Sunday, Jul 11th, thoughts going in...

Luke 10:25-37
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" 27 He answered, " '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, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' " 28 "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." 29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" 30 In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii 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.' 36 "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" 37 The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

In understanding this parable, it’s important to remind ourselves about the mission of ALL parables. Jesus used parables to teach us something about God that we wouldn’t ordinarily have suspected—or at the very least, that his hearers wouldn’t ordinarily expected (sometimes we have to first try to put ourselves in their shoes). With this in mind, even though we may view the “expert in the law” (likely a ‘scribe’) with some suspicion—after all, he asked the question in order to “test” Jesus—we may assume that the parable was offered by Jesus to this man in good faith. Jesus desired to teach *him something about God that he didn’t know or already suspect.
As for this ‘testing,’ and whether or not this was malicious…it’s important not to make too big a deal over this. There was no one single expression of Judaism of the day. There were many factions all vying for legitimacy in the court of popular opinion. To “test” a rabbi, in part, is simply a way of figuring out where he stands on this or that issue, and to see if there is agreement between the person and the rabbi.
And so the passage begins with: “Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" We need to remember that he’s NOT asking “how do I go to heaven when I die?” “Eternal life,” from the 1st century Jewish perspective meant to experience the “resurrection of the just.” **IF they believed in resurrection—and remember, not everyone did (the Sadducees, for instance, did not)—they looked for it to happen at the end of all time when ONLY the just would be resurrected, and would live eternally in the land. When this man asks "what must I do to inherit eternal life,” he’s basically asking, “how can I be sure that I will be considered “just” or “righteous?” Jesus gives the perfect rabbinic answer to the question and the whole matter could’ve ended in vs 28 when Jesus said: "You have answered correctly, do this and you will live."
As a sidenote, for everyone who’s worried that Jesus just preached a bit of “works righteousness” to this man, don’t forget…to 'Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' would of NECESSITY include things like: recognizing the LORD’S Messiah (Jesus), and accepting his death on the cross as payment for one’s sins. Loving the Lord our God is a lot more than a warm fuzzy emotional feeling. It means accepting ALL that there is to accept ABOUT him and FROM him.
Regardless, the lawyer isn’t content to let the question stop there, vs 29 says: But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" “But he wanted to justify himself,” these are the most curious words of the text. They’re “spoken” by the narrator, St. Luke, and they seem pejorative. What exactly did he mean? In the resurrection of the just, the just do not justify themselves, they are found by God to BE JUST. As I assume that this man (a) already thought he would be taking part in the resurrection of the just and merely wanted to test Jesus, and (b) already felt that his definition of “neighbor” was good enough, my hunch is that asking this question of Jesus was his way of confirming that he and Jesus were seeing things entirely eye-to-eye. Since he clearly did not EXPECT the answer he got, it seems safe to say that he was expecting not to be surprised by Jesus’ answer; he expected to be COMFORTABLY CONFIRMED in his own belief and practice.
And that really is the nub of this and most of the parables. The interlocutor (the person asking the question) typically expects to be comfortably confirmed by Jesus. We too, typically expect the same thing. “What a friend we have in Jesus,” we sing. Surely a friend would never rock our boat or tell us we’re doing something wrong or challenge our world view. Even now this parable is so familiar to us that it’s possible that *some of the “gotchya” of the passage might be lost on today’s hearer—the fact that a despised Samaritan is the star of the show, for instance. In repackaging this for a modern American audience we might say that first a doctor came by, then a lawyer, and then a member of Al Queda. Such a re-packaging would reclaim the “gotchya” of the parable and challenge our thinking.
In the parable it is generally considered that the priest and Levite don’t go near the victim because they’re afraid of becoming ritually unclean—the result of touching a corpse. Priests were barred from Temple service while in a state of uncleanness, and it took seven days to become ‘pure’ again. The Levite, also one who serves in the temple, may have had the same concern. Yet, one of the points of the parable is that the victim WASN’T DEAD. They wouldn’t have become ritually unclean for touching a corpse because he wasn’t a corpse. The problem is….they refused to get close enough to see this.
Ultimately, the parable reflects God’s action in Jesus on our behalf. The parable shows us that God isn’t worried about getting his ‘holiness’ all messy by coming close and touching sinful/damaged humanity. Holiness, respectability, adherence to rules are all fine characteristics, but the parable illustrates that God’s strongest characteristic is compassion.

cheers,

TM