Language of Christ – Law

Language of Christ

The records of our Lord’s words and discourses have descended to us in four Greek Gospels. Some early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew; but the Greek St. Matthew has universally, and from the first, been accepted as an authoritative and inspired document. It is not improbable that the writer pubhshed his book in the two languages, and that the Greek edition alone has survived. Josephus, who wrote in Greek, prepared a Semitic edition of his Wars for the benefit of those who understood only their vernacular.

At the present day, perhaps, most scholars would admit that the vernacular of Palestine in the time of our Lord was Semitic, and not Greek; but a difference is observed between their theory and their practice; for in all kinds of theological writings, critical as well as devotional, the references to the text of the Gospels constantly assume that the Greek words are those actually uttered by our Lord. But if Greek was not commonly spoken in the Holy Land, it is improbable that He who ministered to the common people would have employed an uncommon tongue. It follows that the Greek words recorded by the Evangelists are not the actual words Christ spoke. We may think we have good grounds for believing that they accurately represent His utterances; but to hear the original sounds we must recover, if that be possible, the Semitic vernacular which underlies the traditional Greek.

The evidence as to the nature of the Palestinian vernacular may be thus stated. In the first century of the Christian era the Holy Land was peopled by men of more than one race and nationality, but there is no reason to suppose they had been fused into one people, with Greek for their common tongue. Most of the inhabitants of Judaea were Jews, being descendants of the returned exiles. In Galilee there was a mixture of races; but the name ‘Gahlee of the Gentiles’ was a survival of the description of an earlier condition. The Syrian and Assyrian invaders of the Northern Kingdom had passed, though leaving their mark, and a period of Jewish ascendency had followed, created by the victories of the Maccabees. The Idumsean princes, though inclined to alliance vrith Rome, sought to pose as Judaizers. Herod the Great, while in sympathy with Hellenism, was famous as the builder of the third Temple. The strict, orthodox Jews, who were opposed to Hellenism, and compassed sea and land to make one proselyte, would lose no opportunity of re-occupying their fatherland, from Jerusalem in the south to the north of Gralllee, and would take with them the ancient customs and the ancestral tongue. Samaria, however, preserved its integrity as a foreign colony, with its own Semitic dialect. Beyond the Jordan, and in the border lands of the south, there was some mingling with the neighbouring Moabite, Idumaean, and Arab tribes, and probably many dialects were spoken, the records of which have perished for ever. Yet the Hebrew of the Jerusalem Pharisee, the language of the Samaritans, the speech of the men of Galilee, and . the patois of the borderers, were all Semitic dialects. No place is found for the alien speech of Greece. Yet it must not be forgotten that Greek was the language of trade and literature. It would be heard in the seaports, and in the neighbourhood of the great roads by which communication was kept up through Palestine between Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. It was spoken by many in the Roman garrisons, and was the adopted tongue of the Jews of the Dispersion, who cultivated Hellenism, and brought their foreign customs to Jerusalem, when they came to worship or for temporary residence (see Acts 6:1). But the language of the Palestinian home, of the Palestinian synagogue, of farmers, artisans, and labourers, as well as of educated Jews, who cultivated the ancient ways, was Hebrew, using that, term for the moment in a somewhat extended sense. Very significant is the reference to the vernacular in Acts 1:19. and the obvious inference is confirmed by the description of the title on the cross. Besides the official notice in L&tin, which probably few could read, the accusation was written in Greek and in Hebrew. If the majority of the passers by would understand the former, the latter was superfluous. Even if the Hebrew was added only to please the mob, this fact would prove that thelower classes were partial to their vernacular, and were at least bilinguists, and not in the habit of using Greek exclusively (cf. Acts 22:2).

The story of Peter’s denial incidentally adds another confirmation. He conversed in a language which was understood by the servants and others of the same class assembled round the Are, but he was recognized as a northerner by his accent. There is no evidence that the Gahljeans pronounced Greek differently from the JudEeans, but it is knovra that their pronunciation of some of the Hebrew letters differed from that of the southerners. Peter and the servants had a Semitic vernacular in common, though with dialectic differences of pronunciation, and possibly of vocabulary.

