15TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (YEAR C)

1st Reading         Deuteronomy 30: 10-14

Psalm                    69: 13 & 16, 29-30, 32-33, 35ab & 36 (R. 32)

R:// "You who are poor, seek God, and your hearts will revive"

2nd Reading       Colossians 1: 15-20

Gospel                  Luke 10: 25-37

LIVE THE LAW

Beloved, today is the 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year C), and the second Sunday of the month of July. Let us see what the Word of God has for us. Our first reading is from Deuteronomy 30: 10-14, and the Gospel is from Luke 10: 25-37. Let us spend some time with the Gospel passage. 

The Gospel passage has parallels in Matthew 22: 34-40 and Mark 12: 28-34, but with textual differences. While Luke has the parable, Matthew and Mark do not. Also, in Matthew and Luke, the Lawyer asks the question to test Jesus, but Mark presents him as one who genuinely wants to know. In addition, Matthew and Mark have Jesus give the two commandments of love in the first part of the Gospel passage, but Luke has the Lawyer giving the commandments in response to Jesus' question. These textual differences are not in a way to falsify the narratives but to stress the authors' intentions and perspectives from which they tell the same and/or similar stories.

In today's narrative from Luke, we hear of a Lawyer who asks Jesus a question to test him. There is something hidden in that information that the narrator relays to us. He identifies the man as a "Lawyer". The Greek word is "Nomikos" (νομικός), from which we can easily deduce the English word "Norm." A norm is a rule of society expected to be obeyed by all. This is the manner of behaviour or the behavioural pattern of a society. This man is a master in the field of the "norm" of the Jewish society. Which "norm"? It is the Mosaic Law. He knows and is well versed in the Law. The Law should teach him the right path to eternal life. However, since his intention is to "test" Jesus, the question itself is not to know but to disgrace Jesus. In fact, his testing is modelled after the test of the evil one. Again, the Greek word translated as "test" is "ekpeirazō", and it is the same word used in Luke 4:12 to denote the testing of Jesus by Satan in the desert. What it means is that the Lawyer is doing the work of the evil one (Satan). The issue is that, first, let us not think that a battle once won is a forgone or concluded battle. We are sure to continue fighting those battles as long as we live because those battles come up in new and different forms. Secondly, knowledge and expertise should not be avenues to render others unknowledgable and disgrace them. The Lawyer is using his mastery of the Law to manipulate and wants to try that on Jesus, the Law himself. 

Talking about knowledge and action, the second point is that there seems to be a disconnect between the Lawyer's occupation and allowing his expertise to positively impact his life. The Lawyer knows the combination of quotations from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 as a response to Jesus' question. As a lawyer and an expert, he knows the best responses in the Law. However, his knowledge is not leading him to act (or to do). If it were, for fear and reverence of the Law, he would not be testing and be doing the work of the evil one. The narrative is structured on the motif of "doing". How? 

The Lawyer asks, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?". The Lawyer answers, and Jesus says to him, "do this and you will live". His further inquiry about who a neighbour is leads to the parable. In the end, Jesus asks him who was neighbour to the victim. The lawyer said, "the one who did (or showed) mercy to him". The passage ends with Jesus telling the lawyer, "Go and do likewise". The lawyer clearly has a disconnect between knowledge and action. Knowledge is not necessarily virtue but a path to virtue. It becomes virtue when put to practice.

The third point is that when Jesus asked him who was neighbour to the victim, the lawyer did not mention "the Samaritan". He rather said, "the one who showed mercy on him" (Lk. 10: 37). This response can be seen from two perspectives. On the one side is a display of the rift between the Jews and the Samaritans. The Lawyer, a Jew, did not want to mention Samaritan or even Samaria in order to reveal that his "fraternal enemy" did what was ideal. On the other hand is the description of the man by his deeds. This shows that good deeds and nearness to the ideal act breaks all cultural and tribal boundaries. Whenever we do what is right, it is not our personality that is known but the good we do. Although our names and identities are important, our good deeds speak louder of us. In addition to this, the passage never tells us whether the helpless man was healed or he died, since the author said he was "half dead". It is the proper help that is necessary, and it alone is enough. Do not focus on the effect a good action will produce. Just do good. 

The final point is that we hear of a Priest (a descendant of Aaron) and a Levite (a descendant of Levi) who passed by without acting. The Priest and the Levite cannot exonerate themselves because they were walking the same path as the helpless man. The man was walking down from Jerusalem to Jericho. The Priest and the Levite were also walking down from Jerusalem to Jericho. They cannot be said to be going to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice. It is true that the touching of a dead body might defile them. The narrator said the man was left half dead. The man might have already died. But, in fact, there was no urgent reason for them to keep clean, since they were coming down from Jerusalem to Jericho: their service in the Temple was finished. They were called from worship to service, but they, like the lawyer, had a disconnect between knowledge and worship and action. In the final analysis, the Samaritan helped. He becomes the embodiment of true neighbourliness. 

What about the helpless man? We do not know whether he is a Jew or a Samaritan. He is just referred to as a "man," and the author uses the Greek generic term for human beings for him, thus "anthropos". This means that, in Luke's mind, it could be anyone. The man's hidden identity transcends all known boundaries. 

He was moving from Jerusalem. Prominently, the Temple is in Jerusalem. It is possible that he went to worship in the Temple. If that is the case, then in the spiritual sense, he acquired so many graces from his worship. These are the goods he had and was attacked by robbers. The robbers could be the world's changing scenes and persecutions. He lost his graces. Yes, he should lose them because he was leaving the centre of God's protection, the Temple. He was travelling away from the light. We should not blame the Priest and the Levite so much because they were also taking the same route. It could also be that the man is not a Jew, in which case he is a merchant who went to Jerusalem to trade and was robbed on his way back. 

Regardless, we identify this man daily in our own lives. There are many who are travelling away from the light with the many graces they have acquired. Can we lead them back to the light? Closely considered, the Lawyer was also being led away from the light, from true knowledge, which includes action. 

There are many such thoughts from the Gospel passage of today. However, remember that the one you think is neighbour to the helpless man will reveal your closeness to the Law of God.

Pax et Bonum