the reason why the command (Lev. xix. 18) appeared specially appropriate to be cited, lay in the fact that in it the point was brought out that a man must love others with the same intensity as himself. But then the question, Who were the others that ought thus to be loved? could not, from that Old Testament saying, find an answer expressive of the conception of Jesus. His saying in the discourse on Righteousness, in which He expressly contrasted the old command to love our neighbour with His higher command to love our enemies (Matt. v. 43 ff.), leaves no doubt as to this point.

We are wont to regard the parable of the Good Samaritan as teaching that, in the view of Jesus, the neighbour was not merely a member of the Israelitish nation and religion, but also every stranger who needed loving assistance. But this conclusion does not exactly correspond to the idea of Jesus, expressed in His concluding question, "Which of those three, thinkest thou, has become neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?" to which the answer was returned, "He who showed mercy on him" (Luke x. 36 f.). No doubt when the scribe had asked, "Who is my neighbour?" and had expected that Jesus, unless He put Himself in open contradiction to the Old Testament mode of view, would recognise the Israelite as the neighbour, Jesus, in that parable of the Good Samaritan, manifestly intended to force the scribe to admit that the idea of neighbour could not be narrowed down to that of Israelite. On being told how an Israelite in dire distress was mercilessly neglected by the priest and Levite,-special repre

sentatives of his nation and his religion,-but disinterestedly helped by the passing Samaritan, the scribe had to admit that, in this case, the Samaritan who charitably took the part of the distressed Israelite had become the neighbour of the latter, and that the Jewish priest and Levite, who had neglected their compatriot and co-religionist, stood farther from him than the Samaritan. And if the question were asked to whom that succoured Israelite was bound to show neighbourly love, he could not confine it to his own countrymen, but ought to set the friendly Samaritan in the front rank of those to whom he owed this duty. In this argument, Jesus, in connection with the term "neighbour," had seized upon the common and obvious notion of standing near, in opposition to that of one standing far apart and stranger. But, in opposition to the narrow Jewish view, He showed that, without respect to nationality, practical benevolence found a neighbourly relation of moral duties, and that the Old Testament precept of love to one's neighbour must eventually include non-Israelites. But even this extension of the idea of love to one's neighbour falls short of the application given by Jesus to the general duty of love. Not only the neighbours with whom we are allied, and from whom we receive kindness, are to be the objects of that love, but also the stranger who does not salute us, and the enemy who inflicts injury We should show love like that of the merciful Samaritan to the Israelite, who was not yet his neighbour, but a stranger; that is, a spontaneous love, which forms new ties, and turns the stranger into the

upon us.

neighbour, thus creating a mutual relation involving further duties.1

The particular conception under which Jesus viewed the person who was the object of this love, which was a binding duty for the disciples, He designated by the term brother (Matt. v. 22-24; vii. 3-5; xviii. 15, 21 f., 35; xxiii. 8). That conception is used in the wide sense, derived from the relation to God as the Father of men. In conformity with this relation, Jesus says to His disciples: "Be ye not called Rabbi for one is your Master; and all ye are brethren. And call no man father on the earth: for one is your Father" (Matt. xxiii. 8 f.). Jesus has nowhere in His recorded utterances expressly given a universality of extent to this idea of brother. Yet we can say decidedly that it would quite as little correspond to His view to limit the use of this idea to fellow-members of the kingdom of God, as to limit the term neighbour, as the Jews did, to members of the Jewish nationality and religion (cf. Lev. xix. 16-18). But, according to the view of Jesus, all are brethren who have God as their

1 The parable of the Good Samaritan is therefore quite warrantably used in the pulpit as affording a pattern of Christian charity, as Luke himself has done by his closing words: "Go and do thou likewise" (ver. 37). For such disinterested charity to a total stranger must be the special object of Christian teaching and admonition, whilst the question as to the extent of the idea of neighbour has no longer the same piquancy for the Christian as it had for those Jewish scribes in the time of Jesus. Nevertheless, in our purely exegetical-historical exposition and use of this parable, we may point out that it did not concern Jesus in the given circumstances to set up the Samaritan as the pattern of true charity; but His object was to create such a situation as would make it obvious to the scribe how one who was not an Israelite might become neighbour to an Israelite. Cf. on Log. § 9, L. J. i. p. 93 ff.

VOL. I.

Y

Father. Now, it is no doubt true that men become true sons of the heavenly Father if they fulfil His will and appropriate His character (Matt. v. 45).* Hence Jesus recognises as His brother, in a peculiar sense, one who does the will of God (Mark iii. 35; cf. Matt. xxv. 40), and also the disciples of Jesus afterwards specially regarded and called the fellowmembers of the Christian community their brethren. But, on the other hand, it was true in the consciousness of Jesus, that God, in virtue of His gratuitous love, is Father even of those who do not walk as His children. Accordingly, the term brother is applied to men independently of whether or not they comport themselves as becomes members of God's kingdom. In the passages where Jesus forbids words and deeds. of hatred to a brother, and requires rather kindly remonstrance with and forgiveness of an erring brother, we must by no means restrict the application of the term brother to co-members of the kingdom of God. No privilege was reserved by Him of showing an unselfish and revengful, an implacable and unloving spirit towards others. The reason why Jesus here uses the term brother is rather because it supplies a

1 Whilst the idea of brother in its peculiar sense denotes one sprung from the same earthly parents as another, it can also be applied in a wider sense to denote kinship as to family and race. When Jesus uses the idea in this sense, He can include the kindness shown to the brother in the love shown to the neighbour, which He distinguishes from the love to be shown even to an enemy (Matt. v. 47). But it by no means follows that with Jesus the ideas of "brother" and "neighbour” are identical. In cases where He did not use the idea of brother in the peculiar natural sense (as, e.g., Mark x. 29 f.; xiii. 12; Luke xiv. 12, 26), He applies it to the spiritual relation to the heavenly Father; and in this sense it includes, not only the neighbour, but the stranger and the foe.

2 Cf. above, p. 192.

motive for the love which is commanded. As when He exhorts to unconditional trust in God under the name of Father, this term supplies a motive for that trust; so in exhorting to a love which forgives and rewards evil with good, the term brother which He employs contains the motive to that love. For the brother stands in such close relationship to the brother, that unbounded love and goodwill to him is always a natural duty. But the brotherhood meant by Jesus as the motive for love rests, not on a common earthly, but on a common Divine parentage, and has its spring in the love of God.

17. Jesus gives neither a definition of the love which is to be shown towards others, nor a systematic exposition of the different ways in which it must be manifested. But, from the various particular injunctions and admonitions given on different occasions, we can derive a clear idea of how He conceived that loving disposition in general, as well as in its particular manifestations.

First of all, as the opposite of that love, He forbade the hatred and anger which wish harm and ruin to others, even though unexpressed in act, and only harboured in the secret thought, or uttered in abusive and disparaging words (Matt. v. 22). On the other hand, He warned His hearers against a selfish wish for exalting themselves above others, even when that wish is not shown in a harsh, overriding, and overreaching of others, but in the more refined form of vain ambition of the regard and approbation of men, and the desire for precedence, titles, and honour from men (Mark xii. 38 f.; Matt. xxiii. 5 ff.).