THE LAW OF HOLINESS
(CONCLUDED)
Lev 19:1-37
WE have in this chapter a series of precepts and prohibitions
which from internal evidence appear to have been selected by an
inspired redactor of the canon from various original documents, with
the purpose, not of presenting a complete enumeration of all moral
and ceremonial duties, but of illustrating the application in the
everyday life of the Israelite of the injunction which stands at the
beginning of the chapter (Lev 19:2): "Ye shall be holy: for I the
Lord your God am holy."
Truly strange it is, in the full light of Hebrew history, to find
anyone, like Kalisch, representing this conception of holiness, so
fundamental to this law, as the "ripest fruit of Hebrew culture"!
For it is insisted by such competent critics, as Dillmann, that we
have not in this chapter a late development of Hebrew thought, but
"ancient," "the most ancient" material; -we shall venture to say,
dating even from the days of Moses, as is declared in Lev 19:1. And
we may say more. For If such be the antiquity of this law, it should
be easy even for the most superficial reader of the history to see
how immeasurably far was that horde of almost wholly uncultured
fugitives from Egyptian bondage from having attained through any
culture this Mosaic conception of holiness. For "Hebrew culture,"
even in its latest maturity, has, at the best, only tended to
develop more and more the idea, not of holiness, but of legality-a
very different thing! The ideal expressed in this command, "Ye shall
be holy," must have come, not from Israel, not even from Moses, as
if originated by him, but from the Holy God Himself, even as the
chapter in its first verse testifies.
The position of this command at the head of the long list of
precepts which follows, is most significant and instructive. It sets
before us the object of the whole ceremonial and moral law, and, we
may add, the supreme object of the Gospel also, namely, to produce a
certain type of moral and spiritual character, a HOLY manhood; it,
moreover, precisely interprets this term, so universally
misunderstood and misapplied among all nations, as essentially
consisting in a spiritual likeness to God: "Ye shall be holy: for I
the Lord your God am holy." These words evidently at once define
holiness and declare the supreme motive to the attainment and
maintenance of a holy character. This then is brought before us as
the central thought in which all the diverse precepts and
prohibitions which follow find their unity; and, accordingly, we
find this keynote of the whole law echoing, as it were, all through
this chapter, in the constant refrain, repeated herein no less than
fourteen-twice seven-times: "I am the Lord (Heb. Jehovah)!" "I am
the Lord your God!"
The first division of the law of holiness which follows (Lev 19:3-8)
deals with two duties of fundamental importance in the social and
the religious life: the one, honour to parents; the other, reverence
to God.
If we are surprised, at first, to see this place of honour in the
law of holiness given to the fifth commandment (Lev 19:3), our
surprise will lessen when we remember how, taking the individual in
the development of his personal life, he learns to fear God, first
of all, through fearing and honouring his parents. In the earliest
beginnings of life, the parent-to speak with reverence-stands to his
child, in a very peculiar sense, for and in the place of God. We
gain the conception of the Father in heaven first from our
experience of fatherhood on earth; and so it may be said of this
commandment, in a sense in which it cannot be said of any other,
that it is the foundation of all religion. Alas for the child who
contemns the instruction of his father and the command of his
mother! for by so doing he puts himself out of the possibility of
coming into the knowledge and experience of the Fatherhood of God.
The principle of reverence toward God is inculcated, not here by
direct precept, but by three injunctions, obedience to which
presupposes the fear of God in the heart. These are, first (Lev
19:3), the keeping of the sabbaths; the possessive, "My sabbaths,"
reminding us tersely of God’s claim upon the seventh part of all our
time as His time. Then is commanded the avoidance of idolatry (Lev
19:4); and, lastly (Lev 19:5-8), a charge as to the observance of
the law of the peace offering.
One reason seems to have determined the selection of each of these
three injunctions, namely, that Israel would be more liable to fail
in obedience to these than perhaps any other duties of the law. As
for the sabbath, this, like the law of the peace offering, was a
positive, not a moral law; that is, it depended for its authority
primarily on the explicit ordinance of God, instead of the intuition
of the natural conscience. Hence it was certain that it would only
be kept in so far as man retained a vivid consciousness of the
Divine personality and moral authority. Moreover, as all history has
shown, the law of the sabbath rest from labour constantly comes into
conflict with man’s love of gain and eager haste to make money. It
is a life picture, true for men of every generation, when Amos {Amo
8:5} brings before us the Israelites of his day as saying, in their
insatiate worldly greed, "When will the sabbath be gone, that we may
set forth wheat?" As regards the selection of the second
commandment, one can easily see that Israel’s loyalty, surrounded as
they were on every side with idolaters, was to be tested with
peculiar severity on this point, whether they would indeed worship
the living God alone and without the intervention of idols.
