Who Are You? In a book I consider necessary reading for anyone who preaches, What Do They Hear?, Mark Allan Powell made the stunning observation that pastors/preachers tend to identify with Jesus while lay folks tend to identify with the characters of the story. In Jesus’s parable of the Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), which I took a look at last week and which I want to explore again with you, we are invited to identify with a number of characters. Here is the parable, and then I will make some observations.
I’ve appreciated the way the church fathers commonly interpreted this story - which was allegorically.
Patristic interpretation:
The wounded traveler = all humanity
The robbers = the devil/evil powers
The priest/levite = The law and prophets, unable to rescue
The Samaritan = Christ, who saves, heals and restores
The inn = the church, where those rescued by Christ are received
into community and cared for
The innkeeper = Christians who care for the wounded traveler
with the resources given by Christ.
The Samaritan’s promised return = Christ’s second coming
I kind of think it’s useful to think about this interpretation first before moving on to our own identification. It’s worth asking not “who do I identify with or who would I like to be?” But rather “who, if I’m honest, am I really acting like?” It’s worth asking - “am I acting like the priest or Levite - focused on myself, maybe passing others by in a spirit of self righteousness?”
I tremble to claim to be the Samaritan after reading patristic interpretations. And perhaps evangelical Christians - with so often a focus on doing and saving others - would do well to sit more with seeing ourselves as the innkeeper - participating in the Samaritan’s work as a minor character but not ultimately the ones whose vision and action and resources drive the story.
I was troubled earlier this year by a sermon on this passage by my former abusive pastor at an abusive church. He focused on viewing ourselves as the wounded traveler and Christ as the Samaritan (kind of like the patristic view I guess) so that it became an illustration of salvation by grace alone through Christ alone. I gave it an “A” for soteriology but an “F” for exegesis and application. If baffled me how the entire sermon became focused on our relationship to Jesus and entirely ignored what I take to be the punchline: “go and do likewise”. It baffled me that people could walk away from that message and likely not feel any conviction for living like the priest and Levite. But I wondered, and wonder still, am I wrong in judging that sermon for its failure to challenge comfortable, White American Christianity (which is the demographic of that church)? Are there are multiple ways to read/emphasize that story, and did that pastor just limit himself to one legitimate reading? Is it acceptable to preach a sermon on that parable and omit the “go and do likewise”? Really curious what others think.
Aaron, I'm a bit flummoxed by this kind of interpretation. The preacher should spend some time reading Klyne Snodgrass. When Jesus provides interpretation like the one in this parable, it's wise to let him decide how best to read it.
I don’t know if he has read Snodgrass, but thanks for that recommendation! I’m really not one to use the internet to be critical and judgmental, but the scary thing is that this preacher is highly educated. Mdiv from RTS and a Dmin in progress from RTS. So no educational excuse. I think it’s driven by overreaction to CRT etc. The sense i get is, the gospel isn’t about showing mercy to the oppressed, Jesus’ *real* concern was to show the lawyer it is actually impossible to “do this and you will live” (Luke 10:28). Given that mishandling, your comments have been very refreshing!
Given the fact that all the characters in the parable are male and I'm female, that does not fit. It usually falls to us females to care for the wounded in our worlds. But I'm not certain that I would rush to aid the man who had fallen among thieves.....
Given the fact that all of the characters in the story are male and I'm female, I fail to fit. But as a female wife / mother / grandmother / etc., etc, it has usually fallen to me to care for the wounded. But this being a gospel parable, I could not be so coy as to imagine that I would care for the man who had fallen among thieves. God help me (!) - I could be one of those who passed the injured man in need. Why? Answering that could require a second post.
I’m puzzled by all this. Surely a good reader of fiction doesn’t “identify” with anyone, but observes as a outsider looking in. You’re in trouble as soon as you start identifying with any of the characters.
Annabel, maybe I'm using "identify" wrong? But "surely" on your part is a bit overcooked since there's a whole theory of "reader identification" theory that I explored in my master's thesis days. So, what do you and what do I mean by "identify"? I'll go first: connect with in the story as telling some of one's own experience.
