Why we do the things we do
Commentary
Object:
Shortly after their conversion to Christianity years ago, friends of mine were looking for a new career in which their faith could play a more central role. They worked in television production and broadcasting, and soon found a job with a major Christian televangelist. My friends were very excited to work for such a widely known and high- impact organization, especially since its production facilities were of first-rate quality. This allowed them to produce top-notch programming with a clear religious message.
Unfortunately, their new jobs almost cost them their faith. Television allowed their new employers to lie in a big way, they told me. While all was polished and "spiritual" in front of the camera, behind the scenes things were pretty low-down and dirty. One of the primary hosts of the daily program had perfected the art of crying on cue. She knew exactly when to add a tear to make the donations double. More than that, she had a presence that flicked like a light switch from godly to ghoulish depending on whether the cameras trained at her were live. When the production broke for commercials she became a beastly tyrant, demanding and childish; as soon as the ready light went on, she transformed magically into a pious prayer, and viewers hung on her every holy word like Mary at the foot of Jesus.
Our behaviors are often tied in part to who we think will assess them. That's why the Las Vegas tourism board could mount a major campaign with the tagline, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." They know that many of us are willing to live duplicitous lives if we know we can get away with activities that our hometown crowd might regard as immoral.
Our lectionary readings for today talk about situations where people acted certain ways based upon their reactions to assessments. Amos, Amaziah, and King Jeroboam each looked in different directions when seeking confirmation for their behaviors. The Christians in Colossae lived heroically because they knew who graded the exams at the end of the term. And when a man came to Jesus asking for moral guidance, Jesus told a story that has become famous for its ethical implications.
Today and tomorrow and the next day everyone who joins us for worship will be faced with behavioral choices. Rather than merely talking about "do's and don'ts" today we need to equip them with resources by which they remember both who they are and also whose they are. Actions will follow identity if they are constantly aware of which approval rating system really matters. Amos 7:7-17
There is a changing chain of leadership throughout Israel's history. Moses, of course, was the unique mediator who helped shaped Israel's identity through the exodus and the reception of the parameters of the Sinai covenant (Exodus 3). Before he died, Moses nodded clearly in the direction of Joshua (Deuteronomy 31), who was divinely confirmed as the next great leader of Israel (Joshua 1). After the tribes were safely established in Canaan and Joshua had come to the end of his run, he called together "the elders" of the people and commissioned them to carry on with the leadership that they had learned from Moses and from him (Joshua 23-24). The Israelites seem to have responded well to their clan leaders as long as these men could recite personal memories of Joshua and the times that established the nation in the land. But once this group died, the people quickly fell prey to religious wandering and political ruin. God's antidote was an irregular supply of "judges" who served as military, social, political, and religious (at least some of them) leaders. The last of these was Samuel, who was used by both God and the people to create the new leadership dynasties of the kings. Then, when the kings failed to follow the mode and method of covenant theocracy, voices of the prophets began to emerge.
The prophets were a mixed lot drawn from various backgrounds over five centuries (tenth through fifth). Some complained to God in personal devotional dialogues (such as Habakkuk), some painted visions of judgment and restoration that lit the skies long after they were gone (like Isaiah), some set the standard of angry tirade (such as Jeremiah, whose imitators spew the invectives of "jeremiad"), and some monitored the crazy soap opera of divine/human encounter (like Hosea). Among these, an early harbinger of God's gathering storm was Amos. Storming up from Judah, he understood his call to be a messenger of judgment against the excesses of wealth and success in eighth-century Israel.
Amos' words of warning are dated to around 760. He reviews the expansive prevalence of social sins that will result in imminent divine judgment.
* Growing gap between very rich and very poor, accentuated by callousness of the wealthy (6:4-6)
* Superficial acts of public worship (4:4-5; 5:21-23)
* Rich stealing the lands of the poor through criminal lending and repossessing (2:6; 8:4, 6)
* Denying justice in law courts to the helpless (2:7; 5:10, 12)
* Cheating the poor in the marketplace (8:5)
* Conspicuous consumption (4:1)
* Debauchery and other forms of immoral lifestyle (6:5-6)
In today's lectionary reading, Amos uses another of his simple, powerful illustrations to size up the situation. A carpenter's plumb line, showing the tipping of a wall, signals Israel's deviation from its covenant norm and heritage. God will finish the business of toppling this unsound structure.
