Luke 10

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 10 MISSION OF THE SEVENTY Luke 10:1-24 Luke 10:1 —Now after these things—The mission of the “ seventy” is given by Luke only. Jesus was probably near Capernaum when this was given. Many think that the seventy were sent out before the incidents recorded in Luke 9:51-56, and there¬fore before Jesus left Galilee for the feast of tabernacles at Jerusalem. (John 7:2-10.) The places to which the seventy were sent are not known; they were probably in lower Galilee and along the Jordan valley in Perea and Judea. “ After these things” simply means after the general series of events narrated in the previous chapter. They were to go in twos. The number seventy reminds us of the seventy elders appointed by Moses (Numbers 11:16) and the Jewish Sanhedrin, which was composed of seventy or seventy-two. These seventy were appointed in addition to the other disciples or apostles which had been selected. Their mission was to go before him and announce his coming. Luke 10:2 —And he said unto them,—As they were to go by twos, they had a specific mission. He said to them, “ the harvest in-deed is plenteous,” but there were very few laborers. The language used by Luke here is the same that was used in sending the twelve. (Matthew 9:37-38.) They were to pray that “ the Lord of the harvest” should send forth sufficient laborers to take care of the harvest. Christ was the Lord of the harvest; it is he who sent them out. “ The harvest” refers to the great multitude of people who were eager to learn of his teaching. This is another passage which very vividly represents the need of laborers to work for Jesus. Luke 10:3 —Go your ways; behold, I send you forth—These seventy likewise were sent as lambs among wolves; notice that here the word is “ lambs,” while in Matthew 10:16 it is “ sheep,” but the thought is the same, only intensified by lambs. These seventy were to go in gentleness and simplicity as lambs, and as defenseless as they, among the rough people who would act like wolves toward them. Lambs and wolves are natural enemies ; the lambs are innocent and defenseless, the wolves are malicious and cruel. It is a pathetic picture of the risk and dangers that they had to endure. It is like taking one’ s life into one’ s own hands. It was necessary that these dangers be made emphatic to them so that they would know what they would have to meet. Luke 10:4-5 —Carry no purse, no wallet,—The provision for their journey was very much like that of the twelve when sent out on their limited commission. “ Purse” means moneybag; “ wallet” was a bag for carrying provisions; they were to take no extra shoes or sandals. These sandals were fastened to the bottom of the feet with straps passing over the foot and ankle. They were to go just as they were, without making preparation, and depend on the hospitality of the people. They were to salute no man on the way; the King’ s business required haste. The greeting or salutation to the house was the common Jewish greeting. To salute one by the way after the Eastern custom would consume much time, but this greeting to a house when they entered it was brief, and required no waste of time. The brief salutation was “ peace be to this house.” Whatever house they should happen to enter, they were to greet it with this usual salutation. (1 Samuel 25:6.) This salutation was both a prayer and a blessing, and which indicated the gracious mission which they had in coming to that house. Luke 10:6-7 —And if a son of peace be there,—“ Son of peace” means one who is inclined to peace and properly belongs to the household. The figure here is that the peace and blessing which they pronounced upon this household would return to them; they would receive blessings for blessing the household. However if the head of the house did not receive them, their blessings should not abide with that house; it should return “ to you again." If they had a favorable reception, they were to remain in that house until they had finished their work in that village. They were not to go “ from house to house" in their abiding; it does not mean that they should not go from house to house in their teaching. The laborer is worthy of his hire. It would be easier for them to do their work by remaining in the same house, and avoid waste of time with such elaborate entertainments as might be offered them. Luke 9:8-9 —And into whatsoever city ye enter,—The same rules were to apply to them on entering a city that applied to them on entering a house if they had a welcome; they were to remain there and to eat such things as would be set before them; they were not to expect a great feast, but were to live a simple life so that they could render the most efficient service. To eat to gluttony and to drink to drunkenness would unfit them for the work that they were to do; they were not to be gormandizers. They were to heal the sick that were there and to preach that “ the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." Healing is here placed before preaching; this was an emphatic way of demanding attention to their message. Luke 10:10-11 —But into whatsoever city ye shall enter,—Jesus knew that his cause would have enemies; he knew that some would not accept his disciples; he knew that some would not believe, as he knew that some would believe and receive his message. Hence, he tells them how to deport themselves in the presence of those who refused to believe their message. Dust was a plague in the East; they should shake off the dust as a witness against those who rejected them. There was to go with this a condemnation because they had refused to accept the mes¬sage. The kingdom of God had come nigh to them, and they had spurned it, and invited the condemnation of the kingdom upon themselves. As those who received them invited the blessings of the kingdom, so those who rejected the message invited the condemnation of the kingdom upon them. Luke 10:12 —I say unto you,—Jesus had just given instruction to the seventy, and had told them that if a city refused to receive them that they should wipe off the dust from their feet as a testimony against that city. He now says that it will be “ more tolerable” in the day of judgment “ for Sodom” than for the city that rejects the messengers of Christ. Lot witnessed against the evil of the Sodomites, but he was a less perfect and clear witness than were the seventy in their mission to the towns of Palestine; hence the greater light rejected, the greater condemnation. This rule holds good now since it expresses a general truth: the more light and truth rejected, the greater the condemnation. (See Luke 12:47.) The many and the few stripes suggest this principle. Sodom was situ¬ated where the southern portion of the Dead Sea now is. Its wickedness was great. (Genesis 13:13 Genesis 18:20; Jude 1:7.) Its ret¬ribution was also great. (Deuteronomy 29:23; Isaiah 13:19; Jeremiah 49:18; Amos 4:11; 2 Peter 2:6.) Luke 10:13-14 —Woe unto thee, Chorazin!—Chorazin is not mentioned save here and in Matthew 11:21. Its exact location is not known. The cities mentioned here were probably located west of the Jordan. Bethsaida was at the north end of the Sea of Galilee and probably on the west of the Jordan. It was evidently not far from where the Jordan flowed into the Sea of Galilee. Jesus evidently did many notable miracles in Chora¬zin and Bethsaida.

