Scripture Text (NRSV)
Luke 10:25-37
10:25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he
said, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
10:26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What do you read
there?"
10:27 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."
10:28 And he said to him, "You have given the right answer; do
this, and you will live."
10:29 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, "And who is
my neighbor?"
10:30 Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to
Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat
him, and went away, leaving him half dead.
10:31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he
saw him, he passed by on the other side.
10:32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him,
passed by on the other side.
10:33 But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he
saw him, he was moved with pity.
10:34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and
wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an
inn, and took care of him.
10:35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the
innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him; and when I come back, I will
repay you whatever more you spend.'
10:36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man
who fell into the hands of the robbers?"
10:37 He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to
him, "Go and do likewise."
Comments:
Three approaches to possessions:
1. The Thieves: "What's yours is mine, if I can get it."
2. The Priest and Levite: "What's mine is mine, if I can keep it."
3. The Samaritan: "What's mine is yours, if you need it."
The last approach is the one Jesus commends. Too bad so many of our
politicians - our secular leaders in stewardship matters - seem to
exemplify or promote the other approaches.
LF
Only one who is wounded, one torn by rejection and hatred, can show
compassion to one who his wounded. The reason the Samaritan was able
to help was the was in the ditch himself. The priest and levite did
not know the meaning of suffering, for they had never suffered or
faced hatred.
tom in ga
tom in ga,
Thank you. I will ponder your point while on vacation this week, and
I'm guessing a sermon will gel for next when I return. I sense a
story.
Michelle
It is noteworthy that Jesus never called the Samaritan man "good." Our
meddling has subjected an act of neighborliness to scrutiny and made a
moral judgement upon it. Jesus labeling the Samaritan's deed as good
would have implied that the priest and the Levite were bad. Jesus
makes no such judgements; the story is merely descriptive.
As a matter of fact, the Hebrew people would recognize that there may
have been religious reasons why the first two men "passed by on the
other side" (Luke 10:31-32). For example, it is not unlikely that the
priest in the story was a fine man --- a faithful pastor who carried
out a sensitive ministry. In the situation described by Jesus, he came
upon a man who had obviously been assaulted, lying motionless in the
road. if the man were dead and the priest accidently touched him, the
priest would, according to Jewish law, have been unclean. This would
have forbidden the priest from presiding at the worship service. It is
possible he didn't want to take the chance; his duty to God took
precedence over all other duties.
The Levites of Jesus' day were in charge of the temple and performed
various duties. The Levite, too, risked becoming unclean. Furthermore,
if the priest had already passed, there was a chance the Levite was
late; since people were counting on him, he dare not be delayed.
Whatever the arguments for the priest and Levite, they did not act in
a neighborly way. This does not mean that they were bad; rather, their
priorities were improperly place.
If Jesus purpose in telling the story of the Samaritan had been to
illustrate a good deed, we would forever be involved in a guessing
game. What is considered good? Am I good enough? How little can I do
and still be good? If what I do is not good, is it then bad? How bad
is bad? The questions multiply and soon God looks more like an Olympic
judge before whom we perform than a loving Savior who died to save us.
Jesus tells the story to answer the question, "Who is my neighbor?"
(Luke 10:29). A neighbor doesn't need laws to command what ought to be
done. Neighbors are those who see a need and, recognizing they can
help, do something about it. A neighbor shares without thought of
renumeration or recognition because that is the way God deals with us.
We may call the Samaritan "good," but more to the point, he was godly.
The previous post was written by John M. Braaten and published by
Augsburg in "Exploring the Yearly Lectionary - C" 1991
Looking forward this this coming week of thoughtful, loving and
respectful discores on the scriptures. Can we all put this past week's
"discussion" away and be gentle and loving with each other? Blessings
to you all. Shalom, Rev. Nancy in NE
Besides the fact that Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors, what
is our reason for doing so? Is there some ulterior motive, even one
hidden from ourselves? How do we truly love our neighbors with no
strings attached? How does this work in the real world?
I live on a corner. Across the street is an elderly homebound woman
who is extremely proud. Catty-cornered to me is a happy, loving family
who asks me for favors fairly often. Across the other street is a
family struggling to pay the rent, mom has a chronic disease, and so I
hire a family member to do odd jobs whenever I can. Next door, mommy
walked out leaving the children with a daddy who hasn't a clue how to
cook or clean and no money to get the proper items in the house.
Behind me is an older couple who are experiencing the maladies of old
age, but seem to be doing OK.
To whom do I need most to be a neighbor? The one who will receive my
help the most willingly, or with the least willingness? The one who
can be helped, or the one who will actually benefit the least? Or is
it all of the above?
They seem to equate neighboriless with needing to attend the church I
serve. I have invited them, of course, but they don't want to come.
Now we can add guilt on top of their worldly needs. That is not what
was intended to happen, but there it is. So now they are afraid to ask
me for anything because they think they owe more to the church each
time they receive from their neighbor, the pastor. It's becoming a
problem when it was intended to be a gift of sincere Christian caring.
Giving for the sake of giving and receiving without guilt have become
a lost art.
Anonymous today
I do understand that the parable is about surprise neighbors, the
people you would least expect to be considered a neighbor. But I'm
going with the start with the people in your own back yard theme.
There's plenty of need right under our noses.
Anonymous today
Reflections on the neighbor story
How could Jesus who said to the Canaanite woman, “I have come to the
lost tribe of Israel, then an understanding for Samaritans? Did Jesus
arrive on earth and never change?
Thoughts on: Who is my neighbor?
I have learning to practice having no preconceived idea about anyone.
Rather seeing people as human beings like me, having the same pre-venient
grace as myself. The lawyer came to test Jesus as was the custom. He
had a follow up question for Jesus. He asked, “Who is my neighbor?” I
have always tried to see what was wrong with the levi and the priest.
But by starting with no preconceived idea that they were wrong, and
the Samaritan was right, I see the story differently. What stands out
for me now is the natural human response of the Samaritan to help. It
is natural to be a neighbor when the preconceived notions of those who
are needing help is gone.
