the sure test whereby His disciples may be recog- nized by others (13^^). It is by their fulfilment of it alone that they may enjoy such close communion Avitli Him as He enjoys with His Father (IS^"-'-). He has given them an examj^le in His own Person of the love they are to practise. At the last meal with His disciples, at which this new command- ment was given. He had Himself washed their feet, to enforce the injunction to lowly service which He laid upon them (13''*^-). But this act of condescension on the part of the Master Avas typical of the self-denying love which He had dis- l^layed throughout His whole intercourse with them, that love which reached its culminating point in the willing sacrifice of His life. It is to this that He points when He ui'ges them to love one another as He has loved them. ' Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay doAvn his life for his friends' (15^^).
It has been urged that the brotherly love which is thus commended in the Fourth Gospel falls short of that enjoined in the Synojjtics, in respect that it is limited to the circle of the Christian brother- hood. While Christ in the Synoptics commands us to love our neighbour, and insists that the love which He enjoins must embrace not only our friends but our enemies, Ave read in the Fourth Gospel of a love /or one another (13^'*-^^ 15^^- •"'). The reciprocal pronoun points to a limitation of the love to the Christian brotherhood. The Chris- tians are known not by their love for others, but by their mutual love amongst themselves (H. Holtzmann, Hnndcom. on Jn 13^^, Neutest. Theol. ii. 388 f. ; O. Holtzmann, Johannesevang. 76, 266). And as the love Avhich the believer is exhorted to practise is limited to the Christian brotherhood, so also, it is maintained, is that of Christ Himself, Avhicli is held up as an example. The F^'ourth Gospel and St. Paul both cite the death of Christ as the highest proof that can be given of His love ; but St. Paul finds in it a proof of His love for His enemies (Ro S""^-), whereas the Evangelist adduces it as a proof of His love for His friends (15^^). Such love of friends, it is maintained, is the highest love the Gospel recognizes. Of love for one's enemies it knows nothing (O. Holtzmann, ib. 87, 276 ; H. Holtzmann, Handcom. on Jn 15^^, Neutest. Theol. ii. 477).
We must admit that there is so much truth in the contention that, as a matter of fact, the love referred to in 13^^'- 15^"^- ^'' is a love of Ciiristian brethren for one another. It would be quite un- warrantable to find the novelty of the command- ment 1.3^* in the Avideness of its scope, to Avhich there is no reference at all in the context. But it is equally unAvarrantable to explain that novelty as consisting in the narroAvness of the circle within Avhich Christ, in the context, insisted on its fulfil- ment, as if this commandment to jiractise brotherly love Avere an advance ujion the old injunction to love one's neighbour. (So Grotius: 'Novum autem dicit, quia non agit de dilectione communi om- nium, sed de speciali Christianorum inter se, qua tales sunt'; cf. Kolbing, SK, 1845, pp. 685-694). It is a mistake to take the commandment in any exclusive sense, as if there Avere any con- trast implied to the Avider commandment of the Synoptics. Christ speaks of the love of Chris- tian brethren for one another, either because He had had occasion immediately before to give His disciples a lesson on the manner in which they should be ready to render loving service to one another (13^'^'^), or because it Avas natural to look for the display of this spirit of loA'e He Avould inculcate first of all Avithin the smaller circle of those Avho stood in close relation to Him and to one another. It is not a question of confining their love to their Christian brethren, but of dis-
./
LOWLINESS
LUKE
83
playing it towards those with whom they come into closest contact.
In the same way as Christ urges them to show their love to those who stand nearest to them. He represents His own love as issuing in the sacrifice He made for them, His friends. He does not mean that it was because of the love they had shown Him as friends that He responded witli this culminating proof of love in retui-n. On the con- trary, He calls them friends because they are the objects of His love (lo'"-)- His sacrifice has not lieen evoked by the friendship they have displayed. It is rather their friendship that is the response to the love He has cherished for them, of which that sacrifice was the culminating proof.
While we recognize, then, that in this farewell conversation with His disciples, the love which Christ urges them to display is in the first instance a love of one toward anotiier, we cannot admit that there is any intention on the part either of the Evan- geli.st or of Christ Himself to limit the practice of it to the Christian brotherhood. The circumstances in which the address was spoken sufficiently ex- plain the form in which the commandment is given, and the manner in which Christ's example is appealed to. Tlie Teacher who had inculcated a love which was to embrace friend and enemy alike might well feel constrained to give His own disciples the commandment to love one another. And He who had given His life as a ransom for many might well remind those who stood nearest to Him that they were among the many for whom the sacrifice was made, and appeal to them to love one another as He had loved them.