Luke 10:25

We have here Christ's discourse with a lawyer about some points of conscience, which we are all concerned to be rightly informed in and are so here from Christ though the questions were proposed with no good intention.

I. We are concerned to know what that good is which we should do in this life, in order to our attaining eternal life. A question to this purport was proposed to our Saviour by a certain lawyer, or scribe, only with a design to try him, not with a desire to be instructed by him, Luk 10:25. The lawyer stood up, and asked him, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? If Christ had any thing peculiar to prescribe, by this question he would get it out of him, and perhaps expose him for it; if not, he would expose his doctrine as needless, since it would give no other direction for obtaining happiness than what they had already received; or, perhaps, he had no malicious design against Christ, as some of the scribes had, only he was willing to have a little talk with him, just as people go to church to hear what the minister will say. This was a good question: What shall I do to inherit eternal life? But it lost all its goodness when it was proposed with an ill design, or a very mean one. Note, It is not enough to speak of the things of God, and to enquire about them, but we must do it with a suitable concern. If we speak of eternal life, and the way to it, in a careless manner, merely as matter of discourse, especially as matter of dispute, we do but take the name of God in vain, as the lawyer here did. Now this question being started, observe,

1. How Christ turned him over to the divine law, and bade him follow the direction of that. Though he knew the thoughts and intents of his heart, he did not answer him according to the folly of that, but according to the wisdom and goodness of the question he asked. He answered him with a question: What is written in the law? How readest thou? Luk 10:26. He came to catechize Christ, and to know him; but Christ will catechize him, and make him know himself. He talks to him as a lawyer, as one conversant in the law: the studies of his profession would inform him; let him practise according to his knowledge, and he should not come short of eternal life. Note, It will be of great use to us, in our way to heaven, to consider what is written in the law, and what we read there. We must have recourse to our bibles, to the law, as it is now in the hand of Christ and walk in the way that is shown us there. It is a great mercy that we have the law written, that we have it thereby reduced to certainty, and that thereby it is capable of spreading the further, and lasting the longer. Having it written, it is our duty to read it, to read it with understanding, and to treasure up what we read, so that when there is occasion, we may be able to tell what is written in the law, and how we read. To this we must appeal; by this we must try doctrines and end disputes; this must be our oracle, our touchstone, our rule, our guide. What is written in the law? How do we read? if there be light in us, it will have regard to this light.

2. What a good account he gave of the law, of the principal commandments of the law, to the observance of which we must bind ourselves if we would inherit eternal life. He did not, like a Pharisee, refer himself to the tradition of the elders, but, like a good textuary, fastened upon the two first and great commandments of the law, as those which he thought must be most strictly observed in order to the obtaining of eternal life, and which included all the rest, Luk 10:27. (1.) We must love God with all our hearts, must look upon him as the best of beings, in himself most amiable, and infinitely perfect and excellent; as one whom we lie under the greatest obligations to, both in gratitude and interest. We must prize him, and value ourselves by our elation to him; must please ourselves in him, and devote ourselves entirely to him. Our love to him must be sincere, hearty, and fervent; it must be a superlative love, a love that is as strong as death, but an intelligent love, and such as we can give a good account of the grounds and reasons of. It must be an entire love; he must have our whole souls, and must be served with all that is within us. We must love nothing besides him, but what we love for him and in subordination to him. (2.) We must love our neighbours as ourselves, which we shall easily do, if we, as we ought to do, love God better than ourselves. We must wish well to all and ill to none; must do all the good we can in the world and no hurt, and must fix it as a rule to ourselves to do to others as we would they should do to us; and this is to love our neighbour as ourselves.

3. Christ's approbation of what he said, Luk 10:28. Though he came to tempt him, yet what he said that was good Christ commended: Thou hast answered right. Christ himself fastened upon these as the two great commandments of the law (Mat 22:37): both sides agreed in this. Those who do well shall have praise of the same, and so should those have that speak well. So far is right; but he hardest part of this work yet remains: "This do, and thou shalt live; thou shalt inherit eternal life."

4. His care to avoid the conviction which was now ready to fasten upon him. When Christ said, This do, and thou shalt live, he began to be aware that Christ intended to draw from him an acknowledgment that he had not done this, and therefore an enquiry what he should do, which way he should look, to get his sins pardoned; an acknowledgment also that he could not do this perfectly for the future by any strength of his own, and therefore an enquiry which way he might fetch in strength to enable him to do it: but he was willing to justify himself, and therefore cared not for carrying on that discourse, but saith, in effect, as another did (Mat 19:20), All these things have I kept from my youth up. Note, Many ask good questions with a design rather to justify themselves than to inform themselves, rather proudly to show what is good in them than humbly to see what is bad in them.

II. We are concerned to know who is our neighbour, whom by the second great commandment we are obliged to love. This is another of this lawyer's queries, which he started only that he might drop the former, lest Christ should have forced him, in the prosecution of it, to condemn himself, when he was resolved to justify himself. As to loving God, he was willing to say no more of it; but, as to his neighbour, he was sure that there he had come up to the rule, for he had always been very kind and respectful to all about him. Now observe,

1. What was the corrupt notion of the Jewish teachers in this matter. Dr. Lightfoot quotes their own words to this purport: "Where he saith, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, he excepts all Gentiles, for they are not our neighbours, but those only that are of our own nation and religion." They would not put an Israelite to death for killing a Gentile, for he was not his neighbour: they indeed say that they ought not to kill a Gentile whom they were not at war with; but, if they saw a Gentile in danger of death, they thought themselves under no obligation to help to save his life. Such wicked inferences did they draw from that holy covenant of peculiarity by which God had distinguished them, and by abusing it thus they had forfeited it; God justly took the forfeiture, and transferred covenant-favours to the Gentile world, to whom they brutishly denied common favours.

2. How Christ corrected this inhuman notion, and showed, by a parable, that whomsoever we have need to receive kindness fRom. and find ready to show us the kindness we need, we cannot but look upon as our neighbour; and therefore ought to look upon all those as such who need our kindness, and to show them kindness accordingly, though they be not of our own nation and religion. Now observe,

(1.) The parable itself, which represents to us a poor Jew in distressed circumstances, succoured and relieved by a good Samaritan. Let us see here,

[1.] How he was abused by his enemies. The honest man was traveling peaceably upon his lawful business in the road, and it was a great road that led from Jerusalem to Jericho, Luk 10:30. The mentioning of those places intimates that it was matter of fact, and not a parable; probably it happened lately, just as it is here related. The occurrences of Providence would yield us many good instructions, if we would carefully observe and improve them, and would be equivalent to parables framed on purpose for instruction, and be more affecting. This poor man fell among thieves. Whether they were Arabians, plunderers, that lived by spoil, or some profligate wretches of his own nation, or some of the Roman soldiers, who, notwithstanding the strict discipline of their army, did this villany, does not appear; but they were very barbarous; they not only took his money, but stripped him of his clothes, and, that he might not be able to pursue them, or only to gratify a cruel disposition (for otherwise what profit was there in his blood?) they wounded him, and left him half dead, ready to die of his wounds. We may here conceive a just indignation at highwaymen, that have divested themselves of all humanity, and are as natural brute beasts, beasts of prey, made to be taken and destroyed; and at the same time we cannot but think with compassion on those that fall into the hands of such wicked and unreasonable men, and be ready, when it is in our power, to help them. What reason have we to thank God for our preservation from perils by robbers!

[2.] How he was slighted by those who should have been his friends, who were not only men of his own nation and religion, but one a priest and the other a Levite, men of a public character and station; nay, they were men of professed sanctity, whose offices obliged them to tenderness and compassion (Heb 5:2), who ought to have taught others their duty in such a case as this, which was to deliver them that were drawn unto death; yet they would not themselves do it. Dr. Lightfoot tells us that many of the courses of the priests had their residence in Jericho, and thence came up to Jerusalem, when it was their turn to officiate there, and so back again, which occasioned abundance of passing and repassing of priests that way, and Levites their attendants. They came this way, and saw the poor wounded man. It is probable that they heard his groans, and could not but perceive that if he were not helped he must quickly perish. The Levite not only saw him, but came and looked on him Luk 10:32. But they passed by on the other side; when they saw his case, they got as far off him as ever they could, as if they would have had a pretence to say, Behold, we knew it not. It is sad when those who should be examples of charity are prodigies of cruelty, and when those who should by displaying the mercies of God, open the bowels of compassion in others, shut up their own.

[3.] How he was succoured and relieved by a stranger, a certain Samaritan, of that nation which of all others the Jews most despised and detested and would have no dealings with. This man had some humanity in him, Luk 10:33. The priest had his heart hardened against one of his own people, but the Samaritan had his opened towards one of another people. When he saw him he had compassion on him, and never took into consideration what country he was of. Though he was a Jew, he was a man, and a man in misery, and the Samaritan has learned to honour all men; he knows not how soon this poor man's case may be his own, and therefore pities him, as he himself would desire and expect to be pitied in the like case. That such great love should be found in a Samaritan was perhaps thought as wonderful as that great faith which Christ admired in a Roman, and in a woman of Canaan; but really it was not so, for pity is the work of a man, but faith is the work of divine grace. The compassion of this Samaritan was not an idle compassion; he did not think it enough to say, "Be healed, be helped" (Jam 2:16); but, when he drew out his soul, he reached forth his hand also to this poor needy creature, Isa 58:7, Isa 58:10; Pro 31:20. See how friendly this good Samaritan was. First, He went to the poor man, whom the priest and Levite kept at a distance from; he enquired, no doubt, how he came into this deplorable condition, and condoled with him. Secondly, He did the surgeon's part, for want of a better. He bound up his wounds, making use of his own linen, it is likely, for that purpose; and poured in oil and wine, which perhaps he had with him; wine to wash the wound, and oil to mollify it, and close it up. He did all he could to ease the pain, and prevent the peril, of his wounds, as one whose heart bled with him. Thirdly, He set him on his own beast, and went on foot himself, and brought him to an inn. A great mercy it is to have inns upon the road, where we may be furnished for our money with all the conveniences for food and rest. Perhaps the Samaritan, if he had not met with this hindrance, would have got that night to his journey's end; but, in compassion to that poor man, he takes up short at an inn. Some think that the priest and Levite pretended they could not stay to help the poor man, because they were in haste to go and attend the temple-service at Jerusalem. We suppose the Samaritan went upon business; but he understood that both his own business and God's sacrifice too must give place to such an act of mercy as this. Fourthly, He took care of him in the inn, got him to bed, had food for him that was proper, and due attendance, and, it may be, prayed with him. Nay, Fifthly, As if he had been his own child, or one he was obliged to look after, when he left him next morning, he left money with the landlord, to be laid out for his use, and passed his word for what he should spend more. Twopence of their money was about fifteen pence of ours, which, according to the rate of things then, would go a great way; however, here it was an earnest of satisfaction to the full of all demands. All this was kind and generous, and as much as one could have expected from a friend or a brother; and yet here it is done by a stranger and foreigner.

Now this parable is applicable to another purpose than that for which it was intended; and does excellently set forth the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards sinful miserable man. We were like this poor distressed traveller. Satan, our enemy, had robbed us, stripped us, wounded us; such is the mischief that sin had done us. We were by nature more than half dead, twice dead, in trespasses and sins; utterly unable to help ourselves, for we were without strength. The law of Moses, like the priest and Levite, the ministers of the law, looks upon us, but has no compassion on us, gives us no relief, passes by on the other side, as having neither pity nor power to help us; but then comes the blessed Jesus, that good Samaritan (and they said of him, by way of reproach, he is a Samaritan), he has compassion on us, he binds up our bleeding wounds (Psa 147:3; Isa 61:1), pours in, not oil and wine, but that which is infinitely more precious, his own blood. He takes care of us, and bids us put all the expenses of our cure upon his account; and all this though he was none of us, till he was pleased by his voluntary condescension to make himself so, but infinitely above us. This magnifies the riches of his love, and obliges us all to say, "How much are we indebted, and what shall we render?"

(2.) The application of the parable. [1.] The truth contained in it is extorted from the lawyer's own mouth. "Now tell me," saith Christ, "which of these three was neighbour to him that fell among thieves (Luk 10:36), the priest, the Levite, or the Samaritan? Which of these did the neighbour's part?" To this the lawyer would not answer, as he ought to have done, "Doubtless, the Samaritan was;" but, "He that showed mercy on him; doubtless, he was a good neighbour to him, and very neighbourly, and I cannot but say that it was a good work thus to save an honest Jew from perishing." [2.] The duty inferred from it is pressed home upon the lawyer's own conscience: Go, and do thou likewise. The duty of relations is mutual and reciprocal; the titles of friends, brethren, neighbours, are, as Grotius here speaks tōn pros ti - equally binding on both sides: if one side be bound, the other cannot be loose, as is agreed in all contracts. If a Samaritan does well that helps a distressed Jew, certainly a Jew does not well if he refuses in like manner to help a distressed Samaritan. Petimusque damusque vicissim - These kind offices are to be reciprocated. "And therefore go thou and do as the Samaritan did, whenever occasion offers: show mercy to those that need thy help, and do it freely, and with concern and compassion, though they be not of thy own nation and thy own profession, or of thy own opinion and communion in religion. Let thy charity be thus extensive, before thou boastest of having conformed thyself to that great commandment of loving thy neighbour." This lawyer valued himself much upon his learning and his knowledge of the laws, and in that he thought to have puzzled Christ himself; but Christ sends him to school to a Samaritan, to learn his duty: "Go, and do like him." Note, It is the duty of every one of us, in our places, and according to our ability, to succour, help, and relieve all that are in distress and necessity, and of lawyers particularly; and herein we must study to excel many that are proud of their being priests and Levites.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

QUESTION OF A LAWYER AND PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN. (Luk 10:25-37)

tempted him--"tested him"; in no hostile spirit, yet with no tender anxiety for light on that question of questions, but just to see what insight this great Galilean teacher had.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk_10:25

Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

--

The lawyers question

The question of the lawyer is the question of the human heart everywhere. You will find it asked and answered in all the worlds religions. The answers fall into two classes.

1. One set of replies thinks of the better life as a thing external to a mans own being, procurable by something that a man can do, by bodily self-denial or suffering, or by religious rites or ceremonies.

2. The other class of answers amounts to this--that nothing that is merely outside a man or comes to him from without can ever meet his wants. The true ideal life of humanity is in its very essence a life; it is not doing, it is being. The orthodox doctrine in Christs time taught very definitely what was the pathway to eternal life. The religious teachers laid it down that the life God wants men to live was a life of obedience to the law of Moses. The preaching of Jesus Christ did not quite tally with the orthodox teaching of the time. The Pharisee and the penitent, the harlots and publicans, were distinctly conscious that Christ was preaching a new gospel. The gospel of the Pharisees was orthodox; therefore the gospel of Christ was heresy. They were bent upon getting a case against Him, and yet it was not easy. Be Himself fulfilled the law, conformed to all its requirements and statutes, and never spoke disrespectfully of it. How were they to catch Him? One day a crafty lawyer had a very happy thought. He determined to cross-question Christ, to force Him to declare His inner hostility to the creed of the Pharisees, His inner antagonism to the law of God: What shall I do to inherit eternal life? A fair, honest question, and yet in the very wording of it the note of discord comes out. Jesus is confronted with a man whose notion of eternal life is utterly different from His. It is impossible to answer that man. Instead of answering, Jesus turns questioner. He must bring out the mans own notions, and then, when He has got them, it may be possible to show him how threadbare, how poverty-stricken, how wrong they are. What do you find in the law? How readest thou? The lawyer, taken aback, gives the regulation reply. He could not repeat the whole law, but there was a summary of it, a standing condensed statement of it, and this he repeats to Jesus: Thou shalt love … Now, what have we to say to that answer? Is this the pathway to eternal life? What more could a man do to make the music of his life majestic, heavenly, splendid? Loving God utterly, and loving all men as you love yourself--no doubt that is life eternal. The scribes answer is the true answer; yet in the scribes mouth it was an utter lie, and a damning heresy, that was sending mens souls to ruin. Christ could accept the definition of the lawyer. Thou hast answered right. But then the meaning that He felt in those words was a meaning utterly different from that of the Pharisee; and there you have the explanation of His preaching. He took the very same text that the scribes took, but what a different sermon He preached from it, and what a different application against theirs! He did not say

Obey; He said the word that must come before obey: He said Love. The least bit of love will do more to make you keep the commandments than any amount of studying them, or any amount of selfish resolve to make a good thing out of the commandments for yourself. The essence of the Pharisees gospel was selfishness. Save yourself by keeping on the right side, and not giving God a chance against you. What a God, and what a soul! I think that Jesus, as soon as the scribe had given his reply, looked him straight in the face. The look meant, Dare you pretend that you do that? and the man felt it, and therefore, we read, was eager-to justify himself. The mans conscience was uneasy. He instantly said, Yes, but who is my neighbour? It is where the heart is cold that definitions come in. Who is my neighbour? How many men can claim love from me? said the scribe. Christ did not answer that, but He made a picture in order to ask the scribe this question, Who is the man who plays the neighbours part? He told of a man who started from Jerusalem to go to Jericho, and was attacked on the way by thieves, who certainly did not play the part of neighbour by him. There came on the road a priest and a Levite. Christ had not that foolish idea that the clergy should never be held up to rebuke or scorn when they deserve it. Do not misjudge the priest and the Levite. You say they did a heartless thing. They did not; they had not heart to do it. Their sin was not in not doing something, but in being heartless. That is the very point of the story. And if you had met these men after hearing of it, and had asked them how they could do such a thing, they would have assured you that they did not see any man like that. They would have told you that they saw a man who had been fighting, or who had got drunk, or who was an impostor. Or they would have told you they were going to a religious service at Jericho, and had not the time for it. All we can say of them is that they had not heart. And Christ paints the other side of it. There came along a Samaritan, a man of a different religion, a man who had been taught of the Jews that he owed them no kindness. He appeared to be a business man, and probably it would be more to him to lose his market than to the clergy to be late for the religious service. He saw the man, and he saw the first passer-by that had seen him; he saw the wretchedness of it--and he had a heart, and that is all. He did not say, Is there anything in the Decalogue bearing on this? And he certainly did not say, Is that man a neighbour? He is a Jew. Where does he come from? If he had begun going to the law, he would never have done it. And now, mark how the story has answered the question. As soon as it is finished Christ turns to the scribe, and asks, Who played the neighbours part? Not the priest, not the scribe, not his own fellow-countrymen. It was that Samaritan.

