Unbelievable Unbelief

 

Here is Sunday's sermon. 

Jesus told several stories to respond to his critics who were “lovers of money” and who scoffed at him. (Luke 16:14)

Luke 16:19-31

Here’s a story that gets us ready for Easter.

Characters….

The story begins as Jesus introduces us to two principal characters.

There was a rich man.  He was very rich for he “…used to dress in purple and fine linen and feast magnificently every day.”  He seems to have everything in this life that he could want.

There was a poor man.  He was very poor, so poor that he used to lie by the rich man’s door begging.  Jesus’ words seem to suggest he may not have been unable to get there by himself.  His hunger was so intense he would have been satisfied with the scraps from the rich man’s table.

To make matters worse, he was diseased.  It manifested itself in ugly sores.  Dogs, Jesus said, “came and licked his sores.”

Perhaps Jesus meant the dogs were more compassionate than any of the poor around him.

Perhaps he was so weak he was unable to fend them off.

Jesus gave the poor man a name, Lazarus.  The rich man is anonymous.  I suspect Jesus was using a bit of irony in giving the poor man a name.  Usually, we know the names of the rich; the poor are anonymous.  Not here.

Their deaths…

After introducing the characters, Jesus tells us that they both died.

The poor man died without much earthly fanfare.  Perhaps he was simply found dead on the street one morning.  Beyond the earthly plane, it was a different story.  Jesus tells us Lazarus “was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s embrace.”  Those hearing this story would have thought this was the kind of treatment a patriarch or king might receive.

Of the rich man, Jesus simply said, “The rich man also died and was buried.”

Their fates…

Jesus introduces an element common in many of the stories teachers of his day told. There is a “reversal of fortune.”  The afterlife couldn’t have been more different than there earthly lives.

The rich man found himself in “Hades.”  It was a place of torment and agony.

At the same time, Lazarus was in “Abraham’s embrace.”  This was the abode of the righteous dead.  It was a place of joy and satisfaction.  He was under the care of the founder of their faith.

Keep two thinks in mind, this is a parable:  It is not intended to present the geography of hell.  At the same time, don’t think the rich man went to “hell” because he was rich and Lazarus went to “heaven” because he was poor.  Something more intangible was at work.

It is evident that Lazarus trusted God, despite his difficult life.  The rich man appears to have given no thought to God or much else beyond his personal enjoyment.  Remember, the rich man did not have a broken relationship with God because he was indifferent to the poor; he was indifferent to the poor because he had a broken relationship with God.

Two dialogues…

Jesus story contains two dialogues.

The first focuses on the nature of our condition after death.  It is set.  There will be no more reversal of fortune.

I believe the second dialogue is the more significant for understanding this phase of Jesus’ ministry.

“Then the rich man said, ‘Please, Father Abraham, at least send him to my father’s home.
For I have five brothers, and I want him to warn them so they don’t end up in this place of torment.’
      “But Abraham said, ‘Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read what they wrote.’
      “The rich man replied, ‘No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will repent of their sins and turn to God.’
      “But Abraham said, ‘If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Perhaps we are meant to see the rich man as the eldest son.  He has five brothers, still at home.  He remembers how they lived their lives with the same indifference toward God that he had demonstrated in his.  He hoped to change that.

Abraham reminded him that the word of God, read every Sabbath in the synagogue, would keep them from such a fate if only they heed its lesson.  The rich man feared they wouldn’t.

But if a man returned from the dead to warn them, they would hear.

Abraham issued a shocking answer:  Some unbelief will resist even the testimony of one returned from the dead.  Such unbelievable unbelief gripped the hearts of many—including some of Jesus’ enemies.

For almost three years Jesus had been teaching as no one had taught before, he had been performing miracles—including raising some from the dead—yet, his enemies continued to disbelieve.  Some would continue to disbelieve even after Jesus himself had defeated death.

The Will to Disbelieve

Some critics of Christianity say those who embrace the Christian world-view are guilty of wishful-thinking.  In the face of what these critics consider overwhelming evidence against the Christian message Christians exercise “the will to believe.”  They continue to believe despite what observation and common-sense tells them.  Their will to believe ignores all obstacles.

In this parable, Jesus seems to be saying there is a “will to disbelieve.”  No matter how carefully the apologist or defender of Christianity lays out the evidence these people will not acknowledge the truth of the Christian message.

