Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 10:1-18

10:1 A wise magistrate educates his people,

and the rule of an intelligent person is well ordered.

2 As the people’s judge is, so are his officials;

as the ruler of the city is, so are all its inhabitants.

3 An undisciplined king ruins his people,

but a city becomes fit to live in through the understanding of its rulers.

4 The government of the earth is in the hand of the Lord,

and over it he will raise up the right leader for the time.

5 Human success is in the hand of the Lord,

and it is he who confers honor upon the lawgiver.

The Sin of Pride

6 Do not get angry with your neighbor for every injury,

and do not resort to acts of insolence.

7 Arrogance is hateful to the Lord and to mortals,

and injustice is outrageous to both.

8 Sovereignty passes from nation to nation

on account of injustice and insolence and wealth.

9 How can dust and ashes be proud?

Even in life the human body decays.

10 A long illness baffles the physician;

the king of today will die tomorrow.

11 For when one is dead

he inherits maggots and vermin and worms.

12 The beginning of human pride is to forsake the Lord;

the heart has withdrawn from its Maker.

13 For the beginning of pride is sin,

and the one who clings to it pours out abominations.

Therefore the Lord brings upon them unheard-of calamities,

and destroys them completely.

14 The Lord overthrows the thrones of rulers,

and enthrones the lowly in their place.

15 The Lord plucks up the roots of the nations,

and plants the humble in their place.

16 The Lord lays waste the lands of the nations,

and destroys them to the foundations of the earth.

17 He removes some of them and destroys them,

and erases the memory of them from the earth.

18 Pride was not created for human beings,

or violent anger for those born of women. (Ecclesiasticus 10:1-18, NRSV)

On October 26, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two), comments were repeated from October 21, 2004, (Thursday of the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two): they are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

As today’s lesson begins, Ben Sira tells us that “a wise magistrate educates his people, / and the rule of an intelligent person is well ordered” (Ecclus. 10:1). This continues his comments on rulers that began with a comparison of an artisan’s work with the words spoken by a ruler. “A work is praised for the skill of the artisan; / so a people’s leader is proved wise by his words” (9:17). While the next verse is more general, “The loud of mouth are feared in their city, / and the one who is reckless in speech is hated” (v. 18), it may very well apply to some rulers. Burton L. Mack, revised by Benjamin G. Wright III, include these and the following verses in what they call a “description of the ideal ruler [that] has roots in traditional wisdom and in the OT. Perhaps,” they conjecture, “it serves as a veiled critique of Ptolemaic-Seleucid hegemony.” And in any event, they add, “it breaks the pattern of negative injunctions and cautionary advice that predominates in chs. 7-9” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Ecclus. 9:17-10:5). Ben Sira continues to give advice pertaining to rulers. “As the people’s judge is, so are his officials; / as the ruler of the city is, so are all its inhabitants” (10:2). Good government, he says, is from the top down. “An undisciplined king ruins his people,” says Ben Sira, “but a city becomes fit to live in through the understanding of its rulers” (v. 3). And a truly good ruler will be subject to the creator and sustainer of the world. “The government of the earth is in the hand of the Lord, / and over it he will raise up the right leader for the time” (v. 4). “Human success,” after all, is subject to the Lord’s governance, for it “is in the hand of the Lord, / and it is he who confers honor upon the lawgiver” (v. 5). In the third century B.C.E. Israel was controlled by Hellenistic (Ptolemaic) Egypt, then early in the second century by Hellenistic (Seleucid) Syria. But in his advice about rulers, Ben Sira likely remembers the “Last Words of David,” “One who rules over people justly, / ruling in the fear of God, / is like the light of morning, / like the sun rising on a cloudless morning / gleaming from the rain on the grassy land” (2 Sam. 23:3-4).

