. g 
 
 THE LAW OF 
 LOVE 
 
 IN THE OLD AND 
 
 NEW TESTAMENTS 
 
 BY 
 
 The Rev. GERALD FR1EDLANDER 
 
 Jftinister of the Western Synagogue, St. James's, London, S.W. 
 Sometime Hebrew Master at Unioersity College School, London 
 
 PRICE - SIXPENCE 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 J. Miles & Co. Ltd.. 68-70, Wardour Street, W. 
 1909
 
 tie tbe /IDemors of 
 Beloved parents 
 
 2116771
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 1" N the following pages the writer's aim is to investigate 
 -*- the meaning in pre-Christian times of the divine com- 
 mandment, ' Love thy neighbour as thyself.' (Lev. xix., 18.) 
 There can be no permanent excuse for prejudice or 
 ignorance. It is high time to protest against the uncritical 
 and unjust attitude adopted by many Christian writers, who 
 seek to glorify their own religion by belittling Judaism. 
 It cannot be gainsaid that Judaism is the parent of 
 Christianity and Mahommedanism. If all the Jewish ele- 
 ments were eliminated from Christianity, there would be 
 nothing left to distinguish it from the best parts of the 
 ancient religion of Rome which it displaced. Christian 
 scholars claim for Christianity universal ethical teaching, 
 but deny that Judaism ever reached this stage. It will be 
 our endeavour to examine this attitude in an impartial spirit 
 and, as far as possible, to let facts speak for themselves.
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE LAW OF LOVE IN JUDAISM FROM THE CHRISTIAN' 
 STANDPOINT. 
 
 IN his latest book, ' The Faith of a Modern Protestant/ 
 Professor W. Bousset of Gottingen deals with the 
 meaning- of love in the Old Testament. He says {p. 
 75) : ' Here we find indeed the text, ' Thou shalt love thy 
 neighbour as thyself,' but at the same" time it is clear that 
 this command was at first limited to fellow countrymen, and 
 that love rested on the basis of natural sympathy and nation- 
 ality. Only very gradually did there enter into later Judaism 
 the thought of the solidarity of all mankind, and man was 
 put almost on a level with a compatriot. I say almost on a 
 level, for the above-mentioned feeling of national obligation 
 was never really completely overcome. It is only in the 
 
 Gospel that we get the final and real freedom It 
 
 is, nevertheless, a fact that in the Gospel .... a new 
 and higher ideal of life was given to mankind, which united 
 man and man, and leaped over the boundaries of all 
 nationalities.' 
 
 Dr. Charles, in his scholarly introduction to the Testament 
 of the XII. Patriarchs, says, with reference to Lev. xix. 18, 
 that the ' sphere of brotherhood is limited to Israelites.' 
 
 In Garvie's ' Studies in the inner life of Jesus,' p. 255, 
 we find a similar opinion. ' In setting aside the limitation 
 of love to a neighbour in the text, Lev. xix. 18, neighbour is 
 defined by the phrase the children of thy people, while the 
 words hate thine enemy, as quoted by Jesus, although not a 
 literal citation, are warranted by Deut. xxiii. 6.' 
 
 Again, in the new Cambridge Revised Edition of St. 
 Matthew, p. 29, we read : ' the second clause (to hate one's 
 enemy; does not occur in I^eviticus, but was a Rabbinical 
 inference. Heathen writers bear witness to this unsociable 
 characteristic of the Jews.' 
 
 Fairweather's ' Background of the Gospel,' p. 19, says : 
 ' A further feature of Jewish ethics as conditioned by the 
 Law is its narrow particularism. It lacks width of horizon, 
 and has no outlook into the universal. An Israelite's duties 
 are regarded as limited to his own people.' 
 
 Plummer's ' Exegetical Commentary on St. Matthew,' 
 p. 87, points out that to the Jew ' no Gentile was a 
 neighbour,' in connection with the text Lev. xix. 18. 
 
 We are told by The Century Bible, ' St. Mark,' p. 286 : 
 ' In Leviticus the word neighbour is used with reference to 
 fellow Jews. In the New Testament it has the widest 
 possible extension of meaning.' 
 
 The Pulpit Commentary on St. Matthew, Vol. I., contains 
 the following passages: 'Dealing with that strange inference 
 of the Pharisees, that because we are commanded to love our
 
 neighbours we are therefore required to hate our enemies, 
 Jesus presents the true idea of love, the perfect conception of 
 love,' p. 227. 
 
 The Pharisees had added a false and wicked gloss : 
 'Thou shalt hate thine enemy.' p. 178. 
 
 In the article 'Jesus' in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, by 
 the late Prof. A. B. Bruce, col. 2444, stress is laid on the 
 contrast between Jesus's interpretation of the law and that 
 current in the Rabbinical schools. ' The law is interpreted 
 by the Scribes, externalised and restricted in scope ; as 
 interpreted by Jesus, inward and infinite. Thou shalt love 
 thy neighbour, and doing- that thou doest enough, said (in 
 effect) the Scribe ; thou shalt love all, making no distinction 
 between fellow-countrymen or strangers, friend or foe, except 
 as to the form love takes, said Jesus.' 
 
 For similar views see Hastings' ' Dictionary of Christ and 
 the Gospels,' Vol. II. , pp. 77 and 81, 'Encyclopaedia Biblica,' 
 Vol. III., col. 3389, Hastings' ' Dictionary of the Bible,' 
 Vol. III., p. 156, and the ' Bampton Lectures, 1907,' 
 pp. 194-5. These are but a few of the recognised authorities, 
 and represent the general Christian view as to the assumed 
 limitation attached to the law of loving one's neighbour. 
 
 Is it a fact that Judaism in pre-Christian times taught 
 that love to man was strictly limited to the Hebrew 
 people? Is it true that before the ministry of Jesus 
 the Jew hated his enemy ? If the writers quoted had only 
 given chapter and verse for their statements it would be 
 possible to test the validity of their conclusions. They all 
 agree in making similar assertions, but all signally fail to 
 give the slightest justification for their opinions. To assert 
 that Jewish ethics are narrow, or to deny that Judaism 
 teaches universal morality, is tantamount to saying that its 
 religious system is merely in a state of development. It 
 reached, so we are told, its consummation in the new 
 revelation contained in the Gospels. 
 
 We are all agreed that a religion must be finally judged 
 by the value it sets on God and man. If a religion is found 
 to be narrow, it will be justly rejected as lacking perfection. 
 Duties to God and to man must be free from all limitations. 
 The question which now confronts us is what did Judaism 
 teach as to man's duty to God, and also as to his duty to his 
 neighbour, prior to the New Testament period. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 WHO is ISRAEL'S NEIGHBOUR? 
 
