Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-27)

Welcome to Wednesday in the Word with Krisan Marotta. What the Bible means and how we know. For more talks and study materials, visit wednesdayintheword.com. Speaker: Well, we are in Luke chapter 10 today. We're going to look at the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is probably one of the most familiar parables to you. Many years ago, when I was uh I was with friends in Portland, Oregon, and Portland is a big enough city that it has a fair amount of homeless people, and as we were walking to our destination, we came upon a man who was literally face down in the gutter. And I had this moment of cold panic because in our group I was the only one who was certified in CPR in emergency response. And this was the early 1980s, so it was no one had a cell phone, and AIDS had just become a known disease, you know, just had gotten a name, but nobody really understood what it was about except everybody thought it was a death sentence. And so here was this much older man, completely covered in filth and dirt, and he's lying in the gutter, and we did not know if he was alive or dead. So while the rest of us all watched on high alert, my friend walked over and kind of gently shook him and asked if he needed help. And it turned out, to my relief, he was only drunk. And he kind of gruffly rebuffed our efforts and said, no, he didn't want any help, and he staggered off to find another place to sleep. And at that moment, relief washed over me like a wave because I thought, I'm the only one who knows how to help, and I did not want to help. My if I didn't know it before, my complete selfishness and shallow compassion just hit me in the face because I knew to the core of my soul that I did not want to give that man CPR. And all I can, I don't know to this day if he'd needed help, I do not know if I would have stepped up, but all I can say for sure is I was very, very afraid of the consequences and the risks. And that experience has given me a much greater understanding of the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is our passage today. Because I know without a doubt that left to myself, apart from the grace of God, I am not able to go and do likewise, which is how our parable concludes. So this is our first parable from the Gospel of Luke, and let me give you a little, just a little bit of orientation as where we are in the book. Luke devotes a considerable amount of his book to the parables of Jesus. And this is a real simple outline. I I always like the detailed outlines, and then I like these kind of simple big picture outlines. You can break Luke's Gospel down into three sections that roughly correspond to the geography. So the first one, the first section is chapters 1 through 950, or about halfway through chapter 9, and that's where Jesus is in Galilee. And then from 951 to 1944, he's in Samaria. And then from 1945 to the end, he's in Jerusalem. And these three outlines correspond, or three geographic places correspond to three different teaching methods. So in Galilee, which is one chapter one through 950, that's his home base. It's a more familiar setting, he's more comfortable, and during this part of his ministry, he's mainly teaching in lecturing or didactic explanation, explaining the truth of God at work among us. And that section concludes in Caesarea Philippi, where Peter declares, You are the Christ. Then he moves into the Sumerian region, that's 951 to 1944, and this isn't home, it's a little less comfortable, but it's not his final destination either. And that's where we get the parables. Most all the parables he tells that are recorded in Luke are in this setting. And then the final section of the book, where in 1945 he goes to Jerusalem, and that's his final destination. That's the place where it was all building up to the crucifixion, the Passion Week, and the resurrection, and the whole reason he came. And there his teaching is mainly in response to an event or an action or to prepare his disciples for what's coming next. So we are at the beginning of the parable section in Samaria, and I'm going to be referring to a chart that's in your study guide on page 19. So if you want to turn there, that's what we're going to be looking at. This parable is part of a theological debate. And to understand the debate, or to understand the parable, we have to understand the debate. And it's this dialogue around the parable is very short, so it's easy to miss, but it makes a big difference on how we what Jesus is trying to accomplish. So the setting is a debate between Jesus and a lawyer. And a lawyer at that time was a student of the rabbinic law. So this is not a lawyer who would go to court like we think of lawyers today. This is more of a scholar or a scribe. And there are two rounds in the debate, and notice that each one, in each one, Luke tells us the lawyer's motives. So he gives us a little clue into what the lawyer's thinking. And each time the lawyer asks Jesus a question, and Jesus answers with a question, which the lawyer answers, and then Jesus answers the original question. So it looks like this. Round one, a lawyer stood up and put him to the test and said, Here's the first question. What must I do to inherit eternal life? That's in verse 25. Jesus answers him with his own question. He says, Well, what does the law say in verse 26? And the lawyer answers Jesus' question. He says, Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor in verse 27. And then Jesus answers, Do this and you will live in 28. So then we get round two, and notice Luke tells us the lawyer desiring to