In the Syrian Church historical documents have been handed down which, whatever be the dates of the existing works, undoubtedly represent very ancient traditions, and depend on documents such as would have been preserved amongst the archives of Edessa. In the Doctrine of Addai this remarkable statement occurs: ‘Him whose Gospel haa been spread abroad by the signs which his disciples do, who are Hebrews, and only know the tongue of the Hebrews, in which they were bom.’ In the same Church there was a tradition that their national version of the NT waa rather asecond record than a translation, and dated from Apostolic times. Such a view (whether true or false matters not now) depends on an assumption that some language related to Syriac, if not Syriac itself , was the vernacular of the Apostles.

The greater part of the N’T consists of writings intended for the benefit of Jews who resided outside Palestine, and of converts from heathenism. For such readera the vernacular of Palestine would have been unsuitable; and those of the writers who were not familiar with Greek could employ a translator. St. Peter is said to have been attended by Mark in this capacity. We have already referred to the tradition that Matthew, who wrote for the benefit of his countrymen, composed a Gospel in Hebrew. That some one should have undertaken a work of that nature is highly probable: but the circulation would be limited, for the native Jewish Church did not long retain the position of importance it possessed at first (Acts 21:20). and the collection of sacred writmgs into a Canon was the work of Greek-speaking Christians. The Epistle of St. James is one of the earliest books of the NT, but though intended for Jewish Christians it was written in Greek, as a literary vehicle. An apparent, though not a real, difficulty is presented by the style of certain pieces included in the sacred narratives. The Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis, and Lord’s Prayer, for example, which must be translations, in accordance with our view of the use of_ a Semitic vernacular, are thought to savour rather of original composition than of translation. But it should be remembered that the ancient idea of a version was different from ours. Literal rendering of ten (though not always) yielded to the demands of commentary. Perhaps (to take another, and, as some think, crucial instance), the angel could not have saluted Mary in the native dialect with the famous alliteration — Chaire kecharitomene ; and yet the Evangelist may have recorded the ‘HaiU highly favoured^ in that form, influenced by the style of OT diction, in which play on words is a marked feature.

The majority of the quotations in the Gospels appear to be derived from some form of the Septuagint Greek text of the OT. It does not follow that the speakers habitually used Greek. All we can safely infer is that the Evangelists, when writing in Greek, emjfloyed a version which had acquired considerable authority by usage, to express the quotations they recorded.

It has been thought that the conversations between our Lord and the woman of Samaria and the Syrophoenician woman must have been carried on in Greek as a common language. It is forgotten that Syriac, Samaritan, and the so-called Hebrew of Palestine, were nearly related. Many to whom one or other of these was the vernacular, would have some slight acquaintance with the others. However, the object of this article is not to deny that Christ knew, and sometimes spoke, Greek, but to reinforce the arguments by which we conclude that the vernacular of Palestine was Semitic, and that therefore Christ’s teachings were, for the most part, delivered in a different tongue from that in which they have come to us in the Greek Gospels.

By far the greater number of personal and place names connected with Palestine in the NT are of Semitic derivation, but they afford no evidence in relation to our inquiry. The preservation and use of such names would be consistent with a change in the vernacular. Place names are practically permanent; personal names are often sentimentally borrowed from a dead ancestral tongue. Nor would we lay stress on the occurrence of Semitic words, as rabbi, korban, pascha (‘passover’), in the Greek text. The men of our Lord’s day, whatever dialect they spoke, were the heirs of a religious and social system which had its roots in Hebraism, and of which there were constant reminiscences in the daily use of words belonging to the ancient terminology. But other non-Greek expressions are recorded in connexions which lend them a much greater significance. In Ac 1:19 we are informed that the Semitic name Akeldama, which was given to a certain field, was in the ‘proper tongue’ of ‘the dwellers at Jerusalem.’ Our Lord’s words on two occasions are given in Semitic, — TalUha kUmi (Mark 5:41). and Ephphatha (7:34). On the cross He uttered a cry which might have been a quotation from Psalms 22:1; but the form preserved in Mark 15:34 varies dialectically from the Hebrew of the opening words of that psalm.

