Luke 10:25 - 37
25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. Why did Jesus indicate to the man that following the Law would save Him?
2. What does it mean to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind?
3. Why did the man feel the need to justify himself?
4. Why did Jesus make a Samaritan a good guy in the story?
5. How does Jesus' parable answer the man's question?
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/11/mark-1228-37-28-one-of-teachers-of-law.html says:
ReplyDeleteWithout that love for God, the external observance of God's Commandments becomes worthless legalism.
Obedience does not lead to love, but love DOES lead to obedience.
----
"Do Christians have to obey the Old Testament law?"
The key to understanding the relationship between the Christian and the Law is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to reveal to the Israelites how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments, for example). Some of the laws were to show the Israelites how to worship God and atone for sin (the sacrificial system). Some of the laws were intended to make the Israelites distinct from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law is binding on Christians today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23–25; Ephesians 2:15).
In place of the Old Testament law, Christians are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). Now, this does not mean the Old Testament law is irrelevant today. Many of the commands in the Old Testament law fall into the categories of “loving God” and “loving your neighbor.” The Old Testament law can be a good guidepost for knowing how to love God and knowing what goes into loving your neighbor. At the same time, to say that the Old Testament law applies to Christians today is incorrect. The Old Testament law is a unit (James 2:10). Either all of it applies, or none of it applies. If Christ fulfilled some of it, such as the sacrificial system, He fulfilled all of it.
“This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). The Ten Commandments were essentially a summary of the entire Old Testament law. Nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we are loving God, we will not be worshipping false gods or bowing down before idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we will not be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them. The purpose of the Old Testament law is to convict people of our inability to keep the law and point us to our need for Jesus Christ as Savior (Romans 7:7-9; Galatians 3:24). The Old Testament law was never intended by God to be the universal law for all people for all of time. We are to love God and love our neighbors. If we obey those two commands faithfully, we will be upholding all that God requires of us.
https://hartmangroupdevotions.blogspot.com/2016/04/matthew-2234-40-34-hearing-that-jesus.html continued:
ReplyDelete-----
My 2 cents:
There is a lot of confusion among Christians on whether the Old Testament Law applies to us.
I believe the Bible says that it does not, and that the Old Testament Law died with and was fulfilled by Jesus.
However, we have a new Law - that is the Law of Christ. Many of the Old Testament laws have similarities with the Law of Christ. Also, the O.T. Law gives us clues to what Christ's laws are.
If we don't get this straight in our minds, we get into trouble. If we hold on to the Old Testament laws, we either tend to go straight back to legalism, or we start justifying a lot of our actions.
If we are still under the O.T. law, why are we not keeping kosher? If we aren't, why are we keeping the Sabbath? See the problem?
We are under the Law of Christ. We don't have to follow written rules anymore, but the Holy Spirit. The written rules do help remind us what the Holy Spirit is teaching us - Love God and love each other, among a whole bunch of other "rules".
For example, Christ's Law might be that I need to take Sunday off to spend with friends and family. Or, Christ's Law may be that I need to have a daily quiet time. Any intersection with Old Testament Law is somewhat coincidental (although I'm sure there is some overlap).
We are free from the O.T. Law. It has died because it's weak and useless.
Now why do people want to hold on to it?
P.S. There is a Lot of articles on the internet that thoroughly disagree with me.
-----
I would like to mention, since it was singled out by you, that the principle of Sabbath--work 6 days, rest one--is based in creation, not just the later commandments. It was codified for the Israelites to be on the seventh day, sundown to sundown, that they could truly celebrate it and be marked by it as a people. Observing that principle is a way to love God just as much as not committing adultery or taking His name lightly.
Deletehttps://hartmangroupdevotions.blogspot.com/2016/04/matthew-2234-40-34-hearing-that-jesus.html continued:
ReplyDeleteThe story of the scribe asking about the first commandment is found in all three Synoptics, but with significant differences.