Nobody could deny it. Even the lawyer acknowledges it. That was a beautiful thing to do, and Christ drove it home with the rejoinder, Go thou and do likswise; and He sent that man away saying to himself, No amount of reading the law would ever make me able to do that; more than that, my reading of the law must be all wrong. Christ had made that man understand that what he wanted was the real love of the real, living, loving God, and the real, common human love to his fellow-men. Where have you and I to learn that love for God and love for man? I will tell you. At the feet of Christ, and by His side, in fellowship with Him, we shall learn to love God with all our heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and our neigh-bout as ourself; and that is eternal life. (Professor Elmslie, M. A.)

Inheriting eternal life

1. You will observe that the man who asked this question was a lawyer, a man of education and of good standing; a man, therefore, from whom good behaviour and reverence of spirit might reasonably have been expected. You would think that when such a man spoke he would speak soberly, he would mean, under such circumstances, exactly what he said. You find, however, that the inquiry--the very greatest that can possibly engage human attention--was put in a spirit of temptation. The lawyer was not an earnest man. He asked a right question, but he asked it in a wrong spirit. See, then, the possibility of asking religious questions irreligiously. Learn the possibility of asking great questions in a merely controversial spirit, without any profoundly anxious desire to know the answer that God will return to such inquiries. God understands the irony of our attitude. The Living One knows whether we are hungering and thirsting for Him; He can see through our hypocrisies and concealments, and only into the broken heart and the contrite spirit will He come with redemption and life and helpfulness and grace. So that at the very beginning there is to be no mistake about this. We know the conditions upon which alone we receive the revelations of God--that we be quiet, self.renouncing, reverent, sober, anxious about the business; and wherever these conditions are forthcoming, some light will be flashed upon the life, and some healing word will be dropped into the sorrow of the heart.

2. Jesus Himself answered one question by asking another; and so He not unfrequently disappointed men who had undertaken to ensnare Him in His speech. They thought that if they did but put a case to Him He would instantly commit Himself, and they would entrap Him and take Him captive, and make a fool of Him. Here is a man probably accustomed to put questions, and to put questions again upon the answers that are given, and so to cross-examine those with whom he came in contact. Jesus undertakes to deal with him according to the spirit which he presents; and before He lets him go He will show what the mans meaning is and his nature, and He will expose him as he never was exposed before. Thus quietly He begins: What is written in the law? Thou art a lawyer, a man of reading, a man of many letters, and of much understanding probably--how readest thou? God has never left the greatest questions of the human heart unanswered. The great answer to this question about eternal life was not given first of all by Jesus Christ as He appeared in the flesh. Jesus Himself referred to the oldest record; inferentially He said--That question has been answered from the beginning; go back to the very first revelation and testimony of God, and you Will find the answer there. Yet the question is put very significantly: How readest thou? There are two ways of reading. There is a way of reading the letter which never gets at the meaning of the spirit. There is a way of reading which merely looks at the letter for a partial purpose, or that a prejudice may be sustained or defended. And there is a way of reading which means, I want to know the truth; I want to see really how this case stands; I am determined to see it. He who reads so will find no end to his lesson, for truth expands and brightens as we study her revelations and her purposes. He who comes merely to the letter will get but a superficial answer in all probability. It was, therefore, of the highest importance that the lawyer should tell how he had been reading the law.

3. The lawyer, please to remember, knew the answer when he asked the question. He said, What shall I do to inherit eternal life? and all the time the answer was in his own recollection had he but known it. Alas I we do not always turn our knowledge into wisdom. We know the fact, and we hardly ever sublimate the fact into truth. We know the law, and we fail to see that under the law there is the beauty and there is the grace of the gospel.

4. This do, said Jesus, and thou shalt live. What had the lawyer to do? To love the Lord his God with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength and with all his mind. Love is life. Only he who loves lives. Only love can get out of a man the deepest secrets of his being and develop the latent energies of his nature and call him up to the highest possibility of his manhood. Criticism never can do it; theology never can do it; power of controversy never can do it. We are ourselves, in all the volume of our capacity, and in all the relations of our original creation, only when life becomes love and our whole nature burns with affection towards the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us look less at our knowledge and our intellectual capability and our training and our circumstances, and more at the degree of our religious love. The end of the commandment is charity; the summing up of all true law is love. Do we, then, know this mystery of religious love? or is ours a religion that hangs itself upon the outward letter and the ceremonial form? Then observe that the law goes still further than love to God, it includes love to ones neighbour. Hear the exact expression of the text--And thy neighbour as thyself. Love of God means love of man. Religion is the Divine side of philanthropy; philanthropy is the practical side of religion. We must first be right with God or we never can be right with man.

5. Was the lawyer satisfied? Read: But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neigbbour? It was the question of a sharp man, but not the inquiry of an honest one. Such a question as this does not need to be answered in words. Every man knows in his own heart who his neighbour is; and only he who wishes to play a trick in words, to show how clever he is in verbal legerdemain, will stoop to ask such a question as this. Why did he ask the question? Because he was willing to justify himself. It is precisely there that every man has a great battle to fight, namely--at the point of self-justification. So long as there is any disposition in us to justify ourselves are we unprepared to receive the gospel. One of the first conditions required of us at the Cross is self-renunciation. Am I to suppose that any one is asking now, What shall I do to inherit eternal life? Do not misunderstand that word do. It may be so employed as to convey a wrong sense. The obtaining of eternal life does not come through any action or merit of our own. There is not a certain journey that is to taken, a labour which is to be performed, a specific duty that is to be discharged. What, then, is there to be? Consciousness of sin, conviction of guilt in the sight of God, self-despair, self-torment, such a knowledge of the nature and reality of sin as will pain the heart to agony; and then a turning of the eyes of faith to the bleeding Lamb of God, the one sacrifice, the complete atonement; a casting of the heart, the life, the hope, upon the broken body of Jesus, Son of God! Dost thou so believe? Thou hast eternal life! This eternal life is not a possession into which we come by and by. We have hold of it now; for to love the Son of God is to begin eternity, is to enter upon immortality I How is this life to be exhibited? In other words, how is it to prove its own existence and defend its own claim? By love. God is love. And if we be in God we shall be filled with love. Let us then retire, knowing that there is in our hearts and minds information enough upon these great questions, if so be we are minded to turn that information to account. Let no man say he will begin a better life when he knows more. Begin with the amount of your present knowledge. Let no man delude himself by saying that if he had a good opportunity of showing charity to a stranger he would show it. Show charity, show piety at home. Let no man say that if he was going down a thief-haunted road, and saw a poor man bleeding and dying there, he would certainly bind up his wounds. Do the thing that is next thee; bear the Cross that is lying at thy feet; start even upon the very smallest scale to love, and thou shalt grow in grace. (J. Parker, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 10:25-28. And behold, a certain lawyer — A doctor of the law; stood up and tempted him — Greek, εκπειραζων αυτον, trying him. It seems this lawyer was one of the multitude which attended Jesus when the seventy returned, and having listened to what he said to his disciples in private, concerning their enjoying a happiness which many prophets and kings had desired in vain to obtain, namely, the happiness of seeing his miracles, and of hearing his sermons, thought he would make trial of that great wisdom which some said he possessed, by proposing to him one of the most important questions which it is possible for the human mind to examine, namely, What a man must do to inherit eternal life. For, that this learned doctor asked the question, not from a sincere desire to know his own duty, but merely to try our Lord’s knowledge, is evident from the text, which informs us, that he did it tempting, or trying him, expecting, perhaps, that, on this head he would teach differently from Moses. He said unto him, What is written in the law? — Jesus, alluding to his profession, made answer by inquiring of him what the law taught on that point. And he, answering out of Deu 6:5, said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. — That is, Thou shalt unite all the faculties of thy soul to render him the most intelligent and sincere, the most affectionate and resolute service. We may safely rest in this general sense of these important words, if we are not able to fix the particular meaning of every single word. If we desire to do this, perhaps the heart, which is a general expression, may be explained by the three following; With all thy soul — With the warmest affection; with all thy strength — The most vigorous efforts of thy will; and with all thy mind — Or understanding, in the most wise and reasonable manner thou canst, thy understanding guiding thy will and affections. And thy neighbour as thyself — See on Mar 12:30-31. And he said, Thou hast answered right — Jesus approved of his answer, and allowed, that to love God as the law enjoined is the means of obtaining eternal life, because it never fails to produce obedience to all the divine revelations and commands, consequently even to the gospel, which he was then preaching. Observe well, therefore, reader, our Lord’s words are not spoken ironically, but seriously; and contain a deep and weighty truth. He, and he alone, shall live for ever, who thus loves God and his neighbour in the present life.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 86.—JESUS INSTRUCTS THE LAWYER BY THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN, Luk_10:25-37.

This narrative is given by Luke alone, without assignment of time or place. It has no apparent connection with the preceding narration. The parable of the good Samaritan, which is embraced in it, has been celebrated for ages for its beauty and moral power.

25. A certain lawyer—The law embraced in this man’s profession consisted of two parts, the oral and the written. The written was contained in the Pentateuch of Moses; the oral was professedly derived by unwritten tradition from the seventy elders appointed by Moses to aid in the government of Israel. Num_11:16. Both these formed a mass of rules and regulations, civil, moral, and religious, boundless in extent, complicated in character, exercising a controlling influence over the whole of Jewish life, and forming a subject for an infinite variety of subtle distinctions, disputes, and questionings. The distinction between lawyer and scribe is not very clearly drawn. In fact the same person receives from different evangelists each of these titles. Mat_22:35; Mar_12:28. The title of the scribe would seem to indicate a more special relation to the text of the law and its transcription; that of lawyer more to the study of its principles.

Stood up—Rose to indicate his purpose of a discussion.

Tempted him—That is, proposed to try his depth of intellect and knowledge of the law. There was no malicious purpose in the case. It was simply a challenge to a keen encounter of wits and professional knowledge. Among the Jews there was the disciple and the doctor; the former was one able to answer questions which he bad specially read up; the latter was ready to answer questions on any part of the law. Similarly the Sophists among the Greeks would take a seat in public, and offer to discourse on any topic that any one would please to propose.

What shall I do?—Though the lawyer proposes this question in the first person singular, he means it rather for a theoretical than a practical question. He is no convicted sinner asking the way to eternal life.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Luk_10:25. A certain lawyer.—One whose business it was to teach the law. It was probably in Judæa that this conversation was held; as we read (Luk_10:38) that Jesus was on His way to Bethany. Tempted Him.—The word seems to mean nothing worse than putting His skill to full proof, i.e. consulting Him on difficult questions. He probably wished to see if Jesus would teach him anything new; and an air of self-conceit is manifest in what little is said of him (see Luk_10:29). What shall I do, etc.—This question was put to Christ more than once: see Luk_18:18; cf. with them Act_16:30-31.

Luk_10:26. How readest thou?—“A common Rabbinical formula for eliciting a text of Scripture. What? not how? i.e. to what purport” (Alford).

Luk_10:27. Thou shalt love, etc.—Deu_6:5; Deu_10:12; Lev_19:18. His answer was intelligent; his summary of duty such as Christ taught; it was in knowledge of himself that he came short.

Luk_10:28. This do, and thou shalt live.—“True in all cases: any one who can and does love God and his neighbour thus has already begun to live, has an earnest of eternal life” (Popular Commentary).

Luk_10:29. Willing to justify himself.—I.e. to declare his obedience to this summary of the law, unless some other definition of “neighbour” than that which he held could be given—his definition excluding Samaritans and Gentiles.

Luk_10:30. Answering, said.—Lit. “taking him up”: it is perhaps not too much to say that the phrase implies that Christ did more than answer him—made the answer the basis of teaching which corrected his faulty ideas. A certain man.—We are to understand that he was a Jew; but no stress is laid on this. The Samaritan saw in him simply a wounded man. Perhaps this is not a fictitious story at all; it may be that the lawyer himself had been the traveller, had received kindness from a Samaritan, which he had not repaid, and which had not led him to form truer ideas as to who his neighbour was. Down from Jerusalem.—About twenty-one miles, Jericho lying on a much lower level than Jerusalem. The road here described was, and one might almost say is, haunted by robbers. Jerome says that in his time it was called “the bloody way,” and that a Roman fort and garrison were needed there for the protection of travellers. Fell among thieves.—Rather, “robbers,” “brigands”: into the midst of them, they surrounded him. Wounded him.—Rather, “beat him” (R.V.), lit. “laying blows on him.”

Luk_10:31. A certain priest.—Probably on his way home from duties in the Temple; for Jericho was a priestly city. That way.—“Rather, ‘on that road.’ It is emphatically mentioned because there was another road to Jericho, which was safer, and therefore more frequently used” (Farrar). Passed by.—Without showing the mercy inculcated by the law and the prophets (see Exo_23:4-5; Deu_22:1-4; Isa_58:7).

Luk_10:32. The conduct of the Levite was rather worse than that of the priest.

Luk_10:33. Had compassion.—It was this feeling which differentiated him from the priest and the Levite; and from this feeling sprang his deeds and words of kindness to the wounded man.

Luk_10:34. Oil and wine.—The usual remedy for wounds in the East. His own beast.—Thereby depriving himself of the use of it. An inn.—Not a caravanserai, as in Luk_2:7, but a house for travellers kept by a host. Two different words are used in the respective passages.

Luk_10:35. Two pence.—The denarius was worth about eightpence halfpenny of our money, and was the day’s wages of an ordinary labourer (see Mat_20:2). Probably the smallness of the sum named is intended to suggest that the Samaritan was a poor man, and thus to bring into clearer relief his generosity and kindness on this occasion.

Luk_10:36. Was neighbour.—Rather, “proved neighbour” (R.V.), lit. “became neighbour.” “The neighbour Jews (priest and Levite) became strangers, the stranger Samaritan became neighbour, to the wounded traveller. It is not place, but love, which makes neighbourhood” (Wordsworth).

Luk_10:37. He that shewed mercy.—It may be that Pharisaic haughtiness led to this indirect answer, as though the lawyer disdained to use the hated name, “Samaritan.” But no great stress need be laid on this. “The lawyer was taught how one really becomes the neighbour of another, namely, by active love, irrespective of nationality or religion. His question, ‘Who is my neighbour?’ was answered: He to whom you ought thus to show mercy in order to become his neighbour is your neighbour. The question is answered once for all. All are our neighbours, when we have thus learned what we owe to man as ma?” (Popular Commentary). Go, and do thou likewise.—The question had doubtless been asked in the spirit of hair-splitting casuistry; Jesus gives the matter a practical bent.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Luk_10:25-37

Who is my Neighbour? versus Whose Neighbour am I?—This lawyer merely wished to test our Lord’s orthodoxy. He was quite sure that he knew what to do to inherit eternal life. Christ shifts the question from intellect to conscience and practice, and that pinches. The scribe’s wish to justify himself refers to his failure in conduct, which, though unaccused, he tacitly confesses. The obtuseness as well as sensitiveness of conscience is brought out by the fact that he evidently thinks that he has kept the first requirement of perfect and all-engrossing love to God, and is only sensible of defect in the second.

I. The question, meant to excuse, but really condemning.—“And who is my neighbour?” The lawyer pleads the vagueness of the precept, and wishes a clear definition of terms, that he may know whom he is bound to love as himself, and whom he is not. He fancies that love is only to run like a canal in a straight, artificial cutting. He will try to love all within the circle, but it must be clearly drawn; and, in the meantime, he does not feel any stirrings of love to anybody outside his own door. Is it not clear that to him love is simply a matter of obligation? and does not such a conception show that he has no notion of what it really is, nor has ever exercised it? “Tell me whom I must love” means, “Tell me whom I may escape the necessity of loving”; and he who says that has not a glimmer of what love is. In all matters of Christian living, the anxiety to have the bounds marked within which the action of the Christian spirit is to be confined, is a bad sign. It indicates latent reluctance and a total misconception of the free, spontaneous, all-embracing outgoings of the life which comes from Jesus.

