Matthew 22:34-40

TEXT: 22:34-40

34 But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, trying him: 36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Where do you think the Pharisees had been before this (cf. Matthew 22:15; Matthew 22:22)?

b.

What do you think is the motive behind this lawyer's desire to try Jesus? If he really had the proper understanding of God's revelations as Mark shows him to have, from what point of view would he have formed this question so as to try Him?

c.

In your opinion why did he choose precisely this question from among the many he could have brought before Jesus? Was this a question commonly discussed among the Jews? What, if anything, does this choice of questions reveal about the lawyer himself?

d.

What could the Pharisean party hope to gain by submitting specifically this question?

e.

In what sense is love for God rightly the first and greatest commandment?

f,

In what sense is love for one's neighbor rightly the second commandment? Why should it be second? In what sense does it depend upon the first commandment?

g.

In what sense is it true that all the law and the prophets depend upon these two commandments? If they are themselves part of the Mosaic Law, in what sense can the Law itself depend upon them? Even if everyone in our texts call these commandments, are they really legal requirements? How would you describe them, if you think they are not legal requirements?

h.

In what sense should we understand the various terms listed with which we should love God: heart, soul, mind and strength (added from Mark)? Do you think these refer to different parts of man's makeup? If so, how would you define each one?

i.

If Jesus did not furnish the scribe unique or original information in answer to his question, but rather cited him some texts out of his own Bible,

(1)

what should we conclude about the texts cited and about the Bible that included them?

(2)

what should we conclude about Jesus? Is He a true prophet or not? Are not prophets supposed to reveal fresh, new material? How do we know Jesus is God's true Prophet precisely because He cited that ancient material?

(3)

what may we learn about the psychological advantage to be gained by an appropriate use of appeals to sources held to be authoritative by people whom we seek to persuade? Did the Apostles ever cite pagan sources for the same purpose?

j.

How would you describe the character of the lawyer as this character appears in the man's final answer to Jesus given by Mark?

k.

According to Mark, the scribe's reaction was: You are right, Teacher, you have truly said that. Do you think he was standing up for Jesus in the midst of the fiery opposition the Lord had encountered in the previous skirmishes? Since he was a Pharisee (Matthew), what does this tell you about (1) this man, and (2) about Pharisees in general?

1.

Mark reports Jesus-' reaction to the lawyer's approval: You are not far from the Kingdom of God. To what phase or expression of the Kingdom does Jesus refer?

m.

If Jesus-' answer could have been known through appropriate study of the Old Testament, why is it that, according to Mark and Luke, after that no one dared to ask Him any question?

n.

What steps should one take to apply Jesus-' teaching given in this section to his own life? What questions should we ask about every issue or problem we face in order correctly to practice what Jesus requires here?

o.

Do I really love God with the reality and fervency Jesus is talking about?

p.

Do I really care about my neighbor the way I care about my own needs, problems, interests and desires?

q.

According to Jesus, all of God's religion is based on these two commands. Go through the New Testament listing all its commands and prohibitions. Do you find any that cannot be subsumed under one or the other of these two heads?

r.

What do you think would happen if everyone were to practice these two commandments as Jesus means them?

s.

What would the pragmatic success of practicing these two rules prove about the validity of the Christian faith?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had reduced the Sadducees to silence, they got together. One of them, an expert in Mosaic Law, who had been listening to the debate between Jesus and the Sadducees, approached Him. Recognizing how well He had answered His opponents, this Mosaic jurist proposed the following question to put Jesus to the test: Teacher, what sort of command qualifies as the most important in the Law?
Jesus answered, The most important is, -Listen, Israel: the Lord our God is the only God there is! So, you must love Him with your whole heart, your whole soul, your whole mind and with all the strength you have! This is the great, foremost precept. There is a second one similar to it and here it is: -You must love your neighbor as you do yourself.-' The commandment does not exist that is more important than these two. In fact, these two commandments are the ultimate principles behind the entire Law and everything the prophets taught, their very essence.
Exactly, Teacher! the theologian said to Him. You are so right to say that the Lord is the only God there is. Furthermore, to love Him with all one's heart, all one's understanding and all one's strength, and to love one's neighbor as one loves himself, this is of far greater importance than the whole sacrificial system.
Recognizing the intellectual freedom with which the man answered, Jesus said to him, You are not far from God's Kingdom.
After this, no one risked asking Him any more questions,

SUMMARY

One Pharisean legal expert, impressed by Jesus-' debating skill, tested Him with a question concerning the most important commandment in all Mosaic legislation. Jesus pointed to those commands which required whole-souled concern for God and one's neighbor. These, according to Jesus, summarize the Old Testament's message. To this the theologian could but echo his assent that this morality really surpassed mere ritual without it. Jesus openly praised this Pharisee's discernment. However, no one else signed up for the debate: they did not dare!

NOTES
I. SITUATION

Matthew 22:34 But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. Unexpectedly, someone broke away from the circle around Jesus to carry the exciting news that the Nazarene had just now muzzled their old foes, the Sadducees. So Sadducean wit too had dried up: their thrashing attempt to expose the Galilean rabbi as an unprincipled incompetent had back-fired too! The Pharisees convened all their forces at the same place (sunéchthçsan epì tô epì autô) to discuss the next step. But, if but recently they had been blistered by Jesus-' intelligent answers, Why should they desire to get burnt again?

1. Jesus-' victory over the rationalistic Sadducees on the great question of the resurrection brought mixed reactions: let's try to imagine their frame of mind in this situation.

a.

