Luke 10:25ff -- good lawyer or bad...

darinhouston · Post by **darinhouston** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:32 pm

Has anyone seen a commentary in which the lawyer in Luke 10:25 is seen as honestly seeking to make himself righteous by his question? The traditional view is that he was trying to "rationalize" his behavior, and not "justify" himself (as in make himself righteous).

dizerner · Post by **dizerner** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:50 pm

idk but i often think the biblehub has nice parralel commentaries

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/10-25.htm

darinhouston · Post by **darinhouston** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:39 pm

Yes, I've checked those -- thanks.

As I read this passage, I'm not so sure the "lawyer" gets a fair rap. I don't see "justify" as equating with "rationalize" in today's vernacular. And the King James, for instance, says he is "willing" to justify himself. This doesn't sound like he was striving to "trick" Jesus or find a "loophole." Besides, doesn't the passage imply that he continued to hang out with Jesus?

I would feel better if "some" commentator agreed with me, but I don't see anything but prejudice in light of other passages with "lawyers" and "experts" aligned with Pharisees, etc. to assume that he was anything but sincerely trying to seek God's will.

Does ANYONE agree with me? Or have a compelling reason why I'm likely wrong?

darinhouston · Post by **darinhouston** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:42 pm

Yes, I've checked those -- thanks.

As I read this passage, I'm not so sure the "lawyer" gets a fair rap. I don't see "justify" as equating with "rationalize" in today's vernacular. And the King James, for instance, says he is "willing" to justify himself. This doesn't sound like he was striving to "trick" Jesus or find a "loophole." Besides, doesn't the passage imply that he continued to hang out with Jesus?

I would feel better if "some" commentator agreed with me, but I don't see anything but prejudice in light of other passages with "lawyers" and "experts" aligned with Pharisees, etc. to assume that he was anything but sincerely trying to seek God's will.

Does ANYONE agree with me? Or have a compelling reason why I'm likely wrong?

As my pastor pointed out when I asked him about it -- "isn't it ironic that it is the pastor who is taking the cynical view here?"

dizerner · Post by **dizerner** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:24 pm

It's an interesting point. I think most people conclude that he was not simply asking in an innocent manner because of the particularity of criteria. We could assume the obvious answer "everyone in the world is your neighbor," or as the parable puts it "everyone in need is your neighbor." Now why wouldn't the scribe already think that? Were there people he would rather not treat as a neighbor? Was there someone he knew he mistreated? What other motivation could he have for asking. And this is combined with the phrase "seeking to justify himself." It could conceivably be purely motivated—in other words, he really could have no ulterior motive then simply wondering what the requirements were. One might assume Christ was clear enough—and upon his words, you could simply evaluate whether you'd have loved your neighbor or not. What further information do you really need? This might be why most people see it as looking for a way to reduce the commandment as it stands; he might even have thought it unreasonable to be a neighbor to everyone. It's kind of like if your kid walks in and says to you "When you say we can't eat dessert before dinner, does that include cookies?" or "When you said to not hit each other does that include pushing?" It's not that the question clearly shows a wrong intent, but one simply wonders how the question illustrates a pure intent? If a line is drawn in the sand, should the first question be "How close can I get?" What strikes me most about the passage though, is how the scribe completely ignores loving God, as if he had it in the bag. Or perhaps he wanted to start with the lower hanging fruit first.

backwoodsman · Post by **backwoodsman** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:52 pm

darinhouston wrote:And the King James, for instance, says he is "willing" to justify himself.

Vincent says the word is much stronger than willing or desiring, more like determined. He wasn't just OK with appearing righteous, he was determined to come out looking good after Jesus didn't fall for his trap.

Besides, doesn't the passage imply that he continued to hang out with Jesus?

What do you think implies that? I don't see it.

darinhouston · Post by **darinhouston** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:47 pm

What do you think implies that?

