Sermon: A Platform of Anti-Violence

Lectionary: Epiphany 7(C)

Texts: Genesis 45:3-11, 15; Psalm 37:1-11, 39-40; Luke 6:27-38

Love Your Enemies

In the collection of Jesus’ sayings Luke has put together, we have come to perhaps the most difficult and illogical sayings of Jesus. It starts out with a rapid-fire quadruplet:

²⁷ “But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; ²⁸ bless those who curse you; pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:27-28 NRSVue, and remainder of sermon)

The word “enemies” literally means in Greek “one you hate” or “one who hates”. How does one love one’s enemies? The three phrases paralleling the first expound on the first to provide examples of how one accomplishes that kind of love.

The love that is being spoken by Luke here is not about feelings and emotions. It is about actions. I doubt any of us have kind of good feelings toward our enemies, and we are not being called to develop nice feelings toward them. But we cannot hate them in return for their hate toward us. To do so would have us become the very thing that we oppose. Instead, when we are faced with mistreatment, our response must be to reciprocate with good, offer grace, and pray for them.

Jesus continues with examples of how one loves their enemy using several scenarios. He summarizes this set with what we often refer to as the golden rule.

²⁹ If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. ³⁰ Give to everyone who asks of you, and if anyone takes away what is yours, do not ask for it back again. ³¹ Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:29-31)

The issue with these texts is that they have been misunderstood and misused. They have been used to excuse, condone, and profit from slavery. They have been used and are used to keep victims of violence quiet and submissive. To use these texts in these ways is wrong and evil. These texts do not require people to remain in places of harm or to remain quiet and continue to suffer abuse and evil. Rather, a proper understanding and interpretation show what Jesus meant with these words.

Reciprocity

The gospel of Matthew includes these same sayings, in slightly different form. Matthew’s version includes a few details that offer clues to a better understanding.

³⁸ “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ ³⁹ But I say to you: Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also…” (Matthew 5:38-39)

From how Jesus introduces this discussion, we understand that the subject under consideration is reciprocal violence. Jesus quotes from the Torah regarding what is permitted under Jewish law. Sometimes the “eye for an eye” has been interpreted as something that must be done in response to violence, but it is a limitation on how much reciprocal violence is allowed. And by the time of Jesus, such bodily mutilation was usually not exacted.

A commentary explains:

Christian interpreters have often mistaken the rule of measure for measure (“an eye for an eye”) as an example of justice without mercy or love (5:38; Exod 21:24–25; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21). However, this ancient rule, found in Mesopotamian law, limited the response to injury and insult to a proportionate punishment and brought an orderly end to blood feuds. As interpreted in the Second Temple period, satisfaction was customarily sought through monetary compensation rather than mutilation. (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

In an honor-shame society, reciprocal violence is the flipside of reciprocal hospitality and gift-giving. When one was the recipient of violence, shame came along with it, and it was necessary for the family or tribe suffering the shame to restore their lost honor through exacting vengeance upon the perpetrator. When one side regained honor, the other side then lost honor, and the cycle could easily escalate. The Torah sought to prevent this cycle from spiraling out of control by permitting one act of vengeance and only proportionate to the original harm.

But Jesus comes along and further limits reciprocal violence by telling his disciples that for them, vengeance is completely off the table as an option to respond to violence. “Do not resist and evildoer” could be taken literally, but it can also be read as, “Do not seek revenge against someone who has harmed you.”

Turning the Other Cheek

We next come to the “turn the other cheek” instruction. It could easily be seen as instruction to be a doormat in the face of violence, to just suck it up and receive the abuse. However, Matthew’s detail about the “right cheek” helps us understand how “turn the other cheek” is a form of active resistance while disengaging from retaliating with violence.

