Active Love and Church Growth: A constructivist exposition of the parable of the Good Samaritan

Extended version of author-led Bible Talk, Southeast London, 11th May 2018

Prologue

“I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that.”

- 2 Corinthians 11:1

A crucial part of our existence is our ability to seek explanations for the unknown, based on what we know, e.g., as evident in the way we strive to navigate the world around us from birth. So, when we answer questions wrongly, we are applying logic based on our limited understanding of the world around us in an attempt to answer the question. However, when sincere attention is paid to such wrong answers, particularly, the logic informing our positions, the amount of meaningful learning occurring will multiply (George Jones, 2016). Put simply, understanding the “wrong” answers would result in enduring learning. To help us arrive at right answers therefore, it is important that we create a ‘safe’ space for exploration rather than an atmosphere for shooting down “wrong” answers; healthy tolerance for open-ended discussion is considered safe. For example, though Notre Dame’s Director of the Center for the Study of Religion Christian Smith (2011) declares support for the inspiration and authority of Scripture, he questions Biblicism’s (theory) handling of the Bible as an exclusive authority. And he queries the validity of evangelical Biblicism’s approach against the backdrop of the vast variety of interpretive differences that are reached even by Biblicists themselves – what he refers to as ‘pervasive interpretive pluralism’. How would Smith then explain 2 Timothy 3:16, considering that he does not view the Bible as a “blueprint for living”?

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.

Smith then admonishes us to move beyond Biblicism and live with the ‘complexity’ and ‘ambiguity’ of the Bible, a view supported by Rachel Held Evans, who has been described as the most polarizing woman in evangelicalism (Sarah Pulliam Bailey, 2015). Smith believes that the Bible is sometimes self-contradictory, and advises that we should be accommodating of the ‘tensions’ and ‘inconsistencies’ inherent in Scripture rather than force them into a false amity. Explaining what he calls ‘divine accommodation’, Smith posits that while God divinely inspired biblical authors, he did not correct their ‘incomplete’ or ‘mistaken’ viewpoints to communicate through them with their readers.

It is amusing that he thinks there would be nothing to talk about, either with God or with one another, if the Bible were a blueprint for living. By propounding Christocentric hermeneutic as an alternative to Biblicism therefore, Smith submits that God intends for us to wrestle with Scripture because being a person of faith is not about being right, but about being in relationship with God and a community; by the way, Hermeneutics is the theory and methodology of interpretation (Reese, 1980). And while concluding that the Bible is a ‘beautiful’ and ‘frustrating’ collection of stories, letters, laws, poetry, and prophecies, Smith also wants us to note that it is meant to be a conversation-starter, not a conversation-ender.

However, exclusive preoccupation with Christocentric hermeneutic, which demands that we find Christ in every text, raises some concerns because the Bible addresses many different issues, e.g., rather than interpret the Old Testament Christo-centrically, it could be done Christo-tellicaly. This means, to gain insight from the Old Testament, one should start by trying to relate with the original audience’s comprehension, while authoritative preaching of the book depends on having first understood the worldview of those who originally heard the message (Ed Stetzer, 2013). That notwithstanding, it must be noted that the Old Testament contains powerful evidence of Jesus as the Messiah.

According to Scott Young (2017), a theory that explains every possible occurrence is complex and harder to disprove though it hardly offers any benefit, while cognitive science posits that failure to comprehend the flaws in the reasoning of the one who has answered wrongly, will result in our inability to successfully deconstruct their misconceptions (Sadler and Sonnert, 2016). So, when we think the answer is wrong, we should not give destructive but constructive feedback.

How, for example, can we understand the Bible? John Cassian (c. AD 360 – c. 435), a Christian monk and theologian identifies four ways in which the Bible could be comprehended thus: the literal, the symbolic, the ethical and the mystical (biblesociety.org.uk). However, I prefer an open, inductive/eclectic approach, as directed by the Holy Spirit, e.g., a simpler distinction between ‘the spirit and the letter’, while not precluding, especially, the ethical (moral/tropological).

But are you familiar with some religionists who vehemently oppose the use of logic/reason when it comes to the Bible? According to Richard Leonard (2009), Biblical logic is not linear but circumferential. To make a point the speaker/writer may approach his theme from as many angles as possible though the approach may not necessarily be consistent –by today’s standards- with the others (Leonard, 2009).