Ben Sira then continues with instructions on the sin of pride (Ecclus. 10:6-18; cf. the section label included with some printings of the NRSV, e. g. with that included in the HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006), perhaps a besetting sin of officials and rulers at many levels. “Do not get angry with your neighbor for every injury,” Ben Sira tells us, “and do not resort to acts of insolence” (v. 6). One should not take offense over minor issues. “Arrogance is hateful to the Lord and to mortals,” says Ben Sira, “and injustice is outrageous to both” (v. 7). “Sovereignty,” he says, “passes from nation to nation / on account of injustice and insolence and wealth” (v. 8). According to Mack and Wright, “Insolence, the Greek notion of arrogance and violence (hubris), is added to the Jewish concern for justice and a social critique of wealth as factors in the rise and fall of kingdoms. Insolence may be an oblique reference to Hellenistic ideologies of kings as gods” (op. cit., on v. 8). Human pride is questioned, given the transitory nature of human life. “How can dust and ashes be proud? / Even in life the human body decays” (v. 9). Harold C. Washington comments on “Dust and ashes, [cf.] Gen. 18:27; Job 30:19; 42:6,” and adds, on “the human body decays, cf. Eccl. 12:1-7” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Ecclus. 10:9). In more pointed, perhaps later, comment, some witnesses add to verse 8 or after verse 9a, “Nothing is more wicked than one who loves money, for such a person puts his own soul up for sale” (NRSV text note b). There are limits on the length of human life, even for kings, as Ben Sira points out. “A long illness baffles the physician; / the king of today will die tomorrow” (v. 10). Perhaps he implies that even the worst of rulers will not last forever. Mack and Wright suggest, “for the counterproposition that the king . . .will die, cf. Wis. 7:5-6 in tension with Wis 8:19-20” (op. cit., on v. 10). “For when one is dead,” says Ben Sira, “he inherits maggots and vermin and worms” (v. 11).

In the continuation, while the preceding verses various consequences of human pride, perhaps especially, that of rulers, pride itself is now addressed. Washington uses the label, “concerning arrogance and pride,” for the larger section (10:6-18), of which he says, “Like 9:17-10:5, this section probably has implications for rulers contemporary to the author, but several verses apply to ordinary people (vv. 6-7, 12, 18)” (op. cit., on 10:6-18). The first of these generally applicable verses comes next. “The beginning of human pride is to forsake the Lord; the heart has withdrawn from its maker” (v. 12). And Ben Sira explains: “For the beginning of pride is sin, / and the one who clings to it pours out abominations” (v. 13a, b). These lines are cited by Augustine in a classic discussion of pride.

‘Every sin,’ says he, ‘if I mistake not, is a contempt of God, and every contempt of God is pride. For what is so proud as to despise God? All sin, then, is also pride, even as Scripture says, Pride is the beginning of all sin’ [Ecclus. 10:5]. . . . ‘Pride is the commencement of all sin;’ because it was this which overthrew the devil from whom arose the origin of sin; and afterwards, when his malice and envy pursued man, who was yet standing in his uprightness, it subverted him in the same way in which he himself fell. For the serpent, in fact, only sought for the door of pride whereby to enter when he said, ‘Ye shall be as gods’ [Gen. 3:5]. Truly then it is said, ‘Pride is the commencement of all sin;’ [Ecclus. 10:13] and , ‘The beginning of pride is when a man departeth from God’ [Ecclus. 10:12]. (A Treatise on Nature and Grace, against Pelagius, chap. 33, in Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, p. 132)

Following these definitive comments on pride as sin, Ben Sira turns to the consequences. “Therefore the Lord brings upon them unheard-of calamities, / and destroys them completely” (v. 13c, d). According to Mack and Wright, “Pride and sin are joined to form a vicious cycle. Because pride stems from sin, which then produces abominations, it suffers the divine response to sin” (op. cit., on v. 13). This applies to all human pride, but Ben Sira continues to have rulers especially in mind. “The Lord overthrows the thrones of rulers, / and enthrones the lowly in their place” (v. 14). “The Lord plucks up the roots of the nations [‘proud nations’ in some witnesses, NRSV text note a], / and plants the humble in their place” (v. 15). To these lines, Washington compares a part of the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:4-8, cited in op. cit., on Ecclus. 10:14-15). Ben Sira continues: “The Lord lays waste the lands of the nations, / and destroys them to the foundations of the earth. / He removes some of them and destroys them, / and erases the memory of them from the earth” (vv. 16-17). According to Mack and Wright, “the motif of humiliation/exaltation as found in Psalms and the wisdom stories of the pious righteous one (Gen. 39-50; Dan. 1-6; Wis. 2-5) is merged with a theology of divine judgment and applied to the fall and rise of nations. This section anticipates and encapsulates 35:22-36:22” (op. cit., on 10:14-16). Pride, says Ben Sira, is not intrinsic to human beings. “Pride was not created for human beings, / or violent anger for those born of women” (v. 18). “Created,” say Mack and Wright, “translates ‘allotted,’ or ‘assigned,’ Ben Sira’s term for divine intention, agency, and will. . . . The point is that God is not responsible for sin and its effects, an issue with which Ben Sira struggles in chs. 15-17” (ibid., on v. 18).