The Pharisees were in an expansive mood because someone had finally answered the skepticism and doubts that had so long frustrated their own efforts to settle the crucial doctrine of the resurrection.

b.

But their rejoicing soured because it was not a Pharisee that had soundly disposed of the Sadducees. Rather it had been that upstart rabbi from Galilee! So they could not rejoice even if He had confirmed this truth so dear to their party.

c.

Rather than assemble to communicate to Him their party's gratitude for devastating that skeptical position so effectively, they regroup to attack Him! They do not care about the victory of truth, because they cannot rejoice that Jesus had overcome. In their malicious envy and party spirit they seek to crush Him who had caused truth to triumph. (Contrast Paul's attitude: Philippians 1:15-18.)

2.

The Sadducees had proved their incompetence as guardians of the nation. But their liberalism could not be expected to hold the line against someone who genuinely respected the Scriptures but rejected traditional orthodoxy. Surely a shrewd Pharisean mind could be trusted to state truth correctly where the best of Saddu-cean scholarship wilted before the Galilean prophet.

3.

But if Jesus could be tempted to commit Himself on another question that would also embarrass the Sadducean hierarchy sufficiently to goad them into disposing of Jesus, the Pharisees-' hands would be clean, the Sadducees would do the dirty work, and Jesus would be gone. If He damned ceremonial law and Levitical ritual with the same vehemence He attacked rabbinical decisions (Matthew 15:1 ff.), the embittered Sadducean hierarchy would have ample cause to indict Him, because their political power depended upon the prestige and importance of the Temple and their monopoly of its liturgy.

Perhaps one or all of these considerations prodded the Traditionalists to renew their earlier, ill-starred assault. This time duplicity must be excluded: He could unmask it too quickly! (Cf. Matthew 22:18; Luke 20:20; Luke 20:23.) Now Jesus must be examined with sincerity and fairness to determine the breadth and depth of His real mastery of God's revelation and human nature.

Matthew 22:35 One of them, a lawyer: The Pharisee chosen to represent these highly agitated, frustrated heads of orthodox religion was an expert in theological law (nomikòs, Mark calls him a scribe grammateùs), hopefully well-qualified to present the test question and judge the correctness of its answer.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH MATTHEW'S ACCOUNT?

Some commentators, seeing that Matthew omitted to present this lawyer in a favorable light by not mentioning his positive reaction to Jesus-' answer and the Lord's commendation of the man, consider Mark's version preferable because it presents the good side of the world of the Pharisees. (Cf. Bruce, Expositor's Greek Testament, I, 276). Again,

The accounts vary in regard to the motive of the questioner. In Matthew he comes to tempt, in Mark in hope of getting confirmation in a new way of thinking on the subject, similar to that of the man in quest of eternal lifethat which put the ethical above the ritual. No anxious attempt should be made to remove the discrepancy (ibid., 424).

To describe Mark's as the strictly accurate account (so Alford, 401) is to disparage Matthew's less detailed report and declass it for weak believers as less strictly accurate. These scholars fail to observe that it is Mark who is less circumstantial in creating the setting, because, without Matthew's information, we would surmise that the scribe simply wandered up and, hearing how well Jesus handled His antagonists, asked a question of his own. Further, it is Mark who omits the true relation of this scribe to his party's intention to try Jesus. Thank God, we can have BOTH Matthew and Mark to get the larger picture! Even so, we need not suppose that both Gospels record all that happened that day.

A cursory reading of Matthew alone would lead to the conclusion that the lawyer was an enemy like the party he represented. HOWEVER MATTHEW DID NOT AFFIRM THE LAWYER'S PERSONAL HOSTILITY. This is merely a surmise based on his being a Pharisee (a group of bad repute elsewhere in Matthew). But with Mark's information, we can arrive at what even Matthew knew but did not state: the scribe was actually personally open to Jesus. So, Matthew's information is correct so far as it goes and does not contradict Mark when interpreted in light of ALL the available facts. By what right does the modern scholar demand that Matthew register all he knew about this or any other event? But that Matthew correctly represents this event as a trial is evident from the consideration of what Mark's scribe's reaction would have been, had Jesus NOT answered his question as well as He did! Those commentators that downgrade Matthew are simply unwilling to let all the witnesses testify to what happened that day. Is this true objectivity?
Do the following points include all the facts to form a good hypothesis?

1.

Jesus beat the Sadducees fairly in debate and at least one Pharisee heard Him and reported His victory to his party (cf. Luke 20:39).

2.

The Pharisees gathered to discuss this event but could not decide the best course of action.

3.

Another Pharisee, a lawyer, who too had heard Jesus, because he had a personal desire to talk to Him, volunteered to propound the test question. Because of his intellectual stature, he is chosen to represent the party in this next attack.

4.

The lawyer then honestly presented Jesus his test question to which he had given much personal thought and really sought confirmation of his own conclusions. This explains his sincere admiration of Jesus-' ability.

5.

Jesus, accordingly, dealt with the man as an individual, ignoring his party interests and connections. This explains His commendation.

6.

In the process Jesus really and definitively passed the Pharisees-' examination.

In the lawyer's question, therefore, there could well have been the confluence of two separate sets of motives: his own, apparently good (as pictured by Mark) and those of his party, apparently bad (as Matthew depicts them). Trying him (peiràzôn autòn), then is Matthew's wise selection of a word whose meaning-potential covers both motivations: to try, make trial of, put to the test, to discover what kind of a person someone is, either in a good sense; to put men to the test so that they may prove themselves true [or in this case, competent, HEF], or in a bad sense, to bring out something to be used against the one who is being -tried,-' or to entice to sin. (Cf. Arndt-Gingrich, 646.)

