Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

See on Mt 19:1-12.

See on Lu 18:15-17.

See on Lu 18:18-30.

Mr 10:32-45. Third Explicit and Still Fuller Announcement of His Approaching Sufferings, Death, and Resurrection—The Ambitious Request of James and John, and the Reply. ( = Mt 20:17-28; Lu 18:31-34).

32. And they were in the way—on the road.

going up to Jerusalem—in Perea, and probably somewhere between Ephraim and Jericho, on the farther side of the Jordan, and to the northeast of Jerusalem.

and Jesus went before them—as Grotius says, in the style of an intrepid Leader.

and they were amazed—or "struck with astonishment" at His courage in advancing to certain death.

and as they followed, they were afraid—for their own safety. These artless, lifelike touches—not only from an eye-witness, but one whom the noble carriage of the Master struck with wonder and awe—are peculiar to Mark, and give the second Gospel a charm all its own; making us feel as if we ourselves were in the midst of the scenes it describes. Well might the poet exclaim:

And he took again the twelve—referring to His previous announcements on this sad subject.

and began to tell them what things should happen unto him—"were going to befall Him." The word expresses something already begun but not brought to a head, rather than something wholly future.

33. Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem—for the last time, and—"all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished" (Lu 18:31).

the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles—This is the first express statement that the Gentiles would combine with the Jews in His death; the two grand divisions of the human race for whom He died thus taking part in crucifying the Lord of Glory, as Webster and Wilkinson observe.

34. And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again—Singularly explicit as this announcement was, Luke (Lu 18:34) says "they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." The meaning of the words they could be at no loss to understand, but their import in relation to His Messianic kingdom they could not penetrate; the whole prediction being right in the teeth of their preconceived notions. That they should have clung so tenaciously to the popular notion of an "unsuffering" Messiah, may surprise us; but it gives inexpressible weight to their after-testimony to a suffering and dying Saviour.

Ambitious Request of James and John—The Reply (Mr 10:35-45).

35. And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying—Matthew (Mt 20:20) says their "mother came to Him with her sons, worshipping Him and desiring," &c. (Compare Mt 27:56, with Mr 15:40). Salome was her name (Mr 16:1). We cannot be sure with which of the parties the movement originated; but as our Lord, even in Matthew's account, addresses Himself to James and John, taking no account of the mother, it is likely the mother was merely set on by them. The thought was doubtless suggested to her sons by the recent promise to the Twelve of "thrones to sit on, when the Son of man should sit on the throne of His glory" (Mt 19:28); but after the reproof so lately given them (Mr 9:33, &c.) they get their mother to speak for them.

Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire—thus cautiously approaching the subject.

36. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?—Though well aware what was in their mind and their mother's, our Lord will have the unseemly petition uttered before all.

37. Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory—that is, Assign to us the two places of highest honor in the coming kingdom. The semblance of a plea for so presumptuous a request might possibly have been drawn from the fact that one of the two usually leaned on the breast of Jesus, or sat next Him at meals, while the other was one of the favored three.

38. But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask—How gentle the reply to such a request, preferred at such a time, after the sad announcement just made!

can ye drink of the cup that I drink of?—To "drink of a cup" is in Scripture a figure for getting one's fill either of good (Ps 16:5; 23:5; 116:13; Jer 16:7) or of ill (Ps 75:8; Joh 18:11; Re 14:10). Here it is the cup of suffering.

and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?—(Compare for the language, Ps 42:7). The object of this question seems to have been to try how far those two men were capable of the dignity to which they aspired and this on the principle that he who is able to suffer most for His sake will be the nearest to Him in His kingdom.

39. And they said unto him, We can—Here we see them owning their mother's petition for them as their own; and doubtless they were perfectly sincere in professing their willingness to follow their Master to any suffering He might have to endure. As for James, he was the first of the apostles who was honored, and showed himself able to be baptized with his Master's baptism of blood (Ac 12:1, 2); while John, after going through all the persecutions to which the infant Church was exposed from the Jews, and sharing in the struggles and sufferings occasioned by the first triumphs of the Gospel among the Gentiles, lived to be the victim, after all the rest had got to glory, of a bitter persecution in the evening of his days, for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. Yes, they were dear believers and blessed men, in spite of this unworthy ambition, and their Lord knew it; and perhaps the foresight of what they would have to pass through, and the courageous testimony He would yet receive from them, was the cause of that gentleness which we cannot but wonder at in His reproof.