Jesus, to me, who came to earth and experienced humankind from the
Divine standpoint, as a human naturally grew to see that there was
more to faithfulness than what was happening in the temple, and the
established religious authorities, and shows me that faith can be seen
beyond the walls of a person’s limited human experience.
I would rather continue to practice naturally responding to a person’s
needs, and drop the labels and assumptions that I place on others;
Labels such as “All teenager boys with baggy pants are gang bangers,”
“ All persons who live at a certain economic level need my help,” All
persons over the age of 80, and are bent over, are helpless” Its not
easy, for the labeling I think in humanity is entrenched. But that is
where God is my Redeemer and has been there helping me to change.
That’s where God the Creator has worked with me. That is where God the
Sustainer keeps teaching me.
I’m not preaching this week, but I am interested in this concept of
the neighbor. A neighbor is to be loved like myself. For me, who has
been labeled often as one of those “needing help”, needs to hear Jesus
say, “your faith has made you whole.”
Shalom bammamma
anonymous~
your post struck me and i wonder if you would share what kind of
neighborhood you live in? (unless that would reveal your identity. i
wouldn't want to blow your cover.)
and to all~
i spent time working in a church in newark, nj where the needs of the
people in the neighborhood were unbelievably high. AIDS, poverty,
racism, violence (the year i lived there it was rated the #1 most
violent city in america.)
my husband had been the intern at this church while i was working in a
much more prestigious church in a much more prestigious city in north
jersey. after my internshiip ended i became the director of their
children's summer program.
the people at the "wealthier" church were always worried about me
working "there" and i had a time trying to help both churches
understand how they were neighbors to one another.
i saw quite a bit of suffering while i was there. and i was constantly
struggling with how to be the "good neighbor" to people so much in
need.
when i look back now, i realize that more often than not they were my
good samaritans. they filled me with joy and taught me so much.
in the end, i've come to realize that being a neighbor to others often
requires recognizing ourselves as people in need.
my well-to-do church always wanted to "do" things for the other
church, without ever recognizing that this poor mostly black
congregation had so very much to offer them. (and so much that they
would have been happy to share.)
the good samaritan is a suprise because he was a samaritan - the most
unlikely to act as a neighbor.
so i guess the question(s) that i'm asking are:
how do we help those who think they have it all understand that they
might just be the ones lying by the side of the road half dead?
and how do we encourage the least likely to see their gifts and
recognize their ability to be neighbors to others?
God's peace, christine at the shore
Who in your community does your congregation have the most trouble
embracing as neighbor?
I am not preaching this week, but it seems like we focus on the task
rather than the emotion response, or the responses of heart. Nancy-Wi
This story is proof that love cannot be commanded. The Levite and the
Priest were under the cammand to love their neighbor and (for the sake
of this story's point) they failed. The one who was despised by the
audience of this story turns out to be the hero.
Who would the characters be today? To borrow from Clarence Jordan's
Cotton Patch Gospel (and update it a little bit):
A gang of skinheads attacks a gay man and leaves him half dead by the
road.
A politician's motorcade drives by and slows down but assumes this is
just another wino asleep on the sidewalk and drives on.
A church bus full of choir members (Levites were the musicians of the
O.T.) stops at the traffic light long enough to notice someone there
but they are on their way to a concert and don't want to risk getting
dirty or being late to the show and miss the best seats.
Finally, a Palestinian taxi driver stops and cleans the man off and
takes him to a hotel and pays his bill for the night and says he will
come back later and settle any other expenses.
The story doesn't say whether the "helper" was a believer or not (or
whether this good deed was tied to an eternal reward), it says he
showed mercy.
When the ones who claim to know God the best don't show mercy and
love, it is hard to believe what they are saying.
PC in GA
bamma, Christine, and Nancy -- wow! we're off to a roaring start - and
thank you, PC, for the Cotton Patch gospel - I'll follow the link
later.
Many in my congregation are feeling "invaded" by their neighbors, but
are coming (especially in their old age) to respect them in a
different way. I have found in this now-prediominantly African
American neighborhood that there is a greater sense of community and
neighborliness - and indeed a greater respect for the elderly. One of
my nearly homebound members recalled going to the grocery store and
her shoe came untied. She was sort of arranging her position to bend
over and tie her shoe - and a young, hip-hop-looking black man said,
"Don't you bend over to tie that shoe!" and he bent down and tied her
shoe!
Others tell of their neighbors calling them daily to check on them, or
stopping by before they go to the store to see if they need them to
pick something up for them.
I, too, have noticed a cultural difference. When we go door-knocking,
we're invited in and offered lemonade and genuinely welcomed. By
contrast, in the mostly-white North end, people are polite, but the
conversation takes place on their doorstep. Far fewer people have a
"problem" with women as clergy. And the fact that I'm now a Democrat
in a Democrat area helps, too!
For those reflecting on "what is a neighbor," I have found far more
neighborliness in an area still, sadly, viewed as "Samaritan." Yet,
kindness - especially from the ones who are treated poorly, much less
viewed with suspicion - speaks volumes.
For me, this is "evangelism week" and I would like to "use" (but not
abuse) this text to #1) preach more evangelistically - something out
of the ordinary for me since I usually preach to the choir, and #2)
communicate a vision for "embracing diversity" without communicating
"Oh, we're such a good littel white church - we'll welcome our black
neighbors."
Thanks - now it's off to the zoo with my kids and niece and nephew and
mom!
Sally in GA
My emphasis is that the major difference between Jews and Samaritans
is theological. The bone of contention is the correct place for
worship. Samaritans challenge Jerusalem because David "made it up" (my
words) because of its excellent and strategic position for a capital.
Samaritans hang on to the "original" place of worship. They claim to
be the "authentic israel".
Samaritans are way more conservative than Jews. The surprise would be
not only who the neighbor was (after all Jesus could have used a
prabolic centurion, a roman, a cannanite or just another garden
variety gentile for the same effect, but the neighbor who is way more
conservative than the levite and the priest risked cultic impurity.
For me, helping those who have different language, skin color or hair
texture is much easier than stopping for someone who holds what for me
is such a totally disgustingly and completely wrong morally and
ethically position. It is as shocking as if Jerry Falwell would have
been the one who stopped and rescued Matthew Sheppherd.