In recent years several books challenging the existence of God have been published prompting observes to describe their message as “the new atheism.”  But an analysis of their arguments shows that these writers are merely revisiting the old atheism with its arguments that have been answered centuries ago.  The boldest of these new atheists, like late Christopher Hitchens, try to shock audiences by claiming that religion in general and Christianity, in particular, are dangerous.   Sorry, Chris, Marx made that argument against Christianity, as did the Romans.  The presence of schools, hospitals, and orphanages where there were none before the coming of Christianity to a region makes the “Christianity is dangerous” argument just a little questionable.

Still, men and women will disbelieve.  In the last quarter century the percentage of Americans claiming to be atheists or agnostics has more than doubled; this, despite a flood of books defending the reliability of the Bible and the contributions of Christianity to the world at large.  Most of these books were not written by “flaming evangelists” with degrees from online seminaries.  They were written by individuals like Jeffrey Russell who has an Emory PhD and has taught at Harvard, Notre Dame, and the University of California.  Then there are those by former atheist Alister McGrath who earned a doctorate from Oxford in biochemistry while he was also earning a first-class honors degree in theology.  I could add more names but just remember these when you hear the critic say that anyone who takes the Bible or Christianity seriously is an ignorant bumpkin.

Of course, those people you know who are exercising this will to disbelieve may not be philosophers or scientists.  They may be neighbors, co-workers, classmates, or family members.  They may not offer sophisticated arguments but they still reject every aspect of your testimony.  They may insist what you see as answers to your prayers are only coincidences.  They may claim your life never changed when you found Christ—you only imagined it.  They may treat your reading the Bible the same way as most of us would treat reading the daily horoscope in the newspaper.

Some men and women do not believe the gospel because they have sincere doubts about it or unanswered questions.  We need to treat these men and women with patience and respect, trying to help them overcome their objections.

There are others who resist surrendering to the gospel even though they sense their spiritual bankruptcy and realize the truth of the gospel.  They hold back.  They will not surrender to the call to repentance and belief.  They may be happy to call Jesus a great teacher, but will not acknowledge him as Savior.

That is a dangerous place to be.  What can we who care for such men and women to help them move beyond their resistance?

àWe should continue to lay the foundation of evidence and reason in support of the gospel.

àWe need to live out the gospel with integrity, demonstrating in our lives the reality of its promise.  Research shows this is the most compelling human witness we can offer in this day.

àWe need to pray tht the Spirit might show the appeal of Christ through us.

Conclusion

It is difficult to win those who will not act in accord to what they know to be true.

If someone you care about fits this description, don’t give up hope.  Soon after the church began to preach the gospel of the Risen Christ, many of the Pharisees began to turn to the gospel.  Some of these were almost certainly among those who had originally resisted Jesus.

If you recognize the truth of the gospel but haven’t committed yourself to him, stop waiting.

 

 

 

Priorities

 

Luke 10:38-42

Some might read this story and accuse Luke of “airing dirty laundry,” of telling a story that should have been kept quiet, not put out for public consumption.  On the other hand, this story reminds us that real disciples sometimes have trouble in day to day situations, trouble finding priorities.

We encounter Martha and Mary here and elsewhere in the gospels.  They had a brother Lazarus who apparently lived with them but whether Lazarus was living with them at this time isn’t clear.  In the most memorable story, found in John’s Gospel, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. 

Luke’s story suggests Martha owned the home.  She may have been a widow who shared a home with the unmarried or widowed Mary and, perhaps, Lazarus.  We simply don’t know as much about the family as we might like.  The old Mormon tradition that Jesus was married to Martha, Mary, and Mary Magdalene has no biblical foundation. 

What we do know from the scriptures suggests that Martha was the older to the two and that she possessed a tendency to be more actively involved in practical matters while Mary appears to have been more retiring.  But the hints of their personality differences are only hints and we should not push them too far.

In any case, when Jesus traveled to their village—Bethany, according to John—he and his team were welcomed by Martha.  As she busied herself with meal preparations, Jesus began teaching a group of his followers.  Among those listening to him was Mary.  With Martha busy in the kitchen and Mary quietly listening in the “living room” the stage was set for the encounter Luke reports. 

