[Propertalk] Fw: Luke 10:25-37 - Brian Stoffregen - Part 1

[Joe Parrish]

-----Original Message-----
From: bstoffregen <bstoffregen at roadrunner.com>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 11:52 pm
Subject: Luke 10:25-37


Here are notes on Luke 10:25-37 for July 11.
Brian

Proper 10 // Lectionary 15 C: Exegetical Notes on Luke 10:25-37

 

One of the difficulties facing the preacher this week is how to make this well-known parable speak again to the hearers. The difficulty lies in the fact that many of the people in the pews think that they know what it means. Every time I study this text, I usually come up with some new insights about its message. Hopefully there will be some new insights for you in these notes.

 

SOME CONTEXTUAL COMMENTS

 

This text comes after Jesus has thanked the Father for hiding "these things" from "the wise and the intelligent" (10:21), and now a "lawyer," whom we would think is wise and intelligent, comes to test Jesus. Will he "get the picture" or will it be hidden from him?

 

Just before the lawyer arrives, Jesus has blessed his disciples for seeing what they have seen and hearing what they have heard. In the parable, both the religious leaders and the Samaritan "see" the man in the ditch (vv. 31, 32, 33), but who really "sees" him?

 

This text should not be studied in isolation from what follows -- the story of Mary and Martha (10:38-42) -- our text for the following Sunday. An interesting contrast is presented with these two texts. The lawyer asks, "What must I do? (v. 25) and he is told twice to "continually do this" (vv. 28 & 37 -- present tense in Greek -- all ποιέω - poieō). This emphasis on "doing" could easily become the "busy-ness" of Martha, even though ποιέω (poieō) is not used of her work, but more "religious" words for "service" or "ministry" – διακονία/διακονέω (diakonia/diakoneō) both used in v. 40 ("tasks" and "do work" in NRSV). This "doing-ness" is in contrast to the "continual listening" (imperfect in Greek) of Mary (v. 39). In both stories there are unexpected actions -- a Samaritan who cares and helps a Jewish man; and a woman who sits as a disciple and listens and learns. The Samaritan is told to "go and do likewise," while Mary is praised for not going and doing. The Samaritan shows us about loving our neighbor. Mary shows us about loving our Lord. Both are vital in living our lives Christianly. From another perspective, we could say that both are about being loved, cared for, and praised as the man in the ditch is cared for and Mary is praised.

 

ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH THE LAW? 

THE LAWYER'S FIRST QUESTION & JESUS' RESPONSES

 

Luke uses a more technical term for "lawyer" (νομικός - nomikos, related to the word for "law" = νόμος - nomos) rather than "scribe," who were also considered experts in the law. Six of the nine times this word for lawyer is used in the NT they are in Luke. The only time it is used previous to our text, we are told: "But by refusing to be baptized by him [John], the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves" (7:30). The image of "lawyers" does not improve through the gospel (11:45, 46, 52; 14:3). The reader would already be a bit suspect of a "lawyer" coming to Jesus.

 

We are also told that he comes "to test" (ἐκπειράζω - ekpeirazō) Jesus. The only other time this word is used in Luke it is Jesus' quote to the devil: "Do not put the Lord your God to the test" (4:12). Is that what this lawyer is doing with Jesus? Most often in scriptures and, I believe, in our lives, our “testing” come from other people.

 

If we take seriously the image of inheriting, I think that the question, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" is really stupid. I would like to think that there is something I could do to inherit some of Bill Gates' fortune -- or even the fortunes of a less wealthy (but much older) person. An inheritance is usually determined by the giver, not the receiver.

 

Jesus responds to the lawyer's question with two questions of his own. "In the law (νόμος - nomos), what has been written? How do you read?" I have been in discussions where it has been easy to agree on "what has been written," but the interpretive question, "how do you read?" or "how do you interpret?" has caused great differences. In looking up the Greek word for read (ἀναγινώσκω - anaginōskō), the lexicons suggest that reading was always done aloud and generally publicly. Jesus does this in the synagogue at Nazareth (4:16). Jesus' second question might mean "How do you understand it?" but it may also go further and imply, "How do you interpret the law to others?"

