الكتاب المقدس

Expositor's Bible Commentary Leviticus 19:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, THE LAW OF HOLINESS (CONCLUDED) Leviticus 19:1-37 WE have in this chapter a series of precepts and prohibitions which from internal evidence appear to have been selected by an inspired redactor of the canon from various original documents, with the purpose, not of presenting a complete enumeration of all moral and ceremonial duties, but of illustrating the application in the everyday life of the Israelite of the injunction which stands at the beginning of the chapter ( Leviticus 19:2 ): "Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy." Truly strange it is, in the full light of Hebrew history, to find anyone, like Kalisch, representing this conception of holiness, so fundamental to this law, as the "ripest fruit of Hebrew culture"! For it is insisted by such competent critics, as Dillmann, that we have not in this chapter a late development of Hebrew thought, but "ancient," "the most ancient" material; -we shall venture to say, dating even from the days of Moses, as is declared in Leviticus 19:1 . And we may say more. For If such be the antiquity of this law, it should be easy even for the most superficial reader of the history to see how immeasurably far was that horde of almost wholly uncultured fugitives from Egyptian bondage from having attained through any culture this Mosaic conception of holiness. For "Hebrew culture," even in its latest maturity, has, at the best, only tended to develop more and more the idea, not of holiness, but of legality-a very different thing! The ideal expressed in this command, "Ye shall be holy," must have come, not from Israel, not even from Moses, as if originated by him, but from the Holy God Himself, even as the chapter in its first verse testifies. The position of this command at the head of the long list of precepts which follows, is most significant and instructive. It sets before us the object of the whole ceremonial and moral law, and, we may add, the supreme object of the Gospel also, namely, to produce a certain type of moral and spiritual character, a HOLY manhood; it, moreover, precisely interprets this term, so universally misunderstood and misapplied among all nations, as essentially consisting in a spiritual likeness to God: "Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy." These words evidently at once define holiness and declare the supreme motive to the attainment and maintenance of a holy character. This then is brought before us as the central thought in which all the diverse precepts and prohibitions which follow find their unity; and, accordingly, we find this keynote of the whole law echoing, as it were, all through this chapter, in the constant refrain, repeated herein no less than fourteen-twice seven-times: "I am the Lord (Heb. Jehovah)!" "I am the Lord your God!" The first division of the law of holiness which follows ( Leviticus 19:3-8 ) deals with two duties of fundamental importance in the social and the religious life: the one, honour to parents; the other, reverence to God. If we are surprised, at first, to see this place of honour in the law of holiness given to the fifth commandment ( Leviticus 19:3 ), our surprise will lessen when we remember how, taking the individual in the development of his personal life, he learns to fear God, first of all, through fearing and honouring his parents. In the earliest beginnings of life, the parent-to speak with reverence-stands to his child, in a very peculiar sense, for and in the place of God. We gain the conception of the Father in heaven first from our experience of fatherhood on earth; and so it may be said of this commandment, in a sense in which it cannot be said of any other, that it is the foundation of all religion. Alas for the child who contemns the instruction of his father and the command of his mother! for by so doing he puts himself out of the possibility of coming into the knowledge and experience of the Fatherhood of God. The principle of reverence toward God is inculcated, not here by direct precept, but by three injunctions, obedience to which presupposes the fear of God in the heart. These are, first ( Leviticus 19:3 ), the keeping of the sabbaths; the possessive, "My sabbaths," reminding us tersely of God’s claim upon the seventh part of all our time as His time. Then is commanded the avoidance of idolatry ( Leviticus 19:4 ); and, lastly ( Leviticus 19:5-8 ), a charge as to the observance of the law of the peace offering. One reason seems to have determined the selection of each of these three injunctions, namely, that Israel would be more liable to fail in obedience to these than perhaps any other duties of the law. As for the sabbath, this, like the law of the peace offering, was a positive, not a moral law; that is, it depended for its authority primarily on the explicit ordinance of God, instead of the intuition of the natural conscience. Hence it was certain that it would only be kept in so far as man retained a vivid consciousness of the Divine personality and moral authority. Moreover, as all history has shown, the law of the sabbath rest from labour constantly comes into conflict with man’s love of gain and eager haste to make money. It is a life picture, true for men of every generation, when Amos {Amo 8:5} brings before us the Israelites of his day as saying, in their insatiate worldly greed, "When will the sabbath be gone, that we may set forth wheat?" As regards the selection of the second commandment, one can easily see that Israel’s loyalty, surrounded as they were on every side with idolaters, was to be tested with peculiar severity on this point, whether they would indeed worship the living God alone and without the intervention of idols. The circumstances, as regards the peace offering, were different; but the same principle of choice can be discovered in this also. For among all the various ordinances of sacrificial worship there was none in which the requisitions of the law were more likely to be neglected; partly because these were the most frequent of all offerings, and also because the Israelite would often be tempted, through a short-sighted economy and worldly thriftiness, to use the meat of the peace offering for food, if any remained until the third day, instead of burning it, in such case, as the Lord commanded. Hence the reminder of the law on this subject, teaching that he who will be holy must not seek to save at the expense of obedience to the holy God. The second section of this chapter ( Leviticus 19:9-18 ) consists of five groups, each of five precepts, all relating to duties which the law of holiness requires from man to man, and each of them closing with the characteristic and impressive refrain, "I am the Lord." The first of these pentads ( Leviticus 19:9-10 ) requires habitual care for the poor: we read, "Thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger." The law covers the three chief products of their agriculture: the grain, the product of the vine, and the fruit of the trees, -largely olive trees, which were often planted in the vineyard. So often as God blessed them with the harvest, they were to remember the poor, and also "the stranger," who according to the law could have a legal claim to no land in Israel. Apart from the benefit to the poor, one can readily see what an admirable discipline against man’s natural selfishness, and in loyalty to God, this regulation, faithfully observed, must have been. Behind these commands lies the principle, elsewhere explicitly expressed, {Lev 25:23} that the land which the Israelite tilled was not his own, but the Lord’s; and it is as the Owner of the land that He thus charges them that as His tenants they shall not regard themselves as entitled to everything that the land produces, but bear in mind that He intends a portion of every acre of each Israelite to be reserved for the poor. And so the labourer in the harvest field was continually reminded that in his husbandry he was merely God’s steward, bound to apply the product of the land, the use of which was given him, in such a way as should please the Lord. If the law is not in force as to the letter, let us not forget that it is of full validity as to its spirit. God is still the God of the poor and needy; and we are still every one, as truly as the Hebrew in those days, the stewards of God. And the poor we have with us always; perhaps never more than in these days, in which so great masses of helpless