There is an immediate response from the state-subsidized clergy, of course. Priest Amaziah uses the "Unpatriotic Act" to identify Amos as an unwanted subversive. "Go home!" commands the keeper of Jeroboam's Bethel cult. But the word of God boomerangs back through Amos: God does not consider Jeroboam's "Israel" to be outside of the old covenant family, and refuses to be written out of the picture in this trite way. The outcome for Amaziah will be a terrible plague on his family; the future scene for the nation will be comparable or worse.
How does Amos' message impact our congregations today? First, it is clear that much of Amos' prophetic invective is charged by wealth gone bad and aimed at social injustice. For that reason Amos' voice continues to speak throughout the ages. Wherever societies experience rapid expansion of capital and the GDP (Gross Domestic Product), there is likely to be an accompanying accumulation of corruption, greed, and scandal. Amos sees our hearts through our chic outer selves and demands a checkup at the cardiac clinic of Zion.
Second, the interaction between Amos and Amaziah typifies the insidiousness and resilience of civil religion. Every culture has its gods, its rites, its values, its "holidays" (read "holy days"), and its mythology. Jeroboam did not intend, at the start, to lead his section of the one covenant people into idolatry; he only wished, in establishing new shrines in Bethel and Dan (after he had supervised the construction of Solomon's big shrine, the temple in Jerusalem), to keep his people at home, and not have them wander back to the hill country of Judah in order to play at faith. In the long run, however, Jeroboam set in motion a clear development of Israel's unique civil religion. Amaziah was supposed to do what Amos was forced from his Tekoa herds and orchards to accomplish. But Amaziah sold out to the prevalent mythology of Israel's self-serving power-brokering, and could not find his way back to Yahweh.
Third, couched in these short statements there is the limited run of temporal powers. Don't trust in kings or princes says the psalm because they will always falter and fail. As Amaziah and Amos scan the same horizon, the former is entranced by the glow that he sees and the latter trembles at the storm he feels. Good prophetic preaching always keeps its eye trained on the things that matter, and shapes current realities in its light. Colossians 1:1-14
Paul was under house arrest in Rome when he wrote this letter. He had accomplished three missionary journeys, and was arrested in Jerusalem before he could set out on his planned fourth trek to Rome and Spain (Romans 15:22-29; Acts 21). Religious and political intrigues kept Paul incarcerated in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Rome for nearly five years during the last half of the '50s as he waited for his citizenship right to a judicial hearing before Caesar.
While he bided his time in Rome, the slave of an old friend came by and attached himself to Paul. Paul had been instrumental in bringing a wealthy estate owner named Philemon into the Christian faith somewhere around 53 or 54 AD while Paul was based in Ephesus during his third mission journey (Acts 18-20). Evidently, Paul stayed with Philemon long enough or often enough to become acquainted with the household workers, for Onesimus, Philemon's slave connected with Paul in Rome after running away from Philemon's work crew. Now, after spending some useful (Onesimus means useful) time together, Paul felt obligated to send Onesimus back to Philemon. He wrote a letter to his friend, however, urging kindness toward Onesimus, both because of their shared Christian status as religious brothers and also because Philemon owed Paul.
About the same time as this was transpiring, Paul heard of a doctrinal difficulty that seemed to be harassing the major city congregation near Philemon's estate. The church in Colossae had some members who were pushing a new spiritual exercise plan that was supposed to guarantee extraordinary religious performance in only a few weeks. Paul felt it necessary to weigh in on this mystical diet fad and decided to send a letter that would accompany Onesimus and his credentialed traveling companion Tychicus (a slave traveling without papers or purpose or approved personage was suspect and liable to arrest by local authorities).
