If the inheritance be of law, it is no more of promise...but the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Galatians 3:18a & 22)

Introduction
Our New Testament lessons for today — the parable of the good samaritan in the Gospel of Luke (10:23b-37) from this morning's service of Holy Communion, and the discussion about the nature of faith in the Epistle to the Galatians (3:16-22) — combine to demonstrate the intimate relationship between promise/fulfillment (theory/practice, faith/works). And, especially when viewed through the lens of the Litany — that phenomenal expression of our unworthiness to exert any claim whatsoever against the Righteous Lord — we come away with a synthetic appreciation for what it really means to say that in Christ we have truly inherited the eternal life that was promised by God to Adam (the Adamic Covenant). Over the course of our reflections we will hear a number of questions that are being raised in these scriptures so that we may gain a deeper appreciation for the Biblical view of inheritance — that interlocking set of relationships which connect: Promise => Law => Fulfillment.

The Gospel
We are all familiar with today's Gospel lesson — the famous parable of the good samaritan. The parable is Jesus' way of responding to the second of two questions that had been posed by "a certain lawyer" who was tempting Jesus in order to trap Jesus into saying something that would get Jesus into even more trouble (than he already was in) with the temple authorities:
 
Question 1 (lawyer):    "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"
 
Answer 1 (Jesus):        "Love God first, and your neighbor as yourself?"
 
Question 2 (lawyer):    "Who is my neighbor?"
 
Answer 2 (Jesus):        "Why don't you tell me?"

As we learn from the overall context of the passage, Jesus had just given a perfect answer to the lawyer's first question, but this answer was not to the lawyer's liking — so much so, in fact, that the lawyer was now attempting to re-frame the 1st question under the guise of a 2nd question: "But who is my neighbor?" Though seemingly innocent, the 2nd was actually the lawyer's way of disguising his own true motive — to justify his own inner conflict between what he (the lawyer) knew was the clear spirit and intent of the Law (to truly love God and to truly his neighbor) and his own inherent failures on both counts. The lawyer really wanted to be excused for thinking that he was good enough on his own terms. He believed himself self-justified that according to his own standard of righteousness he should inherit eternal life.

Let us briefly consider some of the issues at stake in the dialogue:

1. To the ancient Jews, there was no such thing as a "good" Samaritan (that, of course, in their minds, would have been an immense contradiction in terms). Strictly speaking, most of the Jews of Jesus' day expected to inherit the Kingdom because they claimed to be related (genetically/racially) to Abraham and to be related (ethically/morally) to God through the Law of Moses — and were appalled that Jesus should even suggest that salvation was possible for any Gentile!
2. Notwithstanding all of this — that is, despite his non-status in the social fabric of ancient Israel — this social outcast, the Good Samaritan did the right thing for the injured traveler because the Samaritan had true heartfelt compassion for the situation.
3. The contrast between the Good Samaritan's actions and the heartless disregard of the two priests ("two witnesses") — both of whom knew better than to pass by the injured man without a second look — exposes the raw hypocrisy of the Jews regarding the strangers in the land.
4. More importantly, the Good Samaritan truly demonstrated something is rarely mentioned in sermons on this Parable and which many of us might prefer to downplay his real compassion and his real love for the injured man were both equally open-ended. We often hear the term "unconditional love" being used in our society, but strictly speaking, the Samaritan's love was highly conditional — strictly speaking, the Good Samaritan had imposed upon himself the condition that there were to be no limits whatsoever as to what he was willing to do in order to accomplish the right thing for the injured man. Our own Bishop Sutton has even coined a brilliant phrase in this regard: terms of unconditionality¹ — one of the most distinguishing characteristics of the Biblical/covenantal worldview and heart-attitude. In the parable, this is demonstrated by the fact that the Good Samaritan promised to pay the innkeeper whatever was necessary so that the injured man was properly treated during the Samaritan's absence. Not only did the Samaritan's promise give the innkeeper adequate motive to do the right thing — even if the innkeeper was only in it for the money — but the open-ended nature of the arrangement clearly reveals the true depth of the Samaritan's commitment to do the right thing, whatever the cost². From one point of view, the Good Samaritan's expression of charity in this sense was also his way of making a parable — a "dark saying", a "hard sentence", asking a tough question about something that didn't immediately make sense, something that was perplexing, problematic, and perhaps even irrational. Make no mistake about it: the Good Samaritan had essentially given the innkeeper (on behalf of the injured man) an unlimited claim upon his total estate (implicitly, disclaiming and forfeiting any/all of "his" property) in order to see to it that the right thing was done to someone who truly needed the help — a true expression of mercy and grace³
5. All of these elements, of course, clearly point us to the merciful, self-sacrificing, and righteous character of our Heavenly Father, executed in the suffering sacrifice of Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord, as seen with eyes which have been enlightened by the Holy Ghost.