 The Hebrew Scriptures do not begin with the history of 
 Israel. Genesis is the record of the universal history of 
 mankind. The Bible emphasizes the unity of the human
 
 family. We are further reminded that the first parents of 
 humanity were created in the image of the one God, the 
 Creator of all. One God for one humanity is the ever- 
 recurring' message. Mankind is therefore one family in a 
 double aspect, not only as the children of Adam, but also as 
 the children of God bearing within them the image divine. 
 The Hebrews knew God as the God of the spirits of all 
 flesh (Nu. xvi. 22) and as the Father and Creator of the 
 human family (Gen. i. 27). It is the Pharisees who say to 
 Jesus, ' We have one Father, even God.' (Jn. viii. 41). 
 
 It is a fundamental error to think that the Jew ever 
 believed that the Hebrew Scriptures entrusted to his care 
 were for his people only. The books of Ruth, Job, Jonah 
 and Proverbs, among others, prove that the Bible is by 
 no means only concerned with the fortunes of Israel. 
 According to a Baraitha of the second century, Job was a 
 pious heathen and therefore found grace in the sight of 
 God. (B. Bathra 156). Bertholet, in his valuable book, 
 ' Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden ' 
 (pp. 175-6), clearly shows that the outlook of the Bible is 
 universal. Every man sees in any other man his brother 
 (ish ahiv, Gen. ix. 5). The Bible insists on the divine call 
 of Israel to be a light to the Gentiles (Is. xlii. 6 and xlix. 6). 
 The hope in a Messiah is to be the salvation of all the "world. 
 In this hope we have the universal spirit of the highest 
 religion which has never been grasped by any other creed. 
 The Jew heard of universal brotherhood and peace long 
 before the dawn of Christianity. Every unbiassed critic 
 will readily acknowledge that the Founder of Christianity 
 based his teaching on the Old Testament and its Rabbinical 
 interpretation. This has been proved by Wiinsche in his 
 ' Neue Beitriige zur Erlauterung der Evangelien." 
 
 Justin Martyr, spea'king of the Stoics, claims that what- 
 ever has been well expressed in the writings of others 
 belongs to the Christians. (Apol. ii. 13). See also Hibbert 
 Journal Supplement, pp. 225 and 274.. 
 
 The last five commandments of the Decalogue (Ex. xx. 
 13-17) are universal in their scope. They tell every man 
 what he is not to do to his neighbour. The term neighbour 
 (Hebrew Re^a) is repeated four times. These negative 
 precepts are but another aspect of the positive commandment, 
 ' Love thy neighbour (Rc'a) as thyself,' (Lev. xix. 18). If 
 we love our fellow creatures we shall not murder, nor commit 
 adultery, nor steal, nor bear false witness, nor covet. To 
 whom does the term 'neighbour' refer? It would be most 
 absurd to contend that one's neighbour only means one's 
 fellow countryman. Does God, the Universal Father, 
 sanction murder, adultery, theft, slander and covetousness 
 so long as the crime does not concern Israel s fellow country- 
 men ? These commandments naturally refer to man's duties 
 to all men, wiihout distinction of race or creed. (See II Sam. 
 xii, 9, 14). This is also the standpoint adopted by Paul in
 
 his Epistle to the Romans. ' Owe no man anything-, save 
 to love him, for he that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled 
 the law. For this, Thou shall not commit adultery, 
 Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt 
 not covet, and if there be any other commandment it is 
 summed up in these words, Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
 as thyself.' (Rom. xiii. 8, 9). Paul, like the Rabbis, holds 
 the great commandments to be for all men. 
 
 The Mekhilta comments on the text, ' And they encamped 
 in the wilderness ' (Ex. xix. 2), in the following words : 
 'The Law was given as the common inheritance of all men, and 
 therefore was revealed in the wilderness which is no man's 
 land. Had God given it in the land of Israel, then the 
 Israelites might have reasonably claimed it as their exclusive 
 possession.' Hence we infer that it is God's gift to all men, 
 irrespective of race and creed. All who wish to accept it may 
 do so. 
 
 Again, from the text Ex. xix. 18, we learn ' that the Law 
 was given in the wilderness, amidst fire and water. Just as 
 these three are given by kind nature to all men, so is the 
 Law likewise bestowed upon the world.' (Mekhilta on 
 Ex. xx. 2). 
 
 Paul summed up the Law in the text, ' Thou shalt love 
 thy neighbour as thyself,' which occurs in Lev. xix. 18. In 
 this passage the Hebrew for neighbour is the same word, Re^a, 
 which occurs in the Decalogue. Re^a is used for anyone, not 
 necessarily of the Hebrew race. At the Exodus the Hebrews 
 were to ask ' each one of his Re'a (i.e. neighbour) vessels of 
 silver and gold.' (Ex. xi. 2). In this context Re 1 a refers to 
 the Egyptians. Tertullian argues that the Hebrews had 
 every right to these gifts as a payment for their long 
 servitude (adv. Mk. ii. 20). Gesenius does not give 'fellow- 
 countryman' as a possible meaning of Re^a. Following the 
 LXX., he gives ' fellow-creature ' as the translation in ethical 
 passages. The Hebrew for fellow-countryman would be 
 Ibri, or Ben Israel, Ammfkha. As in the Decalogue, so in the 
 command ' Love thy neighbour,' Re k a means anyone, any 
 human being. Again in Ex. xxi. 14 we read, ' But if a 
 man cometh cunningly upon his neighbour (Re^ti) to slay him 
 with guile, thou shalt take him from my altar that he may 
 die.' This precept is repeated in Lev. xxiv. verses 17 and 21, 
 ' He who slays any man shall be put to death.' In this 
 context Re'a is replaced by another word for man (Adam}. 
 From these two passages it is clear that Re 1 a and Adam are 
 synonymous. Re'a, like Adam, means any human being. 
 The Greek word for neighbour in Mt. v. 43, or wherever it 
 occurs in the New Testament (e.g. Romans xiii. 9, James ii. 8) 
 is ' Plesion,' the same word used by the LXX. to translate 
 AV'a in Lev. xix. 18. This is a clear proof that the meaning 
 of neighbour in all these passages is identical. If neighbour 
 in the New Testament is unlimited in its scope, so is it in the 
 Old Testament.
 