Jesus did many mighty works of which we have no special record. (Matthew 4:24 Matthew 8:16 Matthew 9:35.) Bethsaida is supposed to be the name of two towns, one on the east and the other on the west of the Sea of Galilee. The name means “ a house of fishing or fishery.” The Bethsaida on the northeastern border of the lake may be referred to in Mark 6:32 Mark 8:22; Luke 9:10. The one mentioned here was on the west side near Capernaum, the birthplace of Andrew, Peter, and Philip. (John 1:44 John 12:21.) Tyre and Sidon were located on the Mediterranean coast. They were the two principal cities on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. “ Sidon” means “ fishery” and was one of the oldest cities of the world; it is thought to have been founded by Sidon, the oldest son of Cain. (Genesis 10:15 Genesis 49:13.) Tyre means “ a rock” and was about twenty miles south of Sidon; it was not so old as Sidon, but grew in importance and became a greater city. They were the subjects of much prophecy and of divine judgments. (Isaiah 23; Ezekiel 26:27, 28; 29:18.) These old heathen cities of Tyre and Sidon would have repented long ago had such works been done in them as have been done in Chorazin and Bethsaida. “ Sackcloth and ashes” were sym¬bols of penitence. “ Sackcloth” was a coarsely woven cloth; it was made of goats’ or camels’ hair, and was a material similar to that which Paul used in making tents. It was used for rough garments of mourners (1 Kings 21:27; Esther 4:1) in which the sackcloth was put next to the flesh in token of extreme sorrow. “ Ashes” was a sign of mourning, and the defiling of oneself with dead things; sometimes this was done by using dirt. Luke 10:15-16 —And thou, Capernaum,—Capernaum was situated on the northwestern coast of the Sea of Galilee. It had exalted privileges; Jesus had resided there for some time; its privileges and honors were great. (Matthew 9:1.) It was situated on the hill that rises from the plain of the sea; it could boast of being a great city. The prophecy of Christ is that it should be brought down “ unto Hades.” Hades is not the same as Gehenna; “ Hades” was originally the name of the god who presided over the realm of the dead; hence the phrase, “ house of Hades." “ Shed" has a similar meaning. The classical “ Hades" embraced both good and bad men, though divided into “ Elysium,” the abode of the righteous, and “ Tartarus," the abode of the wicked. In the New Testament, “ Hades" is the realm of the dead; it is not merely the place for the wicked. Capernaum would be reduced from its high and ex¬alted state to the lowest state. He that heareth you heareth me;—These solemn words close the instruction that Jesus gave the seventy. The fate of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum will befall those who set aside the mission and message of those sent out by Christ. To receive these seventy would be to receive Christ; to reject the seventy and their message would be to reject Christ. Those who rejected Christ rejected God. Today when people reject the word of God they reject Jesus, and those who reject Jesus reject God. To reject the New Testament today is to reject God. Luke 10:17 —And the seventy returned with joy,—They had followed the directions of Jesus, and had gone into all of the cities where he had directed them to go. They now returned with joy and rejoicing. They had been given power over demons; the demons were merely one sign of the conflict between Christ and Satan. The twelve had been endowed with this power when they were sent out (Luke 9:1), but the seventy were only told to heal the sick as stated by Luke in 10: 9. Not only did they heal the sick which Jesus commanded them to do, but their faith was so active and strong that they cast out demons. This was the more remarkable, as even nine apostles had sometime before this failed to cast out a demon. (Luke 9:40.) There is great simplicity and honesty in their report. Luke 10:18-20 —And he said unto them,—With a prophetic eye Jesus saw the downfall of Satan. The demons being subject to the seventy gave the occasion for Jesus to utter this prophecy. The fact that demons were subject to the disciples of Jesus in¬dicated that Satan himself should be defeated by Christ. As a flash of lightning out of heaven, so quick and startling, so the victory of the seventy over the demons, the agent of Satan, forecast his downfall and Jesus in vision pictured it as a flash of lightning. Jesus now enlarged their authority over evil. They were to have authority “ to tread upon serpents and scorpions,” and all phases of their enemies’ efforts to harm them.

Jesus gives them power to do the work that he had for them to do; they were qualified to do his work, and Satan should not have power to prevent their successful work. The power to tread upon serpents is repeated in Mark 16; 18, and exemplified in Paul’ s case in Melita. (Acts 28:3-5.) Protection from physical harm is not the main point in this struggle with Satan. (Matthew 13:25; Romans 16:20; 1 Peter 5:8.) Nothing can realty “ hurt” God’ s people; they may be perse¬cuted, but their spiritual life cannot be touched by any of the agents or weapons of Satan. (Romans 8:27-39.) “ Serpents” were poisonous reptiles; “ scorpions” were large insects, several inches long, with a poisonous sting at the extremity of the tail; they live in warm climates and are found in dry and dark places. Luke 10:21—In that same hour he rejoiced—Jesus had just told his disciples to rejoice and he now sets the example as “ he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit” and prayed to his Father. Similar sublime words were spoken on another occasion. (Matthew 11:25-27.) The thanksgiving as expressed here by Jesus acknowl¬edges God as “ Lord of heaven and earth.” The thanksgiving arises from the wisdom of God in hiding these things from the wise and understanding, those who fancied themselves to be so, and having revealed them to babes in wisdom and understanding. The Holy Spirit expressed through Paul a similar thought. (Romans 9:11-17. See also Matthew 16:17 Matthew 18:3-4; Luke 9:47-48; 1 Corinthians 1:21 1 Corinthians 1:26; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.) This result was not a mere arbitrary act of God; it follows a law of mind and of truth. People who refuse to see and accept spiritual truth gradually render themselves unable to understand it; those of little spiritual apprehension, mere babes in experience, yet willing to get and use what they can, gain more and more capacity to apprehend that kind of truth; thus it is hid¬den from the first and revealed unto the latter class. Luke 10:22 —All things have been delivered unto me—Jesus was given all power and authority on earth and in heaven; he is Re- vealer, Creator, Redeemer, and will be final Judge of all man-kind. (Matthew 28:18; John 1:1-5 John 1:41 John 17:2.) No one knew the Father except as revealed through Christ; Christ knew the Father and revealed him. The Father knew Christ and revealed him to man; each revealed the other to man. We read of no patriarch or prophet, or priest, or apostle or saint of any age, who ever used words like these; they reveal to us the mighty majesty of our Lord’ s nature and person. They reveal the very intimate relation between the Father and Son; both are incomprehensible, and are understood only so far as they are revealed. Luke 10:23-24 —And turning to the disciples,—The prayer that Jesus uttered was a soliloquy, spoken in the presence of the seventy on their return. Jesus now turned and spoke “ privately,” or to his twelve disciples. It may have been on this same occa¬sion or a little later. “ Blessed” here introduces a beatitude, a beatitude of privilege. Their eyes were blessed because they saw; they understood in some degree what Jesus was saying. They were indeed blessed in contrast to the blinded scribes and Pharisees around them, who both hated and rejected the truth; these humble followers of Jesus, having teachable spir¬its, had beheld him as the Messiah, and had received from him lessons of heavenly wisdom. many prophets and kings desired to see— The Old Testa¬ment prophets like Isaiah, and kings like David, Hezekiah, Je- hoshaphat, and Josiah longed to see the fulfillment of the promise in the coming Messiah, and to hear the wonderful truths he would reveal, but did not see the one nor hear the other. They lived and died in the hope and faith that these things would be accomplished. We live in the full light of that kingdom already set up, and yet how little do we realize the force of these remarkable words of Jesus! (2 Samuel 23:5; Job 19:23-24; Isaiah 52 Isaiah 7; 1 Peter 1:10.) THE GOOD Luke 10:25-37 Luke 10:25 —And behold, a certain lawyer stood up—This parable is peculiar to Luke. “ A certain lawyer,” that is, one who was skilled in the law of Moses, one who could interpret the law and who could teach it. The lawyer “ stood up,” which showed this was some formal meeting or gathering. His purpose was to make trial of Jesus. He was not wanting to know the truth; the question of the ensnaring lawyer and the an¬swer with their explanatory parable were fitted to give truer views of God’ s law, further break down Jewish exclusiveness, and to prepare the way for the acceptance of the universal brotherhood of man. The question asked was “ What shall I do to inherit eternal life?”Luke 10:26-27 —And he said unto him,—The lawyer’ s question im¬plied that he knew what the rabbis taught, but you are a new teacher; what do you say? Jesus did not ask what the law taught, but he asked, “ What is written in the law? how read est thou?” Jesus asked how do you understand the law to teach regarding this?

How would you sum up the law respecting this particular matter? The lawyer answered by quoting Deuteronomy 6:3 Deuteronomy 11:13, which were written on the phylacteries. The second part of his answer was from Leviticus 19:18 and shows that the lawyer knew the law. At a later time Jesus himself in the temple gave a like summary of the law to a lawyer who wanted to catch him by his question. (Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34.) Luke 10:28-29 —And he said unto him,—The rich young ruler had asked the same question and this lawyer was not as sincere as the ruler. Jesus gave an unexpected turn and said: “ This do, and thou shalt live.” The lawyer was not prepared for this answer of Jesus; he expected Jesus to give a different answer. He did not see that following the law in its deep significance would lead him to accept the Messiah; he did not see that every sacrifice offered unto the law pointed to Jesus as the great sacrifice for the sins of the world; he did not see that the law was tutor to bring one to Christ. The lawyer seeking to justify himself, asked: “ Who is my neighbor?” The law¬yer admitted that it was hard to keep this law fully, and that Jesus had answered him correctly. He was seeking a loophole by which he could escape. He had come to ensnare Jesus, but had been caught in his own trap; hence he sought to justify himself by asking a question which diverted the mind from the main question.

