Tag Luke

Of Love and Forgiveness

Todd R Leave a comment

Fellow travelers,

Have you known Christians who love well?  Not ones who know the Bible well, or who know all the right doctrines, or who are involved in many church activities.  Not even a person who writes (or reads) a great blog.  These are not bad things, and they may help someone become more loving, but they aren’t the same thing as being a person who loves as Christ loved.  Who loves well.

Not everyone like this gets there the same way, but Jesus mentioned at least one specific way: the more we know how great God’s forgiveness for us is, the greater is our love.

This comes from Luke chapter 7, in the story about “a woman of the city, who was a sinner.”  This woman broke an expensive flask of ointment over Jesus’s feet, then wiped the ointment on His feet with her hair and tears.  What a bold statement of devotion to Jesus she made!

However, Jesus was criticized by a Pharisee for not refusing this act of worship: “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.”[1]  To the Pharisee, an upright, respectable religious person should have nothing to do with this sinful woman.

In response, Jesus tells a parable about a man who was forgiven a very large debt, and therefore loved the one who forgave him more than another man did who was forgiven a smaller debt.  Jesus contrasts the actions of the Pharisee – who didn’t treat Jesus with nearly as much honor as the “sinner” – with the woman, and says: “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.”

We don’t know much for sure about this woman’s sins, but we know the Pharisee was aware of them and hated her for it.  He thought her sins were worse than others and should exclude her from any social interactions.  We also know that she was aware of how great her sin was, but she also knew that Jesus loved and forgave her anyway, even though her sin was great.  Jesus tells us her devotion is proof of that.

This story shows us that those with “checkered” pasts, full of sin, pain, and suffering, can become the most passionate believers, as they know what the gospel is capable of overcoming first-hand, in themselves and in others.  Jesus and his early followers went to these outcast people, and the faith of that first generation of Christians changed the world forever!

So, who is willing and able to reach out to sinners in the same way God reached out to them in Christ?  Those who have a very real sense of how great are the sins God that has forgiven them. Often the greatest “sinners” are the ones who learn how to love well.

[1] Luke 7:37-39

Insurrection Ironies

Todd R Leave a comment

Jesus knew what He was getting into when, near the end of His earthly ministry, He determined to go to Jerusalem.  After being betrayed by one of His own disciples, arrested and turned over to the authorities, Jesus was tried up to six times as Jewish and Roman authorities passed Him back and forth.  There are a number of ironies that happen during these trials, but this post will focus on the comparison of Jesus and Barabbas.

One of the American Heritage Dictionary’s definitions for insurrection is “The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.”  This idea of insurrection is important in Jesus’ final trial before Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea and Samaria, who condemned Jesus to be crucified even though he saw no fault in Him.

An irony in this story is that there was a tradition whereby Pilate would release one prisoner as a way of doing the Jews a favor.  Pilate asked the crowd whether he should release Jesus or a man named Barabbas, and the crowd insisted on Barabbas.  Who is Barabbas?  He was an insurrectionist and murderer.  He had been involved in a plot started in Jerusalem to overthrow Roman rule.[1]  The irony is that the charge against Jesus according to the Jewish leaders was that He was “misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.”[2]  Anyone in Caesar’s realm claiming to be king was revolting against Roman authority.  In other words, they were accusing Jesus of insurrection, while asking for the release of a man who had actually participated in an insurrection.  This is also strange because one of the reasons the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as Messiah was that He wasn’t actually going to revolt against Rome.  They didn’t like that Jesus was not an insurrectionist.

Why did Pilate agree with the crowd about releasing Barabbas?  Pilate was a man under higher authorities in the Roman empire, and one way he could lose his position is if he didn’t effectively silence any opposition to Rome.  When the crowd grew more and more belligerent in their crying out for Barabbas to be released and for Jesus to be crucified, there was a risk of riots or even a larger uprising.  Therefore, to keep from attracting unwanted attention and criticism from his superiors, Pilate decided to let the crowd have its way.  Barabbas was released instead of Jesus because of what?  The threat of an insurrection by this crowd.

There’s even another layer to this when we consider who Jesus is and what the name “Barabbas” means.  Jesus is the only human ever who never participated in a revolt against the highest authority, His Father.  He, the Son of God the Father, was condemned to die in place of an actual insurrectionist, Barabbas, whose name means “son of father.”  Since everyone has a father, the meaning of the name Barabbas could apply to anyone.  So symbolically, Jesus died in place of someone whose name represents everyone, or all of us, so we could be sons of the Father. In summary, Jesus was killed in place of an actual insurrectionist because the Jewish leaders didn’t like that He wasn’t really an insurrectionist but accused Him of being one anyway.  This all happened in spite of the fact that Jesus is the only person ever to not commit insurrection against the highest authority, God the Father.