Paul's greetings (1:1-2) are typical of those he uses in other letters. So, too, is his warm note of relationship remembered (1:3-8). The same could be said of his transition to the body of the letter and the message he seeks to communicate (1:9-14) were it not for our previous knowledge of what is coming in chapter 2. There Paul will address the specific heresy or false teaching that seems to be troubling the congregation. Here, as he inches in that direction, Paul begins shape his communications in a way that will point to his conclusions there. All of the themes from chapter 2 are already here in hint and summary. Over against the purported secret knowledge of some, Paul prays for all to receive the expansive knowledge of God's full character and intentions with us. Ethical behavior is encouraged that builds up the body rather than dividing and undermining it. Paul points to power, which is tied to endurance rather than the secret mysteries that will be targeted in chapter 2. And Christian identity is connected with the transforming power of Jesus' sacrificial death, just as Paul will make the case again on the road ahead.
Already here, in the opening verses of chapter 1, Paul is beginning to set the stage on which he seeks to reproduce the true divine performance. In effect he is calling the Colossian Christians back to the author of the play, even as some among them are writing secondary scripts and derivative dramas. Luke 10:25-37
Jesus' story of the good Samaritan is so familiar to us that we sometime miss cues and interpretive hints that renew its richness for us. First, it is important to understand that when the "expert in the law" calls Jesus "teacher" he is playing out a drama that might often be seen in society. Although Luke clues us in that this was intended deceptively as a "test," the incident itself was typical to Palestinian life in the first century. The critical factor emerges in the man's question: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" By this time in Jewish history there were several major streams of religious identity developing. One saw Judaism primarily from sectarian political perspectives, and thus demanded that adherents become active in insurrectionist movements that might restore Jewish political freedom. Another view pushed for personal piety, and was shaping an anthropology (probably influenced by Hellenism) of an independent soul that would live on after the body died (this concept was foreign to much of historic Hebrew thinking). Further refinement on this, perhaps related to Stoic fatalism, was an overwhelming confidence in divine election and initiative that vitiated any co-opting movement on our part. God will do what God will do, and we are powerless to change the eternal will. All we can do is place ourselves within the context of where God had announced his presence, and then hope for the best. But what was the best place to be in order that whatever grace God might give could be quickly seen and felt and possibly realized?
Second, the man's response to Jesus is right on target with what Jesus himself had said on other occasions (see, for instance, Matthew 22:37-40). This may mean that the man had followed Jesus around for a time and knew the general theology that Jesus espoused. But since the man was seeking to "test" Jesus, it is also likely that the man was a bit taken aback by Jesus' question. Instead, the man had hoped that Jesus would not be consistent to his former public assertions, and then this man would be able to belittle Jesus for saying one thing on one occasion and another thing at a different time. This would raise the man's own standing in the community by showing his acumen over against a renowned teacher and would diminish Jesus' significance.
Third, the tale of the man traveling the Jerusalem-to-Jericho road echoes the times in which Jesus lived. The Roman government had already stationed an entire company of soldiers in the area due to the crimes and violence caused by robbers hiding in the caves along this road. People still traveled it, however, because the only alternative route between the dense Jewish population in Galilee and Jerusalem was the ridge road through the center of Palestine, over the mountains and through Samaria. Jews preferred the river road of the Jordan to the ridge road simply because their hatred of the Samaritans was so great that they were willing to face robbers over the despicable faces of their fellow Palestinians. This is precisely why the violent thievery business continued to thrive on the Jericho road.
Fourth, the story Jesus tells would resonate with the man and the listening crowds only up to a certain point. Then it would suddenly become jarring and confrontational. Everybody knew that many priests had homes down in Jericho. After all, they were wealthy, and that is what the wealthy did -- commute from Jericho. The priests, especially, could do this because they served two weeks on and one off from duties in the temple. And all would assume that the priest was riding a donkey or horse, because travelers in these parts would only go in groups unless they had an animal to carry them quickly out of the range of robbers. Furthermore, the idea of the priest passing by on the far side of the path is also reasonable, since the priest was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, he would just have finished his service and was ritually pure. Therefore, he would not do something that would undermine his sanctity. After all, he was carrying his pay, which was partly meat from the sacrifices of the past week, and if he became ritually impure, he would forfeit these resources, causing his family to go hungry. More than that, he would have to return to Jerusalem instead of going home to his family in Jericho, and where he had just presided over wonderful celebrations of worship, he would now have to endure a ritual of purification to get rid of the pollution of the dead or dying body he had touched on the road.