1.

Trying him, on the part of the Pharisees, must be interpreted as their endeavor to expose and destroy Him. From their party's standpoint the question was but an intellectual exercise, not a spiritual quest for truth.

2.

Trying him, for the lawyer, meant something else. He was one of the crowd who saw Jesus best His adversaries (Mark 12:28). Notice this incidental result of Jesus-' debating tactics: not only were His answers good, but His spirit inspired confidence and invited further investigation of the truth He taught. With no sinister motive, the scribe is trying him with a seriously intended question to see if He, who could so brilliantly muzzle the willfully treacherous, would be just as prepared with an appropriate response for an honest, sincere questioner. Trying him, his intention is to use this vexed question to test the depth of this rabbi's understanding, if we may discern this intention from his reaction to Jesus-' answer and the Lord's commendation (Mark 12:32 ff.).

Matthew 22:36 Teacher. His opening words do not drip with honeyed sarcasm (cf. Matthew 22:16). This address is spoken in the quiet reserve of a dignified scholar intent on getting to the bottom of this entire question once and for all. In fact, if his goal is to sound Jesus-' depth, he could not have selected a more appropriate question! The choice of questions reveals his own breadth and depth. He does not choose some obscure, trifling issue, but goes to the heart of true religion: What is the great commandment in the law?

To appreciate this theologian's question, we must understand something of the current debate in Judaism out of which it comes, as well as the practical problem behind the debate: are all of God's commands equally important?

1.

The scribes were agreed that the Law contained heavy and light precepts. (Cf. Pal. Talmud, Ber. 1:4; Yeb. 1:6.) But they differed on which commandments belonged to each category. Some considered circumcision as conferring the most merit; others held for tithing, fasting, sacrifices, washings or phylacteries as preeminent. Edersheim (Life, II, 404 cites Ab. Matthew 2:1; Matthew 4:2; Sanh. Matthew 11:3; Deb. Matthew 4:6) doubts that these rabbinic distinctions between light and heavy commands were in the lawyer's mind, since rabbinism had decreed them of equal merit and equal validity.

2.

But is this question appropriate? Is not anything God commands of importance equal to anything else He commands, just because HE says it?

a.

Jesus did not reject the lawyer's question as inappropriate. He answered it as it stood. To ask for the most important command of God does not necessarily imply that the questioned intends to dismiss those of lesser importance. Such a question may only intend to establish right priorities, especially in the presence of a conflict of duty where, of course, the more important duty must have priority.

b.

Even Jesus speaks of the more important matters of the lawjustice, mercy and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23) in contrast to the law of tithing. (See Matthew 5:19 notes.) Our Lord is in perfect harmony with many marvelous Old Testament texts that summarize basic religion. Check them out for your own enrichment: Deuteronomy 10:12-22; 1 Samuel 15:22 f.; Psalms 15; Psalms 40:6-8; Psalms 50:7-23; Psalms 51:16-19; Psalms 69:30 f.; Isaiah 1:11-17; Isaiah 33:14-16; Jeremiah 7:21-23; Hosea 4:1; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:14 f., Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8; Habakkuk 2:4.

3.

But this debate over most important commandments is productive of two widely differing points of view:

a.

One position seeks to find the one law which may be kept in place of observing the whole law. This is a bare minimum approach that seeks one supreme command that excludes the others. This view misses the fundamental principle that the intentional omission, or ignoring of even one commandment is tantamount to violation of the entire law (James 2:10), whereas the purpose of God's whole system was to create a spirit of willing submission to God its giver and of readiness to do the whole thing.

b.

The other seeks to find the one law that gives sense, direction, purpose and strength for keeping the whole system. This view seeks to understand the heart of the question in order to obey the whole law cheerfully, completely and intelligently. This seeks the one law which is great because it includes the others. This is probably the lawyer's intent.

The lawyer's question would be better translated: What kind of command is great in the law? (poìa entolè megàlç en tô nòmô). Plummer (Matthew, 308) expands this question thus:

What sort of characteristics must a commandment have in order to be accounted great? Or is there any commandment which has these characteristics in a very marked degree?. What principle ought to guide one in making such distinctions?

He wisely seeks that fundamental principle necessary to measure the greatness of any commandment. He is not distinguishing moral and ceremonial laws as such, nor light from heavy precepts. He asks the right question: which of the 613 laws stands at the heart and foundation of God's will?

How could the lawyer's Pharisean brethren have permitted such a question? What could they have hoped to have gained by his proposing specifically this test? If this represents the peak of their ingenuity in this crisis, how did they suppose it could have helped their cause?

1.

It was a real, debated issue. It could be asked sincerely as for information, hopefully without raising the suspicion of its intended Victim. Let Him expose himself on this hotly contested issue where they felt they had room to argue. With 613 commandments to choose from, in a battlefield already scarred with positions previously taken and abandoned, regardless of what he picks, we can always argue the relative importance of others in that bewilderingly wide field of laws both religious and civil, moral and ritual, home and foreign, public and private! At any rate, we can discredit his wisdom.

2.

By focusing the issue on the Law, perhaps Jesus might be drawn into some misguided or otherwise objectionable declaration of His own authority in contradiction to the Law. Perhaps He would even abolish certain parts of the legislation in favor of others, inciting the Pharisees to scream for the high holiness and validity of the whole Law.

3.

They could sound the depth of His knowledge and grasp of the Law. Anyone well-versed in legal questions could easily expose another who had not done his homework. So, it was a Pharisean expert in theological law who was chosen to launch this test-question.

