Kathryn Wright
Columbia, SC
I. INTRODUCTION
One of the most well-known parables of the Lord is the Parable of the Good Samaritan found in Luke 10:25-37.1 In studying the literature, I have discovered at least two primary issues surrounding this teaching by Christ. The first is the danger of the interpreter to allegorize the parable. Many have suggested that Jesus is teaching things that may not at first be apparent. How much of this, if any, is legitimate? Can a reader look at the context and conclude that the Lord is pointing the lawyer in the account to certain conclusions which are separate from the original question he asked Him? Can the reader read between the lines and conclude that Christ has another purpose in mind? It is common to find in the commentary traditions warnings against this tendency.
A second major issue concerning the parable is more basic. What is its fundamental interpretation? At face value, the parable seems to be teaching that God’s people should care for those in need. Often this is used to provide a test of “genuine” faith. It is maintained that a true child of God will love his neighbor. The problem is that this parable would then be teaching eternal salvation by works, which is contrary to the teachings of Scripture.2 Since the Scriptures can never contradict themselves, it is clear that this cannot be the meaning of the parable. Such a view can only be arrived at by not considering the context.
In this article, I would like to address these two issues. To do so, we will first consider the context.
II. THE CONTEXT
There is heavy Jewish emphasis in Luke 10. The chapter begins with Jesus sending out seventy of His disciples to preach in the cities of Israel. Their message would have been that He is the Christ and that He was offering the kingdom to that generation of Jews. He would be the One who judged them if they rejected that message (vv 11-15). In order to confirm that their message was from God, the seventy were given the power to perform miracles.
The seventy returned and were excited about the miracles they were able to perform in the name of Christ (v 17). The Lord, however, reminded them that they should rejoice rather that their names had been written in heaven (v 20). This is a clear statement that they had eternal life. Christ was the One who gave it to them. In fact, He is the One who gives it to all who believe in Him for it. Those who believed the message when the seventy went out and preached it, had the same gift of everlasting life (v 16).
It must be remembered that the Gospel of Luke was written to believers, specifically a believer named Theophilus (Luke 1:1-4). Believers would already know that eternal life is a gift given by God’s grace through faith in Christ. They would already know that it is not obtained by good works.
Hodges makes the point that the Lord’s statement about names written in heaven means that these “babes” had assurance of eternal life. These wonderful truths had been revealed to them as babes (v 21). The Lord was calling them to do His work, in the case of the Twelve and the seventy, but that work had nothing to do with the gift He had already given them. They could never lose the gift of everlasting life because works were not involved in any way in the gift they had received.3
The Lord prayed and thanked His Father that babes understood “these things.” The babes refer to the seventy and the rest of Jesus’ disciples (v 23). The things Christ spoke of would include, first of all, how to have one’s name written in heaven, that is, how to obtain eternal life. But it would also include His authority to judge the nation of Israel.4
This idea of judgment is perhaps behind the Lord’s statement that “all things have been delivered to” Him “by the Father.”5 The Father had given Him that authority. The fact that Jesus is the Christ and can give eternal life through faith alone in Him alone is based upon knowing who the Son is (v 22).
These are the things revealed to babes. These babes were blessed because they were able to see them (v 23). At the same time, the “wise and prudent” were those from whom such things have been hidden (v 21). They were and are even today blind to such realities.
Babes, then, know that Jesus is the Christ. In Him, they have eternal life. He is the One who will judge. The wise, however, do not see “these things.” After laying out these fundamental principles, Luke gave an example of a “wise and prudent” person and an example of a “babe.” The babe, the discerning person, is Mary (v 39). The “wise” man was not really wise; he was an unbelieving scribe. But he was one the Jewish community called wise. He was the one who asked the Lord the question which led to the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
III. THE PARABLE
The parable can be divided into three parts: the question by the lawyer and answer by the Lord, the parable itself, and the application.
A. The Question and Answer (10:25-29)
Luke recorded how a man who would have been considered wise and prudent came up to the Lord. He is identified as a “lawyer.” The word is always used in the Gospels for one who was considered an expert in the Law of Moses and would have been respected as such.6 It is noteworthy that in the Gospel of Luke, lawyers are always presented in a negative light (e.g., 5:17-19; 9:22).
