Spiritualization of Love

Before I start, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my indebtedness to Fr. Lanfranco Fedrigotti, SDB, who has been very patient in lending his ears to my mumbling.
Though I studied science in the secondary school, I gradually discover that I am fascinated with languages. The study of the Bible opens up new terrains for me: Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Four weeks ago (26^th Ordinary Sunday, Year A), the reading of the Parable of Two Sons in Matthew brought up the thorny issue of translating the Bible. The translators face the problem of finding the best possible rendering of the text when there are different manuscripts to choose from. Today, the reading of the Greatest Commandment raises another issue. The same story appears in the three Synoptic Gospels in different ways. Mark and Matthew agree much. The Lucan version is a beautiful literary invention in which the Parable of the Good Samaritan is included. Therefore, today, I will focus on the first two Gospels.

The basic plot is the same. A teacher of the Law challenged Jesus to name the greatest commandment among the 613 Jewish laws. Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 to answer him. Of course, the teacher of the Law refused to be silenced. This brought about the beautiful story of the Good Samaritan in Luke. Today, I would like to deal with the first part of the answer from Deuteronomy. I will list the text in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English respectively.

וְאָהַבְתָּ, אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ, וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ

καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς δυνάμεώς σου. (LXX)
diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et ex tota anima tua et ex tota fortitudine tua. (Vulgate)
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength.(Deuteronomy 6:5)

So far, so good. Let's read the Matthew version.
Ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου. (GNT)
diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et in tota anima tua et in tota mente tua. (Vulgate)
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (Matthew 22:37b, KJV)

Immediately, we spot a difference. Where has the "strength" gone? It was replaced by "mind". Can "mind" replace "strength"?
We agree that Mark was written before Matthew. So, let us turn to Mark to see what was being written.
καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου.(GNT)
et diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et ex tota anima tua et ex tota mente tua et ex tota virtute tua hoc est primum mandatum (Vulgate)
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment (Mark 12:30, KJV)

There are 4 elements in Mark, not three! Was Mark guilty of adding extra things into the Law, into the Scripture? Yes he did but, I would defend that the society has long changed and Mark was not writing to the Jews, but the Gentiles. For the Jews, the three elements: heart, soul and strength were enough to describe the whole person. For Gentiles under the influence of the Greek civilization, they needed four: heart, soul, mind and strength. For a similar "sin" of putting words into Jesus' mouth, see the unthinkable position of women divorcing their husbands in Mark 10:12.
When we turn to the word "strength", we see that Mark (ἰσχύος, virtute, strength) was actually using a word different from that in Deuteronomy (δυνάμεώς, fortitudine, strength). Mark's is more ethical (ability, courage and might etc.) while the Deuteronomy's more physical, if I am allowed to make such a differentiation. No matter what, time has changed and the usage of the same word changes as well. In time, the same idea might need newer words to describe.

The situation of Matthew, that he had replaced "strength" with "mind", is more difficult to explain because there are so many different ways to look at the situation.

1. Matthew dropped "strength" and retained "mind" in the gospel of Mark.
2. Matthew held an anthropology different from the ancient Israelites.
3. Matthew reported correctly what Jesus had said.

Let us deal with Possibility#3 first.
What did Jesus actually say? This is the most crucial question which unfortunately we can only rely on the credibility of the Evangelists. Between Mark and Matthew, whom should we trust? Given that Luke also reports 4 elements (Luke 10:27), should we reject Matthew? Impossible! After all, Matthew was an apostle but Mark and Luke were only second generation disciples. That is also why Matthew is placed before Mark in the canon even though nearly all modern Biblical scholars agree to the priority of Mark.
Moreover, Matthew has an extra support. As Jews, Jesus and Matthew must have been reciting everyday the Shema Israel (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). Therefore, there must be only three elements instead of four. The problem is: Did Jesus say "mind" or "strength"? Unfortunately, we have no way to decide the truthfulness of Possibility#3.

Possibility#2 is a bold assertion. As far as we understand, heart, soul and mind are all psychological/spiritual aspects in modern terms, while strength is more physical/material. While we traditionally interpret the 3 elements (heart, soul and strength) to represent the whole person, both flesh and spirit in the Old Testament theology; the anthropology behind the Matthew version is rather spiritual. He has already spiritualized the Law of Moses in the 3 chapters of Beatitude (chapters 5 to 7). It would be highly likely that Matthew was doing the same here, advocating a theology which John later immortalized in the verse: God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship (and love Him) in spirit and truth (John 4:24).
As a working hypothesis, I propose that Matthew has spiritualized the greatest commandment by replacing "strength" with "mind".  Under the influence of Greek civilization and Gnostic ideas, Christians were beginning to approach God in a more spiritual way. Ethically, blessed are the poor in spirit. Anger is as serious a sin as murder. So is lust as adultery etc.

Let's turn to Possibility#1. It makes two assumptions:

1. Matthew based on Mark to write up his own gospel, and 
2. Matthew wanted to keep the number of elements to three for his Jewish readers.

We can rule out the stupid answer that Matthew kept the first three and dropped the last because in Luke, the first three are heart, soul and strength. "Mind" is the last! Now, the question becomes why Matthew chose to retain "mind", but not the traditional "strength". Then we return to Possibility#2. Therefore, the most possible answer is that Matthew has spiritualized the love of God.

Thank God. Jesus is truly human and truly divine. He has made humanity divine and opens up the possibility of our becoming divine too, our divinization. In the same Matthew, we read of loving God materially by serving the needy, the least of these brothers (Matthew 25:31-46). So, Matthew has both spiritualized and materialized the love of God.

Dear Lord, how should I approach You? You have shown me the way. You have taught me to meet you in our needy brothers. See You and serve You there. Amen.