In this setting it becomes clearer why this question would satisfy both the evil-intentioned legalists and their more fair-minded spokesman: it tested Jesus-' rabbinical credentials to the core. He had pushed them into an uncomfortable but just compromise regarding Roman legislation (Matthew 22:17), but this time He must answer concerning the holy law of God! How little these Pharisees understood the truly great commandment in the law is measured by their hatred of this Nazarene, their Neighbor, and consequently, by their rejection of the God whose message Jesus bore. However, God makes even men's malice to praise Him, for although it was Pharisean envy that posed Him this question, we too needed to know what principles lie at the heart of fundamental religion. So, what was intended as a dangerous trap for Jesus, God made to be a good thing for us: now we have His answer! Further, when asked about a point of law, Jesus turned everyone's attention upon GOD, the Author of the Law, and upon OTHERS for whose benefit the Law was made.

II. JESUS-' RESPONSE

A. The First Table of Law: Duty to God (Deuteronomy 6:4-5)

Matthew 22:37 And he said unto him. Although Mark (Mark 12:29 f.) accurately remembers that Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4-5, thus prefacing the first great commandment with that solemn declaration of the unity of God, Matthew focuses on the second verse which presupposes it and proceeds at once to the only answer universally recognizable for the Pharisee's question.

1. What we must do: Love

You shall love (agapéseis: future used as an imperative). This is an order! (Cf. note on agapàô on Matthew 5:44, Vol. I, 312ff.) The kind of love commanded here is that intelligent good-will toward God that always seeks to do what He considers to be in His best interest, to please Him. This is, however, more than a sentiment however deeply felt. It is a motive to action, fundamental to everything God's people are to do. Israel was taught to love God. (Study Deuteronomy 10:12 f; Deuteronomy 11:1; Deuteronomy 11:13; Deuteronomy 11:22; Deuteronomy 13:3 f; Deuteronomy 30:6; Deuteronomy 30:16; Deuteronomy 30:20.) He orders this love, because, where love is the governing attitude of the individual, the readiness to do anything He requires will be there too. Where this high motive is missing, a person will not do what is right. If he tries to do the right without this love, he will do it for the wrong motives, and it will not be accepted by God. Or if he attempts to do the right without love, his initial enthusiasm will have no staying power and he will not do what is right for very long. Israel's historic failures illustrate the failure to love God.

To love God means to long for His fellowship, to delight in Him, to appreciate all His attributes, His justice, love, patience, mercy, power and plans, to show zeal for His honor. It is an unlimited, constant readiness to obey anything He says and to imitate His character. To love God completely means to love what He loves, to love what is His, especially to love the man God made in His own image (cf. 1 John 4:20). To love God truly means to fear Him above all else, trust Him no matter what, esteem Him for all that He does, adore Him and depend upon Him.

2. Whom we are to love: God

The Lord your God is not an Infinite Number or a mere Supreme Being, but the Lord, or the great Jahvè, the self-existent, unchanging, eternal One whose very names assure us of His reality in contrast to all other objective non-existent deities men may choose. He is ever able to affirm: I am He who IS! (Exodus 3:14 f. LXX: egò eimi ho òn ... Kùrios ho theòs; Hebrew: ehyeh asher ehyeh. yehovah elohey.) No one needs ever to fear that this Lord will go out of business! Although kùrios (Lord) is but a Septuagint substitution for the Divine Name (JHVH), Jesus did not retranslate the text as He quoted it (much to the chagrin of Jehovah's Witnesses who would wish He had inserted the Divine Name in Hebrew). This leaves God's Lordship ever as one of the nuances involved in His Name. So He is the Lord whose sovereignty rightfully commands your love. He is your God, the object of your worship, service and praise, your Creator, Owner and Ruler whose covenant relation to you guarantees His faithful mercies and nearness to you. By signing His full Name to this command, God gently reminds His people who it is that earned the right to demand this unselfish, limitless love.

3. How we are to love Him: Whole-heartedly

What does it mean to love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, with all your mind? Are these phases of our being to be thought of as distinct areas?

1.

Heart (Kardía = Heb. leb). The Biblical concept of heart concerns the basis and center of our personality. (Cf. Psalms 104:15; Acts 14:17; 1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Peter 3:4; 1 Peter 1:22; Ephesians 4:18; Matthew 13:15; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 7:37; Hebrews 8:10; 1 John 3:20 f.; Romans 1:24; Ephesians 6:22; Matthew 11:29.) These texts use the word heart to refer to what we really are spiritually, sometimes even physically. It is the center of our thoughts, feelings, conscience, will and disposition. If deep-rooted sentiment is meant here, we must love God supremely, ardently, with all we have and are.

2.

Soul (psuchè = Heb. nephesh). Usually, but not always, soul in Scripture refers to that combination of spirit and body that we call life. (Cf. Matthew 20:28; John 10:11; John 10:15; John 10:17.) But because we see life wholistically, we speak of our soul in the way we speak of our whole being. (Cf. John 12:27; Acts 2:43; Acts 14:22; Acts 4:32; John 10:24 in Greek; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 10:39; Matthew 16:25 f.) Soul, then, emphasizes our readiness to surrender our life to Him, living it out in devoted service and being ready to die for Him, if faithfulness to Him requires it.

3.

Mind (dianoia). No Hebrew equivalent here, because Jesus added this concept. Loving God with our intellect or reason, or our understanding involves various things:

a.

Deep sincere beliefs held about God, not blind, unthinking devotion nor unreasoning, mystic contemplation. Our faith must be intelligent, based on evidence reasonably evaluated.

b.