Part of the sanctification process included one ceremony where he would be stripped naked and be spit upon and derided by other worshipers who might well have been those under his leadership just a few days before. No, the priest was right to pass by the probable corpse on the road, and the crowds would have affirmed the rightness of what Jesus was saying. So to with the Levite; once again, this helper of priests would be experiencing the same circumstances of life. But since the Levite was not quite as high and holy as the priest, he might be forgiven his curiosity, which brought him almost into direct contact with a supposedly dead body. Then, however, the mood would change drastically. The people around Jesus would expect him next to talk about a typical Jewish man (a non-priest, someone like they themselves). Such a person may be able to do what the priest and Levite, hindered by their rituals for purification, might not be able to do. But Jesus turns the tables on everyone. Instead of loyal good-old-boy Jewish man, he thrusts a wretched, despised Samaritan into the mix and makes him look good! The crowds would likely have ground their teeth at this point and probably even heckled.
Jesus' final question and challenge are spoken to the man in his presence, but issued to all of us: "Who was neighbor to the man in need?" and "Go and do likewise!" Suddenly we are assessed by different values and mirrors than we had chosen for ourselves, and we either deny the right of Jesus to speak into our lives or we change our behaviors. Application
A wise man once said that three very important questions for all of us to ask ourselves are these: What am I feeling? Why am I feeling that way? What am I going to do about it? These three questions might well be the "homework" of today's message. Our feelings are connected to our sense of relational authority. If someone or something we believe has authority over us and challenges or questions our actions, we begin to feel a unique dread. But not all authorities have a right to speak into our lives. Therefore we must monitor our feelings to find out how we are responding to the true king and what he calls on us to do and be.
Alternative Application
Luke 10:25-37. Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan can be preached over and over again. It is always new, always relevant, and always challenging. It has a life that can be lived apart from its partnered lectionary passages as a vibrant recall to authentic Christianity.
Preaching the Psalm
Psalm 82
One of the most searing allegations that can be hurled at someone these days is the accusation that a person is judgmental. No one, of course, enjoys being judged. First, it always seems that the people doing the judging are in no position to do so. It brings to mind a scenario where a famous holder of public office pronounces judgment on those who break the law while busily shredding the laws of the nation himself. Indeed, if someone is enthusiastically engaged in pronouncing judgment, it's usually a good idea to check out that person's track record. Second, judgment tends to place people in a box. It defines and limits the judged, disallowing for change or redemption. In this sense, judgment has a tendency to dismiss. If, for example, someone is judged to be stingy and selfish, those who do the judging cease to look for these qualities in that person, when perhaps it is precisely the expectation of such qualities that is needed. And then we Christians have a lot to answer for when it comes to the judgment thing. It's no secret that folk in the church have a history of overplaying the judgment card.
Yet the question still arises: How can we not make judgments? From criminal cases to rude behavior and back again, is it not responsible to judge? If we allow an offending person to continue, are we not partially responsible for their behavior?
Perhaps the solution can be found in this psalm. The writer is calling for God to judge, not us. Indeed, Christian understanding is shot through with the idea that it is God who judges and not we the people. There's a pastor in San Francisco who is fond of telling his people that "God does the judging, we do the loving…"
It's further helpful to understand that there's a difference between holding one another accountable for our actions and rendering judgment. As members of a community we are accountable to one another for good behavior. If we behave badly then it is the responsibility of the whole community to hold us accountable. This is different than judging. Accountability is shared. Judgment is not. Mutual accountability calls everyone to a higher standard. Judgment does not do this.