The lawyer asked whom he was to love as himself. He was hoping, perhaps, that Jesus would limit the word neighbor to the Jews. (Matthew 5:43.) The Pharisees restricted the term so as to exclude not only Gentiles and Samaritans, but also publicans and those who shared not their own peculiar views. If Jesus should make a different application, the lawyer would have hope to refute Jesus. The word “ neighbor” signified one living near, and was used in a limited sense to mean a friend; in its broader sense, Jesus shows that it meant a fellow man in need. Luke 10:30 —Jesus made answer and said,—This is a very good point with respect to the teachings of Jesus. The lawyer had given this turn to his question and asked whom he is to love as him-self. How near must he live to him; how near in the grada¬tions of social life; how exactly on the same plane of social rank? This shows that the astuteness of the lawyer was brought to his aid in this conversation; he presents the many difficulties of interpreting the second table of the law so as to make it thoroughly practical. Jesus presents the case of a Jew who was journeying from Jerusalem to Jericho. This road was indeed a going “ down,” for Jericho was about eight hundred feet below the Mediterranean Sea, while Jerusalem was about two thousand five hundred feet above it, making a descent of three thousand three hundred feet in about sixteen to eighteen miles. This road to Jericho was through a nar¬row, deep ravine with holes, caves, and hiding places for rob¬bers. Luke 10:31 —And by chance a certain priest—It seems accidental, yet there are no accidents in God’ s arrangements. Jericho was a city of priests, where twelve thousand lived. As they served at Jerusalem, it would be no uncommon thing for a priest to be traveling that road, even though they more commonly took the longer route by Bethlehem. When the priest saw this man wounded and dying, he passed by “ on the other side.” This presents a vivid and powerful picture of the vice of Jew¬ish ceremonial cleanliness at the cost of moral principle and duty. This priest was under obligation to help this man, but he did not do so. Luke 10:32 —And in like manner a Levite also,—“ A Levite” was one who belonged to a class, the descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari; these were the sons of Levi who assisted the priest in sacrificing and other services; they also guarded the temple. (Numbers 3:17 Numbers 8:5-22.) The Levite was probably re¬turning to Jericho from the temple service at Jerusalem. When he drew near to the wounded man, he just looked at the miserable object and got an idea of the critical condition of the poor, wounded sufferer. He immediately crossed the road, passing on without doing anything to relieve the man. The priest had showed great and even selfish indifference, but the Levite showed a cool and calculating selfishness; both acted in a manner unbecoming humanity and utterly unworthy of their sacred professions and office. Their conduct was a striking violation of the law. (Exodus 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 22:1-4; Isaiah 58:7; Malachi 2:6-7.) Luke 10:33-35 —But a certain Samaritan,—The wounded man was ap-parently a Jew, and the Jews had no dealings with the Samar-itans. (John 4:9.) This Samaritan traveling the same road found the man who had been robbed and wounded; he had mercy on him; he took him up and gave him treatment, “ pouring on them oil and wine,” and put him on his own beast and took him to an inn. Of all men in the world to do a neighborly act, a Jew would not expect this of a Samaritan. The Samaritan did not side-step or dodge the wounded man, but had compassion on him. Oil and wine were used for me¬dicinal purposes in the East. (Isaiah 1:6.) They were very commonly carried by travelers. (Genesis 28:18; Joshua 9:13.) The wine may have been used for bathing and cleansing the wounds, and the olive oil for relieving the pain and for its healing qualities. Jews also used a mingling of oil and wine together for healing wounds. The Samaritan was not contented with merely taking him to the inn and seeing that he had a place of safety, but he took care of him during the re¬mainder of the day and night, attending to his wants, nursing him, and thus denying himself of needed rest and sleep. Luke 10:36-37 —Which of these three,—Jesus is now ready to have the lawyer answer his own question. The lawyer had asked who was his neighbor and the great Teacher has led him up to the point that he can answer his own question. So Jesus asks the lawyer which of the three “ proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers?” The lawyer answered promptly and said: “ He that showed mercy on him.” The Master Teacher had changed the lawyer’ s standpoint and put it up to him to decide, and the lawyer could not answer the question incor¬rectly ; the lawyer could not say that the priest or the Levite acted neighborly toward the wounded man; such an answer would have stulified his own intelligence; he had to answer the question correctly; there was no way to evade. He had come to ensnare Jesus, but is now entangled in his own net. Jesus then said to him: “ Go, and do thou likewise.” He had asked what he should do to inherit eternal life, and he now has his answer. He avoided in answering Jesus’ question, saying “ the Samaritan” proved neighbor, and used the clause, “ he that showed mercy on him.” MARY AND MARTHALuk_10:38-42 Luk 10:38 —Now as they went on their way,—Jesus was traveling to-ward Jerusalem; they came to “ a certain village.” We learn from John 11:1 that this was Bethany. The time is not defi¬nite; there is nothing in the language to indicate just when this event took place. As Jesus and the twelve were on their journey whither the seventy had already gone, they came to Bethany— Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. The characters of the two sisters as here presented agree with those described in John. Lazarus is not named here by Luke; it seems that Luke’ s design was merely to present these two sisters with their different traits and their relations to Jesus. Bethany was situated less than two miles from Jerusalem on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. Jesus went into the house of these sisters Many think that this was before the sickness and death of Lazarus. Luke 10:39 —And she had a sister called Mary,—Martha was probably the older of these sisters, and had charge of the domestic du¬ties of the house; she received Jesus to her hospitalities. Very little is said about Mary; in fact, these sisters are men¬tioned only three times in gospel history. Mary “ sat at the Lord’ s feet, and heard his word.” Pupils were accustomed to sit at the feet of their teacher; Paul sat and learned at the feet of Gamaliel. (Acts 22:3.) Mary is described as sitting in John 11:20, in contrast to the active Martha. In Mary we see a quiet, childlike, teachable, and contemplative spirit eagerly seeking after the truth. The good Samaritan presents us an example of active love; Mary of devoted and receptive love. Luke 10:40 —But Martha was cumbered about much serving;—In contrast to Mary at her Master’ s feet is Martha bustling amid anxious cares and overburdened with much labor. She is “ cumbered,” which means “ perplexed, overoccupied”; with her domestic duties weighing heavily upon her in preparing the table for the entertainment of Jesus, she complains to Jesus about her sister Mary. Jesus frequently visited this home; hence he was not a stranger. Martha came with some haste to Jesus into the room where he was sitting and asked that he bid her sister to help her. There seems to be a re¬proach to Jesus in her speech as she asked if he did not care that Mary had left her alone to serve. It was an explosive act of Martha to so speak to Jesus. Jesus overlooked the appar¬ent rebuke that Martha gave him, and looked into her heart and answered according to her good and his own wisdom. Luke 10:41-42 —But the Lord answered and said unto her,—Jesus said: “ Martha, Martha.” This was an impressive and emphatic repetition, calling her attention to the important truth he was about to utter. Martha was fretted with work, and Jesus kindly and calmly answered her outburst of feeling and said that she was “ anxious and troubled about many things.” The manifold cares in providing for his entertainment were not necessary. Jesus reproved her, not so much to the entertaining him as to her state of mind; not to the mere providing for the company, but to her needless solicitude and restless agita¬tion of spirit which could well have been spared on that occa¬sion. Martha was anxious about “ many things,” but Jesus informed her that only “ one thing is needful.” Here Jesus puts in contrast the “ many things” with the “ one thing”; that con¬trast is not only in regard to number, but also in regard to kind. Martha was absorbed with the physical and earthly. Jesus points her to the spiritual and heavenly.

The one thing needful was a proper state of heart for receiving Jesus, and also the receiving of his truth. With proper attention to the one thing needful, Martha as well as Mary could have done well in attending to her household duties. Jesus commended Mary because she had “ chosen the good part,” and he adds that it should “ not be taken away from her.”