These and other Semitic remains preserved in the pages of the NT, even when account has been taken of all place and personal names and single words, as well as of the few phrases, afford but hmited evidence, and are only a few specimens of the Palestinian vernacular. Yet they suffice to show that the dialect was neither ancient Hebrew nor the classical Syriac. It had arisen through corruption of the ancestral tongue, under the influence of surrounding languages, especially Aramaic. Probably it varied considerably in different parts of the Holy Land, and there were ‘dialects’ rather than ‘a dialect’ of Palestine. But all the evidence tends to the conviction that Christ habitually employed some form of the vernacular in His discourses, and not the alien language of Greece. G. H. Gwilliam.

Lantern

Only John 18:3. where some form of ‘torch’ is more probably intended. ‘The Greek is phanos, a word not found elsewhere in Biblical Greek.

Laodicea

Laodicea was situated in the valley of the Lycus, a tributary of the Maeander in Asia Minor. It was founded by Antiochus ii. about the middle of the 3rd cent. B.C. It was planted in the lower Lycus glen, Colossae being situated in the upper. The Lycus glen was the most frequented path of trade from the interior of the country to the west, and the great road passed right through Laodicea. ‘The city was nearly square, and strongly fortified, but dependent for its water supply on an acqueduct 6 miles long. It played a comparatively small part in the dissemination of Greek culture. Its prosperity advanced greatly under the Romans. It was an important manufacturing centre, for instance, for a soft glossy black wool, which was made into garments of various kinds (cf. Revelation 3:18). In connexion with the temple of the Phrygian god Men Karou (13 miles W. of Laodicea) , there grew up a celebrated school of medicine. Its most famous medicines were an ointment made from spice nard, which strengthened the ears, and Phrygian powder, obtained by crushing Phrygian stone, which was used for the eyes (Revelation 3:18). There were many Jewish inhabitants of Laodicea.’and the population as a whole was of very mixed race. There is a want of individuality about the lite of this city, which has been called’ the city of compromise.’ The church there was not founded by St. Paul, but probably by one of his coadjutors, perhaps Epaphras (cf. Colossians 4:13). It was no doubt one of the cities which received the ‘Epistle to the Ephesians’ (Colossians 4:16). as well as the Epistle to the Colossians (Colossians 4:16). It was one of the ‘seven churches’ of the Apocalypse (3:14–22). Its condemnation is perhaps the severest of all. A. Souter.

Lappidoth

(‘torches’ or ‘hghtning flashes’). The husband of Deborah the prophetess (Judges 4:4). Some commentators take the term to be descriptive of the character of Deborah, ‘a woman of lightning flashes.’ In favour of this they urge the feminine termination -oth, but the same termination is found elsewhere to men’s names, e.g. Meremoth. ■ T. A. Moxon.

Lapwing

See Hoopoe.

Lasciviousness

The Greek word so translated in Mark 7:22 etc. is translated ‘wantonness’ in Romans 13:13. This is the translation in the VSS before AV in nearly all the passages where AV has ‘lasciviousness.’ The idea of the Gr. word is shameless conduct of any kind.

Lasea

Lasea is mentioned by St. Luke (Acts 27:8). but by no other ancient author. It was the nearest town to Fair Havens in Crete, but it was 5 miles away, and this, apart from the inconvenience of the roadstead, would explain the reluctance of the captain of St. Paul’s ship to winter there. The ruins of Lasea were examined in 1856, — the site still bears the ancient name. A. E. Hillabd.

Lasha

Lasha (Genesis 10) marked the S.E. boundary of the land of the Canaanites. Jerome identified it with the hot springs of CaUirrhog, in the WSdy ZerqS Ma’in. Wellhausen would identify it with Laish, on the N. frontier. There is nothing to support this but the resemblance in the name. Against it is the order in which the names occur. It cannot now be identified.

W. EWING.

Lassharon

A town taken by Joshua (12i8). LXX B reads here ‘the king of Aphek in Sharon.’ The Onomasticon gives the name of ‘Sharon’ to a second district, viz. that between Mount Tabor and Tiberias. The name SarBna attaches to an ancient site on the plateau, 6i miles S.W. of Tiberias, which may possibly represent Lassharon (Conder). W. Ewing.

Lasthenes

An oflicer of high rank, ‘kinsman’ ( 1 Maccabees 11:31) and ‘father’ (v. 32) of Demetrius 1 a body of Cretan mercenaries, and enabled Demetrius to land in Cilicia, and wrest the throne of Syria from Alexander Balas (Jos. Ant. xiii. iv. 3; cf. 1 Maccabees 10:67). When Demetrius was endeavouring to make terms with Jonathan the Maccabsean, he wrote to Lasthenes in favour of the Jews, and forwarded a copy of his letter to the Jewish prince (1 Maccabees 11:29–37).

Latchet

See Dress, § 6.

Latin

In such provinces as Judaea the Latin language alone had place in official acts and Roman courts. Where Greek was allowed in court pleadings, it was, so to speak, an act of grace on the judge’s part, and there can be little doubt that, e.g., the speech of TertuUus in Acts 24 was in Latin. The Latin words used in a Greek form in the NT are mainly administrative, legal, or military (e.g. census, custodia, prcetorium, colonia, libertinus, centurio, legio), or names of Roman coins (denarius, guadrans), but the total number of such Latin words occurring is only about 25. The Gentile names adopted by Jews were generally of Greek form (e.g. Philip) — a Latin form like the name of St. Paul was an exception (to be expected perhaps with one so proud of Roman citizenship). Throughout Palestine, while Latin was the language of the administration, Greek was the main language of commerce, and Aramaic the language of common intercourse among Jews. Hence we find all three languages used for the superscription on the cross (Luke 23). A. E. Hillakd.

Latin Versions

See Text (of OT and NT) and Vulgate.

Lattice

See House, § 7.

Laud

In Romans 15:11 the AV has ‘Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.’ The Gr. vbs. being different, two different Eng. vbs. are used. But the RV turns ‘laud’ into ‘praise.’ In the OT, however, ‘laud’ and ‘praise’ are both used in order to distinguish two Heb. vbs., as in Psalms 117:1 145:4, though not quite consistently. In Psalms 47 the difference between the verbs is ignored.

Laughter

Laughter is used in the Bible in three ways. (1) It is opposed to weeping, as Ecclesiastes 3:4 7:3, Job 8:21, Psalms 126:2. Luke 6:21. (2) It expresses incredulity, as Gu 17:17 18:12. (3) It signifies derision, as Ts 2:14. Bel ".

Laver

See Tabernacle, § 4, Temple, § 6 (d).

Law

(IN OT). 1. That the ‘lawwas given by Moses’ (John 1:17) represents the unanimous belief both of the early Christians and of the Chosen Nation. He was their first as well as their greatest law-giver; and in this matter religious tradition is supported by all the historical probabilities of the case. The Exodus and the subsequent wanderings constitute the formative epoch of Israel’s career: it was the period of combination and adjustment between the various tribes towards effecting a national unity. Such periods necessitate social experiments, for no society can hold together without some basis of permanent security; no nation could be welded together, least of all a nation in ancient times, without some strong sense of corporate responsibilities and corporate rehgion. It therefore naturally devolved upon Moses to establish a central authority for the administration of justice, which should be universally accessible and universally recognized. There was only one method by which any such universal recognition could be attained; and that was by placing the legal and judicial system upon the basis of an appeal to that religion, which had already been successful in rousing the twelve tribes to a sense of their unity, and which, moreover, was the one force which could and did effectually prevent the disintegration of the heterogeneous elements of which the nation was composed.