Dedicating all our intellectual abilities and efforts to Him. In God's Kingdom there are no prizes for intellectual shoddiness or lack of preparation. We are to use our critical faculties to study to learn everything we can about God and His will. This dedication of mind to God's service is the only justifiable reason for Christian scholarship. But where pride in one's own intellectual accomplishments becomes supreme, one no longer uses his mind to love God.

c.

Intelligent understanding of all we do, whether in worship or service, not mindless religious motion. A mind disconnected whether in prayer or praise supposedly prompted by the Spirit, is condemned by this great commandment to love God with the mind. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 14:14-19 in the context of 1 Corinthians 13.)

4.

Strength (ischùs = Heb. me-' od, Mark 12:29). This refers to both our physical strength and the spiritual vitality of our inner man, in short, to all the energy of our being, our force of character, the command we have over our circumstances and environment, our will and purpose.

None of these concepts are very far apart. In fact, it may be that there is deliberate overlapping in the meaning of the four words used, so that, by piling up these inextricably linked spheres of human personality, God could lead us to grasp the totality of our commitment to Him. (Note the cumulative force in the threefold repetition of the phrase with all your..) This leaves no room for divided loyalties or partial affections. This entire, intricate inter-relation of our emotions, understanding, reasoning and will must participate together in our service to God. (Cf. Psalms 103:1.)

Lenski (Matthew, 880) is right to recognize this commandment, coming as it does from God Himself, as speaking to the subject of human psychology: If our Creator, who unquestionably understands us better than we could ever know ourselves, used every term He knew we would grasp to indicate our complex, spiritual and physical nature, one must pronounce false and misleading all simplistic theories of man that see him as a mere animal, a mere machine or a mere anything. What a high view of man God holds! We are not computer cards deterministically programmed nor mere numbers, but MEN fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalms 139:14).

This commandment is God's demand that we give Him everything we have and arethe whole thing!

Matthew 22:38 This is the great and first commandment, because it underlies the first table of the Decalogue, forbidding all sins against God, such as polytheism, atheism and idolatry. Because it underlies God's unity and absolute uniqueness, it also bans syncretism which reduces the unique, living God to a local deity of Jews and Christians, but not of the whole world. It further damns every type of philosophic concept that functions as a god in the mind of its adherents. It is also first, even indirectly suggested in the Second Commandment: showing love to thousands who love me and keep my commandments (Exodus 20:6; Deuteronomy 5:10). It is unquestionably first and great, because out of it will flow everything else, even the second great commandment.

In the final analysis, however, we cannot serve God directly. He has no necessities we could supply. We could never increase His glory nor confer on Him something He had not already given us. But He does have needy human beings here on earth to whom we may offer useful service in His name. So He recommends these in His place:

B. The Second Table of Law: Duty to One's Neighbor (Leviticus 19:18)

Matthew 22:39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (See notes on Matthew 5:43-48; Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 19:16-20.) The legal expert had requested that Jesus select that single law which was greatest. The Lord, however, must indicate also a second which is a necessary companion to the first.

1.

It is a second like unto the first in that loving one's neighbor refers to the same category of moral law. He selects no third commandment. Only these two, taken together, form the ethical foundation for all the rest. It is this shared function that exhibits their similarity.

2.

Both command love that motivates one to do what the law directs (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8 ff.)

3.

This precept follows naturally as the corollary to the first, because love for one's fellows is the only concrete way any of us can demonstrate the reality and depth of his love for God in whose image all men are created (Matthew 25:31-46; 1 John 3:10; 1 John 3:17 f.; 1 John 4:20; Hebrews 6:10; Proverbs 19:17).

In fact, our love for God must be the precondition and inspiration for love for our fellows. It is only when we love God's view of man that we can learn to love man too. Only when we see in man what God sees in him can we begin to love him. Thus, the definitive foundation of true humanity (humanness and humaneness) is our appreciation of God. Remove this, and our idealism degenerates into cynicism because man's resistance to change will frustrate us. Human ingratitude will make us pessimistic about man's perfectibility and quench the enthusiasm of our ideals. So, the true foundation of a broad, unrelenting, indomitable love for man must be deeply rooted in the staying power we derive from a loving God who renews our vision of what man can become and furnishes us the power of His Spirit through the Gospel to effect this.

1. What we are to do: Love

You shall love (agapéseis, future used as an imperative, the same form used to order us to love God). This love can be ordered. It is no sweet sentiment touching only the affections or simply a question of tastes or inclinations, likes or dislikes. Rather, it is an intelligent concern for our fellows that puts us at the service of their true welfare to seek their highest good. Sin is impossible for the person who loves another the way God means it, because love prompts him to want to bless, not injure, the other (Romans 13:8-10). Stealing, killing, committing adultery and exploiting others become unthinkable. Such love prompts us, not simply to feel right about our neighbor, but to do right with him and for him, according to God's ethical standard. This love causes us to teach him, correct, reprove and exhort him. Not to do so becomes, by definition, evidence of lack of love.

2. Whom we are to love: Our neighbor

That this love for one's neighbor must include more than one's own fellow citizens, his private family circle or coreligionists, is amply proven by the chapter from which this text is taken, Leviticus 19, esp. Leviticus 19:34. (Cf. Deuteronomy 10:18 f.: God loves the aliens, so you love them too!) Jesus chose a Samaritan to display the meaning potential of the word, neighbor (Luke 10:25-37). Study also Jesus-' rejection of love limited to local associations (Matthew 5:43-48). Such love requires us to act benevolently toward our enemies even to the point of helping them in their distress, by acting neighborly toward them (Romans 12:14-21).