At some point, Martha leaves the kitchen, goes to where the impromptu class is going on, and interrupts Jesus to say, “Lord, doesn’t it seem unfair to you that my sister just sits here while I do all the work? Tell her to come and help me.” (New Living Translation)

The Cause of Martha's Anger

What might have been the cause of Martha’s anger?

Perhaps it involved simple sibling rivalry.  Don’t imagine I’m importing a modern notion into the Biblical account; there are instances of such rivalry in the Scripture.  We see it with Joseph and his brothers, in the behavior of David’s sons.  To a degree, it goes back to Cain and Abel. 

Even if this wasn’t true sibling rivalry, we can imagine Martha being somewhat resentful.  After all, she had invited Jesus into her home, she was the hostess, and Mary was the one benefiting from his company.  Lest you think I’m laying out the plot of a Hallmark Channel movie, let me say this scenario need not have any romantic overtones.

Of course, Martha might have been embarrassed.  In such a social setting, women were to remain with the women and the men with the men.  The only time the women were to enter the men’s company was when they carried in food or drink.  Put simply, Mary was behaving inappropriately by the standards of the day.

Martha may not have perceived the revolution that was going on in her living room.  She had probably heard the local rabbi talk about how it was a waste of time to try to teach a woman.  They couldn’t grasp the intricacies of theology.  Perhaps, at this time, Martha believed it.

In the late nineteenth century, Mrs. James Himes, a Baptist from the state of Georgia, wrote a letter to praise the Southern Baptist Convention for refusing to allow women messengers, representatives.  She said, “it was the duty of men to see that no heads inferior to their own should be permitted to supervise the vast network of missions.”

If Martha believed she and other women possessed such “inferior” minds, she would have believed Mary could better spend her time helping make their guests comfortable—been more effective doing “women’s work.”

But, as I said, a revolution was going on in that living room.  The phrase Luke uses in describing Mary sitting at Jesus feet is a figure of speech that means she was learning as a disciple would.  Jesus treated women in a new way.  He engaged them in serious discussion of serious topics.  He took them seriously.  Had Martha realized what was happening she might have rejoiced that her sister was there.

While these things may have played a role in Martha's feelings, Luke describes her problem as being "distracted."  She was trying to do so much that she couldn't do anything.  She became frustrated and angry.  Instead of telling herself she might have taken on too much, she laid part of the blame on her sister.

Though she had set out to honor the Lord, she found herself blaming him as well.  Her frustration level was such she failed to see the irony of calling Jesus "Lord" and then questioning his concern for her. 

David Garland suggests Martha was the victim of "well-intentioned overactivity."  She wanted Jesus to feel welcome, in contrast to Simon the Pharisee who treated Jesus with notable contempt.  Whether she had heard of what happened at Simon's house is anyone's guess, but she intended to be the best hostess.

What went wrong was allowing her plans to dislodge what ought to have been her priority--enjoying the time with the Lord. 

Recently a friend told about his wife's activities at Christmas.  They mirrored what she did at Thanksgiving.  With her sons, daughters-in-law, and grandchildren coming, she attempted to prepare all the special dishes they loved.  Doubtless she had set out to do something nice for them.

But, interestingly, she refused to allow anyone else in the kitchen.  As the long day of cooking wore on she became increasingly irritable and resentful.  She lost sight of the purpose of the family getting together in the first place.  Her grandchildren were coming to think of the holidays as times of stress and tension.

While most commentators refer to women working away in the kitchen as examples of this loss of priority, the problem isn't just found in the kitchen.  Nor is it gender-specific.

We've all known people in our churches who are over-committed.  They simply won't or can't say "no" to some task in the church.  While their service may begin in an earnest desire to show their love for The Lord, it has become something different.  Perhaps it is now a source of self-worth.  Or, perhaps it is simply a joyless duty.

If it is the first, nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of their service to the church--not family, not friends.   Their children grow up knowing that vacations, school activities, and even events like birthdays must take second place to church responsibilities.  Otherwise mom or dad might be considered to be lagging in devotion.

If it is the second, their joyless duty becomes manifest in every action.  Nothing that they do is appealing or inspirational to others.

Most of our churches just let people like this work on, offering an occasional word of commendation.  We rarely offer a word of correction since we don't want to dampen anyone's enthusiasm and we wonder if they are really overactive or we are under-active.