And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized—No doubt this prediction, when their sufferings at length came upon them, cheered them with the assurance, not that they would sit on His right and left hand—for of that thought they would be heartily ashamed—but that "if they suffered with Him, they should be also glorified together."

40. But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand in not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared—"of My Father" (Mt 20:23). The supplement which our translators have inserted is approved by some good interpreters, and the proper sense of the word rendered "but" is certainly in favor of it. But besides that it makes the statement too elliptical—leaving too many words to be supplied—it seems to make our Lord repudiate the right to assign to each of His people his place in the kingdom of glory; a thing which He nowhere else does, but rather the contrary. It is true that He says their place is "prepared for them by His Father." But that is true of their admission to heaven at all; and yet from His great white throne Jesus will Himself adjudicate the kingdom, and authoritatively invite into it those on His right hand, calling them the "blessed of His Father"; so little inconsistency is there between the eternal choice of them by His Father, and that public adjudication of them, not only to heaven in general, but each to his own position in it, which all Scripture assigns to Christ. The true rendering, then, of this clause, we take it, is this: "But to sit on My right hand and on My left hand is not Mine to give, save to them for whom it is prepared." When therefore He says, "It is not Mine to give," the meaning is, "I cannot give it as a favor to whomsoever I please, or on a principle of favoritism; it belongs exclusively to those for whom it is prepared," &c. And if this be His meaning, it will be seen how far our Lord is from disclaiming the right to assign to each his proper place in His Kingdom; that on the contrary, He expressly asserts it, merely announcing that the principle of distribution is quite different from what these petitioners supposed. Our Lord, it will be observed, does not deny the petition of James and John, or say they shall not occupy the place in His kingdom which they now improperly sought:—for aught we know, that may be their true place. All we are sure of is, that their asking it was displeasing to Him "to whom all judgment is committed," and so was not fitted to gain their object, but just the reverse. (See what is taught in Lu 14:8-11). One at least of these brethren, as Alford strikingly remarks, saw on the right and on the left hand of their Lord, as He hung upon the tree, the crucified thieves; and bitter indeed must have been the remembrance of this ambitious prayer at that moment.

41. And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John—or "were moved with indignation," as the same word is rendered in Mt 20:24. The expression "began to be," which is of frequent occurrence in the Gospels, means that more passed than is expressed, and that we have but the result. And can we blame the ten for the indignation which they felt? Yet there was probably a spice of the old spirit of rivalry in it, which in spite of our Lord's recent lengthened, diversified, and most solemn warnings against it, had not ceased to stir in their breasts.

42. But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule—are recognized or acknowledged as rulers.

over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them: and their great ones exercise authority upon them—as superiors exercising an acknowledged authority over inferiors.

43. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister—a subordinate servant.

44. And whosoever of you will be the chiefest—or "first."

shall be—that is, "let him be," or "shall be he who is prepared to be."

servant of all—one in the lowest condition of service.

45. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many—"instead of many," that is, "In the kingdom about to be set up, this principle shall have no place. All My servants shall there be equal; and the only greatness known to it shall be the greatness of humility and devotedness to the service of others. He that goes down the deepest in these services of self-denying humility shall rise the highest and hold the chiefest place in that kingdom; even as the Son of man, whose abasement and self-sacrifice for others, transcending all, gives Him of right a place above all!" As "the Word in the beginning with God," He was ministered unto; and as the risen Redeemer in our nature He now is ministered unto, "angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him" (1Pe 3:22); but not for this came He hither. The Served of all came to be the Servant of all; and His last act was the grandest Service ever beheld by the universe of God—"He Gave His Life a Ransom for Many!", &c. "Many" is here to be taken, not in contrast with few or with all, but in opposition to one—the one Son of man for the many sinners.

See on Lu 18:35-43.

Mr 11:1-11. Christ's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, on the First Day of the Week. ( = Mt 21:1-9; Lu 19:29-40; Joh 12:12, 19).

See on Lu 19:29-40.

Mr 11:11-26. The Barren Fig Tree Cursed with Lessons from It—Second Cleansing of the Temple, on the Second and Third Days of the Week. ( = Mt 21:12-22; Lu 19:45-48).

11. And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon—surveyed.

all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out into Bethany with the twelve—Thus briefly does our Evangelist dispose of this His first day in Jerusalem, after the triumphal entry. Nor do the Third and Fourth Gospels give us more light. But from Matthew (Mt 21:10, 11, 14-16) we learn some additional and precious particulars, for which see on Lu 19:45-48. It was not now safe for the Lord to sleep in the city, nor, from the day of His Triumphal Entry, did He pass one night in it, save the last fatal one.

