Thomas Aquinas

Above, the Lord answered the question raised about the payment of tribute, and also the question about the resurrection; here, however, he answers the question about the comparison of the divine commandments, and he does two things. For first the question is set forth; second, the answer, at the words "Jesus said to them," and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he describes the wickedness of those questioning; second, the question itself, at "Master, what is the great commandment in the law?" He describes their wickedness with respect to three things: first, with respect to their shamelessness; second, with respect to their contrived malice; third, with respect to their deceitfulness. As to shamelessness, this is indicated when it says that they had heard that he had imposed silence. He had already confuted the disciples of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, so that from this they might well have believed him and been ashamed. Whence Chrysostom says: envy and anger nourish and cause shamelessness. But these men did not for this reason desist, but questioned him still further; Isaiah 56:11: "most shameless dogs, they have not known fullness." And it is signified that although they heard this, they nevertheless did not fall silent. One man keeps silence of his own will, and this belongs to the prudent man. Another keeps silence because silence is imposed upon him, and this belongs to the imprudent man; Ecclesiasticus 20:6: "there is one who keeps silent, not having the sense of speech; and there is one who keeps silent, knowing the fitting time"; Ecclesiastes 3:7: "there is a time to keep silence, and a time to speak." Likewise their contrived malice is touched upon, because, in order that they might the better convict him, they gather together at the same time; Psalm 2:2: "the princes have come together as one against the Lord." "They came together as one." It can be said that the Pharisees and the Sadducees came together, although they differed in their sects, yet as one for the purpose of tempting the Lord. Or, the Pharisees came together as one against the Lord. Likewise their deceitfulness is signified, because, although they were gathered in a multitude, they did not wish that all should question him, but one only; so that if he were defeated, the others would not be confuted, and if he prevailed, all would glory in him. "And one of them, a doctor of the law, questioned him, tempting him," because not with the intention of learning; Job 16:11: "they have opened their mouths against me, and reproaching, they have struck my cheek." Here there can be a literal objection, because Mark says that the Lord, having looked upon him, said: "you are not far from the kingdom of God." And how is it said here that he tempts him? Augustine resolves this, saying that he came at first for the sake of tempting, but when Christ satisfied him, he assented to him. And so the fact that he tempted him ought to be referred to the beginning; the fact that he is not far from the kingdom of God ought to be referred back to the end. And thus it is no wonder if the Lord's words changed his mind. It must be known, however, that some tempt because they are not certain, since, according to what the wise man says, Ecclesiasticus 19:4: "he who believes quickly is light of heart." This man, having heard many things about Christ, wished to test whether he was such as reported; and this temptation would not be evil. Whence he says, "Master, what is the great commandment in the law?" Yet this question seemed calumnious and presumptuous: calumnious, because all the commandments of God are great; Proverbs 6:23: "the commandment is a lamp, and the law a light." Likewise he asked indeterminately, because all are great, so that if he answered concerning one, he would object concerning another. Likewise it was presumptuous, because one who has not fulfilled the least ought not to inquire about the great; Job 15:12: "why does your heart lift you up, and why do you have astonished eyes, as though thinking great things?" And it could be that there was controversy over this question among them, because some said that salvation lay in certain external things; whence Isaiah 29:13: "this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." But the Lord answers that it lies only in interior things. Whence the answer follows: "Jesus said to him: You shall love the Lord your God," and so on. And he not only answers the question proposed, but teaches the truth. And first he teaches what is first; second, what is like to it; third, he assigns the reason. The second is at "and the second is like to this," and so on. The third is at "on these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets." He says, therefore, "you shall love the Lord your God," and so on. This is written in Deuteronomy 6:5. Likewise the Lord through Moses says, Deuteronomy 10:12: "does the Lord require of you anything but that you fear and love him?" Therefore he commands two things, namely fear and love. And why does the Lord not answer concerning fear, as he does concerning love? It must be said that some fear God who fear to suffer from him, as those who fear the punishment of Gehenna, or who fear to lose something which they have from God; and this is servile fear, because such a one loves that in which he fears to be punished. There is another who fears God himself for his own sake, who fears to offend him; and such fear arises from love, and from this he fears, because he loves; therefore the principle is love; 1 John 4:16: "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him." And therefore he says "you shall love the Lord," not "you shall fear," because God is to be loved as the first lovable object, since he is the first end, but whatever other things are loved are loved for the sake of an end. He, therefore, who loves God as an end, loves him with the whole heart; Joel 2:12: "turn to me with your whole heart." And however much you strive, you will not be able to comprehend him, because God is greater than the whole heart. But what is meant by his saying "with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with your whole mind"? Chrysostom expounds it thus: because in love there are two things: one which is the beginning; the second which is the effect and sequel of love. The beginning of love is twofold. For love can arise from passion, and from the judgment of reason: from passion, when a man does not know how to live without that which he loves; from reason, insofar as he loves as reason dictates. He says, therefore, that