The Lord Jesus said:
“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” (Mt. 5:43,44).
The first part of the statement is a direct quotation from Leviticus 19:18. The law said nothing about hating one’s enemy, however, for such an attitude formed no part of its teaching and was completely foreign to its spirit. When Jesus remarked that “it hath been said” he was almost certainly referring to current opinions, the traditions that had grown up amongst them. One thing is certain (for it is made very clear from the works of secular authors who were more or less contemporary with Jesus); the Jews had a most unenviable reputation amongst the other peoples of the ancient world. They were regarded as haters of mankind.
When due allowance has been made for Gentile prejudice, aroused perhaps by Jewish persistence in maintaining their separation and refusing to partake in the heathen social life with all its impure associations, one is still left with the fact that here was a people who, in a spirit of arrogant self-righteousness and bitter resentment of all things foreign, had earned for themselves this title of haters of mankind; and yet the very basis of their national life was a law of love.
We suggest that basically they made two errors. First of all they tried to defme who their neighbour was. They were like the lawyer who came to Jesus with the question, “Who is my neighbour?”, that called forth the parable of the Good Samaritan. Secondly, having decided, according to their wisdom, who their neighbour was, they presumed that they were at liberty to hate all those whom, by their understanding, they were not commanded to love.
It is remarkable that their thinking could have led them to adopt such an attitude in the face of the plain teaching of the law. Certainly in Leviticus 19:18 the term “neighbour” would appear, in its strict context, to be restricted to Jews only; but this phrase, which we might describe as the keystone of the chapter, does but sum up that law of love which is expressed in some detail in the various precepts contained here. For instance, it is written:
“And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him (AV mg., oppress him; RV, Ye shall not do him wrong). But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself” (vv. 33, 34). He “shall be unto you as the homeborn among you”, says the RV.
They were to apply the same law of love to the alien as to their own kith and kin. They were to love them even as themselves, and perhaps this thought is driven home in Deuteronomy, where it is written:
“thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land” (23:7).
Even this people at whose hands Israel had suffered such cruel bondage must not be hated; there must be no grudge borne, but if they dwelt among them they were to love them as themselves.
The book of Exodus contains the same teaching:
“If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him” (23:4,5).
In these respects, and indeed in others also, the law foreshadowed and mirrored the teaching of the Lord himself.
It is important to appreciate that although the law was holy, just and good, it was nevertheless limited in certain respects. Putting aside what we might describe as the primary purpose of the law, that of a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ, we must remember that it was also a system of civil and criminal law designed to meet the needs of the nation. Because it was intended for this purpose, to be applied to the citizens of that nation, it had perforce to be of such a nature that it was capable of being administered by human judges, and it was necessary for it to contain provision for the man who would seek redress for the wrong done to him by his fellow. Hence the need for such passages as Exodus 21:23-25 and Leviticus 24:17-21. It must, then, deal with external acts, deeds that, in the main, can be weighed by human judges and decided upon as matters of fact.
Yet, notwithstanding this aspect of the law, there were also enshrined in it features whereby it excelled all purely human laws. When we talk of a ‘law of love’ we mean a law that has love as its basis, as the impelling and urgent motive for keeping it, a love of God and a love of neighbour. Yet love by its very nature cannot be recognised only by external acts. It is a state of the heart, and has to do with the motives and the inward thoughts of which the overt acts are but the outward expression. Love, therefore, in the absolute sense, cannot be judged of men.
Here perhaps is the sphere where we make one of the greatest mistakes of all about the Law of Moses. We think of it as being purely prohibitive in its character, only being concerned with the overt act, and having little if anything to do with what we would term, in the light of the teaching of the Lord Jesus, the law of the heart. But reflect for a moment upon that greater and overriding purpose of the law. It was a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. It was intended to prepare men to receive Christ, not just in the sense of bringing home to them their need for him by constantly reminding them of their sinfulness, but also in the sense of having enshrined in its teachings all the basic elements that would find their truest and their fullest expressions in the person of the Messiah. In this sense the law was fulfilled in the Lord Jesus. Like the bud which contains the bloom, it finally blossoms forth in all its beauty.