• In Matthew 22:34-40 and Luke 10:25-28, the scribe comes as an adversary to test Jesus, whereas Mark presents the scribe much more favorably.
• In Luke, Jesus does not answer the scribe’s question directly, but asks, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” (Luke 10:26). The scribe gives the answer, essentially repeating Jesus’ words as found in Mark 12:30-31, but omitting the Shema, “Hear, Israel, the Lord is one” (12:29).
• In Luke, the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) follows immediately after the encounter with the scribe, expanding greatly the concept of neighbor.
The Sadducees have tried to stump Jesus with a question about the resurrection, in which they do not believe (12:18-27). There is a strong possibility that this scribe is a Pharisee, and Pharisees do believe in the resurrection. If the scribe is a Pharisee, he must be pleased to see Jesus get the best of the Sadducees on that question.
Jewish law includes 613 commandments (365 prohibitions and 248 positive commandments). Scribes divide these into “light” and “heavy” commandments, the light commandments being less important and the heavy ones more important. Scribes examine each law in minute detail, and devise complex rules to help people understand how to obey each law in every conceivable situation.
https://hartmangroupdevotions.blogspot.com/2016/04/matthew-2234-40-34-hearing-that-jesus.html continued:
ReplyDeleteA number of prophets and rabbis had tried to summarize the law:
• “What does Yahweh require of you, but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8).
• “What you hate for yourself, do not to your neighbor. This is the whole law, the rest is commentary” (Hillel).
• “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Akiba).
“The greatest is, ‘Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one'” (v. 29). Matthew 22:37 and Luke 10:27 do not include this portion of this verse, but it is important. The fact that the Lord is one adds weight to the obligation to love the Lord.
The Jews refer to these words as the “Shema” (pronounced shi-MAH), which means, “to hear” and comes from Deuteronomy 6:4-5. The Shema is regularly recited in synagogue worship and daily prayers, and is one of the scriptures kept in phylacteries (a small container worn on one’s person containing scriptures) and mezuzahs (a similar container for the doorpost of one’s house) as a constant reminder.
In reciting the Shema, Jesus goes to the Torah—to the core of Jewish faith and practice. Jesus uses it to introduce the commandment to love God. The Shema is not itself a commandment, but instead establishes the foundation for the commandment to love God.
To love God with heart, soul, mind and strength is to love God with all that we are. Jewish people think of the heart (kardia) as the center of thought as well as feelings. They think of the soul (psyche) as that which gives a person life or breath. It is possible that Mark adds mind (dianoias) for the sake of his Greek readers, who might not associate the heart with thinking. Strength (ischuos) could refer to anything that gives us power—whether physical strength, beauty, wealth, position, reputation, or talent.
As envisioned in Leviticus, the neighbor is a fellow Jew. However, in Luke’s Gospel, the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) follows immediately after and expands upon Luke’s account of the greatest commandment (Luke 10:25-28). That parable broadens our understanding of neighbor to include those who are far outside our usual circle of friends and associates. Elsewhere, Jesus calls us to love even our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27-35).
But love for neighbor quickly degenerates into humanism or sentimentalism unless grounded in love for God. Love of God is the first commandment, not the second. Love of God is the foundation upon which all the other commandments depend. “Get the center right and the circumference will come right. Love of God will result in love of neighbor” (Luccock, 846).
Since agape love is action-oriented rather than feeling-oriented, the neighbor-lover will look for practical ways to demonstrate that love.
https://hartmangroupdevotions.blogspot.com/2016/04/matthew-2234-40-34-hearing-that-jesus.html continued:
ReplyDelete1. This man is a scribe. Who are the scribes?
The scribes are a group who enjoyed authority in Israel. Essentially, they are a set of scholars. Specifically, they are legal scholars, experts in the tradition of Jewish jurisprudence. They are something like a professional guild, something like our lawyers, and something like our academics. Scribes were not the exclusive property of Israel- other ancient peoples had them for the transmission of religious, legal, and historical documents. If there had been no copyists or teachers, then ancient texts would have been lost. Professional, well-trained, scribes were essential.