Verse 1 With this chapter begins the great body of material unique to Luke, comprising some of the most glorious teachings the Saviour delivered to mankind, and making this some of the most interesting writings in the sacred Scriptures. The sending forth of the seventy (Luke 10:1-16), their return (Luke 10:17-20), the rejoicing of Jesus (Luke 10:21-24), the account of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), and an incident in the home of Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42) are narrated in Luke 10. THE SENDING OF THE SEVENTYNow after these things the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself was about to come. (Luke 10:1) Seventy others … It is of no consequence that some ancient authorities add “and two,” making this place read “seventy and two”; the teaching is not altered by such a slight variation. Others … This word derives from [@heterous], meaning “others of a different kind,"[1] thus distinguishing this group from the Twelve. Two by two … This plan provided courage, companionship, and credibility on the part of those delivering the message, and also afforded protection for the messengers from both physical and moral dangers. Every city and place … The time for the crucifixion of Christ was rapidly approaching; there were many places which Jesus had not been able to visit; and the sending of this group provided an extension of his ministry possible in no other way. Also, Dummelow thought, “He wished to train his followers to act alone after his departure."[2]It is significant that Jesus was able to command such a large group of men in such a mission, indicating the power his ministry had already generated. Jesus followed up their visits by going personally to all those places. The number sent on this mission (whether seventy or seventy-two) had spiritual and symbolic overtones. The Jews held that the Gentiles were made up of seventy nations; and at their feast of Tabernacles, “seventy bullocks were offered on behalf of the Gentile nations … to make atonement for them."[3] The cities and places to which these seventy were dispatched were in Trans-Jordan[4] where Gentile population predominated. [1] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 178.. [2] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 751. [3] Ibid. [4] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952), p. 299.

Verse 2 And he said unto them, The harvest indeed is plenteous, but the laborers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of harvest, that he send forth laborers into his harvest.The harvest metaphor was often used by Christ. There is always a great harvest, but the laborers have always been in short supply. As Childers expressed it: The laborers have always been tragically few; it is man’s fatal lack of concern for his fellowmen that keeps the numbers so small; but the Master makes it clear throughout his Gospel that this concern is a test of discipleship.[5]ENDNOTE: [5] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 498.

Verse 3 Go your ways; behold, I send you forth as lambs in the midst of wolves. Carry no purse, no wallet, no shoes; and salute no man on the way.The similarity of these instructions to those given to the Twelve has been made the basis of denying this mission of the seventy as historical by scholars like Easton, Klostermann, Creed, Luce, and many others.[6] Such denials, however, are but arrogant, unscientific prejudice; and as Geldenhuys commented: Such opinions are mere subjective conjectures, at variance with the available data, as well as with Luke’s express purpose to relate only actual facts (Luke 1:1-4). No conclusive evidence can be adduced to prove as unhistorical Luke’s description of the mission of the seventy.[7]Carry no purse, wallet … The meaning here is clearly that of eliminating baggage, as if Jesus had said, “Go just as you are.” These are essentially the same restrictions imposed on the Twelve. No shoes … The Cambridge Bible Commentary translates this clause, “Carry no purse, or pack; and travel barefoot!"[8] And this is just the type of crooked exegesis that mars so many works of critical scholars. The verb in this clause which is applicable to “shoes” is “carry” not “wear”; and the meaning is undeniably a prohibition of carrying “extra” shoes. Gilmour went out of his way to muddy the meaning when he wrote: “Carry no (extra) sandals would be a forced interpretation."[9] This is not, however, a “forced” interpretation at all, but the only intelligent and natural interpretation of Jesus’ words. If the Lord had meant for them to go barefoot, would he not have said so? The trouble that prevents some from accepting this obvious meaning of the instruction is that it takes away all excuse for claiming contradiction in the synoptics.

Matthew (Matthew 10:10) says, “no staff”; Mark (Mark 6:8) says “staff only”; and the true harmony of these lies in the fact of Matthew’s reference to “extras” and Mark’s exception for what was already in use. This passage in Luke gives the key of understanding all three synoptics. Salute no man on the way … This means that “They were not to waste their time along the road through long-winded salutations as is customary in the East."[10][6] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 302. [7] Ibid. [8] E. J. Tinsley, Commentary on Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 111. [9] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VIII, p. 185. [10] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 300.

Verse 5 And into whatsoever house ye shall enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And if a son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon him: but if not, it shall turn to you again.Son of peace … is a Hebrew idiom meaning “a person inclined to peace”; and the use of it in this context shows that no positive or righteous action is ever lost. An expression of good-will will bless the receiver of it, but if rejected will return to bless the giver. As Summers wrote: “No prayer for God’s peace or blessing is wasted … if one upon whom the blessing is pronounced rejects it, it will return to bless him who sincerely offered it."[11]ENDNOTE: [11] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1973), p. 127.

Verse 7 And in that same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the laborer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.See below for comment. The Lord expressly forbade these representatives of himself to shop around, as it were, for more convenient or comfortable accommodations.

Verse 8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you.Found only in Luke, this admonition was especially appropriate in view of the Gentile character of the area (Trans-Jordan) where the seventy were sent. Even many of the Jews in that area were not very scrupulous in observing the restrictions imposed by their law; and, as those restrictions were shortly to disappear altogether in the approaching kingdom, there could have been nothing gained by Jesus’ messengers making any big point of their observance. Other New Testament passages bearing on this question are 1 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Timothy 4:8; 1 Corinthians 10:27; and Matthew 15:10-20. The seventy were thus instructed “to eat what they were served without causing inconvenience to their host by requiring `kosher’ food."[12]ENDNOTE: [12] Ibid., p. 128.

Verse 9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.There was no admonition to the seventy to “raise the dead,” as in the case of sending forth the Twelve (Matthew 10:7); and this is proof of the inferior nature of the mission upon which the seventy were sent forth. Allegations that the sacred gospels are merely giving confused accounts of the same mission are inaccurate and unreasonable. The kingdom of God is come nigh … It had come nigh in two dimensions: first, the King himself had appeared and was soon to visit in the communities where the seventy went; and again, that Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, when the kingdom would come, was less than a year in the future.

Verse 10 But into whatsoever city ye shall enter, and they receive you not, go out into the streets thereof and say, Even the dust from your city, that cleaveth to our feet, we wipe off against you: nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh.No gospel mission has any valid purpose beyond that of giving men the opportunity to hear and know the truth. The foregone certainty that countless souls shall reject the message cannot invalidate or change the message, nor impose any further responsibility upon the messengers beyond that of faithfully declaring the word of God. In these instructions, Jesus clearly recognized the right of cities to reject the truth if they wished to do so; but such a rejection entailed also their suffering of the penalties and consequences of their choice. The message was exactly the same to those who received and those who rejected God’s messengers: “The kingdom of God is come nigh.” The carryover from this Scripture has wide applications in the church of all ages. God does not command that any specific individual or city be “won for the Master,” but rather that the message be proclaimed in its full integrity; the rest is left up to the hearer. We wipe off against you … Adam Clarke has the following with regard to this: The Jews considered themselves defiled by the dust of a heathen country, which was represented by the prophets as a “polluted land,” Amos 7:17, when compared with the land of Israel, which was considered as a “holy land,” Ezekiel 14:1; therefore, to shake the dust of any city of Israel from off one’s clothes or feet was an action, signifying a renunciation of all further connection with them, and placing them on a level with the cities of theHEATHEN. See Amos 9:7.[13]The practice of this symbolical action was continued into the apostolic age; Paul and Barnabas, for example, “Shook off the dust of their feet against them and came unto Iconium” (Acts 13:51). The relevance of this for present-day missionaries lies in the fact that if God’s word is rejected in one place, the message should then be declared in another. Of course, this is also true regarding individuals; and no preacher of the word should consider it his divine mission to nag any man into the kingdom of God. ENDNOTE: [13] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1829), Vol. V, p. 119.