If someone was in front of you and slapped you, would it be possible to slap you on the right cheek? Only by using the left hand, correct? However, the left hand was considered unclean and used only to perform unclean tasks. To use the left hand to slap someone would also render unclean the person using the left hand to slap. Therefore, the slap had to be with right hand. The only kind of slap possible with the right hand to the right cheek is a backhand slap, a slap meant to demean, humiliate, and shame the one that is slapped. It is reserved for those that are of lower social standing than the one who is slapping. It is reserved for non-citizens, women, children, servants and slaves.[1]

When Jesus instructs the one being slapped to turn the other cheek (left), he is offering a creative solution to the problem of violence. The two usual options are to accept disrespect and dehumanization and walk away, or to respond in kind which might be the most natural desire but could have deadly consequences. Instead, Jesus’ solution is to assert one’s humanity and demand respect without resorting to violence. To offer the left check means that the slap must be done with an open hand or a fist, actions that are reserved for social equals. The one slapping is put into an awkward and humiliating position. He cannot slap or punch without acknowledging the other’s equality, but to do so would undermine himself and the social hierarchies that were believed necessary to maintain order from the gods down to the slaves.

Jesus’ solution puts a wrench into the expected cycle of violence. It is anti-violence.

Jesus Commands Anti-Violence

Toward the end of today’s gospel reading, we heard Jesus’ words, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven…” (Luke 6:37)

In The Anti-Greed Gospel, Malcolm Foley writes,

Jesus didn’t mince words about the logic of retaliation and revenge. Christians are called to consider their lives and the situations in which they might be tempted to seek revenge and refuse to do so…

If we cannot stomach one thing, it is someone getting away with evil. Yet when we retaliate, we are refusing to do the hardest and most essential action we are called by Christ to do, which is to forgive. In fact, the refusal to respond to evil with evil is what the kingdom of God is about…!

Is it hard to forgive, to eat a cost, to not strike back when we are struck? Of course! But none of that has any bearing on whether or not Christ has told us to do so. And he has. This takes violence off the table for the Christian.”  (Foley M. , 2025)

It needs to be restated, however, that this does not mean that a Christian is required to stay in unsafe places, where they continue to receive abuse. This is especially true of victims and survivors of domestic violence.

I should also define what I mean when I use the term violence. It is not just physical violence. Violence includes anything that diminishes a person’s ability to flourish as a human being. This includes financial and emotional violence: withholding means to live, threatening harm or loss, and so on. This includes inhumane government policies and indiscriminate firings. This includes poverty and homelessness.

No Exceptions

“But what about self-defense or national defense?” one might object. First, it must be asked, “Why are we so eager to find exceptions to anti-violence?” Historically, the first three centuries of Christian tradition was decidedly pacifist. Only after Constantine did Christianity cozy itself up to war and began endorsing warfare as a means of legitimating itself in the eyes of violent nations and empires.[2] On the question of self-defense we only need to look at Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he tells Peter to put down his sword and heals the ear of Malchus, which Peter had just cut off. Jesus furthermore offers to his enemy a gift of healing in response to the hate he is being subjected to.

When someone takes your coat, give him also your shirt. The first is a violent taking, a violation of one’s humanity. But the response is to give a gift.

In Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, the authors explain,

First, reciprocity is assumed and permeates the passage. Second, Jesus is redefining reciprocity but not eliminating it. Those who are harmed feel they should reciprocate harm. Part of reciprocity was that you reciprocated love to your friend and harm to your enemy… Jesus redefines reciprocity… Giving the coat [shirt in Luke] is a gift—a gift to an adversary. This is not a disinterested gift. Gifts in his reciprocal world sought to establish friendships. Giving the coat would be a gesture of magnanimity, goodwill, even a desire for relationship. It seeks to turn the adversary into a friend.  (Richards & James, 2020)

Impractical and Pie-In-the-Sky?

My vision, so accustomed to seeing the world through its eyes and thinking about these things in terms of its power and logic… I find it difficult to see how any of what Jesus is commanding could work. But let us not mince words here: Jesus is commanding his disciples to respond with gifts, mercy, and forgiveness to enemies and the hurts, harms, abuses, and threats they bring.

We can’t imagine how this could work. But it has been tried. It was first tried during the first three centuries of Christianity. The Roman empire was so threatened by this Christian response that they brought Christianity into the fold of empire to tame and control it.

It was tried by Mahatma Gandhi, who learned about Jesus’ anti-violence through Leo Tolstoy’s work, The Kingdom of God is Within You, which in turn was influenced by American Christians Adin Ballou and William Lloyd Garrison who wrote against governments engaged in violence and war. Through Gandhi’s non-violent resistance, India was freed of its colonizing powers.[3]

And influenced by Gandhi, nonviolent resistant was employed by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his efforts to extend civil rights to African Americans.