justify himself says, Here's the third question, Who is my neighbor? In 29. And then Jesus tells the parable. And the parable ends with a question, which of these three became a neighbor in verse 36? So that's the next question. The lawyer answers that question in 37, the one who showed him like who showed mercy on him, and then Jesus answers his third question, which is go and continue doing likewise in 37. So that's kind of, you have to say that the parable is functioning in the midst of this debate. So we're going to walk through it section by section and see how that uh plays out. So let's start back in Luke 10, 25 and 26. A lawyer stood up and put him to the test, saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And he said to him, What is written in the law? How does it read to you? Now notice we start out, and Luke tells us the lawyer is suspicious of Jesus. So he stands up, that's a gesture of respect. So in that culture, when a student addressed his teacher or a rabbi, he would stand to address the question and ask his question out of courtesy. I was thinking of all kinds of funny jokes about we should implement that and wouldn't say in the word, but never mind. And then he addresses Jesus with the title of teacher or rabbi, which was another form of respect. So outwardly he has all the trappings of respect, and yet Luke tells us he's trying to test Jesus or to trap him. So the idea is he wants to get Jesus into a debate that will expose him, expose Jesus as a poor teacher of the law. So he thinks he knows more than Jesus does, and he's trying to show Jesus up. Now just to give you the context, he's probably coming from the rabbis of the day thought that the way you gained eternal life was to keep the law. So you had to scrupulously keep all aspects of the law with this sincere good faith, day in, day out effort. So he expects that the lawyer probably expects that Jesus is going to say, Well, here's a list. Here are the things you absolutely must do to gain eternal life. These are the critical elements of the law. And then the lawyer can say, Oh, you think that one's in? No, no, no, no. This one should be in, and engage him in some kind of debate and show that he's wrong. On the other hand, if Jesus says, no, you don't gain eternal life through keeping the law, it's a gift. There's nothing you can gain it can can do to gain it, that would be contrary to accepted orthodoxy of the day. So that's going to make him look like, whoa, upset the crowds and likely spark a hostile debate. So either way, the lawyer figures, I'm going to win this. I've got this covered. So instead of giving him either one of those answers, Jesus asks his own question. So this is verse 27 and 28. Well, in 26 he says, What do you think the law requires? That's his own question. And then the lawyer answers in 27, 28. And he answered, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself. And he said to him, You have answered correctly, do this, and you will live. So the lawyer sums up the law as Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor. And Jesus probably knows that any good student of the law at this time is going to answer the question that way. They will answer with some form of keeping the law, and this was kind of the accepted summary. So he's combining Deuteronomy 6.5 and Leviticus 19.18. Deuteronomy 6.5 says, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. Now, you have to know in Hebrew thought, heart was the center of your intellect. So when you say in the Old Testament, love the Lord with all your heart, for the Jews, that was your mind. That was your intellect, your what we would talk about is our mind. When they wanted to talk about where your emotions were located, they talk about your kidneys. Most translations don't translate that that way because it's confusing to us, and they change it to heart. But in some Bibles you'll see a little footnote that says you know, kidneys. And kidneys was for them the seat of your emotions. Uh, your heart was the seat of your mind. So quite frequently, it's confusing in our translations because some you have to look to see is this really heart, i.e. mind, or was this kidneys, and they're translating it heart. So that's something, just a little Bible study tip when you're studying. Check out what word you're dealing with. Now the lawyer amplifies that idea by adding, with all your mind, which is not in the original Hebrew. So he's like it's a way of making it a superlative. So he's emphasizing it and expanding the idea. And Jesus says, your theology's right, but he questions his performance. Notice there's a tense change. He says, keep doing this in the present tense, and then switches to future tense and says, and you will live, which kind of throws into doubt, ooh, maybe I haven't done it enough. So you have the right answer. The question now is, can it be done? And that's exactly what Jesus wants the lawyer to see. Can it be done? And the answer he's going to give him is you can't keep the law well enough to gain eternal life. So notice the lawyer picks up on that in 1029, but wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, and who is my neighbor? So the idea behind justifying himself is saying, okay, you don't think I've done this well enough? Well, let me show you how well I've done it. You tell me who my neighbor is, and I'll show you how well I've loved my neighbor. That's the idea that behind he's seeking to justify himself. He's not making excuses, but he's saying, okay, if these are the requirements for eternal life, let me show you how well I've done them. I've passed the test, I have done everything