Anyone else sick of the whole ‘Christ in the OT’ debate? Man… some people just go on and on.
I’m announcing a new hobby horse – Christ in the NT. In fact I think this is where you really see a preacher’s Christ-centredness. We’ve had the rule drummed into us by now – Thou shalt ‘bridge to Christ’ at the end of an Old Testament sermon. But does this ‘bridge’ come from convictions regarding Jesus the Word or is it simply a preaching convention that we slavishly follow?
Well you can probably guess at the answer by listening to a preacher’s New Testament sermons. Now I fail at this all the time but I think the challenge for all of us is this: Is Jesus the Hero of the sermon on the mount or Mark 13 or the gifts passages or James? And the issue for this mini-series - what about the parables?
Last time I looked at Matthew 13:44-46. Who the man? Jesus the Man. He seeks and finds us and in His joy He purchases us. All praise to Him. As Piper likes to say ‘the Giver gets the glory’ and in this parable (contra Piper’s own interpretation of it) Jesus’ glory is on show as He gives up all for His treasured possession – the church.
In this post we’ll look briefly at the Good Samaritan: Luke 10:25-37
First notice this: the teacher of the law asks ‘Who is my neighbour?’ This prompts the story. At the end of the story Jesus asks Who was neighbour to the guy left for dead? (v36). So now, think about this: With whom is Jesus asking us to identify? The priest? Levite? Samaritan? No. Not first of all. First of all we are asked to see ourselves as the man left for dead. And from his perspective we are to assess who is a good neighbour. Here’s the first clue – we’re meant to put ourselves in the shoes of the fallen man.
Why do I say ‘fallen’? Well the man’s fallenness is triply-underlined in v30. He “goes down“ from Jerusalem (this earthly counterpart of the heavenly Zion). He’s heading towards the outskirts of the land (Jericho) which is due east of this mountain sanctuary (echoes of Eden). This would involve a physical descent of about a thousand metres in the space of just 23 miles. If that wasn’t bad enough, the man “falls” among robbers. He’s stripped, plagued (literally that’s the greek word), abandoned and half-dead. That’s the man’s precidament and Jesus wants us to see it as our predicament. So what hope do we have?
The priest? Nope. The Levite? No chance. What about a ‘certain Samaritan’ (mirroring the ‘certain man’ of v30)? He’s not at all like the religious. In fact the one who ‘comes to where the man is’ happens to be someone who’d equally have been shunned by the priest and Levite!
Yet this Samaritan ‘had compassion’ (v33). In the New Testament this verb, which could be translated ’he was moved in his bowels with pity’, is used only of Jesus. (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 18:27; 20:34; Mk. 1:41; 6:34; 8:2; 9:22; Lk. 7:13; 10:33; 15:20) In every narrative passage Jesus is the subject of the verb and the three parables in which it’s used are the merciful King of Matthew 18 (v27), here and the father in the Two Sons (Lk 15:20). More about that in the next post.
Well this Good Samaritan comes across the man left for dead and for emphasis we are twice told about him ‘coming’ to the man (v33 and 34). The Outsider identifies with the spurned and wretched.
Now remember whose shoes we are in as Jesus tells this story. We are meant to imagine ourselves as this brutalized man. Now read v34:
He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own beast, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins 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.’
Now I don’t have to tell you what these things mean. You’ve got blueletterbible – you can do your own biblical theology of oil, wine, etc. But remember you’re meant to be putting yourself in the position of this fallen man, left for dead, unaided by religion, healed by an extraordinary stranger and awaiting his return. Are you there? Have you felt those depths and appreciated those heights? Well then, now:
You go and do likewise. (v37)
Don’t first conjure up the character of the good samaritan. First be the fallen man. First experience the healing of this Beautiful Stranger. Then go and do likewise.
Or… leave Jesus out of it. Spin it as a morality tale and end with “Who was that masked man? No matter – just go and do likewise.”
See how important ‘Jesus in the NT’ is?
.
After continually being taught that even “a nasty Samaritan” is one’s neighbor, I’ve asked the question many times, if anyone notices that Jesus asks which of the passersby is a neighbor to the Samaritan. Of course, then I’ve asked, so do we only consider those neighbors who show us mercy?
