Bible for Catholic Nerds – The theme of the road “To do and to listen”

The theme of the road

“To do and to listen”

“When the days for his being taken up were fulfilled, he resolutely determined to journey to Jerusalem.” We are in chapter 9, verse 51, of the Gospel according to Luke. It is considered the central verse, the articulation of the story of the third evangelist. Luke follows the plot of the synoptic tradition common to Mark and also to Matthew, however, he does rework the material a bit.

Many texts are also common to the other evangelists and that is why I prefer to emphasize those aspects that are proper and exclusive to Luke. This is why this verse underscores the importance Luke places on the trip to Jerusalem. It was the decisive journey of his life; Mark and Matthew also remember that Jesus moved from Galilee to Jerusalem, but Luke gives this trip a particular connotation and serves precisely to collect a lot of material that he gathered from his experience, in the collection of the tradition that he himself made.

On this trip Luke inserts his own material. It is what scholars call the great Lucan insertion. Practically from chapter 9 to chapter 19. Ten chapters that characterize the trip; not that an actual trip is described, but it is said repeatedly that Jesus was on the way and in this starting text the evangelist emphasizes that Jesus made a firm decision to set out. Literally, in Greek, the evangelist says that Jesus “hardened his face,” frowned, and left. Setting out is the result of a decision. In Galilee, after all, Jesus was fine; he had many friends, crowds flocked to cheer him; he could stay quietly in that environment, far from Jewish power because Galilee was a semi-pagan land.

Going to Jerusalem involves a very high risk and in fact before going Jesus moved north, where he questioned the disciples about their conviction and announced his imminent death. He took them up the mountain to pray, as Luke points out, and on the mountain as he prayed, his face changed in appearance, the Father revealed to the disciples that Jesus was right. He is the Son. The path indicated by him, even if it is painful, is the correct one. And at this moment Jesus leaves, makes the firm decision to set out.

Luke gives great symbolic weight to the road; most likely the reason is his personal experience. Luke was a doctor from Antioch who learned about Christianity through Barnabas and Paul, He became a collaborator of Paul and with the apostle he walked a lot, he traveled the ancient world, on foot, by boat, with all kinds of means; he changed countries constantly, had contact with many people, they had innumerable experiences of proclaiming the gospel. They lived a life on the road and this experience of theirs of an apostolic life on the road was projected to Jesus himself and emphasized Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem.

That geographic narrative that in itself can be carried out in a few days, becomes for Luke the emblem of the spiritual path of the Church; it is the pedagogical path with which Jesus trains his disciples. Along the way to Jerusalem Jesus educates his disciples as a good pedagogue and he offers them the fundamental elements to walk in the Christian life. We must not forget that in Hebrew the verb ‘to walk’ is used with the metaphorical value of ‘to behave.’ Walking as children of light means living well, behaving according to God’s revelation.

The way is the style, it is the way of life, to the point that Luke uses the word ‘way’, in Greek odòs, to indicate the Christian community. The term ‘Christianity’ is not used as an abstract term. The first Christians are identified in the Acts of the Apostles as ‘those of the way,’ those who belong to the road. The Greek term odòs remains in English in the word ‘method’ = ‘Met odos’, that is, the accompaniment on the way. The method is the way of life. The way of Jesus is the teaching on how to live, and the new life of the apostles, transformed by the grace of Jesus, is the experience of the Church.

Therefore, Jesus decides to go to Jerusalem. And he departs, but starts by sending his disciples ahead to prepare the way. Luke narrates—only Luke—the mission of 72 other disciples. The old codes do not match the number, some mention 72, and others 70. The numbers refer to the nations known at the time. In chapter 10 of Genesis there is a symbolic image of the land inhabited by 70 or 72 peoples, there is this variant in the texts which is also reproduced in the gospel codes. Seventy is the number of all nations. Seventy disciples are destined for all peoples.

“The Lord appointed another 70 disciples.” It is very important in the Gospel of Luke to note the use of the term ‘Lord’ because it is quite normal for people to address Jesus calling him ‘Lord,’ but it is only the evangelist Luke who uses the expression ‘Lord’ in the narration, in the narrative parts, to refer to Jesus. And he doesn’t always use it, he uses it in some cases. When he uses it, it is to give a particular role to Jesus. It’s like saying: it’s not primarily about the historical man Jesus, but about the ‘Lord.’ It is a very important term, it is the risen Christ, it is God himself.

These 70 or 72 disciples, are sent to all nations and in the midst, is also Luke and there are all the others who have evangelized the peoples after the Passover of Christ. It is a kind of prophetic image: The Lord sent disciples on this mission to all peoples. And we would also say, at all times. The instructions given to these missionaries are similar to those he has already given to the twelve apostles. Twelve for the tribes of Israel, 70 for all peoples: universalist discourse.

Another typical element of Luke: the gospel is for all nations, for all people. The openness of the message of Jesus is universal. As soon as the journey has begun, Luke places an episode that in the tradition of the synoptics takes place in Jerusalem in the last days of Jesus’ ministry.

A doctor of the law approaches him and to put Jesus to the test, he asks: ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ It is the question of the commandment, of the main commandment, that the expert scribe already knows the answer, and in fact, anticipates it: “You shall love the Lord your God, and you should love your neighbor.” Two quotes from Deuteronomy and from Leviticus which are not the synthesis of the Christian message; it’s just a passage of two biblical texts that shows that even in the Old Testament revelation there was this precept of love. Jesus points out to that scribe that the question he asked did not make sense; he already knew the answer; it was just to test him that he was asking the question. Therefore, to justify himself, to deepen the question, he asks another question: “But who is my neighbor?”

