MATTHEW 22:34-40; MARK 12:28-34; LUKE 10:25-37
Although I think that this narrative has nothing more than a resemblance
to what is related by Matthew in the 22, and by Mark in the 12 chapter,
of his Gospel, and that they are not the same; I have chosen to collect
them into one place, because, while Matthew and Mark affirm that this was
the last question by which our Lord was tempted, Luke makes no mention
of that circumstance, and seems intentionally to leave it out, because
he had stated it in another passage. And yet I do not dispute that it may
be the same narrative, though Luke has some things different from the other
two. They all agree in this, that the scribe put a question for the sake
of tempting Christ; but he who is described by Matthew and Mark goes away
with no bad disposition; for he acquiesces in Christ’s reply, and shows
a sign of a teachable and gentle mind: to which must be added, that Christ,
on the other hand, declares that he is not far from the kingdom of God.
Luke, on the other hand, introduces a man who was obstinate and swelled
with pride, in whom no evidence of repentance is discovered. Now there
would be no absurdity in saying that Christ was repeatedly tempted on the
subject of true righteousness, and of keeping the Law, and of the rule
of a good life. But whether Luke has related this out of its proper place,
or whether he has now passed by the other question—because that former
narrative relating to doctrine was sufficient—the similarity of. the doctrine
seemed to require me to compare the three Evangelists with each other.
Let us now see what was the occasion that led this scribe to put a question
to Christ. It is because, being an expounder of the Law, he is offended
at the doctrine of the gospel, by which he supposes the authority of Moses
to be diminished. At the same time, he is not so much influenced by zeal
for the Law, as by displeasure at losing some part of the honour of his
teaching. He therefore inquires at Christ, if he wishes to profess any
thing more perfect than the Law; for, though he does not say this in words,
yet his question is ensnaring, for the purpose of exposing Christ to the
hatred of the people. Matthew and Mark do not attribute this stratagem
to one man only, but show that it was done by mutual arrangement, and that
out of the whole sect one person was chosen who was thought to excel the
rest in ability and learning. In the form of the question, too, Luke differs
somewhat from Matthew and Mark; for, according to him, the scribe inquires
what men must do to obtain eternal life, but according to the other two
Evangelists, he inquires what is the chief commandment in the law. But
the design is the same, for he makes a deceitful attack on Christ, that,
if he can draw any thing from his lips that is at variance with the law,
he may exclaim against him as an apostate and a promoter of ungodly revolt.
Luke 10:26. What is written in the law? He receives from Christ
a reply different from what he had expected. And, indeed, no other rule
of a holy and righteous life was prescribed by Christ than what had been
laid down by the Law of Moses; for the perfect love of God and of our neighbours
comprehends the utmost perfection of righteousness. Yet it must be observed,
that Christ speaks here about obtaining salvation, in agreement with the
question which had been put to him; for he does not teach absolutely, as
in other passages, how men may arrive at eternal life, but how they ought
to live, in order to be accounted righteous in the sight of God. :Now it
is certain that in the Law there is prescribed to men a rule by which they
ought to regulate their life, so as to obtain salvation in the sight of
God. That the Law can do nothing else than condemn, and is therefore called
the doctrine of death, and is said by Paul to increase transgressions,
(Romans 7:13,) arises not from any fault of its doctrine, but because it
is impossible for us to perform what it enjoins. Therefore, though no man
is justified by the Law yet the Law itself contains the highest righteousness,
because it does not falsely hold out salvation to its followers, if any
one fully observed all that it commands. Nor ought we to look upon this
as a strange manner of teaching, that God first demands the righteousness
of works, and next offers a gratuitous righteousness without works; for
it is necessary that men should be convinced of their righteous condemnation,
that they may betake themselves to the mercy of God. Accordingly, Paul
(Romans 10:5, 6) compares both kinds of righteousness, in order to inform
us that the reason why we are freely justified by God is, that we have
no righteousness of our own. Now Christ in this reply accommodated himself
to the lawyer, and attended to the nature of his question; for he had inquired
not how salvation must be sought, but by what works it must be obtained.
Matthew 22:37. Thou shalt love the Lord thou God. According to
Mark, the preface is inserted, that Jehovah alone is the God of Israel;
by which words God supports the authority of his law in two ways. For,
first, it ought to be a powerful excitement to the worship of God, when
we are fully convinced that we worship the actual Creator of heaven and
earth, because indifference is naturally produced by doubt; and, secondly,
because it is a pleasing inducement to love him, when he freely adopts
us as his people. So then, that they may not hesitate, as usually happens
in cases of uncertainty, the Jews are informed that the rule of life is
prescribed to them by the true and only God; and, on the other hand, that
they may not be kept back by distrust, God approaches to them in a familiar
manner, and reminds them of his gracious covenant with them. And yet there
is no reason to doubt that the Lord distinguishes himself from all idols,
that the Jews may not be drawn aside from him, but may adhere to the pure
worship of God himself. Now if uncertainty does not keep back the wretched
worshippers of idols from being carried away to the love of them by impetuous
zeal, what excuse is left for the hearers of the Law, if they remain indifferent,
after that God has revealed himself to them?
