Abstract
When focusing on the scriptures themselves, the horizontal context of a given text refers to the surrounding verses, paragraphs, chapters, and book. Vertical context refers to an exegetical allusion to an earlier scriptural tradition within the text itself. In spite of intense, ongoing study of Lev. 19.18b within its horizontal contexts, the vertical context within this verse has been ignored. The present study defines vertical context and how it functions as a basis to interpret Lev. 19.18b. After investigating how vertical context bears on Lev. 19.18b, the passage is explained in relation to the intersection of its vertical and horizontal contexts.
Keywords
Introduction
The sense of the command to love thy neighbor depends on its context. 1 Context bears on every part of the command and on its sense as a whole. This study focuses on an ignored part of the context of love thy neighbor.
Anyone who studies scripture in a formal academic setting knows about context. This leads to debate on what constitutes context for responsible exegesis. Considering context differently shifts exegetical implications.
Leviticus 19.18b has enjoyed sustained investigation. Part of the interest in Lev. 19.18b stems from its reception within early Christian and Judaic settings. The teachings of Messiah, the apostles, and Hillel motivate close readings of love thy neighbor. 2 Studies of the reception of Lev. 19.18b in second temple Judaic writings demonstrate the importance of the command to love thy neighbor in late antiquity, though ancient reception did not attend to the vertical context of the command, except perhaps Luke 10.36. 3 The present study does not focus on the reception of love thy neighbor but rather on one of the contexts of its production.
Love thy neighbor did not appear ex nihilo. If love thy neighbor stands at the headwaters of manifold reuse, something comes before it. This study examines the several scriptural tributaries within Torah that contribute to love thy neighbor. Such an examination presupposes a certain kind of context—a vertical context. This sort of investigation has been widely neglected.
Studies of Lev. 19.18b in various contexts are legion, namely, ancient context; legal context; holiness and priestly contexts; contexts of authorship and readership—historical, cultural, religious; contexts of editors and redactors along with scribal culture; and especially the surrounding context within Lev. 19 and Lev. 18–20; 4 not to mention studies of its place within Leviticus, within Torah, and within the Christian Bible. 5 Lexical and syntactical studies of Lev. 19.18b often lead the way to one or more of these contexts against which Lev. 19.18b is framed. All of this is as it should be.
In spite of close study, however, at least one contextual aspect of love thy neighbor has not received adequate attention. Every context mentioned in the previous paragraph is horizontal in its own way. The intense, ongoing study of horizontal contexts makes it all the more surprising to discover the absence of adequate attention to the vertical context of the command to love thy neighbor. Sometimes basic elements get ignored.
Because of so many moving parts and because of the broad purposes of this study, horizontal and vertical contexts need to be restricted to the scriptures. Horizontal context begins around a passage and moves outward versus vertical context, which starts within the passage itself and can move upward or downward. Horizontal context refers to the surrounding verses, paragraphs, chapter, chapters, scroll, and serial narrative. In the case of love thy neighbor, the horizontal context moves from verses 17–18 to 11–18 to Lev. 19 to chapters 18, 19, and 20 as a group, to the holiness collection (Lev. 17–26) to Leviticus to Torah. 6 Vertical context refers to the exegetical allusion within love thy neighbor to the command to love the residing foreigner (19.33–34) and the still deeper vertical context of the blended interpretive allusion within 19.33–34 to the law of Passover participation (Exod. 12.48) and the prohibition against mistreating residing foreigners (22.21[20]). Figure A depicts the horizontal and vertical contexts of love thy neighbor.
Horizontal and Vertical Contexts of Love Thy Neighbor.
To be sure scholars make frequent comparisons between Lev. 19.18b and vv. 33–34 (see below). Comparisons between v. 18b and vv. 33–34 tend to focus on their relationship within the horizontal context of Lev. 19, but how the vertical context within vv. 33–34 bears on the commands to love the residing foreigner and to love thy neighbor needs attention. The present study evaluates the exegetical outcomes of the vertical context of this series of genetically related commands.