Verse 12 I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.In that day … is a reference to the final judgment which shall terminate the dispensation of grace. The Saviour’s use of “that day” in this passage, where its primary reference would appear to apply to the “coming nigh” of the kingdom, shows that the kingdom of God will “come” in a more exalted state at the final judgment. Peter’s reference to Christians entering into “the external kingdom” (2 Peter 1:11) also sheds light on this. Sodom … was a grossly wicked city whose very name came to be associated with depravity; but their carnal sins in the sight of God were actually less reprehensible than the arrogant rejection of the Redeemer by the cities of Israel. Sodom was destroyed by fire from heaven (Genesis 19:1-26). The greater sin of the cities of Israel derived from their refusing to see the Light of all nations, an opportunity Sodom did not have.

Verse 13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which were done in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment, than for you.Chorazin … Bethsaida … The New Testament does not record the mighty works done in these cities, making no mention of them at all, with the exception of a single miracle of healing a blind man (Mark 8:22). Again, here is the most conclusive evidence that only a small fraction of the miracles of Jesus are recorded in the New Testament. Chorazin is mentioned only one other place in the New Testament (Matthew 11:21); and while Bethsaida is mentioned several times as the residence of Peter, Andrew, Philip, etc., only one miracle was reported there, and even it was done outside the city. The feeding of the five thousand was only a few miles from it, but still not in it. Tyre and Sidon … Like Sodom, these cities were considered as the most wicked of antiquity; and the prophets of the Old Testament had spoken God’s judgment against them in most somber accents; and the Jews fully believed that those cities deserved the awful judgments that fell upon them. The point Jesus was making here was that Jewish cities rejecting their rightful King were more wicked than proverbial Tyre and Sidon. Sodom, Tyre and Sidon all fell, being overwhelmed with total destruction; and Christ’s words here foretold a similar destruction of the cities of Israel; but he went far beyond this and spoke of the ultimate accounting which all men shall face in the final judgment. The physical ruin of such cities was only a part of the eternal consequence of their sins; all must confront God’s final judgment on the Great Day. They would have repented … This shows that the depravity of such cities as Sodom and Tyre were due in part to lack of opportunity; for Jesus says here that if they had seen such wonders as Jesus performed in Jewish cities, they would have repented. This raises a question of why they did not receive a greater opportunity; and, coupled with the projection of a more endurable status in eternity for Tyre and Sidon than for the cities of Israel, these become elements of a mystery which lies totally beyond the perimeter of human understanding. Obviously, there shall be many surprises in the judgment. J. W. McGarvey pointed out that “When the time came for evangelizing the Gentiles, Tyre and Sidon accepted the gospel and verified the words of this text (Acts 21:3-6; Acts 27:3).[14] For more on Tyre and Sidon, see in my Commentary on Mark, under Mark 7:24. In sackcloth and ashes … Clothing oneself in the coarsest of garments and sitting dejectedly in ashes was from the remotest times a symbolical expression of repentance, as exemplified by Job (Job 2:8) and by Nineveh (Jonah 3:6). ENDNOTE: [14] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company), p. 100.

Verse 15 And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt be brought down unto Hades.Capernaum … This was the home of Jairus whose daughter was raised from the dead, and of the centurions whose son and servant were healed, and of the nobleman whose son was healed of a fever; but the implication is clear that many such wonders were wrought in addition to these which found their way into the sacred gospels. Shalt thou be exalted unto heaven …? Favorably situated in Galilee, a strong commercial city, gateway to Palestine from the East, beneficiary of the payroll afforded by a strong military outpost of the Romans, this city might have imagined that nothing but increasing prosperity and glory would mark their future; but Jesus did not see their future in such a favorable light. As a consequence of rejecting Jesus, Capernaum and all the cities of Israel would be utterly destroyed. Hades … Geldenhuys wrote that in the New Testament, “Hades does not mean the abode of the dead (the good and the wicked) but a place of punishment and condemnation."[15] Summers, however, while conceding that “Hades” sometimes has this meaning (as in Revelation 20:14), insisted that the usual meaning is “the place of the dead. In the sense of the realm of the dead it was used for the idea of extinction."[16] Perhaps we might reconcile scholarly opinions by supposing that both meanings appear in the word here. Certainly the character of Capernaum which deserved a judgment of extinction would also project a final overthrow in hell itself. [15] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 305. [16] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 131.

Verse 16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me.Many passages in John emphasize the facts stated here. This verse has been called a Johannine thunderbolt in a synoptic sky; and of course those scholars who allege irreconcilable differences between John and the synoptics have cause enough to view this verse as a thunderbolt. It proves the teaching of John to be one with that of the synoptics. The thesis maintained in this verse is that of the identity of God with Jesus and of Jesus with his servants, a major tenet of Holy Scripture. The same relationship appears in Acts 22:8, where Paul’s persecution of the church is made the equivalent of persecuting Jesus. In this also appears the responsibility of men to receive the word of God when delivered through God’s messengers.

Verse 17 And the seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven.THE RETURN OF THE SEVENTYSatan fallen as lightning … The power of Jesus’ disciples over Satan, in that they were able to cast out demons, was proof to Jesus that Satan was defeated. “Satan is a conquered enemy; and where action is taken in the name of Jesus, victory is gloriously assured."[17] Here Jesus was both reminiscing and prophesying. Satan had suffered some major defeats, notably in connection with Christ’s temptation; but Jesus was looking forward to Satan’s final fall, his complete defeat at Christ’s hands."[18][17] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 302. [18] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 131.

Verse 19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall in any wise hurt you.Tread upon serpents … This was not an inducement to snake-handling, either for the seventy or to the Christians of all ages, but rather an affirmation of God’s providence as exerted upon behalf of his servants in all generations. The symbolical meaning of “serpents and scorpions” is primarily “the works of the devil.” The key to this verse is the last clause, “nothing shall in any wise hurt you.” This is equivalent to the promise in the great commission. “Lo, I am with you always” (Matthew 28:20). Any presumption on the part of God’s children is not to be grounded in these promises. While it is true that the apostles and prophets of the New Testament did actually take up poisonous serpents and were bitten without harm (Acts 28:5), there is utterly no example where any person ever did such things on purpose and presumptuously.

Verse 20 Nevertheless in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.Rejoice not … That is, rejoice not in these victories as your own personal triumph; although through you, they are nevertheless victories of the Lord. Names are written in heaven … The names of God’s servants are inscribed in the Lamb’s book of life; and for a full discussion of this book, who are inscribed in it, when the inscription takes place, and who may be blotted out of it, see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 12:23.

Verse 21 In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes: yea, Father; for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight.THE OF CHRISTSignificantly, this rejoicing of Jesus was “in the Holy Spirit,” indicating that even his emotions were in harmony with that Spirit which, without measure, dwelt in him. The true joy of the redeemed issues automatically in the outpouring of prayers of thanksgiving to the Father. Hide these things … God did not hide capriciously his revelation from the wise and understanding of earth; for they received exactly the same revelation as the “babes,” with this difference: “The revelation to those with the wrong attitude, when they persistently rejected it, was taken away from them, and they were permanently confirmed in their spiritual blindness."[19]ENDNOTE: [19] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 308.

Verse 22 All things have been delivered to me of my Father: and no one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.This verse is of incredible importance in showing that the Christology of the gospel of John is fully equaled by that of the synoptics. As should have been expected, the radical scholars who deny both the divinity of Christ and the inspiration of the Scriptures have greeted this verse with screams of outrage, many of them having had resort to the last refuge of unbelief, that of making this verse an interpolation. But, in the words of Geldenhuys: Plummer’s words remain true: “It is impossible upon my principle of criticism to question its genuineness, of its right to be regarded as among the earliest materials used by the evangelists; and it contains the whole of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel.” As regards the theory of a later interpolation, even Creed writes: “It is precarious to desert the evidence of the manuscripts.” It is only because there are persons who refuse to recognize the divinity of Jesus, or at any rate to believe that he proclaimed it so explicitly, that they try to get rid of this verse. They have, however, not the slightest real basis of proof for their “a priori” views.[20]ENDNOTE: [20] Ibid.