2. We see the beginning and character of these legislative functions in Exodus 18:15, where Moses explains how ‘the people come unto me to inquire of God: when they have a matter they come unto me; and I judge between a man and his neighbour, and make them know the statutes of God, and his laws (.tSrSth).’ Originally tOrah (the usual word in the OT for ‘law’) meant, as in this passage, oral instruction or direction. This kind of tSrah survived for long in Israel. It was a ‘method strictly practical and in precise conformity with the genius and requirements of primitive nations,’ W. R. Smith (OTJC’ 339). Cases of exceptional difficulty were brought to the sanctuary, and the decisions there given were accepted as emanating from the Divine Judge of Israel (cf. 1 Samuel 2:25; and, for the use of ‘Elohim’ to signify the judges speaking in Jehovah’s name, cf. Exodus 21:6 22:7). The cases thus brought ‘before God’ may be divided into three classes, as they dealt respectively with (1) matters of moral obligation, (2) civil suits, (3) ritual difficulties. We read that Moses found it necessary to devolve some of this administrative work upon various elders, whom he associated with himself in the capacity of law-givers. In this connexion it is important to remember that —

(a) Thesedeoisionswereorallygiven. (6) Althoughbinding only on the parties concerned, and in their case only so far as they chose to submit to the ruling of the judge, or as the latter could enforce his authority, yet with the increasing power of the executive government such decisions soon acquired the force of consuetudinary law for a wider circle. until they affected the whole nation, (c) Such oral direction in no sense excludes the idea of any previous laws, or even of a written code. The task of the judges was not so much to create as to interpret. The existence and authority of a law would still leave room for doubt in matters of individual application, (d) Aa social life became more complex, the three divisions of the torah became more specialized; civil suits were tried by the judge; the prophets almost confined themselves to giving oral direction on moral_ duties ;_ the priests were concerned mainly with the solution of ritual diiBculties. Cf. Justice (II.).

Here, then, we can trace the character of Hebrew legislation in its earliest stages. Law (fDrah) means oral direction, gradually crystallizing into consuetudinary law, which, so tar from excluding, may almost be said to demand, the idea of a definite code as the basis of its interpretative function. Finally, when these directions were classified and reduced to writing (c(. Hosea 8:12). tdrah came to signify such a collection; and ultimately the same word was used as a convenient and comprehensive term for the whole Pentateuch, in which all the most important legal collections were carefully included.

3. The tBrah of the Prophets was moral, not ceremonial. The priests, while by their oflice necessarily much engaged in ceremonial and ritual actions, nevertheless had boundless opportunities for giving the worshippers true direction on the principles underlying their religious observances; and it is for their neglect of such opportunities, and not, as is often crudely maintained, on account of any inherently necessary antagonism between priestly and prophetical ideals, that the prophets so frequently rebuke the priests, — not because of the fulfilment of their priestly (i.e. ceremonial) duties, but because of the non-fulfllmeut of their prophetical (i.e. moral) opportunities. For the priests claimed bivine sanction tor their worship, and tradition ascribed the origin of all priestly institutions to Mosaic (or Aaronic) authorship. This the prophets do not deny; but they do deny that the distinctive feature of the Sinaitic legislation lay in anything but its moral excellence. In this cormexion the words of Jeremiah cannot be quoted too often: ‘I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day tha.t I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying — Hear my voice, . . . and walk ye in the way that I command you’ (Jeremiah 7:21, 22). The correct interpretation of Amos 5 corroborates Jeremiah’s contention. It is wholly unwarrantable to say that the prophets condemned the sacrificial system, or denied its worth and Divine sanction; but, on the other hand, we are justified in asserting that the 0rah of Jehovah, ‘the law of the Lord,’ meant to the prophets sometUng wholly different from the punctilious observance of traditional ceremonies; and what is more, they appeal without fear of contradiction to the contents of the Mosaic legislation as completely establishing their conviction that it was in the sphere of morality, rather than in the organizing of worship, that the essence of Jehovah’s law was to be found.