II. The details of the lovely story.—It is not a parable which needs to be interpreted; but a story framed as an example, and needing not to be translated but copied. It gives three pictures—of the poor victim, the selfishly absorbed passers-by, and the compassionate helper. The sufferer is “a man,” nothing more. The others are designated by profession or nationality, but he has no label round his neck to ticket him as “neighbour.” That is the beginning of an answer to the lawyer. The picture of the man’s desperate condition as he lay bleeding and insensible might well stir pity. What would the reality do? The two companion sketches of priest and Levite tell us. It does nothing. A glance, perhaps a thought of personal danger, but, at any rate, no stirrings of pity, and no pause, but, in the face of such a spectacle, they pass on. There is no sign that they were hindered by any pressure of time or duty from stopping to help. They did see, and it never struck them that they had anything to do in the matter. Is it an exaggerated picture of the conduct to which human nature is ever prone? How much less sorrow there would be in the world if we were not all guilty in this matter, and had not left misery which is forced on our notice to bleed or weep itself to death without lifting a finger to prevent it! The capacity for ignoring wretchedness and need is wonderful. Engrossment with self shuts eyes and heart to the piteous sights that fill the world. Christ might have taught His lesson without making the unsympathising pair a priest and a Levite. His boldness in thus weighing His story with unnecessary offence is striking. He sharpens it to a spear-point, and is careless about offending if He can reach the conscience. Toothless generalities offend nobody, and therefore do nobody good. “Thou art the man” needs to be pealed into the ears of culprits. But the lesson was not for the lawyer only. Formal religionists are always cold. It is possible to be so busy investigating the grounds and limits of religious duty as to forget to do it. So these heartless two teach us the terrible pitilessness of men, and its cause in self-absorption, and the special danger, in regard to it, of formal religion. The same boldness in bringing in causes of offence which might have been spared appears in making the rescuer a Samaritan. Note the details of his care. First, we have the source of all in compassion. He felt a shoot of love and pity in his heart to “the man,” and that set all in motion. His conduct may be taken as a picture of what true love to the neighbour should be. It is prompt, thorough, spares no pains, acts with judgment, is generous and self-denying (“set him on his own beast,” while he trudged by his side), provides for the future, and with all its liberality is not lavish, but thrifty and prudent. The lawyer had not asked, What is the love which I am bound to show? But Christ teaches him and us that it is not a mere lazy sentiment, but active, self-sacrificing, guided by common sense, and full of resources. It moves us to all kindly offices, and makes the needy sharers in our possessions, since they share our heart. But the nationality of the helper must not be passed by. Though the lesson could have been taught without it, it makes the lesson still more emphatic. It answers the question “Who?” by brushing away all national distinctions, all prejudices of race, all differences of creed, all enmities rooted in history. It is the first dawning of that great thought which nineteen centuries have been so slow to learn, the brotherhood of man. The very word “humanity” is Christian. The idea of “philanthropy” is Christian. And the practical realisation of the idea will only be attained when the great fact on which it rests is received. “One is your Master, … and all ye are brethren.”

III. Note Christ’s inversion of the lawyer’s question.—It makes a vast difference whether we say, “Who is my neighbour?” or “Whose neighbour am I?” for although the relation is, of course, mutual, to approach it on the one side is selfishness, and on the other is love. The one fixes attention on men’s claims on me, the other on my debts to them; and while these are the same, they have a very different aspect from the two ends. The truth, therefore, which Christ would have us learn is, that to be a true neighbour is to render help, and that we are neighbours to all men in such a sense that our compassion should go out to them all, and our practical aid be given, no matter what may be the barriers of race, or creed, or colour, or distance. True love to men will cut its own channels, will not wait to be commanded, nor ask how far it is bound to go, but spontaneously and universally will own its kinship with all the needy and sad, and will seek to be as wide and as deep as the love of God, of which it is a reflection:—Maclaren.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luk_10:25-37

Luk_10:25. Questions put to Christ.—Questions were sometimes put to Christ

(1) by meek, receptive hearers, like Nicodemus, prepared to drink the sincere milk of the word that they might grow thereby;

(2) by enemies, both of the Pharisaic and Sadducean parties, to ensnare and destroy Him; and

(3) as in this case, to put His skill and wisdom to the test.

“Do to inherit.”—The question as the scribe intended was incongruous: to “do” does not fit in with “to inherit.” It is as if one were to ask, What must I do to bring out sunshine? Without any bitterness, our Saviour takes up the question of the scribe in order to guide him to a knowledge of the fact that it was exactly that law of which he was so proud of keeping which condemned him. Our Lord wishes to teach him that if he only in real earnest will try to do, he will soon learn that he needs a Saviour who will do for him and in him what he himself cannot do.

“To inherit eternal life.”—In Greece men sought for truth: in Israel the object of pursuit was salvation, and righteousness as the means of attaining it.—Godet.

“Inherit.”—The phrase “inherit” alludes to possession of the land of Canaan, which the children of Israel had received as an inheritance from the hands of God, and which remained in Jewish thought as a type of Messianic happiness.

“What shall I do” etc.—Cf. the answer given by St. Paul after the Ascension (Act_16:30-31).—Farrar.

Luk_10:27. “Thou shalt love,” etc.—As this summary of duty is given by Christ Himself on another occasion in answer to a scribe, we may perhaps conclude that it had become in the Jewish schools an approved method of declaring the essence of the law. Otherwise it would be difficult to reconcile the enlightened and spiritual reply of this lawyer with the narrow and bigoted tone of mind which he manifested.

Two Great Commandments.—The two great commandments of the law.

I. The duty of love to God.—

1. A divinely implanted principle in the renewed hearts of believers.

2. It implies a high esteem of God.

3. It implies an earnest desire for communion with God and the enjoyment of Him.

4. It is a judicious principle, and not a blind enthusiastic feeling.

5. It is an active principle.

6. It is also a supreme love.

II. The duty of love to man.—

1. It is, too, a divinely implanted principle.

2. It implies benevolent dispositions towards our neighbour.

3. Speaking well of him.

4. Doing him all the good offices in our power.—Foots.

The Service of God and Man.

I. The Christian religion is one which most powerfully engages its disciples to service.—It does so in two ways:

(1) it gives them a sense of boundless obligation;

(2) it exalts a life of service as the highest ideal of human life.

II. The service to which the Christian religion engages its disciples is the service of man.

III. The Christian religion brings us a revelation which makes the service of man hopeful.—Brown.

“Thy heart,” etc.—The “heart” in Scripture is the centre of the moral life; from it branch out the “soul” (the seat of feeling and emotion), the will (actual faculties), and the “mind” (the faculties of intelligence). Moral life proceeds from the heart, and displays itself in or by means of the other three forms of activity—emotion, energy (or “strength”), and knowledge.

Luk_10:29. “To justify himself.”—Aware that the test of charity would prove unfavourable to him, he seeks concealment under the word “neighbour,” that he may not be discovered to be a transgressor of the law. “But who accused him? Not the Lord. He had only said, ‘This do, and thou shalt live.’ The man’s own conscience was awakened and at work; well he knew at that moment that he had not done what his lips confessed he should do; he had not loved God with all his heart and his neighbour as himself” (Arnot)

“My neighbour.”—The design of the parable of the good Samaritan is to explain the word “neighbour.”

I. The explanation is rather the converse of what might have been expected.—We might have thought that the person who is beloved is the neighbour; in the narrative the “neighbour” is the person who loves. The fact is, the Samaritan and the traveller were “neighbours” equally, each to the other—the word being relative must be mutual; but the one who recognised the relationship is selected for the illustration, because there lay the example and the lesson. My “neighbour” then is every one who, in the providence of God, is brought into such connection with me, that I can and ought to affect him in some way for good.

II. The course of events is always being so ordered as to bring new persons within our circle, that we may act by them a neighbour’s part.—There may be a nation on the other side of the earth with which to-day I have nothing whatever to do; but to-morrow, let a way of access be opened and presented to me, by which I could approach that nation, and let an occasion arise of doing it good which, in my conscience, I feel to be providential, and at once our neighbourhood is established and complete, and I am constrained to perform a neighbour’s, i.e. a near one’s, part, whether it be for their souls, or whether it be for their bodies.—Vaughan.

Luk_10:29. The Law gave no Definition of “Neighbour.”—The scribe does not think there is danger of his not loving God, but thinks that the law is defective in giving no exact description of who is to be understood by one’s neighbour.

Luk_10:30-37. The Good Samaritan.—This parable reveals in the brightest light—

I. The Christian’s heart.—It is like the Samaritan’s. It is full of compassion. In the priest and the Levite prudence conquered humanity; in the Samaritan humanity conquered prudence, prejudice, and everything else. We are weak and slow in Christ’s work because we are weak in compassion. The religion of Jesus is the religion of humanity.

II. The Christian’s 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 Samaritan’s hand. It is not the hand of a sluggard. How quickly it moves! He did not linger till compassion was chilled by worldly prudence. First thoughts were best. I dare say he did not think of it at all; he just did it at once. Many a noble purpose dies of cold and decay in its infancy. It is not the hand of a weakling. It is not easily tired. It carries through what it begins, and leaves nothing half done, though the doing cost much. It is not the hand of a hireling. The Samaritan was not rich. He had one ass, and no servant. But he believed that it was more blessed to give than to receive. He could not be repaid, and knew it. Payment would have spoiled all his pleasure in the deed. He had reward enough in an approving conscience reflecting the smile of God. It is not the hand of earthly ambition. The Pharisees gave alms to be seen of men. Had the Samaritan been like them, he would have passed by on the other side. But there was nothing to feed the hunger for earthly applause in this adventure. And yet if he be a real man, if this is history as well as parable, what renown! Christ has immortalised him.

III. The Christian’s sphere.—The lawyer made it very narrow. He loved his friends, and hated his enemies, and was sure that the Samaritans were no neighbours of his. But Christ teaches that there is no limit or exception to the love of man; and that the sphere of the Christian’s heart is the whole world, and that the sphere of his hand embraces every one he can help. The Samaritan never asked, “And who is my neighbour?” Nearness and need constitute “neighbourhood.” In every suffering stranger there is a God-sent candidate for your pity and aid. Be neighbourly in Christ’s spirit. The home mission spirit is the very genius of the gospel. Be not content with sluggard sympathies. Be a good Samaritan among the needy in our land. Heathen lands too are near us now, and every year are coming nearer. The field of Christian service is the world.—Wells.

Luk_10:30. “A certain man.”—This answers the question, “Who is my neighbour?” No mention is made of nation, tribe rank, or character; but “a certain man,” some one or other. It is as men that we are related and owe love to one another.

Luk_10:31. “By chance.”—There is a certain touch of irony in the phrase; it was certainly not by “chance” that the priest and the Levite came to figure in the parable.

Chance a Nickname.—God’s unseen providence, by men nicknamed Chance.—Fuller.

Good Opportunities.—Many good opportunities work under things which seem fortuitous.—Bengel.

A Test of Character.—This is a very significant touch. The wounded man was not carried to the priest’s door, or did not even call aloud for aid, or else it would have been morally impossible to refuse to help him. The chance encounter rendered it more easy to deny the claim; in other words, it served the more perfectly to test the real character of the priest—to show whether mercy was in his heart or not.

“A certain priest.”—Perhaps now on his way to Jerusalem, there to execute his office “in the order of his course” (chap. Luk_1:8); or, having accomplished his turn of service, now returning home. But whether thus or not, he was one who had never learned what that meant, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice”; who, whatever duties he might have been careful in fulfilling, had “omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith”—Trench.

“He passed by.”

I. All priests were not thus cold and heartless.—Ministers are generally warm-hearted men. They ought all to be so; they ought to be like Christ. He was ever ready to help any in trouble. Many of the Jewish priests would be kind and generous. This one was not. One may occupy a very sacred place, and yet have a cold, hard heart. It is very sad when it is so.

II. This priest did not even stop to look at the sufferer.—Much less did he ask how he came to be injured, or to inquire what he could do for him. Perhaps he even pretended not to see the wounded man. He had doubtless excuses enough to satisfy his own mind. He was tired, or in a hurry, or it was a hopeless case, or he could not bear to look on suffering. But whatever his motives—

III. Let us avoid repeating his fault.—Do we never pass by human wants that we know well we ought to stop to relieve? Do we never keep out of the way of those who need our help? This verse is an ugly mirror, is it not? It shows us blemishes that we did not know we had.—Miller.

Excuses for Inhumanity.—Excuses for inhumanity are only too easily found. The priest might allege—

I. That he was in haste—that his business was urgent or sacred.

II. That the wounded man was past hope of recovery.

III. That the robbers were not far off, and that it was perilous to linger near the spot.

IV. That another was coming along the same road who might be able to render more efficient help.

Luk_10:31-33. Two Kinds of Holiness.—

1. The spurious holiness of priest and Levite—sanctity divorced from charity.

2. The genuine holiness of the Samaritan—holiness inspired by love.—Bruce.

Samaritans and Levites.—All Samaritans were not compassionate; all Levites were not hard-hearted. They were Samaritans who would not permit Jesus and His disciples, when they were weary, to pass the night in their village (Luk_9:53); and he was a Levite (Act_4:36) who was named Son of Consolation, and sold his property that he might distribute the proceeds among the poor.

Luk_10:32. “A Levite.”—The Levite in his turn may have thought with himself that it could not be incumbent on him to undertake a perilous office, from which the priest had just shrunk; duty it could not be, else that other would never have omitted it. For him to thrust himself upon it now would be a kind of affront to his superior, an implicit charging of him with inhumanity and hardness of heart. And so, by aid of these pleas, or pleas like them, they left their fellow-countryman to perish.—Trench.

“Looked on him.”—There are very few of us who have yet learned to exert ourselves as we might do for the relief of the general misery and destitution which we cannot but see about us. The world is full of it; but it is not full of that heavenly compassion which it was meant to call forth.—Marriott.

Luk_10:33. “Samaritan.”—He was one of a nation with whom the Jews had no dealings (Joh_4:9), whose name was a by-word of reproach (Joh_8:48), who were regarded by them as aliens and foreigners (Luk_17:18), and almost reckoned with the very heathen (Mat_10:5). The wounded traveller could have no claims on him; and many reasons might have been found for passing him by.

The Law written in the Heart.—This ignorant Samaritan possessed spontaneously (“by nature,” Rom_2:14) the light which the Rabbis had not found or had lost in their theological investigations. There is a remarkable agreement between the conduct attributed by Jesus to the Samaritan and the saying of St. Paul about the law “written in the heart” and its partial fulfilment by the heathen (Rom_2:14-16).—Godet.

Heterodoxy and Orthodoxy.—We have here heterodoxy with humanity, and orthodoxy without humanity. Our Lord has shown elsewhere, abundantly, that He has no thought of conniving at heterodoxy, or of disparaging orthodoxy. Only He teaches that humanity is better than orthodoxy, if only one may be had, and that inhumanity is worse than heterodoxy, if one must be endured.—Schaff.

“Had compassion.”—Moved with pity as to the past, help for the present, considerate care for the future.—Stier.

A Mark of Genuine Love.—It is the characteristic mark of genuine love that it does not ask whether the neighbour deserves love, but whether he needs love.

Love of the Brethren and of One’s Neighbour.—There is a special distinction to be made between Christian love of the brethren (Joh_13:34) and the love of our neighbour.

I. Love of the brethren has for its object the fellow-believer, the love of Christ for its standard, and faith in Him as its condition.

II. Love of our neighbour embraces all men, loves them as one’s self, and is grounded on the natural relation in which all sons and daughters of Adam stand to each other as members of one great family here on earth.—Van Oosterzee.

Luk_10:33-35. Characteristics of Love.—True love renders help

(1) with promptitude,

(2) with thoroughness,

(3) with self-denial,

(4) with unwearying patience,

(5) with tact,

(6) without sentimentality.

Luk_10:34-35. “Bound up his wounds,” etc.—He leaves nothing undone to mitigate the miseries that excited his compassion.

I. He applies healing remedies to his wounds.

II. He is regardless of fatigue and danger in ministering to the sufferer.

III. He leaves him in good keeping.

IV. He supplies his immediate wants, leaves careful injunctions for his treatment in the inn, and generously promises to repay any expenses that may be incurred.

Luk_10:34. Manifestations of Love.—The attentive look, the compassionate heart, the helpful hand, the willing foot, the open purse.—Van Oosterzee.

Luk_10:35. “Take care of him.… 1 will repay.”—After having brought the wounded man to the inn, the Samaritan might have regarded himself as free from all further responsibility in the matter—he might have left him to the kindness of his fellow-countrymen, and have said to them, “He is your neighbour rather than mine.” But compassion, which has prompted him to begin, compels him to end.—Godet.

“When he departed.”—This detail gives vividness to the story: we see him as it were already on horseback and busied with giving the host injunctions as to careful treatment of the invalid.

Luk_10:36. Love like the Light.—The Lord shows His questioner that love is like light: wherever it truly burns it shines forth in all directions, and falls on every object that lies in its way. Love that desires to limit its own exercise is not love. One of love’s essential laws is expressed in those words of the Lord that the apostles fondly remembered after He had ascended, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”—Arnot.

“Which … was neighbour?”—The parable is a reply, not to the question, for to that it is no reply, but to the spirit out of which the question proceeded. “You inquire, Who is my neighbour? Behold a man who asked quite another question, To whom can I be a neighbour? and then be yourself the judge whether you or he have most of the mind of God—which is most truly the doer of His will, the imitator of His perfections.”—Trench.

“Was neighbour.”—Rather, “proved neighbour” (R.V.); literally, “became neighbour.” “The neighbour Jews became strangers, the stranger Samaritan became neighbour, to the wounded traveller. It is not place but love which makes neighbourhood” (Wordsworth).

Luk_10:36-37. A Picture of Christ’s Redeeming Work.—The older commentators find in this parable a typical representation of Christ’s redeeming love. The wounded traveller is man disabled by sin; the priest and Levite represent the law, which exercises no healing power; the good Samaritan is Christ; the inn the Church, etc. The suggestion is an ingenious one, though the identification of some of the details leads to grotesque results. We may, however, see in the parable a faint and unintentional reflection of the Saviour’s work. The wounds of the sick (Isa_1:6), which they who sat in Moses’ seat left undressed, He whom they reviled as a Samaritan (Joh_8:48) bound up with oil and wine.

Luk_10:37. “He that shewed mercy.”—He will not name the Samaritan by name, the haughty hypocrite!—Luther.

“Go, and do thou likewise.”—The lesson derived from the parable by our Lord Himself is not that “every one who needs our mercy is to be taken for our neighbour.” Nothing of the kind. Christ closes the conversation by proposing the conduct of the Samaritan—the active benevolence which he displayed even towards an enemy—as a model for imitation. Thus the practice of religion is revealed as the best help to the understanding of it. The attention is diverted from considering who is the fit object of love, and guided instead to the exercise of love itself. As in every other part of the Bible, the object proposed is to school the heart, not to inform the understanding.—Burgon.

A Reproof to our Shortcomings.—We should never read the story of the good Samaritan without thinking of it as a type of deeds of holy love done by many who may be grievously deficient in religious knowledge, and as a reproof to our shortcomings.

Love and its Reward.—Love of man is

(1) entirely unlimited;

(2) it reveals itself in unrestricted helpfulness; and

(3) its reward is in an approving conscience, the praise of those who witness it, and of the Lord Himself. It is true that mere kindness does not earn eternal life—that even if we perfectly fulfil the second table of the law, we are guilty of so many offences against the first table as to forfeit eternal life. But it is also true that he who violates the dictates of kindly feeling is not on the road that leads to faith and salvation (1Jn_4:20-21).

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

C. A School of Love, of Faith, and of Prayer. Luk_10:25 to Luk_11:13

1. The Good Samaritan (Luk_10:25-37)

(Luk_10:23-27, Gospel for the 13th Sunday after Trinity.)

25And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him [putting him to the 26proof], saying, Master [Teacher], what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself [Deu_6:5; Lev_19:18]. 28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves [robbers], which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32And likewise a Levite [also], when he was at [having come to] the place, came and looked on him, and [and seeing him] passed by on the other side. 33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed,came where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in [on] oil and wine, and set him on his ownbeast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35And on the morrow when he departed,12 he took out two pence [denarii], and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him: and whatsoever thou spendest more, [I] when I come again,I [om., I] will repay thee. 36Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbourunto him that fell among the thieves [robbers]? 37And he said, He that shewed mercy [τὸ ἔλεος, the merciful act] on him. Then [And13] said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Luk_10:25. A certain lawyer.—According to Strauss we have here only a different tradition of the occurrence which is related by Mat_22:37-40, and Mar_12:28-34. But whoever compares the two accounts attentively will probably come with us to the conclusion, that Luke relates something entirely different. Although almost superfluous, compare moreover Lange, Leben Jesu, ii. p. 1242.

Putting Him to the proof.—It is as if Luke would by the very commencement: καὶ ἰδού, draw our attention to the contrast between the joyful emotions of the circle of friends which had but just heard from Jesus, mouth words of approbation and joy, and the cold stranger who bestirs himself to prepare for the Master new snares. It is a νομικός, who is perhaps distinguished from the Pharisees in this (comp. Luk_11:44-45), that he, more than these, holds to the letter of the law of Moses; but in no case a Sadducee, or a Herodian, since his highest striving appears directed towards eternal life. He appears as an ἐκπειράζων, and as this word is always used in an unfavorable sense, we are at least to assume that he wished to find out whether the Saviour also would teach anything which was in conflict with the law of Moses. His question springs therefore from a very different source from that of the rich young man, Mat_19:16, and without doubt he expects a very different answer from this one, which, on the position of the law, was the only possible one. He is first put to shame by the very fact that the Saviour gives him to hear nothing strange, but simply that which was perfectly familiar.

Luk_10:27. Thou shalt love.—It speaks perhaps favorably for this νομικός that he does not name one or several special precepts, but immediately brings forward the spirit and main substance of the law, which the Saviour, in a case not wholly dissimilar, was obliged first to remind the inquirer of, Mat_22:38-39. So much the sadder was it here that with so clear a knowledge of the law, there was joined an utter lack of self-knowledge.

Luk_10:29. Willing to justify himself.—Perhaps the scribe took the reply, “this do,” as an indirect reproach that he, to his own amazement, had not yet done it, and now apparently his conscience begins to speak. But he will justify himself, inasmuch as he intimates that he, in this respect at least, had already fulfilled the requirement of the law, unless it were that Jesus perhaps by the words “thy neighbor” might have some different meaning from himself. But better still, we are perhaps to conceive the matter thus: if the answer was so simple as it appeared to be from the words of our Saviour, there might undoubtedly be need of an excuse that he had approached Jesus with so trifling a question. He wishes, therefore, by this more particular statement to give the Saviour to feel that precisely this is the great question, namely, whom he is to regard as his neighbor and whom not; and as to this, our Lord now, in the immediately following parable, gives him a definite exposition.

Luk_10:30. From Jerusalem to Jericho.—According to Lange, the journeying of the Saviour in Samaria, and the sending of the Seventy into the towns and villages of the Samaritans, had possibly offended this scribe, and our Lord, by the delineation here following, wishes indirectly to shame this narrow-heartedness. It may also be conjectured that our Lord on His own journey through Samaria towards Jerusalem was at this very moment on the way between Jericho and the capital, and had therefore chosen the scene of the parable precisely in loco. If we now add to this that the village, Luk_10:38, was Bethany, whither He must come before He entered the city, we then obtain at least some conception of the course of this journey of our Saviour.

And fell among robbers.—The wilderness between Jericho and Jerusalem was known as insecure. See Josephus, De Bello Judaico, iv. 8, 3, and Hieronymus, ad Jerem. iii. 2. Wholly encircled by robbers (περιέπεσεν), he addresses himself fruitlessly to defence, and remains lying wounded on the road, while they, with his garments and the remaining booty, take themselves off. Already half dead, he must infallibly expire if help does not with all speed appear for him.

Luk_10:31. By chance.—“Multœ occasiones bonœ latent sub iis, quœ fortuita videantur. Scriptura nil describit temere, ut fortuitum; hoc loco opponitur necessitudini.” Bengel.—A priest—a Levite.—It is well known that at Jericho many priests had their abode, who, when their turn came, discharged the service of the sanctuary at Jerusalem. Commonly they appear to have chosen the longer but safer road by Bethlehem, so that it was an exception when they travelled through the wilderness. It here brings into so much the more striking light their want of feeling, that the two do not pass on without first having come nearer and, more or less exactly, taken note of the state of the case. This inspection, however, merely persuades them of the greatness of the danger that awaits them also if they delay even for an instant, and therefore they make haste to quit the way of blood as quickly as possible. Neither the voice of humanity, nor that of nationality, nor that of religion, speaks so loudly to their heart as the desire of self-preservation.

Luk_10:33. A certain Samaritan, as he journeyed.—From the very choice of this example, it is evident that the injured man was certainly no heathen (Olshausen), but a Jew, in whom, however, his benefactor views, before all, an unhappy man.—Oil and wine.—Customary remedies, see Isa_1:6 and Wetstein, ad loc.—He had compassion on him.—“Animi motus sincerus prœcedit, quem sequuntur facta, animo congruentia.” Grotius. Mark the beautiful climax. First the compassionate heart, then the helping hand, next the ready foot, finally the true-hearted charge.

Luk_10:35. He took out two denarii.—Ἐκβαλών, “graphic: out of a girdle,” Meyer. He leaves the unhappy man in rest, but takes care also that no difficulty shall arise to him after his departure on the score of payment. From his promise to make good what may be lacking on his return, we may perhaps draw the inference that the ὁδεύων expresses not only the conditio, but also the habitus, of the Samaritan.

Luk_10:37. The merciful act, τὸ ἔλεος.—The definite species of compassion, that is, which was described in the parable. It has been often remarked that the scribe by this circumlocutory answer wished to avoid mentioning the name of Samaritan. See, e.g., Bengel, ad loc. So has Luther also written in his Kirchenpostille, ad loc.: “Will not name the Samaritan by name, the haughty hypocrite.”

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. By the question, “How readest thou?” the Saviour ascribes to the law absolute authority in the answer of the question proposed by the scribe. Here also the same principle as in Joh_10:34-36, and elsewhere. After such declarations from the Saviour, the answer to the inquiry hardly continues difficult, what authority must be ascribed to the Scripture in the decision of the highest question of life for mankind.

2. The answer given by the scribe stood, at least as far as concerns Deu_6:5, upon the broad phylactery which was worn by the Jews, and so far it may be said that this τοῦτο ποίει is to be taken as having been uttered by Jesus δεικτικῶς. As to the rest, it need not surprise us that the Saviour here gives another answer than, e.g., Joh_6:29. From the point of view of the scribe, the requirement of faith, if made to him would have been unintelligible. It is moreover literally true, that if any one indeed so fulfilled the law that his act in God’s eyes really bore the stamp of perfection, he would certainly enter into life. It is only if the scribe had answered that it was impossible to him to fulfil the law as God requires on account of his sin and weakness; it is only then that he would have been receptive of further instruction. The Saviour places first precisely the duty required by the law, in its full emphasis, in order to bring him to a knowledge of himself, and to give him a clear insight into his own imperfection in contrast with the supreme ideal. This conversation is, therefore, a striking proof of the deep didactic wisdom of the Saviour.

3. The parable of the Good Samaritan is certainly one of the most beautiful, considered from an æsthetic point of view. The antithesis of the Samaritan on the one hand, of the Jew, the priest, and the Levite on the other; the extended description of his work of love in its full and entire compass; the perfect completion of the picture by the trait at the end,—all this contributes to exalt the graphic vigor of the portraiture. No wonder that this parable has become one of the most popular, and that it has been seriously inquired whether here also an occurrence from actual life may not have been related, of which the Saviour in some way or other had obtained knowledge. This view, however (Grotius a. o.), natural as it is, appears nevertheless hardly admissible, for the reason that the Saviour was not wont to bring up without necessity, and in their absence, the chronique scandaleuse of the priests and Levites.

4. The purpose of the parable would be understood amiss, if we thought it was intended to serve directly to commend the duty of love to enemies. The Saviour does not once say that the object of the love here exhibited was a Jew, but only that it was a man, and will give the inquirer to feel that the word “neighbor” must be applied in a far wider sense than only that of Friend, Companion, or Countryman. It is the more beautiful that the Saviour makes no other than a Samaritan the type of the genuine love of man, if we consider that it was very shortly before that He had experienced the intolerance of the Samaritans in its full strength. Luk_9:51; Luk_9:56.

5. Here, however, there is a special distinction to be made between Christian love of the brethren, which is commended in Joh_13:34, and the general love of our neighbor, which is commended in this passage. The first has for its object the fellow-believer, the love of Christ for its standard, and faith on Him as its condition. The second embraces all men, loves them as one’s self, and is grounded in the natural relation in which all the sons and daughters of Adam stand to each other as members of one great family here on earth. It is not uncommon that those in the right way, zealous for that which is specifically Christian, give themselves less concern regarding this general human duty. It is, therefore, well worth the trouble to consider somewhat more particularly the portrait here drawn by the Lord. We see then at the same time, also, why this parable is found in the Pauline and broadly human Gospel of Luke.

6. The element of the general love of man is that most pure feeling which does not ask, “Who is my neighbor?” but in every man beholds a brother, and in the unhappy man first of all (ἐσπλαγχνίσθη). Its extent, therefore, is entirely unlimited; it does not ask whether it has to do with a Jew, Samaritan, or heathen, but only whether it has to do with a man, as such. Its tokens reveal themselves in unrestricted helpfulness (oil and wine), self-denial (giving up of his own beast), heartiness (the commendation to the host), and continuance (afterwards as well as now he will pay all). And its reward is, besides the approving voice of conscience and the involuntary praise even of those far differently minded, above all, the testimony of the Lord, who sets such a deed of love before others as their example. A whole chapter of Christian ethics is, therefore, here written down in a few words.

[6 a. There is one thing to be taken note of in connection with the parable of the Good Samaritan, which we are apt to neglect, and thereby to lose much of its force. We are so much accustomed to look upon the Good Samaritan as a model of excellence, as to forget that he was a heretic, not in the Jewish notion merely, but in reality; and that our Lord, in His conversation with the Samaritan woman, Joh_4:22, distinctly and severely condemns his heresy. This parable, therefore, teaches us not only that true love to man knows no distinction of nationality or creed, but that this genuine philanthropy may be exhibited by one involved in grave speculative errors, and neglected by those whose speculative belief is sound. We have here Heterodoxy with Humanity, and Orthodoxy without Humanity. Our Lord has shown elsewhere, abundantly, that He has no thought of conniving at Heterodoxy, or of disparaging Orthodoxy. Only, He teaches that Humanity is better than Orthodoxy, if only one may be had, and that Inhumanity is worse than Heterodoxy, if one must be endured.—C. C. S.]

7. If we inquire who has perfectly set forth the character of the Good Samaritan, and perfectly accomplished his work, then we know of only one—our Lord. So far we may say that He has depicted the portrait of perfect philanthropy with traits from His own immediate self-consciousness.

8. What has been hitherto said, already prepares the way for an answer to the question, how far the Christian homilete is at liberty to view in the Samaritan the image of the Saviour. As is well known, this was done very early by many of the ancient fathers, and by Luther and Melanchthon, and among the moderns by Stier and others [Alford]. This has been, on the one hand, powerfully defended, and it has been asserted that if we stop at the common conception, “it is hard to find a Christian theme” in this whole Pericope (Cl. Harms). On the other side, it has been wholly condemned as pious fantasy, and certainly not with injustice, if we remember how every particular of the parable has been expounded even to trifling, so that, for instance, Jerusalem must denote Paradise,—Jericho, the world,—the lodging, the Church,—the two denarii, the two sacraments. This can only be reconciled when one knows how to make a distinction between historical exposition and practical application of the instruction here given. From the position of the former it is entirely inadmissible to say that the Saviour had here the intention to designate Himself as the Redeemer of man from sin and misery. No, the purpose is no other than to portray actual love of man in the sphere of actual life: this must, therefore, be and remain the chief point. But if now it is asked, in conclusion, in whom the ideal of the highest love of man is perfectly realized, then it is almost impossible to overlook here the image of the Saviour, and to pass over in silence what He, the Heavenly Samaritan, has become for Humanity sick unto death, already given up by priest and Levite, &c. For the love of Christ is not only the type, but is also no less the most powerful impulse to such an active love of our neighbor as is here required. A distinguished example of the treatment of this parable, in which the ethical and the Christological element alike receive full consideration, has been given by A. Vinet in the dissertation: Le Samaritain, in his Nouveaux discours sur quelques sujets religieux. Thus does this parable become in a certain sense the sublimest allegory of Sin on the one hand, and Grace on the other. Comp. Tholuck, Die wahre Weihe des Zweiflers, p. 63, and Lisco, ad loc., p. 239. It is, however, self-evident, that we are not therefore permitted to build on individual details a doubtful dogmatic view (e.g., Semipelagianism on the expression that the man lay half dead on the way), and that in a tropical use of it the great central thought must be adhered to, without pressing the particulars overstrongly. A certain spiritual tact will here show the way better than could be done by definite rules, and this of itself already introduces the

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The way to life the highest question of life.—Jesus the best guide on the way to eternal life.—A just question proposed from a perverted motive.—Necessary and unnecessary questions in the sphere of religion and of life.—The highest questions of life satisfactorily resolved in God’s word.—Not “What thinkest thou?” but “How readest thou?”—To the Law and to the Testimony, Isa_8:20.—The requirement of love to God: 1. The extent, 2. the justice, 3. the reward of this requirement.—Whoever actually fulfilled God’s commandment, would actually also live.—Hopeless efforts to justify one’s self against the Lord.—The question: “Who is my neighbor?” 1 Its high moment; 2. its only answer; 3. its manifold application.—A man plunged by men into wretchedness.—Stand we not every hour in jeopardy? 1Co_15:30.—The value of apparently fortuitous occurrences.—A priest without love.—The might of selfishness: it is stronger than the voice a. of humanity, b. of patriotism, c. of religion.—Faithful Samaritan service.—There is more evil, but also more good than we know.—The attentive look, the compassionate heart, the helpful hand, the willing foot, the open purse.—Service of love: 1. Willingly begun, 2. unweariedly continued, 3. never completed.—The debt of love, Rom_13:8 : 1. A measureless debt, 2. an undeniable debt, 3. a blessed debt.—True love gives not only its own, but itself wholly.—Love not in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth, 1Jn_3:18.—True love of our neighbor: 1. Its motive; 2. its character: open-handedness, self-denial, heartiness, steadfastness; 3. its reward.—The Good Samaritan service of the disciples of the Saviour.—The Good Samaritan the image of the Saviour.—How He, the Saviour of sinners, still, 1. Lights upon the same misery; 2. expresses the same compassion; 3. prepares the same redemption; 4. demands the same temper of mind as is set forth in this parable.—Who, then, is our neighbor?—Not knowing, but doing, the first requirement of the Lord.—As this scribe, so are, sooner or later, all put to shame who will take Jesus in their snares.

Starke:—As the question, so the answer.—Cramer:—The law aims high and demands the whole heart, &c.—Quesnel:—Piety consists not in having, but in doing.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—Oh ! the shameful priests, who pass by the poor.—Ecclesiastics that have not the Spirit, are bare, fruitless trees, Jdg_9:14.—True love takes on itself with much danger the necessity of the saints.—Compassion has so bright a brilliancy that it shines even in the eyes of enemies.—Majus:—No one must be ashamed to follow even simple and mean people in good.—Lisco:—Christian love of our neighbor should be: 1. Universal; 2. self-sacrificing.—The active compassion of the citizens of the kingdom: 1. Its sphere of activity; 2. its nature; 3. its portion.—Heubner:—Man does not lack so much the knowledge of his duty as the will for it.—How little is close contact with, and administration of, that which is holy often wont to sanctify the heart. How deep has the priesthood often sunk!—How often have the followers of the true religion been excelled by professors of false religions!—Love seeks, where its means are not sufficient, to win others also to its ends.