The circumstances, as regards the peace offering, were different;
but the same principle of choice can be discovered in this also. For
among all the various ordinances of sacrificial worship there was
none in which the requisitions of the law were more likely to be
neglected; partly because these were the most frequent of all
offerings, and also because the Israelite would often be tempted,
through a short-sighted economy and worldly thriftiness, to use the
meat of the peace offering for food, if any remained until the third
day, instead of burning it, in such case, as the Lord commanded.
Hence the reminder of the law on this subject, teaching that he who
will be holy must not seek to save at the expense of obedience to
the holy God.
The second section of this chapter (Lev 19:9-18) consists of five
groups, each of five precepts, all relating to duties which the law
of holiness requires from man to man, and each of them closing with
the characteristic and impressive refrain, "I am the Lord."
The first of these pentads (Lev 19:9-10) requires habitual care for
the poor: we read, "Thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy
field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest. And
thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the
fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and
for the stranger."
The law covers the three chief products of their agriculture: the
grain, the product of the vine, and the fruit of the trees, -largely
olive trees, which were often planted in the vineyard. So often as
God blessed them with the harvest, they were to remember the poor,
and also "the stranger," who according to the law could have a legal
claim to no land in Israel. Apart from the benefit to the poor, one
can readily see what an admirable discipline against man’s natural
selfishness, and in loyalty to God, this regulation, faithfully
observed, must have been. Behind these commands lies the principle,
elsewhere explicitly expressed, {Lev 25:23} that the land which the
Israelite tilled was not his own, but the Lord’s; and it is as the
Owner of the land that He thus charges them that as His tenants they
shall not regard themselves as entitled to everything that the land
produces, but bear in mind that He intends a portion of every acre
of each Israelite to be reserved for the poor. And so the labourer
in the harvest field was continually reminded that in his husbandry
he was merely God’s steward, bound to apply the product of the land,
the use of which was given him, in such a way as should please the
Lord.
If the law is not in force as to the letter, let us not forget that
it is of full validity as to its spirit. God is still the God of the
poor and needy; and we are still every one, as truly as the Hebrew
in those days, the stewards of God. And the poor we have with us
always; perhaps never more than in these days, in which so great
masses of helpless humanity are crowded together in our immense
cities, did the cry of the poor and needy so ascend to heaven. And
that the Apostles, acting under Divine direction, and abolishing the
letter of the theocratic law, yet steadily maintained the spirit and
intention of that law in care for the poor, is testified with
abundant fulness in the New Testament. One of the firstfruits of
Pentecost in the lives of believers was just this, that "all that
believed had all things common," {Act 2:44-45} so that, going even
beyond the letter of the old law, "they sold their possessions and
goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need," And
the one only charge which the Apostles at Jerusalem gave unto Paul
is reported by him in these words: {Gal 2:10} "Only they would that
we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to
do." Let the believer then remember this who has plenty: the corners
of his fields are to be kept for the poor, and the gleanings of his
vineyards; and let the believer also take the peculiar comfort from
this law, if he is poor, that God, his heavenly Father, has a kindly
care, not merely for his spiritual wants, but also for his temporal
necessities.
The second pentad (Lev 19:11-12) in the letter refers to three of
the ten commandments, but is really concerned, primarily, with
stealing and defrauding; for the lying and false swearing is here
regarded only as commonly connected with theft and fraud, because
often necessary to secure the result of a man’s plunder. The pentad
is in this form: "Ye shall not steal; neither shall ye deal falsely,
nor lie one to another. And ye shall not swear by My name falsely,
so that thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord!"
Close upon stinginess and the careless greed which neglects the
poor, with eager grasping after the last grape on the vine, follows
the active effort to get, not only the uttermost that might by any
stretch of charity be regarded as our own, but also to get something
more that belongs to our neighbour. There is thus a very close
connection in thought, as well as in position, in these two groups
of precepts. And the sequence of thought in this group suggests what
is, indeed, markedly true of stealing, but also of other sins. sin
rarely goes alone; one sin, by almost a necessity, leads straight on
to another sin. He who steals, or deals falsely in regard to
anything committed to his trust, will most naturally be led on at
once to lie about it; and when his lie is challenged, as it is
likely to be, he is impelled by a fatal pressure to go yet further,
and fortify his lie, and consummate his sin, by appealing by an oath
to the Holy God, as witness to the truth of his lie. Thus, the sin
which in the beginning is directed only toward a fellowman, too
often causes one to sin immediately against God, in profanation of
the name of the God of truth, by calling on Him as witness to a lie!