he loves "with the whole heart" who loves in a carnal manner; he loves "with the soul" who loves from the judgment of reason. And we ought to love God in both ways: carnally, so that the heart is carnally affected toward God; whence in Psalm 83:3: "my heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God." The third is the sequel of love, because that which I love, I gladly look upon, gladly think about, gladly do what pleases it; John 14:23: "he who loves me will keep my words"; and I refer everything to it; Psalm 83:2: "how beloved are your tabernacles, O Lord of hosts. My soul longs and faints for the courts of the Lord." And we can add what Mark adds, "and with all your strength," because he who loves God transfers his whole self into him, and expends his strength upon him. Augustine distinguishes thus between heart and soul and mind, according to three things which proceed from them. From the heart proceed thoughts, as is had above at 15:19; from the soul proceeds life; from the mind, knowledge and understanding. Whence what he says, "with the whole heart," is to be understood as meaning that we refer all our thoughts to him; what he says, "with the whole soul," that our whole life is referred to him; what he says, "with the whole mind," that all knowledge is referred to him, that is, that we bring knowledge captive into obedience to him; 2 Corinthians 10:5: "bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ." A certain magisterial Gloss expounds that the soul is the image of God according to its powers, namely according to memory, understanding, and will, in such a way that what is said "from the heart" is referred to understanding; what is said "from the soul," to the will; what is said "from the mind," to memory, so that God may be lived for perfectly. Origen expounds it thus: "you shall love God with your whole soul," so that you are ready to lay down your soul for him, if it is necessary; John 13:37: "I will lay down my soul for you." But there is a difference between mind and heart. For "mind" (mens) is so called from measuring (metiendo); "heart" is taken for the simplicity of the intellect; "mind," however, with respect to its utterance, because through speech the intellect, or thought, is measured; whence he wishes to say that in speech and in meditations we should love God totally. This being posited, he adds, "this is the first and the greatest commandment." Greatest in capacity: for this is that in which all things are contained, because in this the love of neighbor is contained, according to what is said in 1 John 4:21: "he who loves God loves his brother also"; and therefore it is the greatest. Likewise it is first in origin, greatest in dignity and capacity. It is not first in Scripture, because in Scripture the first commandment was, "the Lord your God is one God," Deuteronomy 6:4. And why? Because every inclination of the appetitive power is toward love: therefore we have the commandment that we should worship God in love; Romans 13:10: "love is the fullness of the law"; Ephesians 3:17: "rooted and founded in charity." Second, he sets down the second commandment, "and the second is like to this: you shall love your neighbor as yourself." He wished to signify that there is an order among the commandments. And what is the cause of this? It is agreed that the commandments concern the acts of the virtues; but the virtues have an order, because one depends upon another, and as the virtues, so also the commandments. But why does he say that it is like the first? Because when a man is loved, since man is made in the likeness of God, God is loved in him; therefore it is like the first commandment, which concerns the love of God. But what does he understand by the name "neighbor," when he says "you shall love your neighbor"? This is sufficiently indicated in the parable, Luke 10:36, where it is asked, who seems to you to have been his neighbor? And the answer is given: he who showed mercy to him. Whence he who ought to show mercy to us, or we ourselves, is comprised under the name of neighbor. But there is no rational creature to whom we do not owe mercy, and conversely; and therefore under the name of neighbor both man and angel are comprised. And as to what he says, "as yourself," this is not to be understood as meaning "as much as yourself," because this would be against the order of charity; but "as yourself," that is, for the same end as yourself, or in the same manner as yourself. For the same end, because you ought not to love yourself for your own sake, but for God's sake, and so also your neighbor. The Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10:31: "do all things for the glory of God." Likewise, in that you love yourself, you love yourself in this, that you will good for yourself, and such good as is in accordance with you and the law of God, and this is the good of justice. Thus also you ought to wish good justice for your neighbor; whence you ought to love him, either because he is just, or because he is becoming just. Likewise you ought to love him in the same manner as yourself, because when I say "I love this one," I say "I will good to him." Whence the act of love falls upon two things: either upon the one who is good, or upon the good itself, which I will to him; whence I love this one, because I will him to be good for me. Whence someone loves temporal goods, because he knows them to be good for himself; but some love a thing because it is good in itself: thus you ought to love yourself, and also your neighbor. Consequently he assigns the reason why these two are the greatest commandments: "on these two commandments depend the whole law, and the prophets." The whole teaching of the law and the prophets depends upon these. The end, in the sphere of appetible things, stands as the principle does in speculative matters: for knowledge proceeds from principles to conclusions, and thus all knowledge is judged from its principles, just as also in all things done, the whole depends upon the end. Because, therefore, love is the end; 1 Timothy 1:5: "the end of the commandment is charity"; therefore all other things depend upon these, and this is the exposition of Augustine. Origen expounds it thus: on these, that is, on the observance of these, depends the understanding of the law and the prophets, because he who observes these merits the understanding of the law and the prophets; Ecclesiasticus 2:10: "you who fear the Lord, love him, and your hearts shall be enlightened"; Psalm 118:104: "from your commandments I have understood, therefore I have hated every way of iniquity."