Verse 23 And turning to the disciples he said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things which ye see: for I say unto you, that many prophets and kings desired to see the things which ye see, and saw them not; and to hear the things which ye hear, and heard them not.No king or prophet in Israel’s great past had been so blessed as these humble men. Though picked from the lower ranks of society, they went out to proclaim the establishing of the kingdom of Christ - the good news of salvation.[21]Although Christ might not have had in mind any specific examples of kings and prophets who were not so privileged as the seventy, one naturally thinks of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Solomon, David, and Hezekiah, none of whom received the glorious revelation which came to Jesus’ followers. ENDNOTE: [21] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 501.

Verse 25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?THE GOOD Trench held that “We may not ascribe to this lawyer any malicious intentions,"[22] basing his argument upon the revelation that another lawyer, also described asTEMPTING Christ, nevertheless received encouraging words, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). What shall I do to inherit eternal life … It is erroneous to deny that Jesus answered this question; because the ensuing conversation shows that, when requested to answer his own question, the lawyer accurately did so, Jesus receiving his answer as true, thus confirming it. ENDNOTE: [22] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 311.

Verse 26 And he said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?How readest thou …? A number of important deductions are mandatory from this response of Jesus. First, there is the premise that one may find in the sacred Scriptures the true answer to the question of what must be done to inherit eternal life. Second, there is the deduction that every man is responsible for reading the answer himself. Third, there is the implication that the sacred Scriptures give the same answer to all who faithfully read them. This verse has the impact of saying, “Look, Lawyer; God has told men what to do to be saved; it is written in the Scriptures; and you, like every other man, may surely read it. What does the Bible say?” This is still the only way to receive the correct answer to so important a question.

Verse 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: do this, and thou shalt live.On another occasion, a lawyer (not the same as this) was given this very reply by Jesus to the effect that loving God and loving one’s neighbor fulfilled all the law and the prophets, saying, “On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets” (Matthew 22:40). Significantly, both there and here, the attainment of eternal life depends absolutely upon keeping perfectly the entire law of God. Salvation has never been possible except on the basis of doing God’s will, all of it; but of course, this has always been impossible for every man, save one alone, the God-man, Jesus Christ our Lord; he kept the law, all of it, in uttermost perfection; and the man who would be saved must be saved as Christ, in Christ, and completely identified with him, such a thing being achieved by membership in Christ’s spiritual body of which he is the head. Membership in that body is free to all mankind upon their fulfilling the preconditions of faith, repentance, and baptism (into the one body, 1 Corinthians 12:13); but the grounds upon which God accounts man as righteous must be identified as the perfect faith and obedience of the Son of God. The full scope of this marvelous truth does not come into view in this passage; but the manner of Jesus’ referring the lawyer back to all the commandments in the law and the prophets most certainly points toward it. In his conversation with the rich young ruler, Jesus reiterated the principle in view here, namely, that eternal life depends upon keeping the commandments of God (Matthew 19:17; Luke 18:20). This mountain fact sends every man to Christ for salvation; only he kept God’s commandments perfectly. Every soul seeking salvation must: (1) keep perfectly the sum total of God’s commandments, or (2) accept identity with Christ, absolutely, who did observe all of the Father’s commandments. Only Christ can save; for only he fully obeyed. The lawyer who asked the question of how to win eternal life, seeing the true answer, quailed in Jesus’ presence, and then sought to justify himself on a technicality.

Verse 29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?It was in answer to this question of “who is my neighbor?” that Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan, and not in answer to the question of how to inherit eternal life. The questions are related, but certainly are not identical; and the significant thing is that the lawyer’s conscience condemned him in the knowledge that he had not loved God fully nor his neighbor as himself. The more acute distress in his conscience related to neighborly relations, hence, the direction of his inquiry about “who is my neighbor?”; but it should not be thought that his conscience was totally at ease with regard to loving God. The parable of the Good Samaritan was given for the purpose of demonstrating to this lawyer that he did not have a clear conscience and that under no circumstances was he an heir of eternal life, having failed, as all men fail, to live perfectly in keeping all of God’s commandments.

Verse 30 Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance a certain priest was going down that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow he took out two shillings, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee.The method of interpreting this parable which is usually followed in these times is that of contrasting religious people (the priest and the Levite) with non-religious people (the Samaritan), making the non-religious humanitarian superior to the uncharitable religious person: then construing the whole as an answer to the question of how to inherit eternal life, with the conclusion that the only thing needful in order to inherit eternal life is for one to do good to his fellowmen. This parable teaches no such thing.

While it is true, of course, that uncharitable and pitiless religious persons cannot be saved, it is likewise true that the unreligious humanitarian is also without hope. It is the conviction of this student that “a certain Samaritan” in this parable does not stand for non-religious humanitarians at all, but for the Christ of Glory, who alone, of all who ever lived on earth, has shown infinite compassion and pity upon all. Bertel Thorvaldsen, the great Danish sculptor whose “The Good Samaritan” adorns the rotunda at Johns Hopkins University, depicted the true message of the parable, making Christ the Good Samaritan. Jesus our Lord is the true model of all human behavior, and not the unnamed Samaritan who lavished pity and care upon the victim of robbers on the Jericho road. One of the favorite slanders of Jesus by the Pharisees called him a “Samaritan” (John 8:48). See under Luke 9:19. But in this parable Jesus touched that slander with the genius of his divinity and changed it into the most glorious encomium, an accolade of eternal praise. They called him a Samaritan; very well, Jesus defined “Samaritan” for all generations in this incredibly beautiful parable. JESUS’ The parables of Jesus are excellent beyond all excellence. The hymns of Wesley, dramas of Shakespeare, novels of Scott, eloquence of Churchill, stories of O. Henry, philippics of Demosthenes and the scope of the ILIAD and the ODYSSEY are all surpassed and exceeded by the parables of Jesus. “The Sextette” from “Lucia di Lammermoor,” the “Hallelujah Chorus,” the “Chant of the Pagan Priestess” from “Aida,” the marches of Sousa, and all the harmonies of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Handel none of these nor all of them are as beautiful as the parables of Jesus. The whole world for nearly two millenniums has loved the parables. They are the essence of all philosophical and moral wisdom, the distilled knowledge of all that characterizes human behavior, and the most influential words ever written. They live in the hearts of millions, monitor the activities of all mankind, judge the secrets of men, reveal their motives, disclose their sins, and announce their destiny. They are at once simple and profound. The parable of the Good Samaritan has alone built a thousand hospitals, or a million; it has fed orphans, relieved the poor, and poured its blessings upon all the wretchedness and disease of this earth. Thorvaldsen’s statue of the Good Samaritan symbolizes the relation of this parable to the science of medicine, but the connection with all the sciences of human service is just as real and dramatic. If there is anything ever written that compares with the parables of Jesus, why does not someone identify it? Good Samaritan hospitals all over the world honor this parable. Where is its rival? If the sacred parables of Jesus are not indeed of God himself, why have twenty centuries of human genius been unable to write another? The conceit that a parable has only one point is a human device for the reduction of infinity to a smaller theater for the purpose of accommodating inadequate understanding of God’s word. When man is bewildered, challenged, perplexed, and amazed at the scope of one of Jesus’ parables, he may console himself and reduce embarrassment by the allegation that, after all, there is only one point anyway! The inability of men to agree on which is the “one point” proves there are many. Jesus allegorized the Master Parable (Matthew 13:18 f); and here is another parable of the same type, displaying the same quality of exciting analogies. OF THE PARABLEThe wounded man stands for Adam and all his posterity. The descent from Jerusalem to Jericho is the Fall. The thieves are the devil and his servants who strip men of their garments of purity and the fear of God. The man left half dead shows the result of the Fall in that man was left dead in his body, but immortal in his soul. The priest is the Law given through Moses. The Levite is the teaching of the prophets. The Good Samaritan is Jesus Christ himself. The inn is the church which receives every kind of men. The failure of the priest and the Levite to aid the stricken man shows the inability of the Law and the Prophets to save the souls of men. The compassion of the Samaritan shows the loving compassion of Christ himself. The Samaritan’s paying all of the charges for the care of the wounded man stands for the fact that Christ paid the total cost of human redemption. With slight variation, this is the allegorization of this parable as found in Euthymius,[23] who extended the allegory to include the innkeeper as the ruler of the church; but the innkeeper is an inert factor in the parable, bearing no analogy whatever. Such an understanding of the parable does no violence at all to the obvious teaching on “who is my neighbor?” and it also has the advantage of refuting the humanistic nonsense which modern commentators have imported into it. As Spence said: This exegesis which has commended itself so heartily to learned and devout churchmen in all the Christian ages deserves at least a more respectful mention than the scornful allusion or contemptuous silence with which it is nowadays too often dismissed.[24]The parable was given by the Master in response to the question of “Who is my neighbor?”! and if Jesus had nothing else in mind except answering that question, he might merely have said, “Every human being is my neighbor if he is in need and I have the ability at whatever cost to help him.” The mistake of the lawyer lay in the restricted view he had with regard to the identity of his neighbor. Even if the person in need is of another race or color, if his need is the result of his own folly, or if aiding such a one is fraught with danger, expense, and inconvenience, nonetheless, he is my neighbor. One of the ministers of Central Church of Christ, Houston, Texas, whose life was ended in a tragic traffic accident in the mid-1930’s, especially loved the parable of the Good Samaritan; and, in the sermon outlines and notes which he left to the church library, James H. Childress left the following poem. It is included here out of respect to a faithful, energetic, and brilliant preacher of the gospel whose genius as a church builder is still attested, forty years after his untimely death, by the fact that a great church still retains as its nucleus many of the faithful souls whom he gathered together in the name of the Lord. THE MAN BY THE SIDE OF THE ROADIn the long, long ago, a traveler came down the road to Jericho; He fell among robbers, who stripped him, and left him dying from many a blow. A priest passed by on the other side; he had no time to spare; A Levite glanced at the wounded man, but left him lying there. A human being, beaten and robbed, and left by the road to die! And others content to have it so, and willing to pass him by! But, lo! another traveler came, a man of a hated race; He came to the victim’s side, and grief and pity were in his face. He bathed and bound the bleeding wounds of the man by the side of the road; And on his beast of burden placed a different load. And then to the inn there slowly moved that tiny caravan; That wounded man and the little beast and the Good Samaritan. His time and his strength and his money too, the Good Samaritan gave, That he might from a cruel death that day his needy neighbor save. And my prayer is that I may be like the man who mercy showed In the long ago on the Bloody Way to the man by the side of the road. -James H. Childress [23] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 752. [24] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 277.