Of this tendency of sin, stealing is a single illustration; but let
us ever remember that it is a law of all sin that sin ever begets
more sin.
This second group has dealt with injury to the neighbour in the way
of guile and fraud; the third pentad (Lev 19:13-14), progressing
further, speaks of wrong committed in ways of oppression and
violence. "Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbour, nor rob him: the
wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until
the morning. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling
block before the blind, but thou shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord!"
In these commands, again it is still the helpless and defenceless in
whose behalf the Lord is speaking. The words regard a man as having
it in his power to press hard upon his neighbour; as when an
employer, seeing that a man must needs have work at any price, takes
advantage of his need to employ him at less than fair wages; or as
when he who holds a mortgage against his neighbour, seeing an
opportunity to possess himself of a field or an estate for a trifle,
by pressing his technical legal rights, strips his poor debtor
needlessly. No end of illustrations, evidently, could be given out
of our modern life. Man’s nature is the same now as in the days of
Moses. But all dealings of this kind, whether then or now, the law
of holiness sternly prohibits.
So also with the injunction concerning the retention of wages after
it is due. I have not fulfilled the law of love toward the man or
woman whom I employ merely by paying fair wages; I must also pay
promptly. The Deuteronomic law repeats the command, and, with a
peculiar touch of sympathetic tenderness, adds the reason: {Lev
24:15} "for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it." I must
therefore give the labourer his wages "in his day." A sin this is,
of the rich especially, and, most of all, of rich corporations, with
which the sense of personal responsibility to God is too often
reduced to a minimum. Yet it is often, no doubt, committed through
sheer thoughtlessness. Men who are themselves blessed with such
abundance that they are not seriously incommoded by a delay in
receiving some small sum, too often forget how a great part of the
poor live, as the saying is, "from hand to mouth," so that the
failure to get what is due to them at the exact time appointed is
frequently a sore trial; and, moreover, by forcing them to buy on
credit instead of for cash, of necessity increases the expense of
their living, and so really robs them of that which is their own.
The thought is still of care for the helpless, in the words
concerning the deaf and the blind, which, of course, are of
perpetual force, and, in the principle involved, reach indefinitely
beyond these single illustrations. We are not to take advantage of
any man’s helplessness, and, especially, of such disabilities as he
cannot help, to wrong him. Even the common conscience of men
recognises this as both wicked and mean; and this verdict of
conscience is here emphasised by the reminder "I am the Lord," -
suggesting that the labourer who reaps the fields, yea, the blind
also andthe deaf, are His creatures; and that He, the merciful and
just One, will not disown the relation, but will plead their cause.
Each of these groups of precepts has kept the poor and the needy in
a special way, though not exclusively, before the conscience. And
yet no man is to imagine that therefore God will be partial toward
the poor, and that hence, although one may not wrong the poor, one
may wrong the rich with impunity. Many of our modern social
reformers, in their zeal for the betterment of the poor, seem to
imagine that because a poor man has rights which are too frequently
ignored by the rich, and thus often suffers grievous wrongs,
therefore a rich man has no rights which the poor man is bound to
respect. The next pentad of precepts therefore guards against any
such false inference from God’s special concern for the poor, and
reminds us that the absolute righteousness of the Holy One requires
that the rights of the rich be observed no less than the rights of
the poor, those of the employer no less than those of the employed.
It deals especially with this matter as it comes up in questions
requiring legal adjudication. We read (Lev 19:15-16), "Ye shall do
no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of
the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness
shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Thou shalt not go up and down as a
talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the
blood of thy neighbour: I am the Lord!"
A plain warning lies here for an increasing class of reformers in
our day, who loudly express their special concern for the poor, but
who in their zeal for social reform and the diminishing of poverty
are forgetful of righteousness and equity. It applies, for instance,
to all who would affirm and teach with Marx that "capital is
robbery"; or who, not yet quite ready for so plain and candid words,
yet would, in any way, in order to right the wrongs of the poor,
advocate legislation involving practical confiscation of the estates
of the rich.