Micah 5:1-4, 10-15 (Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions–see the comments for Saturday, October 11, 2008, twelve days ago.)

Revelation 9:1-12

9:1 And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit; 2 he opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft. 3 Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given authority like the authority of scorpions of the earth. 4 They were told not to damage the grass of the earth or any green growth or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5 They were allowed to torture them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torture was like the torture of a scorpion when it stings someone. 6 And in those days people will seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will flee from them.

7 In appearance the locusts were like horses equipped for battle. On their heads were what looked like crowns of gold; their faces were like human faces, 8 their hair like women’s hair, and their teeth like lions’ teeth; 9 they had scales like iron breastplates, and the noise of their wings was like the noise of many chariots with horses rushing into battle. 10 They have tails like scorpions, with stingers, and in their tails is their power to harm people for five months. 11 They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon.

12 The first woe has passed. There are still two woes to come. (Revelation 9:1-12, NRSV)

On October 26, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two), comments were repeated with some revision from October 21, 2004, (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two). The comments are repeated again with editing and supplement.

When “the fifth angel blew his trumpet,” says John, “I saw a star that had fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit” (Rev. 9;1). This is the fifth judgment in the second series, that of trumpets (Rev.8:6-9:21 and 11:14-19), which follows the seven seals (6:1-17 and 8:1-5), and precedes the visions of chapters 12-14, and the series of seven bowls of wrath (15:1-16:21). “The star . . . fallen from heaven,” says Bruce M. Metzger, is “one of the fallen angels, perhaps Satan himself (v. 11; Lk. 10:18)” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Rev. 9:1). Jean Pierre Ruiz explains that he is named in verse 11 (“Abaddon . . . Apollyon”; NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Rev. 9:1). According to Ruiz, “the bottomless pit is the abyss, the underworld, from which the beast arises (11:7; 17:8)” (ibid.). This “fallen star” opens the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft [rises] smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft” (9:2). Smoke indicates the presence of fire–destructive enough–but the picture changes to locusts. “Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given authority like the authority of scorpions of the earth” (v. 3). David E. Aune says the “locusts [are] an army of demons (based on the locust plague in Joel 2:1-11” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Rev. 9:3). The locusts emerge from the smoke, which comes from the bottomless pit, and so, may very well represent demonic forces. But clearly their activities are limited, for, as John makes abundantly clear throughout, God, not Satan, is in control. The locusts “were told not to damage the grass of the earth or any green growth or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads” (v. 4; cf. 7:2-8). Their powers are further limited as they “were allowed to torture them [i.e., those without God’s seal] for five months, but not to kill them, and their torture was like the torture of a scorpion when it stings someone” (v. 5). “Five months,” says Aune, with reference also to v. 10, was “the life span of the locust” (ibid., on v. 5). Those people so punished apparently would prefer death to the torture inflicted by the locusts. “And in those days people will seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will flee from them” (v. 6).

“In appearance,” says John, “the locusts were like horses equipped for battle. On their heads were what looked like crowns of gold; their faces were like human faces, their hair like women’s hair, and their teeth like lions’ teeth; they had scales like iron breastplates, and the noise of their wings was like the noise of many chariots with horses rushing into battle” (vv. 7-9). “They have tails like scorpions,” says John, “with stingers, and in their tails is their power to harm people for five months” (v. 10). And, as noted above, their king is named. “They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon” (v. 11).

Clearly, these are not merely locusts of the kind that can destroy a farmer’s crops, the basis for the locust plague of Joel 2:1-11, for example. This, says Metzger, is an invasion of “demonic locusts, which combine the terrors of evil spirits and of invading horsemen (probably Parthians)” (op. cit., on Rev. 9:1-12). According to Aune, this invasion “resembles the locust plague of Ex. 10:4-20 [on Egypt] and is modeled after Joel 2:1-11” (op. cit., on Rev. 9:1-12). The “king” of the locusts, the “angel of the bottomless pit” is called Abaddon (Hebrew) and Apollyon (Greek). According to Metzger, “the name Abaddon, which means ‘Destruction,’ denotes the depths of Sheol (Job 26:6)” (op. cit., on v. 11). There is probably something to be said for Aune’s connecting the name Apollyon to the god Apollo (op. cit., on Rev. 9:11; cf. the citation from Archillochus Lyr., [VII BC] in BADG, 1979, s.v.  jApolluvwn, Apolluōn), but the Greek word has the form of a participle,  jApolluvwn (Apolluōn), based on ajpovllumi (apollumi), the word translated “perish” in John 3:16, for example, and so is a translation of the Hebrew Abaddon. We are reminded again that, as God protected the Hebrews from the plague of locusts on the Egyptians, the redeemed are protected from this demonic plague of locusts.