"And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them." After he had answered them, he himself wished to raise an objection; and he does two things. First the question is set forth; second, its effect, at "no one was able to answer him a word." Concerning the first, first he proposes the question; second, the answer; third, he objects against it. He says, therefore, "and the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them." Now they had gathered together for the purpose of tempting him; whence he sets forth the question, "what think you of Christ, whose son is he?" This question was most difficult and fitting. Most difficult, because it is had, Isaiah 53:8: "who shall declare his generation?" It was also fitting, because they held the opinion that he was a mere man, and did not believe him to be God, since otherwise they would not tempt him, because it is written, Deuteronomy 6:16: "you shall not tempt the Lord your God." Therefore, in order to show himself God, he says, "what think you of Christ?" There follows the answer, "they say to him: David." For Christ had a twofold generation: one according to the flesh, the other according to divinity, according to which he is the Son of God the Father, concerning which it is said, Psalm 2:7: "the Lord said to me: you are my son," and so on. Therefore they answer concerning the generation according to the flesh, when they say "David." Jeremiah 23:5: "I will raise up to David a just branch." And Romans 1:3: "who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh." And these men answered insufficiently, because they knew him insufficiently. Then he objects, so as to make them understand another generation: "how then does David in spirit call him Lord, saying: the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand?" Psalm 109:1. It is had in the law that the father is greater than the son. Therefore the son is not lord of the father. Therefore either Christ is not the son of David, or there is in him something greater than David, since David calls him Lord. But perhaps they would say that David was deceived: which he removes, because he says this in spirit; whence "men spoke by the Holy Spirit of God," 2 Peter 1:21. Now we can see three things in this authority of the Psalm: first, pre-eminence over the saints, equality with the Father, and dominion over rebels. Pre-eminence over the saints, when it says "the Lord said to my Lord." "The Lord," namely the Father, "to my Lord," namely the Son: for the Son himself has dominion over all the saints: for no saint is illumined except by the true light: but he himself is the true light; John 1:4: "the life was the light of men." If, then, he himself is the one by participation in whom all the saints receive light, he has pre-eminence over all the saints in that it is said: "with you is the principality in the day of your strength, in the splendors of the saints," etc.; whence he himself is originally the splendor of all the saints. Likewise the equality of the Father is touched upon, when it is said "sit at my right hand": not that these are local seats, but metaphorically, because the more honorable place is to sit at the right hand. For "to say" is to send forth a word. What then did the Lord mean by saying "sit at my right hand," except that in begetting me as Word, he gave me power, equality, and authority? It can also be expounded of temporal things, that is, in more excellent goods, but this is not to the purpose. For the Lord is always seen at the right hand, as in Mark, last chapter, verse 5: "they saw a young man sitting at the right hand." And Stephen, Acts 7:55, "saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the power of God." And what shall become of his enemies? All shall be subjected to him; whence he adds, "until I make your enemies your footstool." These are either wholly unbelieving, or those who have refused to obey and be subject; whence he will make these "your footstool." For a footstool is that which is placed under the feet; and that which is under the feet is wholly subjected to him, but not that which is in the hand. Some are made a footstool for punishment, some for salvation: for punishment, those who refuse to do his will; for salvation, those who do his will. But the Arians object: therefore he is not equal to the Father. I say that both are read: both that he is subjected to the Father, and that he is equal to the Father; 1 Corinthians 15:25: "for he must reign, until he puts his enemies under his feet." Likewise Christ will subject all things to himself; Philippians 3:21: "he will reform the body of our lowliness, configured to the body of his glory." Whence this is said to demonstrate the unity of power: whence whatever the Father can do, the Son can do the same. But what is meant by his saying "until I make your enemies your footstool"? It would then seem that after he has subjected his enemies, he will no longer sit at the right hand. It must be said that "until" sometimes denotes a determinate time, sometimes an infinite one. Here, however, it denotes the infinite. But someone might say: do not many rebel against Christ? Yes, it is true that many rebel, and therefore there could be doubt about the time when many would rebel: therefore Christ wished to express it thus. If, then, David calls him Lord, how is he his son? Therefore he is both Lord and son, because he is son according to the flesh, since from him he drew his origin, and Lord according to divinity. "And no one was able to answer him a word." Here the effect is set forth, and it is twofold, because Christ was both answering and objecting. Because objecting: "no one was able to answer him"; Job 9:3: "if he wishes to contend with him, he cannot answer him one for a thousand." Likewise, because in answering he had confuted them, therefore there follows: "nor did anyone dare from that day forth to ask him any more questions." Therefore you can see that these men did not question in order that he might teach them, but in order that they might tempt him; Deuteronomy 32:7: "ask your father, and he will declare to you."