humanity are crowded together in our immense cities, did the cry of the poor and needy so ascend to heaven. And that the Apostles, acting under Divine direction, and abolishing the letter of the theocratic law, yet steadily maintained the spirit and intention of that law in care for the poor, is testified with abundant fulness in the New Testament. One of the first fruits of Pentecost in the lives of believers was just this, that "all that believed had all things common," {Act 2:44-45} so that, going even beyond the letter of the old law, "they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need," And the one only charge which the Apostles at Jerusalem gave unto Paul is reported by him in these words: {Gal 2:10} "Only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do." Let the believer then remember this who has plenty: the corners of his fields are to be kept for the poor, and the gleanings of his vineyards; and let the believer also take the peculiar comfort from this law, if he is poor, that God, his heavenly Father, has a kindly care, not merely for his spiritual wants, but also for his temporal necessities. The second pentad ( Leviticus 19:11-12 ) in the letter refers to three of the ten commandments, but is really concerned, primarily, with stealing and defrauding; for the lying and false swearing is here regarded only as commonly connected with theft and fraud, because often necessary to secure the result of a man’s plunder. The pentad is in this form: "Ye shall not steal; neither shall ye deal falsely, nor lie one to another. And ye shall not swear by My name falsely, so that thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord!" Close upon stinginess and the careless greed which neglects the poor, with eager grasping after the last grape on the vine, follows the active effort to get, not only the uttermost that might by any stretch of charity be regarded as our own, but also to get something more that belongs to our neighbour. There is thus a very close connection in thought, as well as in position, in these two groups of precepts. And the sequence of thought in this group suggests what is, indeed, markedly true of stealing, but also of other sins. sin rarely goes alone; one sin, by almost a necessity, leads straight on to another sin. He who steals, or deals falsely in regard to anything committed to his trust, will most naturally be led on at once to lie about it; and when his lie is challenged, as it is likely to be, he is impelled by a fatal pressure to go yet further, and fortify his lie, and consummate his sin, by appealing by an oath to the Holy God, as witness to the truth of his lie. Thus, the sin which in the beginning is directed only toward a fellowman, too often causes one to sin immediately against God, in profanation of the name of the God of truth, by calling on Him as witness to a lie! Of this tendency of sin, stealing is a single illustration; but let us ever remember that it is a law of all sin that sin ever begets more sin. This second group has dealt with injury to the neighbour in the way of guile and fraud; the third pentad ( Leviticus 19:13-14 ), progressing further, speaks of wrong committed in ways of oppression and violence. "Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbour, nor rob him: the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but thou shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord!" In these commands, again it is still the helpless and defenceless in whose behalf the Lord is speaking. The words regard a man as having it in his power to press hard upon his neighbour; as when an employer, seeing that a man must needs have work at any price, takes advantage of his need to employ him at less than fair wages; or as when he who holds a mortgage against his neighbour, seeing an opportunity to possess himself of a field or an estate for a trifle, by pressing his technical legal rights, strips his poor debtor needlessly. No end of illustrations, evidently, could be given out of our modern life. Man’s nature is the same now as in the days of Moses. But all dealings of this kind, whether then or now, the law of holiness sternly prohibits. So also with the injunction concerning the retention of wages after it is due. I have not fulfilled the law of love toward the man or woman whom I employ merely by paying fair wages; I must also pay promptly. The Deuteronomic law repeats the command, and, with a peculiar touch of sympathetic tenderness, adds the reason: {Lev 24:15} "for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it." I must therefore give the labourer his wages "in his day." A sin this is, of the rich especially, and, most of all, of rich corporations, with which the sense of personal responsibility to God is too often reduced to a minimum. Yet it is often, no doubt, committed through sheer thoughtlessness. Men who are themselves blessed with such abundance that they are not seriously incommoded by a delay in receiving some small sum, too often forget how a great part of the poor live, as the saying is, "from hand to mouth," so that the failure to get what is due to them at the exact time appointed is frequently a sore trial; and, moreover, by forcing them to buy on credit instead of for cash, of necessity increases the expense of their living, and so really robs them of that which is their own. The thought is still of care for the helpless, in the words concerning the deaf and the blind, which, of course, are of perpetual force, and, in the principle involved, reach indefinitely beyond these single illustrations. We are not to take advantage of any man’s helplessness, and, especially, of such disabilities as he cannot help, to wrong him. Even the common conscience of men recognises this as both wicked and mean; and this verdict of conscience is here emphasised by the reminder "I am the Lord," - suggesting that the labourer who reaps the fields, yea, the blind also and the deaf, are His creatures; and that He, the merciful and just One, will not disown the relation, but will plead their cause. Each of these groups of precepts has kept the poor and the needy in a special way, though not exclusively, before the conscience. And yet no man is to imagine that therefore God will be partial toward the poor, and that hence, although one may not wrong the poor, one may wrong the rich with impunity. Many of our modern social reformers, in their zeal for the betterment of the poor, seem to imagine that because a poor man has rights which are too frequently ignored by the rich, and thus often suffers grievous wrongs, therefore a rich man has no rights which the poor man is bound to respect. The next pentad of precepts therefore guards against any such false inference from God’s special concern for the poor, and reminds us that the absolute righteousness of the Holy One requires that the rights of the rich be observed no less than the rights of the poor, those of the employer no less than those of the employed. It deals especially with this matter as it comes up in questions requiring legal adjudication. We read ( Leviticus 19:15-16 ), "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the Lord!" A plain warning lies here for an increasing class of reformers in our day, who loudly express their special concern for the poor, but who in their zeal for social reform and the diminishing of poverty are forgetful of righteousness and equity. It applies, for instance, to all who would affirm and teach with Marx that "capital is robbery"; or who, not yet quite ready for so plain and candid words, yet would, in any way, in order to right the wrongs of the poor, advocate legislation involving practical confiscation of the estates of the rich. In close connection with the foregoing, the next precept forbids, not precisely "tale bearing," but "slander," as the word is elsewhere rendered, even in the Revised Version. In the court of judgment, slander is not to be uttered nor listened to. The clause which follows is obscure; but means either, "Thou shalt not, by such slanderous testimony, seek in the court of judgment thy neighbour’s life," which best suits the parallelism; or, perhaps, as the Talmud and most modern Jewish versions interpret, "Thou shalt not stand silent by, when thy neighbour’s life is in danger in the court of judgment, and thy testimony might save him." And then again comes in the customary refrain, reminding the Israelite that in every court, noting every act of judgment, and listening to every witness, is a judge