On the Pericope:—Heubner:—How Jesus demands true love of man: 1. By His example; 2. by the most perfect doctrine.—The peculiarity of Christian love of our neighbor: 1. Sources, 2. manifestations.—The double eye of the Christian: 1. The eye of faith, Luk_10:23-24; Luke 2 the eye of love, Luk_10:25-35. The Christian is not to be one-eyed.—Love, the true proof of faith.—Palmer:—How love again makes good what sin has ruined.—Fuchs:—Who is counted blessed by the Lord, is truly blessed.—Schultz:—How we in this world can become partakers of eternal life: 1. If we see that which Christ has revealed, Luk_10:23-24; Luke 2. if we so love as Christ requires, Luk_10:25-35; Luke 3. if we so work as Christ has enjoined, Luk_10:36-37.—Happy he, 1. Who is a Samaritan; 2. happy he who finds one!—Von Harless:—Good Samaritan love: 1. Whom it profits; 2. how it manifests itself; 3. whence it comes.—Florey:—The glory of true love: 1. It inquires not, Luk_10:25; Luk_10:29; Luke 2. it hesitates not, Luk_10:33; Luke 3 it is not afraid; 4 it tarries not, Luk_10:34; Luke 5. it willingly sacrifices, and leaves nothing unfinished, Luk_10:35.—F. Arndt:—Active, helpful love.—Burk:—How we without the Lord Jesus nowhere, but with Him everywhere, may see our way.

The Pericope is admirably adapted for missionary sermons also.

Footnotes:

[12]Luk_10:35.—Ἐξελθών (vox molestissima, Schultz). It is possible that it was omitted on account of the following ἐκβαλών (Meyer), but more probable that it is an explicative addition, since the mention of the αὔριον would of itself direct attention to the continuance of the journey. [Om. B., D., L., Sin.; Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford retain it.—C. C. S.]

[13]Luk_10:37.—Rec.: εῖ̓πεν οὖν. The reasons for δέ preponderate.

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luke

NEIGHBOURS FAR OFF

Luk 10:25 - Luk 10:37.

The lawyer’s first question was intended to ‘tempt’ Jesus, which here seems to mean, rather, ‘to test’; that is, to ascertain His orthodoxy or His ability. Christ walks calmly through the snare, as if not seeing it. His answer is unimpeachably orthodox, and withal just hints in the slightest way that the question was needless, since one so learned in the law knew well enough what were the conditions of inheriting life. The lawyer knows the letter too well to be at a loss what to answer. But it is remarkable that he gives the same combination of two passages which Jesus gives in His last duel with the Pharisees {Mat 22:1 - Mat 22:46; Mar 12:1 - Mar 12:44}. Did Jesus adopt this lawyer’s summary? Or is Luke’s narrative condensed, omitting stages by which Jesus led the man to so wise an answer?

Our Lord’s rejoinder has a marked tone of authority, which puts the lawyer in his right place. His answer is commended, as by one whose estimate has weight; and his practice is implicitly condemned, as by one who knows, and has a right to judge. ‘This do’ is a sharp sword-thrust. It also unites the two ‘loves’ as essentially one, by saying ‘This’-not ‘these’-’do.’ The lawyer feels the prick, and it is his defective practice, not his question, which he seeks to ‘justify.’ He did not think that his love to God needed any justification. He had fully done his duty there, but about the other half he was less sure. So he tried to ride off, lawyer-like, on a question of the meaning of words. ‘Who is my neighbour?’ is the question answered by the lovely story of the kindly Samaritan.

I. The main purpose, then, is to show how far off men may be, and yet be neighbours.

The lawyer’s question, ‘Who is my neighbour?’ is turned round the other way in Christ’s form of it at the close. It is better to ask ‘Whose neighbour am I?’ than ‘Who is my neighbour?’ The lawyer meant by the word ‘a person whom I am bound to love.’ He wanted to know how far an obligation extended which he had no mind to recognise an inch farther than he was obliged. Probably he had in his thought the Rabbinical limitations which made it as much duty to ‘hate thine enemy’ as to ‘love thy neighbour.’ Probably, too, he accepted the national limitations, which refused to see any neighbours outside the Jewish people.

‘Neighbourhood,’ in his judgment, implied ‘nearness,’ and he wished to know how far off the boundaries of the region included in the command lay. There are a great many of us like him, who think that the obligation is a matter of geography, and that love, like force, is inversely as the square of the distance. A good deal of the so-called virtue of ‘patriotism’ is of this spurious sort. But Christ’s way of putting the question sweeps all such limitations aside. ‘Who became neighbour to’ the wounded man? ‘He who showed mercy on him,’ said the lawyer, unwilling to name the Samaritan, and by his very reluctance giving the point to his answer which Christ wished to bring out. We are not to love because we are neighbours in any geographical sense, but we become neighbours to the man farthest from us when we love and help him. The relation has nothing to do with proximity. If we prove ourselves neighbours to any man by exercising love to him, then the relation intended by the word is as wide as humanity. We recognise that A. is our neighbour when a throb of pity shoots through our heart, and thereby we become neighbours to him.

The story is not, properly speaking, a parable, or imaginary narrative of something in the physical world intended to be translated into something in the spiritual region, but it is an illustration {by an imaginary narrative} of the actual virtue in question. Every detail is beautifully adapted to bring out the lesson that the obligation of neighbourly affection has nothing to do with nearness either of race or religion, but is as wide as humanity. The wounded man was probably a Jew, but it is significant that his nationality is not mentioned. He is ‘a certain man,’ that is all. The Samaritan did not ask where he was born before he helped him. So Christ teaches us that sorrow and need and sympathy and help are of no nationality.

That lesson is still more strongly taught by making the helper a Samaritan. Perhaps, if Jesus had been speaking in America, he would have made him a negro; or, if in France, a German; or, if in England, a ‘foreigner.’ It was a daring stroke to bring the despised name of ‘Samaritan’ into the story, and one sees what a hard morsel to swallow the lawyer found it, by his unwillingness to name him after all.

The nations have not yet learned the deep, simple truth of this parable. It absolutely forbids all limitations of mercy and help. It makes every man the neighbour of every man. It carries in germ the great truth of the brotherhood of the race. ‘Humanity’ is a purely Christian word, and a conception that was never dreamed of before Christ had showed us the unity of mankind. We slowly approximate to the realisation of the teaching of this story, which is oftener admired than imitated, and perhaps oftenest on the lips of people who obey it least.

II. Another aspect of the parable is its lesson as to the true manifestations of neighbourliness.

The minutely detailed account of the Samaritan’s care for the half-dead man is not only graphic, but carries large lessons. Compassionate sentiments are very well. They must come first. The help that is given as a matter of duty, without the outgoing of heart, will be worth little, and soon cease to flow; but the emotion that does not drive the wheels of action, and set to work to stanch the sorrows which cause it to run so easily, is worth still less. It hardens the heart, as all feeling unexpressed in action does. If the priest and Levite had gone up to the man, and said, ‘Ah, poor fellow, poor fellow! how sorry we are for you! somebody ought to come and help you,’ and so had trudged on their way, they would have been worse than they are painted as being.

The various acts are enumerated as showing the genius of true love. We notice the swift, cool-headed deftness of the man, his having at hand the appliances needed, the business-like way in which he goes about his kindness, his readiness to expend his wine and oil, his willingness to do the surgeon’s work, his cheerful giving up of his ‘own beast,’ while he plodded along on foot, steadying the wounded man on his ass; his care for him at the inn; his generosity, and withal his prudence, in not leaving a great sum in the host’s hands, but just enough to tide over a day or two, and his wise hint that he would audit the accounts when he came back. This man’s quick compassion was blended with plenty of shrewdness, and was as practical as the hardest, least compassionate man could have been. There is need for organisation, ‘faculty,’ and the like, in the work of loving our neighbour. A thousand pities that sometimes Christian charity and Christian common-sense dissolve partnership. The Samaritan was a man of business, and he did his compassion in a business-like fashion, as we should try to do.

III. Another lesson inwrought into the parable is the divorce between religion and neighbourliness, as shown in the conduct of the priest and Levite.

Jericho was one of the priestly cities, so that there would be frequent travellers on ecclesiastical errands. The priest was ‘going down’ {that is from Jerusalem}, so he could not plead a ‘pressing public engagement’ at the Temple. The verbal repetition of the description of the conduct of both him and the Levite serves to suggest its commonness. They two did exactly the same thing, and so would twenty or two hundred ordinary passers by. They saw the man lying in a pool of blood, and they made a wide circuit, and, even in the face of such a sight, went on their way. Probably they said to themselves, ‘Robbers again; the sooner we get past this dangerous bit, the better.’ We see that they were heartless, but they did not see it. We do the same thing ourselves, and do not see that we do; for who of us has not known of many miseries which we could have done something to stanch, and have left untouched because our hearts were unaffected? The world would be a changed place if every Christian attended to the sorrows that are plain before him.

Let professing Christians especially lay to heart the solemn lesson that there does lie in their very religion the possibility of their being culpably unconcerned about some of the world’s wounds, and that, if their love to God does not find a field for its manifestation in active love to man, worship in the Temple will be mockery. Philanthropy is, in our days, often substituted for religion. The service of man has been put forward as the only real service of God. But philanthropic unbelievers and unphilanthropic believers are equally monstrosities. What God hath joined let not man put asunder. That simple ‘and,’ which couples the two great commandments, expresses their indissoluble connection. Well for us if in our practice they are blended in one!

It is not spiritualising this narrative when we say that Jesus is Himself the great pattern of the swift compassion and effectual helpfulness which it sets forth. Many unwise attempts have been made to tack on spiritual meanings to the story. These are as irreverent as destructive of its beauty and significance. But to say that Christ is the perfect example of that love to every man which the narrative portrays, has nothing in common with these fancies. It is only when we have found in Him the pity and the healing which we need, that we shall go forth into the world with love as wide as His.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 4

ENTANGLEMENT OF A THEOLOGIAN

Luk 10:25-28. “And, behold, a certain theologian stood up, tempting Him, and saying, Teacher, having done what shall I inherit eternal life?”

The word here translated “lawyer” in E. V., is nomikos, from nomos, “law.”

When you remember that their laws were all written in the Old Testament, you will know that a lawyer with them was not identical with the profession in our day, as their lawyers, were exponents of the Old Testament Scriptures. If you do not keep in mind this fact, you will utterly misapprehend the meaning of “lawyer” in the New Testament. He was not a lawyer in any modem sense, but a Biblical exegete; i. e., a theologian. This elegantly-cultured clergyman interviews our Savior in reference to the economy of grace, by which he might inherit eternal life, and, as the record says, “tempting Him,” doubtless realizing his own proficiency in the law, and thinking to entangle Jesus on some point of legal complicity. “And He said to Him, What has been written in the law? How readest Thou? And responding, He said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with Divine love, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said to Him, You answered correctly; do this, and thou shalt live.” He threw the boomerang; but being unskillful, it came back, settled down on him, and took his head off. Thinking to puzzle Jesus in a complicated legalism, he gets caught in his own trap. Our Lord simply puts him on the witness-stand. He can not go back on his theological profession; consequently He makes him witness to the verdict of the law. You see, he comes out in a frank confession, admitting to all that perfect love is the Bible standard of life and salvation.

Many a modern theologian forfeits his reputation for candor or proficiency in the law of the Lord when, like this man, put on the witness-stand. We are bound to give him more credit than many of his successors, who, in the pulpit, labor to evade the grand issue, dodging all around the great, salient Bible truth that perfect love is the condition on which we must all inherit eternal life, or forfeit it, world without end. Modern theologians would do well to sit at the feet of this man, who unhesitatingly rings out the Bible standard of salvation, though it was his own death-knell, as we are satisfied he did not have it. O that all who stand before the people as Biblical exegetes would so study the Word of the Lord as to know the way of salvation, and be candid enough always to ring it out to every inquirer, regardless of consequences! Jesus fully endorses his admission, telling him to go and practice what he preaches.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 19

THE GOOD SAMARITAN. - Luk_10:25-37

IT would scarcely have accorded with the traditions of human nature had the teachers of religion looked favorably upon Jesus. Stepping, as He did, within their domain, without any human ordination or scholastic authority, they naturally resented the intrusion, and when the teaching of the new Rabbi so distinctly contravened their own interpretation of the law their curiosity deepened into jealousy, and curdled at last into a virulent hate. The ecclesiastical atmosphere was charged with electricity, but it only manifested itself at first in the harmless play of summer lightning, the crossfire of half-earnest and half-captious questions; later it was the forked lightning that struck Him down into a grave.

We have no means of localizing, either in point of time or place, the incident here recorded by our Evangelist, and which, by the way, only St. Luke mentions. It stands by itself, bearing in its dependent parable of the Good Samaritan as exquisite and perfect flower, from whose deep cup has dropped the very nectar of the gods.

It was probably during one of His public discourses that a "certain lawyer," or scribe-for the two titles are used interchangeably-"stood up and tempted Him." He sought to prove Him by questions, as the word means here, hoping to entrap Jesus amid the vagaries of Rabbinical tradition. "Teacher," said he, hiding his sinister motive behind a veil of courtesy and apparent candor, "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Had the question been sincere, Jesus would probably have given a direct answer; but reading the under-current of his thought, which moved transversely to the surface-current of his speech, Jesus simply answered his question by asking another: "What is written in the law? How readest thou?" With a readiness which implied a perfect familiarity with the Law, he replied, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." Some expositors have thought that the Evangelist here gives the summary of what was a lengthened conversation, and that Jesus Himself led the mind of the lawyer to join together these detached portions of Scripture-one Deu_6:5, and the other from Lev_19:18. It is true there is a striking resemblance between the answer of the lawyer and the answer Jesus Himself gave subsequently to a similar question; {Mar_12:30-31} but there is no necessity for us to apologize for the resemblance, as if it were improbable and unnatural. The fact is, as the narrative of Mr 12. plainly indicates, that these two sentences were held in general consent as the epitome of the Law, its first and its second commandment. Even the scribe assents to this as an axiomatic truth he has no wish to challenge. It will be observed that a fourth term is added to the three of the original, possibly on account of the Septuagint rendering, which translated the Hebrew "heart" by "mind." Godet suggests that since the term "heart" is the most general term, denoting "in Scripture the central focus from which all the rays of the moral life go forth," that it stands in apposition to the other three, the one in its three particulars. This, which is the most natural interpretation, would refer the "mind" to the intellectual faculties, the "soul" to the emotional faculties, the sensibilities, and the "might" to the will which rules all force; while by the "heart" is meant the unit, the "centered self," into which the others merge, and of which they form a part.

Jesus commended him for his answer: "Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live"-words which brushed away completely the Hebraic figment of inherited life. That life was not something that should be reached by processes of loving. The life should precede the love, and should give birth to it: the love should grow out of the life, its blossoming flower.

Having the tables so turned upon himself, and wishing to "justify," or to put himself right, the stranger asks still another question: "And who is my neighbor?" doubtless hoping to cover his retreat in the smoke of a burning question. To our minds, made familiar with the thought of humanity, it seems as if a question so simple scarcely deserved such an elaborate answer as Jesus gave to it. But the thought of humanity had not yet possessed the world; indeed, it had only just come to earth, to be spoken by, and incarnate in, Him who was the Son of man. To the Jew the question of the lawyer was a most important one. The word "neighbor" could be spoken in a breath; but unwind that word, and it measures off the whole of our earthly life, it covers all our practical, every-day duties. It ran through the pages of the Law, the ark in which the Golden Rule was hidden; or, like a silent angel, it flashed its sword across life s forbidden paths. But if the Jew could not erase this broad word from the pages of the Law, he could narrow and emasculate its meaning by an interpretation of his own. And this they had done, making this Divine word almost of none effect by their tradition. To the Jewish mind "neighbor" was simply "Jew" spelt large. The only neighborhood they recognized was the narrow neighborhood of Hebrew speech and Hebrew sympathies. The Hebrew mind was isolated as their land, and all who could not frame their Shibboleths were barbarians, Gentiles, whom they were at perfect liberty to spoil, as with anathemas and swords they chased them over their Jordans. Jesus, however, is on the alert; and how wisely He answers! He does not declaim against the narrowness of Hebrew thought; He utters no denunciatory word against their proud and false exclusiveness. He quietly unfolds the word, spreading it out into an exquisite parable, that all coming times may see how beautiful, how Divine the word "neighbor" is.

He said, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, which both stripped him, and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead." The parables of Jesus, though drawn from real life, had no local coloring. They grouped themselves around some well-known fact of nature, or some general custom of social life; and so their spirit was national or cosmopolitan, rather than local. Here, however, Jesus departs from His usual manner, giving to His parable a local habitation. It is the road which led steeply down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and which for centuries has been so infested with robbers or bandits as to earn for itself the darkly ominous name of "the Bloody Way." Possibly that name itself is an outgrowth from the parable; but whether so or not, it is scarcely to be supposed that it had so evil a character in the days of Christ. As Jericho then was a populous city, and intimately connected with Jerusalem in its social and business life, the road would be much frequented. Indeed, the parable indicates as much; for Jesus, whose words were never untrue to nature or to history, represents His three travelers as all journeying singly; while the khan or "inn" shows, in its reflection, a constant stream of travel. Our anonymous traveler, however, does not find it so safe as he had anticipated. Attacked, in one of its dusky ravines, by a band of brigands, they strip him of his clothing, with whatever the girdle-purse might contain, and beating him out of sheer devilry, they leave him by the road-side, unable to walk, unable even to rise, a living-dying man.