A Lesson in Priorities

Jesus, however, counters Martha's complaint with a gentle rebuke.  "Martha," he said, "you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary.  Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her." 

Jesus is using the moment to teach Martha a lesson in priorities.  He even links it to a meal.  The term "the good portion" refers to that portion of a dish that is the tastiest, most succulent.  That was Mary's.  What Martha had chosen was not bad but it wasn't the best.  To put it another way:  Being hospitable is good, caring for your guests is good, but there is something better.

The point is not that service is unimportant or a waste of time, but service is no substitute for a growing relationship with the Lord.  Somehow Mary had realized that.

Mary would not have allowed her guests to go hungry.  But she knew the Lord well enough to know he would have been satisfied with some bread and perhaps some fruit or vegetables.  If there were some dried fish on hand she might have added that.  Perhaps she had heard the disciples discussing Jesus' instructions when he had sent out the seventy:  "Eat what is set before you."  In any case, she seems to have known the Lord had no need of a great feast such as Martha insisted on making.

Mary seems to have instinctively known what was most important.  Martha was confused on the matter.  Jesus' words to Martha--and to all of us--are in invitation to occasionally reassess what we consider to be our chief priority.

As I was reviewing Luke's account of Jesus' ministry and teachings, I realized there were two instances in which he speaks to the matter of priorities.

There is this story where he speaks to one who has a commitment to him.  Then there is another moment when Jesus addresses the problem in a parable.

And he told them this parable: "The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.' "Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry." ' "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself ?' "This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.".  (Luke 12:16-20)

 

Here is a person who appears to have a completely secular mindset.  He gives no thought to his soul (the reference to soul suggest an internal dialogue).   

Many today deny the existence of an eternal soul.  Convinced that all of life is the result of random chance, they believe humans are merely so much organic matter.  This man might have well be in their number.  He is a materialist with the materialist's creed:  "Rest, eat, drink, and be merry."  Jesus pictures him as supposing this is all one needs to be concerned about.

His rude awakening reminds him there is more to life.  We have a spiritual nature and we ignore it to our peril.

The Spectrum

So in these two account we see there is a broad spectrum of spiritual recognition. 

On one end we have Mary who knows she need to see to her spiritual life and so she places herself in a situation where that nurture can take place.

On the other end of that spectrum we see one who does nothing to nurture his spirit.  His mindset doesn't even prompt him to give thanks for his material blessings or to suppose his wealth might allow him to do something about the poor around him.

George Barna has written about what he calls "the seven faith tribes" in America.  One of these tribes consists of "the skeptics."  They deny or seriously question the very existence of God.  His research discovered that this group was the least-likely to give to charity.  They seem to believe, if people are successful (like the man in the parable), it is their own doing; if they are poor, that's their doing as well. 

At the same time they see little need of a supportive community.  They are smart enough,  intuitive enough, and shrewd enough to stand on their own.  The man in the parable, standing at the far end of the spectrum, mentions no friends or even family.  His wealth he will spend on his own pleasure.

Along this spectrum,  with Mary at one end and this Rich Fool at the other, was Martha.  She was, of course, closer to Mary than she was to that foolish farmer.  But her confusion about what was really important robbed her of the joy that might have been hers.  It kept her from knowing the peace that comes from recognizing that grace makes our effort to impress God unnecessary.  It kept her from seeing that whatever she placed before her Lord, if given in love, would be acceptable.

At the same time, she failed to see how her frenzied, complaining brand of discipleship might have turned the curious away from faith and commitment.

Like all of us, from time to time, she needed a priority adjustment.

Conclusion

There are others who need to have their priorities adjusted.

Those who live like the rich farmer with no acknowledgment of God's claim on their lives need to weigh the consequences of their approach to life, need to consider if the notion that this is all there is fits the evidence around them, the evidence in their own hearts.

Those who live like Martha should strive to discern the best from the good.  They should seek to avoid the distractions that keep them from the wealth of blessing God has for them.  They should focus on the "the good portion."

All of us have only so much time.  We must prioritize.  We must sort the good from the better.  We know this if we claim to be Christians.  As Christians, we might wish to have a good and comfortable home, but know if we are enslaved by a mortgage we may not be able to give priority to opportunities to serve and worship the Lord.  As Christian parents, we might want our children to know the joy playing sports, but know we should give priority the life and training the church offers.  As Christians, we rightly want our priorities to match God's priorities.