unseen, omniscient, absolutely righteous, under whose final review, for confirmation or reversal, shall come all earthly decisions: "I," who thus speak, "am the Lord!" The fifth and last pentad ( Leviticus 19:17-18 ) fitly closes the series, by its five precepts, of which, three, reaching behind all such outward acts as are required or forbidden in the foregoing, deal with the state of the heart toward our neighbour which the law of holiness requires, as the soul and the root of all righteousness. It closes with the familiar words, so simple that all can understand them, so comprehensive that in obedience to them is comprehended all morality and righteousness toward man: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." The verses read, "Thou shall not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children oil thy people, but thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord!" Most instructive it is to find it suggested by this order, as the best evidence of the absence of hate, and the truest expression of love to our neighbour, that when we see him doing wrong we shall rebuke him. The Apostle Paul has enjoined upon Christians the same duty, indicating also the spirit in which it is to be performed: {Gal 6:1} "Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of meekness; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Thus, if we will be holy, it is not to be a matter of no concern to us that our neighbour does wrong, even though that wrong do not directly affect our personal well being. Instead of this, we are to remember that if we rebuke him not, we ourselves "bear sin, because of him"; that is, we ourselves, in a degree, become guilty with him, because of that wrong doing of his which we sought not in any way to hinder. But although, on the one hand, I am to rebuke the wrongdoer, even when his wrong does not touch me personally, yet, the law adds, I am not to take into my own hands the avenging of wrongs, even when myself injured; neither am I to be envious and grudge any neighbour the good he may have; no, not though he be an ill-doer and deserve it not; but be he friend or foe, well-doer or ill-doer, I must love him as myself. What an admirable epitome of the whole law of righteousness! a Mosaic anticipation of the very spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. Evidently, the same mind speaks in both alike; the law the same, the object and aim of the law the same, both in Leviticus and in the Gospel. In this law we hear: "Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy"; in the Sermon on the Mount: "Ye shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." The third division of this chapter ( Leviticus 19:19-32 ) opens with a general charge to obedience: "Ye shall keep My statutes"; very possibly, because several of the commands which immediately follow might seem in themselves of little consequence, and so be lightly disobeyed. The law of Leviticus 19:19 prohibits raising hybrid animals, as, for example, mules; the next command apparently refers to the chance, through sowing a field with mingled seed, of giving rise to hybrid forms in the vegetable kingdom. The last command in this verse is obscure both in meaning and intention. It reads (R.V), "Neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together." Most probably the reference is to different materials, interwoven in the yarn of which the dress was made; but a difficulty still remains in the fact that such admixture was ordered in the garments of the priests. Perhaps the best explanation is that of Josephus, that the law here was only intended for the laity; which, as no question of intrinsic morality was involved, might easily have been. But when we inquire as to the reason of these prohibitions, and especially of this last one, it must be confessed that it is hard for us now to speak with confidence. Most probable it appears that they were intended for an educational purpose, to cultivate in the mind of the people the sentiment of reverence for the order established in nature by God. For what the world calls the order of nature is really an order appointed by God, as the infinitely wise and perfect One; hence, as nature is thus a manifestation of God, the Hebrew was forbidden to seek to bring about that which is not according to nature, unnatural corn mixtures; and from this point of view, the last of the three precepts appears to be a symbolic reminder of the same duty, namely, reverence for the order of nature, as being an order determined by God. The law which is laid down in Leviticus 19:20-22 , regarding the sin of connection with a bondwoman betrothed to a husband, apparently refers to such a case as is mentioned in Exodus 21:7-8 , where the bond maid is betrothed to her master, while yet, because of her condition of bondage, the marriage has not been consummated. For the same sin in the case of a free woman, where both were proved guilty, for each of them the punishment was death. {Deu 22:23-24} In this case, because the woman’s position, inasmuch as she was not free, was rather that of a concubine than of a full wife, the lighter penalty of scourging is ordered for both of the guilty persons. Also, since this was a case of trespass as well, in which the rights of the master to whom she was espoused were involved, a guilt offering was in addition required, as the condition of pardon. It will be said, and truly, that by this law slavery and concubinage are to a certain extent recognised by the law; and upon this fact has been raised an objection bearing on the holiness of the law giver, and, by consequence, on the Divine origin and inspiration of the law. Is it conceivable that the holy God should have given a law for the regulation of two so evil institutions? The answer has been furnished us, in principle, by our Lord, {Mat 19:8} in that which He said concerning the analogous case of the law of Moses touching divorce; which law, He tells us, although not according to the perfect ideal of right, was yet given "because of the hardness of men’s hearts." That is, although it was not the best law ideally, it was the best practically, in view of the low moral tone of the people to whom it was given. Precisely so it was in this case. Abstractly, one might say that the case was in nothing different from the case of a free woman, mentioned Deuteronomy 22:23-24 , for which death was the appointed punishment; but practically, in a community where slavery and concubinage were long-settled institutions, and the moral standard was still low, the cases were not parallel. A law which would carry with it the moral support of the people in the one case, and which it would thus be possible to carry into effect, would not be in like manner supported and carried into effect in the other; so that the result of greater strictness in theory would, in actual practice, be the removal thereby of all restriction on license. On the other hand, by thus appointing herein a penalty for both the guilty parties such as the public conscience would approve, God taught the Hebrews the fundamental lesson that a slave girl is not regarded by God as a mere chattel; and that if, because of the hardness of their hearts, concubinage was tolerated for a time, still the slave girl must not be treated as a thing, but as a person, and indiscriminate license could not be permitted. And thus, it is of greatest moment to observe, a principle was introduced into the legislation, which in its ultimate logical application would require and effect-as in due time it has-the total abolition of the institution of slavery wherever the authority of the living God is truly recognised. The principle of the Divine government which is here illustrated is one of exceeding practical importance as a model for us. We live in an age when, everywhere in Christendom, the cry is "Reform"; and there are many who think that if once it be proved that a thing is wrong, it follows by necessary consequence that the immediate and unqualified legal prohibition of that wrong, under such penalty as the wrong may deserve, is the only thing that any Christian man has a right to think of. And yet, according to the principle illustrated in this legislation, this conclusion in such cases can by no means be taken for granted. That is not always the best law practically which is the best law abstractly. That law is the best which shall be most effective in diminishing a given evil, under the existing moral condition of the community; and it is often a matter