Luke 10:25-29 meaning

This interaction has no apparent parallel in the gospel accounts.

After Jesus privately told His disciples how blessed they were because they were witnessing the beginning of the kingdom that the prophets had foretold (Luke 10:23-24), a lawyer stood up and put Jesus to the test. The text does not indicate if this exchange took place immediately after Jesus's private remarks or sometime later and under different circumstances.

Lawyers were religious legal experts in Jesus's day. They created rules to measure a person's righteousness. These religious lawyers condemned those who failed to keep their rules even as they created loopholes in God's Law to justify themselves when they disobeyed His commandments. These lawyers were close associates with the Pharisees and may have even been a special type of Pharisee—who focused on the manufacture of religious legislation. They might also have been prosecutors of those who broke their laws.

Even as the Pharisees and Lawyers were seen by the average Jew as the champions of the Jewish faith against the Pagan influences of Rome, in actuality they made a mockery of God's Law by replacing it with their corrupt version of Judaism. The result of their legalistic sham was a bad religion (Matthew 23:1-36). This hypocrisy was what was pointed out by Jesus, to the chagrin of the religious establishment.

This particular lawyer stood up and confronted Jesus and put Him to the test.

If the religious lawyer had stood up in good faith to test or to verify whether or not Jesus was the Messiah, it would have been a good and proper for him to do. Any individual could falsely claim to be the Messiah, and it would be proper to test them and their teachings against the scriptures. As a religious leader, this lawyer had an obligation to protect the people from false teachers.

But it does not appear that the lawyer came with these intentions. It seems that he stood up to Jesus to test Him for a flaw. It seems that he was only interested in looking for an excuse to dismiss Jesus as being the Messiah.

The Greek word Luke used for test is a form of the verb: "ek-pei-ra-zo" (G1537). It means to "test" or "thoroughly prove." "Ekpeirazo" is used four other times in the New Testament. And in all four additional instances, "ekpeirazo" (test) is used in a context where it is expressly forbidden to test God.

"Ekpeirazo" (test) is used during Jesus's refutation of Satan during His temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13).

• "Jesus said to him, 'On the other hand, it is written, "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test."'"

• "And Jesus answered and said to him, 'It is said, "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test."'"

And "ekpeirazo" (test) is used twice more during Paul's negative example of the grumbling children of Israel in his first letter to the Corinthian church.

• "Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did [literally "tested"], and were destroyed by the serpents." (1 Corinthians 10:9)

These other usages of "ekpeirazo" suggest that this religious lawyer might have had the intention to test God in this negative way when he stood up and put Jesus to the test. It seems that the lawyer was trying to twist Jesus's response in such a way as to take Him down.

There is a lesson in here for everyone—believers and unbelievers alike. No one should test God in this way. We should not come to God looking for ways to dismiss Him, minimize His commands, or manipulate Him into conformance to our wishes. We should not put Him to the test and demand: "If God really cared about Me He would let me enjoy this"; or "He would never let me experience this pain". As creatures, we do not test the Creator's goodness, existence, or purposes. He is God.

The Bible says we must come to God in [good] faith in order to please Him:

"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."
(Hebrews 11:6)

"But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways."
(James 1:5-8)

The lawyer's question was basic and common: Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

The religious lawyer addressed Jesus with a term of respect—Teacher. (He probably used the Hebrew term "rabbi," and Luke translated this for his audience to the Greek word "Di-das-kale" (G1320, see John 1:38). But even though Teacher was a term of respect, the context suggests that it might not have been genuine. The context suggests that the lawyer addressed Jesus as Teacher to flatter or lull Him into a trap. This is both due to the use of "ekpeirazo"/test mentioned above, as well as the fact that after Jesus answered, the text notes that the lawyer sought to justify himself, indicating that he was not truly seeking to know and learn.

Interestingly, the religious lawyer's question was remarkably similar to what the rich young ruler will later ask Jesus (Matthew 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-25). The rich young ruler asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 18:18). It seems the rich young ruler was a genuine seeker, unlike this religious lawyer.

The religious lawyer's question—Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?—was a way of asking what things he needed to do to receive the full inheritance of eternal life. He was asking what the moral requirements were to enter the kingdom that Jesus so often preached about (Matthew 4:17). The lawyer was not asking what he must do to go to heaven when he died. (To learn more about the nature of the religious lawyer's and rich, young ruler's question see the commentary for Matthew 19:16-22 ).

To learn more about what it means to inherit eternal life see "Eternal Life: Receiving the Gift vs Inheriting the  Prize."

Even though these two questions were functionally identical, Jesus's responses to the religious lawyer and the rich young ruler are strikingly different in tone and content. The reason for these differences is most likely because Jesus was addressing two very different hearts. The rich young ruler was asking in earnest, but the religious lawyer was putting Jesus to the test. Mark makes the sincerity of the rich young ruler clear, when he wrote how when Jesus saw the rich young ruler that "He felt a love for him" (Mark 10:21). Jesus recognized and admired the authenticity and devotion that the rich young ruler had. There seems to be not only a lack of sincerity from the religious lawyer in his question, but a sinister trap being set to ensnare Jesus. Therefore, Jesus addressed each man differently—according to the heart with which each man offered their question.

