[Propertalk] Fw: Luke 10:25-37 - Brian Stoffregen - Part 2

[Joe Parrish]

"KEEP DOING LIKEWISE" -- ACT LIKE THE THIRD MAN



 



Probably the most common understanding of this text is that we are to act like the Samaritan in the text, rather than the priest or the Levite. He "sees" and "has compassion" (σπλαγχνίζομαι - splagchnizomai) on the needy man in the ditch. He "cares" (ἐπιμέλω - epimelō - v. 34) for the man in the ditch. He is also described by the lawyer as the one "doing mercy" (ποιέω τὸ ἔλεος - poieo to eleos). However, the Samaritan doesn’t provide all of the direct aid to the needy man. He also asks the innkeeper to "care" (ἐπιμέλω - epimelō - v. 35).



 



I remember being taught that "mercy" was the act of not getting what one deserved. If I had done wrong and deserved a spanking, parents were merciful if they didn't punish me as I deserved. However, that is not the meaning in this text. The man in the ditch had done nothing deserving punishment. Lowe and Nida define eleos as " to show kindness or concern for someone in serious need." It goes beyond feelings of compassion to acts of charity to those in need.



 



The verbs used with the Samaritan are worth emulating: to have compassion others; to come (near) to others; to care for others; to do mercy to others. It is not enough just to know what the Law says, one must also do it. To put it another way, it is not enough just to talk about "what one believes," but "what difference does it make in my life that I believe." “Actions speak louder than words,” and I think that’s true in regards to our faith.



 



The description of the robbers' work on the dead man indicate that there would be no identifying marks about his status, his occupation, his race. How would the lawyer (or the Samaritan) know if this half-dead man was a neighbor or not? He is a person who needs a neighbor. Who will respond? Who will come near?



 



Note also that the Samaritan acts not to receive anything for himself (like self-justification). He responds to the needs of the man in the ditch and his actions cost him -- time and money.



 



WHY A SAMARITAN?



 



A question that needs to be asked, especially with this interpretive approach to the parable, is "Why a Samaritan?" 



 



The idea of being a "Good Samaritan" is so common in our culture, that most people today don't realize that "Good Samaritan" would have been an oxymoron to a first century Jew. Briefly stated, a Samaritan is someone from Samaria. During an ancient Israeli war, most of the Jews living up north in Samaria were killed or taken into exile. However, a few Jews, who were so unimportant that nobody wanted them, were left in Samaria. Since that time, these Jews had intermarried with other races. They were considered half-breeds by the "true" Jews. They had perverted the race. They had also perverted the religion. They looked to Mt. Gerizim as the place to worship God, not Jerusalem. They interpreted the Torah differently than the southern Jews. The animosity between the Jews and Samaritans were so great that some Jews would go miles out of their way to avoid walking on Samaritan territory. Previously in Luke, the Samaritans had refused to welcome Jesus -- the "bad" Samaritans. I'm certain that in the minds of many Jews, the only "good" Samaritan was a dead Samaritan. Note that the lawyer never says "Samaritan." He can't call him a "good Samaritan" (a phrase that doesn't occur in the text). Anyway, we are still left with the question, "Why a Samaritan?"



 



If Jesus were just trying to communicate that we should do acts of mercy to the needy, he could have talked about the first man and the second man who passed by and the third one who stopped and cared for the half-dead man in the ditch. Knowing that they were a priest, Levite, and Samaritan is not necessary.



 



If Jesus were also making a gibe against clerics, we would expect the third man to be a layman -- an ordinary Jew -- in contrast to the professional clergy. It is likely that Jewish hearers would have anticipated the hero to be an ordinary Jew.



 



If Jesus were illustrating the need to love our enemies, then the man in the ditch would have been a Samaritan who is cared for by a loving Israelite.



 



One answer to the question: "Why a Samaritan?" is that we Christians might be able to learn about showing mercy from people who don't profess Christ. I know that I saw much more love expressed towards each other by the clients at an inpatient alcoholic/drug rehab hospital than I usually find in churches. Can learn about "acting Christianly" from AA or the Hell's Angels?



 



Granskou (Preaching on the Parables) takes the above approach and suggests: "It is a condemnation of smugness" [p. 81].



 



Green (The Gospel of Luke) reaches a similar conclusion: "The parable of the compassionate Samaritan thus undermines the determination of status in the community of God's people on the basis of ascription [he had noted earlier that priests and Levites are born into those positions], substituting in its place a concern with performance, the granting of status on the basis of one's actions" [p. 431].



 



This approach highlights some of the Luke's themes: Since the man in the ditch had been stripped of anything that might identify him by social class, or perhaps even nationality; he is helped simply because he is a person in need. There should be no distinctions about whom we are to help. In addition, the help involved the use of one's resources. For Luke, wealth is not necessarily evil; it depends upon how it is used.



 



Another answer to the question: "Why a Samaritan?" is that we are not to identify with the Samaritan. A Jew would find that so distasteful that he couldn't identify with that person. He wouldn't want to be like the Priest or Levite in the story, so that leaves the hearer with identifying with the man in the ditch. 



 



"KEEP DOING LIKEWISE" -- BE THE "MAN IN THE DITCH"



 



Scott (Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom) presents this approach most succinctly when he concludes: "The parable can be summarized as follows: to enter the kingdom one must get into the ditch and be served by one's mortal enemy" (p. 29). 



 



He expands a little later: "Grace comes to those who cannot resist, who have no other alternative than to accept it. To enter the parable's World, to get into the ditch, is to be so low that grace is the only alternative. The point may be so simple as this: only he who needs grace can receive grace" (p. 31). 



 



Funk (Parables and Presence) adds to this image.



 



A Jew who was excessively proud of his blood line and a chauvinist about his tradition would not permit a Samaritan to touch him, much less minister to him. In going from Galilee to Judea, he would cross and recross the Jordan to avoid going through Samaria. The parable therefore forces upon its hearers the question: who among you will permit himself or herself to be served by a Samaritan? In a general way it can be replied that that only those who have nothing to lose by so doing can afford to do so. But note that the victim in the ditch is given only a passive role in the story. Permission to be served by the Samaritan is thus inability to resist. Put differently, all who are truly victims, truly disinherited, have no choice but to give themselves up to mercy. The despised half-breed has become the instrument of grace: as listeners, the Jews choke on the irony. (p. 33)



 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stsams.org/pipermail/propertalk_stsams.org/attachments/20100710/22ac5190/attachment.htm>