So it is that the call to us as Christian community is to participate in holding one another mutually accountable for our behavior while leaving the judging part to a wonderful, compassionate God. If the church can manage this, who knows what might happen?
Unfortunately, their new jobs almost cost them their faith. Television allowed their new employers to lie in a big way, they told me. While all was polished and "spiritual" in front of the camera, behind the scenes things were pretty low-down and dirty. One of the primary hosts of the daily program had perfected the art of crying on cue. She knew exactly when to add a tear to make the donations double. More than that, she had a presence that flicked like a light switch from godly to ghoulish depending on whether the cameras trained at her were live. When the production broke for commercials she became a beastly tyrant, demanding and childish; as soon as the ready light went on, she transformed magically into a pious prayer, and viewers hung on her every holy word like Mary at the foot of Jesus.
Our behaviors are often tied in part to who we think will assess them. That's why the Las Vegas tourism board could mount a major campaign with the tagline, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." They know that many of us are willing to live duplicitous lives if we know we can get away with activities that our hometown crowd might regard as immoral.
Our lectionary readings for today talk about situations where people acted certain ways based upon their reactions to assessments. Amos, Amaziah, and King Jeroboam each looked in different directions when seeking confirmation for their behaviors. The Christians in Colossae lived heroically because they knew who graded the exams at the end of the term. And when a man came to Jesus asking for moral guidance, Jesus told a story that has become famous for its ethical implications.
Today and tomorrow and the next day everyone who joins us for worship will be faced with behavioral choices. Rather than merely talking about "do's and don'ts" today we need to equip them with resources by which they remember both who they are and also whose they are. Actions will follow identity if they are constantly aware of which approval rating system really matters. Amos 7:7-17
There is a changing chain of leadership throughout Israel's history. Moses, of course, was the unique mediator who helped shaped Israel's identity through the exodus and the reception of the parameters of the Sinai covenant (Exodus 3). Before he died, Moses nodded clearly in the direction of Joshua (Deuteronomy 31), who was divinely confirmed as the next great leader of Israel (Joshua 1). After the tribes were safely established in Canaan and Joshua had come to the end of his run, he called together "the elders" of the people and commissioned them to carry on with the leadership that they had learned from Moses and from him (Joshua 23-24). The Israelites seem to have responded well to their clan leaders as long as these men could recite personal memories of Joshua and the times that established the nation in the land. But once this group died, the people quickly fell prey to religious wandering and political ruin. God's antidote was an irregular supply of "judges" who served as military, social, political, and religious (at least some of them) leaders. The last of these was Samuel, who was used by both God and the people to create the new leadership dynasties of the kings. Then, when the kings failed to follow the mode and method of covenant theocracy, voices of the prophets began to emerge.
The prophets were a mixed lot drawn from various backgrounds over five centuries (tenth through fifth). Some complained to God in personal devotional dialogues (such as Habakkuk), some painted visions of judgment and restoration that lit the skies long after they were gone (like Isaiah), some set the standard of angry tirade (such as Jeremiah, whose imitators spew the invectives of "jeremiad"), and some monitored the crazy soap opera of divine/human encounter (like Hosea). Among these, an early harbinger of God's gathering storm was Amos. Storming up from Judah, he understood his call to be a messenger of judgment against the excesses of wealth and success in eighth-century Israel.
Amos' words of warning are dated to around 760. He reviews the expansive prevalence of social sins that will result in imminent divine judgment.
* Growing gap between very rich and very poor, accentuated by callousness of the wealthy (6:4-6)
* Superficial acts of public worship (4:4-5; 5:21-23)
* Rich stealing the lands of the poor through criminal lending and repossessing (2:6; 8:4, 6)
* Denying justice in law courts to the helpless (2:7; 5:10, 12)
* Cheating the poor in the marketplace (8:5)
* Conspicuous consumption (4:1)
* Debauchery and other forms of immoral lifestyle (6:5-6)
In today's lectionary reading, Amos uses another of his simple, powerful illustrations to size up the situation. A carpenter's plumb line, showing the tipping of a wall, signals Israel's deviation from its covenant norm and heritage. God will finish the business of toppling this unsound structure.
