Commentary: Mark 12:28-34 Part 2

The Markan version of Jesus' saying on the greatest commandment(s) is set in the temple dialogues prior to the passion narrative. A few days after overturning tables in the temple (11:15-19) and just before predicting that institution's destruction (13:1-2), Jesus stands in the temple and responds to questions thought to exemplify the most vexing conundrums of the day (12:14, 19-23, 28). He handles himself masterfully, shaming his opponents into silence (12:34) and then turns the tables on them with a question of his own (12:35-37).

Mark's narrative of this event offers the only incident in the New Testament where Jesus is presented as being in agreement with a Jewish leader—if indeed that is the case. Some commentators think the scribe's "agreement" with Jesus is insincere and that the hidden conflict in this episode is shortly exposed in Jesus' wholesale condemnation of scribes in vv. 38-40. At the other end of the exegetical spectrum are critics who do not regard this episode as a conflict story in any sense but see only a friendly discussion between two like-minded individuals. I suspect a middle view has it right: the scribe initially comes to Jesus as an opponent, to test him, but then is sincerely impressed and persuaded by the brilliance of his response.

This interpretation requires us to read v. 28 in light of 12:13. The scribe is moved to ask his question when he sees that Jesus answered the Sadducees well, not because he assumes Jesus will be able to solve his personal query, but because he realizes the Sadducees have failed to expose the peasant folk hero with their question and, so, he must offer a harder one. The exegetical grounds for making such a move are rhetorical: Mark would not present two challenges to Jesus followed by a friendly dialogue, summarized with the verse: "After that no one dared to ask him any question." The proper number of challenges is always three (cf. Mt 4:1-11). So, here, Jesus is challenged three times by scholars who hope to shame him publicly by plying him with supposedly unanswerable questions. He meets their challenge, climactically in the third instance by provoking praise from his interlocutor. It is the scholars who are shamed, who are literally silenced.

The other Synoptics redact the story in ways that serve different purposes but lose the rhetorical effect of Mark's symphony (Mt 22:34-40; Lk 10:25-28). In general, they intensify the animosity between Jesus and the scribe, a tendency that may be explicable in light of the Church's deteriorating relationship with Judaism. In Mark, there is not much distinctively "Christian" about the conversation. Jesus quotes the Shema (v. 29; cf. Dt 6:4-9; 11:13-21; Nm 15:37-41) and answers the question in a way similar to responses attributed to Hillel (who cited a version of the Golden Rule) and Akiba (who prioritized Lv 19:18). The scribe's agreement with Jesus, with special reference to "offerings and sacrifices" (v. 33) echoes a frequent notion of the prophets (1 Sm 15:22; Hos 6:6; Is 1:11). The latter reference, incidentally, need not be read as disparagement of the temple cult; the point is to prioritize love over what is highly valued, not over what is adiaphoral (cf. 1 Cor 13: 1-3).

The Christian element comes in Jesus' response, "You are not far from the kingdom" (v. 34), that is, from the reign of God that is breaking into the world in and through Jesus. The words "not far" recall Jesus' initial proclamation that "The kingdom of God has come near" (Mk 1:14-15) and remain intentionally ambiguous. Nearness to the kingdom is a positive thing, but just as the kingdom has not yet arrived in its glorious fullness, so the scribe has not yet fully entered into its present sphere of influence. His potential is emphasized, however, for he is called "wise" (v. 34). At the very least, the scribe seems to be scoring high with his "mind" even if the status of his heart and soul and strength remains to be determined (cf. v. 30).

On those components, biblical thought affirms the unity of humanity and consequent inter-conceitedness of all human attributes, but the mere listing of such features as heart, soul, mind, and strength also reveals that various dimensions (what we might call emotional, psychological, or material states) of the human being could be noticed and emphasized. Love of God involves absolute commitment of all that we are, such that "hypocrisy" is not so much devotion that is insincere as it is devotion that is fragmented (Mk 7:6-7). For this reason, genuine devotion to God is predicated on the notion that God is one and that "there is no other" (vv. 29, 32; cf. Mt 6:24). Singularity of focus is essential.

Following on this, we must note that Mark does indeed prioritize love for God (first) and love for neighbor (second) in hierarchical fashion. Both Matthew (22:39) and, especially, Luke (10:27) merge the two commands, and this is popular in Christian teaching: we show our love for God by how we treat our neighbor. That love for others may be a means of expressing love for God (Mt 25:31-46; Jn 21:15-17) and that the one cannot ultimately exist without the other (1 Jn 4:20-21) are well-established biblical themes, and Mark would not contest them. Still, Mark does preserve a hierarchy (cf. 14:6-9). Similarly, in the fourth century, John Chrysostom declared that all deeds of love are virtuous but that such deeds performed out of love for God represent "the summit of virtue." This piety is eminently scriptural, if a tad resistant to the modern ethos. The biblical summons, after all, is not just to believe or trust or worship God, but to love God (Lk 11:42; Rom 8:28; 1 Cor 2:9, 8:3)—and Christ (1 Cor 16:22; Eph 6:24).

Finally, we should consider just what it means to view love as something that can be commanded. Obviously, such love cannot be equated with the aesthetics of human feelings. It would make little sense for Jesus to order us to feel a certain way about God or other humans. Rather, the love that is commanded is that which is responsive to human will. Typically, the Bible describes such love (whether related to heart, soul, mind, or strength) in terms of unselfish behavior (1 Cor 13:4-7).

Mark Allan Powell Trinity Lutheran Seminary Columbus, OH