 The text Mt. v. 43, ' Ye have heard that it hath been said 
 Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy,' says 
 more than Lev. xix. 18 : it adds to the words of the Law. 
 For the first time we read ' Hate thine enemy ' as though it 
 were a quotation from the Pentateuch. These words are 
 not to be found in the whole of the Old Testament or 
 in any Rabbinical commentary. It is a remarkable inter- 
 pretation of the law of loving one's neighbour for Christianity 
 to attribute to Judaism the unfounded accusation that Israel 
 was bidden to hate her enemies. Garvie alone attempts to 
 justify this statement. He says it is warranted by the passage 
 in Deut. xxiii. 6. This is quite unfair. In this passage Israel 
 is bidden not to seek the prosperity and peace of Ammon and 
 Moab only. It is an unfair inference to assert that Israel is 
 even to hate these two nations. Moreover, it is natural to 
 infer that the prosperity and peace of all other nations are 
 the concern of Israel. The attitude of Israel towards Moab 
 and Ammon was neutral. David shewed kindness to 
 Hanun, King of the children of Ammon (II. Sam. x. i, 2). 
 One nation can be indifferent to another nation without 
 harbouring feelings of enmity. Neither the Cambridge 
 Revised Edition of St. Matthew nor the Pulpit Commentary 
 give any reference to the sources whence they draw their 
 indictment as to the ' wicked gloss ' or 'inference' of the 
 Pharisees. In truth they cannot. 
 
 Montefiore in his Hibbert Lectures (p. 157) asserts that 
 the prophets of the 8th century helped ' to produce a 
 particularism narrower and more fatal than that which they 
 had destroyed.' Again, we are told that 'the nations are 
 naturally and essentially the wicked enemies of Israel and 
 of God' (p. 158). 
 
 Apart from the authority of Wellhausen, there is not the 
 slightest evidence adduced for these statements. The 
 evidence is all in the opposite direction. Amos (ix. 5) 
 only knows God as the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of All. Not 
 once in this book is God called the God of Israel. The 
 remarkable passage, ' Are ye not as the children of the 
 Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel ? saith the Lord. 
 Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and 
 the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?' 
 occurs in Amos ix. 7. It is just the teaching of the prophets 
 of the 8th century that justifies Kuenen's view that ' the 
 prophetic teaching concerning God must appeal to all pos- 
 sessed of a human" heart.' (' Volksreligion u Weltreligion,' 
 p. 141). 
 
 The prophets of the 8th century foretell the Messianic 
 age, when love, truth and peace will unite all men in one 
 brotherhood. 
 
 Montefiore says, ' Israel hates its enemies as the other 
 nations of antiquity hate theirs.' (p. 105). 'Deuteronomy 
 
 aimed at producing a holy people There is no 
 
 thought for the world beyond.' (p. 191).
 
 Such statements are easily asserted and easily disproved. 
 (See Deut. ii. 5, iv. 32, x. 14 and xxxii. 8). Deuteronomy is 
 marked by a spirit of toleration unknown in any other 
 non-biblical law book. (See Deut. xx. 10, xxiv. 14, v. 14). 
 'The distinctive note,' says the Encyclopaedia Biblica, cul. 
 1093, ' of the deuteronomic legislation is humanity, philan- 
 throphy, charity.' 
 
 Montefiore's views do not by any means agree with the 
 standpoint of the Encyclopaedia Biblica. 
 
 The Cambridge Revised Edition of St. Matthew draws 
 attention to the witness borne by heathen writers to the 
 unsociable attitude of the Jews. Bertholet (p. 306 sgg.) deals 
 at length with this question, but omits to notice that Tacitus 
 charges the Christians with ' hatred for the human race ' 
 (odium humani generis, Ann. xv. 44). This is therefore 
 not admissible as evidence to disprove that the Jew, 
 any more than the Christian, evinced a friendly attitude 
 to the heathen. Jewish literature is full of precepts teaching 
 the duty of friendship to all men. To prove this statement 
 we will give a few quotations from Jewish writers earlier 
 than the time when the New Testament was written. All 
 the writers mentioned, who wrote in Greek, deeply influenced 
 some of the writers of parts of the New Testament. (See 
 Krenkel's ' Josephus u Lucas,' and Siegfried's ' Philo,' 
 
 PP- 2 73-399)- 
 
 In the fragment of the lost Book of Noah, preserved in 
 the Book of Jubilees (136-96 B.C.E.), chap. vii. 20, Noah 
 exhorted his sons to observe righteousness and chastity, to 
 bless their Creator, to honour their father and mother, and 
 to love their neighbour. 
 
 The interesting point in this quotation is that the Israelites 
 considered Noah as the second father of man, and that his 
 message is universal in application. 
 
 Philo wrote : ' And if ever you give thanks for men and 
 their fortunes, do not do so only for the race taken generally, 
 but you shall give thanks also for the species and most 
 important parts of the race, such as men and women, 
 Greeks and barbarians, men on the continent and in the 
 islands.' (' On Animals Fit tor Sacrifice,' 6.) 
 
 ' He (Moses) also establishes other merciful laws, full of 
 gentleness and humanity, on behalf even of enemies.' 
 (Philo ' On Humanity,' 14. See Deut. xx. 10.) 
 
 ' We are not to be delighted at the unexpected mis- 
 fortunes of those who hate us, knowing that to rejoice in 
 the disasters of others is a malignant and odious passion. 
 Bestow benefits on your enemy, and then will follow of 
 necessity the dissolution of your enmity. (' On Humanity,' 
 15 and Ex. xxiii. 4, 5). 
 
 ' The principles of humanity concern one's own relations 
 and strangers and friends and enemies and slaves and free 
 men, and, in short, the whole of the human race.' (' On 
 Humanity,' 17 arid 18.)
 
 In the Sibylline Oracles (5, line 33) it is laid down that 
 4 the stranger shall be treated as the native.' 
 
 Bertholet (p. 203) draws attention to the universalistic 
 attitude of the teaching- of Jesus Sirach. Instead of Israel, 
 man or all flesh is spoken of. (Ecclus. xvii. i, xxxix. 19, 
 xl. i). Noteworthy is the passage (Ecclus. xiii, 15), ' every 
 living creature loveth his kind and every man loveth his 
 neighbour.' Bertholet expresses surprise that a Jew should 
 give utterance to such a noble idea. It occurs again, chap, 
 xviii. 13. (See J. H. A. Hart's ' Ecclesiasticus,' p. 311). 
 Philo has a similar thought ' It follows from one general 
 law of benevolence that every man is to love and cherish 
 a stranger in the same degree as himself.' ('On 
 Humanity,' 12.) In the Testament of the XII. Patriarchs 
 (109-105 B.C.E.) we read ' For the good man hath not 
 a dark eye, for he sheweth mercy to all men, even though 
 they be sinners. And though they devise with evil intent 
 concerning him, by doing good he overcometh evil.' (Test. 
 Benjamin iii. 2, 3. See Rom. xii. 21). 
 
