theory and practice of humanity<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Rev. Mr. Kelly, of Ayr, once preached an excellent sermon from the parable of the man who fell among thieves. He was particularly severe on the conduct of the priest who saw him, and ministered not unto him, but passed by on the other side; and in an animated and pathetic flow of eloquence, he exclaimed, What I not even the servant of the Almighty I he whose tongue was engaged in the work of charity, whose bosom was appointed the seat of brotherly love, whose heart the emblem of pity; did he refuse to stretch forth his hand, and to take the mantle from his shoulders to cover the nakedness of woe? If he refused, if the shepherd himself went astray, was it to be wondered at that the flock followed? The next day, when the river was much increased in height, a boy was swept overboard, from a small boat, by the force of the current. A great concourse of people were assembled, but none of them attempted to save the boy; when Mr. Kelly, who was dressed in his canonicals, threw himself from his chamber window into the current, and at the hazard of his own life saved that of the boy. (W. Baxendale.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Unfeeling conduct<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cold comfort can some ministers render to afflicted consciences: their advice will be equally valuable with that of the Highlander who is reported to have seen an Englishman sinking in a bog on Ben Nevis. I am sinking! cried the traveller. Can you tell me how to get out? The Highlander calmly replied, I think it is likely you never will, and walked away. (C. H. Spurgeon.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Christlike compassion<\/strong><\/p>\n

A good many years ago there laid in the streets of Richmond, Va., a man dead drunk, his face exposed to the blistering noonday sun. A Christian woman passed along, looked at him, and said, Poor fellow. She took her handkerchief and spread it over his face, and passed on. The man roused himself up from his debauch, and began to look at the handkerchief, and, lo! on it was the name of a highly respectable Christian woman of the city of Richmond. He went to her, he thanked her for her kindness; and that one little deed saved him for this life, and saved him for the life that is to come. He was afterward Attorney-General of the United States; but, higher than all, he became the consecrated disciple of Jesus Christ. (Dr. Talmage.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The blessedness of helping others<\/strong><\/p>\n

Edward Irving, when a young minister, got himself much laughed at and plagued by carrying a poor Irishmans pack for some distance on his back. Rut Irving nobly replied, The poor fellow was very tired, and his countrymen had been very kind to me. The gentle and good George Herbert also once helped a poor countryman to raise his fallen and heavy-laden horse. Mr. Herbert dirtied himself, and his friends said he demeaned himself; but he really thus ennobled himself, and got such gratitude and such a blessing from the poor man and from God, as made him exceedingly happy. A medical man once said to a very rich lady who was very miserable, and thought she had all sorts of ailments, Do something for somebody. She followed this advice, and by adopting a course of active benevolence, this prescription so completely cured her of her misery and fancied ailments, that she could soon dispense with her doctor. By every means let us try to lessen the evil and misery there is in the world, and to increase good and happiness everywhere. We shall never lessen the light of our own candle by lighting another. (H. R. Burton.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Heart-compassion<\/strong><\/p>\n

And no marvel, for this you know the heart is the first mover and master-wheel in spiritual works, that regulateth all and keeps all right and constant. (N. Rogers.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Willing philanthropy<\/strong><\/p>\n

These liquors that pour out themselves, and drop of their own accord, are esteemed better than those which are squeezed and pressed out by violence. These give, but it is grudgingly; their gift sticks long in their hands before they part with it. It is long before the purse can be found, then before the hand can get in, then before they can get change. And when they give they do it in such a manner, as if the hand had stole from the heart unawares, and that the eye were displeased with the discovery of the theft. But qui moratur, neganti proximus est <\/em>(saith one), yea many times a quick denial is to be preferred before a slow grant. (N. Rogers.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The priest and Levite<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Spiritual persons in a special manner should be pitiful (see Tit 1:7<\/span>, 1Ti 3:2<\/span>). You may read 2Ki 4:1<\/span>. The distressed widow comes to a prophet to bemoan her condition; every one would not be sensible of her affliction; if they did pity her, yet little hopes there was that they would relieve her. A prophet she hopes will do both. Into Elishas ear she unloads her griefs. The like course takes David, and flies unto Abiather the high-priest when he was an hungry and in distress (1Sa 22:1-23<\/span>). And no wonder, for they are Gods chaplains-in-ordinary; they serve that Master who is merciful; Him they should imitate, and learn to be merciful as He is merciful (Luk 6:36<\/span>). What scholar but will imitate his masters exercise? <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> They have received more mercy, and drunk deeper in that cup than others have (2Co 4:1-2<\/span>). Whoever they are, it is expected they should not be wanting in this duty. <\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> In every good duty ministers should be examples unto others, in word, in conversation, in charity, etc. (1Ti 4:12<\/span>). Charity becomes all men, but above all men the men of God. If we want bowels in us where shall men find them? If mercy be a lamp in others, it must be a bright star in our breasts. A jewel more precious than all the stones in Aarons breastplate. <\/p>\n

For–<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> We are men of God, and therefore should fly all covetous and earthly practices. Fishes love the salt waters, yet birds of the air fly upwards towards heaven, and whilst the ant (a creature housed in the earth) makes abundant provision for herself, the fowls of heaven neither sow, nor reap, nor carry into barns. Oh! how unnatural is it that they, next heaven by vocation, should yet in respect of conversation be farthest off! Nothing farther from heaven nor more unlike God than uncharitableness. <\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> We preach charity and mercy, that is the sum and main scope of all our sermons, it being the abridgment of the law and the tenor of the gospel. Faith is the centre, love the circle. All our doctrines and conclusions are but lines drawn from the centre to the circumference. Nay, as we preach charity, profess charity, and pray for charity, so we must open our doors to charity and give it entertainment. (N. Rogers.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Entertaining the Satanic thief<\/strong><\/p>\n

This being so, how comes it to pass that we take such delight in the company of these? What traveller lighting into the company of a suspected person doth not soon shake him off? Better is a blank than an ill filling. Or what wise man would invite a thief to come unto his house, and being come would make him the best cheer, show him the best room, lay him in the best bed, etc., when he is told for certain that he means to spoil him? And yet this entertainment hath Satan from us, when no thief so mischievous as he. What thief but leaves something behind him? Some gleaning grapes shall remain (as the prophet shows, Jer 49:9<\/span>). They steal but till they have enough, but this thief carries all away that good is. Not a member of the body, not a power of the soul, not a good instruction in the head, not a good motion in the heart, but he steals away (Mat 13:4<\/span>.) (N. Rogers.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Personal contact with suffering <\/strong><\/p>\n

We need to be brought out of our luxurious houses and into personal contact with needy ones. God has linked the poor and rich together. Sir Robert Peels daughter wore a beautiful ermine coat, that was purchased from a fashionable store in the West End of London, but which had been worked upon in one of the lofty tenement houses of East London. The sewing-woman who made the cloak was ill with fever, the contagion of which was carried in the beautiful cloak that soon enwrapped the peers daughter, from which she died. So God says, Neglect no portion of your city, or it will send back its pestilential airs into your homes and your childrens hearts. There is no possibility of redemption until we go out and find those that are in need, clasp hands over the chasm that divides us from the unfortunate, look into their faces and tell them that we are akin to them in need. I may not be incorrect in thinking that the priest and Levite went back to Jerusalem, and reported to the secretaries of various societies, saying that they had better send down at once and relieve this wounded man on the highway. If they did, those two men did what a majority of people are doing to-day. They report their cases to somebody else to relieve, instead of, as largely as possible, going and doing it themselves. There is nothing that so relieves and cheers as the presence of the donor with his donation. If it comes through agencies, it never blesses to the extent that the touch of your hand does the poor woman who needs your encouragement and cheer. In conversation with Octavia Hill, last May in London, she said, in regard to the tenements of London: We have more model tenements than we can take care of. My present work is to train women that will go down and oversee them. If you get families out of poor tenements into the model ones, ten chances to one they will sink to the level in which they are accustomed to live; and the great thing to do in London is to get a corps of workers who will oversee those tenements, and give inmates constant counsel. Remember that the happy man makes the happy world, and not the happy world the happy man. (G. M. G. Dana.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The need of sympathy<\/strong><\/p>\n

