Leviticus 19:17-18: Rebuke and Love

Pentateuch Essay 2021 (+ edit 2021)

The book of Leviticus contains instruction for the priests and people of Israel, so that they might be holy and live in the presence of God. The Holiness Code (Lv. 17-27), as distinguished from the Priestly Code (Lv. 1-16), contains ritual and moral laws inspired by God’s holiness. For some contemporary readers, Leviticus 19:17-18 seems to contain a conflict between the commands to “rebuke your neighbour” (v. 17b) and to “love your neighbour as yourself” (v. 18b). This conflict, however, is only seeming, when reading the passage from a 21st century Western lens. Rebuke, when done out of love, is a loving act, restoring the offender back into relation with God and the community as a whole. In fact, to fail to rebuke can lead the offended party to sin by committing hateful acts against the offender. Through both His teachings and actions, Jesus embodies a union of the commands to rebuke and love, and commands His followers to do likewise.

To resolve this apparent conflict, one must first situate Leviticus 19:17-18 within its particular context. Leviticus is the third book of the Pentateuch, containing laws particular to attaining and maintaining holiness. The God of Israel was maximally holy, and all that was impure in His presence would be destroyed. This meant that the Israelites had to practice holiness in order to come into God’s presence and offer sacrifices, which were necessary for atonement and thanksgiving (Lv. 19:2). Holiness was more than just moral excellence but was the practice of imitating God’s goodness in all aspects of life. As distinguished from concerns of ritual purity, Leviticus 18-20 concerns the moral purity of the Israelites. Between a chapter on sexual purity (Lv. 18) and penalties for sin (Lv. 20), Leviticus 19 lists a miscellany of purity laws, with no clear structure. The chapter can be understood as a speech to the Israelite community (v. 2), and verses 17-18 are situated about halfway through, following what amounts to the entirety of the Decalogue (Ex. 20) [1], stating:

17 ‘You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may certainly rebuke your neighbour, but you are not to incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance, nor hold any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself; I am the Lord. [NASB]

For some readers, the command to both rebuke and love one’s neighbour are juxtaposed – making judgements, and confronting someone about their wrongdoing, does not seem to be very loving behaviour. This, however, is a nonissue historically. In fact, the two commands enlighten one other and indicate exactly what each requires in order for the people of God to best imitate God’s holiness.

It is first helpful to notice the parallels in these verses, as identified by Milgrom (2000). Both verses contain a prohibition (to not hate/take vengeance), remedy (rebuke/love your neighbour), and rationale (incur no sin/‘I am the Lord’[2]). It is the remedy commands that some readers struggle to reconcile. It is proper then to analyse the remedies in light of their prohibitions and rationale. The prohibition of hate in the heart (v. 17) seems to focus on one’s thoughts and feelings toward another. Similar verses (such as Ze. 8:17) forbid “devising evil,” indicating that hate is also a mental activity. Instead of hating your fellow Israelite when they trespass you, you are commanded to rebuke them – this term יָכַח (yakach) can also be understood in the sense of being “set right.” In Scripture, reproof is often associated with wisdom (e.g., Pr. 9:8; 10:17), referring to judgement, reasoning, and correction. Milgrom wisely observes that the antithesis to hate in the heart is rebuke in the open (i.e., Pr. 27:5). Rebuke removes possible misunderstandings, dispels hate, and opens up an opportunity for communion between the offender and the offended – grievances can be resolved, and the offender can be corrected (that is, be put back on the path to holiness). The rationale given for this command is the avoidance of sinning out of hatred. Hatred can lead to sins varying from anger to murder. This was the case for Absalom, who would eventually have Amnon (who had raped their sister) murdered, after avoiding him and repressing his anger for two years (2 Sm. 13). One might argue that even just the failure to reprove is a sin in itself, as was the (similar) case for “the watchman” of Ezekiel 33, who would bear the punishment of the wicked if he failed to warn them of their wickedness (Ez. 33:8). Hrobon, summarising the verse, writes that “rebuking the neighbour is proper” but hating the neighbour is a sin (2017).[3] The matter of how one ought to rebuke their neighbour can be taken from verse 18.