Jewish scribes, however, were particularly concerned with the scriptures. And those who did the work on the transmission of the text of the law and the prophets and other writings, quickly became authorities when it came to questions about what the texts said. If you had a legal question, then you’d go and ask a scribe to solve it for you. The scribe would be able to quote to you all the relevant parts of the law, and then what a dozen rabbis have said about the matter, and what other rabbis have said about the comments of the first rabbis, ad infinitum.
The scribes weren’t a sect, so much as a profession. Being a scribe didn’t mean that you couldn’t also be a Sadducee, or a Pharisee, or an Essene, or anything else. Each of those groups would probably have had their own “in-house” scribes. But the Scribes as a group in Jesus’ day were dominated by Pharisees. Both Mark and Luke talk about “Scribes of the Pharisees” (Mark 2:16, Acts 23:9), and all the Gospel writers (and Jesus himself) feel it appropriate to talk of “scribes and Pharisees”, as though the two groups go together. There is a natural fit between the scribal profession, and the Pharisaic concern for the law. And it is unsurprising to find that the scribes (by-and-large) come down in support of the Pharisees.
It is also relevant to note that the scribes were supported by rich patrons. They were full-time students and teachers of the law, not holding down other jobs to earn money. They were financially dependent on the wealthy, which might have bearing on their allegiance to the status-quo.
https://hartmangroupdevotions.blogspot.com/2016/04/matthew-2234-40-34-hearing-that-jesus.html continued:
ReplyDelete2. Others have asked Jesus questions to trap him. Why does this man ask Jesus a question?
Mark and Matthew are not contradicting one another, but it is nevertheless very difficult to arrive at a settled view on whether or not this scribe is hostile.
When Matthew says that the scribe was was “testing” Jesus, are we to give that word the full conceptual freight it could carry from the Old Testament, where we read of Israel putting God to the test? Or do we read it to mean that the scribe was simply asking to see how Jesus would answer, “testing” him in that sense; which is perhaps not a good way to behave, but is certainly not malicious?
Again, when Mark tells us that the scribe asked because he had heard Jesus answer the Sadducees well, we can imagine two very different interpretations. Perhaps the scribe heard the answers Jesus had given to the Sadducees, immediately learned to value Jesus’ wisdom, and therefore sought his help to answer a hard question. On the other hand, maybe the scribe heard Jesus answer the Sadducees, was perturbed that the Sadducees seemed to have failed in their attempt to unseat Jesus, and so jumped in with a question of his own.
And again, when the scribe says to Jesus, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him” , do we read this as an acknowledgement of Jesus authority- after all, he calls Jesus “Teacher”, and admits that Jesus is right?
Yet again, when Jesus tells the scribe that he is not far from the kingdom of heaven, is that supposed to be a commendation or a rebuke?
Still on the same conundrum, when Mark tells us that the scribe answered wisely, surely that is a commendation. But when Mark tells us that nobody dared to ask any more questions, doesn’t that imply that they were scared off by what Jesus had just said to the scribe?
These are not easy questions, and perhaps the text simply reflects the ambiguity of the situation. If we take it that the scribe was listening to Jesus dispute with the Sadducees, then it makes sense that he was both pleased and disappointed with Jesus’ answer. On the one hand, he is a member of groups hostile to Jesus, and would like to see Jesus humiliated. But on the other hand, the Sadducees have been trying to make Jesus look silly with a question about the resurrection- a question that could easily be turned on the Pharisees- and the scribe would have been impressed at the authoritative way in which Jesus answered.
https://hartmangroupdevotions.blogspot.com/2016/04/matthew-2234-40-34-hearing-that-jesus.html continued:
ReplyDelete3. What is the scribe’s question about? Is it a much debated point among the scribes?