i. With this test (as well as with the considerations proposed in § 1) the character of the Decalogue is found to be in complete agreement. Its Mosaic origin has indeed been questioned, on the ground that such an ethical standard is wholly at variance with the. ‘essentially rituahstlc character’ of primitive reUgldns. To this it may be replied: we cannot call the prophets as witnesses tor the truth of two mutually contradictory propositions. Having already cited the prophets in disproof of the Mosaic authorship of the Levitical legislation, on the ground that the latter is essentially ritualistic(and therefore does not correspond to the prophets’ view of the Law of Moses), it is monstrously unfair to deny the Sinaitic origin of what is left In conformity with the prophetical standard, on the ground that it ought to be ‘essentially ritualistic’ also, and is not. We have rightly had our attention called to the witness of the prophets. But the weight of their evidence against the early elaboration of the ceremonial law is exactly proportioned to the weight attached to their evidence for the existence and authenticity of the moral code.

A more serious difficulty, however, arises from the fact that we have apparently three accounts of the Decalogue, exhibiting positively astounding divergences (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, and Exodus 34). The differences between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 6 are not hard to explain, as the Ten Words themselves are in each case identical, and it is only in the explanatory comments that the differences are marked. StyUstic peculiarities, as well as other considerations, seem to show that these latter are subsequent editorial additions, and that originally the Decalogue contained no more than the actual commandments, without note or explanation. It is, however, most instructive to observe that no theory of inspiration or literary scruples prevented the editors from incorporating Into their account of the Ten Words of God to Moses, the basis of all Hebrew legislation, such comments and exhortations as they considered suitable to the needs of their own times. The difficulty with regard to Exodus 34, where a wholly different set of laws seems to be called ‘The Ten Words,’ has not been solved. Hypotheses of textual displacement abound (cf. OTJC^ 336), others confidently assert that the author ‘manifestly intends to allude to the Decalogue’ (Driver, LOT’ 39), while some scholars have suggested, with much force and ingenuity, that we have in Ex 20-23 and 34 a series of abbreviations, re-arrangements, and expansions of ten groups of ten laws each. No final solution has yet been reached; but we may hold with confidence that the traditional account of the Decalogue is correct, and that the Ten Commandments in their original and shorter form were promulgated by Moses himself. On this basis the law of Israel rests, and in the Pentateuch we can distinguish the attempts made from time to time to apply their principles to the lite of the people.

6. The Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:22) is a collection of ‘words’ and ‘judgments’ arising out of the needs of a very simple community. The frequent mention of the ox, the ass, and the sheep proves that this code of law was designed for an agricultural people. The state of civilization may be interred from the fact that the principles of civil and criminal Justice are all comprehended under the two heads of retaliation and pecuniary compensation (cf. OTJC 340). Religious institutions also are in an undeveloped and archaic stage. The laws, however, recognize, and even insist upon, the claims of humanity and justice. It is possible that the original code may have been promulgated at Sinai; but it so, it has received considerable expansions to suit the agricultural requirements, which first became part of Israel’s daily lite in the early years of the occupation of Canaan.

6. The Law of Deuteronomy shows a civilization far in advance of that contemplated in the preceding code. Life is more complex; and religious problems unknown to an earlier generation demand and receive full treatment. It is not difficult to fix its approximate date. In the year b.c. 621, king Josiah inaugurated a national reformation resulting from the discovery of a Book of the Law in the Temple. All the evidence points to this book being practically identical with Deuteronomy; all the reforms which Josiah inaugurated were based upon laws practically indistinguishable from those we now possess in the Deuteronomic Code; in tact, no conclusion of historical or literary criticism has been reached more nearly approaching to absolute certainty than that the Book of the Law brought to light in 621 was none other than the fifth book of the Pentateuch.