The prohibition against taking vengeance and grudge-nursing (v. 18) functions also as a prohibition of actions and thoughts that result from hatred. Even if the offender does not respond appropriately to reproof, hatred is forbidden. It is for God to distribute justice (De. 32:35a), for only He has the wisdom, power, and authority to do so. On the matter of how one ought to reprove, this prohibition indicates that to rebuke in anger, or in front of others, is an act of vengeance, and is therefore a sin. Similarly, to refuse to rebuke may be an act of grudge-nursing. The remedy command is to love, referring not just to an emotion, but actions also. The term אַהַב (ahab) is “love” in the sense of affection, reaching out, and befriending. Inner and outer love was a prerequisite for holiness. Interestingly, “neighbour” (רֵעַ ‘rea’), in this verse, refers particularly to fellow Israelites,[4] and it should be noted then that this commandment is extended to the non-Israelite resident in verse 34. In light of this point, the context of Leviticus as a whole, and the context of the chapter in particular (v. 2), a reader is made to recognise that this command to “love your neighbour” is a law for a particular nation (and is closely related to loyalty) – it is not, as it is sometimes understood, a universal principle (Fagenblat, 2017).

It is a matter of debate as to whether the following כָּמ֑וֹךָ (kemo) modifies “love” and should be translated as “as yourself,” or modifies “your neighbour” and should be translated as “as a man like yourself.” In the former instance, as one seeks to provide for their own needs, one must seek to provide for the needs for their neighbour. In the latter instance, one must love their fellow Israelite because he is made in God’s image and is in a covenant with Him, just as he is also.[5] Particularly suited to this translation, the rationale for the command to love is the fact that God is holy – “I am the Lord.” The Israelite is called to love his fellow covenant people. In light of this, one must graciously rebuke his neighbour out of love for him, so that he might be holy. The command to rebuke is therefore a call to speak truth in love (as would be later articulated in Ep. 4:15). The use of verse 18 to interpret verse 17 is proper, as it was and is commonplace for biblical laws to be interpreted with regard to the love command. Fagenblat writes, “Lev 19:18 was a meta-halakhic principle… for the interpretation of specific laws” (2017).

Given what has been discussed above, it should be apparent that the commands to rebuke and love are harmonious. It might be suggested that the conflict only exists through the modern Western lens. Today, the popular sense is that loving one’s neighbour requires a full acceptance of who they are (that is, not judging them) – this sense may be a symptom of a widespread privatisation of religion/values. Readers must keep in mind that ancient Israel was essentially theocratic – their practices, laws and governing systems were divinely inspired. There is no instance (at least not in the modern sense) of one Israelite “imposing” their morals upon another. All members of this society were motivated to strive for holiness, so that they might live in the presence of God and be blessed by Him. Their morals were to imitate God’s standard. In this setting, rebuke can be regarded as an accountability tool, as well as a means of restoring the offender into communion with God and his Israelite neighbour. This, surely, when done with gentle kindness and genuine concern, was a necessary and loving act. One must also note that God, in the Hebrew Scriptures, is recorded as rebuking and punishing Israel, so that they might return Him and restore the covenant relationship (e.g., Judges; Pr. 3:12; the prophets). Should one then propose that His behaviour here conflicts with His loving nature – or that He is somehow behaving irrationally? It would be highly controversial to propose so. In Leviticus 19:17-18, we see that Israelites were called to reflect God’s holiness by loving and caring for the needs, holiness, and spiritual/moral state of their neighbours.