12. And on the morrow—The Triumphal Entry being on the first day of the week, this following day was Monday.

when they were come from Bethany—"in the morning" (Mt 21:18).

he was hungry—How was that? Had he stolen forth from that dear roof at Bethany to the "mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God?" (Lu 6:12); or, "in the morning," as on a former occasion, "risen up a great while before day, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed" (Mr 1:35); not breaking His fast thereafter, but bending His steps straight for the city, that He might "work the works of Him that sent Him while it was day?" (Joh 9:4). We know not, though one lingers upon and loves to trace out the every movement of that life of wonders. One thing, however we are sure of—it was real bodily hunger which He now sought to allay by the fruit of this fig tree, "if haply He might find any thing thereon"; not a mere scene for the purpose of teaching a lesson, as some early heretics maintained, and some still seem virtually to hold.

13. And seeing a fig tree—(In Mt 21:19, it is "one fig tree," but the sense is the same as here, "a certain fig tree," as in Mt 8:19, &c.). Bethphage, which adjoined Bethany, derives its name from its being a fig region—"House of figs."

afar off having leaves—and therefore promising fruit, which in the case of figs come before the leaves.

he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet—What the precise import of this explanation is, interpreters are not agreed. Perhaps all that is meant is, that as the proper fig season had not arrived, no fruit would have been expected even of this tree but for the leaves which it had, which were in this case prematurely and unnaturally developed.

14. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever—That word did not make the tree barren, but sealed it up in its own barrenness. See on Mt 13:13-15.

And his disciples heard it—and marked the saying. This is introduced as a connecting link, to explain what was afterwards to be said on the subject, as the narrative has to proceed to the other transactions of this day.

For the exposition of this portion, see on Lu 19:45-48.

20. And in the morning—of Tuesday, the third day of the week: He had slept, as during all this week, at Bethany.

as they passed by—going into Jerusalem again.

they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots—no partial blight, leaving life in the root; but it was now dead, root and branch. In Mt 21:19 it is said it withered away as soon as it was cursed. But the full blight had not appeared probably at once; and in the dusk perhaps, as they returned to Bethany, they had not observed it. The precision with which Mark distinguishes the days is not observed by Matthew, intent only on holding up the truths which the incident was designed to teach. In Matthew the whole is represented as taking place at once, just as the two stages of Jairus' daughter—dying and dead—are represented by him as one. The only difference is between a more summary and a more detailed narrative, each of which only confirms the other.

21. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him—satisfied that a miracle so very peculiar—a miracle, not of blessing, as all His other miracles, but of cursing—could not have been wrought but with some higher reference, and fully expecting to hear something weighty on the subject.

Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away—so connecting the two things as to show that he traced the death of the tree entirely to the curse of his Lord. Matthew (Mt 21:20) gives this simply as a general exclamation of surprise by the disciples "how soon" the blight had taken effect.

22. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

23. For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed... he shall have whatsoever he saith—Here is the lesson now. From the nature of the case supposed—that they might wish a mountain removed and cast into the sea, a thing far removed from anything which they could be thought actually to desire—it is plain that not physical but moral obstacles to the progress of His kingdom were in the Redeemer's view, and that what He designed to teach was the great lesson, that no obstacle should be able to stand before a confiding faith in God.

24. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them—This verse only generalizes the assurance of Mr 11:23; which seems to show that it was designed for the special encouragement of evangelistic and missionary efforts, while this is a directory for prevailing prayer in general.

25. And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses, &c.—This is repeated from the Sermon on the Mount (see on Mt 6:12); to remind them that if this was necessary to the acceptableness of all prayer, much more when great things were to be asked and confidently expected.

See on Mt 21:23-27.

See on Mt 21:33-46.

Mr 12:13-40. Entangling Questions about Tribute the Resurrection, and the Great Commandment, with the Replies—Christ Baffles the Pharisees by a Question about David, and Denounces the Scribes. ( = Mt 22:15-46; Lu 20:20-47).

The time of this section appears to be still the third day (Tuesday) of Christ's last week. Matthew introduces the subject by saying (Mt 22:15), "Then went the Pharisees and took counsel how they might entangle Him in His talk."