The reading concludes with the note that “the first woe [i.e. the fifth trumpet] has passed. There are still two woes [i.e., the sixth and seventh trumpets] to come” (v. 12).

Luke 10:25-37

The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Mt 22.34-40; Mk 12.28-34)

25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” 27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”

29 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:25-37, NRSV)

On October 28, 2007 (the Sunday closest to October 26, Year One), comments were repeated from May 24, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were combined with revision, adaptation and supplement from October 21, 2004 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two), May 12, 2005 (Thursday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One), from October 23, 2005 (the Sunday closest to October 26, Year One), and from October 26, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year Two). The combined comments are repeated here:

On the Context of the Parable of the Good Samaritan

During Jesus’ final ministry in Jerusalem, Mark describes a series of seven episodes, mostly debates or parables, which Matthew includes in Mark’s order, but with a couple additions. Luke includes six of these in Mark’s order, but he moves the question about the Great Commandment and Jesus’ response to a different context, where it serves to introduce the Parable of the Good Samaritan. This arrangement is outlined in the following table

You may be asking, What does this table have to do with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Bear with me a little, and let me explain. A close reading of the passages listed in the above table will, of course, discover interesting differences as well as similarities in the presentations of Jesus’ teaching by the three evangelists (Matthew, Mark and Luke). In the section on the Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees, for example, Mark has four verses (3 ½ really) as compared to thirty-six verses in Matthew (Mt. 23:1-36; cf. Mk. 12:37b-40). Luke has much of the same material that Matthew presents, but in a simpler style, without ringing the changes, so to speak, on the repetition of “hypocrites.” And Luke presents it in a different context (chap. 11, not chap. 20).

Biblical scholars don’t all agree on the best way to explain the similarities and differences among the Gospels such as those illustrated by the above table. A few would not try, but simply ascribe the differences to independent sources and/or accounts. But it makes sense to me to see it this way for the passages in the above table: Matthew has used Mark as a source and maintained the sequence of Mark’s seven episodes, but has added two parables, the Two Sons and the Wicked Husbandmen, which Luke includes elsewhere in other contexts. Luke has maintained Mark’s sequence for six of these episodes, but he has broken Mark’s sequence for one; for reasons of his own he has transposed the discussion of the Great Commandment to the context where he presents the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37). In Luke this comes near the beginning of his (“Travel Narrative,” Lk. 9:51-18:14, in effect an extended narrative of Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem within which Luke includes much of Jesus’ teaching). This teaching on the Great Commandment come in answer to a Lawyer’s question (Lk. 10:25), and when the lawyer follows with another question, “And who is my neighbor?” (v. 29), Jesus responds with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. I note that this comes not long after the account found only in Luke of rejection of Jesus by a Samaritan village (Lk. 9:52-56), and the Mission of the Seventy (Lk. 10:1-12, 17-20).

For the question and answer regarding The Great Commandment, which in Luke is the context of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, see the following table:

Jesus identifies the “Great” or “First Commandment” with the Jewish “Shema” (Deut. 6:4-9) which emphasizes love of God (Mt. 22:36-37; Mk. 12:29-30; Lk. 12:27a) in response to the question, but adds on his own the “Second,” which he quotes from Leviticus 19:18, which in its Old Testament context refers to love of one’s fellow countryman, another Israelite:

You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. (Lev. 19:17-18, NRSV)

Jesus limits his quotation to the words, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt. 22:39; Mk. 12:31), abbreviated in Luke to “and your neighbor as yourself” (Lk. 10:27b). This might, but does not necessarily, include Samaritans or other Gentiles. In a sense, of course, love within the Christian community is–or ought to be–special. “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (Jn. 15:12). In the Old Testament context, later in Leviticus, chapter 19, love of neighbor is expanded to include “the alien who resides with you”:

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD. (Lev. 19:34, NRSV)

On the Parable of the Good Samaritan

Perhaps Luke’s relating this teaching to the Parable of the Good Samaritan reveals his strong interest in the mission to the Gentiles and the world at large, the progress of which he describes in detail in the Book of Acts. While he can report the hostility of a Samaritan village (Lk. 9:52-56), he can also present a Samaritan as a role model in this parable. And he reports the early church’s mission to Samaria (Acts 8:4-25). It’s a reminder that we too should expand our horizons and love those of different races, cultures, and even different religious perspectives. “Go and do likewise,” that is, show mercy.

