[Propertalk] Fw: Luke 10:25-37 - Brian Stoffregen - Part 3

Sat Jul 10 07:51:56 EDT 2010

He concludes his comments on this parable thusly: 

... the parable of the Good Samaritan may be reduced to two propositions:

(1) In the Kingdom of God mercy comes only to those who have no right to expect it and who cannot resist it when it comes.

(2) Mercy always comes from the quarter from which one does not and cannot expect it.

An enterprising theologian might attempt to reduce these two sentences to one: 

(1) In the kingdom mercy is always a surprise. (p. 34)

Mark Allen Powell (Chasing the Eastern Star) shares the way he had frequently preached on this story: "we ought to be willing to help anyone in need. Our commitment to relieving human suffering ought to transcend political, ethnic, and other sorts of rivalries: Why is my neighbor? Anyone who needs my help. … Our government has even instituted what it calls 'a Good Samaritan Policy' in providing disaster relief to other nations."

Then he relates the different reading Tanzanians give to the parable. For them, 

people who have been beaten, robbed, and left for dead cannot afford the luxury of prejudice. They will (and should) accept help from whoever offers it. When grain is brought to a famished village, parents of starving children do not much care whether the Moslems, the Roman Catholics, or the Jehovah's Witnesses bring it. This philosophy was even enacted at a national level, through a policy of 'nonalignment' that allowed the country to accept aid from capitalist and communist governments alike. The Good Samaritan story in the Bible was specifically referenced to legitimate such policies, just as it is invoked in the United States to legitimate American policies. In short, the story was understood to answer the question "Who is my neighbor?" not with "Whoever needs my help" but with "Whoever helps me." (pp. 20-21)

SERMONIC APPROACHES

In recent years I have usually taken the second interpretive approach to this text. We are the ones in the ditch and the Samaritan represents God -- God who is both enemy and helper. Our sin makes God our enemy. Yet, in the parable, the "enemy" gives new life to the man in the ditch. The "enemy" expends his unlimited resources for the care of the half-dead man. (Who of us has unlimited resources to care for others?)

The problems with the lawyer is that he couldn't see God as his enemy. He hadn't recognized the depth of his own sinfulness. (He wants to justify himself and probably had a bit of pride that comes along with that.) He was too strong and healthy. He assumes that he has the ability to do something to inherit eternal life. He assumes that he can do something to justify himself. He is not helpless in the ditch. He doesn't need God's grace.

A slightly different approach centers on the difference between "doing" and "being." Righteousness can mean doing right things. Righteousness can also mean being in a right relationship. The two are not the same. Being smart doesn't mean one won't do some stupid things. Having a low IQ (e.g., Forrest Gump) doesn't mean that such a person won't do some brilliant things. The lawyer wants to be righteous by what he does. Righteousness as a relationship is illustrated by the interaction between the man in the ditch and the Samaritan. There are good deeds involved, but they flow out of compassion, care, and mercy for the other -- not out of "doing the right thing out of obedience to the law or to get something for myself." 

I used this approach to the text for the funeral services of a 19-year-old who had been killed in a car accident and a 2-year-old who died of a disease. There is evil in the world. We don't know why the man in the parable is attacked, beaten, and robbed, but it happens. We don't always know why young children die. I don't believe that such tragedies are part of God's plan. God not only gets into the ditch with the half-dead man, and with suffering parents, and friends. God also gets into the ditch of the dead. On the cross, God died. There is the resurrection "donkey" who transports us to the heavenly "inn" where there is complete recovery from all pain and suffering -- and it has all been paid for.

I also note that at times we might identify with the innkeeper. In the parable, the Samaritan used the innkeeper to continue the healing process the he had started. The Samaritan promised to provide everything that the innkeeper would need to care for this man. Sometimes God helps us out of the ditch directly. Sometimes God uses other people. Sometimes we may be the guy in the ditch. Sometimes we may be the innkeeper. Or, to use another image, sometimes (actually, all the time) we are the patients in the "hospital for sinners," but sometimes we may also be the staff at the "hospital," offering hope and "cures" for other patients.

MEETING AND REVEALING NEEDS

I read the following paragraph in The Continuing Conversion of the Church, by Darrell L. Guder. I think that it has relevance to our text and offers another slant on the text. 

There are others who are primarily concerned that their experience of worship "meet their needs." However their "needs" are defined, this approach to worship invariably reveals the problematic consequences of gospel reductionism. It is missionally relevant in the way it shows how much we are captive to our culture and its priorities. The "gospel which meets my needs" must be replaced with the good news that reveals needs I did not know I had while providing healing I never dreamed was possible. [p. 155]

It seems clear that part of our text is about meeting needs. There is a wounded man in the ditch who needed help. The "good Samaritan" -- the one who "was neighbor" to him, took care of those needs.

We might also say that Jesus met the needs of the lawyer by listening and talking with him. For some of us, we find great pleasure in discussing/debating issues -- showing off our knowledge and learning even more. Jesus affirms the lawyer's understanding by stating that he answered "rightly".

At the same time, this text also reveals needs that characters may not have known they had. I think that the parable reveals a need among the Jewish hearers to be "healed" of their prejudice against Samaritans. 

Jesus also reveals the need of the lawyer (and probably all of us) to stop justifying himself. That is, in part, interpreting (and watering down) the Law, e.g., "who is my neighbor?" in such a way that I can easily keep it. Rather than keeping the law as a "sword" that slays all of our attempts at self-justification.

Related to this, the parable also reveals that strict obedience to parts of the law, i.e., the religious leaders avoiding the possible corpse and thus defiling themselves for worship; is not always obedience to God's greater will, i.e., loving neighbor -- even if he/she is of a different race, religion, socio-economic status, etc. I might rephrase this aspect to say that we need to stop using the law to justify what I already want to do, and allow God to use the Law to bring order and shalom to society, and to convict us of sin and our need for repentance -- which I may not even know I had before being confronted by God's Word.

The gospel is concerned about meeting needs; but it is also concerned about revealing needs that we may not know we have. I find both of these concerns in this text.

Brian Stoffregen

Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Avenue, Yuma, AZ 85364

e-mail: brian.stoffregen at gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stsams.org/pipermail/propertalk_stsams.org/attachments/20100710/59bf65d9/attachment.htm>