But was it written by Moses? — (i.) The book itself nowhere makes such a claim, (ii.) ‘The historical situation (suiting the times of the later monarchy) is not merely anticipated, but actually presupposed, (iii.) The linguistic evidence points to’ a long development of the art of public oratory.’ (iv.) The religious standpoint is that of, e.g,, Jeremiah rather than Isaiah, (v.) Some of its chief provisions appear to have been entirely imknown before 600; even the most fervid champions of prophetism before that date seem to have systematically violated the central law of the one sanctuary, (vi.) While subsequent writers show abundant traces of Deuteronomic iniiuence, we search in vain for any such traces in earlier literature. On the contrary, Deut. is itself seen to be an attempt to realize in a legal code those great principles which had been so emphatically enunciated by Hosea and Isaiah.

The laws of Deuteronomy are, however, in many instances much earlier than the 7th century. The Book of the Covenant supplies much of the groundwork; and the antiquity of others is independently attested. It is not so much the substance (with perhaps the exception of (o) below) as the expansions and explanations that are new. A law-book must be kept up to date if it is to have any practical value, and in Deuteronomy we have ‘a prophetic re-formulation and adaptation to new needs of an older legislation’ (LOP 91).

The main characteristics of Deut. are to be found in —

(a) The Law of the one Sa-nciuary, which aimed at the total extinction of the worship of the high places. By confining the central act of worship, i.e. the rite of sacrifice, to Jerusalem, this law certainly had put an end to the syncretistic tendencies which constituted a perpetual danger to Israelitish religion; but while establishing monotheism, it also somewhat impoverished the free religious life of the common people, who had aforetime learned at all times and in all places to do sacrifice and hold conamunion with their God.

(6) The wonderful huTnanity which is so striking a feature of these laws. The religion of Jehovah is not confined to worship, but is to be manifested in daily life: and as God’s love is the great outstanding fact in Israel’s history, so the true Israelite must show love for God, whom he has not seen, by loving his neighbour, whom he has seen. Even the animals are to be treated with consideration and kindness.

(c) The evangelical fervour with which the claims of Jehovah upon Israel’s devotion are urged. He is so utterly different from the dead heathen divinities. He is a living, loving God, who cannot be satisfied with anything less than the undivided heart-service of His children.

It is not surprising that Deuteronomy should have been especially dear to our Lord (cf. Matthew 4), or that He should have ‘proclaimed its highest word as the first law no longer for Judah, but for the world’ (Matthew 12:28–30. Deuteronomy 6:4–5) [Carpenter, quoted by Driver, Deul. p. xxxiv.].

7. The Law of Holiness (Lv 17-26) is a short collection of laws embedded in Leviticus. The precepts of this code deal mainly with moral and ceremonial matters, and hardly touch questions of civil and criminal law. We should notice especially the prominence of agricultural allusions, the multiplication of ritual regulations, the conception of sin as impurity, and, again, the predominance of humanitarian principles.

8. The Priestly Code, comprising the concluding chapters of Exodus, the whole of Leviticus, and other portions of the Hexateuch, probably represents a determined attempt to give practical effect to the teaching of Ezekiel. We may approximately fix its date by observing that some of its fundamental institututions are unknown to, and even contradicted by, the Deuteronomic legislation. On the other hand, the infiuenee of Ezekiel is prominent. The Priestly editor, or school, lays special stress on the ceremonial institutions of Israelite worship. We must not, however, conclude that they are therefore all post-exilic. On the contrary, the origin of a great number is demonstrably of high antiquity; but their elaboration is of a far more modern date. It is sometimes customary to sneer at the Priestly Code as a mass of ‘Levitical deterioration.’ It would be as justifiable to quote the rubrics of the Prayer Book as a fair representation of the moral teaching of the Church of England. As a matter of fact, P does not profess to supplant, or even to supplement, all other laws. The editor has simply collected the details of ceremonial legislation. and the rubrics of Temple worship, with some account of their origin and purpose. In later history, the expression of Israel’s religion through Temple services acquired an increased significance. If the national hfe and faith were to be preserved, it was absolutely essential that the ceremonial law should be developed in order to mark the distinctive features of the Jewish creed. It is argued that such a poUey is in direct contradiction to the universahstic teaching of the earlier prophets. That may be so, but cosmopohtanism at this stage would have meant not the diffusion but the destruction of Jewish religion. It was only by emphasizing their national peculiarities that they were able to concentrate their attention, and consequently to retain a firm hold, upon their distinctive truths. Ezekiel’s ideal city was named ‘Jehovah is there’ (48). P seeks to reahze this ideal. All the laws, all the ceremonies, are intended to stamp this conviction indelibly upon Israel’s imagination, ‘Jehovah is there.’ Therefore the sense of sin must be deepened, that sin may be removed: therefore the need of purification must be constantly proclaimed, that the corrupting and disintegrating influences of surrounding heathenism may not prevail against the remnant of the holy people: therefore the ideal of national holiness must be sacramentally symbohzed, and, through the symbol, actually attained.