In Luke’s Gospel, when Jesus answers the question about the greatest commandment (Lk. 10:25-28; cf. Mt. 22:34-40; Mk. 12:28-31) including “and your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18), the questioner (a lawyer) follows with “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus responds by telling the Parable of the Good Samaritan. A number of excuses might be offered (and perhaps have been offered) for the behavior of the priest (Lk. 10:31) and the Levite (v. 32) who “passed by on the other side.” The victim might be dead, and to touch him would render them ritually impure, unfit to enter the Temple, which was perhaps their destination. They may have been running late, or they may have considered it inconvenient to stop and help the victim. (Were they concentrating on their prayers?) We might spend time emphasizing the fact that it was a despised foreigner, a Samaritan [an early day Palestinian?], who “was moved with pity” (v. 34) and addressed the victim’s needs. But the simple point of the parable is the need–and the call–to find answers to needy human conditions wherever we find them, genocide, starvation, disease, state-sponsored terrorism, homeless people, and so forth. (May 12, 2005)

Michael Gourgues, (Dominican College, Ottawa, Canada) suggests that “Priests, Levites, and all the people” became a common way to refer to Jewish “religious society in its diversity (“The Priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan Revisited: A Critical Note on Luke 10:31-35, The Journal of Biblical Literature, 117/4 (1998), 710). He finds the substitution of a Samaritan for “all the [Jewish] people” in this phrase remarkable.

Had Jesus addressed the question existed in the mind of the lawyer, Luke’s narrative would have introduced the variant on the side of the victim and not on the side of the passers-by. Love of neighbor. as it was then understood, was to be exercised toward priests, Levites. and true members of Israel, which thus excluded Samaritans. A representative of one of those categories should have taken the role of the neighbor in distress by the wayside. The narrative turns the problem on its head and situates the neighbor not among those who must be loved but among those who are to love. The reversal. already imp1ied by the parable, is made explicit by Jesus’ closing question. “Who is my neighbor?’” the lawyer had asked (10:29). “Who proved himself a neighbor?’ now asks Jesus (10:36).

So why a priest and a Levite? Perhaps the simplest explanation is sociological in nature. The two characters whom the example story of the Good Samaritan first puts on the scene belong to the first two categories of the social hierarchy that dominated post-exilic Judaism. “The priests, the Levites, and all the people of Israel.” According to this traditional tripartite division, one would expect the narrative to bring on stage next a lay Israelite. And so it is totally unexpected to see a ‘Samaritan–a representative of one of the groups that all agreed to exclude from the category of neighbor–come on the scene and provide the answer to the question “Who is my neighbor?” (10:29).

Paradox of paradoxes, it is the Samaritan who, by means of a reversal of roles, becomes the very model of neighborly love. (Gourgues, 713)

Jeanne Stevenson Moessner (Columbia Theological Seminary, Decatur, Georgia) offers perspectives on the Parable of the Good Samaritan from a woman’s perspective (Journal for Preachers, 19.01, pp. 21-25):

In our customary way of reading the Good Samaritan text, women have not acknowledged a crucial aspect to the passage, an aspect so significant that it shatters previous interpretations. The Samaritan finished the journey. The Samaritan finished the journey while meeting the need of a wounded and marginal person. “The Samaritan does not give everything away; in this enigmatic parable, he did not injure, hurt, or neglect the self. He loved himself, and he loved his neighbor.” This balance in the care of self/care of other is a difficult balance for many. It is often women who have excelled in the care of the other. To be able to care for another (others) and to be able to finish one’s journey in life is a message to be proclaimed from the pulpit. (ibid., p. 22).

Moessner adds other perspectives, for example:

In application and extension of the “inn” in ministry, the inn may be a support group, a battered women’s shelter, a halfway house, a hospital, a rape crisis center, therapy, a pastoral counseling center, a specialized support group such as Bosom Buddies or Resolve or AA. The inn may be the church. . . . In an exegetical attempt to understand the inn in Luke 10, commentators do agree that the inn was a temporary lodging place, a place where a journeying person found room for the night. This night can surely include the “night of the soul,” a place of struggle and despair. Preaching the Good Samaritan from a feminist perspective brings to the pulpit an awareness of a sense of teamwork and community in ministry and healing. At a minimum, from the sermon itself, a pastor can describe the inn and give directions. (ibid., p. 23).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net