New Thoughts (06/03/11-06/08/11)
I will start these thoughts by returning to my considerations of this fellow who posed the question. As I noted in looking at him, the little we are shown, there is assuredly a trial going on here in the courts of the temple, and the man under consideration is a lawyer. He is a lawyer, we might say, for the prosecution. It is they who pay his bill and it is therefore they he must serve. So it is that Matthew, at least, perceives the situation. He is a lawyer, a hired legal gun, and he has stood in order to make his own attempt where others have failed. His question is not earnest inquisitiveness, but another attempt to goad Jesus into revealing an imperfection. Perhaps it will amount to nothing more than showing a place where the established order has greater understanding than this upstart. Perhaps the lawyer has something more sinister in mind, posing a question to which it is possible for Jesus to answer not only incorrectly, but in a fashion bordering on the blasphemous.
This, as I say, is the sense one gets of Matthew’s opinion, and the setting certainly makes that opinion reasonable. But, I note a certain degree of ambiguity in the way he sets the stage. This lawyer, he says, put forward the question in order to test Jesus. Some translations, sensing the mood of things, translate that term Matthew uses as ‘to tempt Him’. Most, I believe, leave the more ambiguous ‘to test Him’. To make trial of Him, if you will; but in what sense? Was this truly a case of attempted entrapment? Or, as Mark’s account suggests, was he really working surreptitiously against his employers? Is it the case, could it be the case, that he has framed his question in the hopes of granting Jesus space to prove Himself? In other words, is he testing Jesus as the Bereans later would test Paul: seeking to find proof that his message was true?
Mark’s accounting of this event certainly makes it possible to understand the case in this light. The lawyer, as Mark describes the scene through Peter’s eyes, more or less just happens along. It’s almost an accident that he happened to be around to hear what had gone on thus far. Perhaps this is the case. Perhaps he is not so much in the inner circle of the Pharisees as to be privy to their darker schemes. He has simply noted the gathering and come to watch. What he has seen thus far has been a very good teacher holding his own quite nicely. Of course, lawyer that he is, he has also noted the tenor of those questions and the demeanor of those posing them. He is quite aware of the purpose of those around him, how they are attempting to catch this One out.
It must remain a question, then, why he rises with his question, what he intends. Is there truly anything in what he asks that lays a trap for Jesus? Compared to those other questions He has parried already, this one seems particularly benign. Let me just toss in a stray thought here. Back when I first sought to parse out the several Gospel accounts into some sort of outline, collecting the parallel accounts together as I have done, I included Luke’s version of this question as paralleling the others. However, in reviewing the distinctly different nature of his account, and noting that it is much earlier in his account than this event, I have been inclined to think it a mistake to consider Luke as covering the same event. That being the case, isn’t it just possible that this scribe has already heard how Jesus answers this question? Isn’t it just possible that he was there at that earlier point that Luke describes? Isn’t it even possible, if we stretch our imaginations just a bit, that this scribe was the very one who had encountered Jesus on that occasion?
If I allow myself this supposition, it certainly changes the color of his question to Jesus here. He already has a good sense of how Jesus will answer, a certainty that His answer will be sound. The test, in this case, is not an attempt to disprove Him as a teacher, but rather to demonstrate conclusively to these doubters around him that He is indeed a teacher of great value and validity.
As an admittedly inconclusive and circumstantial bit of evidence for this view of the man, I would offer up the concluding part of Mark’s coverage. The scribe is not silenced by Jesus answer, as if having been repelled in his attempted character assault. Rather, he confirms and even amplifies the aptness of what Jesus has said. To the two passages that Jesus has offered, he responds adding two more passages as confirming witness to the accuracy of what has been said.
Then, too, we have Jesus’ commendation of the man. “You are not far from the kingdom.” There is such a wonderful invitation in that! You’re almost there, man. A few steps further and you’ll be safely home. Come. You can do it. Don’t give up now.
I have to say that, given the way in which Jesus has steadfastly challenged and decried the hypocrisy he has found in this man’s class and amongst his compatriots, if there was any hint of such hypocrisy here, Jesus would hardly leave it unmentioned. If there were any duplicity of purpose behind that questioning, the slap down would have been forthcoming with all alacrity. Instead, there is this gentle praise and encouragement. Good! You see it. You acknowledge it. Now, come the step farther and live it. Doesn’t it begin to seem quite possible that this scribe indeed took that further step, that he found in Jesus the Way to the kingdom, the key to that obedience he found lacking in himself? Having brought up the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices, would he fail to note the fulfillment of these shadows in the Christ who was hung on the cross? Scripture does not tell us what became of him, but I have to say that the conclusion of the account leaves me hopeful for his end.
I must also note, though, the pressure on this man. If I stop to consider the stealth with which Nicodemus pursued his inquiries and why, I see that he, though a member of the Council, dared not expose his belief. I also see in his example that while hidden, he also did what he could in support of Jesus, speaking out as a voice of conscience in the Council. Well, I should think that if he felt pressure to conform, so did this scribe.
Consider that scene we are observing. The Pharisees have had their moment of deep embarrassment at the hands of this Jesus. The only saving grace from their perspective is that they have enjoyed seeing the Sadducees fare just as poorly. But, they are not in a position to be amused by this. Rather they are, as Matthew says, gathered together, circling the wagons as it were, and likely discussing in heated fashion just what their next move should be.
This scribe, or lawyer as Matthew calls him, was assuredly one of them in that he was a Pharisee by training and by understanding. His perspectives on the Scriptures are the perspectives of a Pharisee. His habits are the habits of a Pharisee. But, he is not a member of the Council. He is at best a paid advisor. Again, the scribes had no official standing in the temple. What power and sway they held was due to their knowledge of Torah and Mishnah, not in some authorizing clause therein. So, it would be that much more important for our friend here to maintain the appearance of common cause with his employers. However, his skills would enable him to do so in a fashion that might just run counter to that cause.