In close connection with the foregoing, the next precept forbids,
not precisely "tale bearing," but "slander," as the word is
elsewhere rendered, even in the Revised Version. In the court of
judgment, slander is not to be uttered nor listened to. The clause
which follows is obscure; but means either, "Thou shalt not, by such
slanderous testimony, seek in the court of judgment thy neighbour’s
life," which best suits the parallelism; or, perhaps, as the Talmud
and most modern Jewish versions interpret, "Thou shalt not stand
silent by, when thy neighbour’s life is in danger in the court of
judgment, and thy testimony might save him." And then again comes in
the customary refrain, reminding the Israelite that in every court,
noting every act of judgment, and listening to every witness, is a
judge unseen, omniscient, absolutely righteous, under whose final
review, for confirmation or reversal, shall come all earthly
decisions: "I," who thus speak, "am the Lord!"
The fifth and last pentad (Lev 19:17-18) fitly closes the series, by
its five precepts, of which, three, reaching behind all such outward
acts as are required or forbidden in the foregoing, deal with the
state of the heart toward our neighbour which the law of holiness
requires, as the soul and the root of all righteousness. It closes
with the familiar words, so simple that all can understand them, so
comprehensive that in obedience to them is comprehended all morality
and righteousness toward man: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself." The verses read, "Thou shall not hate thy brother in thine
heart: thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin
because of him. Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge
against the children oil thy people, but thou shall love thy
neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord!"
Most instructive it is to find it suggested by this order, as the
best evidence of the absence of hate, and the truest expression of
love to our neighbour, that when we see him doing wrong we shall
rebuke him. The Apostle Paul has enjoined upon Christians the same
duty, indicating also the spirit in which it is to be performed:
{Gal 6:1} "Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye
which are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of meekness;
looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Thus, if we will be
holy, it is not to be a matter of no concern to us that our
neighbour does wrong, even though that wrong do not directly affect
our personal well being. Instead of this, we are to remember that if
we rebuke him not, we ourselves "bear sin, because of him"; that is,
we ourselves, in a degree, become guilty with him, because of that
wrong doing of his which we sought not in any way to hinder. But
although, on the one hand, I am to rebuke the wrongdoer, even when
his wrong does not touch me personally, yet, the law adds, I am not
to take into my own hands the avenging of wrongs, even when myself
injured; neither am I to be envious and grudge any neighbour the
good he may have; no, not though he be an ill-doer and deserve it
not; but be he friend or foe, well-doer or ill-doer, I must love him
as myself.
What an admirable epitome of the whole law of righteousness! a
Mosaic anticipation of the very spirit of the Sermon on the Mount.
Evidently, the same mind speaks in both alike; the law the same, the
object and aim of the law the same, both in Leviticus and in the
Gospel. In this law we hear: "Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your
God am holy"; in the Sermon on the Mount: "Ye shall be perfect, as
your heavenly Father is perfect."
The third division of this chapter (Lev 19:19-32) opens with a
general charge to obedience: "Ye shall keep My statutes"; very
possibly, because several of the commands which immediately follow
might seem in themselves of little consequence, and so be lightly
disobeyed. The law of Lev 19:19 prohibits raising hybrid animals,
as, for example, mules; the next command apparently refers to the
chance, through sowing a field with mingled seed, of giving rise to
hybrid forms in the vegetable kingdom. The last command in this
verse is obscure both in meaning and intention. It reads (R.V),
"Neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff
mingled together." Most probably the reference is to different
materials, interwoven in the yarn of which the dress was made; but a
difficulty still remains in the fact that such admixture was ordered
in the garments of the priests. Perhaps the best explanation is that
of Josephus, that the law here was only intended for the laity;
which, as no question of intrinsic morality was involved, might
easily have been. But when we inquire as to the reason of these
prohibitions, and especially of this last one, it must be confessed
that it is hard for us now to speak with confidence. Most probable
it appears that they were intended for an educational purpose, to
cultivate in the mind of the people the sentiment of reverence for
the order established in nature by God. For what the world calls the
order of nature is really an order appointed by God, as the
infinitely wise and perfect One; hence, as nature is thus a
manifestation of God, the Hebrew was forbidden to seek to bring
about that which is not according to nature, unnatural corn
mixtures; and from this point of view, the last of the three
precepts appears to be a symbolic reminder of the same duty, namely,
reverence for the order of nature, as being an order determined by
God.
The law which is laid down in Lev 19:20-22, regarding the sin of
connection with a bondwoman betrothed to a husband, apparently
refers to such a case as is mentioned in Exo 21:7-8, where the bond
maid is betrothed to her master, while yet, because of her condition
of bondage, the marriage has not been consummated. For the same sin
in the case of a free woman, where both were proved guilty, for each
of them the punishment was death. {Deu 22:23-24} In this case,
because the woman’s position, inasmuch as she was not free, was
rather that of a concubine than of a full wife, the lighter penalty
of scourging is ordered for both of the guilty persons. Also, since
this was a case of trespass as well, in which the rights of the
master to whom she was espoused were involved, a guilt offering was
in addition required, as the condition of pardon.