A BBC article reports on research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University which

… confirms that civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics – by a long way… Overall, nonviolent campaigns were twice as likely to succeed as violent campaigns: they led to political change 53% of the time compared to 26% for the violent protests… Once around 3.5% of the whole population has begun to participate actively, success appears to be inevitable. (Robson, 2019)

However, the method of nonviolence, the way of anti-violence, often does not bring immediate results. It is a way that is often lined with patient suffering and even martyrdom.

Following Christ’s Example

The powers of this world are maintained and enforced through threats, acts of fear and violence. Jesus came to establish a different kind of society and community—one based on love and giving—where hierarchies and power mongering would be dismantled and destroyed. No wonder the principalities and powers of this world felt threatened and executed Jesus. He lived his platform of anti-violence to the very end. He did not speak any words of vengeance upon those who took part in his execution. He did not take revenge upon any of them after his resurrection. Jesus, through his death and resurrection, broke the cycle of violence, leaving his disciples an example to follow.

We, who claim Christ’s heritage and gospel as our own, must follow in his footsteps. We must take an unequivocal stand against violence, against the threat of violence, and against the fears that they invoke. We must never resort to violence in our striving to promote and establish justice and righteousness. We must never dehumanize those that oppose us but instead respond with grace, mercy and love. We must work tirelessly to resist empire and break cycles of violence in and around us.

In closing, I again quote from Malcolm Foley,

We are encouraged to make exceptions to Christ’s commands because we think he asks too much of us. It is far too difficult for me to think creatively about resisting violence when I can lash out at my aggressor. It is far too difficult for me to respond with grace and love when my enemy is insistent on treating me like garbage. But violence and retaliation are the least creative responses to evil. The body of Christ is called to holy creativity. (Foley M. , 2025)

In the name of God who is Peace,

In the name of God who is Love,

In the name of God who empowers us to confront evil with creativity, Amen.

Bibliography

Barron, R. (2022, August 11). Why ‘turning the other cheek’ is fundamentally misunderstood. Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHIW5UDT1n8

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Foley, M. (2025). The Anti-Greed Gospel: Why the Love of Money Is the Root of Racism and How the Church Can Create a New Way Forward. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

Foley, S. (2022, October 14). Turn the Other Cheek: the radical case for nonviolent resistance. Retrieved from CBC Radio: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/turn-the-other-cheek-the-radical-case-for-nonviolent-resistance-1.6616634

Grace, S. (2025, February 18). Love Is Action. Retrieved from Companions on the Way: https://www.companionsontheway.com/post/love-is-action

Richards, E. R., & James, R. (2020). Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage, Honor, and Shame in the Biblical World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Roberts, K. (2016, January 14). Turn the Other Cheek? (Explained in Context). Retrieved from Patheos: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unsystematictheology/2016/01/turn-the-other-cheek-explained-in-context/

Robson, D. (2019, May 13). The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world. Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

 

 

---

[1] (Barron, 2022)

[2] (Foley M. , 2025)

[3] (Foley S. , 2022)

Sermon: An Uncomfortable Gospel

Lectionary 6(C)

Texts: Jeremiah 17:5-10; Psalm 1; Luke 6:17-26

Beatitudes, Gospel Differences

Poverty and Wealth, William Powell Frith, 1888

When we encounter the beatitudes, the version we usually hear or think about is the one found in Matthew. As we just heard, the version in Luke is different from the one in Matthew. Luke’s version is placed in a different setting, there are fewer blessings, and each blessing is paired with a woe. The differences speak to the different purposes each gospel writer had in including the beatitudes into their gospel account.

Matthew has Jesus going up a mountain and immediately begins speaking. For Matthew, Jesus is the new Moses and the new lawgiver, who ascends a new Sinai to proclaim a new set of laws that the new community that is being inaugurated are to follow.

Luke, on the other hand, has Jesus coming down from a mountain, to level ground. He is surrounded by people from all around the region. He met their healing needs first.[1] And then, not even standing up, he looks up to his disciples and begins to speak to them.