Verse 36 Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among robbers? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. And Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.He that showed mercy on him … Significantly, the lawyer did not use the hated word “Samaritan,” thus affording a glimpse of his inner thoughts toward others. Go and do likewise … By such a command, Jesus enjoined upon all who would be his followers that they should go and be a neighbor to all men; and, in this, there is sharp divergence from the question of the lawyer, who seemed to be asking who was a neighbor to himself; whereas, Jesus focused on the converse of it, “What kind of neighbor are you?”

Verse 38 Now as they went on their way, he entered into a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.THE IN THE HOME OF MARY AND MARTHAA certain village … This is undoubtedly Bethany; and Martha and her sister named in the next verse are undoubtedly the sisters of Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead (John 11). It is an error to understand all the incidents in this section of Luke as if they had been successive events consecutively following each other as in some kind of a journey. “Luke does not appear to be using a journey sequence, though that was suggested at Luke 9:51."[25]ENDNOTE: [25] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 137.

Verse 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at the Lord’s feet, and heard his word.Sister called Mary … This paragraph in Luke is the only mention of the family of Lazarus, Martha and Mary outside the gospel of John; and the failure to mention Lazarus in a connection that so strongly suggests it dramatically points up the synoptic omission of the name Lazarus, demanding also the conclusion that the omission of his name was by design. Regarding this mystery, Spence said: The long recital of John 11 gives us the clue. For the disciples of Jesus publicly to call attention in their sermons and addresses to Lazarus, on whom the Master’s greatest miracle had been wrought, would have no doubt called down a ceaseless, restless hostility on the Bethany household; for it must be remembered that for years after the Resurrection the deadly enemies of Jesus and his followers were supreme in Jerusalem and the neighborhood.[26]Sat at the Lord’s feet … This has a dual meaning, namely, that Mary sat beneath Jesus on a lower seat; “but it also has a figurative meaning of listening as a disciple would listen to a teacher."[27] There is thus implied here a teacher-pupil relationship. Thus Paul is said to have sat at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). [26] H. D. M. Spence op. cit., p. 277. [27] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 506.

Verse 40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving; and she came up to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister did leave me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.Martha’s attitude toward her sister in this verse suggests that Mary was a resident in Martha’s house; for, had she been merely a guest on that occasion, it is not likely that Martha should have objected so vigorously to Mary’s failure to help with the serving. Also, the three, Lazarus included, from the events recorded in John, would appear to have belonged to one household. It is not true that Martha was an unspiritual person, for one of the noblest confessions of faith in the New Testament was made by her ( John 11:27); but in the incident here, she was indignant at what appeared in her eyes as a slight of duty on Mary’s part; and she called for the Lord to rebuke it. Nor do the Lord’s words deny that a duty had been neglected; but, rather, they stress that a higher duty had been honored by Mary. It is the setting aside of lesser duties for the observance of higher duties that appears to be Luke’s reason for including this intimate, revealing story of two sisters.

Verse 41 But the Lord answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and troubled about many things: but one thing is needful: for Mary hath chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.The one thing needful … This can be nothing except hearing the word of the Lord; that is what Mary was doing, and it was the thing which Jesus refused to interrupt on behalf of lesser human obligation. The application is timeless: whatever the duties of men, whether real or imagined, whether less or greater, the one great obligation of all who were ever born is that they shall heed the word of the Son of God. Much of the failure of modern Christianity lies in the fact that Christians are busy with all kinds of things, many of them important and necessary, of course; but yet they have no time for the word of the Lord.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 101. What appointment did the Lord make now? 2. In what manner did he send them out? 3. To what places did he send them ? 4. Repeat the remarks about the harvest and reapers. 5. State the illustration about lambs and wolves. 6. How were they to provide for their travels? 7. They must not take time for what ? 8. What must first be offered a house ? 9. If not accepted what will return to them ? 10. Were they to make a general canvas ? 11. Where must they go for their meals? 12. Tell what favors they were to bestow. 13. What were they to announce? 14. If a city rejects them where must they go ? 15. Then they must make what protest? 16. Notwithstanding what? 17. Compare above city with Sodom. 18. State the criticism upon Chorazin. 19. 8Compare it with Tyre and Sidon. 20. What is said of Capernaum? 21. How would one hear Christ ? 22. How would one despise God? 23. Of what did the seventy boast? 24. What had Jesus seen that was greater? 25. Where had the disciples obtained their power? 26. But what was greater than all this? 27. For what revelation did Jesus thank God? 28. Why had God done this? 29. From whom had Jesus received all things? 30. What confidences did Jesus mention? 31. What favor did he affirm for the disciples ? 32. Who had been denied these blessings? 33. What question did a lawyer ask Jesus? 34. State his motive. 35. How did Jesus answer? 36. What did the lawyer say to this? 37. To this what did Jesus say? 38. And what did the lawyer next ask ? 39. What reason did he have for asking it ? 40. From and to where did a man start to go ? 41. What befell him? 42. How many and who “passed him by” ? 43. Who paused to help him ? 44. What first aid did he administer ? 45. And what next? 468. State the question Jesus then asked. ~ 47. Did he get correct answer? 48. What did Jesus then command him? 49. How many neighbors are in this lesson? 50. Into what village did Jesus enter? 51. Who entertained him? 52. State her complaint. 53. Of what did Jesus warn her? 54. Did Jesus condemn the work of cooking? 55. What had Mary done that was better?

