Thursday, July 29, 2004 AD
Law, Gospel and the Good Samaritan
Last Sunday, our guest preacher (in our pastor's absence on holiday) was Revd Reg Quirk, the chairman of the ELCE. He preached on the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), and it was probably the most helpful sermon my wife and I have ever heard on this story (in the face of some pretty stiff competition), particularly the Law and Gospel perspective identified by Revd Quirk. Here is the gist of it (i.e. not by any means a transcript), followed by some reflections of my own. Any errors, weaknesses in argument etc are my responsibility rather than Revd Quirk's, of course.
This is one of the most famous stories in the Bible. Whichever church or school you went to, you will have heard this story. Even if you know nothing else about the biblical concept of priests and Levites, you know that this priest and Levite passed by on the other side. And the "Good Samaritan" has entered the language.
This is the story of how a traveller from Jerusalem to Jericho fell among robbers and was left half-dead. A priest and Levite refused to help, and it was left to a despised foreigner to help the man: an example to us all of how we should be ready to help those around us rather than passing by on the other side.
That is the conventional interpretation, and it is, in fact, almost entirely incorrect. In order to understand the parable properly, we need to consider two key points.
1. The priest was a good priest, and the Levite was a good Levite
The priest wasn't neglecting his duty when he passed by on the other side: he was fulfilling it. The Law of God forbade priests from touching any dead body other than that of a close relative (Lev.21:1-4). A good priest could not even take the risk of investigating to see whether the "half dead" man was still alive or not. Similarly with the Levite.
In the context, Jesus is addressing a teacher of the law, who would have understood this point immediately. Of course the priest and Levite passed by on the other side. That's what God had told them to do. It would have been shocking if they had done otherwise. There is no suggestion in the parable that Jesus is criticising the priest and Levite's behaviour.
2. The identity of the Samaritan
The Samaritan was an instantly-recognisable "hate figure" for Jesus' Jewish audience. But more than that: Jesus' listeners would have been well aware of who the Samaritan in this parable was meant to be: Jesus Himself.
The worst insult a Jew could make of a fellow-Jew was that he was a "Samaritan". We know that Jesus' enemies applied this epithet to Him (John 8:48). What's more, the word for "compassion" in verse 33 is used on many other occasions in the New Testament, but only of God the Father or the Lord Jesus Christ.
The true interpretation of the parable
We are not to see ourselves as the Samaritan in the parable, inspired to follow his example of neighbour-love (as Revd Quirk put it afterwards, "Jesus never tells a parable in which the hearer is invited to see himself as the good guy!"). Rather, we are the man who fell among robbers, mugged by Satan and sin and left, not just half-dead, but "dead in our trespasses" (Eph.2:5).
Contrary to the beliefs of this teacher of the law, who was "desiring to justify himself", the Law cannot help us: all it can do is pass by on the other side and leave us for dead, like the priest and Levite who correctly and dutifully passed by. We need someone else - the Good Samaritan, the man despised by those who rely on the Law, but who is more than just a man, who is the Son of the Compassionate One.
He is the one who has had compassion on us and rescued us, where the Law was powerless to do so. While the Samaritan "ransomed" the man with two denarii, Jesus redeemed us "not with perishable things such as silver and gold, but with [His] precious blood" (2 Peter 1:18,19).
Finally, Jesus tells the teacher of the Law, "You go, and do likewise". In the moralistic reading of the parable, this is seen simply as an exhortation to show neighbour-love as the Samaritan did. But when we see that we are the robbed man and that it is Jesus who is the Samaritan, we can see that there is much more to this closing statement than meets the eye. When we are restored to life by the Good Samaritan, we are enabled to bring the same life, healing and restoration to those around us who have also been mugged by Satan and sin. We do this by bringing Christ to them through the proclamation of the Gospel.
We are not only to do works of love, but also to bring the Word of life to those who are lying dead in their sins, whom the Law (as found in whatever religion) is powerless to help; and to bring them to this "inn", the church, so that they may receive Christ's saving gifts from His ministers, and there await His return (v.35).
Closing Reflections
All this shows how lethally dangerous a moralistic interpretation of the parables is. The conventional interpretation of this parable seems harmless enough. Who could possibly object to the message of the need to show love and compassion, rather than passing by on the other side? But if this were the aim of the parable, it would have made more sense to make the Samaritan the victim, the despised man whom we are called upon to love.
But the big problem with the moralistic approach is twofold. First, it means we miss the whole point of what this parable is saying about the Law: not that the Law is bad, any more than the priest and Levite were "bad", but that it is powerless to help us; that it can only pass by on the other side as we lie dead in our sins.
Secondly, it obscures the presence of Christ in the parable. As a result, it means we miss the soteriological, ecclesiological, sacramental and eschatological undercurrents in the story. In other words, it excludes the Gospel, and particularly those aspects of the Gospel that are most easily ignored today: that we are not merely hampered by sin, but dead in our sins and utterly helpless until Christ rescues us; the role of the church (and of Christ's ministers) in bringing salvation to us; the sacraments as Christ's gift to His church by which He distributes salvation to us; and the need for us always to be looking ahead to Christ's return.