Concluding this particular line of thought, it is nothing one can say with certainty. The man may have been seeking to trip Jesus up in some fashion and having failed, he failed graciously. Or, he may have already conceded Jesus His due honor and sought to make that deserved status clear to his compatriots. We cannot know with certainty for Scripture is silent as to the outcome of life for this man. Again, though, I look at those last words of Jesus to him and find cause to be hopeful for his soul. “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” It is quite possibly the nicest thing Jesus ever said to a Pharisee. It is also, we can be certain, an honest and accurate assessment. If, then, he is that near the kingdom, is it really likely that the King would allow him to wander off? I would think not. But, then, I am not the King.
As to the question he poses, there is something in the way the Amplified version parses Matthew’s account that seems off to me. I’ll quote it here. “Teacher, which kind of commandment is great and important (the principal kind) in the Law? [Some commandments are light — which are heavy?]” It seems to me that they are reading entirely too much into the choice of words Matthew has made. Matthew has used megalee where Mark places prootee, but then, Matthew has Jesus using both terms in His response. “This is the great and foremost commandment.” I will note that Jesus includes the definite article in His response despite its absence from the question. If one wishes to be painfully accurate in transcribing that question, it might come across as “Master, which commandment great in the law?” They pin this perspective to Marvin Vincent’s Word Studies, which does indeed insist that our view of the question ought to be along these lines.
Looking at his treatment of Mark 12:28, the parallel question, he appears to try and bring that same sort of ambiguity in by his translation of poia, suggesting it ought to take the meaning of ‘of what nature’, making the question more, “Of what nature is the foremost commandment of all?” Strong’s supports this meaning for the word (poios [4169]), as inquiring into the character of the thing. Perhaps, then, this suggested meaning that Vincent and the Amplified version bring out is more reasonable than it seems at first.
It is interesting that very few, if any, of the other translations accent this flavoring of the question. If, indeed, the question as Mark records it was so clearly probing the nature of the commandment as opposed to the specifics of which one was primary, does this reflect an attempt to conform the question to the answer given? It does not seem that way to me. Looking at the way the term is translated elsewhere, it is fairly consistently left as a simple which or what. Only in 1Pe 1:11 do I see the KJV adding the suggestion of character, and then only because there is another ‘what’ immediately preceding, requiring the added significance. “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify.” Let me try this in NASB. Hmm. They have, “seeking to know what person or time”. The preceding ‘what’ in this case is eis tina, with eis generally signifying to or into, and tina, an indefinite pronoun – some person or object.
My, but this gets messy and downright distracting. Here, it would seem that the translations of that passage from 1Peter are making some grand assumptions as well. If I am to take the significance of these words as indicated, I would be better served to read it as indicating that they sought to know the specific time or the nature of that time which the Spirit of Christ was indicating.
Returning to this issue of poia, I would note that several, if not all of the other occasions where it is used could take that added sense of ‘what sort of’. We see it applied elsewhere to the commandments, when the rich young ruler asked Jesus which commandments he needed to follow to attain to life. We see it when Jesus is questioned in regards to the authority for his ministry. We see it when Jesus speaks of the hour when the thief was coming (Lk 12:39). Does He, then, intend to speak of the specific hour of that event or the characteristics of the hour? Here, I would be inclined to hold with the specific, but? That is, perhaps, the only case where I could not find the sense of characteristic being at least fitting if not necessarily applied.
Well, then, let’s come back to the passage under our immediate consideration. Indeed, let’s assume that there is this bit of sophistry to be heard in the question, this picking at the nits of legal finery. It’s entirely plausible, after all, given the nature of such discourse. What can be more pleasurable to the scholastic mind than to explore the technicalities, the finest of details? What pleasure is greater for such a one than to debate these fineries with one of equally sharp perceptions but different conclusions? That Jesus should answer such an inquiry in a fashion totally at odds with the intent of the question is hardly reason for us to reshape the question. He has done so quite neatly on His own, and the import of that reshaping becomes the more significant for it.
Jesus refuses to be drawn into this comparative view of the fineries of theological debate. He’s not interested in that. Following Matthew’s account, after He declares the primary commandment (not by characteristic but by quotation), he specifically corrects the question. “This is the great and foremost commandment.” In other words, there’s no need to debate the characteristics that make it so. It is. Then, by adding a reference to the second in importance, and noting that it is so nearly equal in importance to the first as makes no difference, He has actually answered the question as posed. Good teacher that He is, though, He has left it to this student to ferret out the significance in the answer He has given, to find the requested answer in that one which was provided.
Turning to the way we have things related to us by Mark, I can almost sense amusement in the way Jesus replies. I should also say that His initial response seems to ignore the sense of probing the character of that foremost law. When He replies, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord,’” I could choose to hear Him pointing indirectly to the First Commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex 20:3). This would be a most deliberate turning of the question’s point (assuming the point was to probe characteristics rather than specifics). But, it would turn the question without seeming snide and disrespectful, as quoting the First Commandment would have seemed in that setting. To do so would come across rather as if somebody asked you which was the most important amendment to the Constitution, and you replied by saying, “The first amendment is…”. It’s a clearly intentional misunderstanding of the question asked. It could even be interpreted as an attempt to misdirect, to cover one’s inability to answer the question that was actually asked. Jesus is quite skillful, then, in choosing this indirect approach. He makes His knowledge clear even as He has a bit of fun at this scribe’s expense.
Indeed, I am half-inclined to hear Him pause after saying, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel!’” Indeed, a great part of me finds this a most appropriate stopping point. If we would but hear, then such debates as these scribes seek to get into would matter not in the least to us. If we would but hear, with a determination to obey what has been heard, how different would our pursuit of theology and doctrine be? How much, I might find cause to ask, of our current practice of church and worship would look radically different if we but obeyed that simple direction? Hear! Then act.
