Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Luke 10:25 - 10:37
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1. The Good Samaritan (Luk_10:25-37)
(Luk_10:23-27, Gospel for the 13th Sunday after Trinity.)
Putting Him to the proof.—It is as if Luke would by the very commencement: êáὶ ἰäïý , draw our attention to the contrast between the joyful emotions of the circle of friends which had but just heard from Jesus, mouth words of approbation and joy, and the cold stranger who bestirs himself to prepare for the Master new snares. It is a íïìéêüò , who is perhaps distinguished from the Pharisees in this (comp. Luk_11:44-45), that he, more than these, holds to the letter of the law of Moses; but in no case a Sadducee, or a Herodian, since his highest striving appears directed towards eternal life. He appears as an ἐêðåéñÜæùí , and as this word is always used in an unfavorable sense, we are at least to assume that he wished to find out whether the Saviour also would teach anything which was in conflict with the law of Moses. His question springs therefore from a very different source from that of the rich young man, Mat_19:16, and without doubt he expects a very different answer from this one, which, on the position of the law, was the only possible one. He is first put to shame by the very fact that the Saviour gives him to hear nothing strange, but simply that which was perfectly familiar.
Luk_10:27. Thou shalt love.—It speaks perhaps favorably for this íïìéêüò that he does not name one or several special precepts, but immediately brings forward the spirit and main substance of the law, which the Saviour, in a case not wholly dissimilar, was obliged first to remind the inquirer of, Mat_22:38-39. So much the sadder was it here that with so clear a knowledge of the law, there was joined an utter lack of self-knowledge.
Luk_10:29. Willing to justify himself.—Perhaps the scribe took the reply, “this do,” as an indirect reproach that he, to his own amazement, had not yet done it, and now apparently his conscience begins to speak. But he will justify himself, inasmuch as he intimates that he, in this respect at least, had already fulfilled the requirement of the law, unless it were that Jesus perhaps by the words “thy neighbor” might have some different meaning from himself. But better still, we are perhaps to conceive the matter thus: if the answer was so simple as it appeared to be from the words of our Saviour, there might undoubtedly be need of an excuse that he had approached Jesus with so trifling a question. He wishes, therefore, by this more particular statement to give the Saviour to feel that precisely this is the great question, namely, whom he is to regard as his neighbor and whom not; and as to this, our Lord now, in the immediately following parable, gives him a definite exposition.
Luk_10:30. From Jerusalem to Jericho.—According to Lange, the journeying of the Saviour in Samaria, and the sending of the Seventy into the towns and villages of the Samaritans, had possibly offended this scribe, and our Lord, by the delineation here following, wishes indirectly to shame this narrow-heartedness. It may also be conjectured that our Lord on His own journey through Samaria towards Jerusalem was at this very moment on the way between Jericho and the capital, and had therefore chosen the scene of the parable precisely in loco. If we now add to this that the village, Luk_10:38, was Bethany, whither He must come before He entered the city, we then obtain at least some conception of the course of this journey of our Saviour.
And fell among robbers.—The wilderness between Jericho and Jerusalem was known as insecure. See Josephus, De Bello Judaico, iv. 8, 3, and Hieronymus, ad Jerem. iii. 2. Wholly encircled by robbers ( ðåñéÝðåóåí ), he addresses himself fruitlessly to defence, and remains lying wounded on the road, while they, with his garments and the remaining booty, take themselves off. Already half dead, he must infallibly expire if help does not with all speed appear for him.
Luk_10:31. By chance.—“Multœ occasiones bonœ latent sub iis, quœ fortuita videantur. Scriptura nil describit temere, ut fortuitum; hoc loco opponitur necessitudini.” Bengel.—A priest—a Levite.—It is well known that at Jericho many priests had their abode, who, when their turn came, discharged the service of the sanctuary at Jerusalem. Commonly they appear to have chosen the longer but safer road by Bethlehem, so that it was an exception when they travelled through the wilderness. It here brings into so much the more striking light their want of feeling, that the two do not pass on without first having come nearer and, more or less exactly, taken note of the state of the case. This inspection, however, merely persuades them of the greatness of the danger that awaits them also if they delay even for an instant, and therefore they make haste to quit the way of blood as quickly as possible. Neither the voice of humanity, nor that of nationality, nor that of religion, speaks so loudly to their heart as the desire of self-preservation.