3. How we are to love Him: As we love ourselves

As thyself: Jesus assumes that normal people rightly love themselves. So, He appropriates this psychological reality to serve as the standard for determining the depth and warmth of our love for others.

1.

There is a proper self-love that is at the same time Scripturally correct and psychologically sound. (Study Ephesians 5:28 f., Ephesians 5:33.) He did not say, Love your neighbor instead of yourself, but Love him as you do yourself. What is this appropriate self-love? It is that genuine appreciation of our own dignity and worth as human beings, based on what the Bible considers man to be.

The opposite of this kind of self-love is self-hate, a despising of what one is or has. This self-depreciation leaves a person insecure about his worth and struggling for some other identity he hopes will make him confident and someone he himself can look up to. It is this self-hate that arrogantly exalts self at the expense of others and tramples on them to get ahead.
But if a person could just accept himself, he would have inside information on how to accept others. In fact, the degree to which we genuinely accept ourselvesour abilities, our limitations, our economic situation, our parents, our age, health and sexin short, our true identityis the measure of our ability to love and accept others. But it is also useless to tell a sinner to accept and love himself when he hates himself. His bad conscience relentlessly pursues and accuses him.

2.

Therefore, this proper kind of self-acceptance must be acquired. Unrepentant sinners cannot really love themselves, unless they can arrive at a satisfactory solution of the very problems that make them hate their own self-image. Only God has that kind of a solution: He loves them. When sinners find out that the God who made them also loved them enough to send Jesus to die for them, and believe it, then this realization that they are loved gives them a dignity, a sense of worth and a concern for their own self-preservation. And the sinner will not rest satisfied to remain as he is, because he has hated what he is and was. Rather, he can let Jesus make him over in His own likeness, and in this new self he can rejoice (Romans 6:1-11; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Ephesians 4:22-24; Philippians 3:20 f.; Colossians 3:10-17). So, this proper love for ourselves must originate in in our embracing God's love for us: If He loves me despite all He knows about me, surely I can accept myself. Thus it becomes much easier to love my neighbor.

The new creature in Christ can now view his gifts and limitations, his wealth or poverty, his slavery or freedom, his nationality, sex, age or health, with unaccustomed equanimity (1 Corinthians 7:17-24; Galatians 3:28). Whereas before he was an outsider, now he belongs (1 Peter 2:9 f.), now he is important (1 Corinthians 12:12-27), now he is secure (John 10:28 f.). This kind of person knows and accepts his own worth and does not have to prove himself by trampling the rights of others. Rather, his new-found self-respect gives him insight into what it means to have appropriate respect for others. But God taught him to love himself, live with himself and gave him courage to face himself in the mirror. Sensing what this means to himself, he can now appreciate what it means to bring others to this same joy. He can now love others as himself.

3.

This self-love does not contradict other divine demands that we deny ourselves, crucify our pride or otherwise mortify what is earthly in us. (Cf. Matthew 16:24; Romans 6:6; Colossians 3:5.) In fact, the very inducement to sacrifice ourselves in order to be all that God desires so we can bask in the glory of His blessing, is the fact that WE WANT IT FOR OURSELVES. (Paradoxically, self-denial is robbed of its priceless, sacrificial character, if the self we sacrifice was not loved anyway. Therefore, even self-denial presupposes self-acceptance without pride, self-love without smugness.) And because His blessing is offered to those who look not only to their own interests, but also to the interests of others, in humility considering others better than themselves, doing nothing from selfishness or conceit (cf. Philippians 2:3 f.), He is really rewarding the unselfish, the uncalculating, the generous. His rewards are nothing that would even interest self-seeking, pushy people. Rather, the rewards of self-denial and self-sacrifice are so deeply satisfying, so highly desirable and so perennially refreshing, that the person who really loves himself will seek these above all else. This is the only individual who, in his own best interest, really loves and serves others (2 Corinthians 12:15; 1 John 3:16). For Jesus there is no necessary conflict between serving one's own interests and that of others: one can have both (Philippians 2:4).

Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets. Law and prophets is a circumlocution for the entire Old Testament (cf. notes on Matthew 5:17 f.; Matthew 7:12), i.e. whatever God revealed of His will, whether by law or prophet, is suspended from these two nails. Take away this love for God and man, and the law and prophets fall to the ground, meaningless. In so saying, Jesus underscores these truths:

1.

No mere formalism or external ritual has any value apart from the spirit in which it is done, or divorced from the great, underlying principle which it is intended to exalt and exemplify. The Law has not obeyed nor the prophets respected, unless obedience be prompted by whole-hearted love. Jesus condemns the heresy of elevating ceremonies over morality and principles.

2.

Everything God commands is important, however seemingly external or ceremonial, because even the apparently insignificant duties are not properly done without reference to the high purpose of God for requiring them. What God has revealed is not a series of unconnected commandments, but one united, all-embracing design for a life-style that has a solid basis in love for God and man.

3.

These two commandments hang together in combination. Contrary to moderns who would put the accent on the second commandment and glorify humanistic philanthropy or some other religion-less love for one's fellows, while at the same time forgetting love for God and His will, Jesus associates these two concepts and actually gives priority to the first! Human life is shallow and incomplete without both. Neither mere social action nor passive piety can be enough. Brotherly love and philanthropy cannot be substituted for true religion, but should be produced by it.

4.