Just scratching the text ...
Storyteller
My emphasis is that the major difference between Jews and Samaritans
is theological. The bone of contention is the correct place for
worship. Samaritans challenge Jerusalem because David "made it up" (my
words) because of its excellent and strategic position for a capital.
Samaritans hang on to the "original" place of worship. They claim to
be the "authentic israel".
Samaritans are way more conservative than Jews. The surprise would be
not only who the neighbor was (after all Jesus could have used a
prabolic centurion, a roman, a cannanite or just another garden
variety gentile for the same effect, but the neighbor who is way more
conservative than the levite and the priest risked cultic impurity.
For me, helping those who have different language, skin color or hair
texture is much easier than stopping for someone who holds what for me
is such a totally disgustingly and completely wrong morally and
ethically position. It is as shocking as if Jerry Falwell would have
been the one who stopped and rescued Matthew Sheppherd.
Just scratching the text ...
Storyteller
In this well-known parable, Jesus shifts the focus of concern from
speculation concerning who is one's neighbor to the treatment of one's
neighbor with mercy.
In 1633 Rembrandt van Rijn produced an etching of the Good Samaritan.
One may find this work reproduced in Simon Schama's book Rembrandt's
Eyes (Alfred A. Knopf, 1999), or on the Web. Unlike other artists,
Rembrandt chose to portray the story at the point where the Samaritan
delivers the wounded man at an inn. He is being hauled like a sack of
potatoes on the shoulder of a burly attendant. In the foreground a boy
holds the reins of the sturdy horse, and off to the side a woman
reaches into a well for water. This scene of bright light and deep
shadow comes at the ending of Jesus' parable. In its muscular
stillness the etching shows the practical result of the traveler's
charity.
If viewers look closely, they will see a dog in the right foreground
and become aware of an extraordinarily profane intrusion into this
otherwise sacred scene. The dog unceremoniously squats, very clearly
answering a call of nature. The pile of evidence is quite obvious,
though the reason Rembrandt included this incongruous detail is not.
It might make some blush and wish to turn the page. Yet the unexpected
detail does say something about the juxtaposition of the profane with
the sacred and the intrusion of the ordinary into an otherwise
elevated narrative.
Perhaps Rembrandt was playing a visual joke. Or maybe he was
performing a unique bit of exegesis. Jesus always emphasized the
commonplace, using things like water, bread, wine—even offal (Lk
13.8)—to make some uncommon statement about salvation. Today's story
began with a lofty question about eternal life. At its conclusion
Jesus commended an everyday act of mercy. He also instructed the
listener to go and do likewise. For humans, eternal life is grounded
in the ordinary, even gross, aspects of our world. There are almost
always surprising messages hidden in the landscape well worth sniffing
out. Even a squatting dog can support a larger truth.
Robert Brusic
Jesus has said the wise and prudent miss what babes understand. This
story illustrates the truth of that word. The parallels in Matthew and
Mark are only partial. Both set the event in Jerusalem, in the closing
days of Jesus' ministry, and in a series of controversies. In Luke,
the question concerns eternal life and not the greatest commandment,
and in Luke, Jesus has the lawyer answer his own question. Luke alone
has the parable, or perhaps more precisely, the example story, of the
helpful Samaritan. The Samaritan story is carefully woven into the
conversation between Jesus and the lawyer so as to create symmetry in
the telling. In the first part of the text, the lawyer asks a question
and so does Jesus; the lawyer gives an answer and so does Jesus. In
the second part, the lawyer asks a question and after the intervening
story so does Jesus; the lawyer answers and so does Jesus. The
questions and answers are most important. The lawyer knew the answers
to his own questions, and in both cases Jesus expressed full
agreement.
Then what is wrong with this conversation? We have two good questions,
two good answers, and two men who agree. What else could one ask? All
kinds of things are wrong. Asking questions for the purpose of gaining
an advantage over another is not a kingdom exercise. Neither is asking
questions with no intention of implementing the answers. The goal of
witnessing or of theological conversation is not to outwit another,
and the preacher will want to avoid handling this text so as to show
how clever Jesus was. Having right answers does not mean one knows
God. Students can make four-point in Bible and miss the point. Jesus
did not say to the lawyer, "Great answer! You are my best pupil."
Rather, Jesus said, "Go and do."
It is now generally understood that the joining of the commands to
love God (Deut 6.5) and to love neighbor (Lev 19.18) had already
occurred prior to Jesus, and the lawyer rather than Jesus giving the
answer (contra Mt and Mk) supports that view. It is the matter of love
of neighbor, however, which is the single focus of the remainder of
the text. This is not reductionistic: twice Paul wrote that the whole
of the law is summed up in love of neighbor (Rom 13.8-9; Gal 5.14).
Jesus did not, however, regard the lawyer's framing of the question
about love of neighbor as the proper one. To ask, Who is my neighbor?
could imply selectivity, that some are neighbors and some are not, and
therefore, Who are the ones I am to love? After the story, Jesus
rephrases the question: Who proved to be a neighbor? This shift does
not necessarily mean that Jesus altered the function of a parable that
was originally told for a different purpose.
Quite possibly the parable did come from Luke's sources and may have
been a story Jesus heard in his culture. It certainly assumes that
listeners know about priests, Levites (temple assistants), Samaritans,
and the bitter tension between Jews and Samaritans (Jn 4.9).
Samaritans were descendants of a mixed population occupying the land
following the conquest by Assyria in 722 B.C.E. They opposed
rebuilding the temple and Jerusalem (Ezra 4.2-5; Neh 2.19) and
constructed their own place of worship on Mount Gerizim. Ceremonially
unclean, socially outcast, and religiously a heretic, the Samaritan is
the very opposite of the lawyer as well as the priest and the Levite.
The story must have been a shocking one to its first audience,
shattering their categories of who are and who are not the people of
God. In its present usage in Luke, the story offers an example of
acting in love which is without preference or partiality an which
expects nothing in return.