Luk_10:33. A certain Samaritan, as he journeyed.—From the very choice of this example, it is evident that the injured man was certainly no heathen (Olshausen), but a Jew, in whom, however, his benefactor views, before all, an unhappy man.—Oil and wine.—Customary remedies, see Isa_1:6 and Wetstein, ad loc.—He had compassion on him.—“Animi motus sincerus prœcedit, quem sequuntur facta, animo congruentia.” Grotius. Mark the beautiful climax. First the compassionate heart, then the helping hand, next the ready foot, finally the true-hearted charge.
Luk_10:35. He took out two denarii.— Ἐêâáëþí , “graphic: out of a girdle,” Meyer. He leaves the unhappy man in rest, but takes care also that no difficulty shall arise to him after his departure on the score of payment. From his promise to make good what may be lacking on his return, we may perhaps draw the inference that the ὁäåýùí expresses not only the conditio, but also the habitus, of the Samaritan.
Luk_10:37. The merciful act, ôὸ ἔëåïò .—The definite species of compassion, that is, which was described in the parable. It has been often remarked that the scribe by this circumlocutory answer wished to avoid mentioning the name of Samaritan. See, e.g., Bengel, ad loc. So has Luther also written in his Kirchenpostille, ad loc.: “Will not name the Samaritan by name, the haughty hypocrite.”
2. The answer given by the scribe stood, at least as far as concerns Deu_6:5, upon the broad phylactery which was worn by the Jews, and so far it may be said that this ôïῦôï ðïßåé is to be taken as having been uttered by Jesus äåéêôéêῶò . As to the rest, it need not surprise us that the Saviour here gives another answer than, e.g., Joh_6:29. From the point of view of the scribe, the requirement of faith, if made to him would have been unintelligible. It is moreover literally true, that if any one indeed so fulfilled the law that his act in God’s eyes really bore the stamp of perfection, he would certainly enter into life. It is only if the scribe had answered that it was impossible to him to fulfil the law as God requires on account of his sin and weakness; it is only then that he would have been receptive of further instruction. The Saviour places first precisely the duty required by the law, in its full emphasis, in order to bring him to a knowledge of himself, and to give him a clear insight into his own imperfection in contrast with the supreme ideal. This conversation is, therefore, a striking proof of the deep didactic wisdom of the Saviour.
3. The parable of the Good Samaritan is certainly one of the most beautiful, considered from an æsthetic point of view. The antithesis of the Samaritan on the one hand, of the Jew, the priest, and the Levite on the other; the extended description of his work of love in its full and entire compass; the perfect completion of the picture by the trait at the end,—all this contributes to exalt the graphic vigor of the portraiture. No wonder that this parable has become one of the most popular, and that it has been seriously inquired whether here also an occurrence from actual life may not have been related, of which the Saviour in some way or other had obtained knowledge. This view, however (Grotius a. o.), natural as it is, appears nevertheless hardly admissible, for the reason that the Saviour was not wont to bring up without necessity, and in their absence, the chronique scandaleuse of the priests and Levites.
4. The purpose of the parable would be understood amiss, if we thought it was intended to serve directly to commend the duty of love to enemies. The Saviour does not once say that the object of the love here exhibited was a Jew, but only that it was a man, and will give the inquirer to feel that the word “neighbor” must be applied in a far wider sense than only that of Friend, Companion, or Countryman. It is the more beautiful that the Saviour makes no other than a Samaritan the type of the genuine love of man, if we consider that it was very shortly before that He had experienced the intolerance of the Samaritans in its full strength. Luk_9:51; Luk_9:56.