It is clear that this man did not recognize who Jesus is. He did not see Him as the Christ. He addressed the Lord as “teacher.” In addition, he stood up in order to test Him.
This word for “test” is used only four times in the NT, and it is always in a negative sense (Matt 4:7; Luke 4:12; 1 Cor 10:9). Here, the man was putting Jesus to the test to see if Jesus agreed with his own assessment.7 It implied that he was not convinced the Lord was as knowledgeable as he was concerning the Law of Moses.
It is also clear that this lawyer did not see eternal life as a free gift through faith alone. The idea that such a faith would result in his name being written in heaven (v 20) was a foreign concept to him. This is seen in his question. He wanted to know what he must “do” to inherit eternal life. As an expert in the OT, he was well aware of a coming kingdom, in which the dead would be raised, and some would have everlasting life and be a part of that kingdom (Dan 12:2).
The question set the context of the parable that follows. Somehow, the parable is connected with this man’s desire to earn eternal salvation. What must he do?8
In this entire episode, the word “do” is important; in the Greek text, the word in v 25 is a participle. In His initial answer as well as in His final application, the Lord used the imperative verb form of the same word (vv 28, 37). This section, then, begins and ends with the concept of “doing” good works. The lawyer’s question fits a Jewish context. As a proud Jewish lawyer, he mistakenly thought he could earn his eternal salvation by such works. He looked to the Law of Moses to determine what those works would involve. This question not only led to the parable, it also is the key to understanding it.
Since the man was an expert in the Law, the Lord directed him to it. He asked him what the Law says about this topic (v 26).
The lawyer gave an outstanding summary of the Law. It was common among the leading rabbis of the day to state in a few words or verses the essence of the Law. The foundation of the Law, he said, can succinctly be summarized in two verses. Deuteronomy 6:5 says that the Jew was to love God with his whole being. Leviticus 19:18 says that the Jew should love his neighbor as himself.
To anyone familiar with the gospel of grace, the Lord’s response was unexpected. He told the lawyer that if he would “do” those two things, he would live. In the context, it means that he would inherit eternal life. The Lord appeared to be teaching salvation by works, agreeing with this proud lawyer.
1. Salvation by works?
The idea that the Lord was indeed teaching salvation by works is a view shared by various commentators. Stein is an example of this thinking. He says that to love God means you accept what He has done in His grace. Faith is not just mental assent to certain doctrines, or an emotional feeling. Faith and love entail obedience. Eternal salvation is by grace through faith, but this faith works through love. Sometimes we need to emphasize faith and other times love.9 If we do not love, we do not have eternal life. Stein also says the rest of the NT teaches this necessity of works for eternal salvation. He feels that a faith that does not produce love of one’s neighbor is dead (Jas 2:17). Without these works, faith never existed.10
Not only does this common view of the passage teach the necessity of works for eternal salvation, it also paints an extremely positive picture of the lawyer. In essence, Jesus agreed with him. The lawyer thought he could earn eternal salvation by doing good works, and the Lord told him how to do it. He said to him that he needed to do the things the Law commands.
This, however, cannot be the key to understanding the parable which follows. Luke was the traveling companion of Paul, and Paul wrote that no one can do the works of the Law (Rom 3:10, 20). The standard the lawyer set for himself is impossible to obtain. No one can love God with his whole being, and no one can love his neighbor as he loves himself. The Lord was saying that if you could do the impossible, you would have eternal life.11 The answer to the lawyer’s question is that he could not “do” anything to earn eternal life. Only a “wise” and arrogant person would think he could.