there is to do, and therefore I am justified before God, I am right before God, and he wants probably wants Jesus to say, Well done, you're on the right track. So he asks, Who is my neighbor? Because that was the debate of his day. What he's asking is, how far does my responsibility extend? Just what who do I have to love and to what extent? Now the rabbis of the day agreed that your neighbors were your fellow Jews, but they debated how how many other people it included. So he's quoting Leviticus 19, 17, which reads, You shall not hate your fellow countrymen in your heart. You may surely reprove your neighbor, but you shall not incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. So he's quoting 1918 there. And notice that section talks about your fellow countrymen and the sons of your people. So the Jews all agreed, loving your neighbor at least means other Jews. But they were divided over what about people who were not born Jewish but converted? So they were proselytizes. They weren't born Gentiles, but they have converted to Judaism. Are they included? Do we have to love them as well? And there were some rabbis who said yes, and some said no. But they were pretty sure that it did not include the Gentiles. So loving your neighbor stopped at the border. And they were almost they were, you know, proselytizes maybe, maybe not, but Gentiles, no obligation whatsoever. So the lawyer's probably hoping that Jesus is going to say, Well, your neighbor is your family, your friends, and widows and orphans, or something like that. And then he can say, I've done that all my life, I've done that. And Jesus will say, Great, you've uh fulfilled the law, and he can go home happy. But that's not the answer he gets. He gets our parable. So keep on that in mind as we go through the parable, because Jesus is answering that question. So let's look at it verse by verse, 1030. And Jesus replied and said, A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. So the setting for our story is the road between Jerusalem and Jericho. It's a 17-mile trek, and it's still in existence today. And at the time it was known to be dangerous. One of the early church fathers, Jerome, described this road as the bloody way because roving bands of robbers, our Bedouins, would often lie in wait for people along this road to plunder them. So this is like setting our story, say, in the um the red light district of LA or New York or any big city. It's this is a bad neighborhood. The other thing to notice is everyone in the story is identified except the victim. So we have a priest, we have a Levite, we have a Samaritan, and we have a victim. And we don't know is he Jewish, is he Gentile? Is he a proselyte? We don't know. So the story intentionally leaves him un unidentified, and a Jewish audience would probably assume he's a Jew. And it's significant that he's left half dead and naked because it means there's no way to identify him. Normally you would identify a traveler by the type of clothing he wore. So the and the victim no longer has clothing, so he's not marked as Egyptian or Jewish or whatever. You can't tell from his style of address. And the other way you could identify someone is by his accent. But the the idea that he's half dead is that he's unconscious, so he can't speak. So people coming down the road have to look and go, I can't tell what he's dressed, how he's dressed, I can't hear him speak, I don't know who this man is. And because the question on the table is, who is my neighbor? That's significant. Because we don't know who this what type of neighbor of victim or what type of person this victim is. Okay, 1031. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Now the priest is probably riding. The road between Jerusalem and Jericho is 17 miles through the desert, and only the poor walked it. Everyone else rode, particularly the upper class and priests were members of the upper class. So Jesus' audience would assume the priest had is riding probably a donkey. And it's the same way if I tell you I'm going to Richmond, you assume I'm driving. Because in my station, I wouldn't walk to Richmond, I wouldn't take the bus. In my economic class, I'd probably drive. If I tell you I'm going to California, you'd most likely assume I'm flying, because that's the normal mode of people in my economic class. Now, if I was Oprah Winfrey, you might think I'm taking the Learjet. But in my class, coach. So in the same way, Jesus' audience is going to assume the priest is writing, because that was the normal mode of someone in his social class to make that length of a trip. And that's critical because it means he's able to help. If he's walking, what can he do? He uh could maybe offer some minor first aid and maybe run or wait for help. And we could say, well, of course the Samaritan helped him. He's the only one who could really help. But that's not the case. The culture would assume that the priest is able to help just as much as the Samaritan. Now, remember, the priest then is trapped by his theology. He's coming along, who's my neighbor? He's got a victim, he the victim can't speak and has no clothes, so now the priest has a problem. Because his theology says, I cannot come to the aid of a Gentile. And that's the question on the table. All the rabbis of the day agreed, Gentiles were, you were there was no obligation. That Ben Syriac, he's one of the rabbis, he was right he wrote this around 200 BC, which is before the time of Jesus, was probably still indicative of the attitudes. He wrote, If you do a good turn, know for whom you are doing it, and your good deeds will not go to waste. Do good to a devout