of such exceeding difficulty to determine what legislation against admitted sins and evils may be the most productive of good in a community whose moral sense is dull concerning them, that it is not strange that the best of men are often found to differ. Remembering this, we may well commend the duty of a more charitable judgment, in such cases, than one often hears from such radical reformers, who seem to imagine that in order to remove an evil all that is necessary is to pass a law at once and forever prohibiting it; and who therefore hold up to obloquy all who doubt as to the wisdom and duty of so doing, as the enemies of truth and of righteousness. Moses, acting under direct instruction from the God of supreme wisdom and of perfect holiness, was far wiser than such well-meaning but sadly mistaken social reformers, who would fain be wiser than God. Next follows a law ( Leviticus 19:23-25 ) directing that when any fruit tree is planted, the Israelite shall not eat of its fruit for the first three years; that the fruit of the fourth year shall be wholly consecrated to the Lord, "for giving praise unto Jehovah"; and that only after that, in the fifth year of its bearing, shall the husbandman himself first eat of its fruit. The explanation of this peculiar regulation is to be found in a special application of the principle which rules throughout the law; that the first fruit, whether the firstborn of man or beast, or the first fruits of the field, shall always be consecrated unto God. But in this case the application of the principle is modified by the familiar fact that the fruit of a young tree, for the first few years of its bearing, is apt to be imperfect; it is not yet sufficiently grown to yield its best possible product. Because of this, in those years it could not be given to the Lord, for He must never be served with any but the best of everything; and thus until the fruit should reach its best, so as to be worthy of presentation to the Lord, the Israelite was meanwhile debarred from using it. During these three years the trees are said to be "as uncircumcised"; i.e. , they were to be regarded as in a condition analogous to that of the child who has not yet been consecrated, by the act of circumcision, to the Lord. In the fourth year, however, the trees were regarded as having now so grown as to yield fruit in perfection; hence, the principle of the consecration of the first fruit now applies, and all the fourth year’s product is given to the Lord, as an offering of thankful praise to Him whose power in nature is the secret of all growth, fruitfulness, and increase. The last words of this law, "that it may yield unto you its increase." evidently refer to all that precedes. Israel is to obey this law, using nothing till first consecrated to the Lord, in order to a blessing in these very gifts of God. The moral teaching of this law, when it is thus read in the light of the general principle of the consecration of the first fruits, is very plain. It teaches, as in all analogous cases, that God is always to be served before ourselves; and that not grudgingly, as if an irksome tax were to be paid to the Majesty of heaven, but in the spirit of thanksgiving and praise to Him, as the Giver of "every good and perfect gift." It further instructs us in this particular instance, that the people of God are to recognise this as being true even of all those good things which come to us under the forms of products of nature. The lesson is not an easy one for faith; for the constant tendency, never stronger than in our own time, is to substitute "Nature" for the God of nature, as if nature were a power in itself and apart from God, immanent in all nature, the present and efficient energy in all her manifold operations. Very fittingly, thus, do we find here again ( Leviticus 19:25 ) the sanction affixed to this law, "I am the Lord your God!" Jehovah, your God who redeemed you, who therefore am worthy of all thanksgiving and praise! Jehovah, your God in covenant, who gives the fruitful seasons! filling your hearts with joy and gladness! Jehovah, your God, who as the Lord of Nature, and the Power in nature, am abundantly able to fulfil the promise affixed to this command! The next six commands are evidently grouped together as referring to various distinctively heathenish customs, from which Israel, as a people holy to the Lord, was to abstain. The prohibition of blood ( Leviticus 19:26 ) is repeated again, not, as has been said, in a stronger form than before, but probably, because the eating of blood was connected with certain heathenish ceremonies, both among the Shemitic tribes and others. The next two precepts ( Leviticus 19:26 ) prohibit every kind of divination and augury; practices notoriously common with the heathen everywhere, in ancient and in modern times. The two precepts which follow, forbidding certain fashions of trimming the hair and beard, may appear trivial to many, but they will not seem so to anyone who will remember how common among heathen peoples has been the custom, as in those days among the Arabs, and in our time among the Hindoos to trim the hair or beard in a particular way, in order thus visibly to mark a person as of a certain religion, or as a worshipper of a certain god. The command means that the Israelite was not only to worship God alone, but he was not to adopt a fashion in dress which, because commonly associated with idolatry, might thus misrepresent his real position as a worshipper of the only living and true God. "Cutting the flesh for the dead" ( Leviticus 19:28 ) has been very widely practised by heathen peoples in all ages. Such immoderate and unseemly expressions of grief were prohibited to the Israelite, as unworthy of a people who were in a blessed covenant relation with the God of life and of death. Rather, recognising that death is of God’s ordination, he was to accept in patience and humility the stroke of God’s hand; not, indeed, without sorrow, but yet in meekness and quietness of spirit, trusting in the God of life. The thought is only a less clear expression of the New Testament word {1Th 4:13} that the believer "sorrow not, even as the rest, which have no hope." Also, probably, in this prohibition, as certainly in the next ( Leviticus 19:28 ), it is suggested that as the Israelite was to be distinguished from the heathen by full consecration, not only

Ye shall be holy. Leviticus 19:2 The object of God's laws S. H. Kellogg, D. D. The position of this come mand at the head of the long list of precepts which follows is most significant and instructive. It sets before us the object of the whole ceremonial and moral law, and, we may add, the supreme object of the gospel also, namely, to produce a certain type of moral and spiritual character, a "holy" manhood; it, moreover, precisely interprets this term, so universally misunderstood and misapplied among all nations, as essentially consisting in a spiritual likeness to God: "Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy." These words evidently at once define holiness and declare the supreme motive to the attainment and maintenance of a holy character. This, then, is brought before us as the central thought in which all the diverse precepts and prohibitions which follow find their unity; and, accordingly, we find this keynote of the whole law echoing, as it were, all through this chapter, in the constant refrain, repeated herein no less than fourteen — twice seven — times; "I am the Lord!" "I am the Lord your God!" ( S. H. Kellogg, D. D. ) A fountain of purity S. S. Chronicle. One summer day, a few years ago, strolling for rest and pleasure near the mouth of the Columbia river, where there is a large rise and fall of the tide, I came, at low tide, upon a splendid spring of pure, fresh water, clear as crystal, gushing up from between the rocks that two hours before had formed a part of the river's bed. Twice a day the soiled tide rises above that beautiful fountain and covers it over; but there it is, down deep under the salt tide, and when the tide has spent its force and gone back again to the ocean's depths, it sends out its pure waters fresh and clear as before. So if the human heart be really a fountain of love to Christ it will send out its streams of fresh, sweet waters, even into the midst of the salt tides of politics or business. And the man who carries such a fountain into the day's worry and struggle will come again at night, when the world's tide has spent its force, with clean hands, sweet