What follows is an abridgment of the Law, which is also found in the
writings of Moses, (Deuteronomy 6:5.) For, though it is divided into two
tables, the first of which relates to the worship of God, and the second
to charity, Moses properly and wisely draws up this summary, that the Jews
may perceive what is the will of God in each of the commandments. And although
we ought to love God far more than men, yet most properly does God, instead
of worship or honour, require love from us, because in this way he declares
that no other worship is pleasing to Him than what is voluntary; for no
man will actually obey God but he who loves Him. But as the wicked and
sinful inclinations of the flesh draw us aside from what is right, Moses
shows that our life will not be regulated aright till the love of God fill
all our senses. Let us therefore learn, that the commencement of godliness
is the love of God, because God disdains the forced services of men, and
chooses to be worshipped freely and willingly; and let us also learn, that
under the love of God is included the reverence due to him.
Moses does not add the mind, but mentions only the heart, and the soul,
and the strength; and though the present division into four clauses is
more full, yet it does not alter the sense. For while Moses intends to
teach generally that God ought to be perfectly loved, and that whatever
powers belong to men ought to be devoted to this object, he reckoned it
enough, after mentioning the soul and the heart, to add the strength, that
he might not leave any part of us uninfluenced by the love of God; and
we know also that under the word heart the Hebrews sometimes include the
mind, particularly when it is joined to the word soul What is the difference
between the mind and the heart, both in this passage and in Matthew, I
do not trouble myself to inquire, except that I consider the mind to denote
the loftier abode of reason, from which all our thoughts and deliberations
flow.
It now appears from this summary that, in the commandments of the Law,
God does not look at what men can do, but at what they ought to do; since
in this infirmity of the flesh it is impossible that perfect love can obtain
dominion, for we know how strongly all the senses of our soul are disposed
to vanity. Lastly, we learn from this, that God does not rest satisfied
with the outward appearance of works, but chiefly demands the inward feelings,
that from a good root good fruits may grow.
39. And the second is like it. He assigns the second place to
mutual kindness among men, for the worship of God is first in order. The
commandment to love our neighbours, he tells us, is like the first, because
it depends upon it. For, since every man is devoted to himself, there will
never be true charity towards neighbours, unless where the love of God
reigns; for it is a mercenary love which the children of the world entertain
for each other, because every one of them has regard to his own advantage.
On the other hand, it is impossible for the love of God to reign without
producing brotherly kindness among men.
Again, when Moses commanded us to love our neighbours as ourselves,
he did not intend to put the love of ourselves in the first place, so that
a man may first love himself and then love his neighbours; as the sophists
of the Sorbonne are wont to cavil, that a rule must always go before what
it regulates. But as we are too much devoted to ourselves, Moses, in correcting
this fault, places our neighbours in an equal rank with us; thus forbidding
every man to pay so much attention to himself as to disregard others, because
kindness unites all in one body. And by correcting the self-love (filauti>an)
which separates some persons from others, he brings each of them into a
common union, and—as it were—into a mutual embrace. Hence we conclude,
that charity is justly pronounced by Paul to be
the bond of perfection, (Colossians 3:14,)
and, in another passage, the
fulfilling of the law, (Romans 13:10;)
for all the commandments of the second table must be referred to it.
Luke 10:28. Do this, and thou shalt live. I have explained a
little before, how this promise agrees with freely bestowed justification
by faith; for the reason why God justifies us freely is, not that the Law
does not point out perfect righteousness, but because we fail in keeping
it, and the reason why it is declared to be impossible for us to obtain
life by it is, that
it is weak through our flesh, (Romans 8:3.)
So then these two statements are perfectly consistent with each other,
that the Law teaches how men may obtain righteousness by works, and yet
that no man is justified by works, because the fault lies not in the doctrine
of the Law, but in men. It was the intention of Christ, in the meantime,
to vindicate himself from the calumny which, he knew, was brought against
him by the unlearned and ignorant, that he set aside the Law, so far as
it is a perpetual rule of righteousness.