However, it is simply not true that if a man truly loves God with all his being and his fellowman as himself, he will not need any further commandments. Jesus implies that the law and the prophets are those revelations God considered NECESSARY TO RENDER EXPLICIT WHAT IT MEANS IN PRACTICE TO LOVE PROPERLY. Otherwise, why did not God simply dictate these two ordinances from Sinai and skip the rest? To paraphrase McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 604), Love without guidance is insufficient: the whole law and the prophets were given to furnish this leadership for love to follow. Love without law is power without direction, and law without love is machinery without a motor. (Study 1 Corinthians 9:21; John 14:15; John 14:21; James 1:25; James 2:8; James 2:12.)

So, even though these commandments are written into the Law as individual precepts in it and are explained by the prophets, nevertheless these two regulations are the basic theory behind the entire Mosaic system. They are the moral principles which, in the given moment of Hebrew history called for the Pentateuchal legislation and comments thereon by the prophets. Although an integral part of that now antiquated Law, they rise above it and are permanent, because eternally right. They are the goal to which the Law was conducting people (cf. 1 Timothy 1:5). This explains why the Gospel era will glorify and expand them.

Nor is it true that Jesus replaced the law and the prophets with love. Rather, He fulfilled them by love. The law and the prophets dictated the right actions, but love furnished the right motive for doing them. Now, under Jesus-' program, we are not required to observe the externals of Mosaic Law, not even the Ten Commandments as such. But we are required to observe the principles and spirit that inspired the Old Testament system: love for God and neighbor. These unchanging rules had as their purpose that we learn to glorify God and do good to our fellows. Jesus has altered the details considerably, but He holds us responsible for faithful obedience to these same ethical principles that were the foundation of the law and the prophets. To put it another way, we are essentially under the same system of religion and ethics known to the Jews. The great differencesand they are tremendousare a question of specifics, not principles.

These are the two principles which will give us light and direction not merely in all our life here on earth, but will also prove to be excellent guidance forever! Can we ever outgrow our need to love God or the saints? This is the permanent element in religion and morals. Baptism, the Lord's supper, even evangelism will all pass away at the Lord's return. But not these two commandments. With them we are onto something eternal!

These two rules are the key to understanding not only all God was saying in the law and the prophets, but also everything He has now said in the Gospel too. Any New Testament precept that seems dark or difficult will find its explanation and motivation in one of these two master-principles of true religion and morality. Our concept of duty to the Lord must not consist in blind obedience to a series of segmented, isolated rules. Everything we do for Him must find its ultimate origin in, or be reducible to, one or the other of these two rules.

WAS THERE NOTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THIS ANSWER?

Scholars are fond of pointing out that this was not the first time a Jew ever selected these two commandments for candidacy for expressing the Law's essence. (Cf. Luke 10:27 which is a separate event.) Nor would it necessarily have been original with that other lawyer who recited them together for Jesus then.

The conjunction of these two commandments in one unitary concept has been noticed in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, ed. Charles, Pseudepigrapha, 326, 328, 334): Daniel 5:3: Love the Lord through all your life, and one another with a true heart. Issachar Matthew 5:2: But love the Lord and your neighbor, have compassion on the poor and weak. Issachar Matthew 7:6: I loved the Lord; likewise also every man with all my heart. Another version of this text: The Lord I loved with all my strength: likewise also every man I loved more than my own children. (Cf. Zebulon Matthew 5:1.) However, the Jewish author of that book, as also Philo (De Septen quoted by Plummer, Matthew, 309) was just as dependent upon Moses and the Pentateuch as was Jesus who was quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus. So they were not really unique wisdom either. HOWEVER, THESE JEWISH WRITINGS DO NOT EXPLICITLY AFFIRM THAT THESE TWO COMMANDS TAKEN TOGETHER ARE THE LAW'S GREATEST.

But must we suppose that Jesus always tried for originality in His teaching and answers? Why SHOULD He attempt to be original, when asked to cite the Mosaic Law's greatest commandment? He had been asked to comment on the Torah, drawing forth its essential element expressed in a single commandment. This He did. His originality does not depend on this. There are times when one must NOT be an innovative theologian, as some moderns love to be considered. This was a time when Jesus must be the faithful ambassador of the One who sent Him, loyally delivering the message intrusted to Him. If Moses had already revealed these commandments, we should not expect Jesus to hope for absolute originality in this case.

But was there nothing original in His answer?

1.

Could it be that the uniqueness of Jesus-' answer lies in His refusal to annihilate human personality? Many religionists have promoted self-hatred as their only solution, demanding various forms of self-punishment and endless penance. Jesus, on the other hand, launches His ethic from a solid base of each individual's self-respect defined by God's estimate of man's true worth. However, Moses had said it first.

2.

Would it be that the unique feature of this answer lies in the perception that true religion and ethics do not arise out of mere conformity to some external code? The man who is righteous merely because he fears not to be, is not really good by Jesus-' definition. But so say also the Old Testament prophets.

3.

Could it be that Jesus alone expressly underscored the profound connection and similarity between these two commandments, summing up in these two alone the entire meaning of religion and ethics, and by so doing, placed them over against every other rule or precept? Who else did this?

WHAT DOES THIS INCIDENT REVEAL ABOUT JESUS?

1.

He knew His Bible well and trusted its teaching. The Pharisean test intended to probe His grasp of Mosaic Law. But He reached confidently into that vast library of legal prescriptions and quickly returned with the two concepts that furnish the basis of everything else.

2.