But what about the question of whether or not the injured traveler merited such lavish compassion from the good Samaritan? Had the injured man fulfilled the necessary conditions to receive such exceptionally good treatment? Why should he get all the attention, when there were surely others along the same road who could have also claimed to have equally pressing needs? For the answer to these questions, we must now turn to what the Apostle Paul has to say in the Epistle.

The Epistle
The Apostle Paul was constantly dealing with the same hardhearted attitude in his fellow Scribes and Pharisees, who were certain that they were inherently superior to the Gentiles because they claimed to be blood relatives of Abraham (and heirs of the Promise Land) and to be faithful adherents of the Law of Moses. Paul's counter-argument was that they had elevated the Law so as to be superior to Promise, and had thus out-maneuvered (out-lawed) themselves in God's eyes. By implicitly opposing Law vs. Promise (Works vs. Faith) rather than simply contrasting Law with Promise as is often (and properly) done throughout scripture, the Scribes and the Pharisees had completely missed the deeper truth that the Law is the fruit of the Promise! They did this because their sinful arrogance had blinded them to the fact that God's very giving of the Law was in itself an act of grace and mercy — the Law was graciously given to mankind because God knew from Eternity that man would transgress God's promises.

Abraham
Paul demonstrates these truths by referring us back to the concept of covenant inheritance (that relationship between God's promise to Abraham and its fulfillment in Moses — this progression perfectly foreshadowing how the promise of the Old Covenant (the Law and the Prophets) was perfectly fulfilled in the New Covenant (in Christ and the Church). Each of the Patriarchs Paul alludes to in this passage is also asking, in his own way, a probing question: Abraham (implicitly): "Where are the children (seed) you promised me who are going to occupy the land that you showed me?" (Gen. 13:14-17) Many years passed between the vision in which God promised Abraham a son — so many, in fact, that Abraham and Sarah decided to take it upon themselves to solve the problem and have Abraham father a child (Ishmael) via Sarah's maidservant (Hagar). It was several years after that that Sarah (miraculously) bore Abraham his own son (his "first/true" son) Isaac. Then, God tested Abraham by requiring him to personally sacrifice his most prized possession (Isaac). Upon Abraham's having passed this test — having been willing to sacrifice his "true" son in obedience to God's command (implicitly, disclaiming and forfeiting his claim upon his "true" son) Abraham was not only commended by God for his faith, but also received enhanced and expanded promises from God in this regard: "Because thou has done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (Genesis 22:16-18a) After Sarah died at the age of 120 (Genesis 23:1) and after Isaac had taken Rebekah as his wife (Genesis 24:67), we read (Genesis 25:1-5) that Abraham subsequently married a woman named Keturah and had 6 more sons by her. And, although scripture does not elaborate, we also learn (Genesis 25:6) that Abraham also had other (surely numerous) "sons of [by] his concubines", to which sons he "gave gifts and sent [them] away…unto the east country" while Isaac was yet living. Moreover, we also learn that prior to his death at the age of 175 years (Genesis 25:8) "Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac" (Genesis 25:5). However, Abraham's generosity to Isaac was both righteous and problematic.