13. And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees—"their disciples," says Matthew (Mt 22:16); probably young and zealous scholars in that hardening school.

and of the Herodians—(See on Mt 12:14). In Lu 20:20 these willing tools are called "spies, which should feign themselves just [righteous] men, that they might take hold of His words, that so they might deliver Him unto the power and authority of the governor." Their plan, then, was to entrap Him into some expression which might be construed into disaffection to the Roman government; the Pharisees themselves being notoriously discontented with the Roman yoke.

14. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master—Teacher.

we know that thou art true, and carest for no man; for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth—By such flattery—though they said only the truth—they hoped to throw Him off His guard.

Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not?—It was the civil poll tax paid by all enrolled in the "census." See on Mt 17:25.

15. Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy—"their wickedness" (Mt 22:18); "their craftiness" (Lu 20:23). The malignity of their hearts took the form of craft, pretending what they did not feel—an anxious desire to be guided aright in a matter which to a scrupulous few might seem a question of some difficulty. Seeing perfectly through this,

He said unto them, Why tempt ye me?—"hypocrites!"

bring me a penny that I may see it—"the tribute money" (Mt 22:19).

16. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image—stamped upon the coin.

and superscription?—the words encircling it on the obverse side.

And they said unto him, Cæsar's.

17. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's—Putting it in this general form, it was impossible for sedition itself to dispute it, and yet it dissolved the snare.

and to God the things that are God's—How much is there in this profound but to them startling addition to the maxim, and how incomparable is the whole for fulness, brevity, clearness, weight!

and they marvelled at him—"at His answer, and held their peace" (Lu 20:26), "and left Him, and went their way" (Mt 22:22).

18. Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection—"neither angel nor spirit" (Ac 23:7). They were the materialists of the day. See on Ac 23:6.

and they asked him, saying—as follows:

19-22. Master, Moses wrote unto us—(De 25:5).

If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him... And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.

23. In the resurrection therefore when they shall rise, &c.

24. Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures—regarding the future state.

neither the power of God?—before which a thousand such difficulties vanish.

25. For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage—"neither can they die any more" (Lu 20:36). Marriage is ordained to perpetuate the human family; but as there will be no breaches by death in the future state, this ordinance will cease.

but are as the angels which are in heaven—In Luke (Lu 20:36) it is "equal unto the angels." But as the subject is death and resurrection, we are not warranted to extend the equality here taught beyond the one point—the immortality of their nature. A beautiful clause is added in Luke (Lu 20:36)—"and are the children of God"—not in respect of character, which is not here spoken of, but of nature—"being the children of the resurrection," as rising to an undecaying existence (Ro 8:21, 23), and so being the children of their Father's immortality (1Ti 6:16).

26. And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses—"even Moses" (Lu 20:37), whom they had just quoted for the purpose of entangling Him.

how in the bush God spake unto him—either "at the bush," as the same expression is rendered in Lu 20:37, that is, when he was there; or "in the [section of his history regarding the] bush." The structure of our verse suggests the latter sense, which is not unusual.

saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?—(Ex 3:6).

27. He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living—not "the God of dead but [the God] of living persons." The word in brackets is almost certainly an addition to the genuine text, and critical editors exclude it. "For all live unto Him" (Lu 20:38)—"in His view," or "in His estimation." This last statement—found only in Luke—though adding nothing to the argument, is an important additional illustration. It is true, indeed, that to God no human being is dead or ever will be, but all mankind sustain an abiding conscious relation to Him; but the "all" here means "those who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world." These sustain a gracious covenant relation to God which cannot be dissolved. (Compare Ro 6:10, 11). In this sense our Lord affirms that for Moses to call the Lord the "God" of His patriarchal servants, if at that moment they had no existence, would be unworthy of Him. He "would be ashamed to be called their God, if He had not prepared for them a city" (Heb 11:16). It was concluded by some of the early Fathers, from our Lord's resting His proof of the Resurrection on such a passage as this, instead of quoting some much clearer testimonies of the Old Testament, that the Sadducees, to whom this was addressed, acknowledged the authority of no part of the Old Testament but the Pentateuch; and this opinion has held its ground even till now. But as there is no ground for it in the New Testament, so Josephus is silent upon it; merely saying that they rejected the Pharisaic traditions. It was because the Pentateuch was regarded by all classes as the fundamental source of the Hebrew religion, and all the succeeding books of the Old Testament but as developments of it, that our Lord would show that even there the doctrine of the Resurrection was taught. And all the rather does He select this passage, as being not a bare annunciation of the doctrine in question, but as expressive of that glorious truth out of which the Resurrection springs. "And when the multitude heard this" (says Mt 22:23), "they were astonished at His doctrine." "Then," adds Lu 20:39, 40, "certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said"—enjoying His victory over the Sadducees. "And after that they durst not ask Him any [question at all]"—neither party could; both being for the time utterly foiled.

