R.A. Torrey explores the parable of the Good Samaritan, emphasizing the lawyer's misguided understanding of eternal life and the law. The sermon highlights how the lawyer sought to justify himself rather than recognize his need for grace, illustrating that true love and compassion extend beyond social boundaries. Torrey points out that the Samaritan exemplifies genuine love through selfless action, contrasting with the indifference of the priest and Levite. Ultimately, the message calls for a deeper understanding of love as the fulfillment of the law, urging believers to act with compassion towards all, regardless of their background.

DISCOVERY OF THE FACTS 1. The Inquiring Lawyer, vv. 25–29 What was the question that led to the parable of the Good Samaritan? Who put it? What is meant by “lawyer”? What was his purpose in the question? Did he have any real sense of his need of eternal life? What did the question imply as to how eternal life was to be obtained? What was the purpose in Christ’s reply? Is eternal life to be obtained by doing? (Ro. 6:23.) How is it obtained? (John 3:36, etc.) To what does our Lord direct the lawyer for an answer (v. 26)? Why? Why did not our Lord tell him to believe? What is the purpose of the law? (Ro. 3:19, 20.) What was the lawyer’s summary of the law (v. 27)? Had he read the law rightly? (Matt. 22:37, 38.) Where then was the trouble with him? How does our Lord point out to the lawyer where the real difficulty lay? Wherein was he right? Wherein was he wrong? Does it ever happen nowadays that men’s views and answers are right and their practice wrong? What did our Lord say the lawyer would obtain by keeping this law of love? How perfect would the keeping have to be to thus obtain eternal life? (Gal. 3:10.) Has any one ever obtained eternal life that way? (Gal. 2:16.) Why not? (Ro. 3:23.) When sin has once entered can there be justification by law? (Ro. 3:19, 20.) How must justification be when once sin has entered? (Ro. 3:23, 24.) What then was the real object of Christ’s words? Did His answer sting the conscience of the lawyer at all (v. 29)? What did he try to do? Do men often attempt that today? Is it a good thing to try to justify ourselves before God? (Job 32:2.) Can we do it? (16:15; 18:9–14.) What part of the law did the lawyer fancy he had kept? Had he? In what way did he seek to avoid the keen edge of Christ’s reply? What did the question mean in this connection? Will one who really has the love of God in his heart ask: “Whom must I love”? What sort of people is it who are always asking: “Must I do this, and must I do that”? Was there any answer in the law itself to the lawyer’s question? (Lev. 19:34; Ex. 23:5.) How did our Lord answer the lawyer’s question? What is the point of the answer? 2. Our Lord’s Answer to the Question: “Who is My Neighbor?” vv. 30–37 What is the picture of the man who was in trouble (v. 30)? Where did it all happen? Was this a likely place for such a thing to happen? Are there any Jericho roads nowadays? Who is our neighbor? Who was the first man who came along (v. 31)? How did he happen to come down that way? What did he do? Was that very wrong? Do men ever see sorrow and need and pass by on the other side nowadays? What excuse had he for his action? Who next came along (v. 32)? How did he act? What excuse had he? Was it sufficient? Who acted the part of a neighbor (v. 33)? Why did our Lord choose a Samaritan as the illustration of the true neighbor? (17:16–18; John 4:9; 8:48.) Would he have as good an excuse as the priest and Levite for passing by? What did he do? How did he show his compassion was genuine (vv. 34, 35)? How much did it cost him to act this way? How are we (according to this parable) to treat need and suffering? Did the Samaritan leave his work half done? Does real compassion ever leave its work incomplete? According to this parable what is love? Who are the proper objects of the workings of this love? Is anything lost by it? (Prov. 19:17; 1 John 3:22; 4:7.) Who most fully realizes this picture of the good Samaritan? What are the points of similarity between a sinner and the man among thieves? Between our Lord and the good Samaritan? By what question does our Lord point His parable and drive it home? Did the lawyer see the point (v. 37)? Does he answer it fairly and squarely? How does he reveal his prejudice? What is Christ’s final thrust at the lawyer’s conscience? In what condition did the interview leave the lawyer? Who was it that had really been put to the test? And what was the result of the testing? CLASSIFICATION OF TEACHINGS 1. Jesus His divine wisdom, 26–37; His divine love, 33–35. 2. Man Ever fancies he can gain eternal life by his works, 25; can know the law but can’t keep it, 27, 28; seeks to keep the law by lowering its requirements, justifies himself rather than God, 29; doomed to confusion, 37. 3. The Law Its sum—love, 27, 28; Its demand—not knowledge, but obedience (perfect knowledge of it will not bring eternal life; perfect obedience to it would, but cannot be rendered), 28, 29–37; Its purpose—“conviction,” 28, 29. 4. Love Its object—God, and all mankind, 27–35; Its manifestation—prompt compassion, 33; untiring service, uncalculating self-sacrifice, 34, 35; Its limit—neither race, nor creed, nor social standing, but humanity, 33; More acceptable to God than loftier religious profession and activity, 36, 37. 5. Man Our duty—love, 27, 28; Our neighbor—the man who needs us, 30; Our folly—self-justification, 29.