I think one of my commentors tried to explain it like this, but I didn’t get it.
“First of all we are asked to see ourselves as the man left for dead. And from his perspective we are to assess who is a good neighbour. Here’s the first clue – we’re meant to put ourselves in the shoes of the fallen man.”
Now I think I’ve got it! I love a change in perspective. And, yes, I see how important Jesus in the NT is. :)
wow great stuff glen
do all the parables =)
I think to understand this parable we need to see Luke’s frame. He introduces us to a question “what must I do to inherit eternal life”
The final words of Jesus are go and do likewise – Jesus answers the question – to inherit eternal life we must do the likewise of this parable. So we need to start to see who is our God and who is our neighbour and act toward our neighbour in the way our God did – thats the likewise
Tim, I could go along with that I think. But a question: How does Jesus fit in for you?
Jesus made it possible for us to act in the way described in the parable – who is the one who offered mercy (despite the fact we deserved judgement) well that was the Triune God. Who is our neighbour is a redundant question without out acknowledgeing who our God is – the one who showed mercy and attoned for our sin.
That is why I think Jesus is answering the eternal life question – We would be left broken on the road unless God stooped down and redeemed us.
So the likewise is that Jesus is God and if we are to have devotion to him and to love him then we need to do what he did – thats have an expansive view of neighbour – this parable is really an exemplar of Matthew 25.
So we cant be the Samaritan apart from God – that is why we cannot see the neighbour question apart from the frame – the frame being the first question on eternal life – without Jesus, without God the neighbour question is meaningless.
So how does Jesus fit in? – Luke is telling us – he is God – this is further proof that Jesus is son of the Adam, son of God in Chapter 3. Its him who succeds were we fall down and fail , he succeeds in a way we would not expect – God crucified so take up your cross and follow him – this parable tells us how.
Glen, my first venture into blog comment leaving! I dig your interpretation. But now you’ve opened the can you have to tell me what the two coins represent. Also who is the innkeeper? Is he the Holy Spirit? The last time we chatted about this, I said the coins might be baptism and the Lord’s Supper which I think I remember you didn’t like? What do you think now?
Tim,
Yes and so the astonishing fact is that God has become our neighbour. Jesus told us that the greatest command is both a unity (*the* greatest) and two-fold (love God and love neighbour). In Jesus they are one. He is God and neighbour. And He Himself loves God and neighbour in the very same way – the same act even (the cross).
So then God has become our neighbour and (in true Lukan style) He’s become the Downtrodden for the downtrodden. And the order is all important: He is the fulfilment of the law first. We are the recipient of His neighbour love. *Then* we are called to do likewise. Having been claimed by *His* neighbour love, now we find ourselves captive to that same life.
So yes – the frame about eternal life is very important. But that question is answered in Jesus, the fulfilment of the law, who *first* loved us in this way. *Then* we go and do likewise as the recipients of that love. Those are the ones who inherit eternal life.
That’s the reason I think it’s important to be clear on who the certain man is, whose position we are first asked to imagine ourselves in and who the Samaritan is.
Tom! Welcome to the comments. Be warned though – this thing can take over your life. Are you prepared for just how deep this rabbit hole goes?
My gut reaction, which I haven’t yet recanted of, is that the deposit is the Spirit in His sustaining and preserving work, and the inn-keeper is the church. This has the disadvantage of:
a) not explaining the *two* coins
b) having the Spirit represented twice – (once as oil in His healing/saving work)
But on the other hand – Spirit as deposit is pretty well attested in Scripture.
Go on, convince me of the sacraments interpretation.
PS – are you going to graduation in a couple of weeks? I am.
Glen – you have a very Augustinian view of parabolic interpretation. How about the coins just being coins and the inn just being an inn!
Oh Tim – you’re no fun at all. Emma agrees!
Its fatherhood Glen – saps all that fun out of ya!
Quote – “in this post he’s absolutely right to identify that our preaching should be soaked in Christ”
- hope that’s encouraging to hear me say.
Pete
“soaked in Christ” – I like it!
Very encouraging, thanks Pete
Hello, I can’t understand how to add your blog ( christthetruth.wordpress.com ) in my rss reader
————————
sponsor: http://sudeg.ru/