THE LAWYER
Luke 10:25-37
THE parable of the Good Samaritan, which is peculiar to Luke, is radiantly beautiful. Indeed, so wonderful is it that we may lose sight of the reason of it. Expositors have often treated it as setting forth the mission and method of our Lord, and that quite permissibly. It is better, however, to remember that when our Lord uttered it, His intention was not to interpret His own mission, except as there was in Himself the fulfillment of all the great things revealed in the parable. The parable in itself constituted part of our Lord's method of dealing with one man. It is in that way we approach it now, and shall only touch upon the parable as it applied to the case under consideration.
The man appearing before us, then, is a nameless lawyer. A careful consideration of the whole narrative will reveal that he was a very interesting, and indeed, a remarkable man. We may even describe him as a fine character, except as revealed at one point of moral breakdown, to which we shall come soon.
The simple fact, as we have said, is that he was "a lawyer." We remember that there are three terms employed in the New Testament which are synonymous in their application to persons. We read of the scribe, of the doctor or teacher, and of the lawyer. Here we have three distinct Greek words, grammateus, rendered "scribe"; didaskalos, rendered "doctor" or "teacher," and nomikos, rendered "lawyer." Whichever name is employed, the reference is to the same office or position. At the time of our Lord, these men constituted an order well established in the life of the Hebrew people. No provision was made for them in the Mosaic economy. The office and the order emerged in the time of the return of these people from captivity under Ezra and Zerubbabel. Ezra was the first to institute the order of the scribes.
We are told of them in the time of Ezra that they read the law and gave the sense. This means more than that they read clearly and properly. It indicates interpretation. These men were expositors of the law. As time had gone forward, the order had continued; and in the account of Jesus we constantly meet members thereof.
We may say, then, that the lawyer was an expert in law. He had three duties falling upon him. One was to study and interpret the law. The second was to give definite instruction especially to the youth of the nation in the law. The third was the exercise of judicial capacity. The lawyer was called upon to decide questions in law. Now this man was one of this order.
We see immediately, then, that he was not an ordinary man, but one trained in one particular subject, the law of the Hebrews as given to them through Moses. Moreover, at the time of our Lord, as we are well aware there had been superimposed upon the law of Moses traditions intended to explain them. It was the work of the scribe or lawyer to interpret and apply these also. So much for the man and his position.
We now attempt to see him by carefully and critically reading the account, and watching him. First of all it is evident that he was seriously asking. Luke introduces him by saying: "And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tempted Him."
Here it is essential that we halt and consider what is meant by that word "tempted." It is not the usual word employed. It does not mean that he was endeavoring to entrap Him. It is indeed a strong word, and we may quite accurately render it: "A certain lawyer stood up, and put Him thoroughly to the test."
There is no reason for thinking that there was any hostility manifested in this case. It is perfectly true that we do find over and over again hostility revealed in attempts to entrap Jesus. There is no evidence of anything of the kind here. He was rather suggesting a question, the answer to which would inevitably be a revelation of the mind of the Master.
We notice further that he was seeking the highest and that with rare intelligence. The question he asked was one which must put any man thoroughly to the test: "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
There are many things in our holy Faith with which we have become so familiar that unless we keep constant watch, we miss their full value. I am thinking now of this term "eternal life." Rightly apprehended, we shall find that the question the lawyer asked was the utmost question for all life. It is a question which today may be asked of any teacher, of any philosopher; and upon the answer given will depend the knowledge or lack of knowledge of the one so questioned.
Let it be then said that eternal life means something far more than long life. Its continuity is dependent upon its nature. The question might be framed, “What shall I do to inherit the life of the ages, life that is abiding, life that is full, the life that lacks limitation, life which is as broad and as deep and as high, as it is long?” We remember at this point that the young ruler asked exactly the same question. Wherever a man is found seriously asking this question, he is thinking on high levels, and is engaged on the highest possible quest.
He was conscious of his own deficiency as the form of the question proves: "What shall I do to Inherit eternal life?"
His question was a revelation of his dissatisfaction with any experience he had so far had of life. He knew life. He had been born. He had played as a child. He had grown up as a young man. He had come into a position of influence as a lawyer. But his question proved that he was still seeking that life which could only be described as eternal, or the life of the ages.