"And by chance, a certain priest was going down that way; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side." As in tableaux vivants, Jesus shows us the two ecclesiastics, who come in sight in the happy, coincidental way that Romance so delights in. They had probably just completed their "course" of Temple service, and were now going down to Jericho, which was a favorite residence of the priests, for the somewhat long interval their sacred duties allowed them. They had, therefore, no pressure of business upon them; indeed, the verb would almost imply that the priest was walking leisurely along. But they bring no help to the wounded man. Directly they see him, instead of being drawn to him by the attractions of sympathy, something, either the shock or the fright, acts upon them as a centrifugal force, and sends them describing an arc of a circle around that center of groans and blood. At any rate they "passed by on the other side," leaving behind them neither deed nor word of mercy, but leaving behind them a shadow of themselves which, while time itself lasts, will be vivid, cold, and repelling. It is just possible, however, that they do not deserve all the unmeasured censure which the critics and the centuries have given, and are still likely to give. It is very easy for us to condemn their action as selfish, heartless! But let us put ourselves in their place, alone in the lonely pass, with this proof of an imminent danger sprung suddenly upon us, and it is possible that we ourselves should not have been quite so brave as by our safe firesides we imagine ourselves to be. The fact is it needed something more than sympathy to make them turn aside and befriend the wounded man; it needed physical courage, and that of the highest kind, and this wanting, sympathy itself would not be sufficient. The heart might long to help, even when the feet were hastening away. A sudden inrush of fear, even of vague alarm, will sometimes drive us contrary to the drift of our sympathies, just as our feet are lifted and we ourselves carried onwards by a surging crowd.

Whether this be a correct interpretation of their conduct or not, it certainly harmonizes with the general attitude of Jesus towards the priesthood. The chief priests were always and bitterly hostile, but we have reasonable grounds for supposing that the priests, as a body, looked favoringly upon Jesus. The bolts of terrible "woes" are hurled against Pharisees and scribes, yet Jesus does not condemn the priests in a single word; while in that aftermath of the Pentecost the Temple courts yielded the richest harvests, as "a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." If, then, Jesus now holds up the priesthood to execration, setting these ecclesiastics in the pillory of His parable, that the coming centuries may throw sharp words at them, it is certainly an exceptional mood. The sweet silence has curdled into acrid speech. But even here Jesus does not condemn, except, as it would seem, by implication, the conduct of the priest and Levite. They come into the parable rather as accessories, and Jesus makes use of them as a foil, to throw out into bolder relief the central figure, which is the Samaritan, and so to emphasize His central truth, which is the real answer to the lawyers question, that "neighbor" is too broad, and too human, a word to be cut off and delimited by any boundaries of race.

But in thus casting a mantle of charity around our priest and Levite, we must admit that the character is sometimes true even down to recent days. Ecclesiasticism and religion, alas l are not always synonyms. Revolted Israel sins and sacrifices by turns, and seeking to keep the balance in equal poise, she puts over against her multitude of sins her multitude of sacrifices. Religiousness may be at times but a cloak for moral laxity, and to some rite is more than right. There are those, alas! Today, who wear the livery of the Temple, to whom religion is a routine mechanism of dead things, rather than the commerce of living hearts, who open with hireling hand the Temple gates, who chant with hireling lips how "His mercy endureth forever," and then step down from their sacred Jerusalem, to toss justice and mercy to the winds, as they defraud the widow and oppress the poor.

"But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him." At first sight it would appear as if Jesus had weakened the narrative by a topographical inaccuracy, as if He had gone out of His way to place a Samaritan on the road to Jericho, which was altogether out of the line of Samaritan travel. But it is a deliberate purpose on the part of Jesus, and not a lapsus linguae, that introduces this Samaritan; for this is the gist of the whole parable. The man who had fallen among the robbers was doubtless a Jew; for had it been otherwise, the fact would have been stated. Now there was no question as to whether the word "neighbor" embraced their fellow-countrymen: the question was whether it passed beyond their national bounds, opening up lines of duty across the outlying world. It is therefore almost a necessity that the one who teaches this lesson should be himself an alien, a foreigner, and Jesus chooses the Samaritan as being of a race against which Jewish antipathies were especially strong, but for which He Himself had a special regard and warmest sympathy. Though occupying adjacent territory, the Jews and the Samaritans practically were far apart, antipodal races we might almost call them. Between them lay a wide and deep chasm that trade even could not bridge, and across which the courtesies and sympathies of life never passed. "The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans," said the flippant woman of Samaria, as she voiced a jealousy and hatred which were as mutual as they were deep. But here, in this ideal Samaritan, is a noble exception. Though belonging to a lowly and obscure race, his thoughts are high. The ear of his soul has so caught the rhythm of Divine harmonies that it does not hear longer the little lisping Shibboleths of earthly speech; and while the sympathies of smaller hearts flow like a stream down in their well-defined and accustomed channel, seldom knowing any overflow, save in some rare freshet of impulse and of feeling, the sympathies of the Samaritan moved outward like the currents of the wind, sweeping across all chasms and over all mountain heights of division, bearing their clouds of blessing anywhither as the need required. It makes no difference to him that the fallen man is of an alien race. He is a man, and that is enough; and he is down, and must be raised; he is in need, and must be helped. The priest and Levite thought first and most of themselves, and giving to the man but a brief and scared look, they passed on with a quickened pace. Not so with the Samaritan; he loses all thought of himself, and is perfectly oblivious to the danger he himself may be running. Upon his great soul he feels the pressure of this "must"; it runs along the tightened muscles of his arm, as he checks his steed, lie himself comes down, dismounting, that he may help the man to rise. He opens his flask and puts his wine to the lips, that their groans may cease, or that they may be soothed down into inarticulate speech. The oil he has brought for his own food he pours upon the wounds, and when the man has sufficiently recovered he lifts him upon his own beast and takes him to the inn. Nor is this enough for his great heart, but continuing his journey on the morrow, he first arranges with his host that the man shall be well cared for, giving him two pence, which was the two days wages of a laboring man, at the same time telling him that he must not limit his attention to the sum he pays in advance, but! That if anything more should be needed he would pay the balance on his return. We do not read whether it was needed or not, for the Samaritan, mounting his steed, passes out of our hearing and out of our sight. Not quite out of our hearing, however, for Heaven has caught his gentle, loving words, and hidden them within this parable, that all coming times may listen to their music; nor out of our sight either, for his photograph was caught in the sunlight of the Masters speech; and as we turn over the pages of Inspiration there is no picture more beautiful than that of the nameless Samaritan, whom all the world calls "the Good," the man who knew so much better than his age what humanity and mercy meant.

In the new light the lawyer can answer his own question now, and he does; for when Jesus asks, "Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers?" he replies, with no hesitation, but with a lingering prejudice that does not care to pronounce the, to him, outlandish name, "He that showed mercy on him." The lesson is learned, the lesson of humanity, for the whole parable is but an amplification of the Golden Rule, and Jesus dismisses the subject and the scholar with the personal application, which is but a corollary of the proposition He has demonstrated, "Go thou and do likewise." Go and do to others as you would have them do to you, were the circumstances reversed and your places changed. Read off your duty, not from your own low standpoint merely, but in a binocular vision, as you put yourself in his place; so will you find that the line of duty and the line of beauty are one.

The practical lessons of the parable are easy to trace, as they are of universal application. The first lesson it teaches is the lesson of humanity, the neighborhood and brotherhood of man. It is a convenience, and perhaps a necessity, of human life, that the great mass of humanity should be broken up into fragments, sections, with differing customs, languages, and names. It gives to the world the stimulus of competition and helpful rivalries. But these distinctions are superficial, temporary, and beneath this diversity of speech and thought there is the deeper unity of soul. We emphasize our differences; we pride ourselves upon them; but how little does Heaven make of them! Heaven does not even see them. Our national boundaries may climb up over the Alps, but they cannot touch the sky. Those skies look down and smile on all alike, Divinely impartial in their gifts of beauty and of light. And how little of the provincial, or even national, there was about Jesus! Though He kept Himself almost entirely within the borders of the Holy Land, never going far from His central pivot, which was Jerusalem, and its cross, yet He belonged to the world, as the world belonged to Him. He called Himself the Son of man, at once humanitys flower, and humanitys Son and Savior. And as over the cradle of the Son of man the far East and the far West together leaned, so around His cross was the meeting-place of the races. The three chief languages inscribed upon it proclaimed His royalty, while the cross itself, on which the Sacrifice for humanity was to be offered, was itself the gift of humanity at large, as Asia provided it, and Europe prepared it, and Africa, in the person of the Cyrenian, bore it. In the mind of Jesus, as in the purpose of God, humanity was not a group of fractions, but a unit one and indivisible, made of one blood, and by one Blood redeemed. In the heart of Jesus there was the "enthusiasm of humanity," all-absorbing and complete, and that enthusiasm takes possession of us, a new force generated in our lives, as we approach in spirit the great Ideal Man.

The second lesson of the parable is the lesson of mercy, the beauty of self-sacrifice. It was because the Samaritan forgot himself that all the world has remembered and applauded him. It is because of his stoop of self-renouncing love that his character is so exalted, his memory so dear, and that his very name, which is a title without a name, floats down the ages like a sweet song. "Go and do thou likewise" is the Masters word to us. Discipline your heart that you may see in man everywhere a brother, whose keeper you are. Let fraternity be, not a theory only, but a realized fact, and then a factor of your life. Train your eye to watch for others needs, to read anothers woe. Train your soul to sympathy, and your hand to helpfulness; for in our world there is room enough for both. Bethesdas porches stretch far as our eye can reach, all crowded, too, with the sorrowing, the sick, and the sad-thick enough indeed, but not so close as that an angels foot may not step between them, and not so sad but an angels voice may soothe and cheer. He who lifts anothers load, who soothes anothers smart, who brightens a life that else would be dark, who puts a music within a brothers soul, though it be only for a passing moment, wakes even a sweeter music within his own, for he enters on earth into his Masters joy, the joy of a redeeming, self-sacrificing love.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

10:25 an expert in religious law: See study note on 5:17.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk 10:25. Ἀνέστη, stood up) on purpose that he might question Him.—τί ποιήσας, by doing what) It is just the same as if he were to say: By doing what shall I see the Sun of Righteousness? Nay, it is not by doing but by seeing that He is to be seen: see Luk 10:23. It is to this ποιήσας, doing, that the verb, ποίει, do, in Luk 10:28; Luk 10:37, has reference; just as ζήσῃ, thou shall live, Luk 10:28, refers to ζωὴν, in this verse.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk_10:25 ff. This transaction is different from the later narrative of Mat_22:35 ff. (comp. Mar_12:28 ff.). The fact that the same passages of the law are quoted cannot outweigh the difference of time and place, of the point of the question, of the person quoting the passages, and of the further course of the conference. Comp. Strauss, I. p. 650 f., who, however, also holds Matthew and Mark as distinct, and thus maintains three variations of the tradition upon the one subject, viz. that Jesus laid stress on the two commandments as the foremost of the law; while Köstlin, p. 275, supposes that Luke arbitrarily took the question, Luk_10:25, out of its original place in Matthew and Mark, and himself made it the entire introduction to the parable (Luk_10:30 ff.). Comp. Holtzmann: two independent sections brought by Luke within one frame.

ἐκπειράζων αὐτόν] προσεδόκησεν παγιδεῦσαι τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς τὸ πάντως ἐπιτάξαι τι ἐναντίον τῷ νόμῳ, Euthymius Zigabenus. As to ἐκπειράζ., to try thoroughly, see on 1Co_10:9.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 10:25-37 . The lawyer’s question, and the parable of the good Samaritan . Many critics (even Weiss, Mk.-Evang., p. 400) think that Lk. or his source has got the theme of this section from Mat 22:35 ff., Mar 12:28 ff., and simply enriched it with the parable of the good Samaritan, peculiar to him. Leaving this critical question on one side, it may be remarked that this story seems to be introduced on the principle of contrast, the νομικός representing the σοφοὶ καὶ συνετοὶ , to whom the things of the kingdom are hidden as opposed to the νήπιοι , to whom they are revealed, i.e. , the disciples whom Jesus had just congratulated on their felicity. Similarly in the case of the anecdote of the woman in Simon’s house, Luk 7:36 , vide notes there. J. Weiss remarks that this story and the following one about Martha and Mary form a pair, setting forth in the sense of the Epistle of James (Luk 2:8 ; Luk 2:13-14 ) the two main requirements of Christianity, love to one’s neighbour and faith ( vide in Meyer, ad loc ).

Luk 10:25 . ἀνέστη , stood up; from this expression and the present tense of ἀναγινώσκεις , how readest thou now? it has been conjectured that the scene may have been a synagogue. τί ποιήσας : the νομικός , like the ἄρχων of Luk 18:18 , is professedly in quest of eternal life.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. The Conversation with the Scribe, and the Parable of the Samaritan: Luk 10:25-37.

Jesus slowly continues His journey, stopping at each locality. The most varied scenes follow one another without internal relation, and as circumstances bring them. Weizsäcker, starting from the assumption that this framework is not historical, has set himself to seek a systematic plan, and affects to find throughout an order according to subjects. Thus he would have the parable of the good Samaritan connected with the sending of the seventy by its object, which was originally to prove the right of the evangelists, to whatever nationality they might belong. But where in the parable is there to be found the least trace of correspondence between the work done by the good Samaritan, and the function of the evangelists in the apostolic church? How could the original tendency fail to come out at some point of the description? Holtzmann thinks that in what follows Luke conjoins two distinct accounts—that of the scribe (Luk 10:25-28), which we find in Mar 12:28 and Mat 22:35, and the parable of the good Samaritan taken from the Logia. The connection which our Gospel establishes between the two events (Luk 10:29) is nothing else than a rather unskilful combination on the part of Luke. But there is no proof that the scribe of Luke is the same as that spoken of by Mark and Matthew. It is at Jerusalem, and in the days which precede the passion, that this latter appears; and above all, as Meyer acknowledges, the matter of discussion is entirely different. The scribe of Jerusalem asks Jesus which is the greatest commandment. His is a theological question. That of Galilee, like the rich young man, desires Jesus to point out to him the means of salvation. His is a practical question. Was there but one Rabbin in Israel who could enter into discussion with Jesus on such subjects? It is possible, no doubt, that some external details belonging to one of those scenes got mixed up in tradition with the narrative of the other. But the moral contents form the essential matter, and they are too diverse to admit of being identified. As to the connection which Luk 10:29 establishes between the interview and the parable which follows, it is confirmed by the lesson which flows from the parable (Luk 10:36-37), and about the authenticity of which there is no doubt.

Vers. 25-28. The Work which saves.

In Greece the object of search is truth; in Israel it is salvation. So this same question is found again in the mouth of the rich young man.

The expression stood up shows that Jesus and the persons who surrounded Him were seated. Several critics think this “scenery” (Holtzmann) inconsistent with the idea of a journey, as if we had not to do here with a course of preaching, and as if Jesus must have been, during the weeks this journey lasts, constantly on His feet!

The test to which the scribe wished to subject Jesus bore either on His orthodoxy or on His theological ability. His question rests on the idea of the merit of works. Strictly, on having done what work shall I certainly inherit...? In the term to inherit there is an allusion to the possession of the land of Canaan, which the children of Israel had received as a heritage from the hand of God, and which to the Jewish mind continued to be the type of the Messianic blessedness. The question of Jesus distinguishes between the contents (τί) and the text (πῶς) of the law. It has been thought that, while saying, How readest thou? Jesus pointed to the phylactery attached to the scribe’s dress, and on which passages of the law were written. But at Luk 10:28 we should find thou hast well read, instead of thou hast answered right. And it cannot be proved that those two passages were united on the phylacteries. The first alone appears to have figured on them.

It is not wonderful that the scribe instantly quotes the first part of the summary of the law, taken from Deu 6:5; for the Jews were required to repeat this sentence morning and evening. As to the second, taken from Lev 19:18, we may doubt whether he had the readiness of mind to join it immediately with the first, and so to compose this magnificent resumé of the substance of the law. In Mark 12 and Matthew 22 it is Jesus Himself who unites those two utterances. It is probable, as Bleek thinks, that Jesus guided the scribe by a few questions to formulate this answer. Luk 10:26 has all the appearance of the opening of a catechetical course.

The first part of the summary includes four terms; in Hebrew there are only three—לֵב, H4213, heart; ‡ֶנפֶשׁ, H5883, soul; מְאֹד, H4394, might. The LXX. also have only three, but they translate לֵב, H4213, heart, by διανοία, mind; and this is the word which appears in Luke as the fourth term. In Matthew there are three: διανοία is the last; in Mark, four: σύνεσις takes the place of διανοία, and is put second. Καρδία, the heart, in Mark and Luke is foremost; it is the most general term: it denotes in Scripture the central focus from which all the rays of the moral life go forth; and that in their three principal directions—the powers of feeling, or the affections, ‡ֶנפֶשׁ, H5883, the soul, in the sense of feeling; the active powers, the impulsive aspirations, מְאֹד, H4394, the might, the will; and the intellectual powers, analytical or contemplative, διανοία, mind. The difference between the heart, which resembles the trunk, and the three branches, feeling, will, and understanding, is emphatically marked, in the Alex. variation, by the substitution of the preposition ἐν, in, for ἐκ, with (from), in the three last members. Moral life proceeds from the heart, and manifests itself without, in the three forms of activity indicated. The impulse Godward proceeds from the heart, and is realized in the life through the affection, which feeds on that supreme object; through the will, which consecrates itself actively to the accomplishment of His will; and through the mind, which pursues the track of His thoughts, in all His works.

The second part of the summary is the corollary of the first, and cannot be realized except in connection with it. Nothing but the reigning love of God can so divest the individual of devotion to his own person, that the ego of his neighbour shall rank in his eyes exactly on the same level as his own. The pattern must be loved above all, if the image in others is to appear to us as worthy of esteem and love as in ourselves.