man, and you will receive a reward. If not from him, then certainly from the most high. Give to a devout man, do not go to the help of a sinner. Do good to a humble man, give nothing to a godless one. Refuse him bread, do not give him any, it might make him stronger than you are, and then you would be repaid evil twice over for the good you have done. For the most high detests sinners and will repay the wicked with a vengeance. Give to the good man and do not go to the help of a sinner. So that's the priest's culture. His theology says, I shouldn't help a non-Jew. And misfortune is an act of God's judgment for sin. So if this man has been robbed and beaten and left on the road to die, then that's God's judgment on him, and who am I to interfere? Furthermore, if he touches the victim and the victim is already dead or was dying, he would become unclean. He would be defiled, and he would then have to go through this process of restoring ritual purity, which required reducing a red heifer to ashes, and took about a week. So it's a it's a major ordeal. And for him, he cannot get within four cubits. How I'm not sure what that is, but that's the measurement. He can't get within four cubits of the body, or he will be defiled. And he'd have to go closer than that just to see if the man is alive. So he looks at his theological rule book and he goes, not me. This man may not be a Jew. Um, I don't want to get defiled. I don't have to help him if he's not in my country. So here's my, you know, I've got to keep the law, I've got to keep clean and pure, and so he goes by on the other side of the road. He's got these lists of do's and don'ts, and he's not going to break them for a little compassion and mercy. Okay, so now we get to the Levite, 1032. Likewise, a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, pass by on the other side. Now the Levite has probably seen what the priest has done, because the nature of the road was such that you could see for a long way in front of you and behind you who was on the road. I read two accounts of people who walked the road, and they both of them said you can see for miles. And additionally, at the time, travelers made it their business to know who else was on the road in front of them or behind them because their life might depend on knowing who was there to help or who was there who might be bad news. So if the original audience was most likely familiar with this road, and they would assume that the Levite could at least see what the priest had done, or at least figure it out because he could come upon the victim, and the victim's still there, so he can deduce the priest has probably passed by. Now, Levites were not bound by as many rules and regulations as the priests. They only had to observe ritual purity when they were actively involved in temple activities. So the Levite can render aid, and if the man is dead or dies shortly thereafter, the repercussion he would still have to go through a cleansing, but it's not as severe as the priest, and he can get within that four qubit boundary and not be considered defiled. So why doesn't he stop? Most likely he's following the example of the priest. So he's seeing this higher-ranking priest go before him. Levites were a little lower social class, depending on his economic status, he may or may not have been walking. Most likely he's riding, but at least he knows the priest passed him by. So here's the professional, and the professional's judgment is don't touch the man. How can how can I, a poor layman, question him? That's kind of the situation. So he's like, why how can I question what this much more learned, much higher status man uh came into what his judgment was? So again, he's trapped by his legalistic theology. So at this point, the audience is expecting the hero. Because things usually come in threes, that's the way the story goes. And of course, who's the hero going to be but a Jewish layman? Because three classes of people would have traveled the road, this road regularly priests, Levites, and Jewish laymen, priests and Levites would have been going back and forth between Jericho and Jerusalem and As necessary to perform their temple duties, and Jewish laymen would go as well to offer sacrifices and then return home. So it's kind of a natural sequence of events. The audience is going to expect, okay, we've had our two bad guys. Here comes the hero. He's going to be just a regular old guy like me, a Jew. But instead, Jesus introduces a Samaritan. So let's look at that thirty-three through thirty-five. But a Samaritan who was on a journey came upon him, and when he saw him he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them, and he put him on his own beast and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two deneri and gave them to the innkeeper and said, Take care of him, and whatever you spend, when I return, I will repay you. So what you have to understand is Jews and Samaritans hated each other. The Samaritans were mixed race Israelites who lived in the northern area of the kingdom in Samaria, and they broke with the Jews around the time the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom, which was around 720 BC. So what happened when the Assyrians came in and conquered the northern kingdom? They left some Jews behind. They tr uh transported most of the people off into captivity, and then they brought in conquered peoples from other races that they had conquered and had them settle in Palestine. So these other races mixed with the Jews who were left behind, and they developed their own temple system and their own priesthood, which was at Mount Gerzin. And we