"But when the Pharisees had heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together" (Mt 22:34).

28. And one of the scribes—"a lawyer," says Matthew (Mt 22:35); that is, teacher of the law.

came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him—manifestly in no bad spirit. When Matthew (Mt 22:35) therefore says he came "tempting," or "trying him," as one of the Pharisaic party who seemed to enjoy the defeat He had given to the Sadducees, we may suppose that though somewhat priding himself upon his insight into the law, and not indisposed to measure his knowledge with One in whom he had not yet learned to believe, he was nevertheless an honest-hearted, fair disputant.

Which is the first commandment of all?—first in importance; the primary, leading commandment, the most fundamental one. This was a question which, with some others, divided the Jewish teachers into rival schools. Our Lord's answer is in a strain of respect very different from what He showed to cavillers—ever observing His own direction, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine; lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" (Mt 7:6).

29. And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is—The readings here vary considerably. Tischendorf and Tregelles read simply, "the first is"; and they are followed by Meyer and Alford. But though the authority for the precise form of the received text is slender, a form almost identical with it seems to have most weight of authority. Our Lord here gives His explicit sanction to the distinction between commandments of a more fundamental and primary character, and commandments of a more dependent and subordinate nature; a distinction of which it is confidently asserted by a certain class of critics that the Jews knew nothing, that our Lord and His apostles nowhere lay down, and which has been invented by Christian divines. (Compare Mt 23:23).

Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord—This every devout Jew recited twice every day, and the Jews do it to this day; thus keeping up the great ancient national protest against the polytheisms and pantheisms of the heathen world: it is the great utterance of the national faith in One Living and Personal God—"One Jehovah!"

30. And thou shalt—We have here the language of law, expressive of God's claims. What then are we here bound down to do? One word is made to express it. And what a word! Had the essence of the divine law consisted in deeds, it could not possibly have been expressed in a single word; for no one deed is comprehensive of all others embraced in the law. But as it consists in an affection of the soul, one word suffices to express it—but only one. Fear, though due to God and enjoined by Him, is limited in its sphere and distant in character. Trust, hope, and the like, though essential features of a right state of heart towards God, are called into action only by personal necessity, and so are—in a good sense, it is true, but still are properly—selfish affections; that is to say, they have respect to our own well-being. But LOVE is an all-inclusive affection, embracing not only every other affection proper to its object, but all that is proper to be done to its object; for as love spontaneously seeks to please its object, so, in the case of men to God, it is the native well spring of a voluntary obedience. It is, besides, the most personal of all affections. One may fear an event, one may hope for an event, one may rejoice in an event; but one can love only a Person. It is the tenderest, the most unselfish, the most divine of all affections. Such, then, is the affection in which the essence of the divine law is declared to consist.

Thou shalt love—We now come to the glorious Object of that demanded affection.

Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God—that is, Jehovah, the Self-Existent One, who has revealed Himself as the "I Am," and there is none else; who, though by His name Jehovah apparently at an unapproachable distance from His finite creatures, yet bears to Thee a real and definite relationship, out of which arises His claim and Thy duty—of LOVE. But with what are we to love Him? Four things are here specified. First, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God"

with thy heart—This sometimes means "the whole inner man" (as Pr 4:23); but that cannot be meant here; for then the other three particulars would be superfluous. Very often it means "our emotional nature"—the seat of feeling as distinguished from our intellectual nature or the seat of thought, commonly called the "mind" (as in Php 4:7). But neither can this be the sense of it here; for here the heart is distinguished both from the "mind" and the "soul." The "heart," then, must here mean the sincerity of both the thoughts and the feelings; in other words, uprightness or true-heartedness, as opposed to a hypocritical or divided affection. But next, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" with thy soul. This is designed to command our emotional nature: Thou shalt put feeling or warmth into thine affection. Further, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God"

with thy mind—This commands our intellectual nature: Thou shalt put intelligence into thine affection—in opposition to a blind devotion, or mere devoteeism. Lastly, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God"

with thy strength—This commands our energies: Thou shalt put intensity into thine affection—"Do it with thy might" (Ec 9:10). Taking these four things together, the command of the Law is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy powers—with a sincere, a fervid, an intelligent, an energetic love." But this is not all that the Law demands. God will have all these qualities in their most perfect exercise. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," says the Law, "with all thy heart," or, with perfect sincerity; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul," or, with the utmost fervor; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy mind," or, in the fullest exercise of an enlightened reason; and "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength," or, with the whole energy of our being! So much for the First Commandment.