The great undertakings that we have entered upon in the name of charity have been those that have had their beginnings in this feeling of sympathy. I do not suppose John Howard would have undertaken his mission to the prisons of the world if he had not been first moved by a fellow-feeling for those who were confined in dungeons that had never been exposed to publicity, and whose cruelties and sufferings had never been made known to the public. He never could have aroused all British Christendom unless he had borne himself the strait-jacket, and subjected himself to some of the tortures that prisoners were compelled to endure. He spells from a personal experience concerning their sufferings, and respecting brutal punishments from which hitherto there had been no escape. Dr. Guthrie, with others, did a great work in Edinburgh in behalf of the street boys, awakened thereto by his sympathy with them in their life of hardship and peril. Artist-like, he detected the possibilities of these otherwise wasted and blighted lives. He saw what could be made of them, and therefore appealed with impassioned eloquence to the dull and uninformed public of Scotlands metropolis, urging the importance of training these street Arabs till they might develop into merchants and useful citizens–ay, even through patient instruction unfold those latent powers which would enable them to become benefactors and men of genius. You may hold in your hand a diamond glittering in the ring you prize or sparkling in the pin which is a cherished keepsake, and observing its beauty, its pureness, try to estimate the value of the gem. So, too, you may hold in the other hand a piece of charcoal, which smuts the fingers touching it, and you will see nothing to admire in the latter. The brilliance of the one but makes the dullness of the other more apparent. Yet these two are substantially the same: they are differentiated by the processes to which each has been subjected, and because of which they are so wide apart in work and appearance. In like manner do those we meet differ. A fortunate environment, great privileges, fill some with noble hopes, and make possible a glorious life. The little gamin <\/em>of the street, devoid of all this, eking out his career in the dark tenement and noisome alley, has little at first to attract you. But there may be locked up in him capacities now unsuspected. Under certain conditions, and with the guiding hand of some gifted teacher, he may become the artist of whom the community will be proud, or the architect able to build the cathedral famed for its lines of beauty, or the philanthropist whose good works will bless generations and embalm his name in the fragrant odours of loving hearts. When we learn to sympathize with such young life, then will we understand the significance of all schemes of child-saving and all efforts to reclaim erring youth. The true artist always has this sympathy. Hence, he is quickly interested in the rude etchings shown him, the work of some tyro in art. He inquires about the subject who has thus revealed the signs of slumbering genius, waiting for the helping word and needed culture which some master is able to afford. He knows what can be made of one already revealing talents that else must go to waste. I can teach him, he says, till he shall become an artist able with his own brush to immortalize his name, or the sculptor carving out of the shapeless marble the speaking statue, or the architect constructing the dome for some noted lane, which shall seem to be hung in the air, full of grace, a marvel of human skill. (G. M. G. Dana.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Every natural man is a wounded man<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cast your eye upon what part you please, you can see nothing but wounds and bruises (Isa 1:5<\/span>). His mind that is blind (Jer 10:14; <\/span>Jer 51:17<\/span>; Eph 5:8<\/span>). Vain Pro 14:12<\/span>; Eph 4:17<\/span>; 1Co 1:21<\/span>). Foolish Tit 3:8<\/span>; Isa 29:18<\/span>; Job 11:12<\/span>). His will rebellious and adverse (Rev 8:7<\/span>; Rev 7:14<\/span>; Rev 6:12<\/span>; Mat 23:37<\/span>; Jer 18:12<\/span>; Jer 44:16-17<\/span>). His memory marvellous weak and feeble (Luk 24:6<\/span>, Heb 13:2<\/span>; 2Pe 3:5<\/span>). His conscience that is benumbed Eph 4:19<\/span>; Heb 9:14<\/span>; Gen 10:15<\/span>). Turmoiled Joh 8:9; 1Jn 3:20<\/span>; Act 2:37<\/span>; Act 24:26<\/span>). Impure (Tit Heb 10:22<\/span>). Superstitious and erroneous (Mar 10:19<\/span>, Luk 18:12<\/span>; Mat 15:2-3<\/span>; Joh 16:2<\/span>). His affections areunruly and disordered; they stand quite cross and contrary unto God (Gal 5:24<\/span>; Rom 10:2<\/span>; 1Ki 22:8<\/span>; 1Ki 21:4<\/span>; Jam 4:12<\/span>). His outward members are all instruments of sin (Rom 6:18-19<\/span>; Rom 3:13<\/span>; Psa 52:4<\/span>; 1Pe 2:24<\/span>). (N. Rogers.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The needy and helpful placed side by side in this world<\/strong><\/p>\n

We are accustomed to admire the wisdom and foresight that spread layers of iron ore and layers of coal near each other in the crust of the earth that the one might give the melting heat which the other needed; but the Divine government is a much more minute and pervading thing The same Omniscient Provider has appointed each meeting between those who are in want and those who have abundance; and for the same reason, that the one may give what the other needs, and that both may be blessed in the deed. But He who lays the plan watches its progress, and is displeased when men do not take the opportunity that has been given. When He has brought the strong to the spot where the weak are lying He is displeased to see them pass by on the other side. (W. Arnot.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Love not selective<\/strong><\/p>\n

The point on which attention is fixed is not, Who of all mankind have a right to receive kindness? but, Are you willing to show kindness, as far as you have opportunity, to every human being who is in need? The scribe desired to select a few who might rank as his neighbours, hoping that by limiting their number he might show kidness to each, without any substantial sacrifice of his own ease. The Lord shows him 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. Love that is happier if it meet only one who needs help than if it met ten, and happiest if it meet none at all, 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. (W. Arnot.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Brotherhood of men<\/strong><\/p>\n

A <\/em>man was standing by a hole which had been excavated, in which workmen were engaged in tossing out the dirt that it might be enlarged, when suddenly it caved in, burying those at the bottom. He stood idly looking on, as those summoned to rescue the buried shovelled the dirt as rapidly as possible to reach the bodies below, until a woman started out of a shanty near by, and called out, Jim, your own brother is down yonder! He instantly stripped off coat and vest, and dug for dear life; and why? Because his brother was among those entombed. Our brothers are in danger, our brothers are deaf and dumb, our brothers have defective minds, our brothers have lost their reason; and we need the inspiration that will send us to work as vigorously as the man just described. Then we will say that no expenditure is too great for redemption of the erring, and no personal effort should be spared to reform the fallen. Those who are now under the power of sin, who are swelling the ranks of our criminals that become the burdens of society, need to be sought out and saved. (G. M. G. Dana.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 29. Willing to justify himself<\/B><\/I>] Wishing to make it appear that he was a righteous<\/I> man, and that consequently he was in the straight road to the kingdom of God, said, Who is my neighbour<\/I>? supposing our Lord would have at once answered, “Every Jew is to be considered as such, and the Jews only.” Now as he imagined he had never been deficient in his conduct to any person of his own<\/I> nation<\/I>, he thought he had amply fulfilled the law. This is the sense in which the Jews understood the word neighbour<\/I>, as may be seen from Le 19:15-18<\/span>. But our Lord shows here, that the acts of kindness which a man is bound to perform to his neighbour when in distress, he should perform to any<\/I> person, of whatever nation,<\/I> religion<\/I>, or kindred<\/I>, whom he finds in necessity. As the word signifies one who is near<\/I>, Anglo Saxon [A.S.], he that is next<\/I>, this very circumstance makes any person our neighbour whom we know<\/I>; and, if in distress<\/I>, an object of our most compassionate regards. If a man came from the most distant<\/I> part of the earth, the moment he is near<\/I> you he has a claim upon your mercy<\/I> and kindness<\/I>, as you would have on his, were your<\/I> dwelling-place transferred to his<\/I> native country. It is evident that our Lord uses the word (very properly translated neighbour, from nae<\/I> or naer<\/I>, near, and buer<\/I>, to dwell) in its plain, literal sense. Any person whom you know<\/I>, who dwells hard<\/I> by, or who passes<\/I> near you, is your neighbour<\/I> while within<\/I> your reach<\/I>.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

This lawyers desire to justify himself spake him a hypocrite. The reason of that question, <\/P>

Who is my neighbour?<\/B> was the notion of the neighbour (mentioned in the law) which the scribes and Pharisees had, who counted none their neighbours but their friends and benefactors, at least none but those that were of their own nation or particular sect; and had taught their people, that they might hate their enemies. Our Saviour (this being but a captious question, considering the received interpretation amongst them of the law of God) doth not think fit to answer his question directly, but telling him a story, maketh him answer himself. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

29. willing<\/B>“wishing,”to get himself out of the difficulty, by throwing on Jesus thedefinition of “neighbor,” which the Jews interpreted verynarrowly and technically, as excluding Samaritans and Gentiles[ALFORD].<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

But he willing to justify himself<\/strong>,…. Upon the foot of his own righteousness, and to make himself appear to be righteous to others; for this the Jews thought themselves able to do, both to justify themselves before God by their own works, and make it out to men, that they were truly righteous persons; and it is a maxim with them, that<\/p>\n

“every one that justifies himself, below (on earth), they justify him above (or in heaven) k.”<\/p>\n

No wonder then that this man was desirous of justifying himself; and in order to which<\/p>\n

he said, and who is my neighbour<\/strong>? he takes no notice of God, and love to him, as coming into the account of his justification, only of his neighbour; thinking when this question was answered, he should be very able to make it out, that he was not wanting neither in doing justice between himself and his neighbour, nor in showing kindness and beneficence to him; for by his neighbour he meant only an Israelite; one of the same nation and religion with him. So the Jews commonly interpret the word neighbour, either of one that is related to them in nature, , that is, near akin to them in blood l; or that professes the same religion as they do, and whom they call a neighbour in the law; and so they explain the passage now cited, “and thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself”, ; “that is, who is thy neighbour in the law” m: for they will not allow a Gentile, no, not even a proselyte of the gate to be a neighbour: for thus they say n,<\/p>\n