A word to the preacher. The story of the helpful Samaritan is
certainly extractable and protable to other settings. It may be used
as a parable if the situation and the audience would justify employing
the kind of dynamic which parables generate. Some settings diseased by
social, religious, economic, or racial barriers could properly justify
such a use of the story, perhaps jarring the listeners into a new
perspective on love of neighbor. In other situations, this story can
well function as Luke employs it, to give an example of what is really
involved in being a neighbor. In either case, two suggestions might be
in order. First, painting unnecessarily unattractive portraits of the
priest and the Levite greatly weakens the story. The force of the
parable depends very much on its realism and its ability to invite
people to identify with characters within it. If the priest and the
Levite are presented as ethically dead and totally void of human
caring, then no listener will say, "I too behave that way." While
their behavior was certainly not commendable, neither was it without
reason. The body on the roadside could have been a plant by robbers to
trap a traveler. And certainly contact with a corpse would have
defiled the priest and the Levite and disqualified them from their
temple responsibilities. When they saw the victim, theirs was a choice
between duty and duty. So understood, many listeners will recall
similar situations. Second, great care should be given to the search
in our culture for analogies to the Samaritan. Often poor analogies
trivialize the text. Remember that this man who delayed his own
journey, expended great energy, risked danger to himself, spent two
days' wages with the assurance of more, and promised to follow up on
his activity was ceremonially unclean, socially an outcast, and
religiously a heretic. That is a profile not easily matched.
Fred B. Craddock
Good thing Jesus stopped the disciples from nuking the Samaritan's
village two sundays ago! (using my storyteller privilege to identify
the village ...) If Jesus hadn't we would have a dead traveller on our
hands
speaking of which... anyone familiar with an interpretation that Jesus
is speaking of himself? i.e we are in the ditch of sin and he stops
for us. or something like that. heard it once and cant remember how it
goes. anyone?
Storyteller
I've lived this parable. When I was sixteen a man tried to force me
into his car at knife point. I was lucky. I managed to free myself
from the car while he was attempting to pull away. I rolled from the
passenger seat onto a busy highway.
I was a young white female from a nice neighborhood. It just so
happened that an older black man, a stranger from the poor side of
town, was washing his car across the street from my encounter and
dropped everything when he heard me screaming. He got me out of the
middle of the highway and comforted me. My physical neighbor of
sixteen years--who was our church's treasurer and had once served as
moderator--drove right by, checking the situation in his rearview
mirror. Later he sent his wife over to our house to apologize. He just
couldn't figure out what was going on or if we could be of any help,
and so he didn't stop.
Who is a neighbor? A person who does something. Where does action come
from? Jesus says mercy; leniency though guilty. We all are in need of
help, so it should never be beneath us to give it. Digging a little
deeper, charity (divine love), generosity, kindness are all fruits of
the Holy Spirit. Jesus calls us to be like him, entering the Kingdom
of unconditional love. That's the difference between the Mosiac law
and the freedom of the Spirit life offered in Christ. Paul says, "I
choose Christ." revdlk in nebraska
Tom in GA
Thanks for a great, concise observation to get us started.
This is what Grace is all about. If we realize all that God has done
for us in Christ, we can and will respond. If we do not think we have
received anything, or that we do not need to receive anything, we will
be much less apt to give anything.
I see in this text that Jesus is changing "neighbor" from a noun into
a verb. The Lawyer wants to know who fits the definition of neighbor -
3 houses down? my whole block? Jesus says neighbor is what you do for
one who has a need.
JRW in OH
JRW:
The way I read it Jesus doesn't even answer the lawyer's question. The
lawyer wants to know who his neighbour is, who he ought to love. Jesus
tells a story and asks "Which of these three, do you think, was a
neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" and then
says "Go and do likewise." It sounds to me like he ignores the
question and just tells him to "show mercy" to the one in need,
whoever she or he is.
Shalom: Tom in Ontario
Storyteller,
I understand about the Samaritan's theological conservatism, but Jesus
was preaching to the Jews who thought that Samaritans were not the
chosen ones. The story is told to the "lawyer" who is most definately
Jewish. The Samaritans are the rejected ones here. It would have been
a shock for Jewish people listening that the hero of Jesus's story was
a Samaritan and not a Jew.
To me then, it is more like telling a bunch of Christians that it was
a "Matthew Shephard" who helped a "Jerry Fallwell" instead of the
other way around.
This is not a merely a fable about following the example of a good
person. It is a parable about God's activity. The question "who is my
neighbor" is rephrased by Jesus "who does God's mercy flow through?"
jw in tx
LF: Right on! How many of our Washington, D.C. leaders are thieves who
believe, "What's yours is mine!" PH in OH
jw in texas
yes yes yes! thanks.
agreed that "the story world" sets the audience as jews hearing about
a samaritan who was good/godly. however i was reading at another layer
of the story: the "real" audience is actually luke's congregation who
are gentiles. they would most likely not know a jew from a samaritan.
if for a moment we dont use John's gospel as our reference, luke's
audience might only have that Luke 9:56ff to figure out who samaritans
are. i.e they are an inhospitable bunch.
these are my own exegetical antennae questions. i am very anxious to
stay away from antijewish interpretations which diss the priest and
levite and the law.
thanks for that shepperd/falwell turnaround. never had thought of
shepperd helping falwell as radical. gotta re-examine myself and
wonder why not! yikes! my prejudices are begin to show.
gone to ponder.
Storyteller
Several years ago my wife and I were visiting my mother-in-law. She
asked us to do a chore, install a new window air conditioner. She
wanted the old air conditioner moved from her living room to a front
window and the new one installed in its place. We took the old one out
and moved it to the front window. We then tried putting the new air
conditioner in the window, but due to the window sill were unable to
accomplish the task. We had to go back to the front of the house,
uninstall the old air conditioner and move it to the side window where
it was originally. Well, we were unaware that a man across the street
living in a slum lord house and who had been drinking had been
watching my wife and I struggle with these heavy air conditioners.
When he saw us trying to move them once again he came over and helped
us. I think he was an unexpected neighbor. PH in OH
Wow! An old story and new every time!
