The parable of the Good Samaritan is well-known, even by those who aren’t Christian. Briefly, it goes like this: a man is robbed, beaten, and left for dead on the side of a road. First a priest, and then a Levite, passed him by. But a Samaritan, a member of a group despised by many Jews, stopped and helped the man, even bringing him to help and paying the necessary expenses.
There’s a great contrast made between these people, but another interesting question is what they have in common in the story: they are all identified by their cultural “tribe.” This brings up another interesting contrast: the man, left bloodied on the side of the road, was not identified as anything other than a “man,” or broadly, a human being. The only thing we know about this person is that “he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.”[1] What else was there to know?
By not defining this person, Jesus was not letting His audience limit their responsibility. According to the Reformation Study Bible: “First-century Jews had various ideas about who was included in the category of ‘neighbor,’ whether marking its boundaries by community or clan affinities or by religious party affiliation (a Pharisee’s neighbors would be other Pharisees). Yet at its widest extent, the circle of ‘neighbors’ was confined to Israel.” In short, the Jews were using tribalism to exclude people from the definition of neighbor, in a similar way people use concepts like intersectionality to include people over others today, but in the Good Samaritan parable, nobody is excluded.
To Jesus, the identity of the victim is not relevant – the neighborly thing to do isn’t to help because of who the person is (whether they belong to your own clan or tribe), but because they are a person – made in God’s image – who is hurt. In other words, if there’s a bloody man on the road in front of you, don’t say God didn’t require you to deal with it, because the man is not your neighbor, by some narrow definition.
Jesus was making the broadest interpretation possible. When we consider the situation of each person on Earth – damaged by sin, robbed of their dignity, and left for spiritual death – isn’t everyone like this man by the side of the road?
While we can’t expect to help every hurting person we see, the message Jesus wanted us to hear by not identifying this victim is that we shouldn’t have any pre-defined rules about who is our neighbor when obeying the command: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[2] Too often we create moral shortcuts about who to care for or not to care for, based on whatever our culture or group of friends agree on, allowing us to ignore obvious problems right in front of us.
If you find someone beat up and bloody on the side of the road, literally or metaphorically, help them if you can. No matter who they are. No shortcuts or pre-defined rules are allowed.
While any religious slogan or motto has its shortcomings (we wouldn’t need a Bible with 1,189 chapters if one sentence would do), some can summarize a lot of good truths. Recently in Sunday School a phrase I used a lot during my college years came back to me:
“In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”
Nobody in the class knew the phrase, and I couldn’t remember exactly where I learned it, so I found and forwarded this article which explains the saying and its origin. Like many things, the phrase has been mis-attributed to well-known figures in Christian history, but it actually is a quote from Rupertus Meldenius, a relatively unknown seventeenth century theologian. I’ve found it useful in striking a balance between doctrine and love, and hope you will too.
This week’s Sunday Share is an old article from Mark Ross at Ligonier Ministries, available at the link below:
It’s become cliché to say social media brings out the worst of people, since they can hide from consequences behind internet anonymity and distance. Mike Tyson, one of the greatest heavyweight boxers of all time, said “Social media made y’all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it.” But disrespect and wanting to punch people in the face who disagree with us is nothing new. Just one generation after Adam and Eve were made in the image of God and living in perfect love, their son Cain killed his brother Abel for uncertain reasons. Genesis also doesn’t tell us exactly how Cain killed Abel, but we can be sure social media wasn’t involved. Hate doesn’t require an internet connection or working Wi-Fi, only one person deciding that another person is a thing to be defeated, not as a person made in God’s image. Sometimes by focusing on what we are disagreeing about, we can lose sight of the fact that the person disagreeing with us is inherently valuable.
Today, after months away, we return to a series on James 1:27, which says: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” James gave careful thought to this phrase, not as hyperbole, but as an example of what perfect religion – worship of God the Father – looks like. Eternal life is for people who love when there’s nothing more at stake than the person being loved, but putting issues above people is one way we get stained by the world and fail to represent Christ. Note that I didn’t say ignore the issues – it’s a question of priority.