Well, as worthwhile as such a hearing is, I expect Jesus really was stressing the unity of God as He answers this scribe. The Lord our God is one Lord. He is, then, Lord over all of us. And, He who is Lord of us is singular. There can be but one God. There is no room for any such pantheon as Greek or Roman thought at the time would have allowed. That Jesus, Himself Messiah, Son of God, and perfectly well aware of it, should be making this statement must surely tell us something about the nature of God. He is one Lord. There are not multiple Gods. Indeed, how could there be given that proclamation by which the scribe confirms the accuracy of this statement. You’re right, Jesus. He is One. There is no other. To this statement Jesus will accede wholeheartedly, and yet He is fully God of fully God.
There is a sense, then, in which Jesus has spoken this to make a point about the common conception of Messiah. The mind shied away from considering that Messiah would be something beyond another Jewish hero. Why? Because to think of oneself or speak of oneself as being equal with God was to deny this very point! There can be no other, for He is One! But, Jesus, by His very being, indicates that there is a misunderstanding in that mindset. Yes, He is One. I am One. We are One. And, to be clear, the Lord is our God. I am not your God with some other God above Me. I and the Father are One (Jn 10:30). That Jesus was physically present before them in a fashion that the Father has never been changes nothing about the unity that is the Godhead. There is a reason we speak of it as a tri-unity. There are indeed the three persons, although at this stage in the proceedings there are but the two revealed: Father and Son. The Spirit has (ever has) been fully present in the affairs of Creation, was there from the outset and shall be to the end, just as the Son. But, as the Son was not recognized fully until His time had come, so, too, the Spirit was not fully realized to us until His time had come.
What this message speaks, however, of the Trinity, is a matter that we must be clear on. It is an issue that has, frankly, troubled the unity of the Church at times. How do we come to grips with this? There are three persons, but one God? How can these points coincide? Can something truly be singular and multiple simultaneously? The answer comes down from reason that yes, it is possible that there could be something that is both singular and multiple simultaneously, but not in the same sense. Thus, we arrive at the doctrine of a unity of essence. Being God, they can be of but that one essence.
It is interesting: I was late getting to the articles in last month’s Table Talk, as happens sometimes. The article at hand happened to be covering Saint Anshelm, and his propositional proof of God’s being. That proof hinges on the conception we have of God, as the one being above whom there is and can be no other. He is, as I am told Anshelm put it, that which no greater can be conceived. That being the case, and I assuredly hold that it is, there can be no hierarchy of gods, with some holding rank over others. If it can be said that one holds rank over the other, then the other is thereby defined as not God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit suffer no such issue. The Spirit proceeds from Father and Son but is not in any wise inferior to Them, or subjected to them. The Son is begotten of the Father but is not in any wise inferior to Him nor subjected to Him. There is no need for subjection, for they are One. They act, in their distinct ways, as members of a single being, a single existence.
When we speak of God as being in three persons, we cannot allow this to occlude our recognition that He is One. Father, Son and Spirit, He is One. Bad grammar, perhaps, but sound theology. These persons are not, then, separate. They are only distinct. That may leave things a bit muddy for anybody reading through this, but that’s as may be. The Trinity, while a marvelously grand topic, is not the topic of this study. I bring it in solely because Jesus has brought it in by His opening statement here.
More immediately to the point of His answer, I find that this unity of the Trinity is actually quite to the point of what follows. This is a point that would doubtless have been utterly lost on those to whom He is currently speaking. His inquisitors have no sense at all of plurality, even in this Trinitarian sense. His disciples were doubtless familiar with the passage He quotes. What citizen of Israel in that day would not be? But, would they have been aware of or curious about the odd mixture of plurality and singularity in that text? After all, much is made of this, particularly in Trinitarian circles, that it really reads something like, “the Lord, our Gods, is one Lord”. That one is ‘echad, one. But, it lies rooted in a sense of being united, not necessarily of single count. Here in Deuteronomy 6:4, it would be rather difficult to justify a plural God-count and a numeric singularity. Yet, it is, I suppose no more difficult than the Trinitarian concept, is it? If anything, it points rather clearly to that concept, and declares a fundamental truth within the concept: They are unified. More properly: He is unified. Three persons, one essence, one purpose, one will.
Now then, I have said that this ties in with the commandments that Jesus sets forth as being the fundamentals of faith. How so? Well, I note that both of the commandments that Jesus indicates involve one thing: Love. Is this not likewise the uniting bond, the expressed unity of the Trinity? The love of Father for Son, Son for Father, Father for Spirit, Spirit for Son, and so on; this love is perfect. It is the fullest expression of that love which Paul describes in 1Corinthians 13, far fuller, in truth. Love is so central to the doctrine of God because Love is so central to His being. It is a fundamental and critical part of that singular essence that defines Him. It is one of those characteristics, alongside Justice and Righteousness and Faithfulness apart from which He would cease to be God. Without this essential attribute He is no longer that which nothing can be greater. Love defines Him. God is Love, John tells us (1Jn 4:8, 1Jn 4:16). Interesting that this was so important to John that he tells us twice in such close proximity to make certain we heard him.
So, then, I find Jesus speaking of love in three aspects as He answers the scribe: There is the love of God for God, the love of man for God, and the overflow of that love which is expressed as love of man for man. In all of this, I see as well that the love of God for man is expressed. This is the uniting bond, the thing that God requires and desires of us because it is this very thing that He expresses towards us. Behold, what manner of love the Father has for us, calling us His own children (1Jn 3:1)! God loved us so much that He gave His only begotten Son for the purpose of rescuing us from our sins and bringing us into eternal life (Jn 3:16). Love is commanded of us because Love is Commander of us! God is Love, this same God Who is our Lord, One Lord. He Who has lovingly declared us His legitimate children has every right and reason to expect and even demand that we demonstrate our legitimacy in a love like unto His own.