This year I have been struck by Jesus' final question and answer. As
someone said, he made neighbor a verb.The right question for us then
is not "Who is my neighbor?" but "How will I be a neighbor?"
Or something along those lines......
Max in NC
Questions, not challenges.
Is it important to the story that the 2 who passed by were HOLY men?
Would just 2 regular Jews have had the same impact?
What if it had been a Roman instead of a Samaritan? Was Jesus trying
to break down walls by choosing a Samaritan as the neighbor who had a
big heart - or at least a sense of humanity about him.
The lawyer wants to know who his neighbor is, who he ought to love.
If we follow Jesus' question "Which of these 3 do you think was a
neighbor...?" and then his logic to "go and do likewise," then isn't
Jesus basically saying that WE are the neighbor? pb in ny
One take on this:
I think the lawyer was trying to prove his thesis that love is
rational and measurable. I once wrote a skit in which the lawyer pulls
out his pie charts and bar graphs in an attempt to impress Jesus with
demonstrable proof that he has fulfilled the Law of Love. He
calculates that 50% of his love should go to his immediate family, 30%
to his co-workers, 10% to his faith community and 10% to his
community. He then shows his time usage, and based on reasonable
deductions for sleep, eating, grooming, etc. he has in fact spent all
his waking hours loving God and his (self-defined) neighbour.
Jesus humours him for a while, but then the parable blows apart his
thesis. Love is neither rational nor measurable, especially God's love
for us, which is unexpected and boundless.
LF
One more take on this: the unexpected source of grace.
I was an intern(vicar) in an urban church which was on the beaten path
for people seeking assistance. Most often they were people of a racial
group which was not represented in that church's population.
One day I was in the church building alone, when the doorbell rang.
Sure enough it was a man asking for money. He looked about eighty
years old - he was probably fifty. I had already decided on the way to
the door that giving out money when I was by myself was not a good
security policy. When I told him I had nothing to give him, he grinned
through broken teeth and said, "Bless you anyway. The Lord helped me
give up alcohol five years ago, and saved my life. The Lord's been
good to me. Bless you."
And he walked away.
I had given him nothing, and he gave me everything he had. He blessed
me, when there were certainly people in the church who wouldn't have
blessed me. This was a man of whom nothing could be expected - and he
gave me the best gift I received that year. I wanted to tell him to
stop, to run back in the church and give him whatever cash could be
found, but he was gone.
That was a humbling encounter with the Divine.
LF
PS Eric in OH: Was it you who mentioned a poem last year, "He Attempts
to Love His Neighbours"? It was haunting, but I forgot to make note of
it. The gist was that the neighbours do not wish to be loved, but left
alone.
All three characters act in the exact same way. They come They see
But something changes for the Samaritan:
Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him,
he passed by on the other side.
So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by
on the other side.
But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he
was moved with pity.
The secret is in the being moved by pity. Compassion.
The difference in these three characters is not on their ethnicity or
on their job description. The difference is in their ability/inability
to "be moved by pity".
Could be some jobs make us harder hearted than most. Could be
belonging to certain power groups by virtue of race or ethnicity makes
one less vulnerable to pity.
Trekkie
I'm curious by the phrasing of verse 29..."But wanting to justify
himself..." What is the lawyer trying to justify? Is it the fact that
he already knows he cannot possibly do what Jesus has just commanded.
I find in myself that when I am faced with a task I cannot or do not
want to do, I focus in on one unknown quotient and blame my failure on
that.
Perhaps Jesus is trying to take the lawyer's fear of being unable to
do what Jesus commanded and Jesus is giving the lawyer a tangible
action to live out the command.
I'm struggling a lot this week. The congregation I serve hurt me
deeply last week with their constant mistrust of my husband and me,
and now I worry that my hurt may come out in my sermon. Is there any
advice from those more experienced on how to handle this?
Thanking you in advance, PBG in IL
"Justify himself". Haven't we all found ourselves, after receiving the
approval of someone (head nod or even an AMEN) and then wanted to
belabor the point to gain more approval still? This lawyer had
received an "Atta boy! You've got the right idea!" from Jesus, but
wanted to get more of the same by continuing the discourse about who
the correct neighbor is. He did this by asking a question he was
absolutely certain he already knew the answer to. He was blown out of
the water when a different answer came to him.
I used to do this with my father all the time. I would ask a question
with the expection of a certain answer. When he would give a different
answer, one I wasn't expecting, I would become uncomfortable and
almost resentful. He wasn't supposed to say THAT! I was looking for
the simple, comfortable answer that gave credence to what I already
believed. He gave me one that made me think, re-think, and re-evaluate
what I thought I already knew as concrete fact. A wise man, my dad.
Jesus almost never gives the simple, comfortable answer to our
preconceived notions and our questions, frivolous or otherwise. Jesus
makes us reach deeper inside to mull over the richness of a new way of
thinking - his way.
KHC
I was struck by a comment in The Interpreter's Bible that hadn't
occurred to me before. We know, or can surmise, something about the
priest and the Levite (wealthy, prominent, probably older, definitely
Jewish men), and the "Good Samaritan" himself (probably a merchant,
probably at least well-off, definitely Samaritan) but we know
absolutely nothing about the victim other than he was a man. On that
route between Jerusalem and Jericho the victim might have been almost
anything. He could have been a black Ethopian, a Roman citizen, a
Greek, even perhaps from India or China. He could have been anybody.
He could have been - just like us, just like me! No stereotypes here.
Thus we can't limit our compassion towards anyone, no matter what
race, creed, nationality, etc.
"But wanting to justify himself..." The Girardin reflections wed page
(found the text this week) seems to suggest that a better translation
may be “but wanting himself to be innocent.”
I don't know if the nuance makes any difference except that "wanting
to justify himself" may presume innocence and translated "wanting
himself to be innocent” may be a presumption of innocence
Oil, I find your contributions lengthy and frankly a little “wacko.”
The duality of “hate” and “love” is not really in the Hebrew thought
pattern; rather it is from the heresies of Greek Gnosticism.
By all means continue your study but let the text speak for itself
rather than reading your agenda into it.