Ishmael
Elsewhere in Genesis we learn hat Ishmael had himself fathered 12 sons of his own (Genesis 25:12-16). Ishmael, of course, was Abraham's first son (seed) via Hagar. And, although scripture never comes right out and says so, Ishmael (via his seed the Arabs), has been asking the following question for every successive generation: Ishmael (implicitly): "Why does Isaac get all the inheritance?" Ishmael (and his sons) however, had mischaracterized (by omission) what God had actually promised to him via his mother, Hagar: I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude...[thy son shall be called] Ishmael [God heard my cry]; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand [will be] against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren (Genesis 16:10-12) We are all of course aware that Sarah subsequently (and miraculously) bore Isaac to Abraham, and that, on the occasion of Isaac's "weaning" (his bar-mitzvah), Ishmael (by now a young man in his own right) mocked his younger brother Isaac to the point that Sara was so offended that (now for the second time) she exiled Ishmael and Hagar to the desert wilderness. Notwithstanding this cruelty by Sarah (and in response to the strident protests of Abraham regarding Sarah's cruelty), God immediately thereafter appeared separately to both Abraham and Hagar (Genesis 21:9-21) to reaffirm His promises to Ishmael — such that the heirs of Ishmael did indeed become a mighty nation: virtually everyone from the Middle East, and especially the Arabs claim Ishmael as their great grandfather! Thus, in multiplying Ishmael, God multiplied a corresponding curse on Sarah's curse and Abraham's haste. This reality is at the root of the millennia-long war between the children of Ishmael (the Arabs, and especially the Muslims) and the children of Isaac (the Jews and their successors, the Church). History has proven time and again that unless all of the children of Abraham (Jews and Gentiles) can find a way to live in peace together in God's house, (that is, in Christ) then there will be neither be a house nor peace — not in the Middle East nor anywhere else in God's world

Isaac
Although Isaac himself had two sons (Esau and Jacob, who played out within their own family a struggle which mirrors that conflict between Ishmael and Isaac), we want to focus on two question(s) that were surely on Isaac's mind as he and his father Abraham ascended Mount Moriah on the way to offer the sacrifice that had been commanded by God. Isaac, (by then a fully-grown man in the prime of life) bore the bundle of wood for the sacrifice, while his father, Abraham, bore both the fire and the knife. It is obvious from the passage that Abraham has not disclosed to Isaac the full scenario regarding the sacrifice, because we hear from Isaac's lips the following question: Isaac: "Where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" (Gen. 22: 7) Although the scripture has not elaborated on the inner workings of Isaac's mind, we gather from Isaac's question that he has been reflecting on the overall situation and, among other considerations, Isaac must also be wondering: "How will I inherit my father's estate if I'm dead — even worse — if my father kills me?" This question points up the vital truth that death is the ultimate test of faith for everyone — for God requires every one of us to be prepared to say, along with Job: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him" (Job 13:15). Until we are prepared to say this (or at least to think along these lines), it is an open question as to what constitutes the real nature of our own personal relationship with our Heavenly Father?

Psalm 78
Verse 2: "I will open my mouth in a parable"
 
Verse 5: "He made a covenant with Jacob (Coverdale)" or alternatively: "established a testimony in Jacob (KJV)". In either case, the "semantic range" of these words encompass concepts pertaining to testaments, wills, inheritance, estates.
That is to say: Promise => Law => Fulfillment.
 
Verse 9: "And to not be as their forefathers, a faithless and stubborn generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit clave not steadfastly unto God"

