In the temptation story, Jesus is quoting a scripture passage, introduced by the words "It is written." The focus at that point is Jesus acknowledging the truth and authority of God's word. He is saying in effect, God has spoken and I must submit to that word.
In the Sermon on the Mount, the focus is different. Jesus here is a rabbi teaching his disciples (Matthew 5.2), and the contrast in chapter 5 is between his teaching and the teaching of other Jewish authorities, such as the Pharisees or other rabbis. So when Jesus says "You have heard that it was said", this is not a reference to the OT scripture at all. It's a reference to interpretations of the scriptures.
For example, what does it mean that "You shall not murder"? Jesus' answer in Matthew 5.21-22 is that other teachers have limited the scope of the commandment to the physical act of killing someone. But Jesus' teaching is that the command is broken if and when I get angry with someone. This is presumably because the inward attitude is what leads to the outward action. The focus on the inner heart and spirit is a regular theme of Jesus' teaching.
This distinction between OT command and Jewish interpretations of that command is especially clear in Matthew 5.43-44. Here Jesus quotes teachers who say "Love your neighbour and hate your enemy." In fact this is not a command found in the OT. The only command that is found is to "love your neighbour", so "hate your enemy" is an addition from the earlier Jewish teachers. But in Jesus' view to hate your enemy is to contradict the meaning of the command. For Jesus my "neighbour" is anyone I come in contact with and to whom I can show love. The classic picture of this is the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Answer from Peter Kirkpatrick on Stack ExchangeExamining Matthew 5:43 "you have heard" - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange
Does anyone know about isogloss of the "it is written" vs "it says" for describing text?
Luke 10:27 vs Matthew 22:37 vs Deuteronomy 6:5 - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange
How are Jesus' statements in Matthew 5:18-19 not contrary to Paul's teachings and mainstream Christianity.
Videos
In the temptation story, Jesus is quoting a scripture passage, introduced by the words "It is written." The focus at that point is Jesus acknowledging the truth and authority of God's word. He is saying in effect, God has spoken and I must submit to that word.
In the Sermon on the Mount, the focus is different. Jesus here is a rabbi teaching his disciples (Matthew 5.2), and the contrast in chapter 5 is between his teaching and the teaching of other Jewish authorities, such as the Pharisees or other rabbis. So when Jesus says "You have heard that it was said", this is not a reference to the OT scripture at all. It's a reference to interpretations of the scriptures.
For example, what does it mean that "You shall not murder"? Jesus' answer in Matthew 5.21-22 is that other teachers have limited the scope of the commandment to the physical act of killing someone. But Jesus' teaching is that the command is broken if and when I get angry with someone. This is presumably because the inward attitude is what leads to the outward action. The focus on the inner heart and spirit is a regular theme of Jesus' teaching.
This distinction between OT command and Jewish interpretations of that command is especially clear in Matthew 5.43-44. Here Jesus quotes teachers who say "Love your neighbour and hate your enemy." In fact this is not a command found in the OT. The only command that is found is to "love your neighbour", so "hate your enemy" is an addition from the earlier Jewish teachers. But in Jesus' view to hate your enemy is to contradict the meaning of the command. For Jesus my "neighbour" is anyone I come in contact with and to whom I can show love. The classic picture of this is the parable of the Good Samaritan.
There is not any meaningful or any significant difference for in both cases the same reality of God's word is referred to. The Holy Scripture was customarily read aloud in synagogues, thus "you have heard" is matching to "it is written".
Thus, Jesus does not refer to Pharisees, Sadducees, or any Jewish theologians' interpretations of the Holy Scriptures when saying "you have heard", but to the Scriptures themselves. The crucial point here is another thing: Jews noticed that Jesus, in difference from Scribes and Pharisees spoke "as a one having authority" (Matthew 7:29). But what does it mean to "have authority"? Why it was so drastically different from the Scribes and Pharisees? Did He speak with a louder voice or with more sparkling eyes displaying a greater inspiration? Not, of course! The reference is not to how rhetorically impressively He spoke but the contents of His speech, the "what" of His speech.