The Singular Person Psalm 113 is a Psalm about praising God and making Him known throughout the world, and ends with a very specific praise:
“He gives the barren woman a home, making her the joyous mother of children. Praise the LORD!”
To me, what’s most striking here is that this is a singular barren woman, not barren women as a group. It doesn’t say that God ends all barrenness (although He might). The Psalmist chose as a climactic ending to this poem about the heart of God and how He wants to be known a praise to God for giving a home and family to one barren woman. This means that the sovereign God of all the universe is concerned about individuals, their specific circumstances, and their specific need for salvation. He does not respond to an “issue” of the barrenness of women but responds in a way that satisfies the needs of individual people. People are not statistics to Him, to be counted and divided into opposing sides until one prevails over the other. Each person’s needs and path to redemption are unique in God’s eyes, and only He can provide for all. He is the only way to a perfect world.
Similar to the “barren woman”, James 1:27 is about visiting specific “orphans and widows,” not fighting for the end of all afflictions for all widows and orphans. He is fighting for people, not total victory in an argument. While this might seem obvious to some, it’s so easy to exalt issues over people that we don’t always notice when we do it.
The Issue of Family A common issue today is “family,” which I put in quotes because as an issue it doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. A lot of time and energy is put into fighting for “family values,” defined many different ways, and James 1:27, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world,” is relevant in multiple ways.
First, an earlier post of this series, said “whatever its source, civil law is a provision for a fallen world, not a pathway to a perfect world.” In both the Old and New Testaments, God tells us there will always be poor in the land and that every civil law is inherently limited in a broken world. Christians should “defend the family,” but in what way? James 1:27 says to stand for individuals for whom the institution of family has already failed – widows and orphans. “Pure and undefiled religion” succeeds where law fails, filling the gap with the heart of God, who cares for the specific “barren woman” of Psalm 113:9. There is no perfect law that solves the issue of “family values,” therefore “visit orphans and widows in their affliction.” Affliction comes in many forms and is too complex and diverse for any government to deal with entirely.
Second, when we fight for perfection in our laws, taking absolute stands on either side of an “issue,” we risk elevating law to a level it’s not possible of achieving, and we also may justify hurting people in the process, thinking the end result will be worth it somehow. Once we see the world in fully black/white, either/or terms, it becomes easy to think that if only the right side came out ahead, the issue would be resolved, any collateral damage can be explained, and everyone would be happy. However, consider the extreme example of violence around both abortion clinics and crisis pregnancy centers. In that case and many smaller ones, when we cause harm to opponents, we prove that there are cracks in our own system, creating new victims on top of the existing ones. Those left behind haven’t been helped, but new affliction has been added by those hoping it will be somehow worth it to win the “issue” battle.
Third, ministering to widows and orphans keeps us from the pollution of the world which insists that our salvation is political and based on power. James 1:27 encourages us to reject a world that wants to put laws, culture, even hashtags above actual people. The world too often believes the ends justify the means because belief in worldly utopia depends on a 100% solution, but also believes it’s ok to ignore concrete problems while fighting for a solution that will never arrive. Salvation comes from only one source: the cross.
In the start of this post, I wrote that it’s become cliché to say social media brings out the worst of people, and its cliché because massive amounts of time and energy go into fighting over abstract issues and dividing into groups of “us” and “them”. James 1:27 says that we are not defined by which side of an issue we support, and what we’re willing to do to achieve victory for our side, but by how we love those individuals for whom this world has failed.
It is better to minister to the ones who have been punched by this world than to add another punch to the damage.
Therefore, “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” – Hebrews 10:23-25
And what are “good works”? “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”
Anyone who has watched very young kids play soccer, or especially anyone who has coached youth soccer, knows what I mean by “Beehive Soccer”: Two lonely and bored goalkeepers stand by their goals at each end of the field, while both teams of players closely swarm around one ball. Some of the players on each team have an idea which direction to kick the ball, but others just want to kick it. Often a kicked ball ricochets around inside the swarm, unable to escape the vortex of kids. The goalkeepers might as well play with some blades of grass, or bugs if they’re lucky.