“an Israelite that slays a proselyte of the gate, or the stranger that dwells with him, is not slain for him by the sanhedrim; for it is said, Ex 21:14<\/span> but if a man comes presumptuously upon his neighbour to slay him, c. and there is no need to say he is not slain for a Gentile.”<\/p>\n

And again o,<\/p>\n

“when a man sees one of them (the Gentiles) fall into the sea, he need not take him up as it is said, Le 19:16<\/span> “neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour”, “but this is not thy neighbour.””<\/p>\n

This notion Christ opposes and disproves in the following parable, which is an answer to the lawyer’s question.<\/p>\n

k T. Bab. Tasnith, fol. 8. 1. l Kimchi in Psal. xv. 3. m Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. affirm. 9. n Maimon. Hilch. Rotzeach, c. 2. sect. 11. o Ib. c. 4. sect. 11.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Desiring to justify himself <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The lawyer saw at once that he had convicted himself of asking a question that he already knew. In his embarrassment he asks another question to show that he did have some point at first:<\/P>

And who is my neighbour? <\/B> ( ;<\/SPAN><\/span>). The Jews split hairs over this question and excluded from “neighbour” Gentiles and especially Samaritans. So here was his loop-hole. A neighbour is a nigh dweller to one, but the Jews made racial exceptions as many, alas, do today. The word <\/SPAN><\/span> here is an adverb (neuter of the adjective <\/SPAN><\/span>) meaning <\/SPAN><\/span> (the one who is near), but <\/SPAN><\/span> was usually not expressed and the adverb is here used as if a substantive. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Willing [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Rev., desiring. See on Mt 1:19<\/span>. I think this is stronger than desiring; rather, determined. <\/P>

Neighbor [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. See on Mt 5:43<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) “But he, willing to justify himself,” <\/strong>(ho de thelon dikaiosai heauton) “Then he (the lawyer) strongly wanting to justify himself,” to make himself righteous, in his own way, Isa 64:6-7<\/span>; Rom 10:2-4<\/span>; Luk 16:15<\/span>. He sought to justify himself.<\/p>\n

2) “Said unto Jesus,” <\/strong>(elpen pros ton lesoun) “Said inquiringly, directly to Jesus,” because he did not want to acknowledge that Samaritans and Gentiles were his neighbors, Joh 4:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n

3) “And who is my neighbour?” <\/strong>(kai tis eston mou plesion) “And just who is (exists as) my neighbor?” Mat 22:39<\/span>; Rom 7:14-15<\/span>. Jesus responded with the following story of the Good Samaritan. He sought to dodge his defeat by asking another question, Mar 12:33<\/span>.<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

29. But he wishing to justify himself. This question might appear to be of no importance for justifying a man. But if we recollect what was formerly stated, that the hypocrisy of men is elderly detected by means of the second table—for, while they pretend to be eminent worshippers of God, they openly violate charity towards their neighbors—it will be easy to infer from this, that the Pharisee practiced this evasion, in order that, concealed under the false mask of holiness, he might not be brought forth to light. So then, aware that the test of charity would prove unfavorable to him, he seeks concealment under the word neighbor, that he may not be discovered to be a transgressor of the Law. But we have already seen, that on this subject the Law was corrupted by the scribes, because they reckoned none to be their neighbors but those who were worthy of it. Hence, too, this principle was received among them, that we have a right to hate our enemies, (Mat 5:43<\/span>.) For the only method to which hypocrites can resort for avoiding the condemnation of themselves, is to turn away as far as they are able, that their life may not be tried by the judgment of the Law. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(29) But he, willing to justify himself . . .<\/strong>The question implied a conscience half-awakened and uneasy. It is characteristic that no doubt seems to cross his mind as to his love of God. There he felt that he was safe. But there were misgivings as to the second commandment, and, as if feeling that there had been a tone of rebuke in our Lords answer, he vindicates himself by asking the question, Who is my neighbour? No one, he thinks, could accuse him of neglecting his duties to those who lived in the same village, attended the same synagogue, who were Pharisees like himself, or even Israelites.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

29<\/strong>. <\/strong> Justify himself<\/em> The lawyer sees that he is proved to have asked a question both very easy to answer and very condemning in the answer. To justify himself in both these respects, he would show that there is a deeper bottom to the subject; and that at that bottom he may be saved. He resorts for this purpose to a definition of terms. He might fight a battle upon several of the particular words. What is love? <\/em> what is heart, strength, <\/em> etc.? If they mean one thing, <\/em> I am, indeed, damned. By the law, I, under such definition, get nothing but the hopeless knowledge of sin. But does the word mean this one thing? <\/em> And to save himself he selects the term <\/p>\n

neighbour. Who is my neighbour?<\/em> If it mean my dear brother Jew, I have a good conscience and a safe soul; and the voice of all Jewry ratifies the conclusion. If, however, this Jesus replies, “Every member of the race is your neighbour, even the Samaritan,” then Jesus closes the door of popular prejudice against his conclusion. The lawyer will then have the bystanders on his side. Our Lord takes measures by the following parable to make this lawyer say it himself.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

‘But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?” ’<\/p>\n

But the Scribe wanted to justify his coming to Jesus so he asked a crunch question, “And who is my neighbour?” ’ He quite possibly saw this as a prelude to a long discussion, and even as a means of tripping Jesus up. If Jesus gave the same reply as a Pharisee, all the ‘sinners’ who followed Him would be dismayed, if he gave any other reply He would be opening Himself to attack..<\/p>\n

There was once a philosopher called Socrates. When his opponents attacked him he would ask them questions and when they answered he would show up their folly. By common agreement he had a brilliant mind. But in point of fact much of what he said was simply common sense which any student could agree with him about. The difference however between Socrates and others was, and this was what made him stand out from everyone else, that no one had thought about it that way until he did. With his simple questions he showed up man’s folly. That is why he is famous.<\/p>\n

The same is even more true of Jesus, and nowhere more so than here. Here He was facing a man who was strong and firm in his own beliefs, bigoted, present there with Jesus probably in order to criticise whatever He said and prepared to attack Him on it, and who despised sinners (those who failed to follow the Pharisaic rules of cleanliness) and outcasts, and even more hated and despised Samaritans and Gentiles. He probably wanted either to have his own view confirmed, or to debate the question as to whether marginally some few among the ‘sinners’ might be included in a widening of his idea of a neighbour, or to show Jesus up totally in the eyes of His listeners. What then do you think will be the chance of him saying within two minutes of Jesus beginning to speak that a Samaritan could be his neighbour? That would be impossible. It would require genius.<\/p>\n

It should be noted here that we should not just look at Jesus’ reply and see it as an illustration from which to draw a conclusion (although it is that). Nor is it simply a varying of the question. Looked at from the point of the crowd it contains a direct reply. The man had asked ‘who is my neighbour?’ and Jesus answers his question by  getting the man himself to say publicly that the Samaritan was neighbour to the Jew<\/em>, and necessarily therefore to all Jews, and therefore also to him. That was a major reason for it. His aim was to get this proud Scribe to  admit in words<\/em>  that a Samaritan could be his neighbour in front of the whole crowd. And it succeeded. Jesus did not just leave him to think about it theoretically. He  actually got him to say it<\/em>. Now some scholars may not recognise the fact that the Scribe had been made to say that the Samaritan was his neighbour, but the Scribe certainly knew it, as his reluctant reply reveals, and so did the amazed crowd. And then some scholars try to say that the story does not fit the context!<\/p>\n

I have had some considerable experience of taking questions from hostile sceptics at Speaker’s Corner in London, and had I been faced with this question before Jesus was I would probably have presented a huge number of arguments, all of which would have been dismissed, and we would have finished up with both holding the same opinion as before. Yet in two minutes Jesus left that man admitting in words, and totally unable to get away from the fact, that all his previous conceptions had been completely wrong. If that is not answering the question I do not know what is. The early church would never have come within a hundred miles of thinking of an answer like this. As in the case of the replies of Socrates, it required genius.<\/p>\n

But there seems little doubt that as we consider the well known story we may also be expected to draw from it other conclusions which Jesus included in it, such as that it shows us, as it showed the Scribe, how we too should behave, ‘go and do the same’. This was his second lesson. But do not see it lightly. Jesus is not just saying, ‘Go and do good’, He is saying, ‘Go and make sure that your whole attitude towards life ,and towards sinners, and towards foreigners, and towards the battered of Israel, is different from now on’. The man was facing a revolution in his life.<\/p>\n

And we should also note that as well as accomplishing this, Jesus’ words did also illustrate for all time the requirement for inter-racial and inter-religious tolerance and compassion from us all, not by forsaking what we believe, but by holding it firmly and yet showing love to all.<\/p>\n

But, and herein was the further genius of Jesus, we can see even more from this parable, for it is based solidly on Old Testament references which referred to God’s intentions for His people, and its context reveals that that is how we are to apply it. The Good Samaritan was the fulfiller of the Lord’s Prayer. For here is a picture of Israel in its need, as bruised and battered by robbers (Isa 42:24<\/span>), and of how its need could be met (the Samaritan is clearly deliberately contrasted with orthodox religion). ‘Who gave up Jacob to the spoiler, and Israel to the robbers? Was it not the Lord against Whom we have sinned, in whose ways they would not walk, and whose law they would not obey?’<\/p>\n

