Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - Leviticus 19:1 - 19:37
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(1) the fifth commandment of the Decalogue,
(2) the fourth,
(3) the first,
(4) the second.
These four laws are, in their positive aspects,
(1) the religious law of social order, on which a commonwealth rests;
(2) the law of positive obedience to God's command because it is his command;
(3) the law of piety towards the invisible Lord;
(4) the law of faith, which trusts him without requiring risible emblems or pictures of him.
In Lev_20:11, Lev_20:14, Lev_20:16, 35, 36, obedience is inculcated to the eighth and the ninth commandments, which are the laws of honesty and of truthfulness; in Lev_20:12 to the third commandment, which is the law of reverence; in Lev_20:17, Lev_20:18, 33, 34, to the sixth commandment, which is the law of love; in Lev_20:20, 29, to the seventh commandment, which is the law of purity; in Lev_20:9, Lev_20:10, Lev_20:13, the spirit of covetousness is prohibited, as forbidden in the tenth commandment, which is the law of charity. Thus this chapter may in a way be regarded as the Old Testament counterpart of the Sermon on the Mount, inasmuch as it lays down the laws of conduct, as the latter lays down the principles of action, in as comprehensive though not in so systematic a manner as the ten commandments.
Lev_19:2
Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy. The religious motive is put forward here, as in the previous chapter, as the foundation of all morality. It is God's will that we should be holy, and by being holy we. are like God, who is to be our model so far as is possible to the creature. So in the new dispensation, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Mat_5:48). "As he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation" (1Pe_1:15).
Lev_19:3
Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father. The words fear and reverence are in this connection interchangeable. So Eph_5:33, "Let the wife see that she reverence her husband," where the word "reverence" would be more exactly translated by "fear." St. Paul points out that the importance of the fifth commandment is indicated in the Decalogue by its being" the first commandment with promise," that is, with a promise attached to it (Eph_6:2). The family life is built upon reverence to parents, and on the family is built society. Obedience to parents is a duty flowing out of one of the first two laws instituted by God—the law of marriage (Gen_2:24). The second law instituted at the same time was that of the sabbath (Gen_2:3), and in the verse before us observance of the sabbatical law is likewise inculcated, in the words that immediately follow—ye shall keep my sabbaths.
Lev_19:4
Turn ye not unto idols. The word used for idols, elilim, meaning nothings, is contrasted with Elohim, God. Psa_115:1-18 exhibits this contrast in several of its particulars. Cf. St. Paul's statement, "We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one" (1Co_8:4). "If the heart of man becomes benumbed to the use of images of false gods of any kind, he sinks down to the idols which are his ideals, and becomes as dumb and unspiritual as they are" (Lunge). The remainder of the verse forbids the transgression of the second commandment, as the earlier part of the verse forbids the transgression of the first commandment: nor make to yourselves molten gods, as was done by Jeroboam when he set up the calves (1Ki_12:23).
Lev_19:5-8
The unsystematic character of this chapter is indicated by prohibitions under the fifth, fourth, first, and second commandments (Lev_19:3, Lev_19:4) being succeeded by a ceremonial instruction respecting the peace offerings, repeated from Le Lev_7:16-18. The words, ye shall offer it at your own will, should rather be, for your acceptance, as in Lev_1:3. In the seventh chapter a distinction is drawn between the peace offerings that are thank offerings, which must be eaten on the first day, and the peace offerings which are vow or voluntary offerings, which may be eaten on the first or second day. In the present resume this distinction is not noticed. Whoever transgresses this ceremonial command is to bear his iniquity and to be cut off from among his people, that is, to be excommunicated without any appointed form of reconciliation by means of sacrifice.
Lev_19:9, Lev_19:10
The injunction contained in these verses, to not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither … gather the gleanings of thy harvest, is twice afterwards repeated (Lev_23:22; Deu_24:19-22). In Deuteronomy, the oliveyard is specified together with the harvest-field and the vineyard, and it is added that, if a sheaf be by chance left behind, it is to remain for the benefit of the poor. The object of this law is to inculcate a general spirit of mercy, which is willing to give up its own exact rights in kindness to others suffering from want. The word here used for vineyard covers also the oliveyard. The expression, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard, would be more literally rendered, neither shalt thou gather the scattering of thy vineyard, meaning the berries (grapes or olives)which had fallen or which were left singly on the boughs.
Lev_19:11
Stealing, cheating, and lying are classed together as kindred sins (see Lev_6:2, where an example is given of theft performed by means of lying; cf. Eph_4:25; Col_3:9).
Lev_19:12
And ye shall not swear by my name falsely. These words contain a positive permission to swear, or take a solemn oath, by the Name of God, and a prohibition to swear falsely by it (see Mat_5:33).
Lev_19:13
Cheating and stealing are again forbidden, and, together with these, other forms of oppression although legal. The command to pay labourers their hire promptly—which covers also the case of paying tradesmen promptly—is repeated in Deu_24:14 (cf. Jas_5:4).
Lev_19:14
Thou shalt not curse the deaf. The sin of cursing another is in itself complete, whether the curse be heard by that other or not, because it is the outcome of sin in the speaker's heart. The suffering caused to one who hears the curse creates a further sin by adding an injury to the person addressed. Strangely in contrast with this is not only the practice of irreligious men, who care little how they curse a man in his absence, but the teaching which is regarded by a large body of Christians as incontrovertible. "No harm is done to reverence but by an open manifestation of insult. How, then, can a son sin gravely when he curses his father without the latter's knowing it, or mocks at him behind his back, inasmuch as in that case there is neither insult nor irreverence? And I think that the same is to be said, even though he does this before others. It must be altogether understood that he does not sin gravely if he curses his parents, whether they are alive or dead, unless the curses are uttered with malevolent meaning.'' This is the decision of one that is called not only a saint, but a "doctor of the Church" (Liguori, 'Theol. Moral.,' 4.334). "Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put ant in obscure darkness," says the Word of God (Pro_20:20). Nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God. By the last clause the eye is directed to God, who can see and punish, however little the blind man is able to help himself. (Cf. Job_29:15, "I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame.")
Lev_19:15
Justice is to be done to all. The less danger of respecting the person of the poor has to be guarded against, as well as the greater and more obvious peril of honouring the person of the mighty. The scales of Justice must be held even and her eyes bandaged, that she may not prefer one appellant to another on any ground except that of merit and demerit. "If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors" (Jas_2:9).
Lev_19:16
Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people. For the evil done by mere idle talebearing, see Bishop Butler's sermon, 'Upon the Government of the Tongue,' and four sermons by Bishop Jeremy Taylor, on 'The Good and Evil Tongue; Slander and Flattery; the Duties of the Tongue.' Neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; that is, thou shalt not endanger his life, which is the result of the worst kind of talebearing, namely, bearing false witness against him. Thus the effect of the false witness of the two men of Belial against Naboth was that "they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died" (1Ki_21:13; cf. Mat_26:60; Mat_27:4).
Lev_19:17
On the one side we are not to hate our brother in our heart, whatever wrongs he may commit; but on the other side, we are in any wise to rebuke our neighbour for his wrong doing. So our Lord teaches, "if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him" (Luk_17:3); and he appoints a solemn mode of procedure, by which this fraternal rebuke is to be conveyed in his Church: "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican" (Mat_18:15-17). Therefore St. Paul warns his delegates, Timothy and Titus, "Them that sin rebuke before all" (1Ti_5:20). "Reprove, rebuke" (2Ti_4:2). "Rebuke them sharply" (Tit_1:13). "Rebuke with all authority" (Tit_2:15). By withholding reproof in a bitter spirit, or from a feeling of cowardice, we may become partakers of other men's sins. Whoever fails to rebuke his neighbour when he ought to do so, bears sin on his account (the more correct and less ambiguous rendering of the words translated in the Authorized Version, suffer sin upon him, cf. Num_18:22, Num_18:32). God's people are their brothers' keepers (Gen_4:9).
Lev_19:18
Revenge and malice are forbidden as well as hatred, and the negative precepts culminate in the positive law. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, which sums up in itself one half of the Decalogue (Mat_22:40). "For he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law" (Rom_13:8-10).
Lev_19:19
Ye shall keep my statutes. Having arrived at the general conclusion, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, in the previous verse, the legislator pauses, and then presents a collection of further laws, arranged as before in no special order. The first is a mystical injunction against the confusion of things which are best kept apart, illustrated in three subjects—diverse kinds of cattle in breeding, mingled seeds in sowing a field, and mixed materials in garments. In Deu_22:10, a fresher illustration is added, "Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together." The existence of mules, which we find frequently mentioned in the' later history (2Sa_13:29; 2Sa_18:9; 1Ki_1:33), may be accounted for by supposing that the positive precept with regard to breeding cattle here laid down was transgressed, or that the mules were imported from abroad (see 1Ki_10:25). The word used here and in Deu_22:11 for a garment mingled of linen and woolen, is shaatenez, an Egyptian word, meaning probably mixed. The difficulty raised on this verse by the allegation that the high priest's dress was made of mixed materials, is met by the answer that, if it were of mixed materials (which is uncertain, for wool is not mentioned in Exo_28:1-43, nor is it quite determined that shesh means linen), the mixture was not such as is here forbidden. The moral meaning of the whole of this injunction is exhibited in the following passages from the New Testament, "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils" (1Co_10:21). "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" (2Co_6:14-16). "He cannot love the Lord Jesus with his heart," says Hooker, "who lendeth one ear to his apostles and another to false teachers, and who can brook to see a mingle-mangle of religion and superstition' ('Serm.' Deu_5:7, quoted by Wordsworth).
Lev_19:20-22
A distinction is drawn between adultery with a free woman, or a betrothed free virgin, which was punishable with death (Lev_20:20; Deu_22:23), and with a slave betrothed to another man (probably a slave also). In the latter ease a lesser punishment, no doubt that of scourging (according to the Mishna to the extent of forty stripes), was to be inflicted on one or both, according to the circumstances of the ease. The words, she shall he scourged, should be translated, there shall be investigation, followed, presumably, by the punishment of scourging, for both parties if both were guilty, for one if the woman was unwilling. The man is afterwards to offer a trespass offering. As the offense has been a wrong as well as a sin, his offering is to be a trespass offering (see on Le Lev_5:14). In this case the fine of one-fifth could not be inflicted, as the wrong done could not be estimated by money, and the cost of the ram seems to be regarded as the required satisfaction. No mention is made of damages to be paid to the man to whom the slave-girl was betrothed, probably because he was himself a slave, and had not juridical rights against a freeman.
Lev_19:23-25
The eating of the fruit of young trees by their owners for five years is forbidden, on the principle that such fruit is unclean until it has been sanctified by the offering of a crop as firstfruits to the Lord for the use of the servants of the tabernacle, and a full crop is not to be expected until the fourth year from the time that the trees were planted. The fruit is at first to be counted as uncircumcised, being regarded in a position similar to that of the heathen, that is, unclean, from not having been yet sanctified by the offering of the firstfruits. This sanctification takes place in the fourth year.
Lev_19:26-28
After a repetition of the fundamental ceremonial law against eating things which have the blood in them (the LXX. rendering, ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων , "upon the mountains," arises from a mistaken reading), follow prohibitions
(1) to use enchantment, literally, to whisper or mutter after holding communication with serpents (if the word nichesh be derived from nachash, a serpent);
(2) to observe times, or rather, according to a more probable etymology, exercise the evil eye;
(3) to round the corners of your heads, that is, use a sort of tonsure, as was done by some Arabian tribes (Herod; Lev_3:3) in honour of their god Orotal, and by the Israelites as a form of mourning (Deu_14:1; Isa_22:12);
(4) to mar the corners of thy beard, a fashion of mourning which accompanied the tonsure of the head (see Le Lev_21:5; Isa_15:2; Jer_48:37;
(5) to make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, another form of mourning, associated with the two previously mentioned practices (see Jer_21:5; Deu_14:1; Jer_16:6; Jer_41:3; Jer_48:37);
(6) to print any marks upon you, that is, tattoo themselves in memory of the dead. All these customs were unbecoming the dignity of God's people, and had been connected with idolatrous practices.
Lev_19:29
Do not prostitute thy daughter. This is a peremptory prohibition, applying to every Jewish maiden, introduced in this place with a primary relation to the sanctification of lust by the dedication of young girls at some heathen temples; but by no means confined in its application to such practices. All legal sanction of the sin of prostitution is forbidden, for whatever purpose it may be given; and the certain result of such sanction is indicated in the final words of the verse, lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness (cf. Deu_23:17).
Lev_19:30
The command in this verse differs from that in Lev_19:3 by adding the injunction to reverence my sanctuary to that requiring the observance of the sabbath. It is a matter of experience that where the sabbath is not kept, God's sanctuary is not reverenced, and that that reverence increases or fails away according as the obligation of the sabbatical law, whether in its Jewish form or its Christian form, be more or less recognized. The sabbatical ordinance is necessary as a previous condition of religious worship. Without it, the business and pleasure of the world are too strong to give way to the demands upon time made by the stated service of God. The verse is repeated in Le Lev_26:2. "When the Lord's day is kept holy, and a holy reverence for the Lord's sanctuary lives in the heart, not only are many sins avoided, but social and domestic life is pervaded by the fear of God, and characterized by devoutness and propriety" (Keil).
Lev_19:31
This verse contains a prohibition of all dealings with those that have familiar spirits or are wizards. The punishment of such persons is appointed in the next chapter. Both in the Old and the New Testament, the real existence of evil spirits and their power of communicating with the human spirit is assumed.
Lev_19:32
Reverence for the old is inculcated as being a part, not merely of natural respect, but of the fear of God. In the East this virtue, implying deference on the part of the strong to the weak, and of the inexperienced to the wise, exists in larger influence for good than in the West, where, however, its place has been, but only partially, supplied by the greater deference paid by man to woman (cf. Pro_16:31; Pro_20:29).
Lev_19:33, Lev_19:34
The command already given "neither to vex a stranger, nor oppress him" (Exo_22:21), on the pathetic ground that "ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Exo_23:9), is broadened in these verses to the positive law, thou shalt love him as thyself. "The royal law of Lev_19:18 is expressly extended to the stranger, and notwithstanding the national narrowness necessary to preserve the true religion in the world, the general brotherhood of mankind is hereby taught as far as was possible under the circumstances" (Gardiner).
Lev_19:35, Lev_19:36
These verses, beginning with the same words as Lev_19:15, Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, contain another and wider application of that principle. Lev_19:15 prohibited unrighteousness in the judge, or in one who was in the position of a judge; these verses forbid it in merchants and tradesmen. It is the more necessary to condemn dishonesty, in unmistakable terms, as men who make a profession of religion, and therefore would be shocked at stealing, have often less scruple in cheating. Here and in Deuteronomy, where the Law is repeated, a religious sanction is given to the command; "For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the Lord thy God" (Deu_25:16). Cf. Pro_11:1, "A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight;" and Pro_20:10, "Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord;" see also Mic_6:10, Mic_6:11 and Eze_45:10.
Lev_19:37
Moral precepts are rested on their right foundation—the command of God and the religious motive.