At Beehive Soccer games, parents on the sideline cheer at any progress at all, and grimace whenever some kid (perhaps theirs) nearly takes a soccer ball to the face. Coaches yell “spread out!”, then shake their heads, put their hands on their hips, then yell “spread out!” again a moment later. Coaches must let the parents know they are doing something, and it’s all in good fun – they (the kids) will grow out of it.
Often morality is pursued in the same way. In Beehive Morality, masses of people crowd around one problem, kicking aimlessly, organized by vague goals, or even just some anger and some hashtags on social media, but doomed to reach a less-than-ideal solution because their activities are not organized. Maybe they attempt to swarm around multiple goals at the same time.
In Beehive Soccer, young kids have not had time to be coached and learn coordination based on individual positions, nor are many of them mature enough to pay attention to coaching when all of the other kids are playing Beehive Soccer. It’s no fun being the only kid playing by the rules. In society, too many behave the same way, thinking the objective is just to show enthusiasm for whatever game is being played that day, but making no real progress. Many play along and keep “kicking” because it’s no fun being the only person left out of the crowd.
In economics, this is called a Coordination Problem, where multiple people aren’t aligned and cooperating toward a common goal. Unfortunately, Beehive Morality can cause a Coordination Problem in the church, but in 1 Corinthians 9:24-26, the apostle Paul encourages the church in Corinth (and every church today than can read Paul’s letter) to focus on a goal, and put every effort toward it: “Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air.” This “beating the air” reminds me of the Beehive Soccer kids, or Beehive Morality adults – there’s a lot of activity, but not a lot of coordinated work toward a real, helpful, objective.
But what are the objectives for God’s people? The two most important commandments – the instructions of our Coach – are: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”, and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[1]
Elsewhere, Paul has advice as the young Timothy’s “coach,” sharing these words of encouragement in 2 Timothy 2:3-6 – “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him. An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops.”[2] The soldier and athlete look forward to victory, and the farmer looks forward to harvest, but until then must work diligently, enduring sacrifice in patience, knowing the reward is worth the temporary problems, even if sometimes it’s no fun not kicking along with the crowd and playing Beehive Soccer.
The video below is a funny illustration of Beehive Soccer (or Morality), versus coordination among well-coached players toward a common goal. The Beehive may think its winning because they having fun and doing the “popular” thing, but they’re really just “beating the air.” Remember, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”, and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Swarming around the ball labelled with the current hot hashtag topic – or many topics – is not the objective.
Bible translators have a tough job, otherwise one English translation would be all we have or need. Translation isn’t a straight-forward process. There are many trade-offs, including between ease of reading in contemporary settings, and depth of meaning in the original context, but sometimes I wish different choices were made.
One example is Luke 9:30-31, which says: “And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem” (from ESV, emphasis mine). This happened during an event known as the Transfiguration, when Jesus took His disciples Peter, James, and John up a mountain for a vision of His future glory. Matthew records in his gospel that Jesus “was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.”[1]
While on that mountain, the 3 lucky disciples also witnessed a conversation about something: Jesus’ “departure.” In a recent sermon I learned that the word translated “departure” is “exodos” in the original Greek. For ease of reading purposes, “departure” is a more familiar word and makes a lot of sense to a modern reader, because Jesus was soon to depart the world temporarily through death, then more permanently after His resurrection. On the other hand, “exodos” literally means an exit, or figuratively a death, but to the original audience and those familiar with Old Testament history, the word “exodos” carries other meanings as well.
So, why would Moses and Elijah be talking to Jesus about His “exodos”? Because they both had history with such “departures.”
As told in the Old Testament book of Exodus, Moses was called by God while the descendants of Israel (Jacob) were slaves in Egypt. After performing many miracles in God’s power, Moses led the new nation of Israel on an exodus out of literal slavery in Egypt.
Elijah performed many miracles, and prophesied that the nation of Israel, unless they repent of their disobedience, would be taken back into exile, but later be freed from Assyrian rule in that generation’s exodus.
Again, why would Moses and Elijah be talking to Jesus about His “exodos”? Because Jesus was going to lead spiritual Israel out of slavery to sin around the entire world, from each nation, in every generation’s Exodus. Moses, Elijah, and Jesus would have had a lot to talk about.
“And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodos, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.”
Driving Toward the Morning Sun 