The scribe asks about the greatest commandment. This is a massive massive debate among the scribes. The Old Testament is full of commandments, perhaps most famously “The Ten Commandments”, written on tablets of stone by the finger of God, and given to Moses. But the scribes had identified 613 separate commands in the law books of the Old Testament. Some of these laws were reckoned weighty, and others of them light. Some were important and central, and others carried less significance. This scribe wants to know which of the laws is the greatest.
Now some folk have read this as a fairly bizarre request, as though the scribe wanted Jesus to construct a “Top 10” list of the best and most important laws, and read out the number one. But if we take a look at the scribal debates, we can see that this wasn’t quite the case. The desire of the scribes wasn’t to produce a list of 613 commandments in rank order, just for the sake of it. Rather, the search of the scribes was for one law to bind all the others together- one law which was so big and weighty and profound that it encompassed the whole law- all the other commands being merely outworkings of this one great law. The scribes were looking for an organising principle, for one big simple law to structure all the other laws and tell them how to behave in any given situation.
This man was an expert in legal ethics, and it worried him that his ethics seemed to be a long list of do-s and don’t-s. It seemed arbitrary, and he wanted a coherent system. He could read laws that told him to build a parapet round the roof of his house, to avoid shellfish, not to reap his field up to the edges or to glean it after reaping, and not to wear clothes of mixed fibres. But at first glance, there doesn’t seem much those laws have in common. And the scribe knew that God is not random; that God has good reasons for everything he does and everything he says. He wanted to know why he shouldn’t reap his fields up to the edge, why he shouldn’t wear clothes of mixed fibres. He wanted to know God’s reasons, to know if there was one great concern, from which all these various laws sprang. He was not suggesting that the lesser laws could be ignored as long as the other, more important, ones were kept. Rather, he was asking for Jesus to tell him what was the fundamental purpose and character of the law.
Is there one law which best captures the biggest most important idea in the whole law? If there is one great governing principle, to which all the individual commands are subservient, then it might help him to find a path through this sort of moral maze. People would come to the scribes with this sort of question, and the scribes therefore debated how to answer.
https://hartmangroupdevotions.blogspot.com/2016/04/matthew-2234-40-34-hearing-that-jesus.html continued:
ReplyDelete4. What does Jesus mean by his answer? Where is he getting his answer from? Is it something revolutionary? Why does it have two parts?
Jesus says that the greatest law, the thing that the law is really all about, is this: Love God. God is one, and his people should love him with a whole heart. Everything they have should be given to loving God. Heart, soul, mind, strength- everything. Sure, not all the knotty questions will melt away in the light of this principle, but many of them will.
In his answer, Jesus is quoting words from the Old Testament which would be very familiar indeed to any Jew. They are taken from Deuteronomy 6 where Moses addresses the people, saying “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”.
The second command Jesus adds is drawn from Leviticus 19:18, again from Moses, and again about love; “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord.”
It is evident from the context of Leviticus that this law is meant to be a summary-command. It comes at the close of a set of other laws which deal particularly with how Israelites are to love their neighbours.
In giving these commands as the answer to the scribal debate, Jesus isn’t teaching anything revolutionary, but he is teaching something very penetrating. God is central, and the law is a reflection of God’s character. And so the greatest commandment is that we should love God, and the second is that we should love our neighbours. The second will inevitably flow out of the first.
https://hartmangroupdevotions.blogspot.com/2016/04/matthew-2234-40-34-hearing-that-jesus.html continued:
ReplyDelete5. Is the scribe’s rejoinder surprising? Bear in mind where this all takes place. In response, Jesus says that the scribe is “not far from” the kingdom of God. What does he mean?