spirit, and conscience void of offence toward God and man. ( S. S. Chronicle. ) Holiness silences the profane Holiness has a mighty influence upon others. It stops the mouths of the ungodly, who are ready to reproach religion and throw the dirt of professors' sins on the face of profession itself. They say frogs will cease croaking when a light is brought near them; the light of a holy conversation hangs, as it were, a padlock on profane lips. ( W. Gurnall. . ) Ye shall fear... mother... father. Leviticus 19:3 Maternal rule Dr. Humphrey. This is a remarkable command, given by God to Moses. Not for the matter of it, for it is the same in substance with the fifth in the Decalogue. But as differing from that and other parallel passages, it is remarkable on two accounts. In those the father is always put first. It is, "Honour thy father and thy mother." "He that smiteth his father and his mother, shall surely be put to death." "My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother." "Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old." "Honour thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with promise." But here, mother is put first — "Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father." Then again, the word "fear" — "Thou shalt fear thy mother and thy father," occurs in no other passage. There must be a meaning, both in the word "fear," and the singular collocation of the sentence. And what is it? Fathers are in general wont to govern their children more by authority, and mothers by love. Hence they are more afraid of offending their fathers than their mothers. This is especially the case with boys, about the time when they enter their teens. For three or four years they are more impatient of restraint than ever before or after. They are then apt to think they know much more than their mothers, and are quite capable of governing themselves. To guard against this undervaluing of their mother's authority seems to have been the special design of the command in question. "Ye shall fear every man his mother" — detracting nothing from the father's authority; hut putting the mother's in the foreground, because there is danger of its being despised or overlooked. The word "fear," in this case, is not quite synonymous with "honour," in the fifth commandment. It has rather more intensity of meaning, if it is not more imperative. There is more of awe in fear, if not more of reverence. God intended to put both parents on the same level. Both are to be feared alike. And this purity of governmental control carries along with it corresponding obligations. Mothers must not shrink from exercising the authority with which God has clothed them, to "train Up their children in the way in which they should go," however crossing it may sometimes be to their parental yearning. Let them rule by love as much as they can. The more the better. But restraint, by coercion, where nothing else will do, is one of the highest forms in which parental love is manifested. It would be wrong, it would be cruel to withhold it from the wayward child. Thousands upon thousands have been greatly wronged, if not ruined, by overweening motherly indulgence. The surest way ultimately to win that undying filial love, "which casteth out fear," is to restrain and govern the boy just at the age when he is most restive under parental control. Woe to the child that breaks away from the authority which God has ordained. Evil is as surely before him as the going down of the sun ( Proverbs 30:17 ). ( Dr. Humphrey. ) Ungrateful children rebuked by birds Scientific Illustrations. The birds can teach ungrateful children their duty towards aged parents. It is an old tradition with regard to storks, says Mr. Morris in his "British Birds," that they take care of and nourish their parents when they are too old to take care of themselves, from whence the Greek word "pelargicos," signifying the duty of children to take care of their parents; and "pelargicoi nomoi," signifying the laws relating to that duty, both derived from the Greek word for a stork; "Pelargos," from pelas, black; and "argos," white, alluding to the prevailing colours of the stork. ( Scientific Illustrations. ) A son's devotion to his mother J. G. Cunningham. I remember just now a young man whom the Lord has blessed on account of the love he has shown his mother. Many years ago when her husband died, she was walking the streets of Glasgow in sore distress, her heart being, as it were, in the grave with her husband. She was utterly heedless of the great crowd, and almost forgetful of the kindly little boy, then only three and a half years old, who was walking by her side. He reminded her that he was there by pulling her hand earnestly, and when she looked down to him, he said, "Mother, don't cry!" — for he saw the tears were stealing down her cheeks — "I will be the father," and the whole soul of the child was in his face. As he spoke those words the warmth of summer and the life of the spring-time of joy came again into the mother's heart. God spared him to fulfil his promise, and to receive the blessing that is annexed to the fifth commandment, and I am glad he is living to-day a prosperous and honourable merchant. It is some years-since I joined him in laying his mother's honoured head in the grave. Shortly before she died she was able, beautifully and lovingly, to testify that her son had amply redeemed the promise of his childhood, that what his father would have been, had he been spared, her son had successfully tried to be to her. ( J. G. Cunningham. ) Respect for a mother New Orleans Democrat. Men who have risen from humble life to wealth and high social rank have often been ashamed of their parents, and shown them little attention or respect. Such treatment indicates a vulgar mind. True nobility follows a different method. Richard Hurd, an eminent bishop of the Church of England at the close of the last century, was a man of courtly manners, of great learning, who moved with distinction in the best society in the kingdom. George III. pronounced him "the most naturally polite man he had ever known." He, however, never failed to show the utmost respect for his mother, a farmer's wife, of no education, but of sterling character. When he entertained large companies at the Episcopal Palace, he led her with a stately courtesy to the head of the table, and paid her the greatest deference. The high-born families who sat at his table reverenced his conduct, so becoming to a son and a gentleman. ( New Orleans Democrat. ) Sacred to the memory of a mother J. Parker, D. D. "I want," said the late Emperor of Germany, the last but one, the great William, "I want a lamp such as Such-and-so has," naming some distinguished member of the Court. The lamp was provided according to the very pattern, but his Majesty complained, on returning to his study after withdrawment, that he could not bear the savour of the room; the lamp was emitting smoke, and it was altogether intolerable, One of the secondary servants knew the reason, but dare not name it to his Majesty. One of the higher servants learned the cause and brought it under his Majesty's attention. "It is because your Majesty turns down the light when you leave the study that occasions the emission of smoke and vapours, and if you will cease to do that all will be well." "Ah," said the sweet old patriarch of his nation, "I know how that is. I learned that in the days of our poverty. After the battle of Jena we were very poor, and my mother never allowed us to leave the room at night without turning down the light, and I continue to turn down the light in memory of my mother." A beautiful example, a tender domestic story that. Here is a man who could have had a thousand lamps, yet in memory of the days of his poverty, when his mother taught him the uses of money, he kept turning down the light, saying, "Sacred to the memory of my mother." ( J. Parker, D. D. ) And keep My Sabbaths. The Sabbath kept During the latter part of his life General Jackson was in the habit of coming down to New Orleans to see his old friends and comrades in arms and participate in the celebration of the glorious 8th of January. It happened on one of these visits that the 8th occurred on Sunday. General Plauche called upon the old hero and requested him to accompany the military to the battle-ground on the anniversary of the great day. "I am going to church to-morrow," mildly observed the General. The military preparations for the celebration went on, and