Thus to love is, as Jesus says, the path to life, or rather it is life itself. God has no higher life than that of love. The answer of Jesus is therefore not a simple accommodation to the legal point of view. The work which saves, or salvation, is really loving. The gospel does not differ from the law in its aim; it is distinguished from it only by its indication of means and the communication of strength.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

One of them that professed himself to be learned in the rites and laws of Moses.

Faith doth not take away, but establisheth the doctrine of the Law.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 25. A certain lawyer] See Clarke on Mt 24:35.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(25) And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up.—On the word “lawyer” and its difference from the more generic “scribe,” see Note on Mat_22:35. Here, as there, the “tempting” does not necessarily imply hostile purpose. It was simply a test-question to see if the new Teacher was sound in His view of the ethical obligations of the Law.

The question, though the same as that of the young man in Mat_19:16, is not asked in the same tone. There it was asked by one anxiously seeking to inherit eternal life. Here there is a certain tone of self-conscious superiority, which required a different treatment. As the method of Socrates was to make men conscious of their ignorance of the true meaning of words which they repeated glibly, so here our Lord parries the question by another, makes him repeat his own formulated answer—an answer true and divine itself, identical with that which our Lord gave Himself (Mat_22:37)—and then teaches him how little he had realised its depth and fulness. The commandment was “exceeding broad” above all that the teacher of Israel had imagined.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

25-37. The Parable of the Good Samaritan.

25. a certain lawyer] A teacher of the Mosaic Law—differing little from a scribe, as the man is called in Mar_12:28. The same person may have had both functions—that of preserving and that of expounding the Law.

tempted him] Literally, “putting Him fully to the test” (Luk_4:12); but the purpose does not seem to have been so deliberately hostile as in Luk_11:54.

what shall I do to inherit eternal life?] See Luk_18:18, and the answer there also given. It is interesting to compare it with the answer given by St Paul after the Ascension, Act_16:30-31.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And behold a certain lawyer stood up,.... From his seat, having been hearing Christ preach, very likely, in some synagogue; when and where this was, is not certain. The Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions call this man a Scribe; and a lawyer and a Scribe were the same, as appears from Mat 22:35 compared with Mar 12:28

and tempted him; or tried him whether he understood the law, or whether he would say any thing contrary to it, and see if he could gain any advantage against him, and expose him, and get credit and applause to himself:

saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? the same question as was put by the young ruler in Mar 10:17 for they were both of the same complexion, and upon the same foundation, seeking eternal life by their own works: See Gill on Mat 19:16.

he said unto him; that is, Jesus, as all the Oriental versions express it.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

Ver. 25. See Mat 22:35.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A certain lawyer - One who professed to be well skilled in the laws of Moses, and whose business it was to explain them.

Stood up - Rose - came forward to address him.

Tempted him - Feigned a desire to be instructed, but did it to perplex him, or to lead him, if possible, to contradict some of the maxims of the law.

Inherit eternal life - Be saved. This was the common inquiry among the Jews. “They” had said that man must keep the commandments - the written and oral law.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Eternal life? The law of Moses does not expressly promise eternal life to the observers of it, but confines its promises to temporal blessings during this life. Still we always find that the Jews hoped in another life after this. This opinion is clearly observable in the books of Scripture, written both before and after the captivity, and in Josephus and Philo. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

These four verses would incline one to think that Luke here records the same piece of history which we met with in Mat 22:35-40, and Mar 12:28-34; See Poole on "Mat 22:35" and following verses to Mat 22:40, See Poole on "Mar 12:28" and following verses to Mar 12:34; but neither of those evangelists have the following part of this discourse, which makes me doubtful whether Luke speaks of the same person coming to Christ which the others mention. A lawyer he was, who came to our Saviour upon a design to tempt, that is, to make a trial of him, whether he would deliver any doctrine contrary to the law of Moses. It is plain that he fancied that the eternal life which Christ preached was to be obtained by wing what the law required. Our Saviour agreeth it, that if he did what the law required, according as he himself had given an account of it, he should live. I apprehend no absurdity, to affirm that our Saviour speaks here of living eternally. It is rather absurd to fancy that our Saviour did not answer ad idem, to the thing about which the question was propounded. Neither is salvation impossible because the law in itself could not give life, but because of the weakness of our flesh, so as we cannot fulfil it. So that considering our infirmity, the law serveth to us only as a schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ; and as a mark which we ought to shoot at, though we cannot shoot home; a rule to direct us in our duty, though we cannot perform or fulfil it.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 25-37. The question of the lawyer. The Lord answers with the parable of the good Samaritan.

And, behold, a certain lawyer. It seems (as has already been noticed) probable that in St. Luke"s general account of our Lord"s teaching during the six months which immediately preceded the last Passover, certain events which took place at a short visit which Jesus paid to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Dedication are noticed. This question of the lawyer was probably asked on the occasion of this visit, and the little episode connected with the Bethany family of Lazarus took place at the same period. The "lawyer" is sometimes termed "scribe." There is little difference between these appellations. They were professional teachers and expounders of the Mosaic Law and of the vast complement of traditional sayings which had gathered round it. As the whole life of the people at this period was ruled and guided by the Law, written and traditional, this profession of scribe and lawyer was an important and influential one. Stood up. The Master was evidently teaching in a house or a courtyard of a house. Many were sitting round him. To attract his attention, this lawyer stood up before putting his question to Jesus. This scene, as we have said, took place most likely in or near Jerusalem, not improbably, as the Bethany episode follows, in that suburb of the city, and perhaps in the house of Lazarus. And tempted him; that is to say, tested him and his skill in answering questions out of that Law which then was the rule and guide of daily life in Israel. It is not unlikely that the lawyer hoped to convict the broad and generous Rabbi of some unorthodox statement which would injure his reputation as a Teacher. It was a hard and comprehensive question, this query how eternal life was to be won, and possibly one carefully prepared by the enemies of Jesus.

Vers. 25-37. The parable of the good Samaritan.

The second of the parables peculiar to St. Luke, and one of the loveliest and most suggestive of the matchless pictures of him who "spake as never man spake." Notice

I ITS OCCASION. Our Lord is in Judaea, not, as we infer from what follows, at a great distance from Bethany. He and his disciples, we may suppose, are resting, when a lawyeri.e. a person who made the Law both oral and written his study proposes a question with which, or its likeness, we meet at six different times in the ministry of Jesus. "Tempting him" is the phrase descriptive of the motive for the question; probably the phrase means nothing more than putting the Rabbi to the proof, submitting a question, the answer to which would, in the lawyer"s view, settle his right to be heard as a Teacher from God. Jesus meets his interviewer as one not far from the kingdom of God, yet in a way which proved that, in regard to the issue presented, mere dialectics were of little avail. "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?", The mind is at once referred to the underlying reality of the Law. "What is written therein? thou who dost profess to know, how readest thou? That which thou hast read, that which thou dost find there the love, in its two great aspects, upward and outward that is the eternal life." Ah! this is not quite according to the jurist"s expectation. "He came to catechize Christ that he might know him, but Christ will catechize him, and make him know himself." Seeking to parry the thrust, there comes forth the next question (ver. 29), "Who is my neighbor?" This question is the occasion of the parable. Note, before passing, the clause, "willing to justify himself." The true heart casts itself on the Lord, Lord, save, help! lighten my darkness!" The proud heart wills some self-justification, and, thus willing, produces some excuse, some word by which to turn aside the arrow of conviction.

II THE SCENE AND THE PERSONS OF THE DRAMA.

1. The scene. The wild road, proverbial for deeds of blood, which Jesus and the disciples had just traversed.

2. The persons. The traveler, who had been attacked by the Bedouins, had fallen among them, and been spoiled, mutilated, left half dead. The priest, coming that way by chance, or rather "by a coincidence;" it was natural that he should be there, since Jericho was a station of the priests. When the priest saw the half-dead man, afraid of any defilement, "he passed by on the other side." Next, the Levite. Observe, "he came and looked on him," with the life ebbing away, and he too moved to the other side. And then, finally, the Samaritan.

(1) Look at him in contrast with the other two. Of them the kindness might have been expected. The traveler, we may suppose, is their co-religionist. They, at least, are fresh from the sanctuary from the reading of Moses and the prophets. They hide themselves from their own flesh. The desire is to get home, and they pass by. The one not expected is "he who shows mercy." Is it not often so? Recall the word used concerning the Roman centurion, "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

(2) Who is the Samaritan? Priest and Levite denied him a share in the kingdom. He was a heretic, a descendant of the half-heathen stock, "the men from Babylon and Cuthah, whom the King of Assyria placed in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel." Cursed in the synagogues, the people were taught that to entertain a Samaritan was to lay up judgments for a house. This is the man. If it had been a Jew approaching a Samaritan, the Jew would have left him in his blood. The Samaritan stops, compassionates, binds the wounds, pours in the oil and the wine, puts him on his own beast, tends him, pays for him, provides for him. Brave, tender-hearted Cuthite that he is! Thus the Lord answers the inquiry, "Who is my neighbor?" Neighbourhood is dissociated from the range marked out by co-religionism; it is constituted by the fact of need.

"Where you can be helpful, to whom you can be helpful, there, in him, is the neighbor." There are circles within circles. To love them that love us is not wrong; but, if that is all, what do we more than others? Humanity is neighborhood. Do not ask what the man is. Enough that he is there, and in want. Sad, and worse than sad, when the representative of religion is not also the representative of humanity! After all, who is man"s neighbor? Like the traveler in the parable, man has left the heavenly city, and has fallen among thieves. To man the sinner the love of God in Christ is the neighbor. He has showed mercy; he is our Example: "Go, and do likewise." "Be imitators of God, as dear children; and walk in love as Christ also loved us.

Vers. 25-27. Our love of God.

It is the glory of the gospel that it has made common to the multitude of mankind that which was once dimly seen by a few solitary men; that it has put into the mouth of the little child that which once was stammeringly spoken by a few philosophers; that the truths which once were only found upon the summit by a few hardy climbers are the fruits which are now gathered by thousands as they walk the King"s highway, Here is one of these the duty, binding on us all, of loving God.

1. If to those Greeks who came to see Jesus, (Joh_12:20) he had said that the greatest obligation, or, as they would have put it, the most fitting thing, was for man to love God, they would have been amazed. They would have been prepared to render services and sacrifices to their deities, but to love God with all the heart was beyond their most active imagination.

2. If Christ had uttered this truth to the Roman procurator before whom he appeared, he would have been equally astonished.

3. This truth was far in advance of the Jew, as well as of the Greek and the Roman. It is true that it was to be found in his Law. (see Deu_6:4, 5 10:12 30:20) But it was not in his mind, in his heart, in his cherished convictions, in his life. He "tithed mint and rue and all manner of herbs, but passed over... the love of God". (Luk_11:42) Even the worthies of Old Testament times were men who were more constantly and profoundly affected by the sentiment of holy fear than fervent love. "I fear God," rather than "I love God," was the summary of their religious character. How do we account for this?

I THE JEW HAD REVERENCE ENOUGH FOR GOD TO BE ABLE TO LOVE HIM. The Roman, the Greek, had not. We must respect those whom we love, and the beings they worshipped could not be respected; they were unworthy of regard. Not so he whom the Jew worshipped. He was the Just, the Righteous, the Faithful, the Holy One. The Jew honored, he revered, God enough to be able to love him.

II HE HAD A VERY CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GRACE AND MERCY OF GOD. For we find in Old Testament Scripture passages affirming the kindness, the pity, the patience, the mercy, of God, well worthy to be placed by the side of any we find in the New. (Exo_34:6, 7 Psa_103:8-14 Psa_145:8, 9 Mic_7:18, etc.) It was surely possible for him to let reverence ascend to love.

III TO SOME EXTENT THE JEW DID LOVE GOD. Abraham was "his friend." David could exclaim, "Oh, love the Lord, all ye his saints!" "I love the Lord, because," etc. Yet it was not love but fear that was the central, commanding, regulating element of his inner life. This need not surprise us when we consider

IV THE JEW DID NOT KNOW GOD AS REVEALED IN JESUS CHRIST.

1. He had not heard Jesus speaking of the Divine Father hating sin but pitying and yearning over the sinner, determining at his own great cost to redeem him, as we have done.

2. He had not witnessed the Savior"s life as we have followed it; had no seen the Father"s character and spirit reflected in that of the Son, with his tender affection, his inexhaustible patience, his matchless condescension, his generous forgiveness.

3. He did not know the story and the meaning of his death; had not had, like us, a vision of the love of God paying that great price for our redemption, bearing that burden on our behalf, pouring itself out in pain and shame and sorrow for our sake. It is at Calvary, far more than elsewhere, that we learn the blessed secret of the love of God his love for us, our love for him. We learn:

(1) That to love God is the highest heritage of our manhood. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he;" as we think, we are; a man is great or small, noble or ignoble, according as he thinks and feels; the height of our love is the stature of our soul, is the measure of ourselves. God invites us to love him, the Highest One, and by so doing he immeasurably enriches and ennobles us. If he filled our house with gold he would only give us something pleasant to have; but in inviting us to love him he confers on us that which is blessed and noble to be.

(2) That not to have loved God is the most condemning fact of our lives. Do we say," All these prohibitions have we kept from our youth up: what commandment have we broken?" We reply, "The first and great commandment. Have you loved God with all your heart?" We may well bow our head in shame as we realize the poor and pitiful response we have made to the Fatherly love of God.

(3) That the fact that we can at once return to God, in filial devotion, is the best of all glad tidings. Our return to him begins in humility, goes on in faith, is completed and perfected in love.

(4) That the fact that we shall continue to love God is the brightest of all good prospects. Other things will fail us sooner or later, but "the love of God which is in Jesus Christ" in our hearts will take us everywhere, will be our refuge and defense in all emergencies, will sanctify our joy and our prosperity, will be with us at the last scenes, will cross the river with us and will be with us and in us on the other side, will be our passport to and our qualification for the brightest and broadest spheres in the heavenly kingdom. C.

Vers. 25-42. The good Samaritan, and the good part.

From the success of the seventy we now pass to the temptation of the Master. The tempter is a lawyer, one who, therefore, professed special acquaintance with the letter and spirit of the Divine Law. He thinks he may find accusation against Jesus by inquiring from him the way of life. His question implies the belief on the lawyer"s part that he can win his own way to heaven. But Jesus, when he asks, "Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" puts it to himself to answer, eliciting from the lawyer the reply, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," etc. Jesus then drives home the arrow of conviction by saying, "Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." The lawyer, if he will only analyze his life fairly, must admit that he has failed to fulfill the Law. This suggests

I THE EXPERIENCE OF CHRIST IN FULFILLING THE LAW. When our Lord said to "the lawyer, "This do, and thou shalt live," he was giving forth his own experience. He was himself loving God with all his heart, and all his soul, and all his strength, and all his mind; he was also loving his neighbor as himself; and he found and felt that this was life, and life everlasting too. Doubtless he might have to die, but beyond death there was the compensation of resurrection. He was entitled to life on the ground of law, since he had kept it in every particular. What the lawyer imagined he could do, Jesus had actually done. He had acquired the right, not on his own behalf merely, but also on behalf of all who trust in him, to the life everlasting. The obedience of Jesus to Law was the perfect obedience required.

II THE ATTEMPT AT SELF-JUSTIFICATION ON THE LAWYER"S PART. He seems to have thought that his attitude to God was unimpeachable; but he was not so clear about having fulfilled his duty by his neighbor. Hence he asked Jesus to define "neighborhood." The Jew had the notion that, because he belonged to the chosen people, he had to show neighbourliness only to those of his own nation; all the rest were "dogs." And this lawyer had been as proud and as contemptuous as any of his tribe. Hence he wants from Jesus some definition of who his neighbor is, that he may estimate his own duty and the patriotism of Christ. The excuses in which selfish men indulge are marvellous. They are ready on any pretext to defend their selfishness.

III JESUS DEFINES "NEIGHBOURHOOD" BY THE PRECIOUS PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN, And here we have four characters brought before us. Let us look at them in order.

1. The half-murdered traveler. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho has been from time immemorial infested by robbers. It is so still. This poor traveler has met the cruel fate of many before and since Christ"s time. The highwaymen have robbed him of all he had, and almost of his life too. It is a case of unmistakable need. There is no possibility of deception in the circumstances.

2. The heartless priest. Coming down from the holy services at the temple, he so far forgets himself as to ignore the half-murdered man"s wants, and pass by on the other side. The aristocratism of office has steeled his heart against those charitable impulses which the case should have evoked.

3. The heartless Levite. The sole difference between these two officials was that the Levite seems to have crossed the road, to have looked upon him, and then, judging it a hopeless case, or one in which he could render no help, passed by, like the priest, on the other side.

4. The good Samaritan. This man might have said, "This poor fellow is one of those Jews, who wilt have no dealings with us Samaritans; he has often, most likely, called us dogs; he deserves no care." But instead of looking for excuses for neglecting the sufferer, he gives his heart free play, and owns the poor man as a brother in distress. The result is he dismounts, and pours into his wounds oil and wine the best remedies, the one to keep down inflammation, and the other to heal; and, having carefully bound up his wounds, he sets him on his own beast and brings him to the nearest inn and has him comfortably lodged. The next day he pays the bill, and becomes the innkeeper"s security for anything more the patient may require until he is sound and well. Here is neighbourliness. Our neighbor is whoever is laid in our path by Providence and really needs our help. If we look carefully into the case, as the Samaritan here did, and conclude that it is a case of real need, then we should recognize in the needy one our neighbor, and have mercy on him. As Jesus dismisses the lawyer with this ideal neighbourliness before him, the self-justification must have passed completely away. Now, we have here the cosmopolitan spirit which Christianity fosters, and which is above and beyond the fellow-citizenship and patriotism which alone earlier civilizations fostered. Christ taught his people to be "citizens of the world," and to recognize in every needy human being a" man and a brother." It was in this spirit our Lord himself lived, and so he was able to inculcate it powerfully upon his people.