5. Here, however, there is a special distinction to be made between Christian love of the brethren, which is commended in Joh_13:34, and the general love of our neighbor, which is commended in this passage. The first has for its object the fellow-believer, the love of Christ for its standard, and faith on Him as its condition. The second embraces all men, loves them as one’s self, and is grounded in the natural relation in which all the sons and daughters of Adam stand to each other as members of one great family here on earth. It is not uncommon that those in the right way, zealous for that which is specifically Christian, give themselves less concern regarding this general human duty. It is, therefore, well worth the trouble to consider somewhat more particularly the portrait here drawn by the Lord. We see then at the same time, also, why this parable is found in the Pauline and broadly human Gospel of Luke.
6. The element of the general love of man is that most pure feeling which does not ask, “Who is my neighbor?” but in every man beholds a brother, and in the unhappy man first of all ( ἐóðëáã÷íßóèç ). Its extent, therefore, is entirely unlimited; it does not ask whether it has to do with a Jew, Samaritan, or heathen, but only whether it has to do with a man, as such. Its tokens reveal themselves in unrestricted helpfulness (oil and wine), self-denial (giving up of his own beast), heartiness (the commendation to the host), and continuance (afterwards as well as now he will pay all). And its reward is, besides the approving voice of conscience and the involuntary praise even of those far differently minded, above all, the testimony of the Lord, who sets such a deed of love before others as their example. A whole chapter of Christian ethics is, therefore, here written down in a few words.
[6 a. There is one thing to be taken note of in connection with the parable of the Good Samaritan, which we are apt to neglect, and thereby to lose much of its force. We are so much accustomed to look upon the Good Samaritan as a model of excellence, as to forget that he was a heretic, not in the Jewish notion merely, but in reality; and that our Lord, in His conversation with the Samaritan woman, Joh_4:22, distinctly and severely condemns his heresy. This parable, therefore, teaches us not only that true love to man knows no distinction of nationality or creed, but that this genuine philanthropy may be exhibited by one involved in grave speculative errors, and neglected by those whose speculative belief is sound. We have here Heterodoxy with Humanity, and Orthodoxy without Humanity. Our Lord has shown elsewhere, abundantly, that He has no thought of conniving at Heterodoxy, or of disparaging Orthodoxy. Only, He teaches that Humanity is better than Orthodoxy, if only one may be had, and that Inhumanity is worse than Heterodoxy, if one must be endured.—C. C. S.]
7. If we inquire who has perfectly set forth the character of the Good Samaritan, and perfectly accomplished his work, then we know of only one—our Lord. So far we may say that He has depicted the portrait of perfect philanthropy with traits from His own immediate self-consciousness.
8. What has been hitherto said, already prepares the way for an answer to the question, how far the Christian homilete is at liberty to view in the Samaritan the image of the Saviour. As is well known, this was done very early by many of the ancient fathers, and by Luther and Melanchthon, and among the moderns by Stier and others [Alford]. This has been, on the one hand, powerfully defended, and it has been asserted that if we stop at the common conception, “it is hard to find a Christian theme” in this whole Pericope (Cl. Harms). On the other side, it has been wholly condemned as pious fantasy, and certainly not with injustice, if we remember how every particular of the parable has been expounded even to trifling, so that, for instance, Jerusalem must denote Paradise,—Jericho, the world,—the lodging, the Church,—the two denarii, the two sacraments. This can only be reconciled when one knows how to make a distinction between historical exposition and practical application of the instruction here given. From the position of the former it is entirely inadmissible to say that the Saviour had here the intention to designate Himself as the Redeemer of man from sin and misery. No, the purpose is no other than to portray actual love