But it cannot be enforced. If a man denies that his conscience commands him to perform a moral action, the verdict of the general conscience of mankind may be quoted against him as contrary to that of his own, but he can repudiate the authority of that verdict so far as he is himself concerned. He can reasonably maintain that the general conscience may be misled by prejudice or superstition, and that his own conscience is more enlightened than that of the mass. In this manner the philosopher, or any one who regards himself as a philosopher, finds a way of evasion ready at hand.
With the masses, moral teaching, unaccompanied by religions sanction, is still less effectual. The general good of mankind, or the duty of obeying the highest principle of our nature, has never restrained, and never will restrain, the mass of mankind from yielding to the force of strong passion or desire.
In the present chapter we find the moral duties—those of the second table as much as the first—rested upon a religious basis. They are God's commands, whether that command be given by written precept or by an instinct engraven on man's heart. And because they are God's commands in both these ways, they are to be obeyed. Thus there is an appeal from man's mind to something higher than himself, to which man will submit. The effort to preserve morality in a nation without religious sanction and religious motive is like the attempt to keep alive the flame of a fire, when the fuel from which the flame is derived has been withdrawn. One generation may continue moral; the next will certainly be licentious. "I am the Lord" is a basis of morality which never fails.
Lev_19:3
(2) to sacred ordinances, for the Lord's sake, are enjoined in this verse.
1. The family is an institution of God's appointment (Gen_1:28; Gen_2:24). The command to children to honour their father and mother is distinguished in the Decalogue by a blessing attached to it (Exo_20:12; Eph_6:2); and a special blessing is bestowed on the house of the Rechabites for obeying it (Jer_35:18). St. Paul enjoins the observance of the duty, both as an act right in itself and as positively commanded in God's Law (Eph_6:1, Eph_6:2). The father's duty is "nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Eph_6:4), including guidance, remonstrance, reproof (1Sa_2:23). By means of this institution the character of every member of the commonwealth is formed, at the moment when alone it is plastic, by the influence best adapted for turning it to good. Contrast the system adopted by Rousseau for dealing with his children, and the probable results on parents, children, and the State. Cf. the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony: "Marriage was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name."
An analogous position to that of the parent is afterwards held by the civil magistrate in respect to the subject, and by the pastor in respect to a member of his flock. Therefore, in order to carry out the commandment, a man has not only "to love, honour, and succour his father and mother," but also "to honour and obey the queen, and all that are put in authority under her: to submit himself to all his governors, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters: to order himself lowly and reverently to all his betters" (Church Catechism). On the other hand, the authorities in the State and in the Church have their duties also, not now the same as those of the parent towards the child, on account of the changed position of him who was once a child, but nevertheless analogous to them. So in other cases, wherever men stand in a relation to each other similar to that of parent and child, obligations similar to those which bind parents and children arise.
2. Sabbatical observance appears, at first sight, a small thing to place on a level, as here, with the fifth commandment, or, as in the Decalogue, with the first, second, and third commandments; but when we examine into it closely, we find that this disproportion does not exist.
I. ITS INSTITUTION. It shares with the ordinance of marriage alone the characteristic of having been instituted at the creation of the world. "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Gen_2:3). Being coeval with creation, the sabbatical law, like the marriage law, is of universal obligation on all mankind.
II. ITS JEWISH FORM. The sabbatical law was observed during the period preceding the Mosaic Law (Exo_16:22-30). For the Jews it took the form given it in the fourth commandment (Exo_20:8-11; Deu_5:12-15) and other Mosaic injunctions (Exo_31:13, Exo_31:14; Exo_35:2, Exo_35:3; Num_15:32-36). To them it commemorated the rest after the Creation and the rest after the toils of Egypt, while it looked forward to the rest of Canaan while they wandered in the wilderness (Psa_95:11), and, after they had entered Canaan, to the still further rest of the Messianic kingdom (Heb_4:8); and it was to be kept with such severity that no work at all was to be done upon it, even to the extent of gathering sticks or lighting a fire.
III. ENDS SERVED BY THE JEWISH FORM.
1. It formed a very noticeable distinction between the Jews and the neighbouring nations, and so it was a preservative from idolatry.
2. It served, like circumcision, as a symbol constantly reminding them that they were God's people, and should live in accordance with their profession. "Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them" (Eze_20:12).
IV. THE CHRISTIAN FORM. Christ declared his lordship over the sabbath day (Mat_12:8), but he did not exercise that lordship for the purpose of destroying it as an institution, but merely of adapting the primary law of the sabbath to altered circumstances. The Jewish sabbath, as such (that is, in its peculiarities), ceased to be binding, but the obligation of sabbatical law continued, and the ordinance took a changed form. By apostolic authority, as proved by apostolic practice, the Christian sabbath was kept on the first day of the week—the anniversary of Christ's resurrection—and the severity of its character was abrogated. As God had rested on the seventh day after his labour of creation, so Christ had rested in the grave on the seventh day after his labour of redemption. Why should the seventh day be any longer kept? "The Jewish sabbath died out in the course of the first generation of Christians, as circumcision died out, as the temple, as the Law itself died out The Lord's day was a Divine and more immortal shoot from the same stock. It was rooted in the primitive law of the Creation. It recognized and adopted the old weekly division of time, that perpetual and ever-recurring acknowledgment, wherever it was celebrated in all the world, of the Divine blessing and promises. It had the Divine sanction of the tables of stone—those tables, written by God's own finger, and therefore greatly superior in sanctity and enduring weight to the temporary enactments of the ceremonial law. It took up the old series of commemorations and sacred anticipations. It bade the true Israel of God record with gratitude and keep in mind, by the weekly institution and its recurring festival of rest and praise, the creation of mankind, the deliverance from Egypt, the entrance of the people into the promised land, the return from captivity, the coming of the Messiah; and to look forward under the dispensation of the Holy Ghost to the crowning and final mercy of the long scheme of Providence, the eternal rest in heaven which yet remaineth for the people of God" (Bishop Moberly, 'The Law of the Love of God').
V. THE ENDS OF THE SABBATICAL INSTITUTION.
1. To reserve a certain sufficient part of time free for spiritual interests.
2. To teach the lesson of obedience to positive precept in religious things. The appointment of one-seventh of our time for this purpose is wholly arbitrary. There is no account to be given of it except that it is God's will There is no other account to be given of weeks. Months and years have their reasons in physical nature; not so weeks. God has commanded, and because he has commanded, the weekly rest is observed by those who love God; and not only is the weekly rest observed, but a loving obedience is paid to all religious institutions and ordinances established by lawful authority.
VI. EFFECT ON THE INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN'S LIFE. "The Christian man, desirous of loving God with all the affection of his heart, with all the rational intelligence of his mind, with all the devotion of his life, with all the energy of his strength, in the love taught him under the fourth law, will yield himself up gratefully and religiously to obey all duly ordered positive laws of the Church of God. The Sunday and its sacred observance will be to him the center, and furnish, so to speak, the form of his own way of life, and that of all his family and dependents. He will regard it every time it returns as God's holy day of rest, the weekly commemoration of the primeval rest of God and of all the signal mercies of the elder covenant. Knowing himself to be of the true Israel of God, he will not forget the blessings connected by God himself with the sabbatical institution, vouchsafed to his fathers in the faith. He will celebrate it weekly as the feast of the Lord's resurrection, and all the blessings of that resurrection; as the feast of the Holy Ghost the Giver of peace and rest in the Church, as the weekly antepast of that glorious and unending rest in the presence of God which still remaineth for the people of God. It will be to him a day of rest, peace, prayer, praise, and holy joy; no mournful and austere time, but on the contrary, a thankful happy time. He will remember his Lord's injunction not to forbid or refuse works of necessity or mercy on that day. He will gratefully shut up the records of the cares, the interests, and the occupations of the week, and give that holy day to God; not discharging himself of his duties of worship by an attendance in God's house or holding himself at liberty to make his own convenience or inclination the rule of obedience; but faithfully, dutifully, and completely sanctifying that day to rest, worship, and the thought of God and heaven. And the other days, the train of Sunday, will borrow of its light; each having its own sacred, special commemoration belonging to it, and each reflecting some of the brightness of the Sunday just preceding and catching more—and more from that which follows (Moberly, 'The Law of the Love of God').
VII. RESULTS OF ITS NEGLECT.
1. To the individual:
(1) an unloving spirit arising from a consciousness of disobedience to a command;
(2) a habit of refusing to submit to positive injunctions, and, growing out of that, a habit of choosing which of God's commandments he will obey;
(3) a loss of religious opportunities, and consequently a gradual falling away from the habit of public worship, and therefore from the spiritual life;
(4) a sense of being overwhelmed by the business and worries of life which continue without cessation, and thence a want of calm peacefulness and cheerfulness.
2. To a nation:
(1) growth of ungodliness and irreligion;
(2) increase of self-indulgence and mere amusement-seeking;
(3) growing oppression of the poor, who are made to serve the amusements or requirements of the rich instead of enjoying their weekly rest and refreshment of body and mind and soul;
(4) the displeasure of God, whose primeval law is disobeyed.
Lev_19:4
This verse contains the laws of piety and of faith. "Turn ye not unto idols" forbids the worship of false gods; "nor make to yourselves molten gods" forbids in addition the sin of worshipping the true God under the form of a molten shape.
I. The great temptation to the Jews down to the time of their captivity appears to have been that of taking the gods of the nations round about them as their gods; Baal, Ashtoreth, Molech, Chemosh, drew off their affections from Jehovah. They did not desire apparently to give up the worship of God altogether, but to combine the worship of false gods with it, that is, to transfer a part of the religious affections which were due to God to some other object. This is done in the present day,
(1) by the Roman Catholic Church, which sanctions the transference of worship which ought to be confined to God, from him to St. Mary and other saints; and the moral and religious regard, which is due to God alone, not only to saints, but to a living man, who has been called the idol of the Vatican;
(2) by worldly men, who occupy their thoughts and feeling to such an excessive degree with the things of sense as to shut out Divine and spiritual things;
(3) by sophists, who, by the exercise of a subtle intellect in a presumptuous spirit, shut out God from their ken, and worship the universe, or humanity, or nothing.
II. The Jews were also guilty of the kindred sin of worshipping Jehovah under the form of an idol. This was the sin of Aaron's calf, which represented, not any strange god, but Jehovah himself (Exo_32:5), and this was the case with Jeroboam's two calves of gold (1Ki_12:26-33). This offense is committed by any Christians who adore a representation of the Deity, sculptured or painted, or any sign or symbol of him, of whatever material or appearance it may be. It is the sin of men or Churches which have faith to believe that there is a God, but so feeble a faith that they require visible symbols of his presence instead of bravely trusting in the Unseen. The Israelites said to Aaron, "Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wet not what is become of him." When they could not see Moses, the servant of God, they required a visible image of God. They could not trust him unseen; they required proof of his nearness; and this craving of a feeble faith led them to prefer the symbol of "a calf that eateth hay" (Deu_4:15) to no similitude at all. "Other nations, surrounding the Jews on every side, had their visible objects of worship, making their task of Divine duty and faith more easy. But to acquiesce in their unseen God, I am; to obey without immediate continual consciousness of his nearness; to trust in his protection at times when they had no sensible aid to help them to realize to their imagination his power; to let loose, as it were, their prayers into the air, without having some representative figure, or emblem, at the least, at which to point them;—all this was too difficult a task for a feeble faith in things invisible and spiritual" (Moberly, 'The Law of the Love of God').
The same feebleness of faith has produced the worship of images in the Christian Church. It was not till the seventh century that they crept into use for aids in worship, and when they were approved in the eighth century by the second Council of Nicea, that Council was at once rejected, and its doctrine of images was repudiated by the Council of Frankfort and the bishops of Charlemagne's empire.
In like manner, a feeble faith craves for full light, for demonstration, for infallibility, where God has only given twilight moral certainty, and an authority which is not absolute. It craves for immediate resolution of spiritual difficulties where God demands a patient dealing with them; it asks after a sign where no sign is to be given; it seeks out for itself mediators instead of going straight to God.
Not only does the use of images in worship arise from a feeble faith, but it makes that faith feebler and feebler, and thus leads to materialism. After a while the symbol becomes substituted for the thing symbolized by it, and the affections which the emblem was intended to excite toward an unseen object, do not pass beyond the external sign. Materialism and weakness of faith are the spiritual effects of worshipping images and craving after visible symbols.
"A brave contentment with an invisible God, showing itself in faithful and strong-hearted maintenance of piety in the absence (if it should so please God) or the apparent scantiness of signs, tokens, miracles, and other visible indications of the presence and protection of the Omnipresent and Omnipotent, and a like courageous and faithful abstinence from making to themselves unauthorized images, symbols, and emblems of him who communicated with the people without similitude, must be the particular quality or part of Divine love enjoined under the second law. The peculiar affection enjoined is the brave, trusting, spiritual faith in God invisible, spiritual, absent to our sense, dim in his tokens, obscure sometimes in his providences, not demonstrable in his evidences, not invariable in his benefits.… Possessed of this spiritual faith in the Unseen, a man walks along his narrow path of life with a confidence, security, and cheerfulness which establish at once his comfort and his safety" (Moberly, 'The Law of the Love of God').
Lev_19:9, Lev_19:10
"The quality of mercy … is twice blessed:
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes."
The man who leaves something for others that he might have taken for himself, such as the gleanings of his field, rises from the level of justice to that of generosity, and is educated to understand the noble impulses of a liberal heart and the blessedness described in the one saying of our Lord that is not recounted in the Gospels, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Lev_19:11, Lev_19:13, Lev_19:35, Lev_19:36
Cheating is to stealing as equivocation is to lying. Both are equally immoral. Cheating and equivocating only differ morally from stealing and lying by being more mean and cowardly. The law of man cannot prevent cheating. It can indeed send inspectors to see that there are 'just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just him;" but that is not enough to prevent cheating. The only thing that will do this is the fear of the Lord and the consciousness that the unjust appropriation of anything, however small, is contrary to the will of God. Hence we may see the infinite importance for the well-being of a country that the moral teaching of children in public schools be rested upon a religious basis. The precept is reproduced in the New Testament: "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth" (Eph_4:28).