9. It must be plain that such stress on ritual enactments inevitably f aciUtated the growth of formalism and hypocrisy. We know that in our Lord’s time the weightier matters of the law were systematically neglected, while the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin, together with similar subtleties and refinements, occupied the attention of the lawyer and exhausted the energies of the zealous. But our Lord did not abrogate the law either in its ceremonial or in its moral injunctions. He came to fulfil it, that is, to fill it full, to give the substance, where the law was only a shadow of good things to come. He declared that not one jot or tittle should pass away till all things were accomplished; that is to say, until the end for which the law had been ordained should be reached. It took people some time to see that by His Incarnation and the foundation of the Christian Church that end had been gained; and that by His fulfilment He had made the law of none effect — not merely abrogating distinctions between meats, but transferring man’s whole relation to God into another region than that of law.

10. ‘The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.’ The impossibility of ever fulfilling its multitudinous requirements had filled the more earnest with despair. There it remained confronting the sinner with his sin; but its pitiless ‘Thou Shalt’ and ‘Thou shalt not’ gave him no comfort and no power of resistance. The law was as cold and hard as the tables on which it was inscribed. It taught the meaning of sin, but gave no help as to how sin was to be overcome. The sacrificial system attempted to supply the want; but it was plain that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. In desperation the law-convicted sinner looked for a Saviour to deliver him from this body of death, and that Saviour he found in Christ. The law had been his ‘pedagogue,’ and had brought him to the Master from whom he could receive that help and grace it had been powerless to bestow. But Christianity not merely gave power; it altered man’s whole outlook on the world. The Jews lived under the law : they were the unwilling subjects of an inexorable despotism; the law was excellent in itself, but to them it remained something external; obedience was not far removed from bondage and fear. The prophets realized the inadequacy of this legal system : it was no real appeal to man’s highest nature; it did not spring from the man’s own heart; and so they prophesied of the New Covenant when Jehovah’s laws should be written in the heart, and His sin-forgiving , grace should remove all elements of servile fear (cf. esp. 634 Jeremiah 31) but it was only the hard discipline of the law that made them realize the necessity and superiority of a more spiritual covenant between man and his God.

11. A vford may he aaid ahout thegimTig of the law. Whateverphysical disturbances may have accompanied its original proclamation, it is not upon such natural phenomena that ita claims to the homage of mankind are based. It is, in a manner, far more miraculous that God should at that early age, among those half-civilized tribes, have written these laws by His spirit on man’s conscience and underatanding, than that amid thunder and Hame He shoxild have inscribed them with His own fingers upon two tables of stone. The Old Testament itself teaches us that we may lools in vain for God among the most orthodox manifestations of a theophany, and yet hear Him spealring in the still, small voice. Miracle is not the essence of God’s revelation to us, though it may accompany and authenticate His message. The law stands because the Saviour, in laying down for us the correct lines of its interpretation has sealed.it with the stamp of Divine approval, but also because the conscience and reason of mankind have recognized in its simplicity and comprehensiveness a sublime exposition of man’s duty to his God and to his neighbour; because by manifestation of the truth it has commended itself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God’ (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:2).

Eenest Arthur Edghill.