 ' Show compassion and mercy without hesitation to all 
 men, and give to every man with a good heart.' (Test. 
 Zebulun vi. 4. See Lk. ii. 14) 
 
 ' I loved the Lord, likewise also every man with all my 
 heart.' (Test. Issachar v. 2. See Mark xii. 30, 31.) 
 
 The Pentateuch also teaches that the law is not only 
 concerned with Israel. ' Ye shall have one manner of law, 
 as well for the stranger as for the homeborn.' (Lev. xxiv. 
 
 22.) 
 
 We ask now : Will it be granted that Judaism includes in 
 the Law of Love the neighbour who is not of Israel ? In 
 case of doubt let us read two verses in the igth chapter of 
 Leviticus, where we also have the law of loving the neigh- 
 bour : ' And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye 
 shall not vex him, but the stranger that dwelleth with you 
 shall be unto you as one born among you, and thoit shalt love 
 him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt, 
 I am the Lord your God.' Here it is perfectly evident that 
 the stranger as well as the neighbour (Re'd) are both 
 included in the Law of Love. Why are we commanded to 
 love the stranger ? Because the stranger is thy brother, thy 
 neighbour in the kingdom of God on earth. The stranger, 
 although not of thy race or creed, is still 'as thyself as 
 thou art a son of God, created like thyself in the divine 
 image. He is as weak and mortal as you, needing the love 
 of God and man as much as you. All men need the air they 
 breathe, and equally need the love that refreshes the soul. 
 The world itself, says the Psalmist (Ps. Ixxxix. 2) according 
 to the Medrashic interpretation, is built with love. Love is 
 the basis, the essence, the all in all, of life. Love is an 
 attribute of God, and therefore is to be experienced by all 
 His children. This is an ideal, but was it put into practice? 
 Josephus writes : ' Nor are you to prohibit those that pass
 
 by at the time when your fruits are ripe to touch them, but 
 to give them leave to fill themselves full of what you have, 
 and this whether they be of your own country or strangers.' 
 (Antiq. 4.8, 234.) 
 
 ' Nay, let them desire that men come from other countries 
 to partake of those tokens of friendship which God has 
 given.' (Ibid. 236.) 
 
 ' Apion also tells a false story, when he mentions an oath 
 of ours, as if we swore by God the maker of the heavens and 
 the earth and sea, to beaf no goodwill to any foreigner.' 
 (Contra Apion 2, 121.) 
 
 ' For I suppose it will become evident that the laws are 
 for the general love of mankind.' (Ibid, 146.) 
 
 ' However, there are other things which our legislator 
 ordained for us beforehand, which of necessity we ought to 
 do in common to all men, as to afford fire, and water, and 
 food to such as want it, to shew them the roads, nor to let 
 anyone lie unburied. He also would have us treat those that 
 are esteemed our enemies with moderation.' (Ibid, 211). 
 
 Schiirer (English Translation, par. 31), refers to Juvenal's 
 allegation that the Roman Jews refused to shew the way to 
 heathens. (Sat. 14, 103.) Bertholet, p. 307, also refers to 
 this point. Joel (Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte II., p. 137) 
 explains the passage as referring to the well-known aversion 
 on the part of the Jews in Juvenal's time to proselytise. It 
 would have been more than a Jew would have dared to refuse 
 the ordinary courtesies of daily life to a Roman. 
 
 The Jew never drew the distinction between the native of 
 one's land as friend, and all the rest of humanity as his 
 enemies. This was done by all other people (Sec Livy 
 Hist., xxxi, 29). The Bible adopts the most generous 
 attitude to all men as part of God's creation. In no 
 legislative portion of the Torah is the stranger forgotten. 
 The Decalogue includes him in the blessing of the Sabbath 
 rest (Ex. xx, 10). The stranger is not to be oppressed, nor 
 vexed, but loved, for ' ye know the heart of the stranger ' 
 (Ex. xxii. 21, xxiii. 9). 
 
 Moreover, the stranger is to be loved because God loves 
 him (Deut. x. 18, 19). The Imitation of God is the great 
 driving-force in the Hebrew Religion. ' Be ye holy, for 
 I the Lord your God am holy' (Lev. xix, i ; see also 
 Deut. xviii. 13). Abba Saul, a Rabbi of the Second Century, 
 explained the text (Ex. xv. 2), ' This is my God, and I will 
 glorify him ' by imitating Him. Just as He is loving, so will 
 I be loving (Mekhilta in loco). He also explained (Lev. xix. i) 
 in this way, ' Be ye holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.' 
 Israel is the retinue of the King of Kings, and must therefore 
 imitate the royal style (Siphre in loco). 
 
 The Jewish Religion proclaims God as the Universal 
 Father of all men. It must, therefore, issue in a fraternal 
 morality. The message of all the prophets insists on social 
 morality as the basis of religion. If love to a neighbour
 
 results from love to God, neighbourhood can know no racial 
 or religious restrictions. In a word, Judaism insists on the 
 universality of human duty. The answer to the question at 
 the head of this chapter, Who is Israel's neighbour? is 
 every man. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 NEIGHBOUR IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 It is very easy to say that Judaism is narrow, or exter- 
 nalised and restricted in scope. Is the teaching of Christianity 
 infinite and perfect ? Let the New Testament be its o\vn 
 witness. What kind of spirit is manifested in the following 
 passages ? 
 
 ' These twelve Jesus sent forth and charged them saying, 
 ' Go not into any way of the Gentiles and enter not into any 
 city of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the 
 House of Israel and preach the Kingdom of Heaven is at 
 hand' (Mt. x. 5-7, cf. Mt. xv. 21-28). Harnack denies the 
 genuineness of the last two verses of the Gospel of Matthew, 
 and also the parallel passages in Mark and Luke. (See ' Die 
 Mission,' p. 28). 
 
 Here the Gentiles and Samaritans are excluded from the 
 Kingdom of Heaven. This was a marked change of attitude 
 to that in vogue among the Jews in this period. Judaism 
 taught and practised the duty of preaching the Word r of 
 Salvation to all men. St. Matthew (xxiii. 15) bears witness 
 to the zeal of the Palestinian Jews in seeking proselytes in all 
 corners of the earth. 
 
 'And if thy brother sin against thee, go, shew him his 
 fault, between thee and him alone ; if he hear thee, thou hast 
 gained thy brother ; but if he hear not, take with thee one or 
 two more that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every 
 word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, 
 tell it unto the congregation, but if he refuse to hear the 
 congregation also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and 
 the Publican ' (Mt. xviii. 15-17). 
 