There is an immediate response from the state-subsidized clergy, of course. Priest Amaziah uses the "Unpatriotic Act" to identify Amos as an unwanted subversive. "Go home!" commands the keeper of Jeroboam's Bethel cult. But the word of God boomerangs back through Amos: God does not consider Jeroboam's "Israel" to be outside of the old covenant family, and refuses to be written out of the picture in this trite way. The outcome for Amaziah will be a terrible plague on his family; the future scene for the nation will be comparable or worse.
How does Amos' message impact our congregations today? First, it is clear that much of Amos' prophetic invective is charged by wealth gone bad and aimed at social injustice. For that reason Amos' voice continues to speak throughout the ages. Wherever societies experience rapid expansion of capital and the GDP (Gross Domestic Product), there is likely to be an accompanying accumulation of corruption, greed, and scandal. Amos sees our hearts through our chic outer selves and demands a checkup at the cardiac clinic of Zion.
Second, the interaction between Amos and Amaziah typifies the insidiousness and resilience of civil religion. Every culture has its gods, its rites, its values, its "holidays" (read "holy days"), and its mythology. Jeroboam did not intend, at the start, to lead his section of the one covenant people into idolatry; he only wished, in establishing new shrines in Bethel and Dan (after he had supervised the construction of Solomon's big shrine, the temple in Jerusalem), to keep his people at home, and not have them wander back to the hill country of Judah in order to play at faith. In the long run, however, Jeroboam set in motion a clear development of Israel's unique civil religion. Amaziah was supposed to do what Amos was forced from his Tekoa herds and orchards to accomplish. But Amaziah sold out to the prevalent mythology of Israel's self-serving power-brokering, and could not find his way back to Yahweh.
Third, couched in these short statements there is the limited run of temporal powers. Don't trust in kings or princes says the psalm because they will always falter and fail. As Amaziah and Amos scan the same horizon, the former is entranced by the glow that he sees and the latter trembles at the storm he feels. Good prophetic preaching always keeps its eye trained on the things that matter, and shapes current realities in its light. Colossians 1:1-14
Paul was under house arrest in Rome when he wrote this letter. He had accomplished three missionary journeys, and was arrested in Jerusalem before he could set out on his planned fourth trek to Rome and Spain (Romans 15:22-29; Acts 21). Religious and political intrigues kept Paul incarcerated in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Rome for nearly five years during the last half of the '50s as he waited for his citizenship right to a judicial hearing before Caesar.
While he bided his time in Rome, the slave of an old friend came by and attached himself to Paul. Paul had been instrumental in bringing a wealthy estate owner named Philemon into the Christian faith somewhere around 53 or 54 AD while Paul was based in Ephesus during his third mission journey (Acts 18-20). Evidently, Paul stayed with Philemon long enough or often enough to become acquainted with the household workers, for Onesimus, Philemon's slave connected with Paul in Rome after running away from Philemon's work crew. Now, after spending some useful (Onesimus means useful) time together, Paul felt obligated to send Onesimus back to Philemon. He wrote a letter to his friend, however, urging kindness toward Onesimus, both because of their shared Christian status as religious brothers and also because Philemon owed Paul.
About the same time as this was transpiring, Paul heard of a doctrinal difficulty that seemed to be harassing the major city congregation near Philemon's estate. The church in Colossae had some members who were pushing a new spiritual exercise plan that was supposed to guarantee extraordinary religious performance in only a few weeks. Paul felt it necessary to weigh in on this mystical diet fad and decided to send a letter that would accompany Onesimus and his credentialed traveling companion Tychicus (a slave traveling without papers or purpose or approved personage was suspect and liable to arrest by local authorities).
