December 10, 2010

Rethinking the traditional interpretation of Luke 10:25‑37

     DISCLAIMER!  It is difficult to conceive of a different meaning than I have been taught, but on a recent reading, the following thoughts developed.  In the spirit of Acts 17:11 I was trying to carefully understand the parable in context.  These ideas are entirely exploratory, tentative and not confidently held, so the purpose of these thoughts is to think them through with my brothers.

I have been taught that the man in the ditch was the neighbor, (i.e., anyone who has a need is our neighbor) but on rethinking this parable, that is not what it teaches.  The scribe asked, “Who is MY neighbor” not, “To whom shall I “BE” a neighbor”?  Of course, we are to show love, compassion, and mercy to those in need but are we commanded to love them, “AS WE LOVE OURSELVES?”  That is reserved for our neighbor, and this parable helps us understand who our neighbor is.

An expert in the law asked Jesus, “Who is MY neighbor?”  Jesus answered, “I’ll tell you a story, and you tell ME who your neighbor is?  After Jesus told the story, He asked, “Who was a neighbor to the man?”  He did not ask who the Samaritans neighbor was, but rather “which one of the three who passed by, was a neighbor of the man in the ditch”?  The Pharisee said the Samaritan was the neighbor and Jesus agreed.  From the perspective of the man in the ditch, the Levite, and Priest were not his neighbor, so maybe he did not need to, “love them AS he loved himself.”

Application:

Maybe not all people are our neighbors in the sense that we are to, “LOVE THEM AS WE LOVE OURSELVES.” However, if we have a neighbor like the man in the ditch had, we are to “love that person AS we love ourselves.”

This seems to be what the story teaches if interpreted literally.  It appears that our neighbor is the person who shows us mercy by pulling us out of a ditch; physically, spiritually, financially or emotionally, etc.  These are the people we are to “love, AS we love ourselves.”  This makes more sense than everyone in the world is our neighbor and makes it much more achievable.  It’s also more conceivable that we can love (“AS WE LOVE OURSELVES”) someone who has helped us in a time of great need.  This story teaches that the person in need is the one who is in a position to recognize his or her neighbor.

The statement of Jesus, “Go and do likewise” does confuse us since it seems to indicate that we should “BE” a good neighbor.  Indeed, we should BE a neighbor to those around us, but the story was told in response to the question, “who is MY neighbor.”  Maybe go and do likewise means, the man who was helped loved his neighbor as he loved himself and we are to do likewise.  (i.e., even if he is not of our race)  On the other hand, maybe Jesus took this opportunity to help the scribe know who his neighbor is and ALSO to teach that we should help those in need.  Whichever way we look at “go and do likewise,” it’s clear that the Samaritan is the neighbor and the man in the ditch should love him as he loves himself.

We call this story the parable of “The GOOD Samaritan” but when Jesus told it, it was simply “a Samaritan.”  The translators gave another of Jesus’ parables the title, “The prodigal son.”  When Jesus told the story he made no mention of a “prodigal son,” he just said, “There was a man who had two sons.”  (Mat. 21:28)  If He had given the parable a name, it might have been.  “The parable of the loving, waiting, forgiving father.”  We have emphasized the son, but Jesus told it to point out the nature of our Heavenly Father.

This interpretation of, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” would not relieve us of our responsibility to love every person we meet.  There are many scriptures about loving others, helping the poor, and those in need.  The question for this parable is “who are we to love AS we love ourselves?”  I am continually open to rethinking my interpretations if it will lead me to a closer following of Jesus.  I hope that at the very least, the process of reevaluating our views will make us more confident of our Biblical convictions.

“He determines the course of world events: He removes kings and sets others on the throne” (Dan    2:21)

“He decides who will rise and who will fall” (Ps. 75:7)

If God has elevated you to a position of responsibility, Daniel would be a good person to study.  Even though he and his people were second-class citizens in Babylon, God gave Daniel favor with the King, and he was made the ruler over one of the greatest political establishments that has ever existed.  He accepted the responsibility and excelled at the job but eventually had to draw a line in the sand.  However, his story involves more than the fact that he went to the lion’s den for his faith.  The context in which he governed is also a major part of his story, and the fact that the rest of his story is included in the Bible is a message in itself.  There are many lessons in Daniel, and one of them might be that God was showing us that believers can live for Him in leadership roles even though our core values are not the cultural norm.

When we study the lives of great men and women, it’s important to understand the world in which they lived so let’s take a cursory look at Babylonian culture.  The administration that Daniel served was not a kind, benevolent nonprofit institution.  He had to manage a staff and a nation of people whose lifestyles and values were abominable to the laws of his God.  Absolute power was used to control the people and lives were expendable at the whim of the king.  Even government officials including Daniel could lose their heads for disloyalty or incompetence.  Slavery was condoned in a culture of brutality and indifference for the welfare of people.  He had to watch his back constantly because people who despised his values were out to get him.  He had to be smart, politically astute, tough, persuasive, and able to withstand intimidation.  It’s an understatement to say that Daniel lived and worked in a vile and corrupt culture.  Although he wasn’t able to change the culture, we have to believe that he saved many lives and was an agent of moderation and restraint.  He knew that it was impossible to take a stand on every issue that came across his desk so he must have spent hours and hours thinking and praying about when and where to draw the line.  He chose the moments well because when they came (and he chose only a key few), Daniel used his influence with consummate skill.  Daniel must have often been discouraged, even to the point of saying, “this isn’t worth it.”  There must have been many times when he wanted to give up, but God had brought him to a position of leadership, so he didn’t quit no matter how bad it got.  It may make us uncomfortable, but we have to face the fact that Daniel would not have survived as long as he did if he had taken a stand on every issue.  He surely must have lobbied the king for causes he felt strongly about but did not quit when things didn’t go his way.  He had an uncompromising faith, but he could not have been an absolutist except when the issue caused him to compromise his loyalty to God.  He must have accepted trade-offs that caused consequences he privately abhorred because he knew that “bomb throwers” limit their ability to accomplish what God wanted him to do.  In spite of the setting he lived in, God made it possible for him to forge a strong faith that stood the test even when his career was on the line, and he faced a den of hungry lions.  Daniel and his friends Shadrack, Meshach, and Abednego show us the strength that a small group of like-minded people can develop in this kind of setting.  They struggled with the same issues because the King had also appointed them to positions of authority.

Today, believers in positions of responsibility must also work with people whose motivations and values are hostile to the interests of God.  Daniel is a good example of how to live with the imperfect but understand where to draw the line.  If God has elevated you to a position of responsibility, can you represent Him in the real world of business and politics in spite of the deterioration of our culture?  Like Daniel, you may not be able to reverse the cultural slide, but you can be God’s agent of moderation and restraint with occasional victories.  My prayer is that God would use these thoughts to challenge and inspire believing leaders to develop the character of Daniel.