66. (2) But to renliee thie it is important that we should look at these civil laws of Moses from a different aspect from that of their "sanctions." Few ChriRtians, even though reverent students of the Bible, sufficiently appreciate the fact that these lawa do embody, and aometimes express in the very words, those principles of law which our Lord taught in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, and which are the Christian rule of life, though not enforced on us by particular commandments (for we are not under an economy of law), but to be fulfilled in the freedom of the spirit. It will be sufficient to notice a few emphatic instances of this. (a) The following general precept is identical with the teaching of the goRpel: "Thou ehalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him (or, ::iot bear sin for him). 1 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord" (Levit. xix. 17, 18). (b) The Scribes and Pharisee& misinterpreted and perverted certain directions of the law, given for the guidance of the nation in their relations with other surround- ing nations (such as Deut. n:iii. 6) into the maxim, 11 Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy." But the language of the law itself is the same as that of the gospel. "If thou meet thine enemy's ass or ox going astray, thou shalt sur;,ly bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him" (Exod. x:xiii. 4, 5). What is this but the very law of Christ, "Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you"? 3 And it is the more emphatic because elsewhere, 3 when the commandment is expanded, it is "thy brother" whom it is an offence against the law not to help. "Thine enemy" is in the eye of God's law as certainly " thy brother," as "thy friend" is. (c) The lawyer who asked our Lord, "Who is my neighbour?" and to whom our Lord replied by the parable of the good Samaritan, bad certainly no excuse from the law for his ignorance. The provisions for the " strangers in the land " are very numerous, and though they did not enjqy the same civil rights and privileges as those who belonged to the nation, the principle on which they were to be treated was the same. The language of the law is express (Lent. xi.x. 34): "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born in the land, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord thy God." The "stranger" then is a" neighbour," to be loved as oneself no less than the [sraelite. And there is a special touch of compassion in the reason given : " Ye shall not oppress a stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." (d) But, especially, the provisions-made for the poor under these laws breathe the same spirit as the teaching of Christ and his apostles as to their peculiar claim on the people of God. Not only was it a purpose in the primary law of weekly Sabbaths, "that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou," i "that the son of thine handmaid and the stranger may be refreshed;" but in the secondary laws every seventh year was made a year of rest from tillage and harwst expressly for this purpose. " Six years shalt thou sow thy land, and gather in the fruits thereof. But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still ; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave, the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner shalt thou do with thy vineyard and with thy oliveyard." 5 In e,·ery 1 The English version is probably not oxactly accurate ; but it expresses the generoJ. sense 111fliciently. ~ Cf. GR!. vi. 2. • Deut. xxii. 1-i. ' Deut. v. U. 6 Rxo,l. xxiii, 10, 11; Levit. uv. 2-7. xiii lNTIWDUCTION TO THE PENTATEUCit.
year, indeed, the law required the.t, for the benefit of tho poor nnd the etrnng·er, the whole field should not be reaped, and the gleanings should be left; nnd the aarne rulo applied to the oliveyard and the vineyard-indeed, this law ne to the yearly h11rvest alone could make the Sabbatical year of any value to the poor; for o cnrefully- harvested field could have no natural crop. This Sabbatical year also·w&e o year of release from debts, 1 in the case of loans made to a brother Ieraellte in hie distl'ese. " For" (M011es says) "the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore, I command thee, saying, Thou she.It open thy hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, nnd to tl1y needy, in the land." The principle in all this legislation in regard to property is, " The land is God's, and it belongs to you only ae stewards under God." The rights of personal property are limited by God's rights, The poor of God's nation are both II thy poor" and also "God's poor." We in these days have learnt, indeed, that other methods of relieving the poor are more effectual than indiscriminate giving. But it was no purpose of the Divine law, any more than it was of. Christ, when he s&id to his disciples "Sell that ye have, and give alms," 2 to teach lessons of political and social economy; the command simply was that they should deny themselves, and trust God as regards earthly things, in order to benefit the poor. The spirit of the law (as well as that of Christ's teaching) is equally binding on us at the present dny, and, because it is binding, it is also our duty to use the methods which experience has proved to be most effectual and most beneficial, and therefore the truest c:liarity. 3 But undoubtedly of such laws as these of the Mosaic code, interpreted n oi in their letter but in their spirit, it is emphatically true that "whosoever shall do aud tench tl1em, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
THE OOERFECTION OF THE SECONDARY LAWS.