 Here the Gentile and Publican are considered as the 
 outcasts, the sinners (See Enc. Bib., col. 4910), and as 
 such excluded from the Kingdom of God. Is there not a 
 narrow standpoint in such passages as Mt. xi. 25, Mk. iv. 1 1 
 and Lk. ix. 5, 60, 62. Is the love of man to his fellow man, 
 as taught in the Epistles of John, to be considered as the true 
 Christian conception of perfect love ? 
 
 ' If anyone cometh unto you and bringeth not this 
 teaching receive him not into your house, and give him no 
 greeting, for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his 
 evil works.' (II. John 10, n). 
 
 Hillel and Rabban Johanan ben Zakai, as we shall see, 
 taught and acted in a different spirit.
 
 ' I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast 
 given me.' (John xvii. 9). 
 
 ' If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch 
 and is withered, and they gather them and cast them into the 
 fire and they are burned' (John xv. 6.). 
 
 ' Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what 
 fellowship have righteousness and iniquity ? What portion 
 hath a believer with an unbeliever? Wherefore come ye out 
 from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and 
 touch no unclean thing and I will receive you.' (//. Cor. \\. 
 14-17). 
 
 ' So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which 
 is good towards all men, and especially towards them that 
 are of the household of faith.' (Gal. vi. 10). 
 
 Paul again says, ' Now we command you, brethren, in the 
 Name of our Lord Jesus, that ye withdraw yourselves from 
 every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the 
 tradition received of us.' (II. Thess. iii. 6). 
 
 Would it be unfair to say that these quotations make a 
 distinction between the different classes of men ? Does the 
 law of perfect love to all men, without any limitation, apply 
 according to Paul's view ? 
 
 Josephus asserts that Moses ' hath taught us gentleness 
 and humanity so effectually, that he hath not despised the 
 care of brute beasts ' (C. Apion ii. 213). Philo says practically 
 the same. ('On Humanity,' 19). The law prohibits the ox 
 to be muzzled when treading out the corn (Dcui. xxv. 4). 
 There is no reference in the whole of the New Testament to 
 kindness to animals. Paul, in contempt, asks, ' is it for the 
 oxen that God careth?' (I. Cor. ix. 9). Judaism replies in the 
 affirmative. ' It would seem,' says Dr. Arnold, ' as if the 
 primitive Christian, by laying so much stress upon a future 
 life in contradistinction to this life, and placing the lower 
 creatures out of the pale of hope, placed them at the same 
 time out of the pale of sympathy, and thus laid the foundation 
 for this utter disregard of animals ' (sec ' Popular Science 
 Monthly,' 45, 639, and Harnack's article on 'Manichaeism,' 
 in Ency. Brit.). Bousset (' Die Religion des Judentums,' 
 and ed., p. 156), acknowledges that there is a narrow 
 spirit in the Gospel and Epistles of St. John with reference 
 to the limitation of love to the children of God, and to the 
 display of hatred to the Jews and Heretics. It is gratifying 
 that Cornill in his fine essay on the Old Testament and 
 Humanity unhesitatingly asserts that ' Israel alone has 
 given to the world the true ideal of humanity ' (p. 23). 
 Where then is the superior teaching of the Gospel ? Verily, 
 'salvation is from the Jews' (Jn. 5v. 22). It was from 
 Israel that Jesus took his law of love. In Matthew alone is 
 the contrast between the old law and the new law ' Ye have 
 heard that it was said thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate 
 thine enemy' (Mt. v. 43). This does not agree with Mt. xxii. 
 34-40. In Luke vi. 27 we find, ' But I say unto you which
 
 hear, love your enemies.' Nothing is said that the contrary 
 was taught under the old law. Is it sufficient to say 
 with Salmon, 'The Human Element in the Gospels,' 
 p. 136, that the words in Matthew, 'and hate thine 
 enemy,' have scarcely Mosaic authority ? They have neither 
 Mosaic nor Prophetic nor Rabbinic authority. The fact 
 is probably as Harnack, in his reconstruction of the Gospel, 
 suggests that this passage, being an interpolation, should be 
 omitted. There is considerable discrepancy between the 
 Synoptic Gospels with reference to this law of enmity. 
 The New Testament (Mk. xii. 28-34, an d Lk. x. 25-28) accepts 
 the Jewish law of Love without the least alteration. ' And 
 behold a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying, 
 Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life ? And he said 
 unto him, what is written in the law ? how readest thou ? 
 And he (the lawyer) answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord 
 thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all 
 thy strength and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as 
 thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right, 
 this do, and thou shalt live' (Lk. x. 25-28). See Mk. xii. 
 28-34. It is noteworthy that Jesus did not raise any objection 
 to the Hebrew lawyer's use of the term 'neighbour.' Luke 
 and Mark are satisfied that the answer of the lawyer really 
 corresponded to the true and only answer to the question, 
 ' What must a man do to inherit eternal life.' Jesus had 
 nothing to add to the Jewish interpretation. This question 
 as to how to inherit the eternal life was always in the mind of 
 the thoughtful Israelite. The prophet (Micah vi. 8), sums up 
 the whole duty of man in the words, ' He hath shewed thee, 
 O Man, what is good ; and what does the Lord require of 
 thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly 
 with thy God.' When the Scripture speaks of Man, the term 
 includes non-Jews (Siphra 46). 'The Law is called the Law 
 of Man, not of the Priests, nor of the Levites, nor of the 
 Israelites, but of Man ' (Ibid}. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 How DID ISRAEL LOVE HUMANITY HER NEIGHBOUR? 
 
 It is fair to ask, what has Judaism done for the world? 
 What is the record of history with reference to the claim of 
 Judaism that it is no narrow creed conscious of duties to Jews 
 alone ? How has Israel fulfilled the laws, ' Love thy neigh- 
 bour as thyself ' ? and ' Love the stranger, because God 
 loveth the stranger ' ? The answer of history is as follows : 
 The Jew has given his heritage, the Holy Scriptures, to the 
 World. The Greek version of the Bible was the work of 
 Jews. It is through this great translation that men have 
 learned the eternal word of God. Judaism has given to the 
 
 13
 
 nations of Europe and Asia the great religions of Christianity 
 and Islam which have spread over the whole world. The 
 ethics of the civilized world are Jewish. It is unnecessary to 
 refer to the share contributed by Jews to the cause of art, 
 science and literature. Graetz's ' History of the Jews ' will 
 furnish full details on this point. Spinoza, Mendelssohn, 
 Heine and Disraeli are but typical names of Jews who have 
 enriched the world. Our concern now is with the Jews in 
 pre-Christian times. It must not be forgotten that not only 
 Jesus but all the Apostles were Jews. The Apocrypha and a 
 portion of the Apocalypses are Jewish. Philo and Josephus 
 are still held in high esteem. Is there not also some good 
 for the world in the writings of the Rabbis ? It can be laid 
 down as a canon of exegesis that it is quite impossible to 
 understand the New Testament without a thorough knowledge 
 of the Rabbis, Philo and Josephus. In the Temple at 
 Jerusalem there was a court for the Gentiles, where anyone, 
 although not of the Hebrew faith, was allowed to pray to 
 God, the Father of all (see Mishna Kelim i, 8, Josephus, 
 Wars 5. 5, 2, and Schiirer 24, p. 266). In the Temple, 
 a daily offering for the welfare of the Roman Emperor 
 was sacrificed. This was considered as an offering on behalf 
 of the World (see Joma 690, I. Mace. vii. 33 ; Josephus 
 Antiq. 12, 10, 5 ; and Wars 2, 10, 4). 
 
 The heathen was allowed to send offerings to the Temple, 
 (Siphre p. 3ob). During the Festival of Tabernacles an 
 offering on behalf of all nations and creeds was sacrificed. 
 (Succa 55b). The spirit in which Solomon prayed at the 
 dedication of the First Temple was never forgotten. 
 ' Moreover, concerning the stranger, that is not of thy 
 people Israel, when he shall come out of a far country for 
 thy name's sake ; when he shall come and pray towards this 
 house ; hear Thou in Heaven thy dwelling place and do 
 according to all that the stranger calleth to thee for ' 
 (/. Kings viii. 41, 43). 
 
 Isaiah (xix. 24 ; Ivi. 3, 6, 7) and Ezekiel (xlvii. 22 and 23) 
 give expression to the most generous sentiments concerning 
 the non-Jews, establishing their equality with Israel before 
 God. Philo believed that the Temple sacrifices were offered 
 on behalf of all mankind ('On Animals fit for Sacrifices,' 3 
 and ' On Monarchy,' 6.). 
 
 'The sheaf was offered on behalf of Israel and also for the 
 sake of mankind.' (Philo, on the 'Ten Festivals,' n). 
 
 Josephus held, ' At the sacrifices we ought to pray for 
 the common welfare of all and after that for our own ; for 
 we are made for fellowship with one another, and he who 
 prefers the common good before what is peculiar to himself 
 is above all acceptable to God ' (C Apion. ii. 196). 
 
 Can the world afford to forget the teaching of Jewish 
 thought such as the following : ' Do ye therefore love one 
 another, and with long suffering hide ye one another's 
 faults. For God delighteth in the unity of brethren, and 
 
 4
 
 in the purpose of a heart that takes pleasure in love.' 
 (Test. Joseph xvii. 2, 3). 
 
 ' Thou shalt not take vengeance ' Lev. xix. 18 ; the Siphra 
 asks, ' what is the meaning- of this text ? When a man says 
 to his neighbour, lend me your axe and he refuses, then next 
 day the latter asks the former for the loan of his sickle, he 
 must not refuse his unkind neighbour his sickle, for he must 
 not take vengeance but love his neighbour.' ' Judge all men 
 in the scale of merit.' Ibid, on Lev. xix. 15, The Siphre 
 explains Joel ii. 32, viz. ; 'And it shall come to pass that 
 whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved, 1 
 in this wise ; ' Is it then possible for any human being to 
 call on the name of the Lord ? Yes, by striving to imitate 
 God. Is not God loving and merciful ? Strive then to be 
 merciful and loving to all men without harbouring a selfish 
 motive.' (/. 85a). Philo makes the love of God and the love of 
 man the guiding principle of life (Quod omnis probus liber 12). 
 
 ' Love the Lord through all your life and one another 
 with a true heart.' (Test. Dan. v. 3.) 
 
 Dr. Charles, in his edition of the Testament of the 
 XII. Patriarchs, observes (p. 127), with reference to this 
 passage, ' Our text is here remarkable in being the first 
 literary authority which conjoins the great commandments 
 of love to God (Deut. vi. 5) and love to our neighbour 
 (Lev. xix. 1 8).' There is not the least doubt that Jesus 
 was acquainted with this text (See ML xxii. 37 and 39 ; 
 and Lk. x. 27, also see Mk. xii. 28-34 and Enc. Bib. 
 col. 3389). 
 
 It is not the place to dwell on the fact to which Ritschl 
 has drawn attention, that in the New Testament, as a whole, 
 the love of man towards God is barely mentioned. Of 
 course this does not refer to the text (Deut. vi. 5) which is 
 quoted several times. Moreover, in the Synoptic Gospels, 
 the love of God for man is not directly taught. 
 
 By way of contrast we note how Jewish thought dealt 
 with these two aspects of love. In the Wisdom of Solomon 
 (c. 100 B.C.E.) we read: 'Wisdom is the spirit of love 
 for all men.' i. 6. ' For Thou lovest all things that 
 are.' xi. 24. ' But Thou didst teach thy people by such 
 works as these how that the righteous must be a lover of 
 men.' xii. 19. The expression ' lover of men ' occurs also 
 in Philo : ' True lovers of God are true lovers of men ' (On 
 the 10 Comm. 22). This expression does not occur in the 
 whole of the New Testament. Hillel taught : ' Be of the 
 disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving thy 
 fellow-creatures.' (Abot i. 12). Hillel's disciple, Johanan ben 
 Zakai interpreted Prov. xiv. 34 as meaning, ' the love of the 
 heathen is their sin offering. (Baba Bathra, lob). Simon 
 the Just declared that ' the world is based upon God's Law, 
 religion and the practice of love.' (Abot i. 2). Rabbi Akiba used 
 to say : ' Beloved is man, for he is created in the image of 
 God, but it was by a special love that it has been revealed to 
 