Well! Coming back to the question posed by the scribe: I have explored the sense of that question that is rather lost in translation. “What characterizes the foremost law? What sorts of laws are greater than others?” By this listing, Jesus has surely answered, hasn’t He? He has done more than to simply say that these are the great and foremost commandments. He has laid them out because, in looking at them carefully, we have the answer to the scribe’s question. What characterizes them? What marks them out for particular consideration? Love. That particular form of love which is construed in the word agape. This is the mark of the weightiest matters of Law.
I come to the doctrinal point as I have chosen to record it in this study: Love is the principal principle. This is the thrust of Jesus’ answer, and the scribe, in concurring and expanding the point, understands that he has been fully and truly answered. One thinks of that agape form of love, possibly, as that love which expresses itself in compassion. Eros will not do that. Philos finds no need to do so. It is uniquely agape, this compassion. It is an active love, an involved love. It is a love that is directed by the will, which is the direction of the will. But, it is not only to be found in compassion and pity. It is also that love which finds its joy in the object thereof. The love I have for my wife, at least in its healthiest state, is of this nature. It is far beyond that physical attraction common to eros, and it is far deeper than the friendship and camaraderie of philos. It is a bond of unity, even if there are arguments on occasion. I find my joy in her, prefer her to all others, and I most assuredly care for her welfare. She is the one I desire and long for. There is only One of Whom I could say this more strongly in all my life, and that is exactly as He intends it should be.
But, this same love is not to be reserved for God alone or spouse alone, or even those two in exclusion of all others. No! That same degree of love, those same motivations, are to define our interaction with the communion of believers in which we find ourselves. Indeed, as Jesus indicates (and I’ll pursue that in the next study), that same degree of love is to be shown to everybody! After all, we must recognize that God demonstrates His loving care and compassion upon everybody. We may quibble that He does not do so in equal degree, but of course that’s His prerogative, isn’t it? But, inasmuch as He causes His sun to shine on saint and sinner alike, inasmuch as He provides food for friend and enemy alike, there is assuredly compassion shown to all. That His enemies refuse to respond to that love in kind as rather beside the point.
Something strikes me in all this: I recall hearing it said of a husband’s love that it is so great, so deep, that he would die for his wife. It is a love as great, in its limited scope, as that of the Father for creation. But, if that is the same love we are to have for others! Can you imagine yourself saying that you would gladly die for that person in the pew in front of you or behind you? Can you imagine yourself saying (or even accepting) that you would die for that co-worker that so annoys you on any given day? Yet, this is the command! This is the fullest extent of that command, for it is the fullest extent of that very love which God has shed abroad in our hearts.
As much as I wish to not disrupt the flow of my thoughts thus far, I have to stop this morning and say that I am more convinced than ever that this scribe was a supporter of Jesus and not a tempter. As I read through the text again this morning, the scribe’s response to Jesus’ words struck me once more. He not only accepts Jesus’ assessment of the Law, but expounds upon it, and his exposition strikes me as being very different than the typical Pharisaic understanding, and certainly nothing a Sadducee would subscribe to. What? To love a neighbor is more important to God than our rites and ceremonies? To show His love to others is more to the point than our scrupulous observances? This must have seemed quite close to the blasphemies they would accuse Jesus of to those who had come to accost Him with these questions. What this man has said was enough to throw over the whole order of worship, and they must needs let it pass because even they can hear the quotation of Scripture that is his exposition. He’s not offering opinions, he’s offering God’s word. That is, after all, what the scribe was there to do. But, it was a brave scribe who would support this enemy of the state with such open praise and confirmation.
Let me return, though, to that answer Jesus gives and its import for me as a follower of Him. Here is the assured expert on Law, the Scribe above all scribes, declaring to us what really matters, what it’s all about. He has told us that love is everything, that love is to be everything in us. We are to love God with everything that is in us and still find plenty left by which to love our neighbor. Indeed, we could argue that the command to love our neighbor contains every bit as much ‘all’ as the command with regard to loving God. We do, after all, love ourselves with that degree of completeness, don’t we? Why, there’s nothing I wouldn’t do for me! It’s the American way. No. It’s the way of all flesh. We’ve just chosen to accent it a bit more, perhaps, than some other cultures because we have been able to. We’ve had less cause to rely on each other and therefore been more free to love only ourselves. But, this is truly anathema to the Way.
When I was nearer the start of considering this passage, two big thoughts hit me as regards these twin commands. The first of these was that I was utterly convicted by them. Any one of those alls would suffice (for to be in breach of the least commandment is to be guilty of the whole). Honestly, for all that I do love my Lord, to claim I love Him completely in even one of these four means would be a bold-faced lie on my part. To suggest I have a love for my neighbor that is anything even demonstrably nearby to the love I have for myself would be pushing the boundaries of the absurd. I have enough difficulty maintaining something like that degree of love for my own family, let alone anybody outside my walls. Loving compassionate outreach? Not my style, I’m afraid. Aye, and afraid I ought very well to be, because this is the very thing that is to define and distinguish the Christian!
What shall I say to this? What shall I do? I can, of course, come to this great Savior of mine and seek forgiveness, for my sin is truly great in this regard. I cannot, though, do so with any degree of conviction that my own repentance is yet real. Honestly, this passage has been much on my mind this last week, even when I’ve not been here focusing on it directly. To love in this fashion seems to me so far beyond my capacity, and yet I am able to see what appears to be that sort of love in others around me. I am all too happy to soak in the love of others and return little that is of like value. I am all too capable of sponging up the love of my Father for me and likewise return to Him little to nothing that is of any value.