So in line with His other parables it contains messages below the surface, and He left its lesson to be gathered by those who would see it. But any discerning listener knowledgeable in the Scriptures would soon recognise what it was saying. For this Jew in question clearly stood as a representative of his people as being battered and bruised by robbers (Isa 42:24<\/span>). The priest and the Levite clearly represented the hierarchy and teachers of Israel who could not and would not meet the man’s need, and the foreign stranger, the ‘Samaritan’, represents the unorthodox religious ‘outcast’ who yet was faithful to God’s Law, and especially represents the prophet from out of the way, unorthodox ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ (see below) Who had come to seek and to save those who were lost. In the end He represented the Great Physician Who had come to save the sick (Luk 5:31<\/span>), the Provider of ‘daily provision’. The One Whom the Judaisers called ‘the Samaritan’ (Joh 8:48<\/span>).<\/p>\n

And even further to this Luke no doubt hoped that his readers would gain another lesson from it, and that was that all those ‘foreigners’ who truly responded to God could become members of the new Israel, and be welcomed as such by Jesus.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Jesus teaches who our neighbor is:<\/p>\n

v. 29<\/strong>. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 30<\/strong>. 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 31<\/strong>. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 32<\/strong>. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> The lawyer was somewhat taken aback at the answer of Jesus, and especially by the pointed: This do! It was his boast that he had always kept the commandments of the Lord, and the implication of Christ that there was still something for him to do rather caused some resentment. His desire was to justify himself, the old story of the aim of every human being since the time of Adam. “Those are the truly evil people that are proud of their external appearance, that want to justify themselves and make themselves pious with their works, as this lawyer here does. Thus all hypocrites do that outwardly march along beautifully with admirable, great, high works. They may say that they do not covet glory and praise, but inwardly in their heart they are full of false ambition, they desire that all the world should know their piety, are greatly pleased if they hear any one speak of it. ” The resentment of the lawyer crops out in his question: And who, then, may my neighbor be? His argument is that one cannot always know who one’s neighbor is; it surely cannot be expected that we help all men in all their misfortunes. The Jews drew the boundaries very sharply, including only those of their own nation in the law of love, and excluding all others. “And above all is here rebuked and rejected the hypocritical explanation of the Jews, who picture and locate their neighbor accordingly to their own ideas and consider only those whom they were not under obligation to serve nor to help strange, unknown, unworthy, ungrateful enemies.<\/p>\n

But the story which Jesus tells, teaches, in a most searching and impressive manner whom God regards as our neighbor. A certain man went down from the hill country, where Jerusalem is situated, down through the rocky, badland section of Judea to the city of Jericho, in the low valley of the Jordan, the lowest river in the world. This region is an ideal country for robbers, since both the places for ambush and for hiding are so numerous. It was a certain man; no nationality given; a human being. And he fell into the hands of robbers which infested this region. They stripped him, belabored him with stripes, and then went their way, leaving their victim in a half-dead condition. Here was a man, a human being, in direst need of help. Now it so happened that a certain priest traveled down the same road. He saw the man lying there in his blood, but he went by, intent upon saving his own life and getting out of the dangerous region as fast as possible. In the same way a Levite, coming to that place, stepped near and saw the unfortunate man, but also hurried by over on the farther side, intent only upon saving himself. Both of these men belonged to the leaders among the people, to such as were supposed to be teaching and practicing the arts of mercy and kindness toward all men. Yet they neglect an obvious duty in the desire to save themselves a disagreeable experience, in the fear that they might have to share his misfortune. This same spirit is abroad in the land today. The sayings: Everyone is nearest neighbor to himself; Charity begins at home, and others are abused with an obvious purpose, namely, to find an excuse for neglected opportunities for aiding one’s neighbor.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 10:29<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>But he, willing to justify himself, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Interpreters are not agreed in the meaning of these words; for it does not appear what occasion he had for any justification of himself: no accusation had been brought against him; nobody had charged him with any neglect or contempt of the law; so far otherwise, that our Lord had commended his wise answer, and promised him life, if he had immaculately obeyed the terms which he himself had proposed, Luk 10:28<\/span>. Besides, it does not presently appear how any justification of himself could arise out of this question, or any answer that might be given to it. What fault did he mean to excuse, by asking, Who is my neighbour? <\/em>or how did his virtue or innocence depend upon the answer which should be returned to this inquiry? These difficulties therefore have led interpreters into different sentiments; but without examining their opinions, the following is proposed, as appearing the most true, because the most easy and natural exposition of the passage. This lawyer came to our Lord, and, tempting him, said, What shall I do to inherit eternal life? <\/em>Our Lord returns him to the law for an answer to his question, saying, What readest thou? <\/em>He readily answers, That in the law he found, that he was to love the Lord his God with all his heart, <\/em>&c. and his neighbour as himself. <\/em>This account our Saviour approves; and adds, that if he had practised the law with immaculate obedience; he was in no danger: This do, and thou shalt live. <\/em>But in this point, relating to practice, the lawyer well knew how this precept in particular of loving our neighbour <\/em>had been loaded with exceptions and limitations by the Jewish doctors, and that he had never esteemed any body to be his neighbor, who was not of the same blood, and who did not profess the same religion with himself; for which reasons he hated many, who, according to the letter, were his neighbours, as the Samaritans were, who dwelt very near, but were the aversion of every Jew, being esteemed as the corrupters of the faith and true religion. Since therefore eternal life depended, according to his system, upon his immaculate obedience to the law, as he had heard from our Saviour; he very properly puts the question to our Lord, And who is my neighbour? <\/em>For had our Lord determined in favour of the Jewish interpretation, and told him that those only were his neighbours who were of the same stock and family, and who worshipped God in the same manner that he did, the lawyer would have thought himself justified <\/em>in his practice: but when our Saviour had forced him into a confession that even the Samaritan <\/em>was his neighbour, he stood condemned by his own sentence, and by the example of the Samaritan, <\/em>which he had approved; and was sent away with this short but full reproof and admonition, Go, and do thou likewise. <\/em>The words, thus expounded, shew upon what motives men act, and what it is that prejudices their minds in the interpretation of God’s law: they are willing to justify themselves, <\/em>and therefore employ all their force and skill to make the command countenance their practice, and to speak such language only as may be consistent with their inclinations. But a truly religious man endeavours by the aid of almighty grace to bend all his passions and inclinations towards the commands, and to make them intirely submissive to it. And he knows that he can do nothing without Christ, that every thing truly good springs from his grace and Holy Spirit; and to him he ascribes all the gloryof his salvation. He pleads nothing for his justification and acceptance before God but the merit of his Saviour’s blood, and shouts Grace, grace, even to the laying of the top-stone. But of all this the lawyer was perfectly ignorant. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ver. 29. Who is my neighbour?<\/strong> ] They counted no man their neighbour but their near friends. <\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

29.<\/strong> ] Meyer explains this: The questioner, having been by our Lord’s enquiry, ., himself thrown into the position of the answerer, yet, . ., wishing to carry out the purpose with which he asked at first, and to cover what otherwise would be his shame at being answered by so simple a reply, and that his own, asks <\/strong> ;<\/strong> I may observe that we need not take the whole of this explanation, but may well suppose that <\/strong> .<\/strong> may mean, ‘to get himself out of the difficulty:’ viz. by throwing on Jesus the definition of , which was very narrowly and technically interpreted among the Jews, excluding Samaritans and Gentiles.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 10:29<\/span> . ., to keep up his character as a righteous man, concerned in all things to do his duty. Hence his desire for a definition of “neighbour,” which was an elastic term. Whether Lk. thinks of him as guilty of evasion and chicanery is doubtful. It was not his way to put the worst construction on the conduct even of scribes and Pharisees. , without article, is properly an adverb = who is near me? But the meaning is the same as if had been there.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

But he, &c. Verses 29-37 peculiar to Luke. <\/p>\n

willing = desiring, as in Luk 10:24. <\/p>\n

neighbour. Compare Mat 5:43. Lev 19:18. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

29.] Meyer explains this: The questioner, having been by our Lords enquiry, ., himself thrown into the position of the answerer, yet, . ., wishing to carry out the purpose with which he asked at first, and to cover what otherwise would be his shame at being answered by so simple a reply, and that his own,-asks ;-I may observe that we need not take the whole of this explanation, but may well suppose that . may mean, to get himself out of the difficulty: viz. by throwing on Jesus the definition of , which was very narrowly and technically interpreted among the Jews, excluding Samaritans and Gentiles.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 10:29. , wishing) with a heart not broken or bruised into contrition: priding himself on his one right reply.-, to justify) They who ask many questions have no delight in doing many deeds of obedience, and prefer to exempt themselves by subterfuges from the obligations of the law. He who limits, by exceptions and qualifications, those duties which ought to be performed, and the persons to whom such just duties are to be performed, invents for himself a righteousness easy of attainment.-, and who) This particle approves of the immediately preceding speech of the Lord, and yet adds something to it: it has a wonderfully characteristic effect in expressing the or feeling of the speaker.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

willing: Luk 16:15, Luk 18:9-11, Lev 19:34, Job 32:2, Rom 4:2, Rom 10:3, Gal 3:11, Jam 2:24 <\/p>\n