IV THE GOOD PART AS DEFINED AT BETHANY. (Vers. 35-42) And here we have to notice the two types of character presented to the Lord.

1. Martha, to whom life is a perpetual worry and weariness. She was a Christian in the real sense, for she loved her Lord; but she was a Christian who had not escaped from the fuss and weariness which make up the life of so many. Besides, all her bustle was really under a false impression, that the greatest compliment she could pay her Master was to give him a good physical feast. She never fancied that a good listener like Mary complimented the Master more than any repast could. Hence Martha"s fret and weariness.

2. Mary, to whom life is a calm fulfillment of her Masters will. The good part Mary chose was that of a scholar at Christ"s feet, whose word is deemed Mary"s law. This one idea made life simple and supremely blessed. Let us make sure of it, and the fret and worry of life shall cease, and an orderly and blessed procession of duties will make us experience a foretaste of heaven. The following poem expresses as beautifully as possible the thought of this passage; it is entitled "Cumbered about much Serving:"Christ never asks of us such busy labor As leaves no time for resting at his feet; The waiting attitude of expectation He ofttimes counts a service most complete. "He sometimes wants our ear our rapt attention, That he some sweetest secret may impart; "Tis always in the time of deepest silence That heart finds deepest fellowship with heart. "We sometimes wonder why our Lord doth place us Within a sphere so narrow, so obscure, That nothing we call work can find an entrance There"s only room to suffer to endure! "Well. God loves patience! Souls that dwell in stillness, Doing the little things, or resting quite, May just as perfectly fulfill their mission, Be just as useful in the Father"s sight, "As they who grapple with some giant evil, Clearing a path that every eye may see! Our Savior cares for cheerful acquiescence Rather than for a busy ministry. "And yet he does love service, where "tis given By grateful love that clothes itself in deed; But work that"s done beneath the scourge of duty, Be sure to such he gives but little heed. "Then seek to please him, whatsoe"er he bids thee! Whether to do to suffer to lie still! "Twill matter little by what path he led us, If in it all we sought to do his will. (From Randolph"s "At the Beautiful Gate.") R.M.E.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Matt. xxii, 35; Mark xii, 28.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The question of the lawyer:

v. 25. And, behold, a certain lawyer stood, up and tempted Him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

v. 26. He said, unto him, What is written in the Law? How readest thou?

v. 27. And he, answering, said, Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.

v. 28. And He said unto him, Thou hast answered right; this do, and thou shalt live.

A lawyer, a man versed in the Law and the traditions of the Jews, one of those that belonged to the wise and prudent of the world, stood up before or against Jesus, as His opponent. His purpose was deliberately to tempt Jesus, to lead Him astray. He tried this with the question: Master, what shall, what must I do to inherit eternal life? His question is strangely put, for it can hardly be said that the heirs do anything to get the inheritance. He would have expressed his meaning more truthfully if he had said: What must I do to earn eternal life? Jesus, according to a disconcerting habit He had, answered with a counter-question. He did not give the results of any philosophy, but referred the questioner to the written Scripture. The first question with its general trend is supplemented by the second, which searches the mind of the man before Him. Note: Philosophy of the Christian religion is a dangerous term, and stands for a dangerous science. The Lord does not want us to philosophize and to think out our own religious scheme, but to follow the Word. The man was indeed well versed in the Old Testament, for he gave the summary of the Moral Law correctly, according to Deu 6:5; Lev 19:18. To love God the Lord with all the heart and with all the soul and with all the strength and with all the mind and understanding, that is the summary of the first table. And to love one’s neighbor as one’s self is the summary of the second table. "To love God with all the heart, to love God above all creatures, that is: although many creatures are pleasant that they please me and I love them, that I yet, for the sake of God, when God, my Lord, wants it, despise and give them all up. To love God with all the soul is that thy whole life be directed toward Him and thou mayest say, if the love of creatures or any persecution wants to overwhelm thee: All this I gladly give up rather than leave my God; they may throw me out, they may strangle me or drown me, let anything happen to me that God wills, all this I will gladly endure rather than leave Thee. Lord, to Thee I will cling more firmly than to all creatures, also to all that does not belong to Thee; all that I am and have I will give up, but Thee I shall not leave. To love God with all the strength is to bring all members into action, so that one will risk all that he can with his physical body rather than do what is opposed to God. To love God with all the mind is to accept nothing which does not please God; by this he means the self-conceit which a person has; but rather that the mind be centered in God and upon all things that please God. " Jesus commended the answer of the lawyer as being correct. But He added a weighty word: This do, and thou shalt live. Here lay the real difficulty, for knowing and doing are two very different things. If that were possible, indeed, to keep the Law of God perfectly, then the person that could perform this wonderful feat would thereby earn eternal life. A perfect fulfillment of the Law has, as its reward of merit, the blessedness of heaven. But there is the rub. By the deeds of the Law is no man justified before God, because there is no man on earth that doeth good and sinneth not. "That is preaching the Law properly and giving a good, strong lesson, yea, catching him in his own words and in the right place, where He can show him what he still lacks."

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Here we have a lawyer, that is, an interpreter and expounder of the law of Moses, tempting our Saviour; that is, making a trial of him, whether he would deliver any doctrine contrary to the law of Moses; he propounds therefore a question, What he should do to inherit eternal life?

Where note, he believed the certainty of a future state.

1. He professes his desire of an eternal happiness in that state.

2. He declares his readiness to do something in order to the obtaining of that happiness.

Hence learn, that all religion, both natural and revealed, teaches men that good works are necessary to salvation, or that something must be done by them who desire to enter into life: What shall I do to inherit eternal life? It is not talking well, and professing well, but doing well, that entitles us to heaven and eternal salvation; and this the very light of nature teaches.

Observe, 2. Our Saviour’s answer: What is written in the law? How readest thou? Intimating to us, that the word and law of God is the rule and measure of our duty; our guide to direct us in the way to eternal life.

The man replies, that the law of God requires that we love God with all our heart, soul, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves.

Where note, 1. That the fervor of all our affections, and particularly the supremacey of our love, is required by God as his right and due. Love must pass through and possess all the powers and faculties of our souls. The mind must meditate upon God, the will must choose and embrace him, the affections must take complacency and delight in him, the measure of loving God is to love him without measure.

Note, 2. That the best evidence of our sincere love to God is, the unfeigned love of our neighbor: love to man is both a fruit and testimony of our love to God. For he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

Note, 3. That as it is every man’s duty to love himself, so is he to love his neighbor as himself; not as he does love himself, but as he ought to love himself; not with the same measure and degree of love, but in the same manner and kind of love that we love ourselves.

Do we love ourselves freely and readily, sincerely and unfeignedly, tenderly and compassionately, constantly and perseveringly? So should we love our neighbor also. Though we are not required to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves, yet are we commanded to love him like we love ourselves.

Observe lastly, Our Lord’s reply: Thou hast answered right. This do, and thou shalt live.

Where note, that Christ intimates to him, that the law considered in itself could give life, but then a person must keep it perfectly and exactly, without the least deficiency; which is impossible to man in his fallen state; for the law is not weak to us, but we are weak to that. Rom 13:3 The law becomes weak through the weakness of our flesh. Such as seek salvation by the works of the law, must keep the law perfectly and exactly; which being impossible in our fallen estate, Christ has obtained of his Father, that for his sake our sincere, though imperfect obedience, shall find acceptance with God and be available to our salvation.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [LXXXIV. The Good Samaritan].

LXXXIV. PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN. (Probably Judæa.) cLUKE X. 25-37.

c25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? [For the term lawyer see Deu_6:4, Deu_6:5, Lev_19:18. Having made himself conspicuous by standing up, the lawyer had to give the best answer he knew or sully his own reputation for knowledge. He therefore gives the two great laws which comprise all other laws.] 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. [The lawyer had asked his question simply as a test. With him the law was simply matter for speculation and theory, and the word "do" was very startling. It showed the difference between his and the Master's views of the law. He had hoped by a question to expose Jesus as one who set aside the law, but [475] Jesus had exposed the lawyer as one who merely theorized about the law, and himself as one who advocated the doing of the law.] 29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? [He could justify his conduct if permitted to define the word "neighbor." He asked his question, therefore, in the expectation of securing such a definition of the word as would enable him to maintain his public standing and quiet his conscience.] 30 Jesus made answer and said, A certain man [evidently a Jew, for otherwise the nationality would have been specified] was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. [The road from Jerusalem to Jericho is eighteen miles long, and descends about 3,500 feet. About two miles from Jerusalem it passes through the village of Bethany, and for the rest of the eighteen miles it passes through desolate mountain ravines without any habitation save the inn, the ruins of which are still seen about half way to Jericho. This district from that time till the present has been noted for robberies, and Jerome tells that the road was called the "bloody way."] 31 And by chance a certain priest was going down that way [a very natural thing for a priest to do, for there was a very large priestly settlement at Jericho]: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. [He did this although the law commanded mercy and help to a neighbor-- Exo_23:4, Deu_22:1-4.] 32 And in like manner a Levite also [A temple minister. The tribe of Levi had been set apart by God for his service], when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. [In the priest and Levite the lawyer saw the picture of his own life, for he saw in them those who knew the law, but did not practice it. There may have been many excuses for this neglect of the wounded man: danger, hate, dread of defilement, expense, but Jesus does not consider any of them worth mentioning.] 33 But a certain Samaritan [the hereditary enemy of the Jew-- Joh_4:9], as he journeyed, came [476] where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 34 and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on i them oil and wine [the ordinary remedies for wounds-- Isa_1:6]; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow he took out two shillings [the shilling or denarius was worth about seventeen cents, but it represented the price of a day's labor], and gave them to the host [the inn-keeper], and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee. [The compassion of the Samaritan bore full fruitage. However heterodox he was, he was after all a worshiper of Jehovah and more orthodox at heart than either the priest or the Levite. Though it was not customary for an inn-keeper to furnish food either for man or beast, he could do so if he chose out of his own stores. The scant cash left by the Samaritan indicates a poverty which made his charity the more praiseworthy. His eye and heart and hand and foot and purse were all subservient to the law of God.] 36 Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers? [Instead of answering didactically, "Everybody is your neighbor," Jesus had incarnated the law of neighborliness in the good Samaritan, and had made it so beautiful that the lawyer could not but commend it even when found in a representative of this apostate race. He showed, too, that the law was not for causistry but for practice.] 37 And he said, He that showed mercy on him. [The lawyer avoided the name Samaritan so distasteful to his lips. Jesus gave countenance to no such racial prejudice, even though the Samaritans had rejected him but a few weeks before this-- Luk_9:53.] Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. [All the laws and teachings of God are to be generously interpreted ( Mat_5:43, Mat_5:44) and are to be embodied in the life-- Mat_7:24-27.] [477]

[FFG 475-477]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

25–29. The parable of the Good Samaritan, as well as that of the Prodigal Son and Lazarus and Dives, are given only by Luke. A certain lawyer. One versed in the Jewish law, a theologian, a scribe, and possibly a rabbi. Tempted him. Put him to trial. What shall I do to inherit eternal life? He probably had noted that Jesus was calling sinners to repentance, but he fancied that he belonged to another class, and hence asks, What shall I do?

What is written? The Lord calls on the lawyer to state his own understanding of the law.

Thou shalt love the Lord. The lawyer answered well and gave the sum of the whole law. See Deut. 6:4, 5 and Lev. 19:18.

This do and thou shalt live. He who fulfills the great law of love is born again. There is no inconsistency. We repent and live, believe and live, obey and live, and love and live. For these are all co-related. One cannot exist without the others. We cannot love God unless we believe and repent. “He that loves me will keep my words” (John 14:23).

Willing to justify himself. Evidently conscious that he did not keep the law of love. Who is my neighbour? The Lord answers by a parable.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus replies with a story to a Jewish teacher who wants to test Jesus. (See: Parables)

Behold, a certain teacher

This alerts us to a new event and a new person in the story. (See: Introduction of a New Event and Introduction of New and Old Participants)

test him

"challenge Jesus"

What is written in the law? How do you read it?

Jesus is not seeking information. He uses these questions to test the Jewish teacher's knowledge. AT: "Tell me what Moses wrote in the law and what you think it means." (See: Rhetorical Question)

What is written in the law?

This can be asked in active form. AT: "What did Moses write in the law?" (See: Active or Passive)

How do you read it?

"What have you read in it?" or "What do you understand it to say?"

You will love ... neighbor as yourself

The man is quoting what Moses wrote in the law.

with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind

Here "heart" and "soul" are metonyms for a person's inner being. These four phrases are used together to mean "completely" or "earnestly." (See: Metonymy and Doublet)

your neighbor as yourself

This simile can be stated more clearly. AT: "love your neighbor as much as you love yourself" (See: Simile)

translationWords

teacher

law

test

inherit

eternity

life

written

love

lord

heart

soul

strength

mind

neighbor

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

25–37. THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN

25. νομικός τις. A teacher of the Mosaic Law—differing little from a scribe, as the man is called in Mar 12:28. The same person may have had both functions—that of preserving and that of expounding the Law.

ἐκπειράζων αὐτόν. Literally, “putting Him fully to the test” (Luk 4:12); but the purpose does not seem to have been so deliberately hostile as in Luk 11:54.

τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; See Luk 18:18, and the answer there also given. It is interesting to compare it with the answer given by St Paul after the Ascension, Act 16:30-31. Had the ‘lawyer’ known what ‘eternal life’ is (Joh 3:36; Joh 5:24; Joh 6:47; John 17:37, &c.) he would have framed his question very differently.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

25-37.] Question of a lawyer: the parable of the good Samaritan. Peculiar to Luke. As Stier remarks (iii. 101, edn. 2), it is well that Luke has related the other incident respecting an enquiry of the same kind, for the critics would be sure to have maintained that this incident was another report of Mat 19:16. Such clear cases as this should certainly teach us caution, where no such proof is given of the independence of different narratives: and should shew us that both questions addressed to our Lord, and answers from Him, were, as matter of fact, repeated.

See however a case to which this remark does not apply, ch. 9:57 ff.

25.] No immediate sequence from ver. 24 is implied.

νομικός, a kind of scribe, = νομοδιδάσκαλος, ch. 5:17—whose especial office it was to teach the law, see Tit 3:13; = εἷς τῶν γραμματέων, Mar 12:28.

There is no reason to suppose that the lawyer had any hostile intention towards Jesus,—rather perhaps a self-righteous spirit (see ver. 29), which wanted to see what this Teacher could inform him, who knew so much already. Thus it was a tempting or trying of Jesus, though not to entangle Him: for whatever had been the answer, this could hardly have followed.

τί ποιήσας] He doubtless expects to hear of some great deed; but our Lord refers him back to the Law of which he was a teacher.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

25-29. The Lawyer’s Questions. This incident forms the introduction to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Comp. 12:13-15, 14:15, 15:1-3. The identification of this lawyer with the one who asked, “Which is the great commandment in the law?” (Mar 12:28-32; Mat 22:35-40) is precarious, but perhaps ought not to be set aside as impossible. There the question is theological and speculative; here it is practical. Place, introduction, and issue are quite different; and the quotation from the Law which is common to the narratives is here uttered by the lawyer, there by Christ. An identification with the man who had great possessions, and who asked the very same question as the lawyer asks here, although in a very different spirit (Mar 10:17-22; Mat 19:16-22), is impossible, because Lk. himself records that in full (18:18-23). The opening words of this narrative point to an Aramaic source.

25. νομικός τις ἀνέστη ἐκπειράζων αὐτον. See on 7:30. Excepting Mat 22:35, which is possibly parallel to this, νομικός is used by no other Evangelist. The ἀνέστη implies a situation in which the company were seated. Neither this question nor the one respecting the great commandment was calculated to place Jesus in a difficulty, but rather to test His ability as a teacher: the ἐκπειράζων (see small print on 4:12) does not imply a sinister attempt to entrap Him. This use of τις (vv. 30, 31, 33, 38) is freq. in Lk.

τί ποιήσας. The tense implies that by the performance of some one thing eternal life can be secured. What heroic act must be performed, or what great sacrifice made? The form of question involves an erroneous view of eternal life and its relation to this life. Contrast the Philippian gaoler (Act 16:30).

ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω. The verb is freq. in LXX of the occupation of Canaan by the Israelites (Deu 4:22, Deu 4:26, Deu 4:6:1, etc.), and thence is transferred to the perfect possession to be enjoyed in the Kingdom of the Messiah (Ps. 24:13, 36:9, 11, 22, 29; Isa 60:21); both uses being based upon the original promise to Abraham. See Wsctt. Hebrews, pp. 167-169. Lk. like Jn., never uses αἰώνιος of anything but eternal beatitude (16:9, 18:18, 30). The notion of endlessness, although not necessarily expressed, is probably implied in the word. See Wsctt. Epp. of St. John, pp. 204-208; App. E, Gosp. of S. John in Camb. Grk. Test.; and the literature quoted in Zoeckler, Handb. d. Theol. Wissft. 33. pp. 199-201. With the whole expression comp. οἱ δὲ ὅσιοι κυρίου κληρονομήσουσι ζωὴν ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ (Ps. Sol. 14:7), and ὅσιοι κυρίου κληρονομήσαιεν ἐπαγγελίας κυρίου (12:8).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Lawyer. See on ch. Luk 7:30.

Tempted. See on temptation, Mt 6:13.

To inherit. See on inheritance, 1Pe 1:4.

Eternal [αιωνιον] . The word will be fully discussed in the second volume.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.