February 1931
79
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
BLACKBOARD LESSON JAany Qiessings Are Missed, i p H « « O P P O R T U N I T Y dii /ipe "iö Fixiertait\ Arabers! f TT\y NEI6I V \ M —- I t\yTELE ^ A ffections GHBOR V. 34. Came to him. Not with curi osity, but with tender love. Ordinarily, the Jew would spurn the defiling touch of a Samaritan. Oil and wine. These were common remedies (cf. Isa. 1:6). The wine was an antiseptic; the oil mollified the wound and helped recuperation. Set him on his own beast. The verb signifies lifting up, as one would lift an almost lifeless body. The traveler then trudged along on foot. Took care of him. The inn was not merely a public .shelter, but a place where proper supplies and care of the sick man could be secured. V. 35. Took out two shillings. The shilling, or denarius, was a Roman silver coin worth about seventeen cents. It was the average wage of a laborer for one day. Take care of him. It appears that the purpose was to pay for his care for two days, but the Samaritan provided further that if he should fail to return at the end of that time, he would take qare of any additional expense that might be incurred. He considered not only the present but the future need of the suf ferer, up to the time of expected full re covery. V. 36. Which o f these three? The Lord again compels the lawyer to answer his own question, “Who is my neighbor?” The practical message of the parable was perfectly clear. V. 37. He that showed mercy. The lawyer admitted that, since the good Sa maritan was the neighbor of the distress ed Jew, the Jew was similarly neighbor to every Samaritan who needed his help. In other words, no Jew would fulfill the law, which he claimed to love, if he did not show practical sympathy and love to every needy soul on earth. Go and do thou likewise. This brings the lawyer back to his original question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Putting it negatively, he must not spend all his en ergy in meaningless discussions about the law and the traditions of the elders. He must prove himself a true follower of Christ, the Good Samaritan, by practical deeds of mercy and love. This does not say that good works will save any man, but that every Christian is saved unto good works. * * * L esson Q uestions V. 25. Who were the lawyers of Christ’s day? What was their attitude as a class toward Him? In what way did this lawyer attempt to put Jesus to, the test? By what title did he address Him? Is it sufficient to look upon Jesus Christ merely as a teacher? Is there inconsis tency in the language that speaks of doing in order to inherit eternal life? Can any one be saved, by works (Eph. 2:8, 9) ? V. 26. What questions did the Lord Jesus ask? If none can be saved by the
keeping of thé law, why did He refer to the law? Does a good teacher begin with his pupil on the pupil’s own level? V. 27. Did the lawyer give a correct answer? From what Old Testament scriptures did he quote? Did he give a complete and correct summary of the law? Does our. love for God demand all the strength of body, mind, and spirit? How much should we love our neighbor? V. 28. Was the lawyer’s answer com mended? What did the Lord Jesus tell him to do? Might one be saved if he could keep the law of God perfectly with out a single slip throughout the whole of life? Did the lawyer appreciate the fact that he was unable to meet this test? V. 29. In what way did the lawyer try to justify himself? What question did he ask? V. 30. Where was Jericho located? Was the road from Jerusalem to Jericho dangerous? Was such a practical illustra tion effective? What happened to the traveler? In what condition was he left? Vs. 31, 32. What special duties and privileges had the priests ? Might a priest, more than other men, be expected to have love for the suffering? What were the privileges of the Levites? Would they also be expected, more than others, to show compassion? What was the priest represented as doing? What did the Le vite do ? V. 33. Who were the Samaritans? How were they regarded by the Jews? How did the Samaritan’s feeling and con duct differ from those of the priest and the Levite? Vs. 34, 35. How did the Samaritan minister to the wounded man’s immediate need? How did he plan for his future requirements? Did he show mere pass ing pity or genuine compassion? V. 36. What question did Jesus ask? Did He, in these words, compel the law yer to answer his own question, “Who is my neighbor ?” V. 37. Did the lawyer answer correct ly? What did Jesus tell him to do? Had he, before this time, asked anything about what he could do (v. 25) ? What had Jesus previously told him to do (vs. 27, 28) ? Does this lesson teach that a sin ner can be saved by good works? Does it, rather, prove that the Christian is saved “unto good works” (Eph. 2:10)? * * * P ractical P oints 1. One may have more or less ortho dox theological views without possessing eternal life. 2. A wise soul winner begins at the seeking sinner’s own level and endeavors to lift faith to God’s level. 3. Men of all false religions are ask ing, “What shall I do to obtain life?” Christianity alone declares how life is obtained, by faith, on the ground of what Jésus Christ has done as the sinners’ Sub stitute. 4. “How readest thou?” The Scrip tures point unerringly to Jesus Christ the giver of life (John 5:39, 40). 5. Christianity never separates religion and morals. Love toward God is proved by manifesting love for the brethren (1 John 2:9-11). 6. Pity that gives no practical help is vain (Jas. 2:15, 16). Help without Chris tian compassion is cold (1 Cor. 13:3). 7. The servant of Christ is called upon to give himself as well as his gifts for the good of others (1 Thess. 2:8).
Who is my neighbor? To the Jew, neigh bors were “the children of one’s people” (Lev. 19:18). Gentiles were counted aliens and called “dogs.” Possibly the lawyer, knowing that Jesus had a more generous spirit than that shown by the average Jew, sought to trap Him into what looked like a controvention of Scripture. II. Parable of the Good Samaritan (30- 37). V. 30. Jesus answering. L ite ra lly , “taking him up,” Jesus was not to be so easily caught or turned aside to foolish discussion of trifles. A certain man went down. We are not told whether we are to consider this, man as representing a Jew or a Gentile, but the evident mean ing of the parable seems to require us to think that Jesus had the former in mind as He spoke. An act of kindness done by a Samaritan to a Jew would be most unexpected. When his compassion was contrasted with the conduct of the priest and the Levite, it was the more startling. From Jerusalem to Jericho. This was a wild district frequented by robbers. The character of the country facilitated the work of these plunderers. Fell among thieves. The original word implies that he fell‘into the midst of them with no possibility of escape. Who both stripped him. Or, “who, having also stripped him, and beaten him, went away leaving him half dead.” It is a picture of merciless unconcern for a fellow man. V. 31. A certain priest. The priest who passed may have been returning home after the termination of his service at Jerusalem, for Jericho was a priest- city. By virtue of his office, the priest was permitted to approach Jehovah as others were not; and if any man might he expected to show mercy to a sufferer, it would be he. Came and looked. He could not avoid seeing the helpless man, but he did not even cross the narrow road to ascertain what his need was. V. 32. A Levite also. To the Levites was assigned the care of the temple. Their task was little less sacred than that of the priests. Surely this Levite should have exhibited that love which was the very heart and core of his religion. It is true that he did more than the priest, in one sense, for he went to the man and observed his condition. But if he were moved only by cold curiosity, was he not worse than the priest? V. 33. A certain Samaritan. The Sa maritans were descendants of the Jews and of the Assyrians whom Sargon had introduced into the land to take the place of the captive Jews whom he had carried away to Babylon. They occupied the ter ritory between Galilee and Judea. They were abominated by the Jews, not only be cause they were a mixed race, but because of their perversion of Judaism. Further point is given to the story if it is recalled that just before this (Lk. 9:53) the Sa maritans had refused to receive Christ and His disciples because they were on their journey to Jerusalem. To hold up a Samaritan to the lawyer as a model of love, and to contrast his compassion with the failure of the priest and the Levite, was not only the height of absurdity, but also a terrible offense. Moved with com passion. This language is often used to describe the sympathy of Christ for a sufferer. It signifies much more than mere outward acts of kindness.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker