_THE LAW OF HOLINESS (CONCLUDED)._
LEV. xix. 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 (ver. 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 any
one, 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;[36]--we shall venture to say,
dating even from the days of Moses, as is declared in ver. 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.
[36] "Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus," 2 Aufl., p. 550.
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 (vv. 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 (ver. 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 (ver. 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 (ver. 4); and,
lastly (vv. 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 (viii. 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 (vv. 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 (vv. 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 (xxv. 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" (Acts ii. 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. ii. 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 (vv. 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 fellow-man, 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 (vv. 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 (xxiv. 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 and the 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 (vv. 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 (vv. 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 shalt 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 of thy people, but thou shalt 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. vi.
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 wrong-doer, 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 (vv. 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 ver. 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 commixtures;
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 vv. 20-22, regarding the sin of
connection with a bond-woman betrothed to a husband, apparently refers
to such a case as is mentioned in Exod. xxi. 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 (Deut. xxii. 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 (Matt. xix. 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 Deut. xxii. 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
for ever 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 (vv. 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 first-born 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 (ver.
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
(ver. 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 (ver. 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 any one 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" (ver. 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 (1 Thess. iv. 13) that the
believer "sorrow not, even as the rest, which have no hope." Also,
probably, in this prohibition, as certainly in the next (ver. 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 (ver. 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 (vv.
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 suggests
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.
Verse 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 1 Sam. xxviii. 7-11, and Isa. viii.
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.
Verse 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 one
hears 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 (vv. 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
good-will. "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 home-born 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 (vv. 35, 36) comes the
command to absolute righteousness in the administration of justice,
and in all matters of buying and selling; followed (ver. 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 Deut. xxv. 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
(viii. 5), for which the Lord declares that He will "make the land to
tremble, and every one 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
(vi. 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 week-day water
milk, adulterate medicines, sugars, and other foods, slip the
yard-stick 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, every-day 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,
to-day, 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 (ver. 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 (1 Peter i. 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."