And: Luk 10:36, Mat 5:43, Mat 5:44 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Gen 3:12 – General Exo 32:24 – So they Deu 6:25 – General Deu 22:4 – thou shalt surely 1Sa 15:15 – to 1Sa 15:20 – Yea 2Sa 20:20 – that I should 2Ki 6:23 – he prepared Job 9:20 – justify Psa 36:2 – For he Isa 43:26 – declare Jer 2:23 – How canst Hos 12:8 – they Jon 4:2 – I fled Mal 1:2 – Wherein Mal 1:6 – And ye Mal 2:9 – but Mat 22:39 – neighbour Mat 25:44 – when Mar 10:20 – General Luk 18:14 – justified<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

SELF JUSTIFICATION<\/p>\n

But he, willing to justify himself, said <\/p>\n

Luk 10:29<\/p>\n

The lawyer saidthen comes his own particular plea or excuse, to which we need pay little or no attention now, it was so completely and triumphantly answered by Jesus Christ. He, willing to justify himself, said What words do you insert after the word said?<\/p>\n

I. As good as my neighbour.He, willing to justify himself, said, I have been looking round, and it strikes me that I am every whit as good as my neighbours. There is a disposition amongst us all, and exercised, more or less, to compare ourselves with one another. We must cease such a method of comparing advantages and honours, and must go to the absolute and final standard of righteousness.<\/p>\n

II. I trust to the mercy of God.But he, willing to justify himself, said, Though I do not believe and act as they do who call themselves Christians, yet I trust to the mercy of God. Where is His mercy? It is in the life, the ministry, the death, the resurrection, and the whole mediation of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

III. Religion too mysterious.But he, willing to justify himself, said, There is so much mystery about religion that I really cannot attempt to understand it. I answer, There is mystery about religion, but there is ten thousand times more mystery without it. Life is a mystery. All that is great touches the mysterious. In proportion as a thing rises from irregularity and commonplace, it rises into wondrousness, and wondrousness is but the first round of the ladder, whose head rests upon the infinite mysteries. There is a point in my religious inquiries where I must close my eyes, look no more, but rest myself in the grand transaction which is known as faith in the Son of God.<\/p>\n

IV. So many denominations.But he, willing to justify himself, came at last to this, There are so many denominations of Christians that it is impossible to tell which is right and which is wrong. Yes, there are many regiments, but one army; many denominations, but one Church; many creeds, but one faith; many aspects, but one life; many ways up the hill, but one Cross at the top of it. Dont lose yourself among the diversities when you might save yourself by looking at the unities.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

9<\/p>\n

The young man of Mat 19:20 affirmed he had kept all the commandments from his youth. The lawyer did not make that claim which he evidently could not do truly. To justify means to show one’s self to be righteous. The lawyer thought he would clear himself of coming short of his duty by the use of a quibble over the interpretation of terms, so he asked who is my neighbor?<\/p>\n

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? <\/p>\n

[And who is my neighbour?] this doubt and form of questioning he had learned out of the common school, where it is thus taught in Aruch. He excepts all Gentiles when he saith, His neighbour. <\/p>\n

“An Israelite killing a stranger inhabitant; he doth not die for it by the Sanhedrim; because it is said, If any one lift up himself against his neighbour. And it is not necessary to say, He does not die upon the account of a Gentile: for they are not esteemed by them for their neighbour.”<\/p>\n

“The Gentiles, amongst whom and us there is no war, and so those that are keepers of sheep amongst the Israelites, and the like, we are not to contrive their death: but if they be in any danger of death, we are not bound to deliver them: e.g. If any of them fall into the sea, you shall not need to take him out: for it is said, Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour; but such a one is not thy neighbour.”<\/p>\n

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

THESE words contain the well-known parable of the good Samaritan. In order to understand the drift of this parable, we must carefully remember the occasion on which it was spoken. It was spoken in reply to the question of a certain lawyer, who asked, “who is my neighbor?” Our Lord Jesus Christ answers that question by telling the story we have just read, and winds up the narrative by an appeal to the lawyer’s conscience. Let these things not be forgotten. The object of the parable is to show the nature of true charity and brotherly love. To lose sight of this object, and discover deep allegories in the parable, is to trifle with Scripture, and deprive our souls of most valuable lessons.<\/p>\n

We are taught, first, in this parable, how rare and uncommon is true brotherly love. This is a lesson which stands out prominently on the face of the narrative before our eyes. Our Lord tells us of a traveler who fell among thieves, and was left naked, wounded, and half dead on the road. He then tells us of a priest and a Levite, who, one after the other, came traveling that way, and saw the poor wounded man, but gave him no help. Both were men, who from their religious office and profession, ought to have been ready and willing to do good to one in distress. But both, in succession, were too selfish, or too unfeeling to offer the slightest assistance. They doubtless reasoned with themselves, that they knew nothing of the wounded traveler,-that he had perhaps got into trouble by his own misconduct,-that they had no time to stop to help him,-and that they had enough to do to mind their own business, without troubling themselves with strangers. And the result was, that one after the other, they both “passed by on the other side.”<\/p>\n

We have in this striking description, an exact picture of what is continually going on in the world. Selfishness is the leading characteristic of the great majority of mankind. That cheap charity which costs nothing more than a trifling subscription or contribution, is common enough. But that self-sacrificing kindness of heart, which cares not what trouble is entailed, so long as good can be done, is a grace which is rarely met with. There are still thousands in trouble who can find no friend or helper. And there are still hundreds of “priests and Levites” who see them, but “pass by on the other side.”<\/p>\n

Let us beware of expecting much from the kindness of man. If we do, we shall certainly be disappointed. The longer we live the more clearly we shall see that few people care for others except from interested motives, and that unselfish, disinterested, pure brotherly love, is as scarce as diamonds and rubies. How thankful we ought to be that the Lord Jesus Christ is not like man! His kindness and love are unfailing. He never disappoints any of His friends. Happy are they who have learned to say, “My soul, wait thou only upon God; my expectation is from Him.” (Psa 62:5.)<\/p>\n

We are taught, secondly, in this parable, who they are to whom we should show kindness, and whom we are to love as neighbors. We are told that the only person who helped the wounded traveler, of whom we are reading, was a certain Samaritan. This man was one of a nation who had “no dealings” with the Jews. (Joh 4:9.) He might have excused himself by saying that the road from Jerusalem to Jericho was through the Jewish territory, and that cases of distress ought to be cared for by the Jews. But he does nothing of the sort. He sees a man stripped of his raiment, and lying half dead. He asks no questions, but at once has compassion on him. He makes no difficulties, but at once gives aid. And our Lord says to us, “Go and do thou likewise.”<\/p>\n

Now, if these words mean anything, a Christian ought to be ready to show kindness and brotherly love to every one that is in need. Our kindness must not merely extend to our families, and friends, and relations. We must love all men, and be kind to all, whenever occasion requires. We must beware of an excessive strictness in scrutinizing the past lives of those who need our aid. Are they in real trouble? Are they in real distress? Do they really want help? Then, according to the teaching of this parable, we ought to be ready to assist them. <\/p>\n

We should regard the whole world as our parish, and the whole race of mankind as our neighbors. We should seek to be the friend of every one who is oppressed, or neglected, or afflicted, or sick, or in prison, or poor, or an orphan, or a heathen, or a slave, or an idiot, or starving, or dying. We should exhibit such world-wide friendship, no doubt, wisely, discreetly, and with good sense, but of such friendship we never need be ashamed. The ungodly may sneer at it as extravagance and fanaticism. But we need not mind that. To be friendly to all men in this way, is to show something of the mind that was in Christ.<\/p>\n

We are taught, lastly, in this parable, after what manner, and to what extent we are to show kindness and love to others. We are told that the Samaritan’s compassion towards the wounded traveler was not confined to feelings and passive impressions. He took much trouble to give him help. He acted as well as felt. He spared no pains or expense in befriending him. Stranger as the man was, he went to him, bound up his wounds, set him on his own beast, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. Nor was this all. On the morrow he gave the host of the inn money, saying, “Take care of him, and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again I will repay thee.” And our Lord says to each of us, “Go and do thou likewise.”<\/p>\n

The lesson of this part of the parable is plain and unmistakable. The kindness of a Christian towards others should not be in word and in tongue only, but in deed and in truth. His love should be a practical love, a love which entails on him self-sacrifice and self-denial, both in money, and time, and trouble. His charity should be seen not merely in his talking, but his acting,-not merely in his profession, but in his practice. He should think it no misspent time to work as hard in doing good to those who need help, as others work in trying to get money. He should not be ashamed to toil as much to make the misery of this world rather smaller, as those toil who hunt or shoot all day long. He should have a ready ear for every tale of sorrow, and a ready hand to help every one in affliction, so long as he has the power. Such brotherly love the world may not understand. The returns of gratitude which such love meets with may be few and small. But to show such brotherly love, is to walk in the steps of Christ, and to reduce to practice the parable of the good Samaritan.<\/p>\n