It will be said, and truly, that by this law slavery and concubinage
are to a certain extent recognised by the law; and upon this fact
has been raised an objection bearing on the holiness of the law
giver, and, by consequence, on the Divine origin and inspiration of
the law. Is it conceivable that the holy God should have given a law
for the regulation of two so evil institutions? The answer has been
furnished us, in principle, by our Lord, {Mat 19:8} in that which He
said concerning the analogous case of the law of Moses touching
divorce; which law, He tells us, although not according to the
perfect ideal of right, was yet given "because of the hardness of
men’s hearts." That is, although it was not the best law ideally, it
was the best practically, in view of the low moral tone of the
people to whom it was given. Precisely so it was in this case.
Abstractly, one might say that the case was in nothing different
from the case of a free woman, mentioned Deu 22:23-24, for which
death was the appointed punishment; but practically, in a community
where slavery and concubinage were long-settled institutions, and
the moral standard was still low, the cases were not parallel. A law
which would carry with it the moral support of the people in the one
case, and which it would thus be possible to carry into effect,
would not be in like manner supported and carried into effect in the
other; so that the result of greater strictness in theory would, in
actual practice, be the removal thereby of all restriction on
license. On the other hand, by thus appointing herein a penalty for
both the guilty parties such as the public conscience would approve,
God taught the Hebrews the fundamental lesson that a slave girl is
not regarded by God as a mere chattel; and that if, because of the
hardness of their hearts, concubinage was tolerated for a time,
still the slave girl must not be treated as a thing, but as a
person, and indiscriminate license could not be permitted. And thus,
it is of greatest moment to observe, a principle was introduced into
the legislation, which in its ultimate logical application would
require and effect-as in due time it has-the total abolition of the
institution of slavery wherever the authority of the living God is
truly recognised.
The principle of the Divine government which is here illustrated is
one of exceeding practical importance as a model for us. We live in
an age when, everywhere in Christendom, the cry is "Reform"; and
there are many who think that if once it be proved that a thing is
wrong, it follows by necessary consequence that the immediate and
unqualified legal prohibition of that wrong, under such penalty as
the wrong may deserve, is the only thing that any Christian man has
a right to think of. And yet, according to the principle illustrated
in this legislation, this conclusion in such cases can by no means
be taken for granted. That is not always the best law practically
which is the best law abstractly. That law is the best which shall
be most effective in diminishing a given evil, under the existing
moral condition of the community; and it is often a matter of such
exceeding difficulty to determine what legislation against admitted
sins and evils may be the most productive of good in a community
whose moral sense is dull concerning them, that it is not strange
that the best of men are often found to differ. Remembering this, we
may well commend the duty of a more charitable judgment, in such
cases, than one often hears from such radical reformers, who seem to
imagine that in order to remove an evil all that is necessary is to
pass a law at once and forever prohibiting it; and who therefore
hold up to obloquy all who doubt as to the wisdom and duty of so
doing, as the enemies of truth and of righteousness. Moses, acting
under direct instruction from the God of supreme wisdom and of
perfect holiness, was far wiser than such well-meaning but sadly
mistaken social reformers, who would fain be wiser than God.
Next follows a law (Lev 19:23-25) directing that when any fruit tree
is planted, the Israelite shall not eat of its fruit for the first
three years; that the fruit of the fourth year shall be wholly
consecrated to the Lord, "for giving praise unto Jehovah"; and that
only after that, in the fifth year of its bearing, shall the
husbandman himself first eat of its fruit.
The explanation of this peculiar regulation is to be found in a
special application of the principle which rules throughout the law;
that the first fruit, whether the firstborn of man or beast, or the
first fruits of the field, shall always be consecrated unto God. But
in this case the application of the principle is modified by the
familiar fact that the fruit of a young tree, for the first few
years of its bearing, is apt to be imperfect; it is not yet
sufficiently grown to yield its best possible product. Because of
this, in those years it could not be given to the Lord, for He must
never be served with any but the best of everything; and thus until
the fruit should reach its best, so as to be worthy of presentation
to the Lord, the Israelite was meanwhile debarred from using it.
During these three years the trees are said to be "as
uncircumcised"; i.e., they were to be regarded as in a condition
analogous to that of the child who has not yet been consecrated, by
the act of circumcision, to the Lord. In the fourth year, however,
the trees were regarded as having now so grown as to yield fruit in
perfection; hence, the principle of the consecration of the first
fruit now applies, and all the fourth year’s product is given to the
Lord, as an offering of thankful praise to Him whose power in nature
is the secret of all growth, fruitfulness, and increase. The last
words of this law, "that it may yield unto you its increase."
evidently refer to all that precedes. Israel is to obey this law,
using nothing till first consecrated to the Lord, in order to a
blessing in these very gifts of God.