[1] Luke 23:19
[2] Luke 23:2

The Cost of Being a Good Samaritan

Todd R 2 Comments

Years ago, I heard a sermon illustration about a parent looking out the window and seeing their kids playing with a skunk.  Naturally, they yelled out to the kids “get away from there and come inside!”  The kids quickly came inside but brought the skunk with them!  The point of the story is that when we want to help others, sometimes their problems become our problems.  There is a cost to truly loving others.

The same principle comes out of the parable of the Good Samaritan.  In the well-known parable 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.  This help had a significant cost, as described in Luke 10:34-35:

“He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him.  And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’”

Here’s a list of what the Good Samaritan provided for the man in these two verses:

Photo by Jackson David on Unsplash
  • Likely some kind of cloth to bind the wounds.  He likely tried to use the cleanest cloth he had with him and ripped or cut it as needed.
  • Oil and wine, which he “poured” on the man’s wounds.  He is more concerned about treating the man than about pouring out too much.
  • A ride on his own animal.  The Samaritan walked alongside, giving the man the more comfortable trip to the inn.
  • Money.  Denarii is the plural of denarius, which was about a day’s wages for a laborer.  The Samaritan spent at least two days wages (“two denarii”) and promised to pay more if needed.
  • Ongoing care and concern.  The Samaritan promised to pay “when I come back.”  He was going to make a return trip to the inn to check up on the man.

Contrast this to the priest and Levite, who both “passed by on the other side” to avoid being contaminated by the man, who appeared dead.  The Samaritan was more concerned about providing help than about whether he would become ceremonially unclean.

Loving people often has costs, including significant ones and ones we don’t anticipate, like the skunk that ended up in the house in the opening example.  While we can’t help everyone in need that we come across, and we’re unlikely to come across someone beat up and left for dead, “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” – James 2:15-16

“No one can do everything, but everyone can do something” – Max Lucado

The Love of a Good Samaritan

Todd R 3 Comments

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, getting him to help and paying the necessary expenses.

Jesus told the parable in response to a man who said to inherit eternal life, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”[1]  But then “desiring to justify himself,” he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”  He was looking for loopholes, for people he did not need to love.

Now, there are multiple words in New Testament Greek that translate as “love” in our English Bibles, and the love being discussed in this parable is agape love.  This love is a self-sacrificial love that puts the interests of others above the interests of self, even if those others don’t love you.  Agape motivates acts of benevolence or charity and is epitomized by the cross.

So, why did the priest and the Levite not love the man left on the side of the road?  These men were very religious and should have been interested in doing the right thing according to God.

It could have been that if the man actually looked dead, or would be soon, they didn’t want to risk becoming ceremonially “unclean.”  Numbers 19:11-13 says:

“Whoever touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days.  He shall cleanse himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean. But if he does not cleanse himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not become clean.  Whoever touches a dead person, the body of anyone who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown on him, he shall be unclean. His uncleanness is still on him.”

The last thing they may have wanted to do was defile the Temple, or to be kept away from worship for seven whole days.  They had to keep up appearances after all.

It might have been that they just didn’t consider the man to be their neighbor, or a member of their “tribe”.  Tribalism was alive and well in ancient Israel, and neither Samaritans nor near-dead men in need of help belonged.

In either case, they passed by the person because they had rules that told them it was ok to desert him.  These rules may have been faulty applications of Scripture, or just cultural rules, but the rules resulted in situations where it was preferred to not love someone, even in very desperate need.

A lesson Jesus wanted us to take from the parable is that the person who loves whoever needs love, even if they are a Samaritan or from a different “tribe” than ours, is the one who will inherit eternal life.  We don’t get to decide who is our neighbor, and therefore who to love.

American culture is increasingly condemning any rules restricting who we should have erotic love (Greek eros) for, but it is also increasingly welcoming of rules limiting who we should have sacrificial love (agape) for.  American culture is increasingly permissive of hate toward people in other political parties or those who don’t think the same way about issues.  We are getting better at identifying our enemies, while getting worse at loving them.

However, from the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus makes clear that any rules that tell us when it is ok to ignore agape love are bad rules.  In true righteousness, Jesus would rather die on the cross than leave a man stranded on the side of the road to follow some rule.  Jesus was the only one who could live a perfect life of live, but He also said, “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.”[2] Therefore, show agape love to your neighbor, no matter who they are.  Be the good neighbor.  And when (not if) you can’t, trust in God’s mercy and his love for you, which never fails.

[1] Luke 10:27
[2] Luke 14:27

The Exodus of Jesus

Todd R 2 Comments

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.”

[1] Matthew 17:2