Jesus affirmed this union of rebuke and love in both word and deed. As recorded in Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus commands His followers to rebuke each other lovingly. So as not to embarrass the offender, the offended should confront him privately – not gossip about him to others. If the rebuke proves ineffective, one is to bring witnesses to rebuke him again. Further still, if the offender remains unrepentant, the matter is brought to the church community. If the offender still refuses to heed the rebuke, he is to be cut off from the community – he can no longer be considered a Christ-follower. Like the desire for holiness in ancient Israel, Jesus is concerned for the holiness of His church and the righteousness of its members. The rebuke is borne from a heart of love for the neighbour and the community as a whole. In Luke 17:3-4, Jesus describes a close relationship between rebuke and forgiveness. A person may not hold a grudge but must forgive his neighbour when he repents of his wrongdoing. Some readers will improperly take Jesus’ command not to judge (Mt. 7:1) apart from the verses that follow. This, however, is not a call to never rebuke one’s neighbour, but is a call to abandon hypocrisy. Those who rebuke should not themselves reject rebuke. Goldstone writes that “Jesus urges the listener to refrain from… correcting the error of one’s fellow until recognising personal failings” (2018). Connecting to this, Israel Ba’al Shem Tov rephases the love command as follows: “Just as we love ourselves despite the faults we know we have, so we should love our fellows despite the faults we see in them.” A reader might identify a separation between the act and the person – the believer is commanded to rebuke the sinful action out of love for the person, who is created in God’s image, and expect the same. As it was for ancient Israel, the command to rebuke is aimed particularly at those within the community, toward other members. The command to love, however, seems to be applied universally (Mt. 5:44; 22:29), and just as with Leviticus 19:18, Jesus teaches that love implies deeds (Mt. 7:12). One can also see how Jesus embodied the command to rebuke and love through His actions. For example, Jesus loved the adulterous woman when He prevented her from being stoned and rebuked her when He told her to “sin no more” (Jn. 8:11). Similarly, when He healed an infirm man and commanded him to stop sinning (Jn. 5:1-15). Rebuke, when done in a loving manner and with a loving heart, is a tool of love. In fact, in the New Testament, the most common Greek verb for “rebuke” is ἐπιτιμαω, which is an amalgamation of ἐπι, “on” (move/place/locate on/in, in the time of, on the basis of), and τιμαω, “I honour, value.” Ἐπιτιμαω, therefore, means literally “to place honour.” It’s restorative. Jesus’ ministry, as the Messiah, was to proclaim the Kingdom of God, which was holy. He loved people, and so He taught, rebuked, and died for them, so that they might be regarded as holy and enter (i.e., be restored into) the Kingdom.

For some readers, Leviticus 19:17-18 contains a conflict between the commands to simultaneously rebuke and love ones Israelite neighbour. This conflict, however, only exists in reference to the modern Western understanding of rebuke, love, and the place of religion. Rebuke and love were regarded as necessary for the holiness of oneself and one’s neighbour. Out of loving concern for the fellow Israelite’s moral purity, as well as their own, God’s people were commanded to rebuke their neighbour, directing them back into communion with God and the community. One must not hate, take revenge, nor nurse a grudge against their neighbour, but must rebuke and love them, so that they do not incur sin and become impure in God’s presence. Study of Leviticus 19:17-18 reveals to New Testament readers the importance of rebuke, as also highlighted by Christ, who also rebuked those He deeply loved so that they might become holy.

[1] Note that v. 9-18 particularly concern the wellbeing of one’s neighbour. [2] That is, the command to holiness. [3] Interestingly, at Qumran, reproof was not only a moral duty, but a cardinal requirement (Milgrom, 2000). [4] Further discussion of why this is the case is beyond the scope of this essay. [5] Along similar lines of thought, Rabbi Ben Azzai regards Gn. 5:1 as the great principle of the Torah. Others have regarded Lv. 19:18 as such.

Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday, 2000, 1646-1656.

Fagenblat, Michael. “The Concept of Neighbor in Jewish and Christian Ethics.” The Jewish Annotated New Testament NRSV. 2nd ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2017, 645-650.

Ross, Allen P. Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002, 351-367.

Kaminsky, Joel S. “Loving One’s (Israelite) Neighbor: Election and Commandment in Leviticus 19.” Interpretation (Richmond) 62, no. 2 (2008): 123–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/002096430806200202.

Hrobon, Bohdan. “’Be Useful to Your Neighbor Who Is Like You’: Exegesis and Alternative Translation of Lev 19: 18b.” Communio viatorum 59, no. 1 (2017): 5-24.

Bosman, Hendrik L. “Loving the Neighbour and the Resident Alien in Leviticus 19 as Ethical Redefinition of Holiness.” Old Testament Essays 31, no. 3 (2018): 571–90. https://doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2018/v31n3a10.

Magonet, Jonathan. “The Structure and Meaning of Leviticus 19.” Hebrew Annual Review 7 (1983):151-167.

Goldstone, Matthew S. The Dangerous Duty of Rebuke: Leviticus 19: 17 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation. Brill, 2018, 1-64.

Harrelson, Walter. New Interpreter’s Study Bible NRSV. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2003, 173-174.