on Sunday morning at ten o'clock General Plauche called at the St. Charles and informed General Jackson that the military and civic processions were ready to accompany him to the scene of his glory. "General Plauche," responded old Hickory, turning upon him the glance of his kindling eye, "I told you I was going to church to-day." General Plauche withdrew, muttering to himself, "I might have known better." The celebration was postponed till the next day. Turn ye not unto idols. Leviticus 19:4 Folly of idolatry VanDoren, D. D. — A Chinese wife was one day seen by a missionary to enter a temple. In her hands were some humble offerings, such as a twig, or rice, for propitiating the poor, blind deity. There he stood, some forty feet high, blackened and begrimed with the smoke of incense for hundreds of years. She presented her petition; she called upon the idol to protect and return in safety her husband, then on the sea in a storm. A few weeks after the missionary was there, and saw the same female enter the temple in a rage. She stood before the grim idol and cursed it for being so blind, so deaf, so helpless, as to let her husband perish! Yes, the wailing widow of heathen life only echoed the sad complaints of millions in Christian lands. They found their hopes and build their plans on just such baseless, blind, deaf gods as this humble dweller in darkness. The worldling ever prays to a god that is deaf and blind I ( VanDoren, D. D. ) Thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field . Leviticus 19:9, 10 A sermon to gleaners O. B. Courtenay, M. A. The subject of gleaning in the fields may appear to some to be a very lowly one, and an address delivered exclusively to those who have been engaged in it, unnecessary: but a little reflection will suffice to remove such objections, if they ever existed in the mind of any person. Gleaning is not a humbler employment than that of a fisherman, and if the Lord turned the latter so as to convey instruction to His followers, there is no reason why the former should be beneath the notice of His ministers, in their efforts to reach the consciences of men. The custom of gleaning in the fields is very ancient. It is probable that it prevailed in the land of Canaan long before it was taken possession of by the children of Israel, and it is not unlikely that they found it there and adopted the practice. The nations who dwelt in this land were so wicked and abandoned that they were marked for destruction by the sword of Israel and of God. Their fields were fertile far beyond any fertility which now exists, as it was not an uncommon thing for grain to be reaped a hundred times beyond what was sown. The vines were so fruitful and the clusters were so large that the two men who went out as spies from the camp of the Israelites at Kadesh-Barnea, returned from the valley of Eschol carrying one bunch of grapes on a staff upon their shoulders as a specimen of what they saw growing in the vineyards. The gleaning of such fields and of such vineyards must have afforded no insignificant reward. When the Jews obtained possession of the land, after they had driven out the nations which were before them, God recognised gleaning in the Mosaic Law, and laid down rules for its regulation. The text which I have chosen from the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus contains part of this law; the rest will be found in Deuteronomy 24 . God sanctioned the practice, and commanded that some grain and olives and grapes should be left to be gleaned by the poor, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and thus He required the Jews to pay to those who are more immediately depending for support on His bounty, a sort of tribute in acknowledgment of the tenure under which they held their land. The Jews paid no rent, because God Himself was the owner, having given it to them without price or reward; and when He commanded them to leave something for the poor gleaners in harvest, He did so that He might be able to bless His people in all the work of their hands. The reason why the Almighty sanctioned the practice of gleaning is very similar to this notion. He commanded His people to allow their fields to be gleaned, that they might always be kept in remembrance that they had been bondmen in Egypt. The recollection of this slavery was also preserved among them by the Sabbath, and by the command to do strict justice between man and man, as if the Almighty intended that the people, after they had attained to national power and prosperity, should be continually reminded of "the rock from whence they were hewn, and of the hole of the pit from whence they were digged." The sight of poor persons gleaning in the fields always reminded the Jews that they had been in slavery in Egypt, and that like them they had been depending upon others for a hard and uncertain living. In' fact, both the gleaners and the owners of the fields had been bondmen, and both were alike the receivers of God's bounty, although in different ways and in different degrees. More than three thousand years have rolled past since this law was enacted, but the principle which it contains is just as applicable to gleaners now as it was then. The poor Jew, gleaning in the fields of his rich brethren, had been a slave, but after he got into the Promised Land he became free; and exactly so, every gleaner who now searches in the fields of the farmers for heads of grain is free. I mean to tell you that you are politically free, and that you do not owe obedience to any master, except you bind yourselves to serve him for some payment. You were never slaves, as the Jews had been in Egypt, when they were forced to serve in a cruel bondage. But, let me ask you, are you really free? When you were gleaning in the fields this harvest, could you say with truth that you had once been slaves, but that you were now free? A person gleaning in the fields in harvest may be free, but she is a slave, bound hand and foot, if sin have the dominion over her. A woman gathering heads of grain in the fields may be free, but she is a slave if she spend her hard-won earnings in the public-house, drinking out of the cup which cheers, but swallowing along with the drink liquid fire and death. That gleaner is free who goes out and comes in without any to forbid, but she is a slave to the custom of gleaning, which is otherwise lawful, if, for the sake of the trifle which she may obtain in this way, she neglects her children, her husband, and her home. Every gleaner is as free as the air of heaven, but they are all slaves to their own passions if they are unable to agree together in the same field, and begin to use abusive language, to quarrel about rights which have no existence, except in the goodwill of the farmer, exhibiting scenes which could only find a parallel in the fields of the degraded Canaanites before they were driven out by the Jews. There is not a gleaner in the land who is not absolutely free, but every one of them is bound in fetters far stronger than fetters of iron or of brass, if, with this privilege of gleaning in another man's fields at their command, they have thankless hearts, and entertain no gratitude to God for His mercy, nor to the farmers for their benevolence. This brings me in natural consequence to speak about the persons on whose behalf God made the law about gleaning. They are the poor, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. I do not know whether those who go out to glean in the fields in these days could be arranged into these four classes; but they at least furnish a guide as to the persons to whom the Almighty especially extends His care. He told His people that the poor should never cease out of the land, therefore He commanded them, saying, "Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor and to thy needy in thy land." The poor are the objects of God's special protection, as long as they lead lives of holiness and humility, contented with their lot, and confident in the mercy of Heaven. If they are profligate and ungodly, dishonest and discontented, idle and careless, not one of the promises in Scripture will apply to them any more than they do to any of God's open and avowed enemies. 2. The next class of persons who were permitted to glean in the fields were strangers, from whatever country they might have come, as was Ruth, who was a daughter of Moab. God also made provision for them, knowing how unhappy is the lot of that man who is an exile from his native land. He commanded His people not on any account to do them an injury: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." God by His providence watches over strangers, and never fails to reward those who help them, whether by allowing them to glean in the fields in harvest-time, or in any other manner. 