We see him, then, as a man dissatisfied, but aspiring to something higher. With this greatest of all questions he approached Jesus, and by asking it, determined to put Him thoroughly to the test.
Still watching him through the account, we are arrested by his answer to our Lord's first question: "What is written in the law? How readest thou?"
As we have already said, technically he was expert in the matter of the law, but it is evident that he had a spiritual apprehension of it which was correct. He answered our Lord in the declaration: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself."
It should be observed that our Lord did not ask him only what was written, but how he read it, that is, understood it. It is an arresting fact that he said nothing in his answer about sacrifices, nothing about duties, nothing about social obligations; and yet he summarized all these in the answer he gave. We need not argue its excellence because our Lord approved the answer, as He said: "Thou hast answered right; this do and thou shalt live."
In these words He declared the accuracy of his intellectual conception, and declared to him that in obedience to it, the secret of life is discovered.
It was at this point that we see the moral breakdown. Luke very carefully tells us: "He, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?"
He was evading an issue. He had answered correctly as to the text of the law, and as to its spirit. When he was commanded to act upon his understanding obediently, he made an answer that revealed him as desiring to justify himself.
Directly a man seeks to justify himself, he is admitting that he is arraigned before some tribunal. What was the tribunal before which this man found himself suddenly arraigned? It has been suggested that it means he was desirous to justify himself before men. Others have said that he desired to justify himself before Jesus. Personally I believe there is a deeper meaning in the declaration. He desired to justify himself to himself. He knew at once that while his thinking was correct in the matter of law, his actions were not in accord therewith, and he would evade the issue of this question as to who was to be looked upon as his neighbor. It was a refusal at the critical center of his being to face the challenge that had come to him from his own answer, and the Lord's approval of it. We have a further revelation of this man's rare intelligence in the apprehension of truth, in that when our Lord had uttered to him the parable, and asked him a question upon it, his answer was again correct. Having portrayed the wretched condition of the man on the highway, He had told the lawyer of three men, who passed along the road. They all had vision of the man. The priest saw him. The Levite saw him: The Samaritan saw him. The vision in the case of the first two brought no result of helpfulness to the man. They passed by on the other side. In the case of the third, the vision appealed to his heart, and stirred his compassion. When Jesus asked the lawyer which of the three was neighbor to the wounded, bruised, half-dead man; he immediately gave the right answer, "He that showed mercy on him." Thus we have in him a picture of a man questing for life, knowing he had not found it, desiring it, putting Jesus to the test, and then evading a moral issue.
We now turn to watch our Lord dealing with this man. His first question was one which turned him back upon himself, and called for an opinion in a realm in which he was unquestionably a specialist. Jesus said in effect to him, why do you come to Me asking about life? You are a lawyer, that is, an interpreter of law. Let Me, therefore, approach you, and ask you the very question that scores of people have asked you in other matters, What does the law say? How do you read it? The very method of these questions was remarkable. First, "What is written in the law?" Second, "How readest thou?" The two were necessarily interdependent. The "How" depends upon the "What" as to the actual statement of law. The "What" depends upon the "How" for moral value. It is possible to answer the "What" with perfect accuracy, and yet discover that the reply to the "How" is a revelation of failure.
The question, "How readest thou?" was a common question put to the Rabbis. Men and women in difficulty about law would often quote to the Rabbis its terms, and then ask for an interpretation of it. Thus the man found himself flung back upon his own calling in life, and upon the things with which he was supposed to be, and undoubtedly was, an expert. The question was such as to produce a revelation of his correct understanding. It is noticeable, however, that he gave no answer to the second question, except as that might be involved in his first answer. It is an arresting fact that he did not quote from the Decalogue. He linked together two passages found in different positions in the ancient law. So far, then, he had replied to both questions. The "How" was answered in the method by which he summarized the written requirements. Then followed the evasion on the part of the lawyer, and the parable, in which our Lord dealt with the evasion.