I went to bed last night repeating to Him – or to myself – that I truly do love Him, yet I know myself wholly willing and able to betray that love at my earliest possible convenience. It is frustrating in the extreme! But, it is reality. As I consider this, how can I not fully sympathize with Paul’s cry, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death” (Ro 7:24)?
Indeed, Lord, when shall I know the release of victory against this failure of flesh? When shall I come to a time when my spirit within me, that which You have so lovingly refashioned, will reign in me as You reign in me? When will I find it in myself to obey You? No. I know better. Never shall I find it in myself this side of heaven. I shall find it, if I find it at all, in You. It is You, by Your own Word, who works in me to make me both willing and able. Why, then, do I find myself yet unwilling and yet incapable? It is agony to me, Lord, to think upon these things, to know them true of myself. Yet, I know, too, that apart from Your active intervention, that agony will swiftly slip my mind as this day progresses. How can You stand the likes of man, Holy God? How can You stand the likes of me? I know the pat answers to that question, but it remains a mystery fit to boggle the mind that this be so.
I can but seek once more Your forgiveness, knowing that this You freely offer me as I confess this horrid weakness and failure that is mine, this sin (let us name it for what it is!) But, thankfully, as Paul also proceeds to acknowledge in his agony, there is You, my Lord, my Christ, my Redeemer! You love me as I ought to love You. You give me to sense and accept Your own example in this and by this to be changed. Here, in the knowledge that You love me every bit as much as You require me to love, I can set aside that guilt and self-flagellation and come into the place of rejoicing thankfulness. For You do love me to that very extreme. You, Who loved me enough to die for me, what reason have I to doubt that You will do all that is necessary to bring me home to Yourself? No! There is no fear in this faith You have shed abroad in my heart! For, You are that very Perfect Love that has cast out the last reason for such fear. Your love for me, so utterly perfect and complete, must necessarily bring me to the place where my love for You is equally perfect and complete. Therein is all my confidence, and only therein.
This is indeed the other great insight that has been granted to me as I study the words Jesus speaks. He really does love us in exactly this fashion. For all that He demands such an all-consuming love from us, He has exactly such an all-consuming love for us. Your God, my God, is a consuming fire, a jealous God (Deut 4:24). This is truly said, there can be no doubt. But, it is said in a sense unlike that by which we tend to view jealousy. There is no sin in this jealous love of God for us. It is that whole and entire love that He speaks of as our obligation towards Him, but He first expresses it towards us. It is He Who says, “He who touches you touches the apple of My eye” (Zech 2:8). He is like that exemplary older brother that we know from film, if not from life. You mess with my kid brother and I’ll lay a beating on you like you’ve never known before. It’s that kind of jealousy. It’s that degree of devotion that we might, if we are truly blessed, know for and from our spouse. You mess with my wife, and I’ll find a way to make you pay dearly for having done so – and frankly, that includes her offspring.
This is really how we are supposed to be, at least as concerns the depth and power of our love one for another. Yet, we are supposed to be like this with God, with spouse, with children, and for all that, with complete strangers. Our worst enemy, our greatest antagonist: what are we told to do about him? Love him. It will be like heaping burning coals upon his head. Love as a weapon, it’s so unlikely a sword, and it seems (to our poor understanding) a terrible thing to wield in such a fashion. But, that is only because we think of the club-like way in which the love another has for us may be abused and taken advantage of that we might exercise our own tendency towards bullying and belligerence without fear of reprisal. That’s not what’s before us, though. No. One cannot abuse another in love. It’s utterly incongruous. Abuse has no love in it, and cannot therefore express love. Abuse uses love. It makes love an excuse for sin as the flesh displays itself at its most degraded. But, love, properly maintained and deployed, is indeed a weapon of great power, able to bring the strongest man to his knees, able to disarm the worst of opposers.
Is this not the power of the martyr to withstand? It is the love he has for God, to be sure, that enables him to ignore the tortures to which he is put, or as good as. But, it is also the love he has for the torturer, not for being a torturer, but for being God’s creation, however perverse his present estate. Here is a potential citizen of heaven, not a confirmed denizen of hell. Here is one such as myself, were it not for the Christ Who came to me and rescued me. It could be me on the other side of this equation.
If we could be see that in the others we encounter; if we could come to look at each person we meet with the sense of, “That’s me there. That’s who I was, who I could still be had things been sadly different,” what must this do for us? Surely, such a perspective must increase the likelihood of our love shining through as it ought! Surely, such a perspective must give us a greater compassion for that other before us, that we might even be moved to seek God that He would see fit to call that one as He called us. What would change if we viewed life through that lens? What would not!
This first commandment that Jesus espouses has ever been central to the faith God sets forth. With all – love your God with all that is you. The categories set out here, particularly in Mark’s account, leave nothing out. Heart, soul, and mind. These three Matthew records as well. Mark might possibly have been trying to get this to conform to the passage Jesus is referencing by including strength. But, the scope of that commandment remains all-inclusive. We can, if we so choose, lose ourselves for a time trying to distinguish what precisely is meant by each of those first three aspects. How does heart differ from soul differ from mind? I think, however, that for purposes of this study any such pursuit would be total distraction. The point is simple: Everything. All-consuming love for God, a love so thoroughgoing and complete as leaves no room for competing desires and passions.
When the Living Bible comes to the conclusion Jesus provides, it offers this phrasing: “Keep only these and you will find that you are obeying all the others” (Mt 22:40). No, this is nothing like what the text actually says, but it sure does get straight to the point. All else that Scripture records – every commandment and every explanation, everything that is said of God, our duty towards Him and our relationship with Him – depends from these twin commands to love. So, yes, it is quite true! If we will but look to these two, we will find ourselves obeying all the others.
