What does the Bible say about lawyers?

A teacher of the law, one who expounded the law. Nicodemus was probably one, for the Lord called him a 'teacher of Israel.' The Lord said of the lawyers that they put heavy burdens on others, but did not touch them themselves; and in their expositions they took away the key of knowledge. They did not enter in themselves, and hindered those who were entering — a solemn description that may, alas, apply to some in this day, such as are elsewhere described as 'blind leaders of the blind.' Matt. 22:35; Luke 7:30; Luke 10:25; Luke 11:45-52; Luke 14:3; Titus 3:13.

Scribes and lawyers were rather closely linked, for scribes began by being simply writers, then virtually became theologians. Eventually they involved themselves with Israel's law from a judicial point of view and thus became lawyers and sometimes doctors of the law (as was Gamalial -- Acts 5:34). They therefore considered themselves to be authoritative interpreters of the law. They could be Pharisees at the same time -- a double evil! A lawyer therefore objected to the Lord's scathing words, for he complained that by implication even the lawyers were reproached (v.45). But if he thought the Lord would retract or modify His words in deference to lawyers, he was mistaken. In fact, the Lord added three "woes" for lawyers also. First, instead of their being concerned to obey the law, they considered themselves enforcers of the law upon others. So they heaped heavy burdens on the people but never lifted a finger to help bear the burden. Too often it is true that one who is rigid in his teaching may be loose in example.

The "Key of knowledge" I have understood to be the Word of God itself — the lawyers, so-called from professing skill in the law of Moses, acting pretty much as any set of men who take that place professedly and professionally are sure to do, i.e. arrogating to themselves to be authoritative expounders of the Word, and the exclusive privilege of this, to maintain which place they deny to others not so skilled and professional to have any competency to understand it without their teaching, thus in result withdrawing the Word from the mass — in fact, just as the R.C. priesthood and a separated clergy in more or less degree do in our own day. This comes really to making the Word of God of none effect, laying aside the commandment of God, substituting their authority and traditions. It is a solemn sentence.

One of the lawyers was offended "and said to him, Teacher, in saying these things thou insultest us also." Then the Lord answers them: "Woe unto you also, doctors of the law! for ye lay upon men burdens heavy to bear, and yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers." They were notorious for their contempt of the very people from whom they derived their importance.314 It is an easy thing to lay burdens upon others; it is hard to bear them. Christianity is the exact opposite of this. Christ comes down first of all and takes the sorest of all burdens, the judgment of our sin and guilt, our condemnation from God; then He leaves us under the Gospel, without that burden. It is true that, till He comes again, we are groaning in the body, waiting not uncertainly but in confidence for Christ to change us even into the likeness of His glorious body. Hence it is that the practical exercise of Christianity is in liberty and joy. No doubt grace brings with it the highest obligations, but they are those of men who are free and who use their liberty for the One whom they love. It was not so with these doctors of the law. They laid burdens upon men that were grievous to be borne, but they themselves did not touch the burdens with one of their fingers. It is only grace that enables one to manifest what the law requires. The doctors of the law were precisely those who showed the least conscience. They thundered the law at others; they did not subject themselves to any of its precepts, except where it suited them. It is grace which purifies the conscience by faith and strengthens it in the will of God.

Quite a distinct fact appears in the next verse, 13. "But forward Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting to them." How beautifully unjealous love, and zeal for the Lord's glory, and care for the comfort of His labourers, are shown! And how confidently too Paul looks for this blessed feeling in Titus, the reflex of his own! Often and long he had proved him to be a faithful and gracious brother. He is sure that an elevated position in Crete had in no way impaired the old spirit of fellowship and value for others.

It is the more to be noticed, because neither of these two commended to his care were at all so associated with the apostle personally as many others. We never hear of them (as τοὺς περὶ τὸν Παῦλον) in the group which accompanied the apostle on his journey. What is or is not said appears to indicate the co-ordinate class of labourers, of whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles as well as in the Epistles, Apollos notably being their type. Yet the heart of the apostle goes out and urges Titus in love no less for such than for his well-known usual associates.

Here again Zenas the lawyer is named before Apollos: this is the order not of the world, but of grace. It is not quite certain what sort of lawyer he was. Calvin dryly considers that he could not have been a forensic one: else he would not have wanted means. A graver but simple if not conclusive reason points in the same direction. Everywhere else in the N.T. "lawyer" is connected with Jewish learning rather than Roman or Greek law. Certain it is that Paul assumes that there might be need of the help enjoined. He had accepted help of the kind himself, as appears from his Epistles, and before this he asked for it on behalf of others. We find the same thing in the still later Third Epistle of John.

We have, at the end of the epistle, a little glimpse of the christian activity which the love of God produces, the pains taken that the flock should enjoy all the help with which God supplies the assembly. Paul wished that Titus should come to him: but the Cretans needed his services; and the apostle makes the arrival of Artemas or Tychicus (the latter well known by the services he had rendered to Paul) the condition of the departure of Titus from the field in which he was labouring. We find too that Zenas, a lawyer, and Apollos, who had also displayed his active zeal at Ephesus and Corinth, were disposed to occupy themselves in Crete with the work of the Lord.

The arraignment of Paul before him bears all the marks of bitter animus and prejudice. That not only elders but even Ananias the high priest should have thought it necessary to go down to appear against him, shows the importance they gave to his case. Then they employed an advocate who, to judge by his name, was a Roman and not a Jew. Tertullus, they doubtless felt, would know better than themselves what would appeal to the Roman mind, and so be more likely to secure a conviction. Tertullus did know, and began with fulsome flattery, for the account given of Felix's administration in secular history is in flat denial of what he stated. This he followed by a fourfold charge against Paul. All four charges were vague, particularly the first, that he was a pest, and the second that he was a mover of sedition. Vague charges were preferred, for he knew they could not be easily disproved as plain definite charges often can be.

He soon discovered also the difficulties of being both a Christian and an advocate. To accept fees to use his eloquence to bolster up a bad cause and make it appear a good one, seemed to him to be practising a lie — to be taking the devil's wages — to sin indeed against his own soul.

The question of going to law has been frequently discussed. If it be a matter between brethren, 1 Corinthians 6 is conclusive. If it be a matter between a Christian and a man of the world, we can only say that if the Christian goes to law, he is doing the very reverse of what God has done with him. He professes to have been forgiven ten thousand talents, yet he takes his fellow by the throat for a paltry hundred pence. Is this right? Is it pleasing to God? Is it yielding a true testimony to our heavenly Father? Is it representing Him? Is it imitating Him? God is not imputing trespasses. He is a pardoning God, delighting in mercy. If we go to law, we are not like Him; we are misrepresenting Him.

Heartless dishonesty toward any and especially the fatherless draws out a far graver warning. It matters not whether it take the crafty shape of removing the ancient landmark, or the open boldness of entering into the fields of the fatherless. If they have no father, they need no lawyer any more than taking the law into their own hands. Their Kinsman, their Redeemer, is strong; He will plead their cause against the rogue, high or low.