For Luke, Jesus is one with humanity. He is the one who came down from God’s presence, giving up all its privileges and power, and became human. Jesus is not just human, but he is one who places himself as a servant and a slave to everyone else. He is one who identifies with the lowest of the low, the most outcast and reviled, the poorest of the poor, the most abused and desperate. Ninety-percent of the people in the Roman empire lived in poverty. Two-thirds were barely surviving or worse.[2] Luke’s gospel reveals a God whose preference is for these kinds of people.[3]

The Gospel is Uncomfortable

Luke’s version of the beatitudes is very uncomfortable to read, especially for many modern Christians who do not experiencing the privations, possible persecution, and powerlessness that many first century Christians experienced. We prefer Matthew’s version that omits the woes and spiritualizes references to the poor and to the hungry. We prefer a more comfortable, domesticated, and defanged gospel.[4] But Luke challenges us to sit with the discomfort.

One commentary suggests a scenario in which Luke’s gospel might have been read.

Luke’s churches listened to this sermon read aloud as the wealthy believers reclined in the dining room (triclinium) of a Roman house and the poor sat out in the peristyle garden (Osiek and Balch: chs. 1 and 8), the setting in which Luke places Jesus’ last supper (22:14, 24–30). The sermon is specifically addressed to “disciples” (6:20) divided by economic class.[5]

This demands that we ask of ourselves: Does this scenario in any way have resonance with our own present-day circumstances? Do we sit in comfortable spaces with plenty to eat while many others remain outside and hungry?

Poor Doesn’t Just Mean Poor

We also need to better understand what the term poor meant to Jesus and to Luke. What layers of meaning are encoded in this word?

Here I quote from Dr. Jennifer Garcia Bashaw’s book Scapegoats: The Gospel Through the Eyes of Victims.

Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the law and prophets defend “the poor” and show them to be of special concern to God. The poor are not only economically disadvantaged but also victims of the unjust structures of society… The concept involves the forces that act upon people to further marginalize them. The poor are the powerless, the vulnerable, the insignificant, the exploited, and the oppressed…

The law, the prophets, and the Psalms make the claim the Yahweh takes the side of the poor and oppressed and vindicates their rights against their rich and powerful oppressors. When Jesus states that the Spirit anointed him to bring good news to the poor, we must take his meaning in its context. The good news to the poor must at the very least be about fighting the powers and systems that keep people poor.[6]

This is all in mind when Luke has Jesus saying, “Blessed are the poor, the hungry, and the weeping.” In a world where the rich and powerful control everything and they continue to amass more and more, there is nothing left for the ninety-percent. For many, there is not even a crumb.

For Luke, the community of Jesus-followers is supposed to be bringing the blessings declared by Jesus to the poor. We see this in Luke’s second volume, known to us as the Acts of the Apostles, where he describes the very first Christ-followers working together. Those with means donated money and food so that the poor would experience the blessings that Jesus taught.

Woes of Wealth

However, as the record of Acts reveals and with what we read about in the Corinthian church, the cultural tradition and human nature associated with wealth and privilege corrupted the equitable treatment of people in the church. And that is perhaps one reason why unlike Matthew, Luke is explicit and includes woes to pair with the blessings.

The wealthy would like everyone else to believe that the availability of wealth is infinite, and therefore anyone could become wealthy with enough hard work or luck. But this is a lie. Throughout history, the wealthy became wealthy through exploitation of others.

For Luke who pairs the blessings and woes, he intends to make his audience understand that,

As soon as the rich no longer exploit the poor, the poor will experience comfort. The two fates are interrelated; Jesus is calling out and convicting the oppressor so that the suffering of the oppressed might end.[7]

For those who claim to follow the way of Jesus Christ, this must be doubly true, otherwise we are not following Christ.

Hated for Being Generous Like Christ

But what about the last pair of blessings and woe? This is the one where the blessing reads, “Happy are you when people hate you, reject you, insult you, and condemn your name as evil because of the Human One?” And the corresponding woe, “How terrible for you when all speak well of you?”