And now let us leave the parable with grave thoughts and deep searchings of heart.-How few Christians seem to remember that such a parable was ever written! What an enormous amount of stinginess, and meanness, and ill-nature, and suspicion there is to be seen in the Church, and that even among people who repeat the creed and go to the Lord’s table!-How seldom we see a man who is really kind, and feeling, and generous, and liberal and good-natured, except to himself and his children! Yet the Lord Jesus Christ spoke the parable of the good Samaritan, and meant it to be remembered.<\/p>\n

What are we ourselves? Let us not forget to put that question to our hearts. What are we doing, each in our own station, to prove that this mighty parable is one of the rules of our daily life? What are we doing for the heathen, at home and abroad? What are we doing to help those who are troubled in mind, body, or estate? There are many such in this world. There are always some near our own doors. What are we doing for them? Anything, or nothing at all? May God help us to answer these questions! The world would be a happier world if there was more practical Christianity.<\/p>\n

==================<\/p>\n

Notes-<\/p>\n

v29.-[He willing to justify himself.] It may be doubted whether the word translated “willing,” would not have been better rendered “desiring.” It is so translated in the following passages in Luke, (Luk 5:39; Luk 8:20; Luk 10:24; Luk 20:46; Luk 23:8,) as well as in other places in the New Testament.<\/p>\n

The expression makes clear the true character of the lawyer. He was a self-righteous man, and flattered himself that he could deserve the eternal life he had inquired about by his own doings.<\/p>\n

[Who is my neighbour?] The lawyer, no doubt, expected that our Lord would answer according to the narrow-minded prejudices of the Jewish nation at that time, that Jews alone were his neighbours, Major quotes two remarkable passages from Tacitus and Juvenal. proving that even among the heathen Romans the Jews were notorious for bitterness and ill-feeling towards all who were not of their own nation.<\/p>\n

The feeling of the Jews towards other nations is a remarkable instance of man’s readiness to pervert and misapply God’s laws. The law of Moses about intercourse and intermarriage with foreigners, was undoubtedly meant for the good of the Jews, to keep them a separate people among the nations of the earth. But it was never meant to sanction unkindness and want of charity.<\/p>\n

v30.-[From Jerusalem to Jericho.] The road between these two Places passed through a wild and rocky country, and was notorious for being infested by robbers. On this account, Jerome says, it was called “the bloody way.” It is a curious fact, that Dr. Bonar, one of the latest travellers in Palestine, mentions, that even now it is a dangerous road for people to travel alone, and that a lady in his company well nigh “fell among thieves.”<\/p>\n

v31.-[By chance.] The Greek word so rendered is only found here in the New Testament. It means literally, “by coincidence,-as it happened.”<\/p>\n

[A certain Priest.] There is a propriety in the mention of a Priest and a Levite on this road. Jericho was a city specially appointed for the residence of Priests and Levites. No less than 12,000 of them, according to Lightfoot, lived there. At Jerusalem was the temple, which Priests and Levites had to attend in monthly courses. These circumstances make it quite natural for a Priest and a Levite to be on the road.<\/p>\n

[Passed by on the other side.] Parkhurst suggests that the Priest was afraid of being legally polluted by touching a dead carcase, and thinks that his conduct is an example of hypocritical pretence to excessive ceremonial purity, like that recorded in Mat 27:6; Joh 18:28.<\/p>\n

v32.-[Came and looked on him.] The conduct of the Levite, be it remarked, was worse than that of the Priest. Both “saw” the wounded man, but the Levite seems to have “come” to him, and then passed by.<\/p>\n

v33.-[Came where he was.] It may be doubted whether the Greek words here would not have been more literally rendered, “came unto him.”<\/p>\n

v34.-[Pouring in oil.] A note in Schoettgen throws light on this expression. He says, “Some one might naturally ask whence this traveller got his oil and wine on a journey? It has occurred to me that travellers in hot eastern countries made a point of carrying oil with them, that they might anoint and strengthen their limbs wearied with continued heat. We have an example in the case of Jacob, who, even when he slept on the bare ground in Bethel. and journeyed alone with only a staff, nevertheless had oil with him, with which he anointed the stone, and oil which he poured out to the glory of God.” (Gen 28:18.)<\/p>\n

v35.-[Two pence.] Let it be noted, that this sum was in reality much larger than it appears at first sight to an English reader. The value of money was very different then from what it is now. A “penny a day,” according to Mat 20:2, was a fair day’s wages.<\/p>\n

v36.-[Thinkest thou, was.] The Greek here is literally, “seems to thee to have been.”<\/p>\n

Before leaving this parable., a question of some importance demands consideration:-“Is the parable of the good Samaritan an allegory or not? Is it meant to teach the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to man? Was the conduct of the good Samaritan intended to be interpreted by us as a type and figure of our Lord Jesus Christ’s great work of redemption?” Let the question be rightly understood. The question is not whether the passage may be accommodated and fitted by man, so as to illustrate the work of Christ on behalf of sinners. The question is simply this:-“Did our Lord Jesus Christ speak the parable with this double meaning, and intend us to interpret it in this way?”<\/p>\n

The question is one which the great majority of Commentators at once answer in the affirmative. According to them, the traveller represents human nature, the falling among thieves Adam’s fall,-the lying naked, wounded, and half dead, the condition of mankind,-and the failure of the Priest and Levite to help, the inability of ceremonies and forms to raise man from his low estate. The good Samaritan is Jesus Christ. The oil and wine are the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The inn is the Church. The host is the ministry. The two pence are the two sacraments. The promised coming again to repay what is spent more, the Lord’s second advent.<\/p>\n

This, with some minor variations, is the sense which many Commentators, both ancient and modern, extract from the parable. Mr. Alford even speaks of those who cannot receive it, as “the superficial school of critics.” There is no denying the praise of ingenuity to the interpretation. To many it is sure to appear very clever, just because it is not natural. But the serious question remains still to be answered: “Did our Lord Jesus Christ really intend this meaning to be placed upon the parable?” My own conviction decidedly is, that He did not; and that the allegorical sense which has been placed on the parable, is a gratuitous invention of man.<\/p>\n

My reasons for not holding the allegorical interpretation of the parable are three-fold.<\/p>\n

1. I see nothing either in the passage, or in the context, to lead me to suppose that our Lord meant to convey more than one plain lesson by it. That lesson is the true nature of love to our neighbours.<\/p>\n

2. I see much in the circumstances of the parable itself which appears to me to overthrow entirely the idea that it is an allegory of man’s redemption. Without twisting and straining it in the most violent and unwarrantable manner, the parable, upon the allegorical interpretation, involves manifest absurdities. Grant that the traveller represents human nature. At best, it is an awkward figure. The traveller was an object of pity, and only half dead. Man is more than pitiable; he deserves blame, and is dead in sins. But who then can the Priest and Levite be who fail to give aid? They are part of human nature themselves! Grant, in order to avoid this awkwardness, that the traveller means the Gentile, and the failure of priest and Levite to help him, the weakness of the Mosaic law. Again, the question arises, what are we to make of the inn and the host, if they mean the Church and the ministry? At this rate, the Gentiles are handed over to the care of the Gentiles, since there was no Gentile Church till Christ called and formed it! All this may seem to some minds to admit of explanation. To my own it appears to involve inextricable confusion.<\/p>\n

3. My third and last reason is this. I hold it to be a most dangerous mode of interpreting Scripture, to regard everything which its words may be tortured into meaning, as a lawful interpretation of the words. I hold undoubtedly that there is a mighty depth in all Scripture, and that in this respect it stands alone. But I also hold that the words of Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and that our first object should be to discover that sense, and adhere rigidly to it. I believe that, as a general rule, the words of Scripture are intended to have, like all other language, one plain definite meaning, and that to say that words do mean a thing, merely because they can be tortured into meaning it, is a most dishonourable and dangerous way of handling Scripture. If any one wants to see to what absurdities such a mode of interpreting Scripture leads, he has only to read the commentaries of the Fathers. Hardly any, except perhaps, Chrysostom, seem satisfactory and sound on this point.<\/p>\n

I am quite aware that in holding the views which I have endeavored to defend, about the parable of the good Samaritan, I hold the views of a small minority of commentators. But that those with whom I agree are not all “superficial,” I think the following five names prove,-Gualter, Baxter, Scott, Poole, and Adam Clarke. Even Stella, the Roman Catholic Spanish commentator, denounces the allegorical interpretation, and Maldonatus is evidently unwilling to endorse it.<\/p>\n

The question will probably never be settled as long as the world stands, but I have thought it right to bear my testimony fully and frankly to what I believe to be the truth.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 10:29. But he, wishing to justify himself, to declare himself righteous, over against the implied charge. He would defend himself by claiming that he had fulfilled the command in the sense which the Jews attached to the term neighbora very narrow one, excluding Samaritans and Gentiles.<\/p>\n