Paul's greetings (1:1-2) are typical of those he uses in other letters. So, too, is his warm note of relationship remembered (1:3-8). The same could be said of his transition to the body of the letter and the message he seeks to communicate (1:9-14) were it not for our previous knowledge of what is coming in chapter 2. There Paul will address the specific heresy or false teaching that seems to be troubling the congregation. Here, as he inches in that direction, Paul begins shape his communications in a way that will point to his conclusions there. All of the themes from chapter 2 are already here in hint and summary. Over against the purported secret knowledge of some, Paul prays for all to receive the expansive knowledge of God's full character and intentions with us. Ethical behavior is encouraged that builds up the body rather than dividing and undermining it. Paul points to power, which is tied to endurance rather than the secret mysteries that will be targeted in chapter 2. And Christian identity is connected with the transforming power of Jesus' sacrificial death, just as Paul will make the case again on the road ahead.
Already here, in the opening verses of chapter 1, Paul is beginning to set the stage on which he seeks to reproduce the true divine performance. In effect he is calling the Colossian Christians back to the author of the play, even as some among them are writing secondary scripts and derivative dramas. Luke 10:25-37
Jesus' story of the good Samaritan is so familiar to us that we sometime miss cues and interpretive hints that renew its richness for us. First, it is important to understand that when the "expert in the law" calls Jesus "teacher" he is playing out a drama that might often be seen in society. Although Luke clues us in that this was intended deceptively as a "test," the incident itself was typical to Palestinian life in the first century. The critical factor emerges in the man's question: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" By this time in Jewish history there were several major streams of religious identity developing. One saw Judaism primarily from sectarian political perspectives, and thus demanded that adherents become active in insurrectionist movements that might restore Jewish political freedom. Another view pushed for personal piety, and was shaping an anthropology (probably influenced by Hellenism) of an independent soul that would live on after the body died (this concept was foreign to much of historic Hebrew thinking). Further refinement on this, perhaps related to Stoic fatalism, was an overwhelming confidence in divine election and initiative that vitiated any co-opting movement on our part. God will do what God will do, and we are powerless to change the eternal will. All we can do is place ourselves within the context of where God had announced his presence, and then hope for the best. But what was the best place to be in order that whatever grace God might give could be quickly seen and felt and possibly realized?
Second, the man's response to Jesus is right on target with what Jesus himself had said on other occasions (see, for instance, Matthew 22:37-40). This may mean that the man had followed Jesus around for a time and knew the general theology that Jesus espoused. But since the man was seeking to "test" Jesus, it is also likely that the man was a bit taken aback by Jesus' question. Instead, the man had hoped that Jesus would not be consistent to his former public assertions, and then this man would be able to belittle Jesus for saying one thing on one occasion and another thing at a different time. This would raise the man's own standing in the community by showing his acumen over against a renowned teacher and would diminish Jesus' significance.
Third, the tale of the man traveling the Jerusalem-to-Jericho road echoes the times in which Jesus lived. The Roman government had already stationed an entire company of soldiers in the area due to the crimes and violence caused by robbers hiding in the caves along this road. People still traveled it, however, because the only alternative route between the dense Jewish population in Galilee and Jerusalem was the ridge road through the center of Palestine, over the mountains and through Samaria. Jews preferred the river road of the Jordan to the ridge road simply because their hatred of the Samaritans was so great that they were willing to face robbers over the despicable faces of their fellow Palestinians. This is precisely why the violent thievery business continued to thrive on the Jericho road.
Fourth, the story Jesus tells would resonate with the man and the listening crowds only up to a certain point. Then it would suddenly become jarring and confrontational. Everybody knew that many priests had homes down in Jericho. After all, they were wealthy, and that is what the wealthy did -- commute from Jericho. The priests, especially, could do this because they served two weeks on and one off from duties in the temple. And all would assume that the priest was riding a donkey or horse, because travelers in these parts would only go in groups unless they had an animal to carry them quickly out of the range of robbers. Furthermore, the idea of the priest passing by on the far side of the path is also reasonable, since the priest was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, he would just have finished his service and was ritually pure. Therefore, he would not do something that would undermine his sanctity. After all, he was carrying his pay, which was partly meat from the sacrifices of the past week, and if he became ritually impure, he would forfeit these resources, causing his family to go hungry. More than that, he would have to return to Jerusalem instead of going home to his family in Jericho, and where he had just presided over wonderful celebrations of worship, he would now have to endure a ritual of purification to get rid of the pollution of the dead or dying body he had touched on the road.