Pr.del in Ia
I found these thoughts on the text from Ray VanderLaan's website
(Follow the Rabbi) interesting and decided to pass them on here. Also
thanks, as a seminary student learning to prepare sermons this is
wonderful instructive site. Vanderlaan: "If you are at all like me,
you have also read this story hundreds of times but I really never
considered the role or function of one the characters—the innkeeper.
Again listen: the next day he took out two silver coins and gave them
to the innkeeper, ?Look after him,? he said, ? and when I return, I
will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.? At first it
seemed that this innkeeper was not at all critical to the parable, but
as I thought about it a bit more I discovered that is me!! That is
you!!—the innkeeper. It describes what we do. We are paid (it is our
vocation) to take care of those turned over to us by someone—in our
case, their parents. Now I am fairly sure the innkeeper could have
been frustrated that he was not given more money or more specific
instructions, or maybe he just wanted this guy out of his inn - but he
was really not given any choice by the Samaritan or by the Lord. It
was clear that he was only asked to display God?s love in his work -
to live up to his professed commitment to the Lord and to his work. We
are often mistaken in our belief that service is something we do
outside of our vocation—the innkeeper reminds us the service is our
vocation, the difference between each of us is what vehicle (career)
we choose to bring service to others. Your calling is to serve the
Lord as he directs—this man chose to be an innkeeper and now the
Samaritan was giving him an opportunity to excel in that vocation.
The innkeeper is demonstrating for us the model of a servant, one that
moves forward in faith. He could easily have said that he was not
capable, or did not have the necessary materials or the proper
training for this situation, but his calling was much stronger than
that&mdsah;and that is also why you are here today. It seems to me
that if this innkeeper did what he had been asked by the Samaritan,
the victim would remember him as well as the Samaritan as people that
had changed his life. That is how important we can be for each person
that God brings into our lives.
I find it interesting that this innkeeper is mentioned in the story at
all and also the details of payment, at first glance these facts seem
totally unnecessary for the lesson being taught. I also don?t know if
two coins were a lot or a little money, but I am sure it stretched
this innkeeper a bit to consider that he might not ever see this
Samaritan again and he could be stuck with the bill and a number of
other reactions or excuses come to our minds—yet he was really only
asked to do his job well and in doing so to be caring, willing and
faithful—sounds like the attributes expected from every Christian
employee doesn?t it?
May we pray that God will give us the courage to take hold of each
opportunity we will have this year to be good innkeepers."
Curious what you'll all think of the above. CN
"You may be the best Christian somebody ever meets."
Those words haunt me often. They were spoken by a woman in my Bible
Study. They are probably not original to her, but it was the first
time I'd ever heard them.
KHC
I've also heard that the priest and the levite would not have been
without compassion and pity -- at least it should not be assumed that
they were. The issue was that they prioritized a different area of the
law -- they believed remaining ritually pure was more important (more
obedient?) than showing compassion. Jesus simply hangs his teaching on
a different point of the law -- observes a different priority.
Thoughts on this??? CN
LF -- The poem "He Attempts to Love his Neighbours" is by Canadian
poet Alden Nowland:
My neighbors do not wish to be loved.
They have made it clear that they prefer to go peacefully
about their business and want me to do the same.
This ought not to surprise me as it does;
I ought to know by now that most people have a hundred things
they would rather do than have me love them.
There is television, for instance; the truth is that almost everybody,
given the choice between being loved and watching TV,
would choose the latter. Love interrupts dinner,
interferes with mowing the lawn, washing the car,
or walking the dog. Love is a telephone ringing or a doorbell
waking you moments after you’ve finally succeeded in getting to sleep.
So we must be careful, those of us who were born with
the wrong number of fingers or the gift of loving;
we must do our best to behave like normal members of society and
not make nuisances of ourselves; otherwise, it could go hard with us.
It is better to bite back your tears, swallow your laughter,
and learn to fake the mildly self-deprecating titter
favoured by the bourgeoisie
than to be left entirely alone, as you will be
if your disconformity embarrasses
your neighbours; I wish I didn’t keep forgetting that.
Blessings, Eric in OH
Some Greek for you all to chew on...
In verse 33, Jesus is "moved with compassion." The Greek word comes
from splagchnizomai, meaning (paraphrased) having your guts twisted
with compassion. Forms of this verb are used primarily with/about
Jesus (Matthew 9:36, 14:14, 15:32, 20:34; Mark 1:41, 6:34, 8:2, 9:22;
and Luke 7:13), but do occur three other times: Luke 10:33 (Good
Samaritan), Matthew 18:27 (The lord who forgives the debt of the
unforgiving servant), and Luke 15:20 (the father of the prodigal son).
It is curious to me that whenever humans experience this kind of
compassion in the gospel, it usually has something to do with
forgiveness, i.e. the forgiving of a debt or of a foolish action.
Whenever Jesus experiences this compassion, it is for the broken of
body, spirit, or relationship. What does this mean for us as believers
and imitators of Christ?
Also, when the lawyer responds in verse 37 saying, "The one who showed
him mercy." (NRSV), the word is not the same as the one Luke used to
describe the Good Samaritan in the first place, namely being moved
with compassion. Luke chooses the phrase, ho poiesas to eleos, meaning
"The one showing mercy..." Jesus then agrees that this word is correct
and tells him to do it.
I'm confused. Are we to be moved with compassion and then do, or to
show mercy without the gut wrenching motive? Or does it not matter?
Just found this all curious. What do you think about the difference in
phrases?
RB in PA
PC in GA, your comment about this story being proof that love cannot
be commanded speaks to me. I had originally planned to use only the
Colossians text for this week, but decided this morning to use both it
& the Gospel. My title, "If You Love Them, They Will Come" -- while
rather obviously reminiscent of the line from "Field of Dreams" --
originally came from v. 6b in Col. in thinking of both bearing fruit
in the world and in our own lives. But your words triggered in my mind
a way to connect these 2 texts I hadn't seen before. Thanks for giving
me new thoughts on which to chew for a couple of days! Robbie in KS
CN,
You might temper your enthusiasm about being an innkeeper with a
little more research about first century innkeepers. They were not
usually the godly lot you might associate yourself with. They were
often no more than theives themselves and frequently housed the
ill-reputed sort of individuals within their walls.