3. The next class who were allowed to glean were the fatherless, whose parent was dead. If the Jew drove off from his fields in harvest a poor fatherless child, who wanted to glean some heads of corn, I have no doubt that he was guilty of a sin and a crime. There is no obligation upon any Christian man to allow such a one to search over his fields at this season of the year, but when he does permit the fatherless to glean up what the reapers have left behind, I make no doubt that he does that which is pleasing in the sight of God, and he will be able to understand, from the description of the judgment in the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew, that the reward will far outbalance the kindness. 4. The only other class whom God allowed to be gleaners were widows. Like the poor, the stranger, and the fatherless, God always remembers them. Let them always remember, that, whether they may be in a cornfield among other gleaners, like Ruth in the field of Boaz, or, like the woman of Sidon, alone in a cottage with scarce enough food to eat, or, like the widow of Nain, following in tears an only son to the grave, God watches over them, and commands His angels to give them an invisible but effectual protection. There is little more to be said on this subject of gleaning, beyond one other consideration, which we shall do well to lay seriously to heart. We reflected upon the great harvest of men, which is to be gathered in by the angelic reapers at the end of this dispensation. That will be a harvest after which there will be no gleaning. ( O. B. Courtenay, M. A. ) Harvest gleanings W. H. Jellie. How notable are the provisions made in the Mosaic Law for the poor. 1. The Sabbatical year ( Exodus 23 . 10, 11; cf. Deuteronomy 15:12, 15 ). 2. The equalisation of the atonement money for poor and rich, thus establishing the value of the poor as equal to the rich ( Exodus 30:12 ). 3. The same minute directions for the poor man's offerings, showing God's equal interest in his sacrifice (chap. 2. &c.) 4. And here the command that the harvest and vintage gleanings should be left (vers. 9, 10). Notice — I. THAT THE HUMANE LAWS OF MODERN TIMES, respecting gleaning privileges, are all based upon this Mosaic command. Everywhere there is a popular feeling that the farmer should allow, and was not entitled to prevent the poor from gathering what the reaper left behind. In England the custom of gleaning had very nearly passed into a legal right, for there is an extra judicial dictum of Lord Hall, in which he says that those who enter a field for this purpose are not guilty of trespass; and Blackstone (3:12) seems to adopt his opinion. But that has since been twice tried, and decided in the negative in the Court of Common Pleas; the Court finding it to be a practice incompatible with the exclusive enjoyment of property, and productive of vagrancy and many mischievous consequences. "It is still, however, the custom all over England to allow the poor to glean, at least after the harvest is carried" (Chambers). II. THAT A BENEVOLENT HELPFULNESS IN RESPECT OF THE POOR IS A SPECIAL OBLIGATION OF THOSE WHO ENJOY PLENTY. 1. With God in thought the rich will spare of their abundance that the poor may be fed. You owe all to Him, especially in harvest; and, therefore, share with the needy His gifts to you. 2. Amid harvest rejoicings, gratitude should incite to generosity. "As ye have received, give!" Seek occasion to gladden others — those in need. God is lavish; let your "hands be open" also ( Psalm 145:16 ). 3. Kindness to the poor has especial assurances of Divine approval ( Psalm 9:18 ; Psalm 12:5 ). III. THAT THIS GENEROUS CONSIDERATION FOR THE POOR IS A TOKEN OF GOD'S REGARD FOR THE LOWLY. 1. Their maintenance engaged the Divine attention. For them "the corner" of the field was claimed from the reapers, and to them was assigned the right to clear the ground. It was their part in the national soil, the poor had this heritage in the land. And God enjoins on His Church now to "care for the poor." They are Christ's bequeathment to His disciples. "The poor always ye have with you." 2. Their salvation is prominently sought in the gospel. "To the poor the gospel is preached." And "God hath chosen the poor rich in faith." He who showed concern for their physical supply and maintenance, as emphatically manifests His desire that they be "blessed with all spiritual blessings" in Christ. Therefore —(1) The poor should cherish a grateful and trustful hope in their God.(2) They should value the high mercies of redemption in Christ beyond all the kindnesses of His providence. For the favours of providence only affect them temporally, but "the riches of His grace" are of eternal consequence.(3) Let none, because of lowliness or poverty, despond of God's favour. All His regulations prove that "He careth for you." Look unto Him with assurance. ( W. H. Jellie. ) A margin for the benefit of the poor J. Cumming, D. D. I think one of the most beautiful traits in the provision and economy of God in the Old Testament Scriptures is the constant reference to the poor. The permanency of the rich and the poor is what Christ Himself has declared; there will be rich and poor as long as this dispensation lasts, and any attempt to break down the distinction entails calamity on the nation that makes it. The distinction does exist, and will exist as long as men live and intellectual energies differ in degree — for the fact is, men are not all equal, they may talk as they will that all men are equal. In one sense, before God, all men are equal; but in another respect they are not. One man has more physical energy or more mental energy than another. One man has more skill than another, one man more activity than another; and several things are constantly keeping up that broad and palpable distinction between them that have and them that have not. But just as the Israelite reaper left some ears of corn for the poor and for the stranger, so you, in estimating your labours, which are to you for all practical purposes your cornfields, in arranging your profits, your gains, your losses, ought to have a balance or a margin for the benefit of the poor, the destitute, and the needy. God especially blessed a nation that took care of the poor; and God still provides for and pronounces blessed those that consider the poor. I know that what are called "poor's rates" are extremely objectionable, because, when you pay your poor's rates you give a tax, and when the poor get in the workhouse, the bread that it buys they take as a right, and the consequence is, all benevolence on your part is quenched, and all gratitude on the part of the poor is ruined also. But then, such is the hardness of the human heart in so many cases, that a wise and merciful Government is bound to make the law, and to compel that as a right which many would much rather give as the act of benevolence and kindness. But because you do pay poor's rates you still must leave a margin to give something; for those rates are not yet intolerable, and on all occasions we should be delighted that we have an opportunity of making the heart of the widow rejoice and the orphan sing for joy. ( J. Cumming, D. D. ) Ye shall not steal. Leviticus 19:11 Stealing discouraged Dr. Richardson. The illustrious Joseph Priestley tells us in his Memoir that he was influenced in his very earliest life by an act of his mother, who died when he was seven years old. He had returned from visiting his cousins, and had brought home a pin. "Where did you get that pin from, Joseph?" said his mother. "I brought it from my cousins'." "Then," she said, "it is not yours — take it back"; and he was gently and lovingly, yet firmly, made to take it back. So great was the impression made on his mind that afterwards not the smallest detail of wrong could he ever think of without being influenced by the recollection of that simple admonition. Such is the influence upon the young life of all that it sees. It is the tabula rasa on which you write your words and thoughts in the deeds that are yet to come. ( Dr. Richardson. ) Neither lie one to another. Discredit gained by falsehood When Aristotle was asked what a man could gain by telling a falsehood, he replied, "Never to be credited when he tells the truth." Truth-telling Mrs. Spurgeon. I remember some years ago, when living in a country town in Kent, the superintendent of our Sunday School saying: "We are to have an address this afternoon. Mr. Waters has asked to say a few words to us." True to hit promise he soon came into the chapel, and all eyes were on him. "My dear teachers, you often think you labour in vain, but it is not so; I want to encourage you this afternoon. This last week I have met with two circumstances which have pleased me much. One day I was in my shop, when a stone came through the window. I went to the door; there were a good many boys in the road; I called out, 'Who broke my window?' No answer. I then asked several of them, but all said, 'No, not me.' Just then a little lad stepped up and said, 'I am very sorry, sir, but I did it.' 