Think about the simplest cases. If my being is wholly caught up in loving God, there will be nothing left with which to be enticed into idolatry. If every last fiber of my being is caught up in loving God, what is left for any would be competitor? Think of that first blush of love when we find ourselves in the presence of that one who became our spouse. No other could even catch our eye. We could be on a crowded beach, together at a community dance, in a restaurant full of folks dressed to the nines. It doesn’t matter. From the lover’s perspective, especially in those first days, there are only the two of you that enter into awareness. The eyes see no other, the thoughts admit of no other, so wholly consumed are we by this love we have found.
That’s what God’s talking about here. That’s how we are ever and always to be in our love for Him. If we are in that position, in that state of all-consuming love for our heavenly Groom, there is no room left for temptation to even get our attention, let alone mislead us. The trouble is, as Jesus would remind His church, that we lose our sense of first love. We grow comfortable in that love, and in our comfortableness, we grow complacent, unless we are very careful of that love. May we each of us, then, look to our love for God, and seek whatever it may take to restore our sense of freshness, our sense of a holy jealousy for the quality and breadth of our love for Him Who has and continues so to love us.
Take it to the horizontal now, the love of neighbor that is commanded of us even in the presence of this all-consuming vertical love of God. If we love our neighbor, how can we possibly covet his possessions? We cannot! Nothing satisfies us like seeing those we love being blessed, honored and rewarded. Surely, we would appreciate such things were they coming our way. If we truly love those around us, then we come to a new perspective: What comes their way has as good as come our way. It’s not that we hold some sort of communal sense of there being no personal property. It’s just that seeing them blessed is as perfectly satisfying as if the blessing were ours firsthand.
Consider: When your child receives an award of some fashion, whether it be for scholastics or gymnastics, it makes no difference; when they are handed that reward does pride not swell in your own breast? Are you then jealous of that award they have received? Do you covet it for yourself? No! There is no need, for in their victory you feel something of a victory of your own. That’s my child winning! I’m not talking some degraded vicarious sense of winning through your child. That’s a corruption. I’m talking about the joy we naturally feel in seeing one who is the object of so much of our love succeeding and making good. And that is as it should be.
The expansion, though, the thing which God insists upon because it is this which makes the Christian understanding far exceed the natural habit of mankind, is that we are to have this very same sense towards everybody! Since, we are all, in some sense, children of God, we are all intertwined with the bindings of familial love. True, some are children of His in the sense of His having adopted them, and others are wayward children perhaps destined for destruction. But, that is not the way we are to view things, really. After all, we imperfect beings are hardly qualified to determine with any accuracy which of us is which. Therefore, love believes and hopes all things (1Co 13:7). So, we are called to love each one of those we encounter with such love as we would have for our own brother, our own child. Their victories, like those of our children, are our own victories. Their trials are our own trials. If they pursue the ways of the lost, our hearts are broken, just as they are when it is our own offspring wandering. If they are brought back to the fold of faith, our hearts rejoice, just as our own parents’ hearts rejoiced to see us brought back.
If, then, we attain to such love as the commandments require of us, there is no room for sinning against one another or against God. Love would never tolerate it! Steal from one I love? How could I? Were I to steal from them, it would be evidence that my love for them is not present. Ruin their reputation? Why, to do so would be to ruin my own! Can you imagine? Would anybody willingly go out and spread all manner of malicious slanders against their own bride? We would rightly think anybody who did such a thing utterly perverse and likely demented. For, to bring shame on your bride cannot help but bring shame on yourself, and well do you know it. You would never do such a thing! If anything, you would go out of your way to protect and defend her sterling reputation if for no other reason than that you realize that her reputation reflects upon your good judgment. If she were as those slanders would suggest, what sort of man are you that you would choose to wed her? Clearly, your own good sense and judgment are suspect! You see my point.
So that paraphrase that the Living Bible has given us is quite apropos. Neither was it lost on the apostles. Paul, of course, makes love to be the tantamount, the ultimate goal of faith, the thing apart from which all else is devoid of value. Most famously, we have his writings to the Corinthians on this topic (1Co 13). But, there is the more succinct summation he gives to the Galatians. “For the whole of the Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal 5:14). Precisely! For, we cannot love our neighbor properly and consistently until we have that vertical love of God which powers and supports us in our outward expression of love for neighbor.
John gives is a slight variation on this point in his letters. “This commandment we have from Him,” he writes. “If you love God, love your brother also” (1Jn 4:21). Indeed, he stresses this idea throughout his letter, noting that if we fail of the latter we have no honest claim to the former. The two loves are inseparable. We cannot love God and fail to love our brother, our neighbor. Neither, in the end, can we truly love our neighbor and fail to love God. Oh, we may like them well enough, even lend them a hand. We can have a marvelous social life together with them. But, we have not truly loved them, not in the sense of the commandment. We don’t really care as we ought, however much we may delude ourselves.
There is an example that is much on my mind of late, for reasons I need not get into. There is this whole industry that has arisen, I suppose it’s always been about in one form or another, but it seems more prevalent, or at least more prominent now. Much is made of advances in medical technology. New medicines are being brought forth, new devices to address some of the most pressing health issues of the day. Genetics has opened entire new areas for exploration in this regard, and many have jumped at the challenge.
Why? What motivates them? I’m sure that if you ask, most would set forth a pretty altruistic explanation. Why, we’re pursuing a cure for this! We’ve uncovered a treatment for that! I mean, really! Who can doubt the goodness of those fashioning prosthetic limbs for our combat vets? Yes, these sound like fine motives, and I have no doubt that there are some – but I stress some – who are pursuing these things with no other thought but to help. On the other hand, there are others who are just as surely motivated by nothing so much as the hope of great profits. Arguably, it would be impossible for a company to succeed and maintain the necessary environs for the purists to succeed unless they had an eye for profit.