 

 

 

 

 

Traveling Mercies

Textual introduction:  This is one of the most famous of Jesus’ stories, parables.  To really appreciate it, we need to understand the story behind the story.  That’s what I’ll try to open up this morning.

*********

Luke 10:25-37

Wow.  What a politician Jesus would have made.  He came from a humble background.  He was great with children.  He knew how to be a hit at really big picnics.  He didn’t mind being on the road for weeks at a time.  An opponent asked a tricky question and he replied with a story that people would eventually retell all over the world.  And no one seemed to notice he hadn’t answered the question!

Of course, the story Jesus told is known as the Parable of the Good Samaritan.  Because we’re so familiar with the parable we can easily forget how surprising this story would have been to those who first heard it.

London’s west end is famous as the home of the theater district.  Some of the world’s best-known actors appear in the plays, musicals, and operas produced there.  We visited the area a few years ago.   As we were looking at those amazing theater marquis one of our party almost walked into a post.   Unfortunately, the district is also a place where street crime is a familiar occurrence.

One evening a man was walking to the underground when he was attacked by two muggers.  They took his wallet, watch, and anything of value he was carrying, and then they knocked him to the ground and began kicking him mercilessly.  They left him bleeding on the street. 

As he lay there two couples passed by.   They were dressed in formal wear and obviously were on their way to the theater.  The mugging victim called out for help.  The men and women briefly looked his way then hurried on.  This happened a couple times as he lay there in pain.  Everyone seemed more interested in making the first act than in helping him.

Then, the door of a nearby pub opened and three men stumbled out into the evening.  They had obviously been drinking, drinking a lot.  As they walked past him, the man again cried out for help.  The trio saw him and hurried over to his side.  While two of the men got the mugging victim onto his feet, the other hurried back to the pub to call 999 (that’s 911 in British). 

The man survived.  I like stories with unexpected heroes.  So did Jesus. 

Luke’s account begins with a question from a “lawyer.”  This was not a man you would have write a will or draw up a contract.  He was an expert in the Law of Moses, particularly those religious regulations ordering the day to day life of Jews.  They researched the Mosaic Law in depth and sought to apply it to every conceivable situation.  Often they would meet to debate issues in order to approach some consensus on a point of law.  They might wrestle with important questions like the distribution of an inheritance or a sadly trivial question such as the propriety of eating an egg laid on the Sabbath.

They also taught the youth of the community—the males, that is—so they would be better equipped to lead lives worthy of their Jewish heritage. Finally, they advised the religious courts and sometimes served as judges on those courts.  As a group, they were highly regarded by the community.

So, one such lawyer approached Jesus with a question:  "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"  The lawyer would have known the answer to such a question.  No, he had an ulterior motive.  His question was designed to “test” Jesus, to see if he would say something that might be grounds for incriminating him, for denouncing him to the crowds who were attached to him.

As a question, it was uncomplicated.  What are the requirements to go to heaven?   Jesus had probably answered the question before but the man wanted to test Jesus’ orthodoxy.

Jesus answers the question with a question.  In essence, he says, “What does the Law say?  You’re the legal expert, you tell me.”  There’s a story that a young student at a synagogue asked his rabbi, “Why does a rabbi always answer a question with a question?”  The rabbi answered, “Why shouldn’t a rabbi answer a question with a question?”    It’s an old technique for teaching and Jesus was skilled at using it.

Well, the lawyer couldn’t resist that invitation so he pulls together a couple verses from Deuteronomy and Leviticus: 

"You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself."

To this Jesus says, “Cool.  You got it.”  Okay, not exactly, he said, “"You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live." 

Jesus would also use these verses to summarize the demands of the Law.  The statement deals with our responsibilities toward God and our responsibilities toward our fellow human beings. 

Those of us who are steeped in the tradition of salvation by grace, the idea that we are saved by God’s unmerited favor and not by any good works of our own, sometimes get a little disturbed when we read a statement like that.  We shouldn’t be.  The Bible has always taught that there are two ways of salvation.  We may be saved by grace.  Or, we may be saved by absolute, perfect, impeccable obedience to the divine law.  Occasionally, a student would ask W. T. Conner at Southwestern Seminary, “Dr. Conner, don’t you think if a man lives up to the light he has, he will be saved?”  Dr. Conner would reply, “Yes,” pause to let the shock sink in and then add, “Now, trot that man out.”  Dr. Conner knew, as we all know, that none of us can claim to have achieved the level of perfection the law requires.