Wiersbe seems to agree with the general thrust of this line of reasoning. He says that the Lord’s purpose in pointing the man to the Law was to convict him.12 This seems to imply that the man did not love God or his neighbor. Martin clearly sees the Lord’s statement this way. The man should have said that he was unable to do what the Lord told him he had to do.13
2. Justifying himself.
In his spiritual arrogance, the lawyer evidently had convinced himself that he was able to do the impossible and loved God with his whole being. However, he needed further information about the second commandment. In Lev 19:18, the neighbor is a fellow Jew. The lawyer lived in a land in which he encountered Gentiles. In fact, the Gentiles, through the Romans, ruled over the Jews. But there were also Samaritans. In addition, there were many Jews who did not keep the Law as strictly as he did. Surely, he was not required to love people like that. The Pharisees, with whom this man was at least sympathetic, felt this way (John 7:49). A particular group of Jews who lived around the Dead Sea said they were only required to love those who lived in their community.14 The lawyer wanted to know whom he needed to love as much as he loved himself if he were going to earn eternal salvation. This was an attempt to “justify himself” (v 29).
This use of “justify” is taken by some to mean he was trying to make excuses. He knew he did not love everyone as much as he loved himself. He was looking for an excuse not to do so.15 Some have suggested it was important for this man that others thought he was righteous. He wanted to assure himself that such an evaluation was merited, based upon whom he loved.16 Stein takes it as a further indication that he did not hold Jesus in high regard and disparagingly asked the Lord how anyone could possibly determine who his neighbor was. His interaction with Christ was not completely sincere.17
It seems more likely, however, that Luke’s use of the word “justified” here is also connected with the book of Romans. This man wanted to be righteous in the eyes of God by his works. If he had to love his neighbor to do that, he needed to know who among the people around him were considered his neighbor. He was genuinely curious about the opinions of Jesus on this matter.
He assumed that if he were righteous in the eyes of God, he would have eternal life. He thought that with enough knowledge and effort, this was a very real possibility. That led to the parable.
B. The Parable Itself (10:30-35)
A leading figure in the parable is a “man,” presumably a Jewish one, who traveled from Jerusalem to Jericho. This is a distance of approximately 17 miles through a dangerous, deserted region known for the frequent occurrence of robberies. That was the fate this man met.
After having been robbed, beaten, and stripped of his clothing, he was left for “half dead.” Exposed to the elements and completely helpless, he could not save himself from his predicament and needed help. That help was his only hope.
Fortunately for him, a religious Jew saw him, ready to die and lying on the side of the road. This was the kind of person the lawyer would have considered a neighbor. He was a priest and knew about Lev 19:18 and the command by God to love one’s neighbor. However, this priest did not do anything to help the man in need.
The same thing was true for another religious Jew who passed by the man. He was a Levite who also worked at the temple in Jerusalem. The lawyer would have considered this man a neighbor, too. But, like the priest, he did nothing to help the injured man.
The reasons these two religious Jews do not render assistance are not stated. Neither are they important.18 It is enough that they did not love the man as a neighbor and thus did not save him from his dire situation. They did not “do” what they were commanded to do. These two Jews, like the lawyer, would have also taken pride in being men who followed the Law of Moses. But as Paul said, they were those who have the Law but do not keep it (Rom 2:23). If the lawyer saw himself in people like the priest and Levite, perhaps he might question also if he did what it says. If he did, perhaps he would begin to doubt if he could indeed “justify himself.”
The hero of the parable is in stark contrast to the religious Jews. In verse 33, the word “Samaritan” is placed first in the sentence in the original and is therefore emphasized. Samaritans were hated by the Jews; a Samaritan would have assuredly not been someone the lawyer would have considered a neighbor whom he was required to love. The Samaritans and Jews had a long history of animosity toward each other. The reader of the Gospel of John gets a glimpse of the ill feelings Jews had for Samaritans (John 4:9; 8:48).
The man in the parable did not have clothes on him, since they were taken in the robbery; thus, the point may be that neither the priest, Levite, nor Samaritan knew if the dying man was a Jew or not. In any event, that is not what is important. The critical point is that the Samaritan had compassion on him (v 33), while the religious Jews did not. This compelled him to save the man. It is no coincidence that the verb for compassion is used elsewhere in Luke to describe the heart of God and Christ (7:13; 15:20). If the lawyer accepted the idea that love for God (Deut 6:5) manifested itself in love for others, the Samaritan in the parable was the only one who demonstrated it. By the lawyer’s own description of what one must do to earn eternal life, it was the hated Samaritan who did it.