Now, this contents is that He did not take a passage, a quote from Holy Scripture and then interpret it like the Scribes and Pharisees, but changing at will the very passage! Saying that henceforth not the previous passage should be quoted by theologians, but His novel words! That is to say, He substitutes the Scriptural passage with His words, giving a new Scripture. Exactly that is the essence of His scandal, that is the essence of people's bewilderment that "He is speaking as one who has authority to change the very Scripture and establish the new Scripture"! It is the same as when He authoritatively says: "I give you a New Testament" (Matthew 26:28), thus saying that He is either equal to or identical with the one who gave the Old Testament - God. For, in fact, only the one who has the equal and the same authority as God can change at will the words of God.
To give an analogy: if a Roman Emperor legislates: "Roman citizenship should be given only to the inhabitants of Latium and not to anybody else". Then, with changed circumstances in the world, when another Roman Emperor sees that now it will be profitable both for Empire's well-being to give citizenship to others as well, he overrules at will the previous legislation with a new one: "Roman citizenship should be given to all, who will provide a worthy service to it regardless nationality". But only Emperor can overrule an edict of an Emperor. Anybody else, who would do so, would be a criminal. The same here: unless Jesus is God, then overruling the word of God is nothing but a blasphemy. Therefore, the passage gives a clear indication of Jesus' claiming for Himself a divine authority.
One may ask, "but does God oppose God?", for Jesus clearly overrules the Scriptural precepts. Not of course, but God apportions commandments with a consideration of the condition of the listeners' abilities, measuring the commandment as optimal to this condition. In theology this divine consideration, measurement and apportioning is called "economy" (οἰκονομία). Thus, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" is God's commandment, but the same God made it obsolete after coming to earth in human flesh to teach people the perfect gospel, that they may become as perfect as their Heavenly Father who has sent Him to them.
"You have heard that it was said" is a line Jesus used to repeat what the illiterate masses (as he was speaking to) were taught by the "teachers of the law. It occurs a number of times such as Matt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43, etc.
Note especially that it occurs in a modified form twice as "you have heard that it was said to the ancients" suggesting that Jesus is repeating what the scribes and pharisees taught and then goes on to contrast with what He (Jesus) is about to teach.
Therefore, we should not be surprised that some extra "pharisaic" (extra-biblical) teaching had crept into their ideas which Jesus was always trying to dispel as recorded in later sermons.
So, it is true that "hate your enemies" is not in the OT as a moral teaching - it was propagated by the scribes and pharisees as their means of promoting Jewish superiority and spiritual smugness.
This is also confirmed by Matthew's oft-repeated phrase, "as it is written" referring specifically to what is recorded in the OT. That is, "you have heard it said" is what the teachers teach as distinct from what is written in the Bible.
The phrase "you have heard" does not refer to the scripture, it refers to oral teachings of the Pharisees who violated scripture with their own tradition, as per Matt 15.3:
But he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?"
Cursing enemies was a regular part of that Pharisaic tradition as well as traditional teachings in other sects.
- In the Amida prayer discovered in the genizah of the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Cairo[1], an entire section was devoted to cursing enemies. This prayer was said three times each day, four times on the Sabbath, and five times on High Holy days. Here, they curse Christians (Natzarim), The Roman Empire, and what are believed to be Sadducees as enemies:
For the apostates let there be no hope,
למשומדים אל תהי תקוה
and may the kingdom of the arrogant
ומלכות זדון
be quickly uprooted in our days;
מהרה תעקר בימינו
and may the natzarim and minim
והנצרים והמינים
instantly perish;
כרגע יאבדו
may they be blotted from the book of the living,
ימחו מספר החיים
and may they not be written with the righteous.
ועם צדיקים אל יכתבו
Blessed are you Lord,
ברוך אתה יי
humbler of the arrogant.
מכניע זדים
- The Qumram communities required hatred of their enemies as part of the rules of the order[2]:
(4) that he has chosen and hate all that he has rejected; that they may abstain from all evil [...]
(10) according to his lot in God’s design, and hate all the Sons of Darkness, each according to his guilt (11) in God’s vengeance. All those who freely devote themselves to his truth shall bring all their knowledge, powers,
(21) from all injustice. These are the rules of conduct for the Maskil in those times with respect to his loving and hating everlasting hatred (22) toward the men of the pit in a spirit of secrecy. He shall leave to them wealth and earnings like a slave to his lord and like a poor man to
Part of the reason for this may have been the tradition of both blessing and curses on mount Ebal/Gerizim (Deut 11.26), but whatever the historical reason, to a pharisee curses and blessings were the flip side of the same coin. They blessed their friends and cursed their enemies in the same breath and as part of the same prayer.
