Thoughts on Luke 10:25ff – The Story of the Good Samaritan

        This blog is just some quick thoughts on several topics, and is not meant to be a totally coherent view on the same. 

       The first verse of this passage piqued my interest today because it used an odd phrase, which, by the way, Jesus did not concern himself with. Notwithstanding the fact that the expert in the law is testing Jesus, he uses the word "inherit" beside a phrase that connotes "doing something" in order to gain something else. "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" I looked up the word "inherit" in the Greek, which is"kleronomeso". It basically means to acquire or possess something by casting lots. This is similar to the Hebrew word "yaw-rash" found in Genesis 21:10, which means "to take possession of", and is used in the context of Ishmael not getting Abraham's inheritance that Isaac will get. This Hebrew word can mean "to take posession by force", but in the context, it is used in the normal way that we think about inheritance. It is something that we get by chance or plan, but only at someone else's will. It is never something that we earn, like wages or justice deserved. Despite the fact that much work is done by people to subtly and subconciously influence a decedent before their death to plan on bequeathing something of value to them, it is still the decedent who decides what to leave to the heir. It does not have to be based upon anything done by the inheritor. It can simply be based upon the fact that the next of kin will get what the previous person has accumulated. It can be based upon tradition also, such as the firstborn son getting a larger portion of the decedent's estate. It can entail a culturally set percentage of goods to all persons born to a parent. This would seem like the basis for the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15. The few verses of Luke 12:13-14 mention a scenario in which a brother gets all of the inheritance, part of which the other brother thinks he deserves. No explanation is given here; instead a warning of greed is given by Jesus.

      In all of these aforementioned passages, the idea of inheritance is not based upon receiving, as if one is owed wages. Oh, there are hints in the text, that might make the recipients think this way, and they probably do. However, a true inheritance is not worked for, but simply received from the person bequeathing. This idea is important when reading verses like Ephesians 1:14, which links inheritance with believing, not with working. Of course, on the surface, the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:34ff give the idea that obtaining the inheritance is based upon works, specifically visiting prisoners, clothing the naked, and feeding the hungry. Then again, one could argue correctly, that putting our saving faith in Jesus (believing) is the foundation for those good works to be produced by the Holy Spirit as he changes our behavior. Or the idea of works in 25:34f could be a follow-up to the previous parable in verses 14-30, which does emphasize "doing" something with the talents. Colossians 3:24 may be the outlier in providing an exception to the rule of "inheritance; in context, it mentions our inheritance as a reward for "working for the Lord" (verse 23). Perhaps there is a general inheritance for all believers – eternal life; and extra inheritance based upon the works that we have done, which we also know is true, as there are many scriptures that speak of recompense, just not using the word "inheritance".

       Back to the lawyer in Luke 10 – maybe it wasn't a stretch then for him to use the word "inherit" as he was thinking of what must be "done". Jesus does provide an answer that consists of "doing". Love God wholeheartedly and love neighbor as yourself will bring life, as he affirms the lawyer's own answer. Here is where the problem enters. The lawyer seems to want to quantify how much of this loving someone else is required. The commandments themselves are vague in the percentage category, unless one considers loving God with all of our being as 100%. Loving our neighbors as our selves would also count within that 100%, since loving someone like we love our own selves would be obeying God, so that counts as loving God. Nonetheless, the lawyer was sneaky; that is why he was a lawyer – obeying the letter, but not necessarily the spirit. The percentage thereof, he was trying to elicit from Jesus. Once again, Jesus hit him right where he needed it the most. Taking time to care for some loathsome half-breed pagan is not what the lawyer wanted to hear, which is why Jesus told it to him.

       How often has God put "undesirables" in our lives in order for us to accommodate them, which is really loving God. Picking up drunks on the side of the road, or giving hitchhikers a lift, or giving local drunks a ride home, or giving something tangible to a panhandler, or even "rescuing" naked women on Rt 9, are just some examples of what Len and I have experienced. I am sure that we all have supported foreign and native ministries that do exactly what Jesus called for in Matthew 25.

       Back to the Prodigal Son story. I have some more thoughts on the side of the story that was left unsaid. Of course, the point of the story that Jesus was making was the great love of the father for his wayward son – redemption from a sinful life. What about the inheritance though? The son received his portion of what would have been the current physical inheritance, if the father had died at that point. From the gist of the story, it sounds like it was just cash. So now, what does the son get after the father dies, since the son squandered everything previously given. Well, he does not get the portion of his brother. Even though his brother is miffed by the father welcoming his brother back, his father still has a right to treat him as he wishes. The older brother's portion is technically not his yet. However, the father would not be unfair in any future dealings. Whatever the estate was worth when the younger brother left, would definitely be the older brother's when the father died. What if the estate grows even further before the father dies? He is free to still give any portion of that to the younger brother. The father's point in reacting to the older brother is to point out that the father is ready to lavish his love upon the whole family if they would only ask. Why do I think the younger son will get next to nothing when the father dies? Proverbs 20:21 fits perfectly into this story – "An inheritance quickly gained will NOT be blessed in the end." Nonetheless, the younger brother probably doesn't even care at this point; he is just glad that Dad took him back in, where there is plenty to eat. He probably already knows that there will be nothing left when Dad dies, but it doesn't matter. He has come to his senses and knows that he is loved and taken care of, as long as the father is alive. Once the older brother has most of the estate, what will happen then?

       I often think of these types of earthly scenarios that actually happen around the world, as we all progress in our years of attempting to please God. I think of Paul, who was told in Acts 9:16 "I will show him how much he must suffer for my name". I wonder if that suffering was a worldly recompense for all the persecution that he perpetrated. Then, I wonder how much of that suffering was counted as participating in the sufferings of Christ (Philippians 3:10).

       So, be careful of what you wish from your earthly inheritance, and strive for the rewards that may be linked to a fantastic eternal inheritance that we don't deserve anyway.