So it is well that we realise that it was from the law that the Lord drew his teaching, and expanded it and filled it with a deeper meaning and significance. Thus, as we come to look at it as a law of love in a little more detail, let us consider it not just as dealing with the external act, but dealing also with the heart; for a law of love must in the last analysis be a law of the heart. As we proceed, let us note the wonderful manner in which the law prefigured the teaching of the Lord himself, as in the case of that precept that governed “thine enemy’s ox” and “the ass of him that hateth thee”.
So we come to what is perhaps the very heart of the law—the ten commandments—and here we find one that says:
“Thou shalt not covet”.
What human judge could administer this law? For it searched the minds and the hearts of men. More significantly still, amongst these things that they were commanded not to covet was their neighbour’s wife. This, remember, is a law of the heart, and we think of the words of him who said that “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Mt. 5:28).
Returning to that chapter of Leviticus, and to the words in particular upon which our study is based (Lev. 19:17,18), that law which said,”Thou shalt not kill”, says now, “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart”. No human judge could discern this condition unless the hatred which smouldered within had manifested itself in action.
There must be no hatred in the heart, for, said the law, you must remove its cause. As the RV puts it:
“Thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him” ( v. 17).
The cause of sin that which could lead to harbouring a grudge against one’s brother, that which could cause one to seek to avenge oneself when the opportunity arose must be removed by a frank approach to him who had caused the offence. He must not be allowed to persist in his error, perhaps in ignorance of his fault; but “thou shalt surely rebuke” him. These are the very principles of Matthew: “Moreover, 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” (18:15).
Truly this was a law of love, summed up in those words, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”, or, as the teaching of the Lord Jesus expressed it: “all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Mt. 7:12).
As we look at Leviticus 19 in more detail we find a wonderfully concise yet comprehensive picture of true neighbourliness. First there is generosity (vv. 9,10). The great example in this connection is that of Ruth and Boaz. The precept emphasised the importance of looking outward rather than inwards, and seeking the good of others rather than thinking only of oneself.
And then in verses 11 and 12 there is truthfulness and integrity. These are the very basis of human relationships, for without trust there can be no fellowship and no understanding between man and man. Again, there must be justice and true dealing (v. 13). If we might sum it up in a New Testament phrase: “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another” (Rom. 13:8).
Verse 14 says: “Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord”.
There must be consideration and compassion for the poor and the afflicted, and there must also be equity in judgement (v. 15). We notice the fine point emphasised here. There must be no honouring the person of the mighty, there must also be no false humility in fawning over the poor, a point we might overlook. A man must not receive honour simply because he is rich, neither must a man receive greater consideration simply because he is poor, but “in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour”.
So it is emphasised as a law of love and, as such, a law of the heart, in that it contained precepts that no external authority, no human judiciary could impose; and in this the law was and is unique amongst legal codes. Its basis, for the man who truly understood it, was faith. How was it possible, without faith, for a man to keep laws for which he could not be indicted before any visible tribunal? No man could convict him of hating his brother in his heart, of coveting his neighbour’s wife, or of grudging and malicious tale bearing. Only God could judge him for these things, and it was therefore a law of the heart. He lived and rested on that faith in the invisible God to Whose tribunal he could alone be called in question. So it is throughout Leviticus 19, where we have this perfect expression of the love of one’s neighbour. The basis of action is belief in the living God—the invisible God Who is the ultimate reality. Notice after each precept how the phrase recurs, “I am the Lord” (vv. 10,12, 14,16,18).
And so within this same law we have as it were two aspects of righteousness: the righteousness of law and the righteousness of the heart. The failure of the first lay in the fact that its basis was works the overt act and though men kept it in all its particulars it still failed to transform the heart and left large areas of the personality untouched and unaffected. The strength of the second lay in the fact that its every act was the expression of a motive, and its sphere was man’s whole being as it permeated his entire personality. The man who recognised and acknowledged this righteousness of the heart lived as one who was judged by God, Who knoweth and searcheth the hearts, and it was such an attitude that led men to Christ, where the law found its truest fulfilment and was revealed in all its glory as a law of love.
Reflections on the Potter and the Clay