David Instone-Brewer, Prayer and Agriculture, vol. 1, Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 97–101
Alex P. Jassen, “Rule of the Community,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture: Translation, ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 2929.
I'm the US, I don't believe I ever heard, for example, "it's written 'stop'" to describe a stop sign. But recently I heard it from a Singaporean and a Kenyan. Just curious.
The Command in Deuteronomy
You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. (Deuteronomy 6:5) [ESV]
ואהבת את יהוה אלהיך בכל־לבבך ובכל־נפשך ובכל־מאדך
Might is מְאֹד which does mean strength. However, that is not how this command was taught:
Might: Hebrew "me'od" is elsewhere an adverb meaning "very" or "exceedingly." It is used as a noun only here and in the Deuteronomistic description of King Josiah, which cites this verse to portray Josiah as the paragon of obedience to Torah (2 Kings 23.25). While the word's basic meaning is "might" or "strength," it was understood as "wealth" or "property" both at Qumran (CD 9.11; 12.10) and in early rabbinic literature (Tg. Jon.; Sifre). The two interpretations each call for full commitment to God, whether psychological or practical; both are preserved in the Mishnah (m. Ber. 9.5)
1
A literal translation might be "to love God with all 'your everything.'" "Strength" by itself is deficient, at least in terms of the rabbinic interpretation and instruction. So, not ...with all your strength but "...with the "results of all your strength," (such as your wealth and property).
Similarly, the command "to love" is understood as requiring action:
The paradox of commanding a feeling (as in Leviticus 19.17-18) is resolved with the recognition that covenantal "love" does not refer to internal sentiment or to private emotion. The focus is, instead, upon loyalty of action toward both deity and neighbor...
2
Therefore, quoting verbatim would fail to convey how one was taught to apply the command.
The Command in Luke
First, in Luke, it is not Jesus who is speaking:
25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength (ἰσχύϊ) and with all your mind (διανοίας), and your neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10)
"He" who is citing the command is a νομικός, an instructor or interpreter of the Mosaic law. Second, the lawyer is not quoting directly from the Greek translation (LXX):
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy mind, and with all thy soul, and all thy strength. (LXX-Deuteronomy 6:5)
καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς δυνάμεώς σου
Where the LXX treats the Hebrew מְאֹד as "strength" using δύναμις which is physical ability, the lawyer uses ἰσχύς which means "capability to function effectively, strength, power, might."3 For example:
saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might (ἰσχὺν) and honor and glory and blessing!” (Revelation 5:12)
In fact, some translations have "strength." The lawyer has made two changes to the literal command. First, he rejected the LXX use of δύναμις which more properly means "physical ability" and used ἰσχύς which means the type of "strength" more in keeping with how one is taught to apply the command. Second, he added "mind" (διανοίας), which means understanding or way of thinking.
Obviously, Jesus approved the lawyer's interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:5 (cf. Luke 10:28) and his decision to include the command in Leviticus (19:18).
The Command in Matthew
In Matthew, the roles are reversed and Jesus was questioned by a lawyer (νομικός):
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (διανοίᾳ). 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
(Matthew 22)
His answer is very similar to the one given by the lawyer. The only significant difference is, Jesus does not include strength (ἰσχύϊ):
Love the LORD your God with all your:
The Law, Deuteronomy: heart - soul - might
The Lawyer (Luke): heart - soul - might - mind
Jesus (Matthew): heart - soul - mind
From the point of a literal translation of the Law, Jesus replaced "might" in Deuteronomy with "mind." From the standpoint of how the lawyer interpreted or taught the Law, Jesus omitted "might" altogether. Technically, "might" is expected based on the Hebrew text. However, when "love" is understood as an action not an inward feeling, "might" is largely unnecessary and, "might" alone falls short, as the lawyer's addition shows.
"Mind" which is added by both Jesus and the lawyer is διάνοια which has five uses:
❶ the faculty of thinking, comprehending, and reasoning. understanding, intelligence, mind
❷ mind as a mode of thinking, disposition, thoughts, mind
❸ mind focused on objective, purpose, plan
❹ mind as fantasizing power, imagination
❺ mind in sensory aspect, power, impulse
The first is likely the meaning in both Luke and Matthew (also Mark 12:30).4Yet, like love, there is a sense implying purposeful or focused action.
