Deuteronomy 30: 9–14 / Psalm 25: 1–10 / Colossians 1: 1–14 / Luke 10: 25–37
This is the homily written for Flohr’s Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) in McKnightstown, Pennsylvania for Sunday, July 13, 2025 by Fr. Gene Tucker, Interim Pastor.
“WHAT AM I MISSING?”
(Homily
text: Luke 10: 25–37)
This morning, we are treated to the Lord’s wonderful parable about the Good Samaritan. (This is one of many parables that Luke, alone among the Gospel writers, transmits to us...Luke’s Gospel account is a treasure trove of things that the Lord said and did during the time of His earthly ministry.)
As was often the case, the interchange
between the Lord and an onlooker sets the stage for the Lord’s teaching. In
this case, it is an attorney[1] who
asks the Lord, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”
This man’s question asks, essentially,
“What am I missing?” (But note that Luke tells us that the man stood up so as
to “put Jesus to the test”, meaning that he was looking for some pretext with
which to accuse Jesus of wrongful belief and practice.)
Jesus puts the burden back on his
accuser, saying, “What is written in the Law[2]? How
do you read it?”
The reply is given, “You shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart and with all your strength and with all your
mind, and your neighbor as yourself”. The Lord affirms this answer. But then
the lawyer asks, “And who is my neighbor?”
With this answer, we are ready to look
at some of the various aspects of the parable which will help us understand the
cultural context of the Lord’s story, aspects that will deepen and enrich our
understanding.
We might begin by remembering who the
Samaritans were, and how they were regarded by Jews during the time of the
Lord’s ministry.
Samaritans were the descendants of Jewish
people who had intermingled and intermarried with various peoples who were
resettled in the area of the former Northern Kingdom of Israel after the
Assyrians overran it in the eighth-century B. C. As such, they were regarded as
being racially impure by Jewish standards. Furthermore, they did not regard
Jerusalem as being the proper place to worship God (Samaritans worshipped on
Mount Gerazim). Finally, they possessed a version of the five books of the Law
of Moses, but the Samaritan version differed from the Jewish version, and so
was regarded as being corrupt.
The hatred of the Samaritans by the
Jews was so intense that an upright Jew would avoid going through Samaria if
they had occasion to go from the region of Galilee (in the north) to Jerusalem.
They would choose to go around the region of Samaria, either along the
Mediterranean seacoast, or along the Jordan River valley. (Isn’t it
interesting, then, to note that Jesus often went straight through Samaria on
his way to/from Jerusalem.)
Jesus’ choice of the Samaritan to be
the hero of His parable would have been shocking to His Jewish audience.
(Remember, though, that Luke is fond of telling us about things that the Lord
did that overturn our normal expectations.)
Next, we ought to look at the reaction
of the priest and of the Levite[3] as
they encounter the wounded man, lying alongside the road. The Lord tells us
that both of them, upon seeing the man, walk to the other side of the road and
pass by without helping.
Normally, these two might qualify to be
the heroes of the story. But they are not. The reason is, most likely, that to
come into contact with the man’s blood would have rendered them ritually
unclean, and unable to do their priestly functions. This prohibition stems from
the requirements of Torah. Jesus’ audience would have been aware of this
stipulation.
Now, the heart of the story unfolds,
and it is one of vulnerability, a vulnerability that encompasses all three of
the remaining characters in the story: The beaten man, the Samaritan and the
innkeeper.
To this aspect of the parable we now
turn.
The vulnerability of the wounded man is
obvious…the Lord tells us that he was left half dead.
But the Samaritan is also vulnerable,
for he is traveling in Jewish territory. That means that he is in a foreign
country, one in which many – if not all – people would, quite likely, refuse to
help him.
Next, the innkeeper is also vulnerable,
for as the Samaritan enters with the wounded man, the innkeeper could have
either refused to let them stay, or he could have been victimized if the
Samaritan offered to pay for whatever the cost of the man’s treatment was, if
he didn’t return. The compassion shown by the Samaritan now enfolds the
innkeeper as well in the plan to restore the beaten man’s health.
We began by characterizing the
attorney’s question in terms of asking, “What am I missing?”
It turns out that this expert in the
Law got part of the point of Jesus’ parable right, but he still missed a part
of it. As Jesus finishes the parable, He asks, “Which of these three, do you
think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” The
attorney correctly replies, “The one who showed him mercy.” But notice that the
attorney can’t bring himself to identify the hero of the story as being a
Samaritan: His response is the “one”, not the “Samaritan” who showed him mercy.
Perhaps the Lord’s point, in making the Samaritan the hero, was to show this
person that the Samaritans aren’t who you think they are.
Whenever we hear or read a passage of
Holy Scripture, we would do well to ask ourselves, “What is it that this text
is telling us about God, and about God’s nature?” Another question that we
might also ask is, “What is it that the Lord wants us to know about how to live
our lives?”
Questions that the Lord’s parable pose
to us today might include the following:
Sometimes life is messy. The priest and the Levite are faced
with a choice: Do I help this wounded man and risk putting myself in a ritually
unclean condition, so much so that I won’t be able to work? Or, do I help this
man who is obviously in need? The choice they make in the parable is to follow
the legal requirement of the Law of Moses, thereby preserving their ritual
purity. It was a choice often made by God’s chosen people during the time of
our Lord’s visitation, and one that Jesus often spoke out against. For, it
seems, such a choice fails to ask, “What are we missing?” It fails to take into
account the Law’s requirement to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Sometimes, the
rules we live by come into tension with the real-life circumstances of people
we encounter. But, as we ponder this
question, we ought to remember that Jesus began His parable by asking the
attorney what the requirements of the Law are. So, the Law is important. Living
into this tension, we often have to make choices that are less-than-ideal as
life’s twists and turns confront us.
Encountering those who are vulnerable
(in some way or another) also exposes us to vulnerability. We mentioned earlier that not only
was the beaten man vulnerable, but the Samaritan was also vulnerable. Then, the
innkeeper was also exposed to vulnerability.
Compassion is contagious: The Samaritan’s compassion for the
wounded man must’ve been evident to the innkeeper from the moment they entered
the inn. The innkeeper is folded into the Samaritan’s compassion (so, we might
say that the innkeeper – who was probably Jewish – set aside any scruples he
might have had about dealing with a Samaritan), trusting the Samaritan to
actually return and to fully pay any remaining amount that the wounded man’s
treatment required.
The Lord’s parables are filled with
richness and a depth that invites us to look at and to ponder their truths over
and again. (The Lord is a master story-teller!) In this sermon, we’ve looked at
some of the aspects of this wonderful parable. What might the Holy Spirit
enable us to see and understand in its import and meaning?
AMEN.
[1] The individual who is identified as an attorney was, most likely, one
who was trained in the precepts and the application of the Law of Moses
(Torah). Such a person was a religious authority, not a practitioner of a
secular, legal profession.
[2] The Law of Moses (Torah)
[3] There were three orders of priests: The Aaronic priests, the Zadokites and the Levites, in descending order.