The outstanding fact in the parable is that in employing it our Lord completely changed the emphasis of the lawyer's question. The lawyer had said, "Who is my neighbor?" And now let it be observed that our Lord did not answer that question; but to gather up the whole impact of the parable we find that its purpose was to say to this man, the question is not so much, who is your neighbor, as, to whom are you prepared to be a neighbor. Here we pause to listen to the parable in itself. Our Lord took the utmost case of a bruised and broken and half-dead man lying upon the highway. A priest is seen looking upon that man, but quickly passing him by. That is also true of the Levite. Neither priest nor Levite was a neighbor to that man. They both saw him, were cognizant of his condition, but did nothing for him; then came this Samaritan. The question was not as to whether the half-dead man was a neighbor to the Samaritan. It was a necessary question, was the Samaritan a neighbor to the man? With a fine satire our Lord excluded all official religion as it then existed in the Hebrew nation, and He excluded priest and Levite because of what they were in themselves, and of how they had acted in the presence of such a case. If He excluded them, He included a man outside the covenant people, a man held in contempt for that reason by both priest and Levite, and Jewish nation-a Samaritan. The Jew had no dealings with the Samaritan nationally or religiously; and it was equally true that the Samaritan had no dealing with the Jew. Nevertheless this Samaritan is seen acting without any reference to these hostilities in the presence of human need. Our Lord used of him that great expression so constantly employed concerning Himself, "He was moved with compassion"; and, therefore, he acted the part of neighbor to the man in need. It is possible that he was at the time returning along the road, after he had been to worship in Mount Gerizim; but something deeper than mistaken conceptions of worship, and its true place, was found in the compassion of his soul.
The picture is Eastern and beautiful, of what he did, using the remedies of the time, he poured oil and wine in those gaping wounds. He lifted the man, and placed him on his own beast, and evidently walking by his side until they came to the inn, he placed him in charge of the host thereof, and undertook responsibility for him. Moved with compassion for him, he bound up the wounds, carried the man who could not carry himself; put him in a place of safety, and thus acted as a neighbor.
The account told, the challenge of our Lord was uttered: "Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers?"
In this question we have the vindication of what we have already said, that while the lawyer had asked, "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus was showing him that that was a secondary question, the first being whether he himself had the heart of a neighbor. If so, then the one to whom the heart goes out, becomes a neighbor. If this had been a man living by the law he had quoted, really loving God and loving man, he would have been a man capable of feeling compassion in the presence of wounds and weariness, and of such action as would bring healing and help to the distressed.
In the answer he gave to the question of Jesus, "He that showed mercy," he rose for the moment at least, above all the nationalism of his pride and his prejudice, as he owned that this Samaritan outside the covenant, revealed the true neighbor heart.
In that answer we discover the victory of our Lord in the case of the man intellectually at least. He had touched in him that finer consciousness of compassion, and compelled him to own that even one outside the covenant could be a neighbor. He then left him with the words, "Go, and do thou likewise."
We may here pause for a moment to notice the recurrence of that word "Do" in the account.
"What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
"This do and thou shalt live."
"Go, and do thou likewise."
Here we have the quest for life, and the revelation of the secret of its possession.
And there we have to leave the account. We know nothing definitely beyond. We may be permitted, however, reverently to indulge in some speculation.
All this happened very soon after the experience of the Mount of Transfiguration. It took place in the early days of those final six months in the ministry of Jesus, all overshadowed by the Cross. This being kept in mind, we see how this account of the Good Samaritan as to all the principles it contains, does find its full interpretation in our Lord Himself. Lifted on to the highest level of spiritual application, we see how everything here suggested is fulfilled. We can indeed say: "He found me bruised and dying, And poured in oil and wine."
As to this particular lawyer, as I have said, we know nothing more, but it is at least suggestive that about six months later, as Mark tells us, close to the end, when all the storm-clouds were gathering over the head of Jesus, and all His bitterest enemies were surrounding Him like wolves, "One of the scribes came," that is, a man of the same order: "And heard them questioning together, and knowing that He had answered them well, asked Him, What commandment is the first of all?"
To that question Jesus answered: "The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart; and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto Him, Of a truth, Master, Thou hast well said that He is one; and there is none other but He; and to love Him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, He said unto him, Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God."
Was that possibly the same lawyer? The question cannot be answered. If it was not the same man, he was one of the same order, and he asked not concerning life, but concerning law, "What commandment is the first of all?" The intention of the question is as to which is the first in the way of being chief. Our Lord answered him by quoting him the same commandments that the lawyer of our account had declared was his reading of law. It is further noticeable that the scribe of this later occasion agreed with that answer, as he said, "Of a truth, Master, Thou hast well said," and our Lord, seeing that he had answered discreetly, said to him, "Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God."
No comments:
Post a Comment