I have read the parable of the Good Samaritan more times than I can count. But after digging deeper into the conversation that led Jesus to tell it, I noticed something I had never really considered before. The lawyer who approached Jesus was not looking for an answer. He was looking for a way to test Him. By the time the conversation ended, Jesus had turned the examination around on the lawyer himself. Going forward, this changes how I read this entire passage. We usually begin with the wounded man, the priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan. But I think we miss something important when we start there. The parable was not where the conversation began. It was Jesus' response to a man who knew the Scriptures, knew the commandments, and still wanted to justify himself. The evidence is in Luke 10:25. “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” I had always paid attention to the question. This time, I paid attention to why he was asking it. Luke tells us. The lawyer was testing Jesus. The nerve! Right?!? When I examined the Greek word Luke used, I discovered a connection to Jesus' encounter with Satan in the wilderness that made me look at this conversation very differently. The Greek word is ekpeirazo, meaning to put someone to the test. Jesus used that same word when He answered Satan: “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” Matthew 4:7. Luke 4:12 mentions the same response, which is taken from Deuteronomy 6:16. Now, I am not saying that the lawyer was Satanic. I am saying the connection is worth examining especially since Luke uses the same Greek verb in two encounters involving someone being put to the test. That tells me something about the lawyer's intentions before Jesus even answers him. He was not just asking for instruction. He was testing Jesus. “Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He asks what he must do to receive something described as an inheritance. Ordinarily, an inheritance comes through family relationships or legal standing. Yet the lawyer frames his question around something he must do. I always thought doing and inheriting contradicted each other. Throughout Scripture, obedience has a place within God's covenant relationship with His people. Watch what Jesus does with the question. He does not give the lawyer an immediate answer. Instead, Jesus turns it back on the lawyer. Jesus asks: “What is written in the law? how readest thou?” Luke 10:26. Now remember, this man was a lawyer. Not a lawyer in the modern sense, but someone trained in the Law of Moses. He was supposed to know the Scriptures and understand their meaning. Jesus was essentially asking him, What does the law say? And how do you interpret it? The lawyer answers by bringing together two passages. Deuteronomy 6:5 commands us to love God with all our heart, soul, and might. Leviticus 19:18 commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves. His answer was correct. Jesus tells him so. “Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” Luke 10:28. Focus on the words: “This do.” The Greek verb is poieo, meaning to do or practice. Here it appears in the present imperative, poiei, which carries the sense of continuing to do something. Jesus was not asking him to perform one good deed. He was telling him to live according to the commandments he had just quoted. The lawyer approached Jesus to find out whether Jesus understood the law correctly. Jesus demonstrated that the lawyer already knew the correct answer. Therefore, the question was no longer whether Jesus understood the law, it was whether or not the lawyer obeyed it. Luke gives us the evidence that something was wrong. “But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?” Luke 10:29. The lawyer wanted to justify himself, because Jesus had taken the commandments he knew and placed the responsibility for obeying them squarely on him. In response, the lawyer does not ask Jesus how to love his neighbor. He asks who qualifies as his neighbor. He wants to know where his obligation begins and ends. Who must he love? Who is included? And who can be excluded? The lawyer had just quoted Leviticus 19:18, which commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Yet in that same chapter, Leviticus 19:34 says: “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself. The command to love was not limited to one's own people. God had already instructed Israel to love the stranger dwelling among them. Therefore, the lawyer's question becomes even more revealing. He knew the law. He could quote it. But when Jesus told him to practice it, he immediately wanted to discuss the boundaries of his responsibility. Jesus answered him with the parable of the Good Samaritan. At the beginning, the lawyer asks, “Who is my neighbour?” But at the end of the parable, Jesus asks: “Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?” Luke 10:36. Jesus changed the question. The lawyer wanted to know who deserved to be treated as his neighbor. Jesus wanted him to identify who had actually behaved as a neighbor. The lawyer was trying to determine whom he was required to love. Jesus showed him what love required of him. The man who demonstrated that love was a Samaritan, someone from a people with whom the Jews had a long history of religious hostility. The lawyer answers: “He that shewed mercy on him.” Jesus replies: “Go, and do thou likewise.” Luke 10:37. Checkmate! The lawyer began by asking, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus ends by telling him, “Go, and do thou likewise.” He began by testing Jesus. He ended with Jesus examining his own obedience. What I find most profound is that the lawyer's problem was not a lack of biblical knowledge. He knew exactly what the law said. His problem was that he wanted to justify himself while limiting what obedience required of him. Jesus did not give him another law to study. He told him to practice the one he already knew. I love the Holy Scriptures!!