SERMON TITLE: A Question about the Law SERMON TEXT: Leviticus 21:1-6 and Luke 10:25-37 PREACHER: Rev. Kim James OCCASION: July 5, 2015, at First UMC INTRODUCTION At the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court came out with some decisions that stirred up a lot of discussion around our country. For the past couple weeks, nearly every news program, columnist, and talk show has entered into the conversation. Since this is the Fourth of July weekend, when we all have national issues on our minds, I thought it might be appropriate for us to continue that discussion here in church this morning. And, since at least one of the issues in the national spotlight has been controversial largely because of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian tradition, it seems all the more relevant to have that conversation about these matters among us, as a people of faith. There are numerous ways we could go about that, but I ve chosen for us to begin with Leviticus 21 and Luke 10, and consider how Jesus responded to a question about the law. 1 A LAWYER S QUESTION The story of the Good Samaritan is so familiar that, when I read it during the Children s Sermon, some of you may have turned your thoughts to other things. We assume we know the point of the story so well that we don t always listen. So I invite you to consider carefully how the story was set up. Luke 10 tells us that a lawyer came to Jesus and asked, Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus responded by asking the lawyer a question: What is written in the law? What do you read there? The lawyer 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. And then Jesus said to the lawyer, You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live. But the lawyer wasn t quite satisfied. Luke 10:29 says that he wanted to justify himself. So he asked Jesus another question: And who is my neighbor? Ah, now that gets to the crux of the matter,
2 doesn t it? If the lawyer had been happy with the idea of loving everyone, he wouldn t have had any need to ask this follow-up question. The very fact that the lawyer asked for more details means he was hoping to draw a line somewhere so he could exclude someone from those he would need to love. In response, Jesus told the familiar story of the Good Samaritan. In that story, Jesus made some important points. The first is that when we re talking about loving our neighbor, we shouldn t be thinking only about best-case scenarios between people who are already on equal footing with us. While neighbors of the same socio-economic class or racial group or religious faith or physical health could theoretically love each other while enjoying each other s company at a backyard barbecue, Jesus didn t tell that kind of story. Instead, by giving an example of a man who was beat up and robbed, Jesus indicated that true love and neighborliness is proven when a significant compassionate response is required and when a social injustice or imbalance needs to be rectified. In Jesus story about neighbors, someone was suffering badly, and someone else had the ability to give assistance. There was a real and time-sensitive problem that needed to be addressed. Another point of Jesus story was that long-held traditional beliefs and practices don t always provide the most neighborly and loving response. It s easy for us Christians today to dismiss the Jewish priest and Levite as being hard-hearted thugs. But, to understand Jesus story as it would have been heard when he first spoke it to a Jewish audience 2000 years ago, we need to recognize that the priest and Levite were upstanding citizens and leaders of the faith who were carefully doing what they believed was right. They were following God s law as written in Leviticus 21, where the Jewish holiness code said that priests weren t supposed to defile themselves by going too near a dead body. This rule was so strong that they could only break it for immediate family members. It turned out that the victim in Jesus story wasn t dead yet, but maybe the priest and Levite couldn t tell that unless they got up quite close and touched him. Maybe they were being overly cautious, but they were being cautious for good reason. Like the lawyer asking the questions, they wanted to inherit eternal life.
3 Yes, they were doing what they believed was right. But the irony of their situation was that, while zeroing in on the detail of this one particular law, they missed the bigger picture. What was the law for, anyway? The laws of God were given to help people love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love their neighbor as themselves. In Luke 10, Jesus didn t specifically say that the priest and the Levite should have disobeyed or disregarded the verses of Leviticus 21 in order to obey the greater, overarching law of love. But Jesus story certainly indicated that the Samaritan made the better choice. Then, Jesus told the Jewish lawyer that he should, Go and do likewise. Whenever we have a question about the law, we should always give higher priority to the law of love. 2 SUPREME COURT DECISION AND PLENARY INSPIRATION Another recent U.S. Supreme Court decision helps us understand this way of interpreting the law. On the day before the Supreme Court released its ruling about homosexual marriage, the high court also declared its ruling on the Affordable Care Act. If you weren t following the story, you might not realize that the ruling was about the four words established by the state. The challengers said that, in the 34 states that hadn t established their own healthcare exchanges, no one should be able to get any premium tax credits for their participation in the federal exchange. If you did follow the story, you know that Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. While Roberts acknowledged that their ruling departed from the most natural reading of the... phrase, he indicated that it wouldn t be wise to destroy the intent of the entire 906-page Affordable Care Act because of four words. In the 6-3 decision, Roberts wrote that " Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them... If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. * I have no doubt that some of you here today aren t happy with that Supreme Court decision. But I bring it up because it s a good example of a type of interpretation that gives more value to the overall contextual meaning than to a specific word, phrase, or even paragraph. When I was studying the
4 Bible in college and seminary, I was taught about the plenary inspiration of scripture. What that means is that, when we re trying to understand the meaning or application of a particular verse or passage of scripture, we should always think about it in relationship to the whole. Not every verse of the Bible is equally inspired. Not every word or phrase is equally beneficial. Some passages of scripture are even contrary to each other. But when read and interpreted in light of the whole of scripture, sense can be made of it and inspiration can be found. So, whenever we have a question about a particular law of scripture, we interpret it in light of the overarching law of love for God and neighbor. 3 BIBLICAL LAWS AND TRADITIONS NO LONGER PRACTICED This plenary inspiration of scripture idea is what has enabled Christians to move away from a number of ideas and practices that no longer are considered appropriate. For example, many Old Testament leaders had multiple wives. But, no, we don t think that is good practice today because we don t think that polygamy is the best way to love a spouse. In ancient biblical times, women were considered as possessions. In more enlightened New Testament times, women were still told to obey their husbands and be silent in the church. Most of us have moved past that to realize that the best way to love women is to appreciate female intellect and talents and allow us to be full partners in marriage, church, and society. Likewise, slavery was practiced without question in biblical times, and the Bible was long used to support that institution in our own country. I don t think anyone here today thinks we should go back to those ways of reading scripture. I could quote you verses that tell us that women shouldn t cut their hair, that men must cut their hair, and that men shouldn t cut their beards in certain ways. I could show you laws that say no one should get tattoos and that you must pay your employees every day. I could read you verses that say you should stone people to death or slaughter whole villages. For all you gardeners, did you know there s a law against planting more than one kind of seed in your field? For all of you who happen to be
5 wearing a shirt that is a blend of cotton and polyester, did you know there s a law against wearing garments made of more than one kind of material? And I haven t even mentioned all the laws about what you can t eat. As you can guess, I could go on and on. I m sure that those laws made some sense when they were first written down. But, in light of changes in our culture and scientific knowledge, many of those rules don t make any sense to us today. All we can do is read them with the law of love in mind. If a law truly helps us love God and our neighbors, then it s probably still valid. If it doesn t help us love God and our neighbors, then there s probably a better way of believing and behaving. CONCLUSION I know the devil is in the details. That s always true. Your idea of loving God and neighbor might be different than mine. But, for sure, we should always defer to the overarching principle of love, whenever we have a question about the law. *http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-ruling-obamacare/index.html