don't know too much about them historically, except that there was fierce animosity between them and the Jews, because the Jews considered them unclean because they were of this mixed race. In fact, the Mishnah declares, he that eats the bread of the Samaritans is like to one that eats the flesh of swine. And you'll remember pigs were the most unclean animals, so he's comparing the two. Again, Bin Sirich wrote, There are two nations that my soul detests. The third is not a nation at all, the inhabitants of Mount Seir and the Philistines and the stupid people living at Shechem. So Mount Seir, the Edomites, the Philistines, and those stupid people at Shechem are the Samaritans. And he puts them at the as the at the end of the list, meaning they're the worst. This is their he's classed them below the Philistines and the Edomites. The Samaritans were publicly cursed in the synagogues at the time, and Jews prayed that they would not share eternal life. Their testimony was not considered admissible in court. And according to Josephus, around 6 to 9 A.D., the Samaritans defiled the temple court by strewing dead men's bones over it, which was an absolute heinous crime. So they ambushed into Jerusalem and put dead bones around the Jewish temple there, and that was that was just a heinous crime. So for Jesus to introduce a Samaritan as the hero of the story is not going to go over well. Especially against the religious leaders of the day. So this is like going to, say, pre-Civil War Southern Mississippi and introducing a black man as the hero of the story. It's just not going to go over well. Now, notice what the Samaritan does. He risks his life to help the victim. Oil and wine were standard first aid remedies of the day. The oil was to clean and soften the wound, and the wine was to disinfect it. However, if the victim turns out to be a Jew, he's forbidden to accept wine and oil from a Gentile who has not paid tithes on them. So the victim, should he recover, is not going to be happy if he's Jewish, because if he accepts them, then he has to go pay the tithes that the Gentile didn't pay. And since he's just been robbed, he probably doesn't have the money to do it. So he's probably going to turn around and curse the Samaritan for his help. Second, the Samaritan humiliates himself. The phrase, he puts himself on his own beast, implies that probably what happened is he put the victim on his donkey and then he led the donkey walking in front. Now there were very clear social distinctions between those who rode the donkeys and those who led the donkeys. And those who walk in front, leading, are the servants, and they're considered a lower serving role, and so it would be humiliating for him to be walking in front of the donkey. And the third is he's risking retaliation because by taking the victim to an inn and letting it be known that he's who he is that helped the man, he's risking uh vengeance like the Hatfield and the McCoys. So there was a problem with feuding in the ancient Near East when someone was attacked, hopefully not among the Jews, but we know it existed in all their surrounding cultures. If someone was attacked, people took vengeance on that, the attacker's family, his extended family, his associates, whoever could be found. So for the Samaritan to take a wounded Jew, if the man is indeed Jewish, into Jericho, this is like this is like an American Indian riding into Dodge City in the 1800s with a scalped cowboy on his pony, checking him into the saloon and spending the night there. Do you think the Indian's gonna get out alive the next day? Not likely. Even if he did save the cowboy. Or closer to our time, what if in the say the 1930s or the 1920s a black man walked into Mississippi with a white woman who'd been assaulted and checked her into the local inn. Do you think he's gonna get out of there alive? Not the culture is stacked against him. And that's what our situation is here. The Samaritan is risking all of that by going and checking this man into an inn. Now, he pays the bill with no hope of reimbursement. Remember, the man has just been robbed and he's probably penniless. People didn't necessarily keep their money in banks in those days. They tended to carry their wealth with them. Um, or he's so he's lost his money or at least a significant portion of it, and so he has no prospect of being repaid. And you can bet if the victim is Jewish, he's not going to be inclined to repay at all, and two denere would have bought him a two-month stay. So this is a big price he's paid. This is not one night at the end, this is like two months. But the point of all that is not how brave the Samaritan was, but the price he was willing to pay. He risks his reputation, he risks his life, he risks his money, he risks everything he has down to his very life with no hope of gaining anything in return. And that's the situation. So that brings us to how this all functions into the debate. Because Jesus concludes with verse 36, which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands? And notice he's reshaped the question. So the lawyer asked, Who is my neighbor? extending a law expecting like a list of ethnic groups, preferably a short list, of those that you have to be uh neighborly to. And Jesus turns the question around and says, To whom must you become a neighbor? That would be the more literal translation. So the lawyer's saying, Where does my responsibility end? And Jesus basically says, Who do you think needs you? Which is a different question. Notice the difference. So in 1037, and he said to him, the one who showed mercy toward him, then Jesus said to him, Go and do the