Boyd's Commentary. R.H. Boyd Publishing Corporation
href="#u9b375073-e5cc-444c-a04f-5feac785e791">I. The Question of Our Eternal Life (Luke 10:25–29)
II. The Example of a Neighbor (Luke 10:30–35)
III. Go and Do Likewise (Luke 10:36–37)
UNIFYING PRINCIPLE
Selfish desires, self-gratification, and self-interests are highly valued in our time. How can we become better neighbors to one another? Jesus challenged us to address the needs and welfare of everyone, including perceived enemies.
INTRODUCTION
God’s people prosper when instead of living to be blessed we endeavor to be a blessing. This requires that we take seriously the needs of others. With attention on only what we can get from God, it’s easy to overlook this chief objective of believers—how we can show God to the world. This has always been and must always be our great commission.
Jesus creatively explained this in today’s lesson. In Luke 10:21 He asserted that the so-called wise lack true understanding. Shortly following in verse 25, one who was considered an expert in Mosaic Law, a wise one, asked Jesus one of the most basic religious questions: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (NRSV). Though asked in insincerity, the lawyer’s query revealed the need of divine understanding. The two engaged in a series of questions and answers that led to Jesus being able to answer the question, “And who is my neighbor?” (10:29, NRSV). This question served nicely to demonstrate what God requires of us—to love God and our neighbor as ourselves.
EXPOSITION
I. THE QUESTION OF OUR ETERNAL LIFE (LUKE 10:25–29)
Verse 25 opens with a question for Jesus from a lawyer in the crowd. While the occasion is unknown, it easily can be inferred Jesus was teaching a small group of people. This lawyer stood out in the group as a man with excellent religious credentials, one who studied God’s law continually to interpret it for the people who desired to obey it. He had garnered respect among the people as an expert in the law. When he asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, it was clear he was seeking validation more than an answer to his question. The text shows the lawyer’s motivation was malevolent. The word used is εκπειραζω (ekpeirazo). It comes from the word πειραζω (peirazo) meaning “to trap, test, or tempt.” This same family of words is used in the narrative of Satan’s temptation of Jesus. This man stood as an emissary for the devil.
Beyond being an attempt to trip up Jesus, the lawyer’s question was not a very good question. Noted New Testament scholar Amy-Jill Levine in her book Short Stories by Jesus points out that the language used by the lawyer indicates he wanted to do something to gain possession of eternal life, as if one might earn the gratuitous gift of God. Secondly, he asked what he could do to inherit eternal life. To inherit something is to gain by possession something that is owned and/or controlled by the future possessor. Eternal life is not to be possessed or gained. It can only be participated in.
Jesus, knowing the lawyer’s true intent, created an opportunity for the lawyer to flaunt his expertise. Rather than answering his question directly, Jesus bounced it back to him and asked, “What is written in the law?” (10:26, NRSV). Given he was an expert of the law, Jesus invited him to share his interpretation or his reading of it. As expected, the lawyer answered by quoting the most sacred law in Judaism—Deuteronomy 6:5. Known as the Shema, this law is both a prayer and a law because it is upon this prayer that all the Law of Moses rests. A devout Jew would pray it twice each day. It consists of three prepositional phrases that describe the total response of love toward God: the heart (emotions), the soul (consciousness), and strength (motivation). Further validating his answer, the lawyer also quoted Leviticus 19:18 (NRSV), “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Agreeing with the lawyer’s answer, Jesus told him, “Do this, and you will live” (Luke 10:28, NRSV). To justify himself as a pious Jew in front of Jesus and the surrounding crowd, the lawyer further asked, “And who is my neighbor?” (10:29, NRSV).
This was the problem with the lawyer. He wanted to justify himself or appear righteous. Justification is a gift that comes only from God. As he attempted to justify himself, he dug a deeper hole that would be harder for him to get out.
II. THE EXAMPLE OF A NEIGHBOR (LUKE 10:30–35)
Jesus answered the lawyer’s second question with a parable about a man who fell among thieves. He was stripped of his clothing, wounded, and left half-dead. To draw contrast, Jesus introduced a priest who came down that road and encountered the wounded man. By identifying the priest, Jesus made the implication that if anyone should be concerned for the well-being of a suffering person it should be the priest. But in Jesus’ parable, the priest did the opposite of what was expected. He passed by on the other side. Jesus added that a Levite came, looked, and passed by on the other side as well. Regardless of the various speculations as to why they chose to disregard the wounded man, the point of the lesson was to not ignore religious responsibility. When Jesus introduced the Samaritan in the parable, he remedied the actions of the priest and Levite. Jesus deliberately chose an outsider, a hated one at that, to be His example to emphasize what it means to be a neighbor. Being a neighbor is not a matter of nationality, race, religious affiliation, or any of the identity markers we use to separate ourselves. By contrast, when the Samaritan came to the wounded man, he had compassion and bandaged his wounds. In addition to treating his wounds, the Samaritan furthered his commitment to helping the wounded man by setting him on his own animal and taking him to an inn to take care of him.
Jesus’ depiction of the Samaritan’s kindness was further stressed by indicating the Samaritan stayed with the wounded man throughout the night, then as he departed the next day, paid for the man’s lodging and care throughout his recovery. He even promised to repay any debt incurred while taking care of the man upon his return to the area.
The Samaritan’s care for the man who fell among the thieves would have stuck out to the law expert. Samaritans and Jews were not friendly. Through a long history of rivalry, Jews and Samaritans regarded each other as enemies even as they were partially of common ancestry both in terms of ethnicity and religion (Samaritans were bound by the Torah). Because of their common religious background, the Samaritan would have been under similar compulsion to help a man hurt on the road. Though the Old Testament Law does not specifically mention a case like this, Exodus 23:4–5 (NRSV) states, “When you come upon your enemy’s ox or donkey going astray, you shall bring it back. When you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden and you would hold back from setting it free, you must help to set it free.” By deductive reasoning, as the Torah compels one to help an enemy with his or her ox or donkey, why would one not be compelled to help the enemy? The Samaritan was bound to the Torah and simply fulfilled his duty to the Law, a duty the priest and Levite chose to ignore for reasons unknown.
III. GO AND DO LIKEWISE (LUKE 10:36–37)
Confirming the lawyer understood the main point of His parable, after Jesus finished the story He asked him, “Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” (Luke 10:36, NRSV). Jesus asked this to indicate one should not worry about who our neighbor is as much as about being a good neighbor. Jesus’ counter question reversed the roles so that just as Jesus answered the lawyer’s question (10:29), the lawyer had to answer Jesus’. While the lawyer’s answer indicated he understood the point of the story, it also showed his reluctance to fully accept it. His hidden contempt for the Samaritan people was revealed by his avoidance of