For example, how would you describe the Book of Job – where though his three friends offer very good arguments that are consistent with other parts of Scripture, they are ultimately in the wrong?

How relevant also are chain thinking and lateral thinking to understanding the Bible? While lateral thinking may be very useful for leading Bible discussions which aim to deliberately shock the audience so the message cuts hearts (Acts 2:36-38; Luke 3:7-18), chain thinking is about helping your hearers/readers understand God’s creation, the problems he has solved, and his wonderful plan that has been revealed over time (Ron Graham, 2011). The latter chimes more with teaching/preaching. As an evolving disciple of Christ, I was privileged to be part of Henry Kriete’s Bible Talk (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Worship-King-Henry-Kriete/dp/1577821319) in his home though as the overall leader of the church, he was not exclusive to us; I equally benefitted from early mentors, who led Bible talks in very creative ways. Remarkably, through such fora, God used us incredibly to convert many souls.

What do you know of the Socratic questioning technique? This approach to questioning is based on the practice of disciplined, thoughtful dialogue during which the teacher appears to be ignorant of the topic so he/she could engage in dialogue with the audience. By “acting dumb,” your audience develops the maximum possible knowledge about the subject, while you promote independent thinking and cede ownership of the subject to them. So, you expect there to be higher-level thinking skills as your audience engages in discussing the topic (Intel Teach Program, 2007).

The Scripture

Introduction

The parable of the Good Samaritan (which can only be found in the gospel of Luke) is an exemplary passage where Jesus’ use of ‘shock value’ to drive home his point, creates an opportunity for a Bible talk leader to explore with his audience.

Luke 10:25-37 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Exegesis

The words to note are: Vs. 25: expert in the law; test; and eternal life.

Vs. 26: Law Vs. 27: Love; and neighbor Vs. 29: Justify Vs. 31: Priest Vs. 32: Levite

Vs. 33: Samaritan

Vs. 35: Innkeeper

Vs. 37: Mercy

The scribe is well-versed in the Law of Moses, which is contained in the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) otherwise known as the Torah. What was this fellow’s specialty? The Old Testament, the central and most important document of Judaism (BBC, 2013).

So, why was he testing Jesus? Probably to get Him to contradict the Torah? Are you shocked to know that the scribe’s question was even faulty? You would ask, “How?” I do not recall coming across the expression, “eternal life” in the whole of the Old Testament. Closest to this is Ecclesiastes 3:11, where King Solomon says, "...He has also set eternity in the human heart…” So, the scribe used Jesus’ expression probably with a view to comparing the basis and validity of His teaching with Judaism. Could this be his intention? If I said to you that you were a murderer, and you vehemently objected to it because you did not hit anyone let alone kill somebody, a third party would say, “yeah, he is right…how could he be a murderer?” So, your answer was perfectly correct…according to the sixth of God’s 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:13). But I am adamant that there is something fundamentally wrong with your answer – now note my arbitrary choice of preposition here. By ‘wrong with’, (as against ‘wrong in’) I am acknowledging that though you have given a perfectly correct answer, it is still a defective one, because of

Matthew 5:21-22:

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

And I base my submission on my knowledge of your acrimonious relationship with your boss at work – you hate her with a passion!

Hey, before you walk out on me, kindly read the entire Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 – 7).

Could Socrates (born 469 BC) have lived before Christ considering what the book of John says?

1”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.”

Now let us go back to our Expert in the Law: Using the Socratic questioning technique, Jesus got the scribe in an uncomfortable position as he tried to answer his own question. The scribe’s answer echoed: Deuteronomy 6:5:

5 “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”

Leviticus 19:18:

18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”

If you were familiar with the story of the young rich ruler (Mark 10:17-27), why would Jesus answer the same question by asking that the fellow should keep the 10 commandments (Exodus 20)?