I say arguably, because I am not wholly convinced that one cannot arrive at a better model. I say arguably because I know from my own industry (which cannot really claim any such altruistic underpinning at all) what sort of person it is who is driven by profit, and what sort of master they make. If, then, I posit a believer, and earnest Christian, in the position of employer or manager, then the sorts of things which a profit-driven perspective would lead one to do must surely become anathema. Profit motive will lead one to work one’s employees as hard as one can within the bounds of law. Profit motive seeks to take advantage by its very nature, because profit demands every advantage be pressed to the full. But, how can one do this with an eye upon the commandment of love? How can one do this when the Scriptures speak even more directly to the case: “Masters, grant your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven” (Col 4:1)? “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (Lk 10:7). “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” (1Ti 5:18). All of these speak to the case.
It is a rare employer these days that recognizes the value and worth of his employees. Yet, to value them and treat them in Christian fashion need not be seen as counter to the profit motive. Admittedly, there will be those who will turn the tables on this and take advantage of so good an employer, just as there are any number of employers ready to take advantage of a good worker. But, when good meets good in this, the employee will appreciate such an employer and tend to sense in him not just a wage master, but a real leader. This seems to be something that has been lost on us in recent decades. Was a time when people felt a certain devotion to their company because they could sense a certain reciprocal devotion of the company for their own welfare. But, a generation or two of so-called leaders driven solely by the profit motive have destroyed that bond, and now any such commitment between the two is all but unheard of.
My point is simply this: If we are to truly hold to the twin commandments of love, then it must impact how we pursue our livelihood. It matters not whether we are manager or laborer, whether we are investor, owner, or the lowliest employee. Faith must color our efforts. If we heed the simple instruction to do everything as unto the Lord, that everything MUST include more than our Sunday services, or daily devotionals. It covers the workday. It covers the commute. It covers school. It covers the playground. It covers everything. That is, after all, what everything means! Whatsoever you do… All-consuming love for God will not allow us to seek exceptions to that rule. All-consuming love for God would have no thought for such a search!
What has particularly impressed this all-consuming aspect of God’s love upon my thinking is the juxtaposition of these commandments regarding love and the observation made by our scribe here. “To love in such all-consuming fashion both God and neighbor is more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices,” he says. As I read through the various translations of this passage, I was rather shocked when I came to the Douay-Rheims version, which reads that these acts of love are, “greater thing than all holocausts and sacrifices.” What? That word, it has such terrible connotations in our day. How could they use it here? Well, of course, that translation is far older than the event that seared the world’s conscience, the even against which all evils have been measured since.
The truth is that this is the direct translation of what is written. Holokautoomatoon is the Greek being translated, and just glancing at it is enough to recognize the linguistic connection. The meaning is a reference to the wholly consumed sacrifice. Thayer’s offers the rather literal rendering, ‘a victim of the whole’. We have, clearly, no reason to read the events of our age into the meaning of this scribe. Yet, knowing the word that is there, it becomes harder, doesn’t it? What should perhaps shock us more is that anybody would dare to attribute such a sacramental sense to the slaughters we refer to as holocausts. God has never demanded or desired any such sacrament, has indeed destroyed from the earth those who have been willing to offer such human sacrifices. He is far more than displeased by such things. They are perhaps the greatest of offenses against Him, for they involve the wanton destruction of beings He lovingly crafted in His own image.
I find myself wondering who first thought to apply this term to the events of Hitler’s Germany. A quick survey of the web reveals that the term has been used to refer to major catastrophes and massacres for a very long time, ostensibly as far back as 1671. The Jews themselves referred to this horrible period as the Shoah, the calamity, and it was at some point in the fifties that translations of Hebrew documents began to translate this shoah as holocaust. I am actually somewhat relieved to read this. That the Jews did not assign any such religious significance to their terrifying loss should not, I think, surprise. It would be far more shocking if they had purposefully identified with the sacrificial concept. Likewise, it seems that western thought had largely forgotten the root of the word long before they thought to use it as referent to the events of that awful time. Still, it does seem that in losing the roots, we have watered down the significance. On the other hand, what term do we have that could properly express the magnitude of the crime? I would, however, that we would find a means of restoring the sacred sense of that term and cease to confuse proper offering with criminal act.
After that bit of a diversion, come back to Mark’s text. Here is the thing I see: There is a connection made by this scribe, a connection of magnitude. As that holocaust refers to the whole burnt offering, the wholly consumed sacrifice, just so is our proper love for God described. It is fully involved, every last shred of every last aspect of our lives spent upon our love for Him. This is at the root of the statement he makes. This love, this all-consuming love of God expressed both towards Him and towards our fellow man as His favored creatures, is far better in His sight than that all-consumed sacrifice that the Mosaic system instituted. Indeed, it is the point of the all-consumed sacrifice. He has not quite arrived at that thought, but it’s there at the edges of his thinking. Paul reaches it. Present your bodies as a living and holy sacrifice to God, which is your spiritual service of worship (Ro 12:1). No, Paul is not advocating human sacrifice. He clearly specifies ‘living’ to avoid any such confusion. His point is the same as that of this scribe: All-consumed by love for God and loving obedience to Him. Note where Paul’s thoughts proceed: “Don’t be conformed to this world. Be transformed! Renew your mind so as to prove just how thoroughly good, acceptable and perfect God’s will is” (Ro 12:2).
But, neither Paul nor this scribe has arrived at any novel understanding here. They have but expounded upon what the prophets had been saying all along. Indeed, this has been the theme since those first days in the Garden of Eden. The sacrificial system was not anything that fed some need in God. It was ever and always a bit of a substitution. The first sacrifice, which God Himself offered on behalf of Adam and Eve was a substitution for the death they rightly deserved. Every sacrifice thereafter was for the same purpose: To substitute payment for the due penalty of personal and permanent death. And, as we come to understand in the full revelation of the New Covenant, those sacrifices were always temporary matters at best, and always but a symbolic stand in for what God was going to do of His own accord in the person of the Christ.