The Command in Mark
In yet another test, Jesus gives another answer:
28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (Mark 12)
After beginning with Deuteronomy 6:4, Jesus gives an answer which includes the four things the lawyer cited:
Love the LORD your God with all your:
The Law (Deuteronomy): heart - soul - might
The Lawyer (Luke): heart - soul - might - mind
Jesus (Matthew): heart - soul - mind
Jesus (Mark): heart - soul - mind - might
The four are the same as in Luke, except Jesus alters the lawyer's sequence by placing mind before might. So what is implied in Matthew is made explicit in Mark: the mind focused on God is seen in all your "might." What is interesting is the scribes response. Like the lawyer in Luke, the scribe acknowledges the accuracy of how Jesus answered, but he paraphrases Jesus' answer. Rather than διάνοια, "mind" which both Jesus and the lawyer used, the scribe calls for a different type of understanding, σύνεσις. The primary difference is σύνεσις is intellectual:5
❶ the faculty of comprehension, intelligence, acuteness, shrewdness
❷ the content of understanding or comprehension, insight, understanding
In terms of the original command the scribe inserted σύνεσις between heart and soul:
Jesus (Mark): heart - soul - mind - might
Scribe (Mark): heart - understanding - soul - might
The Law (Deuteronomy) heart - soul - - might
In contrast to the lawyer whose addition better expressed the intent of the original command, the scribe's paraphrase arguably adds something which is foreign: intellectual understanding. In other words, where both Jesus and the lawyer agree "mind" (διανοίας) is appropriate, the scribe disagrees calling instead for "understanding" (σύνεσις).
A scribe was more than someone who copied texts:
During the time of Christ the scribes exerted a powerful religious influence as teachers, and because of their ability to make judicial decisions based on scriptural exegesis, occupied important positions in the Sanhedrin (Mt 16:21; 26:3).
6
The scribe is described as approaching Jesus immediately after the Sanhedrin; given the close relationship with the Sanhedrin, the scribe's paraphrase may display a lack of understanding of the Scripture. σύνεσις is "from συνίημι, to send or bring together. Hence συνίημι is a union or bringing together of the mind with an object..."7 Arguably the scribe's interpretation minimizes the sense of "soul" by adding intellectual "understanding" between heart and soul. Regardless of the intention, mere "intellectual" understanding is foreign to both the literal text and its proper application.
Conclusion
A comparison of Deuteronomy 6:5 shows that Jesus never cited the literal text, as it was originally stated in the LXX. However, as seen in Luke, Jesus was agreeing with how the lawyer taught the command. More importantly, when love is understood as "loyalty of action" to God, "might" is superfluous and if one is to choose only one between might and mind, ἰσχύς is the better way to express the command in Greek.
1 Bernard M. Levinson, The Jewish Study Bible, Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford University Press, 2004, p.380
2 Ibid.
3 Fredrick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, The University Chicago Press, 2000, p. 484
4 Ibid., p. 234
5 Ibid., p. 970
6 Earl B. Robinson, Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, John Rea, Editors, Hendrickson Publisher, Inc., 2001, p. 1536
7 Vincent Word Studies Mark 12:33
Luke 10 (KJV):
25And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.
So, Luke records that a lawyer tempted Jesus with a question concerning eternal life, and the Deuteronomy reference came from the lawyer in answer to a question from Jesus.
Matthew 22 (KJV):
35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
-- Matthew 22:35-40 (KJV)
So, Matthew records that a lawyer tempted Jesus with a question concerning "the great commandment in the law".
It is clear that Luke and Matthew are recording different encounters. As a matter of interest, the BibleHub Timeline of the NT has Luke 10 occurring in AD 29 and Matthew 22 in AD 30.
The first lawyer tempted Jesus with a question about eternal life but Jesus didn't answer, preferring to ask the lawyer what he read in the Law. A year later (or thereabout), a second lawyer (perhaps, even likely, the same one) asks a question about the great commandment, this time Jesus answers him directly, not with a quote of Deuteronomy 6:5 but with the answer the first lawyer gave concerning his own reading of the Law.
Jesus was clearly aware of the conspiracy that was being perpetrated against him.