And, thanks for the John commentary, and it will show up often in my study guide, with a hat tip to you in the preface.
I’ve appreciated the way the church fathers commonly interpreted this story - which was allegorically.
Patristic interpretation:
The wounded traveler = all humanity
The robbers = the devil/evil powers
The priest/levite = The law and prophets, unable to rescue
The Samaritan = Christ, who saves, heals and restores
The inn = the church, where those rescued by Christ are received
into community and cared for
The innkeeper = Christians who care for the wounded traveler
with the resources given by Christ.
The Samaritan’s promised return = Christ’s second coming
I kind of think it’s useful to think about this interpretation first before moving on to our own identification. It’s worth asking not “who do I identify with or who would I like to be?” But rather “who, if I’m honest, am I really acting like?” It’s worth asking - “am I acting like the priest or Levite - focused on myself, maybe passing others by in a spirit of self righteousness?”
I tremble to claim to be the Samaritan after reading patristic interpretations. And perhaps evangelical Christians - with so often a focus on doing and saving others - would do well to sit more with seeing ourselves as the innkeeper - participating in the Samaritan’s work as a minor character but not ultimately the ones whose vision and action and resources drive the story.
Very interesting. Thank you!
I was troubled earlier this year by a sermon on this passage by my former abusive pastor at an abusive church. He focused on viewing ourselves as the wounded traveler and Christ as the Samaritan (kind of like the patristic view I guess) so that it became an illustration of salvation by grace alone through Christ alone. I gave it an “A” for soteriology but an “F” for exegesis and application. If baffled me how the entire sermon became focused on our relationship to Jesus and entirely ignored what I take to be the punchline: “go and do likewise”. It baffled me that people could walk away from that message and likely not feel any conviction for living like the priest and Levite. But I wondered, and wonder still, am I wrong in judging that sermon for its failure to challenge comfortable, White American Christianity (which is the demographic of that church)? Are there are multiple ways to read/emphasize that story, and did that pastor just limit himself to one legitimate reading? Is it acceptable to preach a sermon on that parable and omit the “go and do likewise”? Really curious what others think.
Aaron, I'm a bit flummoxed by this kind of interpretation. The preacher should spend some time reading Klyne Snodgrass. When Jesus provides interpretation like the one in this parable, it's wise to let him decide how best to read it.
I don’t know if he has read Snodgrass, but thanks for that recommendation! I’m really not one to use the internet to be critical and judgmental, but the scary thing is that this preacher is highly educated. Mdiv from RTS and a Dmin in progress from RTS. So no educational excuse. I think it’s driven by overreaction to CRT etc. The sense i get is, the gospel isn’t about showing mercy to the oppressed, Jesus’ *real* concern was to show the lawyer it is actually impossible to “do this and you will live” (Luke 10:28). Given that mishandling, your comments have been very refreshing!
Given the fact that all the characters in the parable are male and I'm female, that does not fit. It usually falls to us females to care for the wounded in our worlds. But I'm not certain that I would rush to aid the man who had fallen among thieves.....
Given the fact that all of the characters in the story are male and I'm female, I fail to fit. But as a female wife / mother / grandmother / etc., etc, it has usually fallen to me to care for the wounded. But this being a gospel parable, I could not be so coy as to imagine that I would care for the man who had fallen among thieves. God help me (!) - I could be one of those who passed the injured man in need. Why? Answering that could require a second post.
I’m puzzled by all this. Surely a good reader of fiction doesn’t “identify” with anyone, but observes as a outsider looking in. You’re in trouble as soon as you start identifying with any of the characters.
Annabel, maybe I'm using "identify" wrong? But "surely" on your part is a bit overcooked since there's a whole theory of "reader identification" theory that I explored in my master's thesis days. So, what do you and what do I mean by "identify"? I'll go first: connect with in the story as telling some of one's own experience.
And, thanks for the John commentary, and it will show up often in my study guide, with a hat tip to you in the preface.