same. So Jesus says, Look, if you want us eternal life, like the Samaritan, you have to become a neighbor to anyone who needs you and offer the most self-sacrificing and costly love you can ever imagine. So the lawyer wants a debate about how far does my responsibility extend and who am I supposed and how much am I supposed to do for him? And Jesus says, you know, so the lawyer wants specifications and lists, and Jesus doesn't help him with that. And in effect, he says the list is endless. Everyone's your neighbor, and you are obligated to do everything you can for them. So remember the context is how do I gain eternal life? And essentially what Jesus is saying is to fulfill the law in such a way that would gain you eternal life means I have to reach out to even my deepest enemies and would be willing to offer them everything I have, even laying down my life. And the obvious question is, who can do that? Who can ever love like that? Well, so far, only one. Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. He's the only one who loved his enemies in such a way that he was willing to lay down his life for them. He was the only one who risked everything with no hint or hope of any kind of repayment in return, at least from those he was laying his life down for. And he's the only one who loved the Lord God with all his heart and loved his neighbor as himself. And I think what Jesus wants the lawyer to see is you can't do this. If you want to gain eternal life, there's no way you can gain it by keeping the requirement of the law. You can't justify yourself. Because who can be ready at a moment's notice, at any time, to give everything for someone they don't even know? So I think the point of the parable is you're unable to go and do likewise. To understand it as an admonition to go and show compassion and mercy is to miss the point. Now, showing compassion and mercy is a good thing and something we ought to strive to do, and when given the opportunity, yes, we ought to do it. Anytime, so anytime we're given a choice between showing mercy and being selfish, we should always show mercy. But the point of the parable is if you're counting on that to gain you eternal life, you're counting on the wrong things. Because apart from the grace of God, it's not in your character to live your life with the kind of mercy and compassion required to keep the law. So God isn't really interested in us going out and doing something to prove to Him that we're worthy. He's not asking us to solve the problems of humanity. He wants us to see we need a savior. If we can't keep the law, we have to look for another way. And the other way is the cross of Jesus. So we are not the kind of people who can do this. We're not interruptible, we're not compassionate, we're not willing to sacrifice and suffer when the needs of the uh arise, generally, and the point of the parable is it's beyond you. That's not we can't do what the Samaritan did. So we don't do good things to please God, we do good things because God has changed our hearts. And I think that puts a new light on our acts of mercy and compassion. So we're not offering them as we're not offering goodness and acts of goodness and compassion and mercy and kindness with the expectation that I am that God will now be pleased with me. Instead, when I do them, I should look turn to God with a grateful heart and say, Thank you. If you hadn't changed me, I would never have done that. So we can be excited by those acts of mercy and compassion because they are evidence God is at work in us. As Ephesians says, God is the one who prepares the good works beforehand so that we can walk in them. But at least what Jesus is trying, the point he's trying to make, I think, with the parable is don't lower the standard. Recognize your own unworthiness and cast yourself upon upon God. So the standard of righteousness is way up here. And you have two choices. You can try to meet it on your own, which none of us will do, or you can lower it down here so that you can make it. And that's essentially what the the Pharisees did and what the lawyer was trying to do. He's taking the standard of the law and saying, okay, let's define who my neighbor is and show me, and I will show you I can do it. The other solution you have is to give up. So you can try to keep the law, you can try to lower the standard, or you can give up. And giving up is actually the best option. Because when you give up, you have to recognize I will never make this on my own. If left to myself, I don't have what it takes to be this kind of person, so I need to look for an alternative, and the alternative is the gospel. The alternative is to say, Father, I am unworthy, as we'll see in the prodigal's the parable of the prodigal son, and accept the grace he freely offers. Now, for a lot of you that might sound like old news, but think how easily we slip back into it. You know, it's very, very easy to get complacent. It's easy to say, Oh, I obey the Ten Commandments, I attend church every week, I'm on, you know, 15 church committees, and I tithe my full 10%, so I'm doing all right. And it's easy to start trusting in all those acts of outward obedience and say, Look, I'm okay, look what I'm doing. I do all these things, and they are good things to do, but they won't gain me God's favor. I don't do them to please God, I do them because God has changed me and made me the kind of person who now wants to do them. So he has given us faith and he's begun the process of making us people who want to be good. So it's really easy to get focused on those outward actions. And they're a lot easier to attain than those inner