Though, according to Jesus, the scribe answered correctly, two things were fundamentally wrong ‘with’ his understanding. If you heard me say this in a bible discussion, would you walk out? What is the basis of my premise? Would you inherit eternal life through Deuteronomy 6? Is the scripture talking about eternal life…is it about physical life/death or spiritual/eternal life/death? But our Master, Jesus, said the scribe answered correctly…so, why is Yusuf questioning the scribe’s answer/Jesus' acknowledgement? Did Jesus say, “Do this and you will inherit eternal life”? No, He said, “Do this and you will live” (Deut. 6). Our Lord Jesus Christ knows our thoughts and are you surprised that He stayed within the remit of the Law, which was the scribe’s terrain, by saying he had answered correctly? The scribe believed that by keeping the law, he could inherit the kingdom of God despite the law’s requirement that all of it must be kept inerrantly. Had the scribe attained the level of perfection to be justified under the law? Consider Galatians 3: 12:

12 “The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”

Do you now understand why Jesus said, “Do this and you will live”? By the time Jesus finished with the scribe, was it not obvious that our Lord would never recommend the keeping of the Law as the key to salvation? Listen, the rich young ruler kept all of the 10 commandments since he was a boy – and he was telling the truth! How do I know this?

Mark 10: 20-21:

20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Jesus knew the young rich ruler was telling the truth, but was that enough? The chap lacked just ONE thing, according to Christ Jesus, who knows ALL things…just one thing, yet the fellow did not make it! You and I lack THOUSANDS of things, yet we are joint heirs with Christ Jesus, our Lord and savior (Romans 8:17). This is the mystery that eluded the scribe and the rich young ruler (Ephesians 3:6):

“This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.”

Now, to the scribe’s second fundamentally faulty perception: But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

This question is very deep indeed. But why would he, through this question, want to justify himself? Chances are, you would define your neighbor as someone who lives or is situated near you – would you not? Perhaps the scribe was okay with people living close to him. Again, Christ redefined this word for us, but before we go into the parable itself, let us examine the heart of the scribe. Understandably, the scribe would think, from Leviticus 19:18, that his neighbors were his fellow Jews. But being an expert in the law, he would know Leviticus 24:22:

22 “You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God.’”

Leviticus 19:34:

34 “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

How does the dictionary define ‘justify’? “To declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit” (dictionary.com).

Now, look at Romans 5:1:

“Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”

So, how could the scribe possibly be justified (on God’s kingdom inheritance) if he had no faith in Christ Jesus? Also, so far, you would notice that the word, ‘Love’ has been redundant – are you surprised? Let us see one of the many dictionary definitions of ‘love’: “An intense feeling of deep affection” (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/love). All the dictionary definitions of love stop at the 'emotion', passive, no action!

But the Lord’s parable breathed Life into the word. In other words, ‘Love’ is not passive otherwise it is dead. And when it is passive and dead, it is no love – for example, see James 2:15 – 16.

15 “Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”

From the scripture one could boldly claim that love is superior to faith- see 1 Cor 13:2b:

2 “…and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.”

The Parable

Introduction

Who were the Samaritans? Despite repeated prophetic warnings (also do not forget Deut. 6) about coming disasters because of Israel’s stubborn disobedience of God, its northern kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians about 724 BCE (Marg, 2009). Many of the surviving Israelites were taken captive abroad where they were absorbed by the native populations. The Assyrians also infiltrated Northern Israel with other tribes, who brought their foreign religions and customs as well as intermarried with the remaining, much reduced Israelite population. Who were these hybrid people (half Jewish, half Gentile)? Welcome to the Samaritans!

Remarkably, when the Babylonians conquered the southern kingdom of Judah, they did not mix the races but left the Jews intact; the latter eventually returned to Judah. Notably, the Jews and Samaritans hated each other. According to the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (McGraw Hill) by Louis F. Hartman (1963), the hatred dated back to the pre- northern/southern Israel separation. Who were the Levites? The Levites are described as a landless Israelite tribe (Leuchter, 2017) who descended from the third son of Jacob and Leah (Gen 29:34) and were set aside as God’s ‘share’ for service and sacred duties throughout Israel.

Who were the priests? They carried out temple service and were required to fulfill strict purity regulations. Priests were highly esteemed in ancient Jewish society because they were trained not only in religious matters but also in Jewish law, literature, and tradition (Jonathan Stökl, 2012). In sum, Jews thought of the Samaritans as inferior and could not stand the sight of them.