Lying is joined with stealing and cheating, not only because it may be used as a means of cheating (Lev_6:2), but because it is a fraud in itself and a sin against uprightness and honesty. The essence of the sin consists in deceiving our neighbours. "Men, as men," says Bishop Taylor, "have a right to truth;" "for there is in mankind a universal contract implied in all their intercourses, and words being instituted to declare the mind, and for no other end, he that hears me speak hath a right in justice to be done him that, as far as I can, what I speak be true; for else he by words does not know your mind, and then as good and better not speak at all" ('Ductor Dubitantium,' 3, 2, 5). There are certain classes of men who have not a right to truth, such as madmen, and sick persons under special circumstances; and in these cases it is justifiable to say to them what is best for them, whether true or not; and in case of declared war the right to truth ceases, and is known to cease, so that no immoral deception takes place when false news is spread or stratagems adopted. But in time of peace and in ordinary cases, "Thou shalt not deceive thy neighbour" is the rule of conduct. Whether this deception takes place by means of a lie, or of an equivocation, or era mental reservation makes no difference in the morality of the act. The defense of equivocation rests upon a confusion of two things totally different—material truth and moral truthfulness. The statement that the sun uses or sinks is materially false, because it remains stationary. But the man who makes such a statement is morally truthful, if he makes it not intending to deceive his neighbour and knowing that he will not be deceived. A statement that the sun had not risen (in the morning) or gone down (in the evening), if made with the purpose of deceiving the person addressed, and with an ulterior object on the part of the speaker, although materially true, would imply moral untruthfulness on the part of the speaker, and therefore is a lie. Bishops Taylor and Sanderson were some of the first theologians who, recurring to the severer morality of Augustine and the early Fathers, cast away with scorn the puerile confusion between moral truthfulness and material truth on which the system of modern Roman casuistry in this department rests. "He that tells a lie," says Bishop Taylor, "and by his mental restriction says he tells a truth, tells two lies" ('Ductor Dubitantium,' 3:28). On the other hand, the Church of Rome teaches that the person addressed may be deceived to any amount, provided that the deception is effected by a form of words which is true in some sense apprehended by the speaker, though untrue in the sense understood by the other party. Accordingly, it is taught by an authority that may not be gainsaid by any member of that communion, that if a man prefixes the words" I say that" to a sentence, he may with a good reason make any false statement that he pleases, because in his own mind he means only to declare that he is making use of the words following that prefix, not that he is asserting their truth, as the person that he addresses supposes him robe doing (S. Alfonso de' Liguori, 'Theol. Moral.,' 4:451). Contrast with this the injunctions of the apostle, "Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another" (Eph_4:25); "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds" (Col_3:9); and the command of the prophet, "Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates: and let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord" (Zec_8:16, Zec_8:17); and the teaching of the early Church, "A man lies when he thinks something to be false and says it as though true, whether it be true or false. Mark the addition that I have made. Whether it be really true or false, yet, if a man thinks it false and assert it as true, he lies, for he is aiming to deceive His heart is double, not single; he does but bring out what he has there"; and the teaching of the reformed Church, "Our result is that the party swearing after this manner both sinneth in his equivocal oath, and is notwithstanding that tacit equivocation bound in conscience unto the performance of his promise in that sense which the words yield of themselves, and are, without constraint, apt to beget upon the minds of others. Unless he act accordingly, he is not guiltless of perjury" (Sanderson, 'Obligation of Oaths'). In the Book of the Revelation we read, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone" (Rev_21:8).
Lev_19:12
I. TO SWEAR BY GOD'S NAME IS COMMANDED, AS BEING A RECOGNITION OF HIM AS SUPREME LORD. Thus in Deuteronomy we read, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his Name" (Deu_6:13); in the Psalms, "Every one that sweareth by him shall glory (or be commended)" (Psa_63:11); in Isaiah, "He that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth" (Isa_65:16); in Jeremiah, "Thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness" (Jer_4:2); "Thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods" (Jer_5:7); "And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my Name, The Lord liveth; as they taught my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people" (Jer_12:16).
II. GOD SWEARS BY HIMSELF. "By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: that in blessing I will bless thee" (Gen_22:16, Gen_22:17). "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear" (Isa_45:23). "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee … Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation" (Heb_6:13-18).
III. GOD'S COMMAND MADE OF NONE EFFECT BY JEWISH TRADITIONS. These are summed up in the following passage of Philo Judaeus:—"Let the word of the good man be a firm oath, immovable trust, free from falsehood, based on truth. But if this be not sufficient, and necessity compel him to swear, he should swear by the health or sacred age of his father or mother if they are alive, or by their memory if they are dead. For they are images and representations of Divine power, inasmuch as they brought into being those that did not exist before. They too deserve praise who, when they are compelled to swear, suggest the thought of reverence both to the bystanders and to those who impose the oath by the limitation and unwillingness which they show. For, saying aloud, 'Yes, by …,' and, 'No, by,' and adding nothing, under the appearance of sudden interruption, they show that they do not swear a complete oath. But let a man add thereto what he pleases, such as the earth, the sun, the stars, the heaven, the whole world, provided he does not add the highest and most awful Cause" ('De Special. Legibus').
IV. CHRIST FORBIDS SWEARING. "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil" (Mat_5:33-37). Nearly the same words are repeated in Jas_5:12.
V. CHRIST'S COMMAND LIMITED IN ITS EXTENT. His prohibition refers to ordinary swearing, not to solemn oaths taken in courts of justice or under similar circumstances. This is plain by the fact that at his own trial he replied to the adjuration of the high priest, which adjuration was the Jewish manner of taking an oath in a court of justice, "Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said" (Mat_26:63, Mat_26:64). Because the high priest's words were "the voice of swearing" (Jas_5:1), Jesus broke his silence and spoke in obedience to the adjuration; and oaths are spoken of with approval in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb_6:13-18).
VI. WHAT AS OATH IS. It is an appeal to the tribunal of God, the person swearing (or adjured) calling God to witness to the truth of his words. Its purpose is "an end of all strife" (Heb_6:16). When no circumstantial evidence is forthcoming, the only means of arriving at truth is the awe of God solemnly invoked by an oath, and the dread of offending him by perjury. Where either sophistical casuistry or a secret—still more an open—skepticism undermines or destroys the sense of the obligation of oaths in a nation, that nation is hurrying on its way to destruction.