29. But he wishing to justify himself. This question might appear
to be of no importance for justifying a man. But if we recollect what was
formerly stated, that the hypocrisy of men is elderly detected by means
of the second table—for, while they pretend to be eminent worshippers of
God, they openly violate charity towards their neighbours—it will be easy
to infer from this, that the Pharisee practiced this evasion, in order
that, concealed under the false mask of holiness, he might not be brought
forth to light. So then, aware that the test of charity would prove unfavorable
to him, he seeks concealment under the word neighbour, that he may not
be discovered to be a transgressor of the Law. But we have already seen,
that on this subject the Law was corrupted by the scribes, because they
reckoned none to be their neighbours but those who were worthy of it. Hence,
too, this principle was received among them, that we have a right to hate
our enemies, (Matthew 5:43.) For the only method to which hypocrites can
resort for avoiding the condemnation of themselves, is to turn away as
far as they are able, that their life may not be tried by the judgment
of the Law.
30. And Jesus answering said. Christ might have stated simply,
that the word neighbour extends indiscriminately to every man, because
the whole human race is united by a sacred bond of fellowship. And, indeed,
the Lord employed this word in the Law, for no other reason than to draw
us sweetly to mutual kindness. The commandment would have run more clearly
thus: Love every man as thyself. But as men are blinded by their pride,
so that every man is satisfied with himself, scarcely deigns to admit others
to an equal rank, and withholds from them the duties he owes them, the
Lord purposely declares that all are neighbours that the very relationship
may produce mutual love. To make any person our neighbour, therefore, it
is enough that he be, a man; for it is not in our power to blot out our
common nature.
But Christ intended to draw the reply from the Pharisee, that he might
condemn himself. For in consequence of the authoritative decision being
generally received among them, that no man is our neighbour unless he is
our friend, if Christ had put a direct question to him, he would never
have made an explicit acknowledgment, that under the word neighbour all
men are included, which the comparison brought forward forces him to confess.
The general truth conveyed is, that the greatest stranger is our neighbour,
because God has bound all men together, for the purpose of assisting each
other. He glances briefly, however, at the Jews, and especially at the
priests; because, while they boasted of being the children of the same
Father, and of being separated by the privilege of adoption from the rest
of the nations, so as to be God’s sacred heritage, yet, with barbarous
and unfeeling contempt, they despised each other, as if no relationship
had subsisted between them. For there is no doubt that Christ describes
the cruel neglect of brotherly kindness, with which they knew that they
were chargeable. But here, as I have said, the chief design is to show
that the neighbourhood, which lays us under obligation to mutual offices
of kindness, is not confined to friends or relatives, but extends to the
whole human race.
To prove this, Christ compares a Samaritan to a priest and a Levite.
It is well known what deadly hatred the Jews bore to the Samaritans,
so that, notwithstanding their living close beside them, they were always
at the greatest variance. Christ now says, that a Jew, an inhabitant of
Jericho, on his journey from Jerusalem, having been wounded by robbers,
received no assistance either from a Levite or from a priest, both of whom
met with him lying on the road, and half-dead, but that a Samaritan showed
him great kindness, and then asks, Which of these three was neighbour to
the Jew? This subtle doctor could not escape from preferring the Samaritan
to the other two. For here, as in a mirror, we behold that common relationship
of men, which the scribes endeavored to blot out by their wicked sophistry;
and the compassion, which an enemy showed to a Jew, demonstrates that the
guidance and teaching of nature are sufficient to show that man was created
for the sake of man. Hence it is inferred that there is a mutual obligation
between all men.
The allegory which is here contrived by the advocates of free will is
too absurd to deserve refutation. According to them, under the figure of
a wounded man is described the condition of Adam after the fall; from which
they infer that the power of acting well was not wholly extinguished in
him; because he is said to be only half-dead. As if it had been the design
of Christ, in this passage, to speak of the corruption of human nature,
and to inquire whether the wound which Satan inflicted on Adam were deadly
or curable; nay, as if he had not plainly, and without a figure, declared
in another passage, that all are dead, but those whom he quickens by his
voice, (John 5:25.) As little plausibility belongs to another allegory,
which, however, has been so highly satisfactory, that it has been admitted
by almost universal consent, as if it had been a revelation from heaven.
This Samaritan they imagine to be Christ, because he is our guardian; and
they tell us that wine was poured, along with oil, into the wound, because
Christ cures us by repentance and by a promise of grace. They have contrived
a third subtlety, that Christ does not immediately restore health, but
sends us to the Church, as an innkeeper, to be gradually cured. I acknowledge
that I have no liking for any of these interpretations; but we ought to
have a deeper reverence for Scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty
to disguise its natural meaning. And, indeed, any one may see that the
curiosity of certain men has led them to contrive these speculations, contrary
to the intention of Christ.