The author of Hebrews drives this point home as he expounds upon the superiority of the New Covenant. In particular, I would consider this passage. “After saying that sacrifices and offerings are neither His desire nor His delight, though these are offered according to the Law, He then says, ‘I have come to do Thy will.’ The first order is taken away and a second order established” (Heb 10:8-9). See? The old order is taken away. The sacrificial system was never sufficient and it is now done and over. Seek not its restoration, for the Perfect is come.
This passage looks back at a recurring theme in the Old Testament, the realization made by several of God’s children as they glimpsed the glory of His grand scheme for redemption. That which the writer refers to directly comes from Psalm 40:6, which is one possible point of reference for what the scribe has said here. However, the more direct connection would seem to be to Samuel’s rebuke of Saul. “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices more than in obedience to His voice? No! To obey is better than sacrifice. To heed surpasses the fat of rams. For rebellion is as divination and insubordination as sinful idolatry. Because you have rejected God’s word, He has also rejected you as king” (1Sa 15:22-23).
We tend to stop with the idea of “to obey is better than sacrifice” and leave it at that. Sadly, we sometimes make of this an excuse not to serve, not to give an effort on behalf of the church that might be something of a burden to us. Set that aside. We stop there, as well, to celebrate in some fashion our obedience. But, really, as I have considered already, in what wise can we pretend to obedience? Which of those alls have we satisfied by our actions? God is not fooled and neither should we be.
To obey is better than sacrifice, because obedience, could we but bring ourselves to it (or cease from resisting God when He brings us there), would obviate the need for sacrifice. Sacrifices were never instituted for the purpose of God’s entertainment or pleasure. That sweet-smelling aroma is not the point. Not at all! The sacrifice would never have been instituted apart from sin. Because man sins, sacrifices become necessary. Can we really suppose God is pleased by this necessity? Of course not! But, I want to turn to the second part of that statement Samuel makes, where he arrives at the severity of the crime.
“Rebellion is as great a crime divination. Insubordination is every bit as sinful as idolatry.” Listen! What Jesus has described here are commands. They are not suggestions or guidelines for better living. They are the fundamental requirements set upon God’s children. If we fail to obey these basic commands, what is that but rebellion and insubordination? We call Jesus our Lord. We know He is the commander in chief of all God’s great army, and we even sing that we are in that great army. Yet, here is the command He Himself points to as the most fundamental standing order of the kingdom and we fail of it, we ignore it, we walk deliberately contrary to it. What are we thinking? Yet, we would look at Saul and pity him at best, revile him more likely, because he was such a poor king, because he wasted such a great blessing. Yet, we are every bit Sauls, every one of us. Were it not so, there would never have been cause for Jesus to undergo the pains of living an earthly life and dying an earthly and ignominious death.
So, in something of a final thought on this passage, I arrive back at a particularly favorite verse of mine, one which I have quoted often in the course of these studies. Yet, in looking at it afresh in its connection to this passage, I backed up a few lines from that which I normally think of and discovered a bit of context which sets the whole thing in rather a more painful light. I speak of Micah 6:8, that favorite passage describing God’s simple demand of us. But, let me back up, take Micah’s thoughts beginning at Micah 6:6. “With what shall I come to the Lord God on high to bow myself before Him? Shall I come with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the Lord then take delight in thousands of rams and rivers of oil poured out? Shall I offer up my first-born as atonement for my rebellious actions? Shall I give the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”
Understand what he is getting at here. My sin is so great, God, what could possibly hope to atone for it? What substitution could I ever hope to come up with that would satisfy Your righteous indignation at my crimes against You? What would be enough? Were I to slaughter every last beast in my herds, pour out every last drop of oil in my possession, what would that be to You? It is nothing. Were I to burn everything I possess, just torch the house and all that’s in it, or (since we are hardly so violent towards ourselves these days) were I to sell it all and donate every last penny of the proceeds to some worthy charity, would that make a difference? No! It would utterly miss the point.
Can we begin to grasp the anguish of this man? Even if I were so foolish as to offer up my first-born (as if You would be pleased or even accepting of such a thing!) it could not hope to make restitution for my crimes. Ah! But, there is relief in spite of this impossible debt. For, “He has already told you what is good, what He requires of you.” There is only this: Do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God. That’s all. There’s no flagellation being called for here, no murder and mayhem done with some misguided sense of righting a wrong by pursuing a further wrong. There is no holocaust required of you, only all-consuming love.
Father, even as I despair of being capable of such love, of so much as satisfying but one of those alls that You command, yet I remain mindful of the fact that this expresses Your own love for me, a love already demonstrated in full in those events the Gospels before me detail. Knowing Your love for me, knowing Your perfect provision on my behalf, I know also that I can come to You seeking forgiveness for these failings that so often define me. Knowing I can, I do. I ask that You would do more than just forgive me. I ask that You would so work upon my spirit as to achieve that renewing Paul writes of, that I would find myself ready and willing to be that living sacrifice that is my proper worship for You. I want so much to come to that place of all-consuming love for You, yet it seems ever beyond my grasp. But, by Your Word, I know I do not walk and grow by sight, but by the very faith You have long since implanted in my soul. For this I thank You, among so many other great benefits. In this knowledge I will abide, as I abide in You and as You (more importantly) abide in me. Thank You! Thank You for the magnificent expanse of Your love. I am at peace before You knowing that love is ever poured out upon me, and I am confident that as You continue to pour it out upon me, I shall grow in my capacity to retain and express that same love towards You and towards others. May it be so, and be so sooner! Amen.