It is suggested that at least some of Luke’s audience did take Jesus’ message to heart. Referring back to a commentary read earlier,

Patrons in the Lukan house churches [invited] their poor brothers and sisters to dinner (14:12–14), which generated ostracism from their wealthy, disapproving peers. This relates the fourth beatitude directly to the first, since the disciples were acting and eating according to Jesus’ teaching.[8]

Larycia Hawkins, a biblical scholar said in a podcast interview I listened to,

… What does it mean to have a perspective of the oppressed? And this is what I believe Jesus did. I believe Jesus saw people—Jesus saw people created in God’s image. Jesus dared to be touched and moved by them. He saw that they were harassed and helpless like sheep without a shepherd…

How do you heal lepers if lepers live in leper colonies? You go where the lepers are. So I think the impulse to be at the center, centers of power as opposed to clamoring to be last, not first, is anathema to embodied solidarity. So I think there’s something about proximity to suffering that we need to relearn and reclaim. I think the desert is, and the wilderness is, where a lot of us need to be to be rejuvenated, to have our faith challenged. And we could also talk about that as the margins, right? And so where are these marginal places?

And when we are in places of power, are we willing to do risky things?[9]

A Challenge to Live Out the Gospel of Liberation

And I think that is the question we need to wrestle with at this time in history. When so much of what passes for Christianity seems enamored with power, privilege, and comfort, are we willing to risk our reputations and our livelihoods to stand up for the true gospel of liberation that Christ announced and lived out? Are we prepared to do more than just see the poor and oppressed as subjects of theology and our charity? Are we ready to speak out against the systems, institutions, policies, and governance that create and perpetuate poverty? Are we willing to risk our own comfort and security to actively work to dismantle systems of injustice and oppression, wherever they occur?

A few chapters later in Luke, Jesus says to all who seek to follow him, “All who want to come after me must say no to themselves, take up their cross daily, and follow me. All who want to save their lives will lose them. But all who lose their lives because of me will save them.” (Luke 9:23-24 CEB)

This week, I invite you to meditate on the discomfort of the gospel of liberation and the cruciform life demanded by it.

In the name of God who lifts the poor,

In the name of God who comforts the oppressed,

And in the name of God who calls us to join with our suffering siblings, Amen.

Works Cited

Bartlett, D. L., & Taylor, B. B. (2009). Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 1 (Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Garcia Bashaw, J. (2022). Scapegoats: The Gospel Through the Eyes of Victims. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2014). Feasting on the Gospels: Luke, Volume 1, Chapter 1-11. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

The Bible for Normal People. (2025, February 10). Episode 52: Larycia Hawkins – Embodied Solidarity. Retrieved from The Bible for Normal People: https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/episode-52-larycia-hawkins-embodied-solidarity/

 

---

[1] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014)

[2] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[3] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014)

[4] (Bartlett & Taylor, 2009)

[5] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

[6] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[7] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022)

[8] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

[9] (The Bible for Normal People, 2025)

Sermon: "Who Is My Neighbor?"

Lectionary: Epiphany 4(C)
Texts: 1 Corinthians 13; (Luke 10:25-37)[1]

Jesus Mural of Faith, Hope, Love, and Peace: This mural places Jesus centerstage with arms outstretched, welcoming all people to him. Incorporated into the figure of Jesus is a mosaic quality that undoubtedly represents his multifaceted nature as well as the ability for all peoples to claim him as their own. Surrounding him is a diverse group holding hands in unity. One of the scripture passages listed for this image gives us the second greatest commandment: “to love one’s neighbor as oneself.” In loving one another, we stimulate peace, faith, and hope for the war-torn and unjust world in which we live. This painting reminds us that it is in our love for one another—a love that seeks equality and justice for all—that we show true, deep, and abiding love for God as well.

Introduction

Like any good lawyer, the teacher of the Law who came to question Jesus already knew the answer to his question. He didn’t like the answer he knew to be correct and perhaps wanted to find out if Jesus might come up with a loophole.

When we hear “teacher of the Law” we might assume a kind of a lawyer or legal expert. And that is true, but only to a point. When the text reads, “the Law”, we are to understand that this is the Torah, the entirety of the codes and principles that guide the life of a Jewish person. This individual is not merely versed in legal codes, but in theology, religious practices, social and cultural traditions, and politics. We need to understand that neither the lawyer or Jesus are limiting their questions and responses to the spiritual and theological realm but includes the entirety of the world, life, and being.