attitudes of the heart. I mean, I don't know about you, but it's much easier to go to church every week than to be pleasant during PMS week. You know? I I can do the one, the other's not so much. Or it's easier to study my Bible than to have a cheerful attitude when I'm taking out the trash because my husband forgot again. Or, you know, it's easier to be on another committee than not to get angry when my children interrupt me for the 32nd time in the only five minutes I've been on the phone all day. You know, I mean it's I don't know about you, but the big things, it's like, oh, I can handle the big things. It's those little annoying attitudes, that's where I fail. I that's where I see how superficial my righteousness is. Um and when I whenever I start to feel complacent and say, ooh, look, I'm doing all right, sure something like that will happen where I say the wrong thing, or I do something thoughtless, or I neglect to do something I should have done, and I realize it may be a little thing, but I've lowered the standard. Because the standard is not just the big things, don't steal, don't commit adultery, um, don't murder anyone. It's all those other things day in and day out, too. So it matters not only what we're doing, but why we're doing it. And I can perform those great acts with a very selfish heart. Um, but thankfully, God is in the business of changing our hearts. He's the one who comes along and makes me not only want to do it, but want to do it for the right reasons. So don't lower the standard. Instead, cast yourself on God because He is that is the good news of the gospel. Not only is He capable of getting you there, He's promised. So the lawyer says, What shall I do to inherit an eternal life? And Jesus responds by reminding him that all of us um that he, the lawyer and all of us, that eternal life is not given to men or women based on their outward religious activity, but it's instead it's the fruit of casting yourself humbly on the cross of Christ and trusting that because of his life, death, and resurrection, God will forgive and justify me. So I know in my heart that I'm not the person I should be, like I found out on my road in Portland. I know left to myself I'm not capable of getting there, and that God owes me nothing. I've done nothing to deserve it. Those are the three steps towards saving faith, that I know I'm not I know I'm sinful, I know I'm guilty before God, I haven't kept the standard. I know that left to myself I can do nothing on my own to to change that, and that God owes me nothing, and then finally it's trusting that because of the blood of Jesus Christ, God will in fact forgive me and make me into the kind of person that He intended us to be. So make me the kind who wants holiness and righteousness, and letting that truth change your life from the inside out. So it's got to be more than how you would vote in a theological debate, it's how you live your life day in and day out and see yourself. So who is our neighbor? Jesus would say, your neighbor is the very next hurting person you meet, whether friend or enemy. And what are we to do with a neighbor who's in trouble? Whatever it takes. But don't expect to do what the Samaritan did unless you have a relationship with Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Apart from the grace of God at work in your life, you will remain spiritually bankrupt as the lawyer was, hoping to gain it by your good works, and that's a futile effort. So, what must you do to inherit eternal life? Stop believing Santa Claus can give it to you, stop believing you can mediate it or negotiate your way into it, that you can earn it if you just try hard enough, or that you can do something that will require God to give it to you. Instead, start trusting in God that He came to this world to solve that problem, that He came to pay the price for our sins that we could not pay, to live the life that we could not live, to fulfill the law in a way we could not, and take our place in in that judicial penalty. And if by faith you um place your trust in Jesus as your only Savior, He will give you the grace and mercy and immediately the gift of eternal life. So in that sense, we will be able to love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul and all our strength and with all our mind and your neighbor as yourself, because God is will begin that process of making us the kind of people who can do that. It's a lifelong process, it doesn't happen overnight, but the only way to begin it is with trusting in the cross. Amen. Let me stop there. I'll pray for us and give you a chance to ask some questions. Father, we confess that we aren't the people we should be. That left to ourselves, apart from you working in our hearts, we are unable to go and do likewise. That we are not the kind of people who willingly offer up our lives for an enemy. But we thank you that you understand that you took that uh burden upon yourself and you did for us what we could never do for ourselves, keeping the law and offering your son as a sacrifice in our place. I just pray that if there's any woman here who does not know for sure where she stands, that you would make it clear, that you would change her heart, open her eyes to see, her ears to hear, and um help her turn to you in faith so that she can begin this process of knowing you and loving you and stepping into the kingdom of God. In Jesus' name. Amen. Thank you for listening to Wednesday in the Word with Krisan Marotta. What the Bible means and how we know. For notes and study questions, visit wednesdayintheword.com. We hope you'll join us again, and may God richly bless you.