I guess I inferred it from "Now as they went on their way" coupled with the reasonably friendly teacher/student conversation they just had. I see several clues that he was truly trying to follow the correct teaching. Yes, as a scribe, he was undoubtedly trying to slice it thin, but that's how we was accustomed to following the law. The first clue is that he called him "teacher." I believe most Jews at the time would "test" a traveling rabbi/teacher to see if their teaching coincided with the law as they had been taught it. But, this exchange doesn't "sound" the same to me as others where people were trying to show Jesus up -- I haven't reviewed it, but didn't Jesus typically deal with those folks with almost double-speak to confound them? He instead gave a good illustration to really drive the point home as if He was truly trying to convey truth to a man seeking same. Just using common sense, if I was trying to "justify" my thin-slicing of the rule instead of trying to make sure I understood it well enough to follow it, I think I would have skipped the question altogether to remain in my wilful ignorance. Instead, he probed further. The KJV use of "willing" implies he truly wanted to know so he could conform his life even if he might have been trying to do the minimum.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

darinhouston · Post by **darinhouston** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:10 pm

He answered similarly with the Rich Young Ruler, and yet the rich man responded with sorrow and Jesus turned to his followers to expound further. That didn't happen here. The man may well have followed on with Jesus, truly willing (or wanting or whatever) to be justified. I don't see the reason to be cynical as to this man. The teaching stands regardless, but it's at least silent as to the scribe and I won't judge him.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

steve · Post by **steve** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:42 pm

Darin,

You asked on another thread if I would weigh in on this one. The reason I have not done so sooner is that I don't know the answer. I have always understood it to mean that the lawyer was seeking to rationalize his behavior, but I can see the possibility that he was simply desperate to be justified (in the proper sense of that word) in God's sight. I don't see enough hints in the passage to choose with certainty between these options.

Though he and the rich young ruler initially asked the same question, I don't see them as parallel cases. The rich ruler seemed desperate to have eternal life—in that he came running to Jesus with his urgent interest in the subject. No information is provided to inform us of the sincerity of the lawyer's interest—but the statement that he spoke in an attempt to test Jesus would seem to suggest he was more interested in whether Jesus would pass scrutiny than whether he himself was right with God.

Since you are a lawyer, you may view the man with a more sympathetic eye.

I am not seeing a lot of reasons to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, he does not answer to me.

TheEditor · Post by **TheEditor** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:39 am

Hi Darin,

The following is by way of a friend, the comments are his. He only briefly touches on your question, but I thought the ideas were worthy of sharing:

The next event narrated in the account took place in Bethany, a short distance from Jerusalem. This could suggest that Jesus was questioned in the general vicinity.

There are a number of possibilities about how the legal expert wanted to justify himself. (Luke 10:29) Perhaps he did not believe that Jesus’ response had settled the question but merely called attention to what he already knew. In that case, he would have been justifying the reason for asking the question. Another possibility is that he wanted to justify that he was truly doing what the law required, with the precise identification of the neighbor serving to confirm this. So it may be that he wanted Jesus to define the term “neighbor” in a very specific or limited sense.

In the first century, travelers had to reckon with dangers from highwaymen. (2 Corinthians 11:26) The narrow road between Jerusalem and Jericho passed ravines, cliffs, and caves, and provided numerous locations for robbers to conceal themselves and then quickly to descend upon their victims.

Jesus did not identify the man who fell among robbers as a Jew, a Samaritan, or a Gentile, but simply represented him as a man who was traveling from the elevated city of Jerusalem down to Jericho. (Luke 10:30) Likely the legal expert thought of him as being a fellow Jew.

Whether the priest and the Levite were coming or going to Jerusalem is not specified in the parable.

In view of their being in God’s service in a special way, priests and Levites would have been expected to be more responsive to the needs of others than would the general populace. Jesus provided no reason for the failure of the priest and the Levite. This left it up to the questioner to come up with any justification (fear of possible attack if they lingered in the area, avoidance of ceremonial defilement if the man was dead, or the belief that the victim had rightly experienced divine judgment for his sin).

In the case of the Levite, the expression “having come and having seen” may mean that Jesus represented him as arriving at the location, approaching to take a closer look, but afterward doing nothing to relieve the half-dead man and passing by on the other side. (Luke 10:32)

The enmity existing between the Jews and the Samaritans would have been an excuse for inaction. This feature of the parable makes the point about what constitutes a neighbor even more forceful. The book of Sirach, translated from Hebrew into Greek in the second century BCE, reflects the kind of animosity that existed. “My whole being loathes two nations, the third is not even a people: Those who live in Seir and Philistia, and the degenerate folk in Shechem [the Samaritans].” (Sirach 50:25, 26, NAB)

Regards, Brenden.

The Narrow Path Ministries