Who is my neighbor? This implies: I have fulfilled the requirement according to our view of the meaning, do you interpret it differently? The question did not involve direct hostility, but a half-awakened conscience and some willingness to be instructed, though a self-righteous desire to get out of the difficulty was the leading motive.Some think that he intended to ask this question from the first, and that wishing to justify himself means to justify his putting a question which had received so simple an answer: as if he would say: my question is not yet answered, the main point is, who is my neighbor. But this supposes too much.<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The design of our Saviour in this parable is to convince the lawyer, who put that question to him, Who is my neighbor? (verse 29) that every one is, and ought to be, accounted our neighbor, to whom God affords us an opportunity of doing good; contrary to the strait notion of the Pharisees, that by the word neighbor, understood friends and kinsfolk, brethren by blood, neighbors by habitation, and persons of the same religion. <\/p>\n

Our Saviour by this parable taught them, that even strangers and professed enemies, every one that needed our help and relief, is to be accounted our neighbor. To convince him hereof, Christ propounds this parable of a Jew that fell among thieves, who was neglected by his own countrymen, but relieved by a Samaritan, who, though a professed enemy upon the score of religion, yet was so exceedingly kind and charitable, that he became physician, surgeon, and host, and a real neighbor to the unknown traveller wounded by thieves in his journey to Jericho.<\/p>\n

From the whole learn,<\/p>\n

1. That every person in misery is the object of our mercy, our neighbor, and capable of our charity.<\/p>\n

2. That no difference in religion, much less in some doubtful opinion, will excuse us from exercising acts of charity and compassion towards such as are really in want, and need our assistance. Our holy and merciful religion makes all persons the objects of our compassion, who are indigent and helpless; though they be strangers and foreigners, heathens or heretics, friends or enemies; yea, be they good or bad, holy or wicked, as we have opportunity we must do good unto all; and imitate the example of our merciful God, who is kind to the unthankful and to the evil.<\/p>\n

3. That real charity is an active operative thing; it consists not in good words given to the distressed, nor in compassionate beholding of them, nor in a pitiful mourning over them, but in positive acts of kindness towards them.<\/p>\n

The Samaritan here is an example of a real and thorough charity; he turns his face towards the forlorn man, his feet hasten to him, his hand pours in wine and oil into his wounds, after which he sets him upon his own beast, brings him to the inn, stays with him all night; and the next day, because his recovery would be a work of time and expense, he leaves him, but first leaves money with the host, and a special charge to take care of him; with a punctual promise that whatever was expended more should be repaid. Behold here an instance and pattern of a complete charity, managed with as much discretion as compassion: well might our Lord say to this person, and in him to every one of us, Go, and do thou likewise.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 10:29-32. But he, willing to justify himself That is, to show he had done this, and was blameless, even with respect to the duties which are least liable to be counterfeited, namely, the social and relative duties, asked him what was the meaning and extent of the word neighbour in the law? It seems, being strongly tinctured with the prejudices of his nation, he reckoned none brethren but Israelites; or neighbours, but proselytes; and expected that Jesus would confirm his opinion, by approving of it. For, according to this interpretation, he thought himself innocent, although enemies and heathen had no share of his love, since the precept enjoined the love of neighbours only. And Jesus answering said, A certain man, &c. Our Lord, who well knew how to convince and persuade, answered him in such a manner as to make the feelings of his heart overcome the prejudices of his understanding. He convinced him of his mistake by a parable, an ancient, agreeable, and inoffensive method of conveying instruction, very fit to be used in teaching persons who are greatly prejudiced against the truth. For, as to the scope of the passage, every body perceives, that it is the intention of it to confound those malignant Jewish prejudices, which made them confine their charity to those of their own nation and religion. Nor could any thing be better adapted for the purpose than this story, which, as it is universally understood, exhibits a Samaritan overlooking all national and religious differences, and doing offices of kindness and humanity to a Jew in distress. By this means the narrow-minded Pharisee, who put the question, is surprised into a conviction that there is something amiable, and even divine, in surmounting all partial considerations, and listening to the voice of nature, which is the voice of God, in giving relief to the unhappy. Campbell. Went down from Jerusalem to Jericho Jericho was situated in a valley, hence the phrase of going down to it: and as the road to it from Jerusalem (about eighteen miles) lay through desert and rocky places, so many robberies and murders were committed therein, that it was called, according to Jerome, the bloody way. This circumstance of the parable, therefore, is finely chosen. And fell among thieves This Jew, in travelling this road, was assaulted by robbers, who, not satisfied with taking all the money he had, stripped him of his raiment, beat him unmercifully, and left him for dead. While he was lying in this miserable condition, utterly incapable of helping himself, a certain priest, happening to come that way, saw him in great distress, but took no pity on him. In like manner a Levite, espying him, would not come near him, having no mind to be at any trouble or expense with him. The priest and Levite are here introduced coming that way very naturally, there being, according to a considerable Jewish writer, quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, no fewer than twelve thousand priests and Levites, who dwelt at Jericho, and all occasionally attending the service of the temple at Jerusalem, frequently travelled this road. The expression, , here, is very improperly rendered, by chance, in our translation. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing in the universe as either chance or fortune. The phrase merely means, as it happened, or, it came to pass. Both the priest and the Levite are represented as passing by without so much as speaking to the poor distressed and dying man, notwithstanding that their sacred characters, and eminent knowledge in the law, obliged them to be remarkable for compassion, and all the tender offices of charity; especially when it was the distress of a brother, which called for their help. In other cases, indeed, these hypocrites might have invented reasons to palliate their inhumanity: but here it was not in their power to do it. For they could not excuse themselves by saying, This was a Samaritan, or a heathen, who deserved no pity; they could not even excuse themselves by saying, they did not know who he was; for though they took care to keep at a distance, they had looked on their brother lying, stripped, wounded, and half dead, without being in the least moved with his distress. No doubt, however, they would try to excuse themselves to their own consciences for thus neglecting him, and, perhaps, might gravely thank God for their own deliverances, while they left their brother bleeding to death. Is not this an emblem of many living characters, perhaps of some who bear the sacred office? O house of Levi, and of Aaron, is not the day coming when the virtues of heathen and Samaritans will rise up in judgment against you?<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Vers. 29-37. The good Samaritan.<\/p>\n

How is such love to be attained? This would have been the question put by the scribe, had be been in the state of soul which Paul describes Romans 7, and which is the normal preparation for faith. He would have confessed his impotence, and repeated the question in a yet deeper sense than at the beginning of the interview: What shall I do? What shall I do in order to love thus?<\/p>\n

But instead of that, feeling himself condemned by the holiness of the law which he has himself formally expressed, he takes advantage of his ignorance, in other words, of the obscurity of the letter of the law, to excuse himself for not having observed it: What does the word neighbour mean? How far does its application reach? So long as one does not know exactly what this expression signifies, it is quite impossible, he means, to fulfil the commandment. Thus the remark of Luke, willing to justify himself, finds an explanation which is perfectly natural.<\/p>\n

The real aim of the parable of the good Samaritan is to show the scribe that the answer to the theological question, which he thinks good to propose, is written by nature on every right heart, and that to know, nothing is needed but the will to understand it. But Jesus does not at all mean thereby that it is by his charitable disposition, or by this solitary act of kindness, that the Samaritan can obtain salvation. We must not forget that a totally new question, that of the meaning of the word neighbour, has intervened. It is to the latter question that Jesus replies by the parable. He lets the scribe understand that this question, proposed by him as so difficult, is resolved by a. right heart, without its ever proposing it at all. This ignorant Samaritan naturally (, Rom 2:14) possessed the light which the Rabbins had not found, or had lost, in their theological lucubrations. Thus was condemned the excuse which he had dared to advance.<\/p>\n

May we not suppose it is from sayings such as this that Paul has derived his teaching regarding the law written in the heart, and regarding its partial observance by the Gentiles, Rom 2:14-16? <\/p>\n

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

THE GOOD SAMARITAN<\/p>\n

Luk 10:29-37. And he, wishing to justify himself, said to Jesus, And who is my neighbor? And Jesus, responding, said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who, both stripping him of his raiment and administering blows, departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance a certain priest went down that road, and seeing him, passed by on the other side. Likewise also a Levite being at the place, coming and seeing, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, journeying that way, came near him, and seeing him, was moved with compassion. And coming to him, bound up his wounds, pouring in the oil and the wine; and setting him on his own beast, took him to the tavern, and cared for him. And on the morrow, departing, taking out two denarii, gave them to the host, and said to him, Care for him, and whatsoever you spend, I will pay you on my return. Then which one of the three seems to you to have been neighbor of him having fallen among the robbers? And he said, The one having mercy on him. Then Jesus said to him, Go thou, and do likewise. This theologian was no counterfeit, but evidently well-posted in the Scriptures, as he not only answered Jesus in inspired phraseology, but he had it at his tongues-end, and so gives it peremptorily and unequivocally. While popular pulpits this day abound in men claiming to be theologians, who either lack the candor or the wisdom of this man, and consequently labor assiduously to evade the great issue, loath to admit the great Bible truth of perfect love, which is the grand upper-side of entire sanctification, and is the only condition of admission into heaven, we are gratified to admit that there is another class, who, like the man in the text, admit unhesitatingly that entire sanctification is the Bible standard; yet, painfully conscious of their own deficiency, they resort to diversified stratagems in order to justify themselves, like the theologian in the text, who switches off on the inquiry, Who is my neighbor? tacitly recognizing the Jewish attitude of looking upon the whole Gentile world as enemies, and none but the Jews as neighbors, and many exceptions among them.<\/p>\n