The Role of the Mediator
In the Epistle, the Apostle Paul also twice mentions a crucial term, mediator. A mediator is that vital (though often implicit) servant/authority who stands between the disputing parties so as to work out an appropriate resolution of their differences. Mediation is all about accountability, which usually works its way out in by a process of asking and answering questions so as to discover the real motives of the respective (and sadly, often opposing) parties. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the innkeeper served as the mediator. Abraham and Hagar served as a mediation team on behalf of Ishmael. Later on, the Lord provided (and only at the very last minute) a ram (a mediator) to take the place of Isaac. And there is also the unseen (but nonetheless real) mediator implicitly present in the Psalm (verse 9), who is determining whether or not one's generation has been faithful to the God of their forefathers. All of these of course, eventually point us to the Ultimate Mediator: Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, the Incarnate Son — who, as both God and Man can thus truly mediate on our behalf because he sees things from both sides of the case. Without Him, our case is lost even before we get to the Courthouse! Only Christ can mediate the conflict between sinful mankind and our Heavenly Father regarding the question: "Who actually controls the universe?"⁴. If it is the case that we ultimately must appear before an earthly Judge (Mediator) in order to receive our earthly inheritance, how much more true is it that to receive Eternal Life, we must ultimately give an account to our Lord in the Heavenly court? And of our need for our Mediator and Advocate, Jesus Christ?

The Litany
If we were at all paying attention during the litany, it should be abundantly clear that any true son of Abraham (the "Father of the Faith") will possess a deep sense of his unworthiness before the Righteous Creator of All. Regardless of one's race or family bloodline, no mere human can claim anything against this God. With the obvious single exception being Jesus Christ (who was ever sinless), no human person may lay claim in any sense whatsoever to the claim that he is good enough, that he has "done enough", been compassionate enough, or humble enough so as to inherit eternal life — much less to merit salvation! Such blessing comes about only by virtue of the absolute gracious mercy of God Almighty on account of the atoning work of Jesus Christ at Calvary, perceived and received through the Holy Ghost, and lived out on a daily basis, as a member of the Body of Christ (the Church). We can't do the right thing on our own terms (even if we feel like it, even if we want to), because we, as sinners, are incapable of accomplishing this under our own power. This is because we are truly dependent upon God for everything (whether or not we are willing to acknowledge this reality). The astonishing message of the Gospel is that God (because His nature and character is loving and forgiving) wanted and designed the world so as to have a relationship with Man — so much that in Christ, He would forsake everything and even die in order to see to it that not only would there be the promise of the God/Man relationship, but that there would come to pass the very reality of such a relationship, as restored in all its dimensions, in Christ Jesus our Lord, our Mediator and Advocate. Back to the question: "What must I do to inherit?" I must do the only thing that I can: I must acknowledge that I cannot do the right thing on my own terms, and that I must surrender unconditionally to God's will and to God's salvation To have this true salvation, I must, in real gratitude, disclaim myself and proclaim Christ.

If the inheritance be of law, it is no more of promise...but the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Mr. Kemendo is a Candidate for Holy Orders in the REC and is pursuing studies at Cranmer Theological House in Houston, Texas. He has been awarded degrees from the University of Houston and Harvard University.
 

Footnotes
¹ Sutton, Ray, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987)   pp 81, 91, 94, 121, 156
 
² In today's healthcare environment, this might be envisioned as being analogous to the Samaritan obtaining on behalf of the injured man an insurance policy with unlimited coverage and which waived all pre-existing conditions!
 
³ And, so as to not be misunderstood on this point, I am not equating this kind of true love and true compassion with the social liberalism that is running rampant in Western society. The Biblical view of compassion is radically different from what we see on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" where, ironically, valuable rewards are dispensed indiscriminately (or so it would appear). It is obvious that Oprah is highly selective about who merits her charity - apparently anyone qualifies as long as they avoid any references to Biblical Christianity!. Regarding this overall topic (though without any reference to Oprah), see especially Ray Sutton's article: Whose Conditions for Charity?" in Gary North, Editor: Theonomy: An Informed Response (Tyler, Tx: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991),
pp 231-254
 
⁴ And, to reiterate, it should be self-evident that true peace will never reign in the Middle East (between Ishmael and Isaac) , or any other situation in life, except through the merciful grace of God, as mediated by our advocate Jesus Christ. Jesus is the answer to every problem, including the conflict in the Middle East. However, until the Church is again sufficiently effective in the world such that the opposing parties in any type of conflict have been transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we should expect turmoil "in accordance with the scriptures".