 15
 
 man that he is created in the divine image, as it is said, 
 ' For in the image of God made he man ' (Gen. ix. 6) ; 
 (Abot. iii. 18). Rabbi Meir said, ' Be humble of spirit before 
 all men' (Abot. iv. 12). Finally, to revert to the subject 
 of this chapter, how did Israel love humanity ? Is not the 
 true answer to be found in the life of Israel, in her sorrows, 
 her tears, her patient suffering- and her loyalty to God and 
 man? Does not the wonderful message of Isaiah (Hi. 13 
 liii. 12) proclaim to humanity what Israel has done and is still 
 doing for the world ? Israel is the heart of humanity and bears 
 the iniquity of all the world. Is it possible that Israel is the 
 Messiah of Humanity? 'Be like unto me,' says God, 
 ' even as I requite good for evil, so do thou render love for 
 hatred, good for evil.' (R. Meir in Exodus Rabba 26). 
 Israel teaches mankind to look forward to the dawn of a 
 better life here on earth, when envy and malice shall vanish 
 before the love and mercy that overcome all things. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Christianity has always laid the greatest stress on the 
 famous golden rule, ' what ye would that men should do 
 unto you, even so do ye unto them.' (Mt. vii. 12). It is 
 pointed out in the Ency. Bib., col. 2444, that 'analogies can 
 be found in other religions, but with this difference, that, 
 whilst in the teaching of Jesus the rule assumes a positive 
 form, in all other known instances it is given negatively. 
 The negative confines us tn the region of justice; the positive 
 takes us into the region of generosity ; for we wish more 
 than we can claim, or than the average man is willing to do 
 to others.' At the beginning of the discourse in which the 
 golden rule is taught, Jesus lays down the principle ' and 
 with what measure ye mete it shall be measured unto you.' 
 This was frequently taught by the Rabbis in the identical 
 words as used by Jesus. (See Tosephta, Sofa iii. i). The 
 golden rule is also Jewish. It is but another form of the 
 positive commandment of Lev. xix. 18, ' Love thy neighbour 
 as thyself.' The Rabbis paraphrased this great command- 
 ment. One Rabbi expresses its meaning thus, ' Let thy 
 neighbour's honour be as dear to thee as thine own.' (Abot 
 ii. 15). Another version was : ' Let the property of thy 
 neighbour be as dear to thee as thine own.' (Ibid ii. 17). 
 (For the meaning of Chabra see Levy's Talmud Diet. ii. 
 P. 9). It is pointed out by Levy that the positive form of the 
 golden rule is not as practical for daily life as the older 
 version in the negative form. 
 
 When a certain heathen came to Hillel, asking to be 
 taught the whole law in the minute or two during which he 
 
 16
 
 could stand on one foot, the Rabbi briefly summed up the 
 law in the rule, ' What is hateful to thee to suffer at the 
 hands of another, do not do to thy fellow man.' (Sabbath 3ia). 
 Bacher (Agada der Tannaiten, p. 4) points out that Hillel 
 was speaking to a heathen, and naturally applied the law of 
 ' loving one's neighbour' to him, and taught this funda- 
 mental principle in such a manner as would lead the man to 
 abandon his previous mode of life. Would any reasonable 
 man ask to have Religion taught whilst standing on one foot ? 
 (See also in 'Aspects of Judaism,' the sermon on 'the 
 Negative Form of the Golden Rule, 'by Mr. Israel Abrahams, 
 and Eschelbacher's ' Das Judentum und das Wesen des 
 Christentums,' p. 74.) Hillel's rule is found also in Philo : 
 ' Moreover, it is ordained in the laws themselves that no one 
 shall do to his neighbour what he would be unwilling to have 
 done to himself.' This quotation is given by Eusebius 
 (' Preparation of the Gospel,' c. 7). The Golden Rule is 
 also in the Book of Tobit (iv. 15), 'And what thou 
 thyself hatest do to no man.' It also occurs in the Letter 
 of Aristeas (ed. Thackeray, p. 39). The negative form is 
 found in the Didache i. 2 and in Rom. xiii. 10. (See 
 Westcott's 'Two Empires,' p. 151, for further history of 
 the Golden Rule. The reference to Confucius is misleading. 
 The source is either Jewish or Christian). Rabbi Akiba 
 expanded Hillel's dictum, ' do not hurt thy fellow man, do 
 not speak ill of him, do not reveal his secrets to others, let 
 his reputation be as precious to thee as thine own.' (Abot 
 de R. Nathan B, 26, 29, 30, and 33.) In a famous disputation 
 between Rabbi Akiba and Ben Azai as to the most important 
 verse in the Scriptures, Rabbi Akiba cited ' Love thy neigh- 
 bour as thyself (Lev. xix, 18). Ben Azai agreed that this 
 commandment was the most important of all the laws. But 
 might not a narrow interpretation be put on the word 
 neighbour? Might not some critic, unacquainted with Jewish 
 thought, infer that the Jew is only bound by this law to love 
 his fellow countrymen? Why should the Jew do what other 
 people never did ? Why should he love the heathen or 
 stranger? Therefore to avoid any misapprehension Ben 
 Azai declared that he knew a more comprehensive verse 
 which could not possibly give rise to any misunderstanding. 
 This verse is Gen. v. i, 'This is the book of the history 
 of Man.' This is the charter of Humanity. What is in 
 the Bible is for all men. Above all, the Commandment, 
 ' Love, thy fellow man as thyself,' is the universal law. 
 (Siphra, Kedoshim c. 4 ; also Giidemann's fine Essay, ' Die 
 Nachstenliebe,' p. 12, sqq.) 
 
 How about the law of Enmity mentioned by Mt. v. 43, 
 ' Hate thine enemy.' The text, Lev. xix. 18, ' Love thy 
 fellow man as thyself,' knows no limitation. Love all men 
 friend or foe. The previous verse says ' Thou shalt not 
 hate thy brotfier in thy heart.' Brother (Heb. Ah], according 
 to Gesenius, means here fellow creature. This agrees with
 
 Reggie's view (Letter VIII. , p. 47 sqg.} The Synagogue 
 has preserved to this day a petition of the Scribes in which 
 the Jew daily asks God to keep him from hating any of His 
 creatures. (' Daily Prayers,' Ed. Gaster, p. 3). Another 
 prayer is, ' O, my God, guard my tongue from evil and my 
 lips from speaking guile ; and to such as curse me let my 
 soul be dumb, yea, let my soul be unto all as the dust.' 
 (Berachot 17 a ; and Prayer Book, Ed. Singer, p. 54). The 
 love of man to man must rise above the narrow circle of 
 Christian brotherhood taught by the Fourth Gospel. (See 
 Jn. xiii. 34, 35, also xv. 10 26). This Gospel knows 
 nothing of love for one's enemies. ' The hatred of one's 
 fellow creatures puts a man out of the world,' was the 
 saying of Rabbi Joshua. (Abot, ii. 16). 
 
 The old Law, which Christianity is said to have replaced, 
 teaches ' If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going 
 astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou 
 see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden 
 and wouldst forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with 
 him.' (Ex. xxiii. 4, 5.) 
 
 It was quite natural for Israel to regard the Egyptians as 
 the national enemy, for had not Israel been enslaved in 
 Egypt ? The Law, however, commands, ' Do not despise 
 the Egyptian.' (Deut. xxiii. 7.) 
 
 If the Jew was not to despise, not to hate the Egyptian, 
 his natural enemy, a fortiori, he is not to hate other nations 
 who have in no way injured him or his people. 
 
 ' Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth and let not thine 
 heart be glad when he is overthrown ; lest the Lord see it 
 and it displease him.' (Prov. xxiv. 17, 18.) 'If thine 
 enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat and if he be thirsty, 
 give him water to drink.' (Ibid, xxv. 21.) 
 