We are already aware that this scribe could well be different from the others who have questioned Jesus. In his reply, he becomes more different still. He calls Jesus “Teacher”, which (depending on his tone and the circumstances) could mean that he accepts Jesus’ authority and esteems his wisdom. The Pharisees and Sadducees have already addressed Jesus by this title, but it is clear that they didn’t mean it seriously. The scribe also says that Jesus is right, and that he teaches truly- sentiments that flout the received wisdom of the great and the good in Israel, however patronising they might be.
But just look at what he goes on to say: “and to love… is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” This is a seriously subversive statement. The scribe is standing in the Temple courts. All around him there is the smell of blood and burnt animals. Thousands of people come here every day to make sacrifices to God. But this man says that obedience to the commandments- in this case, to love God and to love your neighbour- is better than sacrifice. And he says it right in the heart of the sacrificial system.
Jesus saw that the scribe’s answer was wise, and commented that the scribe was not far from the kingdom of God. This scribe has “got” stuff which the great authorities have no chance of getting. He is willing to consider that Jesus might be right. He sees the bankruptcy of the official way into the kingdom touted by the official Jews.
The scribe might not be “in” the kingdom- he doesn’t yet seem to see that Jesus is the Messiah. He’s not like others, who came seeking forgiveness, and left full of joy that they had found it. But he’s a scribe who doesn’t dismiss Jesus out of hand, and he’s a scribe who is ready to recognise that wholehearted love for God matters more than any of the Temple ritual.
https://hartmangroupdevotions.blogspot.com/2016/04/matthew-2234-40-34-hearing-that-jesus.html continued:
ReplyDelete6. Where does this passage sit in the flow of Mark’s Gospel? Why does Mark tell us that nobody dared ask Jesus anything else?
The point made by all the questions, collectively, is that Jesus is truly the Lord of the Temple. All his enemies come to knock him down, and they all fail. Now, finally, a man comes who ought to be an enemy- he’s a scribe- a member of a profession more likely to be on the side of the Pharisees than standing with Jesus. But instead of this man coming with yet another entirely hostile question, we see that even Jesus’ enemies are being impressed by his wisdom. Even a scribe begins to bow the knee to Jesus, and is brought near to the kingdom.
Mark tells us that nobody dared to ask Jesus anything else to underline that point. Jesus’ enemies are vanquished utterly. The tactic of trying to alienate the crowd from Jesus by making him look foolish has failed miserably. Far from Jesus losing support, he has gained support, and gained it from those who would be his natural antagonists.
7. What should we take from this passage to apply to ourselves?
Firstly, it is a convicting thing to read Jesus’ words here. Which of us loves God like this? With our whole hearts, with all our souls, with every last brain cell we possess, with every ounce of strength? Is every thought we have captive to God’s glory? Do we spend our energy and time for God’s kingdom? Do we think often on God’s character and perfections?
And which of us loves his neighbour as himself? We are fallen, selfish, creatures. I can’t imagine what it would be like to enter into somebody else’s thoughts and feelings so completely that I genuinely loved them as much as I love myself. When I walk into a situation, I think first of myself, my desires and emotions; and only then (if then) do I consider those of others. We need to repent of our disobedience.
Secondly, it is a cliché in Christian circles to set the law up in opposition to love- to argue that love is what matters, and that the law somehow hampers love, that the law is restrictive. But that isn’t how Jesus thought of the law. He thought that love and the law went hand in hand. He could summarise all the law under the commands about love. If we truly want to love God with everything we have, if we want, Christ-like, to love God with all we have, then we need to look to the law to show us how to do it. If we want to love our neighbours properly, then how should we go about it? The law tells us. We shouldn’t think of the law as a set of chains to chafe and weigh us down; but as wings to set us free to fly.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-10-commentary says:
ReplyDeleteBut the focus of biblically-based evangelism is not on the comforts of the present life, but on the reality of eternity; on getting people’s attention off this temporary world and onto the everlasting existence by explaining in biblical detail the joys of heaven and the horrors of hell.