And this is an exclusive detail of Luke, just like the following story with which Jesus gives the answer. The term ‘neighbor’ – ‘proximity’ is a Latinism and means: very close, it is the superlative of ‘prope’ that indicates closeness, so it would be incorrect to say ‘closest’ even if it is used because ‘neighbor’ in the New Testament is already a superlative and it is the way we have translated “πλησίον’ – ‘plesíon’, the neighbor, which in Hebrew is ‘reaj’: it is the friend, the partner, the colleague, the companion, the one who belongs to your environment. Who should I consider my friend? The precept of Leviticus says: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”: your partner, your colleague, your neighbor, but who is the one who deserves to be loved by me?

This is the question that the scribe asks and Jesus reverses the question because in the end, after having told the story of that man who ran into thieves, Jesus asks the doctor of the law: “Who is it that has acted as a neighbor to the unfortunate?” And the scribe answers: “The one who treated him with mercy.” So the question is not who deserves to be helped, but who is willing to help.

Let’s try to change the scene. I can ask myself ‘who is my friend’ and I evaluate the people I know distinguishing and looking for those who are my friends, but it would be correct to reverse the question and ask: “I, who am I a friend of?” How many people do I treat as a friend? Am I friend with these people or do I hope others to be my friends? The inversion of the question is very important because it contains the perspective of Jesus which is that of a generous friendship that takes the first step and gives his life for us.

The story that turns the mind upside down is that parable we call the ‘Good Samaritan’ but the central character is the man who came down from Jerusalem to Jericho. It is the only parable set in a specific geographic location. It is a very hard road that crosses a horrible desert; there are about 30 kilometers from Jerusalem to Jericho, with a considerable difference in height, about a thousand meters. It is the trip of a day; it is an area infested by bandits where better not to stop. The pilgrims going up to Jerusalem left Jericho early in the morning and reached the holy city at night; or vice versa, when they left Jerusalem, they stopped at Jericho.

A man was coming down from the holy city, which is high, to the lowest city on earth. Jericho is located in the depression of the Jordan; it is a very low area. Jericho means ‘moon.’ It refers to an ancient lunar cult, therefore, it has the connotation of a night city. In the various Gospel narratives Jesus in Jericho meets the blind and sinners.

The man who descends from Jerusalem to Jericho has been interpreted in the patristic tradition like man himself – ‘adam’ and this descent is the fall through sin. The story told by Jesus could be interpreted in some sociological way; that man could be an Essene who is beaten by fanatics, not helped by the Levitical class, but rescued by a Samaritan foreigner. It would be a way of saying that, within Jewish society, despite differences in politics, mentality, religion, people can be open to others.

But it seems to me that the deep theological reading that the Fathers knew how to give is more useful. Perhaps they exaggerated the allegorical explanation, finding meaning in every detail, but in the general context the man is the protagonist, a man who stumbled upon bandits who leave him on the road half dead. Instinctively we readers choose to put ourselves in the place of the priest or the Levite (two who have the same attitude, therefore, they make a single character) and the Samaritan. The priest and the Levite do not help him, instead the Samaritan is moved and helps.

Instinctively we wonder if we put ourselves in the shoes of one or the other; instead, the critical point of the narrative is the man who ran into the bandits, stripped of his possessions, wounded and left half dead —half dead, so the other half is alive—in a condition of loss, of a serious injury. He risks death.

I am that man. Human nature is wounded by sin and it is there, on the road (Luke likes the image of the road a lot) where the Samaritan was passing through, the others too… if they pass that way it means that they were traveling; nobody lived there, but it is emphasized that the Samaritan was traveling; the Samaritan is a Christological figure; he reminds Jesus himself, he is the divine foreigner who approaches man, sees him, feels compassion.

The Greek text says ‘ἐσπλαγχνίσθη’ – ‘esplanchnisthe’, a strange, complicated but very effective verb; it is the movement of the entrails; it is a visceral sensation that the Samaritan feels. It is the same feeling that Jesus felt towards the widow of Nain during the funeral of her only son. The Samaritan feels compassion for the man, approaches him, bandages the wounds, heals him with oil and wine, sacramental symbols among other things. He does not carry him on his shoulders (loads him on the beast of burden) and takes him to a ‘πανδοχεῖον –‘ pandokéion ’, which translates to inn, but it is a much more beautiful word in Greek; it means the environment that welcomes everyone and the host is not just an innkeeper but the one who welcomes everyone, and is a figure of the Church.

Christ has begun to heal humankind, wounded by sin; has taken over, cared for the man, the wounded Adam and handed him over to the Church saying to the ‘pandokeus’—the welcoming person—‘take care of him’ and hands him two coins; and tells him that if you spend more on the care of humanity, no problem, when I return again I’ll make it up to you in everything. The Samaritan announces that he will come again and pay what has been spent more to heal humanity.

It is the path of human history. Religion concretely symbolized by the priest and the Levite, the religion of the Old Testament, sees man and leaves him as is. Instead, Jesus reaches out and steps in to heal him. It is he who had mercy on humanity. This is the meaning. The important thing is to take charge; and not only that, immediately after, Luke says that Jesus was staying in the house of a woman named Martha and while she was busy after many services, her sister Mary, sitting at the feet of Jesus, listened to him.

The meaning of this episode is that the important thing is to listen. The good part is the personal relationship with Jesus. So, the important thing is not to do … it is Jesus who has shown mercy to humanity, for which the disciple listens to Jesus, sits at his feet, learns from him, receives his grace, his mercy, allows himself to be transformed and then becomes capable of showing mercy in turn.

The first part of Luke’s work, the gospel, is listening to Jesus who has mercy. The second part, the Acts of the Apostles, is the continuation; the Church that has learned from Jesus continues Jesus’ work. The one who has received mercy becomes capable of showing mercy. What is important is to listen to Jesus, to welcome him to do what he says.