31. And the second is like—"unto it" (Mt 22:39); as demanding the same affection, and only the extension of it, in its proper measure, to the creatures of Him whom we thus love—our brethren in the participation of the same nature, and neighbors, as connected with us by ties that render each dependent upon and necessary to the other.

Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself—Now, as we are not to love ourselves supremely, this is virtually a command, in the first place, not to love our neighbor with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. And thus it is a condemnation of the idolatry of the creature. Our supreme and uttermost affection is to be reserved for God. But as sincerely as ourselves we are to love all mankind, and with the same readiness to do and suffer for them as we should reasonably desire them to show to us. The golden rule (Mt 7:12) is here our best interpreter of the nature and extent of these claims.

There is none other commandment greater than these—or, as in Mt 22:40, "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets" (see on Mt 5:17). It is as if He had said, "This is all Scripture in a nutshell; the whole law of human duty in a portable, pocket form." Indeed, it is so simple that a child may understand it, so brief that all may remember it, so comprehensive as to embrace all possible cases. And from its very nature it is unchangeable. It is inconceivable that God should require from his rational creatures anything less, or in substance anything else, under any dispensation, in any world, at any period throughout eternal duration. He cannot but claim this—all this—alike in heaven, in earth, and in hell! And this incomparable summary of the divine law belonged to the Jewish religion! As it shines in its own self-evidencing splendor, so it reveals its own true source. The religion from which the world has received it could be none other than a God-given religion!

32. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master—Teacher.

thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he—The genuine text here seems clearly to have been, "There is one," without the word "God"; and so nearly all critical editors and expositors read.

33. And to love him with all the heart... and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices—more, that is, than all positive institutions; thereby showing insight into the essential difference between what is moral and in its own nature unchangeable, and what is obligatory only because enjoined, and only so long as enjoined.

34. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly—rather, "intelligently," or "sensibly"; not only in a good spirit, but with a promising measure of insight into spiritual things.

he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God—for he had but to follow out a little further what he seemed sincerely to own, to find his way into the kingdom. He needed only the experience of another eminent scribe who at a later period said, "We know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin": who exclaimed, "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me?" but who added, "I thank God through Jesus Christ!" (Ro 7:14, 24, 25). Perhaps among the "great company of the priests" and other Jewish ecclesiastics who "were obedient to the faith," almost immediately after the day of Pentecost (Ac 6:7), this upright lawyer was one. But for all his nearness to the Kingdom of God, it may be he never entered it.

And no man after that durst ask any question—all feeling that they were no match for Him, and that it was vain to enter the lists with Him.

35. And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple—and "while the Pharisees were gathered together" (Mt 22:41).

How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David?—How come they to give it out that Messiah is to be the son of David? In Matthew (Mt 22:42), Jesus asks them, "What think ye of Christ?" or of the promised and expected Messiah? "Whose son is He [to be]? They say unto Him, The son of David." The sense is the same. "He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord?" (Mt 22:42, 43).

36. For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool—(Ps 110:1).

37. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son?—There is but one solution of this difficulty. Messiah is at once inferior to David as his son according to the flesh, and superior to him as the Lord of a kingdom of which David is himself a subject, not the sovereign. The human and divine natures of Christ, and the spirituality of His kingdom—of which the highest earthly sovereigns are honored if they be counted worthy to be its subjects—furnish the only key to this puzzle.

And the common people—the immense crowd.

heard him gladly—"And no man was able to answer Him a word; neither durst any man from that day forth ask Him any more questions" (Mt 22:46).

38. And he said unto them in his doctrine—rather, "in His teaching"; implying that this was but a specimen of an extended discourse, which Matthew gives in full (Mt 23:1-39). Luke says (Lu 20:45) this was "in the audience of all the people said unto His disciples."

Beware of the scribes, which love—or like.

to go in long clothing—(see on Mt 23:5).

and love salutations in the market-places,

39. And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms—or positions.

at feasts—On this love of distinction, see on Lu 14:7; Mt 6:5.

40. Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation—They took advantage of their helpless condition and confiding character to obtain possession of their property, while by their "long prayers" they made them believe they were raised far above "filthy lucre." So much the "greater damnation" awaited them. (Compare Mt 23:33). A lifelike description this of the Romish clergy, the true successors of "the scribes."

See on Lu 21:1-4.