The moral teaching of this law, when it is thus read in the light of
the general principle of the consecration of the first fruits, is
very plain. It teaches, as in all analogous cases, that God is
always to be served before ourselves; and that not grudgingly, as if
an irksome tax were to be paid to the Majesty of heaven, but in the
spirit of thanksgiving and praise to Him, as the Giver of "every
good and perfect gift." It further instructs us in this particular
instance, that the people of God are to recognise this as being true
even of all those good things which come to us under the forms of
products of nature.
The lesson is not an easy one for faith; for the constant tendency,
never stronger than in our own time, is to substitute "Nature" for
the God of nature, as if nature were a power in itself and apart
from God, immanent in all nature, the present and efficient energy
in all her manifold operations. Very fittingly, thus, do we find
here again (Lev 19:25) the sanction affixed to this law, "I am the
Lord your God!" Jehovah, your God who redeemed you, who therefore am
worthy of all thanksgiving and praise! Jehovah, your God in
covenant, who gives the fruitful seasons! filling your hearts with
joy and gladness! Jehovah, your God, who as the Lord of Nature, and
the Power in nature, am abundantly able to fulfil the promise
affixed to this command!
The next six commands are evidently grouped together as referring to
various distinctively heathenish customs, from which Israel, as a
people holy to the Lord, was to abstain. The prohibition of blood
(Lev 19:26) is repeated again, not, as has been said, in a stronger
form than before, but probably, because the eating of blood was
connected with certain heathenish ceremonies, both among the
Shemitic tribes and others. The next two precepts (Lev 19:26)
prohibit every kind of divination and augury; practices notoriously
common with the heathen everywhere, in ancient and in modern times.
The two precepts which follow, forbidding certain fashions of
trimming the hair and beard, may appear trivial to many, but they
will not seem so to anyone who will remember how common among
heathen peoples has been the custom, as in those days among the
Arabs, and in our time among the Hindoos to trim the hair or beard
in a particular way, in order thus visibly to mark a person as of a
certain religion, or as a worshipper of a certain god. The command
means that the Israelite was not only to worship God alone, but he
was not to adopt a fashion in dress which, because commonly
associated with idolatry, might thus misrepresent his real position
as a worshipper of the only living and true God.
"Cutting the flesh for the dead" (Lev 19:28) has been very widely
practised by heathen peoples in all ages. Such immoderate and
unseemly expressions of grief were prohibited to the Israelite, as
unworthy of a people who were in a blessed covenant relation with
the God of life and of death. Rather, recognising that death is of
God’s ordination, he was to accept in patience and humility the
stroke of God’s hand; not, indeed, without sorrow, but yet in
meekness and quietness of spirit, trusting in the God of life. The
thought is only a less clear expression of the New Testament word
{1Th 4:13} that the believer "sorrow not, even as the rest, which
have no hope." Also, probably, in this prohibition, as certainly in
the next (Lev 19:28), it is suggested that as the Israelite was to
be distinguished from the heathen by full consecration, not only of
the soul, but also of the body, to the Lord, he was by that fact
inhibited from marring or defacing in any way the integrity of his
body.
In general, we may say, then, that the central thought which binds
this group of precepts together, is the obligation, not merely to
abstain from everything directly idolatrous, but also from all such
customs as are, in fact, rooted in or closely associated with
idolatry. On the same principle, the Christian is to beware of all
fashions and practices, even though they may be in themselves
indifferent, which yet, as a matter of fact, are specially
characteristic of the worldly and ungodly element in society. The
principle assumed in these prohibitions thus imposes upon all who
would be holy to the Lord, in all ages, a firm restriction. The
thoughtless desire of many, at any risk, to be "in the fashion,"
must be unwaveringly denied. The reason which is so often given by
professing Christians for indulgence in such cases, that "all the
world does so," may often be the strongest possible reason for
declining to follow the fashion. No servant of God should ever be
seen in any part of the livery of Satan’s servants. That God does
not think these "little things" always of trifling consequence, we
are reminded by the repetition here, for the tenth time in this
chapter, of the words, "I am the Lord!"