The Samaritan went to great lengths to meet this man’s needs, doing all that was necessary. He poured wine on his wounds as a disinfectant. He then put oil, with its medicinal properties, on them and bound him with bandages. After taking him to an inn, the Samaritan watched the man overnight, caring for him. When he left the next day, he left enough money to pay for all his needs, instructing the innkeeper to care for the man with the funds he provided while he was gone. He promised to return and to pay for whatever more the innkeeper might spend.
This parable must have been hard for the lawyer to hear. We call it the Parable of the “Good” Samaritan, but the word “good” does not appear in the text. The lawyer would not have thought of the Samaritan as a good man. But he is the one who fulfilled the requirements of the Law in this instance, not the men with whom the lawyer would have found affinity.
C. The Application (10:36-37)
The Lord applied the parable to the lawyer because of his original question. The lawyer wanted to know who his neighbor was (v 29). He did so in order to know whom he had to love because this was required of him, in his mind, to obtain eternal life. But Jesus turned the original question around and asked the lawyer a related question: who was a neighbor to the man who was left on the side of the road for dead?
The lawyer wanted to know who was considered his neighbor. He wanted to know to whom he was obligated to show compassion and to help. Jesus’ question focused on being a neighbor. The original question involved obligation. Christ’s question looked at character. The lawyer had asked the wrong question. Jesus told him he should not have asked who his neighbor was to make him righteous in the eyes of God. The lawyer wanted to avoid the responsibility the Law placed upon him by limiting those to whom he was commanded to love. Instead, he should be a neighbor. Those with various interpretations of the parable have reached this same conclusion.19
Jesus had answered the lawyer’s original question (v 29). Now the lawyer must answer Jesus’ question.20 This caused him to reconsider what he thought about “doing” the Law.
The lawyer did. The answer was obvious, even if it was difficult for the lawyer to come to the right conclusion. Many have pointed out that he was not willing to say the word “Samaritan,” but only said that the neighbor was the one who showed mercy to the man left for dead (v 37). The lawyer had disdain for a Samaritan but was forced to admit the truth. In showing mercy, the Samaritan was the one who did what the Law said. He was one who loved his neighbor.
This account began with a question concerning what the lawyer must “do” to earn eternal salvation (v 25). It ended with the same idea and thus forms an inclusio. The Lord told him to go “do” what the Samaritan did.
IV. INTERPRETATION
Many have interpreted this parable as a call for social action. We should stop and help people who are stranded with a flat tire, for example. The lawyer was only talking about what he should do, but Jesus told us to actually do the things which we discuss in the abstract. We should not simply talk about doing what is right; we should put such talk into action. We should feed a family who is hungry or help an unemployed person find a job. What Jesus said to the lawyer He says to His church. We are to get to “doing” what Jesus commanded, and this is to be an ongoing thing on our part.21 The question is not who is my neighbor? That is a question that should never be asked. The question is who acts like a neighbor?22
This view of the parable is seen as specifically directed toward the lawyer. He had heard the Law and obviously knew what it said. The question now is would he do it? The hearing of the Law is authenticated by obeying it.23
Such an understanding is also used as a call for the end of racial prejudice. God can use anyone who is open to Him. The Samaritan was considered a despised minority but was used by God. A person like that makes a neighbor, regardless of his status in society or even in our churches.24
As mentioned in the introduction, related to this kind of interpretation of the parable is the view that “real” Christians will do such things. With that line of reasoning, a person who does not fight against social ills and needs should question his eternal salvation. Of course, how one measures this is left unsaid. On many occasions, all of us have passed by people stranded on the road. Very few believers today could claim that they went to the extent the Samaritan did to meet the needs of someone when they were given the opportunity. Have we spent the night with a total stranger who needed help, given two days wages for others to continue ministering to him, and committed ourselves to financial costs above and beyond that if needed? If that is the standard by which we can conclude we are the children of God and have eternal life, we will all live with doubt and after an honest evaluation determine that we are not spiritually saved.
It is also extremely difficult to make an analogy between the characters of the parable and today. If the priest and Levite passed the man without helping because they were concerned about ritual uncleanness, what is the present day parallel? Who are modern day Samaritans for the believer in the United States? Craddock warns us about applying the details of this parable to modern day society.25
While all Evangelical Christians are familiar with such interpretations of this account, a little reflection leads to the conclusion that this is a misuse of this parable. These social concerns have validity in many cases, but if the interpreter focuses on these things, he must do so at the expense of the context. In fact, approaching the parable in this way is to deny fundamental Biblical teaching.
