The Good Samaritan.

It has long seemed to this writer that Luke 10:30-35 sets before us an exquisite picture of the sovereign grace of God unto those who have no claim upon Him. That grace is portrayed in the actings of Him who "came to seek and to save that which was lost."

First, we have depicted the state of the sinner—ruined, wretched, helpless in himself. Next we are shown the worthlessness of human remedies, their unwillingness to come to the relief of the one fallen. Then we behold the Savior supporting, fully meeting the needs of the fallen one.

It is the blessedness of the Gospel which is here unfolded, the fullness of its provision, the sufficiency of its remedy. Consequently nothing is here said of its requirements: repentance and faith—nothing of man's responsibility to meet those requirements. Instead, the sinner is viewed as one who is entirely passive, everything being done for him and to him—he is the recipient of unsought compassion, goodness and free grace. He is not even represented as crying out for help, nor does he "co-operate" at any point. His case is desperate—a fit subject for the great Physician, a suitable object for the Lord of Glory to bestow favor upon!

Strange it is, that some of the best commentators dissent from such an interpretation as we have outlined above. Thomas Scott sees in the passage nothing more than "a beautiful illustration of the law of loving our neighbor as ourselves, without regard to nation, party, or any distinction." In his sermon thereon C. H. Spurgeon said, "I do not think that our Divine Lord intended to teach anything about Himself in this parable, except as far as He is Himself the great Exemplar of all goodness. He was answering the question, 'who is my neighbor?' and He was not preaching about Himself at all. There has been a great deal of straining of the parable to bring the Lord Jesus and everything about Him into it—but this we dare not imitate. Yet by analogy we may illustrate our Lord's goodness by it." We must leave it to the judgment of our readers as to whether or not what follows is a "straining" or forcing into this portion of God's Word what is not really there.

The context begins at Luke 10:25, where we read of a Jewish lawyer asking Christ, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"—his design being to draw from Him an incriminating reply. Doubtless he had heard that Christ taught salvation by grace through faith apart from the deeds of the Law. Therefore he determined to now demonstrate from His words that He was in open conflict with Moses, whose disciple he professed to be. Having no conception of salvation except by Law-keeping, he framed his question in a legal way, "what shall I do"? Yet in his remaining words he betrayed his gross ignorance and blindness, for whoever heard of inheriting anything by doing? To "inherit" one must be an "heir," and heirs are born such. A man must be born of God, be made a child of God by the supernatural operation of the Spirit, in order to be an "heir" of God (Romans 8:17).

Having approached the Lord on the ground of creature performances, on the basis of doing something, Christ answered him accordingly, "What is written in the Law? how do you read it?" (Luke 10:26). It is most instructive and blessed to note how the Lord met different inquirers, for He always dealt with them according to their moral state—it was not so much the question as the questioner He dealt with. There is only one way of dealing with those who are self-sufficient and self-righteous, and that is to press upon them the righteous demands of the Law. The Law declares plainly enough what is required of man, what he must "do," namely, obey God, render full obedience to all His commands, or otherwise fall under His condemnation. It is either complete compliance with the Law's requirements, or come under the curse of God, "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse—for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the Law, to do them" (Gal. 3:10).

The lawyer gave a correct summary of the Law's requirements (Luke 10:27), but was then met with a word from Christ well calculated to shatter his self-confidence, "And He said unto him, You have answered right—this do, and you shall live" (v. 28). It is not sufficient to try and obey God, it is not enough to do our best (though who among us ever really did so!), "do" them is the uncompromising demand of Sinai. Nor will a partial obedience suffice, "For whoever keeps the entire law, yet fails in one point, is guilty of breaking it all" (James 2:10). Ah, my reader, LAW is inflexible and unmerciful in the very nature of the case. It presents a fixed standard and cannot do otherwise than pronounce guilty all who come short of it. How clear it is, then, that "no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin" (Romans 3:20). The Law should convince us that we are utterly undone, lost—that unless Christ saves us there is no hope for us.

"But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus—And who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29). Observe this verse opens with "but" not "and." The man was not sincere—it was not light he sought—but to ensnare the Savior. Yet it seems to us the previous statement of Christ's had probed his conscience and made him feel uneasy. None had expressly condemned him—yet he now sought to "justify himself." Christ had drawn the issue—and he sought to evade it; lawyer-like he attempts to raise a quibble over a word. "You have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy" (Matthew 5:43). Did not that furnish ground for necessary distinctions? Was an Israelite alone the "neighbor"? was every Israelite such, or was there a third class between the two? And if the classification was so uncertain, might not the duty of loving the neighbor be held in abeyance? With such quibbles will men seek to escape the cutting edge of God's Word.

This brings us to the passage upon which expositors are disagreed—Luke 10:30. It opens with, "And Jesus answering said," from which it is assumed that Christ did no more than continue His conversation with the lawyer, supplying a reply to his last question, an assumption or conclusion which is said to receive confirmation in verse 36, where the Lord asked His tempter, "which now of these three, do you think, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?" To which the lawyer answered, "he who showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him—Go, and do likewise."

According to our understanding of verses 30-35 the Lord's design was twofold.

First, He drew a picture or stated a case which exposed the state of His interrogator—only one with an unneighborly heart would ask such a question!

Second, He took advantage of the occasion to use the Law to bring into contrast, the glory of the Gospel, portraying one who was in desperate need of love's ministration and showing that by Himself ministering to that need He was the perfect Neighbor, the true "Friend of sinners." Viewing the passage thus, let us now consider:

Next Part The Good Samaritan. 2

Back to Arthur Pink