Next (Lev 19:29) follows the prohibition of the horrible custom,
still practised among heathen peoples, of the prostitution of a
daughter by a parent. It is here enforced by the consideration of
the public weal: "lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land
become full of wickedness." Assuredly, that a land in which such
harlotry as this, in which all the most sacred relations of life are
trampled in the mire, would be nothing less than a land full of
wickedness, is so evident as to require no comment.
Herewith now begins the fourth and last division of this chapter
(Lev 19:30-37), with a repetition of the injunction to keep the
Sabbaths of the Lord, and reverence His sanctuary. The emphasis on
this command, shown by its repetition in this chapter, and the very
prominent place which it occupies both in the law and the prophets,
certainly suggest that in the mind of God, reverence for the Sabbath
and for the place where God is worshipped, has much to do with the
promotion of holiness of life, and the maintenance of a high degree
of domestic and social morality. Nor is it difficult to see why this
should be so. For however the day of holy rest may be kept, and the
place of Divine worship be regarded with only an outward reverence
by many, yet the fact cannot be disputed, that the observance of a
weekly sabbatic rest from ordinary secular occupations, and the
maintenance of a spirit of reverence for sacred places or for sacred
times, has, and must have, a certain and most happy tendency to keep
the God of the Sabbath and the God of the sanctuary before the mind
of men, and thus imposes an effective check upon unrestrained
godlessness and reckless excesses of iniquity. The diverse condition
of things in various parts of modern Christendom, as related to the
more or less careful observance of the weekly religious rest, is
full of both instruction and warning to any candid mind upon this
subject. There is no restraint on immorality like the frequent
remembrance of God and the spirit of reverence for Him.
Lev 19:31 prohibits all inquiring of them that "have familiar
spirits," and of "wizards," who pretend to make revelations through
the help of supernatural powers. According to 1Sa 28:7-11, and Isa
8:19, the "familiar spirit" is a supposed spirit of a dead man, from
whom one professes to be able to give communications to the living.
This pretended commerce with the spirits of the dead has been common
enough in heathenism always, and it is not strange to find it
mentioned here, when Israel was to be in so intimate relations with
heathen peoples. But it is truly most extraordinary that in
Christian lands, as especially in the United States of America, and
that in the full light, religious and intellectual, of the last half
of the nineteenth century, such a prohibition should be fully as
pertinent as in Israel! For no words could more precisely describe
the pretensions of the so-called modern spiritualism, which within
the last half century has led away hundreds of thousands of deluded
souls, and those, in many cases, not from the ignorant and degraded,
but from circles which boast of more than average culture and
intellectual enlightenment. And inasmuch as experience sadly shows
that even those who profess to be disciples of Christ are in danger
of being led away by our modern wizards and traffickers with
familiar spirits, it is by no means unnecessary to observe that
there is not the slightest reason to believe that this which was
rigidly forbidden by God in the fifteenth century B.C.., can now be
well pleasing to Him in the nineteenth century A.D. And those who
have most carefully watched the moral developments of this
latter-day delusion, will most appreciate the added phrase which
speaks of this as "defiling" a man.
Lev 19:32 enjoins reverence for the aged, and closely connects it
with the fear of God. "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and
honour the face of the old man, and thou shalt fear thy God: I am
the Lord."
A virtue this is which-it must be with shame confessed-although
often displayed in an illustrious manner among the heathen, in many
parts of Christendom has sadly decayed. In many lands one only needs
to travel in any crowded conveyance to observe how far it is from
the thoughts of many of the young "to rise up before the hoary head.
and honour the face of the old man." So manifest are the facts that
ore bears from competent and thoughtful observers of the tendencies
of our times no lamentation more frequently than just this, for the
concurrent decay of reverence for the aged and reverence for God. No
more beautiful remarks on these words have we found than the words
quoted by Dr. H. Bonar, commenting on this verse: "Lo the shadow of
eternity! for one cometh who is almost in eternity already. His head
and his beard, white as snow, indicate his speedy appearance before
the Ancient of Days, the hair of whose head is as pure wool."
In this last command is also, no doubt, contained the thought of the
comparative weakness and physical infirmity of the aged, which is
thus commended in a special way to our tender regard. And thus this
sentiment of kindly sympathy for all who are subject to any kind of
disability naturally prepares the way for the injunction (Lev
19:33-34) to regard "the stranger" in the midst of Israel, who was
debarred from holding land, and from many privileges, with special
feelings of goodwill. "If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land,
ye shall not do him wrong. The stranger that sojourneth with you
shall be unto you as the homeborn among you, and thou shalt love him
as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the
Lord your God."