The lawyer was concerned about earning eternal salvation. If Jesus was telling him not to be racially prejudiced and to help those in need in order to obtain that salvation, it is clear He was teaching a salvation by works. This man was one of the “wise people” who are blind to spiritual realities (v 21). The exegete must start there, realizing that this man’s desire to earn salvation was flawed from the beginning. Jesus was most certainly not encouraging him to continue to believe he could do enough works to justify himself before God and obtain eternal life.
A. An Alternative View
The view that Jesus was telling the lawyer that if he loved as the Samaritan did, he would gain eternal life, must be categorically rejected. The correct view is obtained by realizing that the lawyer’s quest was flawed from the start. He could not “do” anything to inherit eternal life. In the case of the lawyer, Jesus needed to show him that.
The lawyer would have limited whom he needed to love. The Lord expanded the number of people he must love. It would include anyone in need. The Samaritan did not care about the nationality of the man lying by the side of the road.
No one loves like the Samaritan in the parable did. Even if a person could point to one time in his life when he did, it would not be on a consistent basis and certainly not always. It is impossible, just as Paul taught in Romans. When the Lord told the lawyer to go and do that, He was telling him to do the impossible. And that is the point. The lawyer wanted to earn eternal life by his works. He could not. As one of the “wise and prudent” people of this world, he needed to become like a babe and realize that having his name written in heaven is given as a gift (vv 20-21).
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus adopted the same approach when dealing with unbelievers. While the majority of the Sermon is directed towards believing disciples, there were those in the multitude who were not believers. These unbelievers listened and were impressed with His teaching (Matt 5:1; 7:28-29). The Lord said a few things in the Sermon specifically directed at these unbelievers. He mentioned that a man cannot enter into the kingdom of God unless his righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 5:20). But whose righteousness is like that? Certainly, the common Jew listening to the Sermon would find such a quest impossible. The Biblical answer, of course, is that this righteousness can only be found through faith in Christ (Rom 3:21-26). If it was not obtained this way, it cannot be obtained at all. The Law was given to show men this reality since all fall short of fulfilling its demands (Gal 3:19-24).26
The same thing is true about the Lord’s statement in Matt 7:13, when, at the end of the Sermon, He said there is only one narrow gate that leads to life. The unbeliever would be left wondering what that gate is. The unbeliever who is open and seeks the answer would find that Jesus is the way that leads to eternal life. There is no other way (John 10:9).27
If this is the way the Lord engaged in pre-evangelism in the Sermon on the Mount, why could He not do the same thing with the lawyer? The lawyer looked to the Law for eternal life. Jesus pointed him to the Law and showed him that he cannot do it. The lawyer himself had said that Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 were the key, but now saw that that he could not do Lev 19:18. The lawyer wanted to be righteous before God by his works, and the Lord showed him it is impossible.
B. Objections
The most obvious objection to this interpretation is that it appears to some that the Lord is using trickery or hiding the truth from the lawyer. Why would the Lord tell the man to do something that he was not able to do? Why did the Lord not simply tell the man the truth, that he was unable to earn eternal life and justify himself before God? For these reasons, the common way to understand the Lord’s instruction to the lawyer must be accepted.
Whatever view of the parable one takes, the common understanding must be rejected. The analogy of faith tells us that the clear teachings of Scripture should be used to interpret the unclear. The clear teaching of Scripture is that obedience to the Law cannot save. The Lord was not denying that here. We cannot take this parable and interpret it in a way that had the Lord doing so. The exegete must start at this point.28
But why could the Lord not use this tactic? This man was blind to spiritual truth. The very context speaks of those to whom truth is “hidden.” He was unwilling in his religious pride to acknowledge that he fell short. The Lord used an engaging story to start to open this man’s eyes. The first step that needed to be taken if this man were to receive eternal life was for him to realize that he could not do anything to earn it. We do not know how the lawyer responded, but the application of the Parable of the Good Samaritan by the Lord is a masterful way for light to shine into this man’s heart. The Lord, because of His love for him, wanted to hear the man say, “I cannot do that!” He wanted this man to start the journey from being one of the seemingly wise and prudent, to becoming a babe.29 If so, he would have gotten the point of the parable for him.
V. IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ALLEGORIZE THE PARABLE?
This parable has a long history of interpreters who have allegorized various parts of it. This goes back at least to the time of Augustine. He said the man left for dead represents Adam. Jerusalem is the heavenly city. The thieves are pictures of Satan and his demons. The Samaritan’s animal is the body of Christ, while the inn is the church building. Paul is the innkeeper, and Christ is the good Samaritan. The two denarii are the two commandments mentioned by both the lawyer and the Lord. Others say the oil and wine represent the ordinances of the church—baptism and communion. The man is a picture of all unbelievers who are half dead in the sense that they are alive physically, but dead spiritually. The priest and Levite are illustrations of the Law and the sacrifices in that Law.30 It is clear that such an approach can lead to an almost infinite number of interpretations, and the warning against such practices is warranted.
Some might accuse the views expressed in this article as promoting license to allegorize the parable. If Jesus’ command to go and do something is really an attempt to show the impossibility of obeying that command, it might be said that the plain meaning of the text is disregarded, and the interpretation of the parable is left to the whims of the individual reader.
However, seeking the purpose of the Lord’s question to the lawyer does not involve the use of allegory in any way. The people and elements of the story remain what they are. The lawyer was not asked to find a secondary meaning of any part of the parable.
But the lawyer was an unbeliever. It might be asked what the original audience of Luke’s Gospel, made up of believers, was expected to glean from the parable. As already seen in the Sermon on the Mount, portions were for unbelievers, and portions were for believers. The message for the lawyer may have been one thing, while the message for a Christian hearing the parable might be something else. As a master storyteller, the Lord could have used the same story to meet the needs of both groups of people. A self-professed wise but spiritually blind unbeliever could be shown by the parable that he could not earn eternal salvation. A humble believer, who already knew that truth, could see things in the parable the unbeliever could not.
The believer is able to see things in this parable that the lawyer could not. Not surprisingly, numerous Christians have seen the Samaritan as an example of Christ. These Christians include even those who warn against allegorizing the parable.31
And why would believers not see such a thing? They know that the lawyer asked the wrong question. In many of the parables of the Lord, He is the hero. In the Parable of the Talents, He is the conquering King (Matt 25:14-30). The same is true in the Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:12-27). In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, He is the hero. He does what no one else can do. He becomes the example of the impossible. He is full of compassion and mercy and saves a man who cannot save Himself. He pays the price necessary for that salvation. Every believer can see that at one time, before faith, he himself was the man lying, without hope, on the side of the road, but Christ came and saved him. That is not allegory. That is seeing what is obvious.
In the Parable of the Talents and in the Parable of the Minas there are also servants. They were told to continue the work of the Lord while He was gone. It is not allegory to see these servants as believers.
In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, there is also a servant. The innkeeper was told to continue what the Good Samaritan began. The innkeeper was to serve the wounded man, just as the Samaritan had done. He was told to do it until the Samaritan returned. It would be foolhardy for a believer not to see this as an illustration of what he is called to do. He is to serve others as the Lord did until the Lord returns.
But the believer, the babe whom Jesus mentioned, knows that such work does not earn eternal salvation. Neither does it prove one is saved. This service of love towards others results in rewards in the life to come.32 In the parable, the Samaritan promised to pay the innkeeper for any service he performed on his behalf when he returned (v 35). Luke used the Greek verb translated here as “return” in only one other place. It is in Luke 19:15, when, in another parable, the Lord promised to reward His servants when He returns.
The reader will have to determine if it is legitimate to apply such parallels to the teachings of the Lord in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Would a mature believer rightfully see the example of the Lord in the hero of the parable and understand that he had the privilege of following that example? If he does, Christ will reward him. While some would charge this as allegory, the context and teachings of the Lord suggest otherwise.