One of the major obstacles to show- ing compassion is making prejudgments about who we think is worthy of our compassion. Are you limiting your kindness to the ones you deem worthy? As followers of Jesus, let us find ways to show neighborly kindness to all people, especially to those we have judged as unworthy. By Marvin Williams
It is here referring to the Law of Moses. How fitting that the lawyer was sent back to the Law! Jesus knew that no one was saved by keeping the Law, but presumably He sought to drive this lawyer to see the impossibility of keeping the Law. Paul explains the purpose of the Law
But the Scripture has shut up (enclosed, encircled) everyone under (subject to the power and penalty of) sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. (Gal 3:22-24).
John MacArthur - The command calls for total commitment to selfless love (agapaō; the highest kind of love) involving all human faculties, including the heart, soul, strength, and mind. These two commands sum up the Ten Commandments, the first half of which describes how to love God, while the second half describes how to love one’s neighbor. Only those who practice such self-denying love (cf. Luke 9:23) can receive eternal life.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-10-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteHe said to him - Once again quoting from the OT, this time from the OT guide to "holiness" in Leviticus
‘So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD. (Lev 18:5).
I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live. (Ezek 20:11, also in Ezek 20:13, 21)
You have answered correctly - (You have responded with discretion) - There was only one problem with the lawyer's answer. No one ever did or ever can perfectly "DO" what the law requires towards God and man. To slip once is to fail. As James 2:10 explained " whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."
Recall that the lawyer had asked what shall I DO, so here Jesus tosses the "DO" back to him! Don't misunderstand -- Jesus is not teaching a works based way to inherit eternal life, but He is saying in essence if you do this perfectly, without one sin, then you will attain eternal life. Of course what Jesus was commanding the lawyer to do was literally impossible and should have served to make him drop to his knees and beg for mercy. Instead, the stubborn, prideful lawyer sought vainly to justify himself or show himself to be righteous.
William MacDonald adds that "At first, it might appear that the Lord was teaching salvation by law-keeping. Such was not the case. God never intended that anyone should ever be saved by keeping the law. The Ten Commandments were given to people who were already sinners. The purpose of the law is not to save from sin, but to produce the knowledge of sin. The function of the law is to show man what a guilty sinner he is." (Believer's Bible Commentary)
Hampton Keathley IV adds - When Jesus tells the man to “do this and you will live,” He is not saying, you can get to heaven by being perfect. He is using the man’s statement and saying, “Assuming it is true for the sake of argument, do it and you will live.” Jesus is just holding up a mirror so the man can see his sin. He makes an accommodating statement - to accommodate the man’s understanding and help him see the truth. Jesus knew the man could never do it. He wanted the man to see it too. You’ve heard the statement - “You’ve got to get them lost before you can get them saved.” That is what is going on here. Jesus is trying to make the man see his need for salvation.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-10-commentary continued:
ReplyDeletePhillips - There we have the gospel of good works, the theology of the man who says, "I'm doing the best I can." The Lord overlooked the flaw in this clever lawyer's original question—"What shall I do to inherit?" Usually, an inheritance is received, not earned. In any case, we cannot do anything to gain eternal life for the simple reason that we are incapable of doing anything good enough for God (Rom. 3:9-20). The two passages that the lawyer quoted prove man's incompetence to produce anything good enough for God. No one but Jesus ever loved God with all of his heart, mind, soul, and strength. No one but Jesus ever loved his neighbor as himself. Nobody has ever done the best he could. People who imagine that works is the way to heaven stand condemned by their own religion.
The humble response to the impossible demand of the Law would have been to cry out "I cannot do this. Lord, how can I do this?"
As MacDonald observes "If His reference to the law had had its desired effect on the lawyer, he would have said, “If that’s what God requires, then I’m lost, helpless, and hopeless. I cast myself on Your love and mercy. Save me by Your grace!” Instead of that, he sought to justify himself. Why should he? No one had accused him. There was a consciousness of fault and his heart rose up in pride to resist."