The Israelite was not to misinterpret, then, the restrictions which
the theocratic law imposed upon such. These might be no doubt
necessary for a moral reason; but, nevertheless, no man was to argue
that the law justified him in dealing hardly with aliens. So far
from this, the Israelite was to regard the stranger with the same
kindly feelings as if he were one of his own people. And it is most
instructive to observe that this particular case is made the
occasion of repeating that most perfect and comprehensive law of
universal love, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"; and this
the more they. were to do that they too had been "strangers in the
land of Egypt."
Last of all the injunctions in this chapter (Lev 19:35-36) comes the
command to absolute righteousness in the administration of justice,
and in all matters of buying and selling; followed (Lev 19:37) by a
concluding charge to obedience, thus: "Ye shall do no
unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.
Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye
have: I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of
Egypt. And ye shall observe all My statutes, and all My judgments,
and do them: I am the Lord."
The ephah is named here, of course, as a standard of dry measure,
and the hin as a standard of liquid measure. These commandments are
illustrated in a graphic way by the parallel passage in Deu
25:13-14, which reads: "Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers
weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house
divers measures, a great and a small"; i.e., one set for use in
buying, and another set for use in selling. This charge is there
enforced by the same promise to honesty in trade which is annexed to
the fifth commandment, namely, length of days; and, furthermore, by
the declaration that all who thus cheat in trade "are an abomination
unto the Lord."
How much Israel needed this law all their history has shown. In the
days of Amos it was a part of his charge against the ten tribes,
{Amo 8:5} for which the Lord declares that He will "make the land to
tremble, and everyone in it to mourn," that they "make the ephah
small, and the shekel great," and "deal falsely with balances of
deceit." So also Micah, a little later, represents the Lord as
calling Judah to account for supposing that God, the Holy One, can
be satisfied with burnt offerings and guilt offerings; indignantly
asking, {Mic 6:10-11} "Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in
the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable?"
But it is not Israel alone which has needed, and still needs, to
hear iterated this command, for the sin is found in every people,
even in every city, one might say in every town, in Christendom;
and-we have to say it-often with men who make a certain profession
of regard for religion. All such, however religious in certain ways,
have special need to remember that "without holiness no man shall
see the Lord"; and that holiness is now exactly what it was-when the
Levitical law was given out. As, on the one side, it is inspired by
reverence and fear toward God, so, on the other hand, it requires
love to the neighbour as to one’s self, and such conduct as that
will secure. It is of no account, therefore, to keep the Sabbath-in
a way - and reverence-outwardly-the sanctuary, and then on the
weekdaywater milk, adulterate medicines, sugars, and other foods,
slip the yardstick in measuring, tip the balance in weighing, and
buy with one weight or measure and sell with another, "water" stocks
and gamble in "margins," as the manner of many is. God hates, and
even honest atheists despise, religion of this kind. Strange
notions, truly, of religion have men who have not yet discovered
that it has to do with just such commonplace, everyday matters as
these, and have never yet understood how certain it is that a
religion which is only used on Sundays has no holiness in it; and
therefore, when the day comes, as it is coming, that shall try every
man’s work as by fire, it will, in the fierce heat of Jehovah’s
judgment, be shrivelled into ashes as a spider’s web in a flame, and
the man and his work shall perish together.
And herewith this chapter closes. Such is the law of holiness!
Obligatory, let us not forget, in the spirit of all its
requirements, today, unchanged and unchangeable, because the Holy
God, whose law it is, is Himself unchangeable. Man may be sinful,
and because of sin be weak; but there is not a hint of compromise
with sin, on this account, by any abatement of its claims. At every
step of life this law confronts us. Whether we be in the House of
God, in acts of worship, it challenges us there; or in the field, at
our work, it commands us there; in social intercourse with our
fellow men, in our business in bank or shop, with our friends or
with strangers and aliens, at home or abroad, we are never out of
the reach of its requirements. We can no more escape from under its
authority than from under the overarching heaven! What sobering
thoughts are these for sinners! What self-humiliation should this
law cause us, when we think what we are! what intensity of
aspiration, when we think of what the Holy One would have us be,
holy like Himself!
The closing words above given (Lev 19:37) assert the authority of
the Law giver, and, by their reminder of the great deliverance from
Egypt, appeal, as a motive to faithful and holy obedience, to the
purest sentiment of grateful love for undeserved and distinguishing
mercy. And this is only the Old Testament form of a New Testament
argument. For we read, concerning our deliverance from a worse than
Egyptian bondage: {1Pe 1:15-19} "Like as He which called you is
holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living; because it
is written, Ye shall be holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on Him
as Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to each
man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning in fear: knowing that
ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, as silver or gold but
with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot,
even the blood of Christ."
|