In short, the moralistic interpretation means we miss the whole point of what the parable has to say about the Law, and we miss the whole point of what it has to say about the Gospel. Apart from that, it's fine :-)
This is one of the most famous stories in the Bible. Whichever church or school you went to, you will have heard this story. Even if you know nothing else about the biblical concept of priests and Levites, you know that this priest and Levite passed by on the other side. And the "Good Samaritan" has entered the language.
This is the story of how a traveller from Jerusalem to Jericho fell among robbers and was left half-dead. A priest and Levite refused to help, and it was left to a despised foreigner to help the man: an example to us all of how we should be ready to help those around us rather than passing by on the other side.
That is the conventional interpretation, and it is, in fact, almost entirely incorrect. In order to understand the parable properly, we need to consider two key points.
1. The priest was a good priest, and the Levite was a good Levite
The priest wasn't neglecting his duty when he passed by on the other side: he was fulfilling it. The Law of God forbade priests from touching any dead body other than that of a close relative (Lev.21:1-4). A good priest could not even take the risk of investigating to see whether the "half dead" man was still alive or not. Similarly with the Levite.
In the context, Jesus is addressing a teacher of the law, who would have understood this point immediately. Of course the priest and Levite passed by on the other side. That's what God had told them to do. It would have been shocking if they had done otherwise. There is no suggestion in the parable that Jesus is criticising the priest and Levite's behaviour.
2. The identity of the Samaritan
The Samaritan was an instantly-recognisable "hate figure" for Jesus' Jewish audience. But more than that: Jesus' listeners would have been well aware of who the Samaritan in this parable was meant to be: Jesus Himself.
The worst insult a Jew could make of a fellow-Jew was that he was a "Samaritan". We know that Jesus' enemies applied this epithet to Him (John 8:48). What's more, the word for "compassion" in verse 33 is used on many other occasions in the New Testament, but only of God the Father or the Lord Jesus Christ.
The true interpretation of the parable
We are not to see ourselves as the Samaritan in the parable, inspired to follow his example of neighbour-love (as Revd Quirk put it afterwards, "Jesus never tells a parable in which the hearer is invited to see himself as the good guy!"). Rather, we are the man who fell among robbers, mugged by Satan and sin and left, not just half-dead, but "dead in our trespasses" (Eph.2:5).
Contrary to the beliefs of this teacher of the law, who was "desiring to justify himself", the Law cannot help us: all it can do is pass by on the other side and leave us for dead, like the priest and Levite who correctly and dutifully passed by. We need someone else - the Good Samaritan, the man despised by those who rely on the Law, but who is more than just a man, who is the Son of the Compassionate One.
He is the one who has had compassion on us and rescued us, where the Law was powerless to do so. While the Samaritan "ransomed" the man with two denarii, Jesus redeemed us "not with perishable things such as silver and gold, but with [His] precious blood" (2 Peter 1:18,19).
Finally, Jesus tells the teacher of the Law, "You go, and do likewise". In the moralistic reading of the parable, this is seen simply as an exhortation to show neighbour-love as the Samaritan did. But when we see that we are the robbed man and that it is Jesus who is the Samaritan, we can see that there is much more to this closing statement than meets the eye. When we are restored to life by the Good Samaritan, we are enabled to bring the same life, healing and restoration to those around us who have also been mugged by Satan and sin. We do this by bringing Christ to them through the proclamation of the Gospel.
We are not only to do works of love, but also to bring the Word of life to those who are lying dead in their sins, whom the Law (as found in whatever religion) is powerless to help; and to bring them to this "inn", the church, so that they may receive Christ's saving gifts from His ministers, and there await His return (v.35).
Closing Reflections
All this shows how lethally dangerous a moralistic interpretation of the parables is. The conventional interpretation of this parable seems harmless enough. Who could possibly object to the message of the need to show love and compassion, rather than passing by on the other side? But if this were the aim of the parable, it would have made more sense to make the Samaritan the victim, the despised man whom we are called upon to love.
But the big problem with the moralistic approach is twofold. First, it means we miss the whole point of what this parable is saying about the Law: not that the Law is bad, any more than the priest and Levite were "bad", but that it is powerless to help us; that it can only pass by on the other side as we lie dead in our sins.
Secondly, it obscures the presence of Christ in the parable. As a result, it means we miss the soteriological, ecclesiological, sacramental and eschatological undercurrents in the story. In other words, it excludes the Gospel, and particularly those aspects of the Gospel that are most easily ignored today: that we are not merely hampered by sin, but dead in our sins and utterly helpless until Christ rescues us; the role of the church (and of Christ's ministers) in bringing salvation to us; the sacraments as Christ's gift to His church by which He distributes salvation to us; and the need for us always to be looking ahead to Christ's return.
In short, the moralistic interpretation means we miss the whole point of what the parable has to say about the Law, and we miss the whole point of what it has to say about the Gospel. Apart from that, it's fine :-)