Having been caught in the lasso he threw out for Jesus, he is floundering terrifically; but, as you see in the finale, utterly unsuccessful in his efforts to extricate himself, as he here lights on the word neighbor, aiming to use it as a back-door of escape from the entanglement in which he had been caught, our Lord delivers this beautiful parable by way of response to the question, Who is my neighbor?<\/p>\n

a. I have traveled the road from Jerusalem to Jericho four times, and always accompanied by an armed escort, as my guide refused to accompany me without this protection from the robbers. The solution of the matter is, the most of the route leads through a great bed of rugged, desolate mountains, in the Bible designated the wilderness of Judea. As this is really a desert, having little or no rain, and consequently neither water nor vegetation, it is uninhabitable while the mountains are so rugged and cavernous, the hiding facilities so ample, that it has been infested with robbers from time immemorial. Under Roman rule, the robbers were so troublesome that they actually put garrisons along the road to protect the travelers. In one of my journeys, my guide pointed me out five armed robbers, hiding in the caves in the Valley of Blood, so called because so many travelers have there been killed by robbers, assuring me that if they did not see our armed escort, they would be on us immediately. You have nothing to do but travel that road to find the state of things at the present day graphically identical with this account given by our Lord an item, along with so many which literally corroborate the inspired Word.<\/p>\n

b. Jerusalem, in this parable, emblematizes the kingdom of God, being the holy city, honored by the Almighty with His temple and residence; while Jericho typifies the kingdom of Satan, having-been desperately wicked during the four hundred years from the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose successor Jericho became, till the conquest of Joshua, when it was utterly destroyed, and its rebuilding interdicted; though it was rebuilt on another site in the vicinity, where it stood in the days of Christ, and was destroyed by the Romans in the desolation of the land, responsive to prophecy, and afterward rebuilt by the Crusaders, in the eleventh century, on a still different site, near by, where it stands to this day.<\/p>\n

c. The situation of Jerusalem, high up on the great mountains of Judah and Benjamin, associated with its wonderful sacred history, qualifies it very strikingly to emblematize heaven; while that of Jericho, deep down in the Jordan Valley, on tile plain of the Dead Sea, qualifies it very forcibly to symbolize hell, the road being all the way down the mountain, thirty miles.<\/p>\n

d. By the glorious redemption of Christ, the whole human race is born in the kingdom of God, only getting out by sinning out; like this traveler, who was born in Jerusalem, the beautiful city of God, the joy of the whole earth, the symbol of heaven, where he should have spent his life, but like the great majority, he put out, traveling down to Jericho, and got into all that terrible trouble. The robber demons never get their black hands on us while we stay in Jerusalem; i. e., abide in the kingdom of grace, where we are all born.<\/p>\n

e. These robbers emblematize evil habits, which rob us of our infantile innocence, purity, and justification. We see the robbers were not content to take all of his money and utterly divest him of every stitch of apparel, which is their custom this day, but as dead men tell no tales, they actually undertake to kill him. Fire-arms being unknown in that day, they beat him till they think he is dead, and would have made certain work of it if they had not been interrupted by at least the imaginary tread of an approaching troop, and so fled away to escape detection. When evil habits are once formed, they become an awful disease, like an eating cancer, that will not let up day or night till death claims his victim; i. e. the last hope of heaven is eclipsed in the gloom of eternal night, the Holy Ghost having been grieved away.<\/p>\n

f. Now we come to the remedial side. The priest passing along, looking on him, but giving no relief; erelong followed by the Levite, who halts, and contemplates the hopeless victim of the cruel robbers, but gives no relief, passing by on the other side of the road. Then the Good Samaritan, perchance passing along, recognizes the dying victim, draws nigh, his heart breaking with sympathy; dismounting, turns surgeon, binding up his wounds, pouring in the oil and the wine; setting him on his own beast, carries him to the tavern, commits him to the landlord, spends a night with him; in the morning, handing the landlord thirty cents, which in that day was equivalent to about three dollars now, and sufficient to pay his board a week, assuring the innkeeper that he will return and pay the entire bill that shall subsequently accrue.<\/p>\n

g. Now what is the meaning of this plain, beautiful, natural description of the remedial side? The priest emblematizes all the preachers, illustrating our utter incompetency to do anything for the lost sinner sinking into hell. We can only tell him about Jesus. What about the Levite? Under the former dispensation of the Levites were the custodians of the tabernacle and the temple; i. e., the keepers of Gods house. These Levites are the Church officers, emblematizing the visible Church, and showing up the fact of her utter incompetency to save a solitary soul. What about the good Samaritan? Reproachfully, our Saviors enemies called Him a Samaritan, which was synonymous with the greatest conceivable antipathy. Hence, Jesus Himself is the Good Samaritan, who alone can rescue the perishing sinner. The preachers all having administered water baptism, eucharist, and Church rites, done all their preaching, and praying, and everything in their power, prove utterly incompetent to deliver a solitary soul from Satans strong grip. Here is the great delusion millions of people depending on preachers, who cant save their own souls, much less other peoples; while teeming multitudes are looking to the Church to save them, all destined to fail, and enter eternity destitute of the wedding garment; like this poor victim, utterly naked and wounded unto death. The Good Samaritan is the only hope of a sinking world. All we can do is to tell the poor, dying travelers to eternity about Him, so they will give Him a chance to bind up their wounds which Satans robbers have inflicted, pouring in the healing oil and the spiritualizing wine; i. e., the two blessings constituting this wonderful double cure. Now He mounts him on His own beast; i. e., Jesus takes him in His arms, carries him to the tavern i. e., the visible Church; commits him to the landlord i. e., the faithful pastor; spends a time with him, pays the landlord a nice installment, and promises the remainder of his bill when He comes again. When a soul is gloriously saved and added to the Church, the Lord gives the faithful pastor a running-over blessing. O how he rejoices to see a soul rescued from the vortex of hell, happy in God, and on his way to heaven, saved and sanctified! But our Lord is coming again. If we do not survive till He descends in glory to receive His saints, we shall very soon leave this world and go to Him, which, from an experimental standpoint, is the second coming of the Lord to us individually. Salvation from sin and Satan is glorious; but mounting away from this world of sin and sorrow, and sweeping into heaven, saluted by angels and redeemed spirits, is infinitely more so. The blood-washed pastor receives a wonderful spiritual uplift when the soul is saved from hell, and committed to His care by the Good Samaritan; but when his pilgrimage winds to a close, and he dies in glorious triumph, the fire-baptized pastor, standing over him, gets a Pisgahs view of the glory-world, and feels like mounting the chariot with his brother pilgrim, and soaring away to the mount of victory. Thus the heroic pastor having received a rich compensation when the man was saved and committed to his care, when he dies, with heaven in full view and glory in his soul, receives a transcendent boom for the heavenly country.<\/p>\n

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 29 <\/p>\n

Willing to justify himself; that is, in respect to the question which he had asked; to show that there was really some difficulty in it, and that it was not so easily solved as the Savior’s first answer might appear to indicate.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

10:29 {9} But he, willing {k} to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?<\/p>\n

(9) The law defines our neighbour as anyone at all that we may help.<\/p>\n

(k) That is, to vouch his righteousness, or show that he was just, that is, void of all faults: and Jas 5:1-20 uses the word of justification in this sense.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The lawyer realized that the only way he could possibly fulfill the law’s demand was to limit its demand. He should have acknowledged his inability to keep these commands and asked Jesus what He should do. Instead he tried to "justify" himself (i.e., to declare himself righteous) by limiting (redefining) the demand of the law and then showing that he had fulfilled that limited demand.<\/p>\n

His question set up a distinction between neighbors and non-neighbors. The word "neighbor" (Gr. plesion<\/span>) means one who is near (cf. Act 7:27). The Hebrew word that it translates, rea<\/span>, means a person with whom one has something to do. The Jews interpreted the word in a limited sense to mean a fellow Jew or someone in the same religious community. They specifically excluded Samaritans and foreigners from this category. [Note: See John Bowman, "The Parable of the Good Samaritan," Expository Times 59 (1947-48):151-53, 248-49.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? 29. willing to justify himself ] “before men” a thing which the Pharisees were ever prone to do, Luk 16:15. who is my neighbour? ] He wants his moral duties to be labelled and defined with the Talmudic precision to which … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 10:29”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25375","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25375"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25375\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25375"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25375"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}