 * Did I rejoice at the destruction of him that hated me, 
 or lifted up myself when evil found him ? Yea, I suffered 
 not my mouth to sin by asking his life with a curse.' 
 (Job. xxxi. 29, 30.) The story of Ananias and Sapphira in 
 Acts v. is a commentary on the New Testament doctrine of 
 love and forgiveness. 
 
 According to the Gospels the gate leading to Life is 
 narrow. (Mt. vii. 14). 
 
 It is just the opposite doctrine that obtains in Judaism. 
 ' This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter into 
 it.' (Ps. cxviii. 20.) On this verse the Siphra comments 
 ' No mention is made here of Priest, nor of Levite, nor of the 
 Israelite ; but all the children of men, Jews and Gentiles, can 
 enter God's gate, as it is written, the righteous shall enter 
 into it.' (Kedoshim 4). ' The gate leading to God's Kingdom 
 is very wide. The righteous and the pious of all nations 
 shall inherit the bliss of the world to come.' (Tosephta 
 Synhedrin 13. See also Synhedrin 1053). 
 
 ' The heathen who seeks God's Law is considered as 
 though he were the High Priest,' was a saying of Rabbi Meir. 
 
 18
 
 (Synhedrin 5ga). ' The heathen in the market place was 
 not to be passed by without a friendly greeting,' so taught 
 Rabbanjohananben Zakai. (Berachot i7a). In a Baraithaof 
 the Second Century, it was ordained that the Jews were to bury 
 without any distinction the dead of Jews or non-Jews alike, 
 to support all alike, to visit the sick among Jews and Gentiles 
 for these duties tend to promote the public weal. (Gittin 6ia. 
 See Lazarus, Die Ethik des Judentums, pp. 178 and 183.) 
 
 The Mishna says that the heathen is to be permitted to 
 take a share in the gleanings that belong to the poor. 
 (Gittin 5gb.) 
 
 While there is much in common that unites Judaism 
 and Christianity, there are also vital points of difference 
 that separate their creeds. Christianity assigns a pro- 
 minent place to asceticism in marked contrast to its 
 entire absence in Judaism. The Church says that the 
 gratification of every worldly desire is sinful ; Judaism 
 sanctifies the good things of the earth, for did not God 
 create the vine to rejoice the heart of man? (Ps. civ. 15). 
 Christianity believes in God and the Devil this. dualism of 
 good and evil is practically a confession of failure and 
 despair, which declares the moral problem of the Universe 
 to be humanly insoluble. (See Hibbert Journal Supplement, 
 pp. 150 and 185) It requires that God should become Man 
 and so overcome the Devil, (II. Cor. v. 19). The Devil 
 is identified with the world and all its wonderful gifts. By 
 teaching man to despise God's creation, Christianity has 
 darkened the outlook of man. The Church has sanctified the 
 monastery and consecrated the denial of human feeling. 
 Is there not something of the essence of slavery in 
 the religious orders of the Church, where a man or woman 
 become less than human by sacrificing individuality and 
 freedom ? Judaism is unlike Christianity by not being an 
 aggressive faith. It has not brought ' the sword into the 
 world.' (Mt. x. 34) All outside the Church are designated 
 ' sons of perdition.' Judaism taught that ' Blessed is the 
 Lord that sheweth love unto them that love Him in truth.' 
 (Ps. of Solomon, vi. 9). It declared that the men of loving 
 heart among all nations are destined to inherit the life 
 eternal. 'Thou shalt love God,' implies thou shalt cause 
 all men to love Him. (Siphre, p. 73 a). In the long run, 
 says Joel (' Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte,' p. vi.) a 
 monotheistic religion cannot exclude any human soul from 
 the Heavenly Father. Is it not the will of Providence that 
 makes the Jew the citizen of the world ? His mission is to 
 all men, bringing love and righteousness. This is felt by 
 the writer of the Apocalypse of Baruch i. 4, who declares 
 that God has scattered Israel among the Gentiles, that they 
 may do good to the Gentiles. It is true that Israel has 
 not always succeeded in making friends in every land. 
 Friendship is a reciprocal process. Has the Church been 
 willing to love Israel? The Church in her earliest days
 
 separated from the Synagogue. St. John in his Gospel 
 steadily treats the Jews as enemies. But the Jews are not 
 the only people who have not been beloved by the Church. 
 ' Love thy neighbour as thyself has been violated by 
 the Church in all ages. Christianity was a proselytising 
 religion on a large scale, anxious to save but equally anxious 
 to condemn to everlasting torments all those who refused to 
 accept it, nay even the countless men, women, and children 
 who had never heard of it. Again, by preferring celibacy to 
 marriage, the early Church showed little respect for women. 
 (See I. Cor. vii. 38 and Hibbert Journal Supplement, pp. 
 203 206). 
 
 Example plays a more important part than precept. In this 
 respect, says Westermarck (' The Origin and Development of 
 the Moral Ideas ' II. p. 737) ' Christianity has unfortunately 
 little reason to boast of its achievements.' 
 
 The Christian dogma of damnation is perhaps the 
 most horrible of all doctrines in any religion. ' If,' says 
 Westermarck, II., p. 727, ' Christianity is to be judged from 
 the dogmas which almost from its beginning [until quite 
 recent times] have been recognised by the immense majority 
 of its adherents, it must be admitted that its conception of a 
 heavenly Father and Judge has been utterly inconsistent with 
 all ordinary notions of goodness and justice.' It is not in 
 Christianity that the cosmopolitan spirit has arisen. ' Love thy 
 neighbour as thyself ' could never be realised in a society in 
 which hermit life was an ideal. Judaism has at all times 
 stood for the Unity of God and the brotherhood of man. 
 These ideals can only live in actual contact with the world. 
 Is it, in the light of these differences between Judaism and 
 Christianity, unfair to claim that the Jewish law of love is 
 wider and more intense than the Christian law of love ? 
 
 We have endeavoured to shew that Judaism as revealed 
 in the Old Testament and in Jewish literature prior to Xe\v 
 Testament times is a religion of love that knows no 
 limitation. Judaism is a living power because it preaches 
 that God is love and righteousness. The Jew is bidden 
 to be a lover of God, not to receive offence and not to 
 resent insult, to hear words of contumely and not to answer, 
 for in all. things he is to act in the spirit of love. (Sabbath 
 88 b). Christianity cannot claim that it is a higher religion 
 than Judaism, unless it can reveal divine truth in a greater 
 and fuller measure than the Hebrews have taught for more 
 than three thousand years.
 
 A 000132665 1