VI. CONCLUSION
Prior to the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke recorded how different people in Israel received the message of Christ. Some were blind to who He was and His offer of life. They were called the “wise and prudent.” Others saw these things and were called “babes” (10:21). The babes were able to hear the things the Lord taught, and the implication is that the wise cannot (10:23-24).
The lawyer who asked the Lord how he could earn salvation is clearly an example of the blind “wise” who cannot hear. He asked a question which revealed that he was blind and deaf, spiritually speaking. The Lord understood these disabilities and used the parable to allow that man to hopefully begin to see and hear.
There were “babes,” i.e., discerning people, who also heard the parable. Immediately after Jesus’ encounter with the lawyer, Luke spoke of one particular discerning listener (10:38-39). Her name is Mary, and she sat at the feet of the Lord to hear His word. If she had heard the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and perhaps the Lord spoke it again on that occasion, she would have heard it in a way completely different from the way the lawyer heard it. She would have seen the Samaritan as a beautiful picture of her Lord. She would have been thrilled to know that, just like the innkeeper, she could be like Him. She would understand that eternal rewards were at stake when He returned if she did so.
As the greatest teacher that ever lived, He gave us a parable which meets the needs of both types of listeners—the “wise” and the discerning.
____________________
1 The word “good” does not occur in the parable. In fact, the man who asks the question that leads to the parable would never have called a Samaritan good. This article will use the adjective simply because of the popular name of the parable.
2 No doubt, it would be maintained that this is not the same thing as teaching salvation by works. One might say that salvation is indeed free, by faith alone, but that the good work of caring for those in need will automatically flow from such a faith. Such work does not save. But if this good work is necessary to prove one is saved, it has become essentially, nonetheless, a requirement for that salvation.
3 Zane C. Hodges, A Free Grace Primer (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2018), 95, 541.
4 Robert H. Stein, Luke, The New American Commentary, vol. 24 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 312. Stein says Christ has the authority to judge the whole world. That is true, but the statement ignores the Jewish context here.
5 See John 5:22.
6 William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 676.
7 Philip G. Ryken, Luke, vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2009), 537.
8 Darrell L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books 1996), 1035.
9 Stein, Luke, 319.
10 Ibid., 316.
11 Zane C. Hodges, Romans: Deliverance from Wrath (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2013), 63-64. Hodges comments that this is exactly Paul’s point in Rom 2:6-7, and the account of the lawyer in Luke 10 teaches the same thing.
12 Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 211.
13 John A. Martin, “Luke,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 234.
14 Stein, Luke, 316. Stein refers to 1QS:1:9-10 from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
15 Grant R. Osborne, Luke: Verse by Verse (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018), 288.
16 BDAG, 249.
17 Stein, Luke, 317.
18 Various reasons could be suggested. If the man was already dead and they touched him, they would be defiled for touching a corpse. This would have made them ceremonially unclean and unable to perform their religious duties until ritually cleansed. They were on a dangerous road and feared that the robbers were still in the vicinity or even had set a trap with their previous victim as bait. These two Jews may have rationalized that they did not know if the man was a Jew since his clothes had been stripped off, and they were not obligated to assist those who were not Jews.
19 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 432; Ryken, Luke, 547; Bock, Luke, 1035; Wiersbe, Bible, 212.
20 Stein, Luke, 318.
21 Wiersbe, Bible, 213.
22 Green, Luke, 432.
23 Ibid., 426, 432.
24 Osborne, Luke, 290.
25 Craddock, Luke, 151.
26 Hodges, Primer, 420, 424.
27 Ibid., 413.
28 Dillow, while taking a different view than this article, also notes this obvious point. His view is that the lawyer was already a regenerate child of God and wanted to know how to have a deeper experience of the life that he already had. In that case, works are necessary. See, Joseph C. Dillow, Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings (Monument, CO: Paniym Group, Inc., 2012), 342-43.
29 Alberto S. Valdés, “The Gospel According to Luke,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 281.
30 Robert H. Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1981), 42-71; Wiersbe, Bible, 212.
31 Martin, “Luke,” 234; Wiersbe, Bible, 213; Valdés, “Luke,” 281; Ryken, Luke,” 55.
32 Valdés, “Luke,” 281.