As a resource, you might consult the "Social Science Commentary on the
Synoptic Gospels" by Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh, Fortress
Press, 1992. You might also reference works by Wolfgang Steggmann and
Richard Horsley, to name a few.
Hope this helps!
RB in PA
Someone obviously did not take to heart what was the sixth posting:
"Looking forward this coming week of thoughtful, loving and respectful
discourses on the scriptures. Can we all put this past week's
"discussion" away and be gentle and loving with each other? Blessings
to you all. Shalom, Rev. Nancy in NE." I thought I would copy and
resubmit it for anyone who did miss it.
The little point I want to make is that the word "man" in Strong's
Concordance is "anthropos" not just man but mankind. Kind of puts a
different slant on the whole parable doesn't it?
I cannot find the person (Sorry) who submitted the quote that by
loving the unloveable, you make them loveable. That is powerful! I
absolutely overkill the unloveable with love, kindness and prayer, it
has never failed yet! I have found that by sharing the love that God
has given me, miracles happen. The crumudgeon who has NEVER liked a
preacher is doing odd jobs in the church and is always there to help
fold bulletins, even keeps the leaves swept from in front of the
office door and the snow shoveled. 1 Corinthians 13, "Love NEVER
fails". The lady who fought having a woman preacher, was even going to
change denominations because of my appointment, took on her friends
and said, "Well, she is the best preacher I have ever heard! I would
not trade her for your high-cafluting minister!" Am I good? No, but
God is. Prayer does not change God, prayer changes people! When we
love, the unloved are no longer unloved or unloveable.
I have been here years, but this is my first posting. Bless OIL's
heart, in just the few weeks, I can see him mellowing, not in his
convictions but in his presentations and sharing of his information
with us. I know I have grown because of this forum and will continue
to grow. This is high class fertilizer for my life and preaching!
SMILE, it is a joke! Linda
When we were traveling down our narrow dirt road, my husband pulled
over in the lower part of a neighbor's yard to let someone by and left
tire tracks there. Well, I was giving my neighbor rides to and from
work while her car was in the shop and everytime we would go by that
place, she would fuss and fuss, EVERYtime! Well, one day I just had to
confess what happened. Her reply was, "Oh, he must not have realized
how soft it was in there." And it was never mentioned again. Get the
point? Linda
I guess I am like Sally, once I have contributed, I have to keep
adding to it?? I love Sally!
Thanks, Eric in Ohio for that fascinating poem. I would like to add
another resource/poem that is enlightening version like Cotton Patch's
versions. The book is Gifts of Many Cultures, by Maren Tirabassi and
Kathy Eddy. On page 47 there is a version of the Good Samaritan story,
by an Australian Fred Wandmaker, about an Aboriginal Traveller that I
will probably change to a Native American traveller. The last lines
are especially powerful: "Another Christian came that way. She got off
her stereotype and out of her preconception. Sitting down she listened
and heard the wounds and the treatment. She poured in the oil of
identification and support." Ruth in CT
Man, I thought I had it all figured out.
We are the victim on the road, robbed of our innocence.
Other world systems of thought come along and tell us to help
ourselves or we are not worth being helped.
Jesus comes along and shows compassion for us cleans us up, takes us
to a place of rest and pays our debt to the inn keeper(God) and even
says he'll pay any future debts.
Then POW! Someone points out that inn keepers were a disreputable
bunch. Oh, well. Analogies of analogies tend to stray from the point
anyway.
Thanks for all the interesting exegesis and anecdotes this week. It
has made me think more deeply about this story than ever before.
~~Paulo
It is interesting that we have been wandering in Samaria for the last
several weeks. The disciples wanted to call down fire upon the
unhospital Samaritans; Elisha directs Namaan of Samaria toward his
healing; and now once again the officials of the Jerusalem Temple
"reject" the wounded one along the road for they may be defiled and
not allowed to officiate at the liturgy; but a Samaritan, one already
hated and despised by the people "stoops" to care for ths man and
carries him on his ass to the inn. What I wonder about is whether or
not the Jewish man was conscious, for if he was - he probably did not
like the idea that his enemy was lifting him up on his beast. It would
be like Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire stopping along the road
to give a cool drink and solace to Bishop Duncan of Pittsburg who had
lost his way was in need of compassion.
tom in ga
There is an article from a psychiatrist/historian about this parable.
He is speaking about the character of the man who is beaten and left
for dead. He suggests that in another situation, that man would never
let a Samaritan touch him or help him. But he was not in a situation
where he could choose.
The writer concludes that "all who are truly victims, truly
disinherited, have no choice but to give themselves up to mercy."
I thought it was nice. I could hear that in a sermon. jw in tx
I'll try to get this in one post -- And, shucks, I love y'all, too!!!
See, it just happens that i hit the "submit" button after I've
finished my thought, but my ~mind~ doesn't stop then and I usually
think of a couple more things! Being the chatty sort, I've just got to
"share" those thoughts, too!
Anyways, I'm remembering my CT prof, Bill Mallard, saying about this
pericope - "Can we recognize the incarnation when it's (he's) right in
front of us?"
I've not been at my computer for a few days, so I read all these posts
end-to-end and was struck by just how often the question of "who are
we in this pericope" rose up. I think I've concluded that we're
everybody - the lawyer, the victim, the innkeeper, the Levite, the
priest, and the onlookers - everybody but Jesus himself! Maybe all at
once, maybe by turns... because no one recognized the incarnation (the
Samaritan - and yes, exalting the Samaritan above the Levite and
PRiest would have been scandalous), or JESUS, and he was right in
front of them!
This is "neighbor" Sunday after this week's evangelism week ... and
since I want it to be evangelistic, I'm going to keep that theme of my
professor: "Can we recognize the Incarnation when he's right in front
of us?"