Matthew 22:40. On these two commandments. I now return to Matthew,
where Christ says that all the Law and the prophets depend on these two
commandments; not that he intends to limit to them all the doctrine of
Scripture, but because all that is anywhere taught as to the manner of
living a holy and righteous life must be referred to these two leading
points. For Christ does not treat generally of what the Law and the Prophets
contain, but, in drawing up his reply, states that nothing else is required
in the Law and the prophets than that every man should love God and his
neighbours; as if he had said, that the sum of a holy and upright life
consists in the worship of God and in charity to men, as Paul states that
charity is
the fulfilling of the law, (Romans 13:10.)
And therefore some ill-informed persons are mistaken in interpreting
this saying of Christ, as if we ought to seek nothing higher in the Law
and the Prophets. For as a distinction ought to be made between the promises
and the commandments, so in this passage Christ does not state generally
what we ought to learn from the word of God, but explains, in a manner
suited to the occasion, the end to which all the commandments are directed.
Yet the free forgiveness of sins, by which we are reconciled to God,—confidence
in calling on God, which is the earnest of the future inheritance, —and
all the other parts of faith, though they hold the first rank in the Law,
do not depend on these two commandments; for it is one thing to demand
what we owe, and another thing to offer what we do not possess. The same
thing is expressed in other words by Mark, that there is no other commandment
greater than these.
Mark 12:32. Master, thou hast spoken well, and with truth. Mark
alone mentions that the scribe was softened down; and it is worthy of notice
that, though he had attacked Christ maliciously, and with the intention
of taking him by surprise, not only does he silently yield to the latter,
but openly and candidly assents to what Christ had said. Thus we see that
he did not belong to the class of those enemies whose obstinacy is incurable;
for, though they have been a hundred times convinced, yet they do not cease
to oppose the truth in some manner. From this reply it may also be concluded,
that Christ did not precisely include under these two words the rule of
life, but embraced the opportunity which presented itself for reproving
the false and hypocritical holiness of the scribes, who, giving their whole
attention to outward ceremonies, almost entirely disregarded the spiritual
worship of God, and cared little about brotherly kindness. Now though the
scribe was infected by such corruptions, yet, as sometimes happens, he
had obtained from the Law the seed of right knowledge, which lay choked
in his heart, and on that account he easily allows himself to be withdrawn
from the wicked custom.
33. Is better than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices. But it
appears to be incongruous that sacrifices, which are a part of divine worship,
and belong to the first table of the Law, should be reckoned of less importance
than charity towards men. The reply is, Though the worship of God is greatly
preferable, and is more valuable than all the duties of a holy life, yet
its outward exercises ought not to be estimated so highly as to swallow
up brotherly kindness. For we know that brotherly kindness, in itself and
simply, is pleasing to God, though sacrifices are not regarded by him with
delight or approbation, except with a view to another object. Besides,
it is naked and empty sacrifices that are here spoken of; for our Lord
contrasts a hypocritical appearance of piety with true and sincere uprightness.
The same doctrine is to be found very frequently in the prophets, that
hypocrites may know that sacrifices are of no value, unless spiritual truth
be joined to them, and that God is not appeased by offerings of beasts,
where brotherly kindness is neglected.
31. But when Jesus saw. Whether this scribe made any farther
progress is uncertain; but as he had shown himself to be teachable, Christ
stretches out the hand to him, and teaches us, by his example, that we
ought to assist those in whom there is any beginning either of docility
or of right understanding. There appear to have been two reasons why Christ
declared that this scribe was not far from the kingdom of God. It was because
he was easily persuaded to do his duty, and because he skillfully distinguished
the outward worship of God from necessary duties. Nor was it so much with
the design of praising as of exhorting him, that Christ declared that he
was near the kingdom of God; and in his person Christ encourages us all,
after having once entered into the right path, to proceed with so much
the greater cheerfulness. By these words we are also taught that many,
while they are still held and involved in error, advance with closed eyes
towards the road, and in this manner are prepared for running in the course
of the Lord, when the time arrives.
And after that, no man ventured to put a question to him. The
assertion of the Evangelists, that the mouth of adversaries was stopped,
so they did not venture any more to lay snares for Christ, must not be
so understood as if’ they desisted from their wicked obstinacy; for they
groaned within, like wild beasts shut up in their dens, or, like unruly
horses, they bit the bridle. But the more hardened their obstinacy, and
the more incorrigible their rebellion, so much the more illustrious was
Christ’s triumph over both. And this victory, which he obtained, ought
greatly to encourage us never to become dispirited in the defense of the
truth, being assured of success. It will often happen, indeed, that enemies
shall molest and insult us till the end, but God will at length secure
that their fury shall recoil on their own heads, and that, in spite of
their efforts, truth shall be victorious.