In response to the lawyer’s question, “Who is my neighbor?”, Jesus offers a parable – one that we often refer to as The Good Samaritan parable.

But first, I would like to examine what love means, since the heart of the lawyer’s question and Jesus’ response revolves around loving God and loving one’s neighbor.

Paul’s Description of Love

1 Corinthians 13 is often read at weddings, to explain and exhort the wedded couple to the idealized love that is found in Christ. While not a wrong application, to limit what Paul wrote to the Corinthians to individual couples and marital love is to miss the point of Paul’s words. The description of love that Paul provides in this letter is the ultimate social practice that is to be practiced and lived out by all who claim allegiance to Jesus Christ. Love is the practice that holds Christ’s community together. It is the foundation upon which all of Christianity rests.[2]

The first three verses of 1 Corinthians 13 tell us that no activity, however virtuous and good they may be, is worthless if they are not founded in love and motivated through love. A commentary explains,

These words on the primacy of love can help the church in conflict understand that there are some things more important than being right or powerful or honored. If those within the church do not do what they do in a spirit of love, then all religious talk, knowledge, piety, and sacrificial giving add up to nothing… Those who think they have gained everything by standing on principle, dominating others, or by being right, have lost it all.[3]

The final six verses (8-13) tell us that nothing of this world will remain past the end of time, except for love. A commentary explains, “All that will be left, all that will be necessary, will be the completeness (to teleion, v. 10) of relation, human and divine, which is love.”[4]

The center of the chapter describes the characteristics of God-like love that is to be developed and manifested in all who follow Christ.

⁴ Love is patient, love is kind, it isn’t jealous, it doesn’t brag, it isn’t arrogant, ⁵ it isn’t rude, it doesn’t seek its own advantage, it isn’t irritable, it doesn’t keep a record of complaints, ⁶ it isn’t happy with injustice, but it is happy with the truth. ⁷ Love puts up with all things, trusts in all things, hopes for all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7 CEB)

Paul wrote to a church in Corinth that was experiencing severe conflicts and differences among different factions within it. Each of the attributes of love he notes is related to some conflict that is described elsewhere in the letter and is offered as a response and solution to mitigating conflicts.

For Paul, our capacity to flourish as human beings is realized to the extent that we can live in the love of God revealed in the cross of Jesus Christ. The concrete reality of this divine love is present in our lives as described in verses 4 through 7 [above], where love is the subject, actively expressing itself in patience and kindness, rejoicing in the truth, and bearing, and believing, hoping, and enduring all things. This love is not envious, boastful, arrogant, rude, irritable, or resentful, nor does it insist on its own way.[5]

This is the measure that Christians are to use to judge every thought, action, word, and decision, their own and those outside of them. For Christians, all human laws, political ideologies, religious traditions, social customs, and everything else is secondary to the standard of God’s love.

None of us are yet perfected, as Paul admits in this same chapter, but we can judge on a continuum from clearly against God’s standard of love to striving toward God’s ideal vision of love.

Parable of the Good Samaritan

We now return to the parable Jesus told, the parable of the Good Samaritan.

When this parable is taught and preached, the focus is frequently on the two that passed by the wounded and naked man or the Samaritan who stopped to help. Today though, I would like to spend some time thinking about the man who was beaten and left for dead and think about how he ended up there.

Who or What is the “Thieves”?

The text reads, “A man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. He encountered thieves, who stripped him naked, beat him up, and left him near death.” (Luke 10:30 CEB) Now this could describe someone who is literally injured and those who are metaphorically hurt, suffering loss, in need, helpless, and so on. But how did that happen? It was the work of “thieves”. So who or what might be the “thieves” indicated in this text?

I think I am safe to assume that we understand that “thieves” does not mean literal thieves and literal stealing. I think we understand that the word is a metaphor for something else. In John’s gospel, Jesus speaks of himself as “the gate”:

⁷ So Jesus spoke again, “I assure you that I am the gate of the sheep. ⁸ All who came before me were thieves and outlaws, but the sheep didn’t listen to them. ⁹ I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out and find pasture. ¹⁰ The thief enters only to steal, kill, and destroy. I came so that they could have life—indeed, so that they could live life to the fullest. (John 10:7-10 CEB)

Taking this text into account together with who Jesus was addressing, “thieves” can mean civil, political, and religious authorities and powers. It can be rules, laws, policies, traditions, beliefs, etc. that ultimately accrue benefits to the authorities and powers who are imposing laws and policies, collateral damage to anyone else be damned in their minds.