Of course, the lawyer knew how demanding the Law could be.  He understood the appeal of refining those demands to make them more comfortable.  The Living Bible offer insight when it translates the verse, “The man wanted to justify (his lack of love for some kinds of people), so he asked, ‘Who is my neighbor?'”

The question “Who is my neighbor” was widely debated by the experts on the Law and the Pharisees.   Some Pharisees argued that the demand to love the neighbor extended only to other observant Jews.  Others offered a slightly more liberal interpretation.  No one thought of the “neighbor” as whoever you might encounter.  Perhaps the broadest interpretation of “neighbor” would have been “people like us.”[1]  Some argued that Samaritans could not be neighbors.

Be honest.  Haven’t you hoped there was some escape clause in that demand—“Love your neighbor?”  Haven’t you hoped some patient Greek scholar would discover the word “neighbor” in this command means “people like you” or “your kind of people?”  Don’t you wish a new manuscript would be found with a convincing new reading of this text, one that said, “Love your neighbor—unless your neighbor has hurt you, insulted you, or just failed to give you the respect you think you deserve?”

So, maybe this lawyer was hoping Jesus would give him an out so he wouldn’t have to take this verse so seriously.

Instead of diving into debate, Jesus told a story.  Remember, Jesus seemed to enjoy making the wrong people the heroes of his stories.  We see it in this story. 

The story began with a traveler on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho, about a fifteen mile trip.  It was a difficult trip in some ways; in those fifteen miles it went from Jerusalem at 2300 feet above sea-level to Jericho at 1300 feet below sea-level.  The road was rocky, steep, and isolated.  A desert.

We aren’t told much about the traveler.  Numbers of travelers took the trip.  Jericho was a popular destination.  Herod the Great, the king who ruled when Jesus was born, had beautified the city after it had been sacked by the Romans.  During Jesus’ day, it was an oasis with palms and fruit trees.   It was a good place to get away from the more crowded Jerusalem.  Consequently, people on their way there may have been carrying more than a little pocket change.

That the traveler became a victim of highwaymen would have surprised no one.  They knew the roads better than the casual traveler.  They used that knowledge to ambush the unwary, especially if they were traveling alone.

The thieves in Jesus’ story were thorough and violent.  They took everything the man had and beat him for good measure.  They were unconcerned as they left the traveler half dead beside the road.

Sometime after the thieves had gone, a priest happened by.  Historians tell us that many priests lived in Jericho when they were not serving in Jerusalem.  Jesus’ listeners knew this.

Anyway, the priest saw the beaten traveler.  Did he rush to his aid?  Did he give him a drink of cool water?  Did he try to get him to his feet and take him to shelter?  No, he passed by on the other side of the road.  No help came from him.

The priest had no way of knowing what kind of man this was.  He might not deserve his help.

Next, a Levite passed by.  Levites weren’t priests but they were professional religious helpers, assistants to the priests.  They provided a variety of services from keeping the temple tidy to singing in the choir.  Levites are mentioned only three times in the New Testament but were prominent in Israel’s history as a group dedicated to God and charged with the responsibility of modeling service to God. 

So, what did this Levite do when he saw the wounded traveler?  Nothing.  Just like the priest, he passed by on the other side of the road.

At this point, what was the lawyer thinking?  We don’t know but maybe he was thinking, “Okay, a lawyer is going to come down the road next and he will help that poor man.”

In any case, he was probably surprised by Jesus’ next words:  ^“But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled along, came down to where the wounded man was; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity and sympathy [for him].”

Jews had little regard for Samaritans.  This ill-will was born hundreds of years before. The Jewish people in Samaria had adopted some ideas and customs of the people who had moved in while the nation was under the heel of the Assyrians. 

Even though they eventually abandoned the pagan influences and returned to worshipping Yahweh, they were forever branded as traitors, as spiritual half-breeds by their neighbors to the south.  They weren’t even known as Jews anymore; they were now Samaritans.  Rejection begets rejection so the Samaritans rejected Orthodox Judaism in favor of their own version, a version that denied much of the Jewish scripture. 

Centuries later, few, if any, Jews had anything good to say about Samaritans and most Samaritans returned the compliment. 