of man in the sphere of actual life: this must, therefore, be and remain the chief point. But if now it is asked, in conclusion, in whom the ideal of the highest love of man is perfectly realized, then it is almost impossible to overlook here the image of the Saviour, and to pass over in silence what He, the Heavenly Samaritan, has become for Humanity sick unto death, already given up by priest and Levite, &c. For the love of Christ is not only the type, but is also no less the most powerful impulse to such an active love of our neighbor as is here required. A distinguished example of the treatment of this parable, in which the ethical and the Christological element alike receive full consideration, has been given by A. Vinet in the dissertation: Le Samaritain, in his Nouveaux discours sur quelques sujets religieux. Thus does this parable become in a certain sense the sublimest allegory of Sin on the one hand, and Grace on the other. Comp. Tholuck, Die wahre Weihe des Zweiflers, p. 63, and Lisco, ad loc., p. 239. It is, however, self-evident, that we are not therefore permitted to build on individual details a doubtful dogmatic view (e.g., Semipelagianism on the expression that the man lay half dead on the way), and that in a tropical use of it the great central thought must be adhered to, without pressing the particulars overstrongly. A certain spiritual tact will here show the way better than could be done by definite rules, and this of itself already introduces the
Starke:—As the question, so the answer.—Cramer:—The law aims high and demands the whole heart, &c.—Quesnel:—Piety consists not in having, but in doing.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—Oh ! the shameful priests, who pass by the poor.—Ecclesiastics that have not the Spirit, are bare, fruitless trees, Jdg_9:14.—True love takes on itself with much danger the necessity of the saints.—Compassion has so bright a brilliancy that it shines even in the eyes of enemies.—Majus:—No one must be ashamed to follow even simple and mean people in good.—Lisco:—Christian love of our neighbor should be: 1. Universal; 2. self-sacrificing.—The active compassion of the citizens of the kingdom: 1. Its sphere of activity; 2. its nature; 3. its portion.—Heubner:—Man does not lack so much the knowledge of his duty as the will for it.—How little is close contact with, and administration of, that which is holy often wont to sanctify the heart. How deep has the priesthood often sunk!—How often have the followers of the true religion been excelled by professors of false religions!—Love seeks, where its means are not sufficient, to win others also to its ends.
On the Pericope:—Heubner:—How Jesus demands true love of man: 1. By His example; 2. by the most perfect doctrine.—The peculiarity of Christian love of our neighbor: 1. Sources, 2. manifestations.—The double eye of the Christian: 1. The eye of faith, Luk_10:23-24; Luke 2 the eye of love, Luk_10:25-35. The Christian is not to be one-eyed.—Love, the true proof of faith.—Palmer:—How love again makes good what sin has ruined.—Fuchs:—Who is counted blessed by the Lord, is truly blessed.—Schultz:—How we in this world can become partakers of eternal life: 1. If we see that which Christ has revealed, Luk_10:23-24; Luke 2. if we so love as Christ requires, Luk_10:25-35; Luke 3. if we so work as Christ has enjoined, Luk_10:36-37.—Happy he, 1. Who is a Samaritan; 2. happy he who finds one!—Von Harless:—Good Samaritan love: 1. Whom it profits; 2. how it manifests itself; 3. whence it comes.—Florey:—The glory of true love: 1. It inquires not, Luk_10:25; Luk_10:29; Luke 2. it hesitates not, Luk_10:33; Luke 3 it is not afraid; 4 it tarries not, Luk_10:34; Luke 5. it willingly sacrifices, and leaves nothing unfinished, Luk_10:35.—F. Arndt:—Active, helpful love.—Burk:—How we without the Lord Jesus nowhere, but with Him everywhere, may see our way.
The Pericope is admirably adapted for missionary sermons also.
Footnotes:
Luk_10:35.— Ἐîåëèþí (vox molestissima, Schultz). It is possible that it was omitted on account of the following ἐêâáëþí (Meyer), but more probable that it is an explicative addition, since the mention of the áὔñéïí would of itself direct attention to the continuance of the journey. [Om. B., D., L., Sin.; Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford retain it.—C. C. S.]
Luk_10:37.—Rec.: åῖ ̓ ðåí ïὖí . The reasons for äÝ preponderate.