Vers. 28—34.—The great’ commandments. This passage of the Gospel affords common ground, upon which those who lay the greatest stress upon Christian doctrine may meet with conciliation and harmony those who are wont to insist most upon Christian morality. Here is a statement, upon the highest authority, as to what God requires of man, as to what man owes to God and to his fellow-men. ‘“ Do this, and thou shalt live!” It is a sublime view of the great purposes of our spiritual being. Beyond this religion cannot go; for this is the end for which our nature was framed for which revelation was vouchsafed. Yet who can read these requirements of a holy and benevolent Creator and Ruler without fecling that by himself they have not been fulfilled ? The man must be besotted by self-conceit, or must have silenced conscience who claims to have loved God with all his powers, or to have uniformly loved his neighbour as himself. The purer, the more stringent the Law, the deeper the humilia- tion and contrition of the transgressor. What, then, more fitted to induce sinners to receive the gospel with faith and gratitude than these words of Jesus? What can
ake so welcome the tidings of Divine forgiveness secured through the redemption
om. xu. 1—44.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 148
wrought by the Saviour on the cross? And, further, as we meditate upon this ideal of a beautiful and acceptable moral life, how profoundly are we impressed with a sense of our own weakness! And surely this must lead us to seek and to accept the aid of the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit at once of power and of love! Thus the inculcation of Christian morality naturally suggests the doctrines upon which we build our hopes for time and for eternity. On the other hand, in the presence of these inspiriting words of the Master, how is it possible for the candid and the faithful to rest in thag view of the gospel which represents religion as merely securing the forgiveness of sin, and immunity from wrath and punishment? Here is « summons to a spiritual, a self- denying, and a benevolent life.
I. THE QUESTION PROPOSED To Jesus. 1. In itself it was a worthy, a noble ques- tion. Unlike the trifling and ridiculous riddle propounded by the Pharisees, it was an ea becoming on the part of the scribe who urged it, and fit for the consideration and judgment of the holy Master himself. It respected commandments, and thus acknowledged the rule of a just God, and the duty of man’s obedience and submission. It concerned morality—the highest of all human interests. It evinced an evident desire to do what was right, and to give precedence to what should be acknowledged best. There can be no nobler inquiry than this—What is the will of Gud? What is the duty of man? What shall I do? 2. In its spirit and purport, the question was commendable. ‘The questioner observed that Jesus had answered well; that he had solved with marvellous wisdom the difficult question of the Pharisees; that he had dealt skilfully and conclusively with the cavilling of the Sadducees. The limits of civil submission are an interesting branch of study ; the future life is of all speculative
uestions the most engrossing to the thoughtful; but of even wider interest are the oundation, the character, the means, of human goodness, The inquiry as to the first of commandments was pnt as a testing question, but in no captious spirit ; it was the expression of a desire to learn—to learn from the highest authority, to learn the most sacred principles of moral life. And not to learn only, but doubtless to practise the lesson acquired.
Il. THE ANSWER OF JESUS TO THE SCRIBE. There was no hesitation in the Master’s reply to the question proposed; the challenge was at once taken up. And consummate | wisdom was shown in the reference to the Mosaic Law, the very words of which were
uoted. Thus the right-minded were conciliated, yet at no expense, but rather by the manifestation, of truth. And the hostile were silenced ; for who of the Jewish rabbis could call in question the authority of their own sacred books? When we look into the substance of the response, several remarkable facts become apparent. 1. Love is represented as the sum of the Divine commandments. The Pentateuch contained the mjunctions our Lord repeated, but they were included in a vast body of precepts and prohibitions. It could scarcely be said with justice that love was the most prominent of the Mosaic commandments. Christ’s independence, discernment, and legislative authority were shown in his fixing upon the two requirements which occur in different books and in different connections, and in bringing them out into the light of day, and exhibiting them as in his view of surpassing importance, and so promulgating them as the laws of his spiritual kingdom through all time. God himseif is love; Christ is the expression and proof of the Divine love; aud it is therefore natural and reason- able that love should be the law of the Divine kingdom, the badge of the spiritual family. 2. The Object of supreme love is God himself The personality of God is assumed, for we cannot love an abstraction, a power ; only a living being, who thinks, feels, and purposes. The unity of God is asserted; for ak when Jesus lived on earth, the Jews were no longer subject to the temptation to idolatry, such temptation had beset them when the Law was originally viven, and for a long period subsequently, The relationship between God and man is presumed—“ thy God ;” for he is ours and we are his. ‘he claims of God are implied; his character, his treatment of men, his redeeming love in Christ. “We love him, because he first loved us.” 3. The description and degree of love demanded are very fully stated in the text. The expres- sion is a very strong one: “ With all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength.” Attempts have been made accurately to discriminate aimong these. But it seems sufficient th sav that the love required in such language is cordial and fervent; cordial, as dis- tinguished from mere profession, and fervent, as distinguished from lukewarmness and
‘\
164 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. (cu. xm. 1—44, cE