Identifying the Thieves

We are living in a time when ruling powers and authorities, corporations and those who run them, and even leaders of churches and religious groups are acting like the “thieves” alluded to by Jesus. Through policies, laws, economic actions, and even through religious appeals, they hurt and harm, they take lives and livelihoods, and using lies and fear they seek to confuse and control.

For most of our lifetimes, the moral and ethical divide between the broader society, government, and religion vs. the way of God’s love has not been quite so wide. But today, the differences are stark. We cannot have it both ways anymore. We must make a choice: the world’s way or God’s way. Do we choose to maintain self-interest, go along with what the powers and authorities of the world demand, do we acquiesce to them? Or do we stand up for the way of God’s self-sacrificing love?

Do we define “neighbor” narrowly as the law expert wanted to do? Do we limit “neighbor” to those with a specific nationality, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, socioeconomic status, political affiliation, religion, and beliefs?

Or do we accept and believe what Jesus taught and courageously accept everyone as our “neighbor”? Do we accept and treat those unlike us as neighbors? How about those that hold opposite views and ideologies from us? Or how about those that the laws and policies of the land declare as “not belonging”? And how about those whose words and actions don’t show any signs of love and mercy? How about those that we think don’t deserve love or mercy?

Power and Primacy of Love

Love got Jesus crucified. Are we courageous enough to let the persuasive and sacrificing power of love do its work? It may take time beyond our own lifetimes. Yet simultaneously, are we willing to love one’s neighbor by doing work now to protect those that are targets of scapegoating, prejudice and hate, unjust policies and laws, intolerance, bigotry, discrimination, and resentment? Are we willing to set aside our own interests and our own security to do work to stop and change actions, official or otherwise, that cause harm, injury, and loss to someone, whether that harm and loss is physical, relational, or emotional?

In a post on the site Whosoever, Candace Chellew writes, “We either believe that love is stronger than hate, or we don’t. We can’t waffle on this issue…”, and “we must double down on our inner work of rooting out hatred and fear from our own hearts and minds.”[6]

“Who is my neighbor?” is perhaps a misdirected question.

Returning to one of the commentaries from earlier, the author writes,

The lawyer had wanted to know, “Who is my neighbor?” The question seeks definition. Where are the limits of one’s legal responsibility to love another as oneself? Is “neighbor” a geographical term? Is it an ethnic or tribal term? To answer the question of limits is also necessarily to comment on who exists beyond the definition. Maybe that is why Jesus does not answer the question asked by the lawyer. In the parable Jesus tells, he defines “neighbor” not as someone worthy to receive love but as someone able to offer it. Jesus leads the lawyer to the conclusion that neighbors are those who act in love toward others.[7]

Jesus told the lawyer and by extension, us, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:37b CEB)

Offering your love, mercy, and compassion to your neighbor was an act of dissent then as it is now. It is a sign that Christians do not acquiesce to unjust leaders, laws, and demands.

In the name of God who Creates,

In the name of God who Loves,

And in the name of God who comforts the discomforted and discomforts the comfortable, Amen.

Works Cited

Bartlett, D. L., & Taylor, B. B. (2009). Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 1 (Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Chellew, C. (2025, January 25). Be the Change... Within. Retrieved from Whosoever.: https://whosoever.org/be-the-change-within/

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2014). Feasting on the Gospels: Luke, Volume 1, Chapter 1-11. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Smith, E. (2025, January 29). What would a federal freeze mean? Retrieved from Friendly Neighbor Epidemiologist: https://emilysmith.substack.com/p/what-would-a-federal-freeze-mean

 

 

---

[1] I modified the readings and sermon topic after reading “A Note to Clergy” at the end of (Smith, 2025).

[2] Let us recall 1 John where God is described as love itself.

[3] (Bartlett & Taylor, 2009)

[4] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

[5] (Bartlett & Taylor, 2009)

[6] (Chellew, 2025)

[7] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014)