 

The lawyer answers with the twice-daily repeated shema from Dt 6:5 -- except that he adds "mind" or "understanding" to the Hebrew text -- and he includes a command from Lv 19:18 about loving one's neighbor as one's self. (See also the "great commandment" passages: Mk 12:28-34 and Mt 22:34-40 where the question is asked by a νομικός - nomikos) According to my sources, these two commandments were not combined prior to the time of Christ.

 

Jesus first responds with a very Lutheran answer, "You answered rightly (ὀρθός - orthos from which we get ortho-doxy and ortho-dontist). The lawyer knows the right answer. He has "read" the Torah rightly.

 

Jesus then responds with a very unLutheran answer, "Keep on doing (ποιέω - poieō in the present tense = continuous or repeated actions) this and you will live." Does this imply that one can inherit eternal life by "doing" the law -- by loving God and neighbor as one's self? Do works count?

 

THE LAWYER'S SECOND QUESTION

 

To answer my question, "Yes, works count" -- if one is trying to "justify one's self," which is what the lawyer is seeking to do. First of all, by asking what he might do to inherit eternal life, and secondly, by the comment in v. 29 and the question, "Who is my neighbor?"

 

I like Danker's expansion on the question: "I am willing to love my neighbor as myself, but don't get me involved with the wrong neighbor." What are the right rules so that I can justify myself? Who do I have to help (and who can I ignore)?

 

Green (The Gospel of Luke) interprets the question this way:

 

Whereas Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Plain had eliminated the lines that might be drawn between one's "friends" and one's "enemies," this legal expert hopes to reintroduce this distinction. He does so by inquiring "Who is my neighbor?" -- not so much to determine to whom he must show love, but so as to calculate the identity of those to whom he need not show love. By the end of the story, Jesus has transformed the focus of the original question: in fact, Jesus' apparent attempt to answer the lawyer's question turns out to be a negation of that question's premise. Neighbor love knows no boundaries. [p. 426]

 

How might this apply to our border and immigration issues?

 

Jeremias takes a similar approach. He presents this dialogue:

 

Lawyer: "What is the limit of my responsibility?"

 

Jesus' answer: "Think of the sufferer, put yourself in his place, consider, who needs help from me? Then you will see that love's demand knows no limit."

 

A sin of the lawyer is that he is only concerned about himself. What I do to get myself ahead religiously? This is in contrast to the (despised) Samaritan in the parable who expresses his concern for the other person.

 

WHO IS NEAR?

 

One of the new approaches I gained in my studies on this text is to take literally the meaning of "neighbor," which in Greek (as well as Hebrew and English) has the basic of meaning of "to be near". How often in confirmation class when we talk about coveting our neighbor's stuff, some student says, "I don't want anything that my neighbor has." "Neighbors" are those people who live next door -- the nearest people in the "neighborhood."

 

Looking then at the three responses to the man in the ditch, the Greek verb used of the first two is ἀντιπαρέρχομαι (antiparerchomai, vv. 31, 32) which literally has three parts:

            ἔρχομαι (erchomai) = to go

            παρ(α) (par(a)) = by

            ἀντι (anti) = on the other side

 

In contrast, the verb with the third man is προσέρχομαι (proserchomai, v. 34) which literally has two parts:

            ἔρχομαι (erchomai) = to go

            προς (pros) = to

 

Note: it is not a form of ἔρχομαι (erchomai) that is used of the robbers "falling upon" the traveler. Their coming near to him is different than that of the Samaritan.

 

Clearly, the answer to the question, "Who is the one who comes near (or is neighbor)?" It has to be the third person. The other two widened the distance between themselves and the man in the ditch. They would not come near to him. They would not be neighbor to him. The third comes near.

 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stsams.org/pipermail/propertalk_stsams.org/attachments/20100710/472be8b3/attachment.htm>