Now, Jesus was talking about a Samaritan who had compassion on the poor victim of a mugging. 

If Jesus were telling this story down on the Worthington green this morning, he might have told about a poor family trying to find shelter for the night.   Jesus might have told of the megachurch pastor who hurried by the family to go an important meeting with the mayor.  He might have mentioned the leader of a charity on her way to receive an award who rushed past the family.

Then he might have told us how the family was finally helped to shelter and a good meal by the owner of the local strip club.

If you find that scenario a little disturbing, that’s just how the lawyer would have felt.

Before Jesus finished his story, he underscored the way the Samaritan help the wounded traveler.

34. He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. He then lifted him onto his own mount and took him to an inn and looked after him.

35. Next day, he took out two denarii and handed them to the innkeeper and said, `Look after him, and on my way back I will make good any extra expense you have.'

Just listen to the detail Jesus adds:

·         Instead of staying as far away as he could, the Samaritan got close to the wounded man.   He even touched those awful, bleeding wounds.

·         He used his expensive oil and wine to treat the wounds, knowing he would almost certainly not be repaid.

·         He sacrificed his comfort for the man’s sake, letting the man ride his horse or donkey.

·         He took the man to an inn and stayed with him until he felt it was safe to leave.

·         He left two days wages with the innkeeper to make sure the man would be taken care of while he was gone.

·         He didn’t plan to abandon the man;   he was going to check on him when he returned through the area. 

·         He committed himself to cover unforeseen expenses.

What a guy.  But remember this; although the Samaritans rejected most of the Jewish scripture, they accepted that portion including the words recited by the lawyer.  They knew the command “love your neighbor.”

Perhaps Jesus paused a moment to let the story sink in, then he asked the lawyer a final question.  It was a throwaway question.  Of the man who was used to weighing in on obscure points of the Law, Jesus asked, “Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers' victim?" 

There’s not a lot of wiggle room when you face a question like that in circumstances like that.  So, the lawyer replied, "The one who showed pity towards him."

And, Jesus said, “You think!”  Okay, actually, he said, "Go and do what he did."

We don’t know what happened to that lawyer.  I hope he left a changed man.  Maybe he woke up in the middle of the night and said to himself, “Wait a minute, Jesus never answered my question.”

And, that was true.  Jesus had played a sanctified game of bait and switch.  Jesus had shifted the emphasis.  The real question was not, “Who is my neighbor?” but “Am I neighborly?”  I think we can look at the entirety of Scripture and say that being neighborly is to be thoughtfully loving.

Start asking that first question and you begin searching for opportunities to limit your pity and compassion.  Keep the second question in mind and you’ll measure each situation, not by the worthiness of the one in need, but by the call that God’s love has placed on you.

That challenges our tendency to selfishness and complacency. 

We come to see the problems in limiting the definition of neighbor. 

·         As we limit those to whom we will be neighborly we shrink the sphere of our influence.

·         As we limit those to whom we will be neighborly we suppress the evidence of God’s transforming work in our lives.

·         As we limit those to whom we will be neighborly we bequeath to our children prejudice, division, and hatred.

·         As we limit those to whom we will be neighborly we betray ignorance of the breadth of God’s love.

With that last in mind, there’s a final lesson here we can’t forget.  For centuries this story has been called “The Parable of the Good Samaritan.”   That’s a good title and I don’t intend to change it.  If I did, I might call it “The Parable of the Samaritan Who Didn’t Quibble.”  And I’d add a subtitle:  “Jesus’ Word to an Inquisitive Lawyer.”  Like that lawyer, we know the demands of the law.  Like that lawyer, in our hearts we know we don’t meet those demands.  Like that lawyer, we are looking for a loophole.  Jesus wants us to know there aren’t any.

I find a commentary on this parable in the Sermon on the Mount.  There, too, Jesus is speaking of loving one’s neighbors.  Listen:

“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy.
But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!
              In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike.
             If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much.
             If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that.
            But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

Perfect—that’s a scary word.  Not only are there no loopholes, we are to love like God loves.  Who among us does that?  Our only hope is grace and forgiveness. 

---

[1]  David Garland quotes a rabbi who puts these words into God’s mouth:  “If he acts as thy people do, thou shalt love him; but if not, thou shalt not love him.” (440)