Jesus’ use of ‘shock value’

Why in the world would Jesus use ‘a good Samaritan’ to demonstrate compassion and mercy to the 'righteous' Jews? Notice that the expert in the law could not even say the word “the good Samaritan,” but preferred, “the one who had mercy on him.” So, two of Judaism’s finest individuals (priest and Levite) saw the injured man as they walked along the same road, but felt no compassion for him and did nothing to help him. But one least likely to have shown compassion for the injured man (whoever he was, Jew/Gentile) came along and did not only administer first aid to him, but spent his money on him – somebody he knew not!

Lessons from the parable

How are we like the priest and the Levite today? We fail not to pray 100 times a day, give our tithes, fast 50 times a month, read our Bible 100 times a day, evangelize 24 hours a day, make ourselves available for various kinds of service in the church, etc., but fail to deliberately look out for those who are hurting amongst us, those we walk past on our way to work, college, university, church, etc. When we are approached by an unkempt stranger for financial assistance, do we say to ourselves, “he/she would use my money for drugs”? And tell him/her, “sorry, I do not carry cash around”. This used to be my slogan until a tenacious ‘beggar’ offered to go with me to a cash machine!

Do we look at those going through difficulties as people who are reaping from their unrighteousness?

Romans 3:10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one.”

Are we self-righteous? Then it will be very difficult to be compassionate and merciful (Robert Deffinbaugh, 2004) – we cannot be like the good Samaritan if we are self-righteous. What is it to be merciful?

Luke 18:9-14:

9 ‘To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”’ What do you make of the pharisee in the foregoing scripture? Certainly, he lacks awareness of the need for mercy, no thanks to his self-righteousness. The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:21-35) also comes to mind here. Have you ever been shown mercy before? Then be merciful unto others: Verse 35: “…forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” I love how Mathew Schmalz (2017), associate professor of Religion, traces true mercy to one’s ability to positively relate with those with whom one might strongly disagree. Concluding, Schmalz says mercy begins with little acts of understanding, with potential to result in truly life-changing experiences of love. So, how can we be like the innkeeper? We do not have to wait until we become millionaires before we start to show hospitality – then, we may end up not showing it at all! If a 'comfortable' brother/sister provides financial assistance to a needy person, we could, like the innkeeper, give support one way or another, e.g., emotional, advocacy, etc. I am sure there are loads of unused shoes, clothes, utensils, etc. in your home - if no-one wants them in our society, then ship them to less developed countries. If they are 'second-hand', send them to a charity shop - you are playing the innkeeper!

I bet we do not wish to be like the robbers! You ask how? Are we 'negatively encouraging' (mind not my oxymoron), are we robbing people of their joy/faith by what comes out of our mouths, are we deliberately oppressive of people placed in our care - our children, our wives, the laity, etc., do our actions put people off, especially potential disciples of Christ - what do they see, hypocrisy? Are we openly critical and divisive, dismissive, belligerent, unforgiving, judgmental, narcissistic, vile, difficult, slanderous, gossipy, etc.? Then we are like the robbers! Alexander the metalworker and Hymenaeus (1 Timothy 1:20) are examples.

The heart of the parable is Active Love – see 1 Cor. 13: 1-3:

1”If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.”

The third verse shows that we can be the highest tithe givers and evangelize every single day, but if we have no compassion, our Christianity is a joke!

Evangelism

We could be like the injured man, if for example, we are experiencing a rough patch - financial, health, marriage, sin, oppression, injustice, emotional abuse, human judgement, mistreatment, etc. Image the injured man as recovered and going about his business some months later though he still has a fresh memory of what had happened to him. So, one of the robbers, the Levite, the priest, the innkeeper and the good Samaritan approached him at different times within a couple of hours in a bid to win him over to Christ. Who would most likely be the one to win him over, and why?

When our love is active, is it selective, or do we show practical love to all irrespective of race or religion, disability, sexual orientation, social class, etc.?

James 2:8-9

8 “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.” Wow - royal law! 1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

Listen, we stand nullified of the preceding scripture if we are not actively loving. When we help someone, do we broadcast it, do we help with ulterior motives? For example, when we help a non-believer come to Christ through our show of Active Love, what happens post- baptism – is our love for them still active and practical, or have they become a statistic, while we search for another ‘baptism’ in an attempt to look good to all? Is our motive pure, are we selfishly ambitious or do we really love the lost and would do everything to motivate them to stay faithful FOR LIFE?