VII. PERJURY. The more solemn an oath is, the greater is the sin of perjury. If to swear by God's Name is a method of arriving at truth appointed by God himself, to swear by his Name falsely subverts the purpose of the command and insults the majesty of God.
VIII. IRREVERENCE. Not only deliberate perjury but any kind of irreverence is forbidden by this injunction. "The Christian man … will endeavour to recognize with faithful respect that holy Name wherever it meets him in his walk of life. As it is an appellation of the most high God, he will never utter it hastily or thoughtlessly. He will surely not use it at all except he have occasion to speak of it seriously and carefully. It is needless to say how totally he will refrain from such wanton profanation as that of garnishing his common speech by using the Name or referring to the doings of the Most High; still less how impossible it would be for him to allege the sacred Name, literally or by implication, in support of falsehood; nay, how impossible it would be that he should assert what is false at all, seeing that the Name of God is all around him, and that the most secularly sounding asseverations are nothing else than allegations of that Name. He will be much on his guard in prayers, lest, while he utters the sacred Name and the words which belong to it, his mind should wander away from the thoughts which ought to accompany it, and he should break the commandment. He will not shrink from the seemly reverence which the Church orders to be paid to the Name of Christ' (Moberly, 'The Law of the Love of God').
Lev_19:18, Lev_19:34
We have the testimony of our Lord (Mat_22:9) and of the Apostle St. Paul (Rom_13:9; Gal_5:14) that to obey the injunction, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," is to fulfill all the commandments of the second table of the Law; and for that reason St. James calls it a royal law (Jas_2:8). Here, therefore, the Levitical Law culminates in its highest point, so far as our duties towards men are concerned. Lest the Jew should confine the idea of thy neighbour to his own kindred and race, an equal love is specifically commanded for the stranger that dwelleth with you. Not only, Thou shalt love thy Jewish neighbour as thyself, but also Thou shalt love the stranger that dwelleth among you as thyself. The force of the comparison, as thyself, may be studied in Bishop Butler's sermon 'Upon the Love of our Neighbour.'
But though the Law. culminates in the two kindred commands, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God;" "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;" Christianity does not. Christianity goes beyond the highest point to which the Law soars. Not only does it name the neighbour and the stranger as those whom we are to love, but also the enemy. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Mat_5:43-45). The motive in the gospel is also higher than the Law. In the Law the motive in the case of the stranger is human sympathy arising from common suffering, "for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." In the gospel it is the desire to be like God in his dealings with men, "for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Mat_5:45), "for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful" (Luk_6:35, Luk_6:36).
Lev_19:19
Lev_19:32
Lev_19:37
(1) because they carry their own sanction with them,
(2) because they are commanded.
In the latter respect all Divine injunctions stand on a level. All transgressions of what is commanded are equally sin, but they are not equal sins. A man who steals is not guilty of an equally heinous sin with the man who commits murder, but he is equally guilty of sin, because both murder and theft are forbidden. All God's statutes, and all his judgments are to be observed without exception, in order to be righteous according to the righteousness of the Law. "For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them" (Rom_10:5). "This do, and ye shall live" (Luk_11:28).
I. THE SUPERSTITION WHICH WAS TO BE SHUNNED.
1. Clearly and decisively everything that was in any way idolatrous was condemned; "turn ye not unto idols" (Lev_19:4).
2. All that was distinctively or closely connected with heathen worship was also forbidden: the use of enchantments, the superstitious observance of lucky or unlucky times, also superstitious cutting of the hair or of the flesh (Lev_19:26-28); resorting to wizards, etc. (see 1Ch_10:13). There is amongst us much adoption of practices which are idle and vain, not warranted in Scripture nor founded on reason. Such things are to be deprecated and shunned, They are
(1) useless;
(2) harmful, as taking the place in our thought which belongs to something really good and wise;
(3) displeasing to the God of truth.
II. THE RELIGION WHICH WAS TO BE CULTIVATED AND PRACTISED. The Jews were to cherish and cultivate, even as we are,
(1) sanctity like that of God himself (Lev_19:2), entire separateness of spirit and so of conduct from every evil thing;
(2) reverence for his holy Name (Lev_19:12), and consequent abstention from everything bordering on profanity;
(3) regard for divinely appointed ordinances—the sabbath and the sanctuary (Lev_19:30);
(4) gratitude for his redeeming mercy (Lev_19:36), "I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt;"
(5) spontaneous dedication to his service (Lev_19:5). "At our own will" we must bring ourselves and our offerings to his altar;
(6) daily, hourly consultation of his holy will, "Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them" (Lev_19:37).—C.
Lev_19:3, Lev_19:32
I. THOSE WHO CARRY THE WEIGHT OF YEARS. "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man." "Respect the burden, madam," said Napoleon, inviting a lady to move out of the way of one who was carrying a heavy weight. Those who have traveled far on the rough road of life, and are worn with many and sad experiences, on whom the privations of age are resting,—these carry a heavy weight, a burden we should r