'But how is it, my lad, that you own to it? Come in and tell me.' 'Sir, I go to the Sunday School, and I can't tell a lie.' Well done, John Rolfe, I have come here this afternoon to give you a shilling — not for breaking my window, no, no, but for speaking the truth, and practising what you hear." ( Mrs. Spurgeon. ) Truth a handle to lying H. W. Beecher. — A lie always needs a truth for a handle to it, else the hand would cut itself which sought to drive it home upon another. The worst lies, therefore, are those whose blade is false, but whose handle is true. ( H. W. Beecher. ) Prolific lying J. Trapp. One sin entertained fetcheth in another; a lie especially, which being a tinkerly, blushful sin, is either denied by the liar, who is ashamed to be taken with it, or else covered by another and another lie, as we see in Jacob, who, being once over shoes will be over boots too but he will persuade his father that he is his very son Esau. ( J. Trapp. ) Ye shall not swear by My name falsely. Leviticus 19:12 False swearing W. H. Jellie. All nations have severely punished perjury. The Egyptians with dentil or mutilation; the Greeks with heavy fines and ultimate loss of all civil rights; the Romans visited it with the penalty of death. These ancient nations all held that the gods were especially incensed by this crime, and that a Divine Nemesis pursued the perjurer. I. WHAT SWEARING BY GOD'S NAME ENTAILS. 1. Acknowledgment of His Omniscience. It calls Him to witness, and imprecates Him as the avenger of falsehood. 2. Acknowledgment of His righteousness. He is to be the umpire and arbitrator. We call in as a witness to our fidelity only such a one as is himself faithful and true, and will act a right part. Such is God. Man's use of His name is an appeal to the certainty that He will judge aright. II. WHAT PERJURY IN GOD'S NAME ENTAILS. 1. An insolent affront upon God's character. It is infamy, daring insolence, the degradation of His most holy name for unholy ends. It invokes Him to act as a witness that a lie is true. Yet He loathes falsity. It is defiant trifling, an affront to the God of truth. It "profanes His name." 2. A certain visitation of judgment. He "will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain" ( Exodus 20:7 ). Certainly, therefore, He will punish lying and profanity. Having been called in as a witness to a lie, He will prove that He witnessed it. Thus to insult His love of truth and defy His power to vindicate it, and trail the purity of His character in the mire — before whom the very angels veil their faces as they adore Him — will ensure a just requital ( Hebrews 10:30 ). And "there shall in no wise enter the heavenly city any who loveth and maketh a lie" ( Revelation 21:27 ). ( W. H. Jellie. ) Perjury John Allen, M. A. I. WHAT PERJURY IS, AND HOW MANY WAYS IT IS COMMITTED. 1. Perjury is a swearing by God's name falsely, a calling God to witness for the confirmation of a lie. 2. It is committed several ways.(1) When men do assert and testify upon oath a thing to be true which they know to be false.(2) When men do assert and testify upon oath a thing to be true of the truth of which they are not fully assured.(3) They that promise upon oath, what they intended not to perform, or are unresolved and indifferent whether they shall perform it or not. These are, ipso facto , guilty of perjury, because they swear by God's name falsely; they call God to witness and to vouch for the truth and sincerity of their promise, when the intention of their minds does not concur with the wools of their mouths.(4) They also are guilty of perjury that having promised upon oath sincerely and with an honest intention do yet afterwards fall off and renounce the obligation, do not faithfully and resolvedly endeavour and take care to fulfil their word, do act contrary to their oath when a just occasion requires and calls for the performance of their promise or sworn duty.(5) They are involved in the guilt of perjury who against, or without the consent of the Supreme Power, do fra

19:1-37 laws. - There are some ceremonial precepts in this chapter, but most of these precepts are binding on us, for they are explanations of the ten commandments. It is required that Israel be a holy people, because the God of Israel is a holy God, ver. 2. To teach real separation from the world and the flesh, and entire devotedness to God. This is now the law of Christ; may the Lord bring every thought within us into obedience to it! Children are to be obedient to their parents, ver. 3. The fear here required includes inward reverence and esteem, outward respect and obedience, care to please them and to make them easy. God only is to be worshipped, ver. 4. Turn not from the true God to false ones, from the God who will make you holy and happy, to those that will deceive you, and make you for ever miserable. Turn not your eyes to them, much less your heart. They should leave the gleanings of their harvest and vintage for the poor, ver. 9. Works of piety must be always attended with works of charity, according to our ability. We must not be covetous, griping, and greedy of every thing we can lay claim to, nor insist upon our right in all things. We are to be honest and true in all our dealings, ver. 11. Whatever we have in the world, we must see that we get it honestly, for we cannot be truly rich, or long rich, with that which is not so. Reverence to the sacred name of God must be shown, ver. 12. We must not detain what belongs to another, particularly the wages of the hireling, ver. 13. We must be tender of the credit and safety of those that cannot help themselves, ver. 14. Do no hurt to any, because they are unwilling or unable to avenge themselves. We ought to take heed of doing any thing which may occasion our weak brother to fall. The fear of God should keep us from doing wrong things, though they will not expose us to men's anger. Judges, and all in authority, are commanded to give judgment without partiality, ver. 15. To be a tale-bearer, and to sow discord among neighbours, is as bad an office as a man can put himself into. We are to rebuke our neighbour in love, ver. 17. Rather rebuke him than hate him, for an injury done to thyself. We incur guilt by not reproving; it is hating our brother. We should say, I will do him the kindness to tell him of his faults. We are to put off all malice, and to put on brotherly love, ver. 18. We often wrong ourselves, but we soon forgive ourselves those wrongs, and they do not at all lessen our love to ourselves; in like manner we should love our neighbour. We must in many cases deny ourselves for the good of our neighbour. Ver. 31: For Christians to have their fortunes told, to use spells and charms, or the like, is a sad affront to God. They must be grossly ignorant who ask, What harm is there in these things? Here is a charge to young people to show respect to the aged, ver. 32. Religion teaches good manners, and obliges us to honour those to whom honour is due. A charge was given to the Israelites to be very tender of strangers, ver. 33. Strangers, and the widows and fatherless, are God's particular care. It is at our peril, if we do them any wrong. Strangers shall be welcome to God's grace; we should do what we can to recommend religion to them. Justice in weights and measures is commanded, ver. 35. We must make conscience of obeying God's precepts. We are not to pick and choose our duty, but must aim at standing complete in all the will of God. And the nearer our lives and tempers are to the precepts of God's law, the happier shall we be, and the happier shall we make all around us, and the better shall we adorn the gospel.