Jesus essentially returned the lawyer's question back to him through two new questions, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" In other words, Jesus said to him, "You are a religious expert in the Law of Moses. You tell Me." By responding as He did, Jesus shrewdly gave the lawyer nothing to twist and use against Him.

With the first question—What is written in the Law?—Jesus directed the lawyer to scriptures where the answer could be found. The lawyer likely considered the Law to be the books of Moses, the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is notable that Jesus framed His question by directing the lawyer to God's word, rather than allowing the lawyer latitude to speak of man-made rules which claimed to show people how to fulfill the Law (but in reality made the people subservient to the religious establishment). The lawyer will in fact take his answer from the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, as Jesus asked.

With the second question—How does it read to you?—Jesus deferred to the lawyer's expertise and subtly, or not so subtly, flipped the question back to the lawyer in such a way as to get him to speak the "Pharisaically-correct" answer. It was a brilliant maneuver. It framed the question within God's word, and it put the lawyer on the record.

The religious lawyer then gave a scripturally sound answer:

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.

He correctly cited the two greatest commandments. The first was from Deuteronomy:

"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."
(Deuteronomy 6:5)

The second greatest command was from the book of Leviticus:

"You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD."
(Leviticus 19:18)

These are the exact commandments that Jesus answered later on, when He was asked by another lawyer in the temple: what is the greatest commandment? (Matthew 22:35-40; Mark 12:28-34). Jesus answered that the greatest commandment was Deuteronomy 6:5, then added that the second was like it (Leviticus 19:18).

To learn more about these two commandments please see our commentary for Deuteronomy 6:4-5; Leviticus 19:9-18; Matthew 22:37-38 ; 22:39-40).

Jesus responded, You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.

The religious lawyer answered correctly. Jesus affirmed his answer of what he must do to inherit eternal life and enter the kingdom. He must love God above all else and serve his neighbor in love. This is what Jesus meant when He said: Do this and you will live [abundantly]. In other words, follow these core commands and you will inherit a great experience of life, eternal life. Eternal life is both a gift was well as a reward.

Notice how once again, Jesus shrewdly gave the religious lawyer nothing he could use to twist against Him. The lawyer could not condemn Jesus for anything He said without also condemning himself.

But something in this exchange may have pricked the conscience of the religious lawyer.

He had come to put Jesus to the test in order to find fault with Him and dismiss His teachings. But having essentially answered his own question truthfully according to God's Law, and having Jesus (the One he came to dismantle) humbly confirm his answer, something seemed to have stirred inside his heart.

It might have been Jesus's gentle response (Proverbs 15:1a). Or it might have been hearing his own voice meaningfully recite the goodness of God's word (Isaiah 55:11). Or it might have been something else entirely that moved the lawyer to press further. Maybe, he felt, that if he could not dismantle Jesus, he would at least make himself appear righteous.

A prick of conscience, an urge to be right, or both, or something else altogether; the conversation would have ended here if the lawyer did not raise one final question for Jesus to answer.

But wishing to justify himself, the religious lawyer said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

Whether his heart was sincere or (as it appeared) hostile toward Jesus, the lawyer wished to justify himself and the way he treated other people.

The word justify in Greek ("di-kai-O" - G1344) shares the same root as the Greek words for "righteous" ("di-kai-os" - G1342) and "righteousness" ("di-kai-o-sun-é" - G1343). They are essentially the same word in different forms (justify = verb; righteous = adjective; righteousness = noun). To justify something means to align it into right standing or harmony according to a standard. This lawyer was wanting to align and harmonize himself and his existing behavior to the standard of God's Law to love your neighbor as you love yourself. He was not seeking to learn from Jesus and change his behavior such that he could be conformed to the righteous standard of God. Rather, he sought to have his existing behavior justified. From the way Jesus will answer, we can presume that this lawyer was a self-righteous person that remained aloof from anyone they considered inferior to themselves in keeping their code of religious rules.

The lawyer came to test Jesus, but now found himself at a moral crossroads. He could repent of his failures to love everyone as he loved himself or he could justify himself and draw limits to how far God's Law applied and thereby excuse his unloving actions.

The first option of repentance would have been better if the lawyer wanted to inherit eternal life, gaining the maximum fulfillment of life available to us while living on this earth (Matthew 4:17). But this lawyer chose the second option, the option of self-rationalization.

Instead of repenting and learning how best to love and serve others (as required by the second greatest command to love our neighbors), he was essentially asking Jesus:

• "Which people count when it comes to this commandment?" (Only the ones I want it to)
• "Which people are excluded from this commandment?" (The ones I desire to exclude)
• "Who do I not have to love?" (Because I don't want to follow this command)

When the religious lawyer asked Jesus "And who is my neighbor?", he was really asking, "Who is not my neighbor?" The implied answer is "The people who are beneath my station." Jesus will disabuse this religious lawyer of his position, and in doing so give us one of the most famous of all parables.

It is in response to this question, that Jesus addressed this religious lawyer with one of His most memorable parables—"the Parable of the Good Samaritan" (Luke 10:30-35).