Jesus was not prejudiced against the Pharisees per se, as a cursory reading of chapter 23 would perhaps lead one to think. When even a Pharisee asked a worthwhile question, regardless of his party's motives, Jesus could answer him civilly and helpfully and commend his insight and encourage his progress toward the Kingdom.

3.

Jesus-' perfect balance is also obvious: rather than reject ritual in favor of moral law, He pointed to those principles that made both necessary and gave sense to both. He saw no false dichotomy between the moral and ceremonial laws, because both grew out of the same principles.

Let it not be thought that, because Jesus reduces all of religion and morality to these two simple rules, this simplicity means that our practice of His teaching is going to be easy. Nothing could be more difficult than responding consistently to the far-reaching demands these principles make upon our entire being. To surrender unconditionally to God the sovereignty of our will, to accord Him unlimited command over our mind, and to fix our attention and affection solely on Him is to accept a life-long, life-changing mission. And to accept our neighbor as Jesus loved him, sympathetically prepared to lift and bear his load, to place ourselves in his place so completely as to consider his success our own responsibility, thus renouncing our own rights so we can promote his well-being, is not going to be easy. Anyone who thinks Jesus has somehow made things easy has simply not begun to ponder His meaning nor practice His answer!

MUTUAL ADMIRATION RESULTED

Characteristically, Matthew did not record the lawyer's response. Sometimes after penning Jesus-' final punchline, the Apostle simply drops any further narration, to let the reader meditate on Jesus-' words, be challenged or corrected by them, rather than distract him with further details about what others did. (Cf. Matthew 8:4; Matthew 8:12 f., Matthew 8:22; Matthew 12:8; Matthew 12:50; Matthew 15:20; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 16:12; Matthew 16:28; Matthew 17:21; Matthew 17:27, etc.) To Matthew it seems to matter, not so much how others reacted, as how his readers would. Mark, however, documented the lawyer's admiring rejoinder and Jesus-' commendation of his grasp. (See the PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY for details.)

How considerably this lawyer differs from the scribe in Luke 10! The other, upon facing this same self-evidently true answer, wanted to justify himself and, not unlikely, limit the scope of his love. This man, instead, willingly dismissed his purpose for being there to ensnare Jesus and unashamedly embraced His truth. The man's voice rings with genuine conviction as he spontaneously rephrases the Scriptures in Jesus-' answer, independently thinking it through and daringly concluding, The ethical principles of love for God and man are superior to the entire Levitical sacrificial system. His instant enthusiasm for Jesus-' answer is psychologically predictable, if we see his language as that of a man who had already pondered this question, reached a sounder conclusion than most of his peers, even if not generally accepted by them, but who finally heard his views confirmed by Jesus.

You are not far from the Kingdom of God, is Jesus-' assessment. Not far, because he understood the high, ethical character of the Kingdom, and because he shared its spirit as a serious inquirer. Here is one Pharisee who can see that external forms and empty rituals amount to nothing unless motivated by a real love for God and man! Here is one unprejudiced Pharisee open to truth wherever he finds it, able to think for himself, independently of party lines and approval. Jesus saw that he had a mind of his own (Mark 12:34: nounechôs, having a mind). No wonder this man arrested Jesus-' attention! His approval of this Pharisee's progress is founded on the man's critical discernment blended with a meek, devout spirit, especially since this man was the Pharisean Head Inquisitor sent to test Jesus. However, not far from the Kingdom does not mean in it.

1.

Jesus warns us indirectly that there can be non-Christians within the influence of true religion, who are able to give the right answers and even understand the spirit of Christianity better than legalists within the Church itself. But nearness is not possession. One is not in God's Kingdom merely because he is a diligent seeker or sensible enough to recognize truth when faced with it or because of his orthodox views. One must LOVE enough to pay the price of entrance and go on in!

2.

Jesus encourages us to believe that a correct grasp of the message of the Old Testament really does fit the mind for understanding Christianity and readies one to grasp it when proclaimed. This man was not far from the Kingdom, because to understand these two commands could lead to self-evaluation and recognition of his need to repent and seek God's forgiveness. To grasp this could lead him to ask Jesus the way, and to do this would open the Kingdom to him.

3.

By saying, not far, Jesus invited all such people to come all the rest of the way.

Even Mark did not finish the story: did this prospective convert go on in earnest conversation to ask Jesus those questions that would have taken him all the way into the Kingdom? To know that does not matter. What are YOU going to do?

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

In what general context did this event occur? In what week of Jesus-' ministry?

2.

What had taken place not long before this event? What is the local context? Had the Pharisees attacked Jesus before this? When? With what approach?

3.

What had the Pharisees heard of the conversation between Jesus and the Sadducees?

4.

According to Mark, what had a certain Pharisee noticed about the discussion between Jesus and the Sadducees?

5.

What question is posed to Jesus?

6.

Who is the questioner who asked it? What was his professional qualification?

7.

What is stated about the man's motives?

8.

Was Jesus-' answer unique in the sense of being new revelation never before heard on earth? If not, who had given this answer before? Where, fundamentally, did the answer come from? Where are these two precepts found?

9.

What, according to Jesus, is the first commandment? What text did Jesus cite to establish His point? (Give book, chapter and verse.)

10.

What is the second commandment? What is the textual origin of this answer? (Give book, chapter and verse.) In what sense is the second commandment like the first?

11.

To what is allusion made in the expression: all the law and the prophets? Discuss various ways love fulfills all that the Law and prophets intended to convey.

12.

Explain how on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

13.

In what terms does Mark describe the Pharisees-' reaction to Jesus-' answer? What did he say?

14.

According to Mark, what judgment did Jesus pronounce upon the Pharisee?