Lessons from Jesus’ encounter with the expert in the law

Seriously, a lot of us are like the scribe today, but wearing the garb of Christianity – and this is what makes it exceedingly dangerous.

2 Corinthians 11:13-14: “For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.”

Do we think of ourselves as the accreditation agency, and of others as less spiritual? Do we think of ourselves as exclusive owners of the only franchise that issues visas to the ‘kingdom of God’? Do we regard others outside of our circle as imposters unless they obtain our official approval?

1John 2: 27

27 “As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”

Do we usually deflect in a bid to justify ourselves like the scribe, whom our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ convicted for his hypocrisy? Are we still unconvinced that the great commission (Matthew 28:16-20) is impossible without sustained Active Love? Are we still trying to be self-righteous?

1 Corinthians 1:17:

“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”

Epilogue

Jean Piaget, Swiss psychologist and epistemologist (1896-1980) describes Constructivism as the process that enables us to construct our own unique ways of knowing. As an anti- didactic ( e.g. programmed instruction) paradigm, it posits that learning is active (Cooper, 1993), just as we have tried to show that love is not love unless it is active. Social constructionism, on the other hand, enables us to build our internal models in a pretentiously-shared way in response to our discernment of identified ideas we receive from others (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). For example, if I regularly appear before the church performing one function or the other, it translates to a social process during which beliefs (and hence 'reality') are formed to ‘confirm’ my ‘spirituality’; I then tend to be revered by, at least, a segment of the congregation. So, my ‘spiritual’ image is a social construct, while behind closed doors, I may be completely ‘unspiritual’ – when no human eyes are watching. As a new convert I was very touched by James 3:13-18: 13 “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. 17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18 Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.”

Remember when Miriam and Aaron slandered Moses (Numbers 12:1)? Listen to them in the second verse: ‘"Has the LORD spoken only through Moses?" they asked. "Hasn't he also spoken through us?" And the LORD heard this.’

If you want a proof of why the third verse says Moses was humbler than anyone else on the face of the earth, then look at an easily overlooked brief episode in the Bible (Numbers 11:26-29): 24’So Moses went out and told the people what the Lord had said. He brought together seventy of their elders and had them stand around the tent. 25Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied—but did not do so again.26However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. 27A young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.”

28Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses’ aide since youth, spoke up and said, “Moses, my lord, stop them!” 29But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!”’

Moses was a very secure leader, while Joshua saw Eldad and Medad as potential threats, perhaps more to his own future position as Moses’ successor. Do we feel threatened by others who though are not socially constructed as ‘righteous’, visibly qualify as role models? Should we not, like Moses, wish that everyone should become leaders? These people may not be standing before the congregation at all, but does that mean they are unworthy, does that mean the Holy Spirit does not reside in them? According to Dr. David Frankel (2014), Eldad and Medad received the divine spirit because they were (in some inexplicable circumstance) particularly meritorious.

The scribe attempted to hold a monopoly on the matters of God and place restrictions on Jesus’ message of freedom. 2 Corinthians 3:17: 17 “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

But must we not learn to emulate Moses rather than bemoan the different spiritual gifts we all bring to the table? 1 Corinthians 12: 4-5 4 “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.”

Should we not encourage the free expression of our gifts? 1 Corinthians 9:19-21 “Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”

Final thoughts How have we understood the parable of the good Samaritan so far? You probably differ in your analysis and prefer to focus on the scribe's heart rather than on his answer - I totally agree with you, but what does Matthew 12:34 say? 34 “... For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.” Do we want to win people over to Christ and advance the kingdom of God? Apostle Paul cannot stop to amaze me - Philippians 1:15-18: 15 “It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice.” Does Paul not remind us of Moses? Both were solidly secure (in God) individuals and we need to emulate this attribute if we must genuinely win souls for Christ. Our Christianity must not be a burden: Galatians 5:5 “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” Not long ago, I was in a brief talk with a couple of Christian brothers during which I compared our faith environment to the soil, while each individual Christian would represent a seed. We (seeds) therefore need fertile and enabling soil in which to grow. I believe the scripture below pretty much sums up my analogy: Galatians 5: 13- 18: 13 “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. 16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” Our freedom is not in doubt, but Active Love conquers ALL...believe me, Active Love is at the heart of Christianity, and God is love (1 John 4: 16).