Sally in GA
Hi everybody! Be gentle with me-this is my first time (to contribute
to the discussion). RB in PA, thank you for your contribution of the
Greek translations and the observation that the word for "compassion"
is only used in stories of forgiveness. I wonder if this word is used
because of the idea at the time that anyone who suffered was guilty of
something and therefore this victim was someone to be avoided. Only
the man who was able to overcome his natural revulsion at the man's
plight was willing to stop and help. Therefore the Samaritan showed
"mercy" or the willingness to forgive whatever got this man in the
mess he was in. Perhaps this adds another aspect to the story for us
today. Thanks for listening! Susan
I earlier suggested that the acts of the Samaritan were the natural
reaction, and we have developed the unnatural way of responding to
others.
I think of the reaction of persons on 9/11. No one asked any
questions, they just had compassion, and assisted.
I remember seeing an automobile accident. It was a mistake made by the
motorist in a car in front of me. As soon as it happened, there were
attendents at a gas station, and they automatically came running up to
that car that had been broadsided. It was a natural response, someone
needed help. When ever this Scripture is read, I remember that
experience. Could Jesus be reminding humanity of what should be our
automatic response no matter who it is?
Shalom
bammamma
Shalom
I don't think it's "natural" for human beings to help. I as a woman
would not stop if I saw a single car in a roadside accident - I have
heard too many stories about somebody staging an accident and luring
innocent people into trouble. I might call 911, though...
I once read about a study dealing with normal peoples' responses to
danger. The shocking truth: very few people get involved if somebody
cries for help. If someone cries "fire", though, curiosity will catch
peoples' attention. The implication: if you want to be helped in times
of trouble, call "fire", not "help"...
Think this is ridiculous? I found myself in a situation once where I
needed help. I sat in a train in Germany, having my own little
compartment. A guy comes in and starts to molest me. My first
instinct: to defend myself, but I just did not have the physical
strength. Then I cried for help. Nothing happened. I cried more
loudly. Nothing happened. I then remembered this little piece about
crying "fire" and felt extremely ridiculous when I finally got myself
to do so. But what do you know? Finally, a few faces peaked around the
corner, very timidly, and one gentleman entered the compartment and
pulled the molester off me.
The story continues: now, some of those rather inactive onlookers had
their excuses. One woman said, "Oh, I thought some marital fight was
going on."
As if a wife in distress didn't deserve the help of others..
To make long things short: I think we all have our own "laws" about
helping others, whom to help, and when to help, under which
circumstances, and how.
Germanpastor in CA
bammamma, yes, our natural instinct should be to love, help, comfort,
sacrifice.
I'm sure things were as dangerous on those streets as they are on
today's urban streets. Then they used sticks and rocks, today it's
guns and knives. In both eras, we are conditioned to be wary of
anybody lying down looking hurt, because it may just be a trick, and
anybody getting too close will be grabbed, attacked and robbed. So we
have learned to do nothing, to walk away for our own safety. Now, we
can call on a cell phone to get the hired help (police) to do
something. We don't have to get personally involved anymore.
But Jesus says following him means taking the chance and reaching out
to the person who appears to be in trouble. Your actions may be
rebuffed; try anyway. Your life may be in danger for helping a person
in dire straits; help anyway. Your time may be required elsewhere;
give it anyway. You may ruin your new shoes, clothes or Rolex; jump in
anyway.
They say that heroes know the danger and are afraid, but go in to help
anyway. I am ashamed to say there is little of the hero in me. I'd do
the sensible thing and call for help, rather than the loving thing to
offer it myself.
Forgive me from departing from the discussion. I am returning after a
month' s hiatus (part retreats and part vacation) and discovered that
Tammy's daughter died. My deepest condolences. Thank you for making us
part of your online faith family.
KS in ME
I have this notion that the parables of our Lord were meant to be
simple enough to be understood by the simple, and puzzling to the wise
and learned (Mark 4:11-12). Perhaps we should just hold this story up
like a diamond with a number of facets. Look into any one facet and
you see into the center of a simple truth. The characters are not
complex humans, but figures: Windows into the truth, that (in the
present case) being neighbor is a compassionate response, not a choosy
calculation. Psychoanalyzing these characters may introduce more
complexity than Jesus intended. He wanted us to puzzle about it,
because we are not simple enough to see into it with clarity. This may
relate to the fact that only children are really close to the Kingdom
of God. God wants us to look through and across boundaries of race and
religion, because there are loose ends throughout.. The parable
highlights these loose ends, and says to us, “Use your brain – tie the
loose ends!” Then take a fresh look and yourself and your neighbor.
By the way, thanks to Robert for the tip on Rembrandt’s painting of
the Good Samaritan/inkeeper scene. That may be Rembrandt’s thoughtful
way of tying loose ends together. I’m thinking that possibly I may
hand out copies of that picture in connection with the preaching.
Would that be offensive, do you think? The defecating dog probably
caught the eye of children in Rembrandt's time, and for that reason,
it may be the most productive approach.
GEC in Mich
When I preach now, I find myself starting from "You are made in God's
Image," rather than "You,all have sinned, and come short of the glory
of God." Oh yes, I feel my "pride as a preacher" condemnation, coming
out as I prepare, but I see that as my own sinful choice, but there is
the Samaritan in me, and with everyone that I share the sermon.
bammamma
I was thinking about the lawyer. Hmmm, how good do I have to be to get
into heaven. What loopholes are there? I think of a college professor
who says, "If you want an "A" you will have to..., if you want a "B"
you will have to... It seems to me we live a society that believes
being good will earn your way into heaven. You have heard it, I know
you have (at the funeral home or wherever you meet with the family of
the deceased), "Oh, they were a "good" person," as if to justify why
they had no real personal relationship with God nor did they have
fellowship with others in the body of Christ. They were unselfish,
giving, loving. I wonder just how good do we have to be? Isn't the
real answer that we can not be good enough? We need God's grace.
SLAM!!! Oh, that was the door on all the loopholes going shut. Loving
our neighbor as ourselves is a response, the proper response to God's
grace. It was interesting to hear John Kerry quote the Bible today,
"Faith without works is dead." Too bad he didn't ackowledge where he
got that! PH in OH