Wiersbe comments "The scribe gave the right answer, but he would not apply it personally to himself and admit his own lack of love for both God and his neighbor. So, instead of being justified by throwing himself on the mercy of God (Luke 18:9-14), he tried to justify himself and wriggle out of his predicament. He used the old debating tactic, "Define your terms! What do you mean by 'neighbor'? Who is my neighbor?"
Joseph Parker on wishing to justify himself - "So long as there is any disposition in us to justify ourselves, are we unprepared to receive the gospel."
Who is my neighbor - Notice he did not ask "Who is God?" He assumed he was fine on that front and besides no one could see into his heart and discern whether he did or did not love God. But to love one's neighbor as one loves himself is a different issue. Vertical love to God can be feigned, but horizontal love is more difficult to fake.
Figuratively, plesion means to be near someone and thus be a neighbor. Generally, plesion refers to a fellow man, any other member of the human family. TDNT explains that "Ho plesion" is the "neighbor," the person next to one" then more generally the “fellow human being.”
Lawrence Richards - After establishing the fact that the neighbor was one who had mercy on the needy stranger, Jesus told his questioner, "Go and do likewise" (Lk 10:37). The story extends rather than narrows the concept of neighbor. In the story, the injured man was a Jew, someone traditionally hostile to Samaritans. There was no bond of personal relationship between the two. They were simply two human beings, one in need and the other able to meet the need. Jesus' message was clear for those who heard him then, and it is clear for us today. Our neighbor is any person we may come in contact with who has a need. And to love one's neighbor means to be moved by compassion to reach out and seek to meet that need.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-10-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteSee "Rules for Interpreting Parables" - Vernon Doerkson - Excerpt - "Determine the Central Point of the Parable = With but few exceptions the stories of Christ were parables, not allegories. A true parable has but one main point.
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. a person traveling from these two towns would travel on a wilderness, desolate road that dropped 3,600 feet in altitude.The narrowness, the ravines, the almost inaccessible cliffs, the caverns, and the sudden turns in this road made it ideal for thieves to ambush travelers and steal their money. They could ambush their victims, and quickly flee almost beyond the possibility of pursuit. You took your life into your hands when you traveled on this route. Travel was so bad that the road was named, "The Red Way or the Bloody Way." It was like a gauntlet of greed and danger. In the 19th century it was still necessary to pay safety money to the local Sheiks before one could travel on it."
John MacArthur comments "This dramatic tale is widely used to teach the importance of helping those in need. In fact, the term “Good Samaritan” has become an idiom for those who demonstrate unusual, sacrificial kindness toward others. But while it is important to help the needy, that is not the point of the story. It is in reality a story about how one inherits eternal life, because that is the question that initiated the conversation to which this story is the conclusion. The Lord offered this story in answer to the scribe’s question, with its somewhat cynical implication that he did love all those whom he considered to be his neighbors. Jesus graciously gave him one more unforgettable, inescapably clear insight into his wretchedness; one more opportunity to acknowledge his sinfulness and cry for mercy."
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho - Barclay observes that this man "was obviously a reckless and foolhardy character. People seldom attempted the Jerusalem to Jericho road alone if they were carrying goods or valuables. Seeking safety in numbers, they traveled in convoys or caravans. This man had no one but himself to blame for the plight in which he found himself."
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-10-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteThey were leaving Jerusalem (Ed: from Jerusalem to Jericho - Lk 10:30-note) and could not use the excuse that they did not want to touch the man and be unclean for worship. They had already accomplished their duties and were heading home.
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? (James 2:14-16)
Barclay on a Levite - He seems to have gone nearer to the man before he passed on. The bandits were in the habit of using decoys. One of their number would act the part of a wounded man; and when some unsuspecting traveller stopped over him, the others would rush upon him and overpower him. The Levite was a man whose motto was, "Safety first." He would take no risks to help anyone else.
