Love your neighbour as yourself

Today at Kea we're looking at Luke 10:25-37, that is, the Good Samaritan. This extraordinary story, one of the ones that would be lost to us if Luke had not recorded it, shows Jesus at his most radical. The man who asks Jesus "who is my neighbour?" is supposed to be an expert in the Torah, the law of God. But he needs a bit of help in understanding one of the two greatest commandments.

In reply, Jesus tells a story of a man lying in the gutter who is ignored by two men who should have known better. If the priest and Levite were serious about their religion, they would have obeyed God's law, and crossed the road. It is left to the Samaritan, the one who by rights should have nothing to do with the law of Israel's God, to do what the law requires and help his neighbour.

But who is the neighbour in the end? It's not a Jew who helps a Samaritan here, but the other way round. The Good Samaritan shows us that Jesus calls us to reach out way beyond our boundaries to the people we would rather not touch. But even more than that, he calls us to let them reach in and touch us.

Luke wants us to know that Jesus is the saviour of the world. Sometimes we Christians can act as though that salvation belongs to us, and we can dispense it to whoever we think deserves it most. But Jesus does not belong to us - he will call whoever he wants, and sometimes we may find that the "Samaritans" have a better grasp of the gospel than we do.

Comments

KeyReed said…
I'd always pictured this story as having takenb place on a dusty 'road, in the middle of a desert. This is the first art work I've seen of the parable. Thanks.
November 5, 2010 at 7:44 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Delia Knox - Miracles and healing, cynicism or wonder?

Today the story of Delia Knox has jumped out of Christian subculture into the mainstream UK media, with this story on the Daily Mail website. Knox is filmed leaving her wheelchair after being prayed for at the Bay of the Holy Spirit Revival in Mobile, Alabama. Watch the 13 minute video embedded there, if you can. Most people will have one of two reactions to this: either you will be deeply moved, or you will find yourself overwhelmingly cynical about the whole thing. The second of the two seems to be the reaction of choice for Mail Online readers, who queue in droves in the comments section to pour scorn on the whole thing. Why are people sceptical about spiritual and miraculous healing? Mostly because they simply don't believe it. The prevailing secular atheist worldview has no slot available for this kind of thing - it simply doesn't happen (although a more thoughtful and informed atheist might allow for some kind of psychosomatic factor in healing). But even among those w...
Read more

let the vicar have a day off

I began writing this on Tuesday, my usual day off. Not normally a day when I would be hunched over the keyboard, but this week I had the time because I'm luxuriating in a whole week off. A perfectly usual experience, except in the case of vicars, when the idea of a "week off" becomes quite complex and problematic. Last week on Twitter I intercepted someone's tweet who had spotted a clergy friend who was enjoying an entertaining day out. His reply was along the lines of "blimey, what it is to be a vicar and live the life of Riley" etc. I have no complaint against this person, who is a good guy and obviously meant no harm. It was just a variant on the age-old witticism that every parish priest hears on a more or less weekly basis, "of course you only work on Sundays, don't you?" There are a few versions of this, my personal favourite being "not another holiday?" if one takes leave at any time within about a year of having previously d...
Read more

lessons from the Cornwall B&B case

Comment is called for on the judgement in the case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull , because it is a significant one, and because of the Cornish connection. While some of the responses have been predictable and stereotyped, most commentators have recognised that Judge Andrew Rutherford has treated the Bulls with respect, even though he has found against them. The case turned on the principle that Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, as civil partners, were entitled to the same rights under law as a married couple. This meant that the Bull's argument that they would equally discriminate against an unmarried heterosexual couple was not accepted, because Hall and Preddy were, for the purposes of this case, married. This is a tricky one. The Bulls didn't really have a strong case, but it's difficult not to have sympathy for them. They come across in the media as a harmless couple just doing what seems right to them. It's also hard to shake off the sneaking suspicion that they have be...
Read more