Part of the sanctification process included one ceremony where he would be stripped naked and be spit upon and derided by other worshipers who might well have been those under his leadership just a few days before. No, the priest was right to pass by the probable corpse on the road, and the crowds would have affirmed the rightness of what Jesus was saying. So to with the Levite; once again, this helper of priests would be experiencing the same circumstances of life. But since the Levite was not quite as high and holy as the priest, he might be forgiven his curiosity, which brought him almost into direct contact with a supposedly dead body. Then, however, the mood would change drastically. The people around Jesus would expect him next to talk about a typical Jewish man (a non-priest, someone like they themselves). Such a person may be able to do what the priest and Levite, hindered by their rituals for purification, might not be able to do. But Jesus turns the tables on everyone. Instead of loyal good-old-boy Jewish man, he thrusts a wretched, despised Samaritan into the mix and makes him look good! The crowds would likely have ground their teeth at this point and probably even heckled.
Jesus' final question and challenge are spoken to the man in his presence, but issued to all of us: "Who was neighbor to the man in need?" and "Go and do likewise!" Suddenly we are assessed by different values and mirrors than we had chosen for ourselves, and we either deny the right of Jesus to speak into our lives or we change our behaviors. Application
A wise man once said that three very important questions for all of us to ask ourselves are these: What am I feeling? Why am I feeling that way? What am I going to do about it? These three questions might well be the "homework" of today's message. Our feelings are connected to our sense of relational authority. If someone or something we believe has authority over us and challenges or questions our actions, we begin to feel a unique dread. But not all authorities have a right to speak into our lives. Therefore we must monitor our feelings to find out how we are responding to the true king and what he calls on us to do and be.
Alternative Application
Luke 10:25-37. Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan can be preached over and over again. It is always new, always relevant, and always challenging. It has a life that can be lived apart from its partnered lectionary passages as a vibrant recall to authentic Christianity.
Preaching the Psalm
Psalm 82
One of the most searing allegations that can be hurled at someone these days is the accusation that a person is judgmental. No one, of course, enjoys being judged. First, it always seems that the people doing the judging are in no position to do so. It brings to mind a scenario where a famous holder of public office pronounces judgment on those who break the law while busily shredding the laws of the nation himself. Indeed, if someone is enthusiastically engaged in pronouncing judgment, it's usually a good idea to check out that person's track record. Second, judgment tends to place people in a box. It defines and limits the judged, disallowing for change or redemption. In this sense, judgment has a tendency to dismiss. If, for example, someone is judged to be stingy and selfish, those who do the judging cease to look for these qualities in that person, when perhaps it is precisely the expectation of such qualities that is needed. And then we Christians have a lot to answer for when it comes to the judgment thing. It's no secret that folk in the church have a history of overplaying the judgment card.
Yet the question still arises: How can we not make judgments? From criminal cases to rude behavior and back again, is it not responsible to judge? If we allow an offending person to continue, are we not partially responsible for their behavior?
Perhaps the solution can be found in this psalm. The writer is calling for God to judge, not us. Indeed, Christian understanding is shot through with the idea that it is God who judges and not we the people. There's a pastor in San Francisco who is fond of telling his people that "God does the judging, we do the loving…"
It's further helpful to understand that there's a difference between holding one another accountable for our actions and rendering judgment. As members of a community we are accountable to one another for good behavior. If we behave badly then it is the responsibility of the whole community to hold us accountable. This is different than judging. Accountability is shared. Judgment is not. Mutual accountability calls everyone to a higher standard. Judgment does not do this.
So it is that the call to us as Christian community is to participate in holding one another mutually accountable for our behavior while leaving the judging part to a wonderful, compassionate God. If the church can manage this, who knows what might happen?