A Samaritan ("a despised Samaritan" = NLT paraphrase) - The Samarians were descendants of colonists whom the Assyrian kings planted in Palestine after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C. They were despised by the Jews because of their mixed Gentile blood and their different worship, which centered at Mount Gerizim (Jn 4:20-22).
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-10-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteThe obvious answer is that the Samaritan proved to be the “neighbor” to the wounded man. But the lawyer couldn’t bring himself to say the good Samaritan. That was an oxymoron. He answered, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Love does not ask how far do I have to go. Love asks, “What can I do?” Love does not just meet the other person half way.
Point 1: Even our enemies are our neighbors.
Point 2: Ethnic and social standing are no guarantee of right standing before God.
Point 3: The Samaritan’s actions are an example of what it means to love.
The man is asking, what must I do to get in? Jesus tells him what one who is on the inside looks like.
This is so important to understand. What Jesus is doing here is showing the difference between works and fruit. “Works” has the idea of what must I do to get in. But “Fruit” - what you do - is the result of being on the inside.
If the lawyer is asking the question, “How do I get in?” and Jesus is telling him what one on the inside looks like, then we can assume the lawyer is on the outside. How he gets inside becomes the question.
And I think Jesus answers that very subtly.
There is an interesting analogy here that is worth noting. Who was in the ditch? A Jew. What did it take for the Jew to get out of the ditch? He had to trust a despised person to help him. The Samaritan, an outcast, paid the price to get the man out of the ditch.
Who else was an outcast and paid the price to get men out of the ditch of sin? Jesus
How does Jesus answer the lawyer’s question about inheriting eternal life? Allow one who will be called a “Samaritan” by the religious leaders to pay the price for him. Compare John 8:48. Jesus was called a Samaritan by the religious leaders.
So Jesus answered the man’s question about how to inherit eternal life, but it is in a whole different way than he expected.
- We must not think that our “membership” in the body of Christ or rituals in our church services satisfy the commands to love God and love our neighbor.
- When we love our neighbor, we show that we love God.
- Biblical love transcends boundaries of geography, race, religion, socio-economic status and even convenience. We must love all men equally and well.
- My neighbor is anyone with a legitimate need for which God has given me the resources to meet that need. 2 Chr 28:5-15, Hos 6:9, Micah 6:6-8
- Love means moving toward others. It is not convenient.
Questions and findings:
ReplyDelete1. Why did Jesus indicate to the man that following the Law would save Him?
Jesus was indicating the opposite. The Law highlights our transgression, because we cannot do it consistently. Notice the lawyer's response: "Who is my neighbor?" He was attempting to narrow the Law so that He could justify himself. Jesus responds with the full extent of how to follow the Law, and the lawyer was found short. When we are faced with out own shortcoming, we can do one a few things: 1. Cry out to God for mercy and throw ourselves at His feet, 2. Get angry and project our shortcomings, 3. Justify our shortcomings. Only one of the previous will lead to salvation.
2. What does it mean to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind?
It means to perfectly obey Him. To love our God with everything we have, we will do what He does, be what He is, love who He loves.
3. Why did the man feel the need to justify himself?
I think he realized that he probably didn't follow the whole Law, so he attempted to define terms in such a way so that he could weaken the law to a point in which he found himself inside its boundaries.
Jesus responds to this attempt with a parable that expands the Law to its rightful extent, putting the lawyer (and the rest of us) far outside of following the Law.
4. Why did Jesus make a Samaritan a good guy in the story?
He was showing that even the most religious people in Israel couldn't follow the Law. And, through using the Samaritan as an example, He was pointing out a major area in which Jewish people were breaking the Law (through despising their neighbors, the Samaritans).
5. How does Jesus' parable answer the man's question?
It shows him where he falls short. This whole interchange (despite what it initially looks like) was to get the lawyer to realize that he fell short of the requirements of the Law. If the lawyer would open his eyes, it may cause him to make the vital step - acknowledge that he could not save himself and ask Jesus for the next step.