The Great Commandment

S. Mark xii. 28–34

answered them well, asked Him, the truth: for there is one God; and all? 29. And Jesus answered him, to love Him with all the heart, and

The first of all the commandments is, with all the understanding, and with

Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God all the soul, and with all the strength, is one Lord: 30. and thou shalt and to love his neighbour as himlove the Lord thy God with all thy self, is more than all whole burnt heart, and with all thy soul, and with offerings and sacrifices. 34. And all thy mind, and with all thy when ^esus saw that he answered strength: this is the first command- discreetly, He said unto him, Thoument. 31. And the second is like, art not far from the kingdom of God.

namely this, Thou shalt love thy And no man after that durst ask neighbour as thyself. There is none Him any question.

The Pharisees who had previously encountered our Lord and experienced a signal defeat, so far from being discouraged by hearing that the Sadducees had fared no better at His hands, returned to the engagement in the hopes of retrieving their disaster. But they did not come in a body as before. They selected one of their number to be their spokesman and representative. He is here called a scribe, but by S. Matthew a “lawyer,” indicating that his particular functions 1 were legal rather than educational. The choice was not a fortunate one for the Pharisees; for though they were animated by malevolent and sinister feelings towards Jesus, the man himself was clearly actuated by other motives, and, while acquiescing in the letter of his commission, disregarded its spirit. He would hardly have earned the commendation of our Lord, had he shared their intentions. It is true, S. Matthew says, that he came “tempting” Him, but in the original the word does not necessarily imply a hostile purpose any more than it does when it is applied to God’s “temptation” of Abraham. However much, therefore, the Pharisees generally may have hoped to ensnare Jesus, it is merely stated that the individual lawyer wished to “test” His knowledge by what would be called a “crucial” question.

The relative importance of different kinds of laws was an oft-debated subject in the rival schools. Shammai, who was the impersonation of a rigid formalism, defended the details, even the most minute trivialities, of the Ceremonial Law, while the more large-hearted Hillel, the advocate of love and charity, upheld the supremacy of the Moral Code.

It will give us some idea of the perplexity in which the whole matter was involved, to find that the Scribes had divided and subdivided the Law, till they made as many enactments as there were letters in the Decalogue. The injunctions were 248, the prohibitions 365; 613 in all. Some of these again were “hard and weighty,” others “easy and light.”

We can readily understand then how eagerly an inquirer after truth, whose belief in the Great Teacher’s knowledge had been stirred by what he had witnessed in the disputes just closed, would come to Him for a solution of the difficulty. Which, or rather “what kind of” commandment is to have the first claim on our obedience? Now, if it be correctly asserted that a Jew, who had been careful to observe the rules and regulations for the phylacteries, and tassels and fringes, of their dress, was “regarded as having kept the whole Law,” the lawyer could hardly have been prepared for our Lord’s answer. It is true He referred to the phylacteries, but not to notice their shape or colour or materials. Pointing to that which his questioner had upon his forehead or arm recalled the wearer to the meaning of the words that were written therein, and so often recited by him. Every pious Israelite repeated them twice daily in his Shema, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord;” and Jesus told him that the demand which followed for a devoted love to Him as the supreme object alike of the heart and soul and mind of man, contained that which he was in search of — the commandment of paramount obligation. There was however a second, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” not differing in kind, for it was the natural outcome of the first; but though He had not been asked for it, He could not pass it by unnoticed, because upon the two combined hung all the obligations comprehended under the revelation of God’s Will “in the Law and the Prophets.” It was, in short, a summary of the two Tables, embodying in few words man’s duty to God and his duty to his neighbour. Jesus pointed out that the true test of love to God is love to man; and this He would desire especially to enforce in the hearing of the Pharisees. They were, as their name implied, “Separatists.” Their motto was, “Come not near to me, for I am better than thou.”

If then Christ had stopped at the first commandment, if He had been content merely to answer the one question, “Which is the first?” the Pharisees would have gone away unrebuked. But He would not spare them, and so went on to tell them that there was a second; and lest they should think it less binding, or of a secondary importance, He added that it was “like” the other, the only difference being, that while love to God is the root of the principle, love to our neighbour is its manifested fruit.

The grand simplicity of the answer won the lawyer’s admiration and reverence, and giving Him in sincerity the designation which his fellows had used before in irony, he expressed his approval in the words, “Rabbi, Thou hast spoken the truth.” He had doubtless himself, if we may judge from his answer, given the supremacy, as many others did, to the Levitical law of sacrifices; but, as it were by a sudden inspiration, he seemed to realise the utter worthlessness of these, where the spirit of which they were designed to be symbolical was wanting, as he felt it had been with the Pharisees; and he acknowledged that all the blood of bulls and goats, all sacrifices and offerings, and whole burnt offerings, on which they bestowed the most punctilious care, could have no real weight in the balance against a genuine love for God and man. Sacrifice was nothing in itself; it was only acceptable to God in proportion to the self-surrender of him who offered it.

It gives us a terrible insight into the state of feeling so widely prevalent at the time, to be told that the Scribe followed up this expression of admiration for our Lord’s judgment by the further confession, “I have often desired to hear of these words, and had none to tell me.”

It was followed by a comforting assurance that reason had triumphed over prejudice, and that such an appreciation of Divine truth had brought him to the very threshold of that inheritance which God has prepared for those that love Him. If, as we can hardly doubt, he went away to act upon his convictions, he was not long left standing without, but entered wholly in.

The result of the interview was that no one was any longer found bold enough to engage in controversy with Jesus.

All the great parties in Jerusalem, ecclesiastical and political, had pitted themselves successively in argument against Him, and all had found Him more than a match for them. They had tried to involve Him with the upholders of the Theocracy, or to extract from His lips some expression of sympathy with their hatred of Roman supremacy, which they might turn against Him. But He had shown them “that the powers that be are ordained of God.”

They had ventured again to attack Him where they believed themselves to be invincible, viz., in the interpretation of Scripture, but His answers had proved that He “of Whom Moses and the Prophets” did write, Who was in fact the great subject of the Revelation, knew far better than the most learned Scribe the meaning of what was written.

And this was the end of their fruitless attempts. All the weapons forged against Him had been repelled; “and no man after that durst ask Him any question.”

Note: The office of the Scribe was fourfold. He was the schoolmaster, the interpreter of Scripture, a consulting lawyer, and a keeper of the public records. The expression used here, vo/j.lk6s, and in S. Luke xi. 45, differs slightly from that found elsewhere, po/xodiodaKaXos.

Note: iroia, qua lis.

Note: The most minute directions were drawn up for these matters in the Mishnah. The passages of Scripture written on parchment and enclosed in the Tephillin were Exod. xiii. i-io, 11-16; Deut. vi. 4-9, xi. 13-21.

Note: It means “hear,” and was given to the “office” from its being the opening word.

Note: His special reference to sacrifice — “more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” — shows that he had this especially in his mind at the time.

Note: vovvex&s- !<• is an unusual word, hardly represented by “discreetly.” It implies an exercise of the povs, “intelligently.”