46. Meyer rightly remarks on the use of αγαπησεις here, implying moral high estimation
and corresponding conduct, and not φιλειν, which refers to love as an affection. The
latter could not have been commanded, although such φιλια of the world is forbidden (St.
James iv. 4) while the φιλειν of one's own ψυχη (St. John xii. 25) and the
µη φιλειν τον κυριο (1 Cor. xvi. 22) are stigmatised.
But it was more than an answer, even deepest teaching, when, as St. Matthew reports,
He added: 'on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.'47 It little
matters for our present purpose how the Jews at the time understood and interpreted
these two commandments.48 They would know what it meant that the Law and the
Prophets 'hung' on them, for it was a Jewish expression (Nywlt). He taught them, not that
any one commandment was greater or smaller, heavier or lighter, than another - might
be set aside or neglected, but that all sprang from these two as their root and principle,
and stood in living connection with them. It wa s teaching similar to that concerning the
Resurrection; that, as concerning the promises, so concerning the commandments, all
Revelation was one connected whole; not disjointed ordinances of which the letter was
to be weighed, but a life springing from love to God and love to man. So noble was the
answer, that for the moment the generous enthusiasm of the Scribe, who had previously
been favorably impressed by Christ's answer to the Sadducees, was kindled. For the
moment, at least, traditionalism lost its sway; and, as Christ pointed to it, he saw the
exceeding moral beauty of the Law. He was not far from the Kingdom of God.49
Whether or not he ever actually entered it, is written on the yet unread page of its
history.
47. St. Matt. xxii 4.
48. The Jewish vi ew of these commands has been previously explained.
49. St. Mark xii. 33, 34.
3. The Scribe had originally come to put his question with mixed motives, partially
inclined towards Him from His answer to the Sadducees, and yet intending to subject
Him to t he Rabbinic test. The effect now wrought in him, and the silence which from that
moment fell on all His would -be questioners, induced Christ to follow up the impression
that had been made. Without addressing any one in particular, He set before them all,
what perhaps was the most familiar subject in their theology, that of the descent of
Messiah. Whose Son was He? And when they replied: 'The Son of David,'50 He referred
them to the opening words of Psalm cx., in which David called the Messiah 'Lord.' The
argument proceeded, of course, on the two -fold supposition that the Psalm was Davidic
and that it was Messianic. Neither of these statements would have been questioned by
the ancient Synagogue. But we could not rest satisfied with the explanation that this
sufficed for the purpose of Christ's argument, if the foundation on which it rested could
be seriously called in question. Such, however, is not the case. To apply Psalm cx.,
verse by verse and consistently, to any one of the Maccabees, were to undertake a
critical task which only a series of unnatural explanations of the language could render
possible. Strange, also, that such an interpretation of what at the time of Christ would
have been a comparatively young composition, should have been wholly unknown a like