Luke 10:1

1 The words other seventy are arranged as “seventy others” in the Greek text, and means seventy besides the twelve apostles. This was a special mission and intended as a hasty work of immediately preparing the people for the reception of Jesus. His work was nearing its close and he wished to accomplish as much as possible in the time. To help towards that end these disciples were sent ahead of him. He sent them in pairs, which had many advantages in that each could encourage the other.

Luke 10:2

2 There were so many people who needed help that neither Jesus or any other man could be bodily present with all of them. That is what he meant by saying the harvest is plentious but the laborers are few, and prayed that they might increase.

Luke 10:3

3 A lamb among wolves would be in great danger. But by great care he might not attract needless attention to himself and so would escape harm.

Luke 10:4

4 A scrip was a provision bag used as a lunch basket, and a purse was a money bag. Note they were not to carry these, which is also said about shoes. It means not to take any “spares” as will be explained at verse 7. Salute no man might seem unfriendly. Thayer explains the word for salute as follows: “As a salutation was made not merely by a slight gesture and a few words, but generally by embracing and kissing, a journey was retarded by saluting frequently.”

Luke 10:5

5 Their call at a house was to begin by offering their peace to it.

Luke 10:6

6 Son (of peace) is from HUION which Thayer defines, “One who is worthy of a thing.” The Lord was with these disciples in spirit, and if the people in a house were not worthy of the favors that were offered them, the Lord would see that none would come to them and the wishes of the disciples would return to them.

Luke 10:7

:7 The work of the disciples in spreading the news of the kingdom entitled them to their living. That explains the instructions In verse 4 about not taking along their own provisions. Go not from house to house. They were to make only one call in each city because of the shortness of time. (See Matthew 10:11; Matthew 10:23.)

Luke 10:8

8 Eat such .things us are set before you. This is similar to Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 10:27. Conscientious Jews were often afraid to eat of things unknown to them because of the restrictions of the law of Moses. Jesus did not overlook the law, yet he was about to give a new one to the world, and certain parts of the old one were to be discontinued.

Luke 10:9

9 The disciples were to preach the news of the approaching kingdom of God. By healing the sick they would prove they were true prophets.

Luke 10:10

0 A city that would not give the disciples a welcome was to be considered unworthy. The disciples were to get out of the house and into the street.

Luke 10:11

1 Shaking off the dust was an ancient custom and was used to indicate disapproval of a place. Notwithstanding. Even though they rejected the teaching of the disciples, that would not stop the program of the Lord, for the kingdom of God was going to come into their midst in due time.

Luke 10:12

2 In that day is indefinite as to date, but the same subject is handled in other passages in which the day of judgment is specified. (See Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:22; Matthew 11:24; Mark 6:11.) It should be noted that the tolerance is to be shown on that day, not afterward.

Luke 10:13

3 This is the same as Matthew 11:21.

Luke 10:14

4 At the judgment is explained at verse 12.

Luke 10:15

5 Exalted to heaven is a figure of speech, based on the fact that Jesus was an inhabitant of Caper-naum by choice (Matthew 4:13), and hence it had the advantage of his presence. See the comments on Matthew 11:23 for the meaning of hell.

Luke 10:16

6 Jesus ordained the apostles and the seventy and hence whatever attitude was shown to them was equivalent to showing it to Jesus. On the same principle, that attitude also pertains to God since he sent Jesus into the world. To despise Jesus and God means to disrespect them or belittle their authority.

Luke 10:17

7 The disciples looked upon their work of controlling the devils as an exploit of which to boast. It was much like the spirit of the Corinthians which they exhibited over the possession of spiritual gifts.

Luke 10:18

8 I beheld Satan as lightning fall from, heaven. Moffatt renders this, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning.” John refers to this event in Revelation 12:9. The thought is that Jesus would have more to boast of than the disciples, since he saw the chief of devils fall from heaven. But he was not making any such use of it as a personal advantage. 8

Luke 10:19

9 Jesus had given his disciples the ability to perform these miracles so they could prove they were not a group of false teachers.

Luke 10:20

0 This power was not intended for their personal distinction over which to rejoice. What counted the most was a spiritual favor, that of having their names written in heaven. (See Hebrews 12:23; Revelation 21:27.)

Luke 10:21

1 See the comments on Matthew 11:25 for the present verse.

Luke 10:22

2 The complete mutual knowledge of the Father and Son of each other was not shared by the world. But such information as would be deemed necessary for others was to be revealed by the Son in his own manner.

Luke 10:23

3 The disciples were enjoying some bits of information that had not been granted to preceding generations, and for this Jesus called them blessed or happy.

Luke 10:24

4 It was not the time for those ancient prophets and kings to receive that information, although they had a desire for it. (See Ephe-sians 3:9-11; 1 Peter 1:10-12.)

Luke 10:25

5 A lawyer was a man informed in the law of Moses and who taught it to the people. The question he asked was a proper one as far as its form was concerned. But the inspired writer tells us the man’s motive was wrong, that he wished to tempt Jesus.

Luke 10:26

6 How readest thou? This was a direct allusion to the profession of the lawyer. That being his business he should have known what he was expected to do to be saved if he had been reading the law carefully, hence the question Jesus asked him.

Luke 10:27

7 The lawyer correctly cited the requirements of the law.

Luke 10:28

8 Thou shalt live is equivalent to inheriting eternal life, the thing the lawyer inquired for. Under whatever dispensation people lived, if they did the things required by its law they were promised salvation.

Luke 10:29

9 The young man of Mat 19:20 affirmed he had kept all the commandments from his youth. The lawyer did not make that claim which he evidently could not do truly. To justify means to show one’s self to be righteous. The lawyer thought he would clear himself of coming short of his duty by the use of a quibble over the interpretation of terms, so he asked who is my neighbor?

Luke 10:30

0 This entire story is told in answer to the lawyer’s question, but there are some bits of information incidental to the main subject that will make it worth while to consider. The misfortune of this traveler co8uld happen to any man, so that part of the story is not unusual.

Luke 10:31-32

2 All priests were Le-vites, but not all Levites were priests (Exodus 29:9; Exodus 40:12-16; Numbers 4:1-4), which is the reason for using the terms priest and Levite separately. But they were both Jews and considered themselves as being followers of the law which this inquirer also professed to follow.

Luke 10:33-34

4 The Samaritans were a mixture of Jew and Gentile blood, the origin of which is recorded in 2 Kings 17:24-33. The Jews had no dealings with them (John 4:9), and thought that very little good ever came from them. That is what makes this part of the story significant; for the Samaritan was the one who showed a neighborly feeling toward the injured man.

Luke 10:35

5 The assistance given by the Samaritan did not consist in words of sympathy only, but he assumed the full expense of the case.

Luke 10:36-37

7 Which . . . was neighbor? Jesus switches the direction of the subject from the neighbor to be loved to the one acting the part of a neighbor. Upon the lawyer’s answering the question of Jesus correctly, he was told to go and do likewise. It all sums up the matter by answering the lawyer’s question stated in verse 29 by showing that whoever needs our help is our neighbor.

Luke 10:38

8 This certain village was Bethany, the town of Lazarus and his sisters (John 11:1). Martha seems to have been head of the house as to domestic affairs.

Luke 10:39

9 The teaching of Jesus absorbed the attention of Mary.

Luke 10:40

0 The original for cumbered is defined by Thayer as “distracted.” Martha was so interested in the entertainment of her guest that she let it crowd out her attention to spiritual things. Frequently today professed Christians will actually plan to be absent from the assembly of the saints in order to prepare a meal for expected guests. Such women are in the same class as Martha and deserve the same rebuke as she.

Luke 10:41-42

2 Jesus does not teach that it is wrong to perform the duties of the home, but he does frown upon one’s allowing them to overwhelm him with undue care. Needful is from a strong word meaning very necessary. The food that sustains the body will cease to exist at the same time that the fleshly body is destroyed (1 Corinthians 6:12-13), but the spiritual nourishment will not be taken away.