The evaluation of the deep vertical context of love thy neighbor demonstrates that a series of exegetical advances within Torah culminates in this commandment. If residing foreigners who submit to the covenant need to participate in Passover like any citizen and if Israel knows the vulnerabilities of residing foreigners from their time in Egypt, then Israel needs to treat residing foreigners as they treat their own people. If Yahweh commands the people to treat the residing foreigner as themselves, then Yahweh certainly expects them to treat their fellows in the same way. 7
To reach this conclusion requires an abbreviated consideration of the horizontal context of love thy neighbor to which its vertical context is paired, a brief explanation of how vertical contexts work, and a careful evaluation of the vertical context of love thy neighbor. After working through these three, a brief conclusion will spell out select implications.
Horizontal Context of Love Thy Neighbor
The present section can only highlight a few of the most important aspects of the horizontal context of love thy neighbor. Three aspects of horizontal context treated here are the burden of holiness upon Israel, the structure of Lev. 19 (especially vv. 11–18), and the relationship of the holiness standards of Leviticus and redemption.
First, the burden of holiness extends to the entire congregation when the glory of Yahweh descends into the tabernacle. Lev.19 leads with a message to the entire congregation of Israel: “Be holy for I, Yahweh your God, am holy” (Lev. 19.2; cf. 20.26). A high point in the standards for holiness appears in the middle of the chapter: love thy neighbor.
The prevailing outlook of Leviticus grows out of the identity of priests and Israel as worshipers of Yahweh. Everywhere the instructions explain the responsibilities of those who must be ready to come into the courts of Yahweh (Schnittjer 2021:39–40). The burden of holiness cannot be restricted to the priesthood. Laity need to live up to their role as the holy people of God. Elsewhere Yahweh declares his people a holy nation, and he expects them to represent his holiness among the nations (Exod. 19.6; Deut. 7.6; 14.2, 21). But Leviticus focuses on the implications of holiness for a people ever preparing to enter the courts of Yahweh.
The implications of holiness extend to the congregation in terms of ritual purity (11–15) and ethical responsibilities (19.1–37). The reason for ritual purity when eating relies on the demands of holiness (11.44; cf. Liss 2008:342‒43). Likewise, the demands of holiness require obedience to moral commands. Leviticus 19 surveys a series of commands mostly in categorical (apodictic) form including fidelity in worship, respecting elders, avoiding sexual misconduct, and caring for those in need. The way Israel behaves in attitude, thought, word, and action contributes to Yahweh’s demands for the holiness of his people (Shepherd 2021:254‒55; Sklar 2014:242–43, 253; Bosman 2018:571‒90; Rendtorff 2005:507; Nihan 2007:466).
Several different proposals suggest that love thy neighbor summarizes the holiness collection and even the whole law. One line of thought attends to the opening, “Be holy” (19.2), and the conclusion of the chapter, “Keep all my statutes and all my regulations” (19.37, emphasis added; see Bosman 2018:584; cf. Kiuchi 2007:354, 362). Others focus on whether prohibitions against hating in one’s heart (19.17) or love thy neighbor can be considered law or wisdom because they cannot be adjudicated in a court of law (Akiyama 2017:1–8). What many proposals share in common is an acknowledgement of the unity of Lev. 19 due in large part to its structure. Whether any of these lines of interpretation work does not need to be decided for the point at hand. It is enough to observe that imitating Yahweh’s holiness includes love thy neighbor.
In sum, the presence of Yahweh’s glory in the tabernacle makes the call of Israel to be holy a practical reality. Priest and laity need to be ever preparing to come to the courts of Yahweh. The demands of holiness placed upon Israel include ritual purity and ethical obligations. The ethical demands of holiness for Israel include love thy neighbor.
Second, the structure of Lev. 19 relates to the repeated motive clause, “I am Yahweh.” 8 The motive clause in its several forms effectively organizes the legal standards into units. Note the places in the chapter marked by “I am Yahweh” (italics signify where “your God” follows [i.e., אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲנִי יהוה], and the plus signifies an added relative clause): Lev. 19.2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36+, 37. 9
Love thy neighbor is widely regarded as concluding the middle unit of Lev. 19. 10 Verses 11–18 present four sets of social standards for interpersonal relations, each ending with “I am Yahweh.” Driver says that the refrain “I am Yahweh” concludes these groups of five (“pentads”) (Driver 1914:52; cf. Nihan 2007:461). But that does not quite work. The pattern of the four paragraphs is five (vv. 11–12), five plus one (vv. 13–14), five (vv. 15–16), and five plus one (vv. 17–18)—though it is actually a little more complicated (see Table B).
Structure of Leviticus 19.11–18.
The interchangeability of social terms in vv. 11–18 also bears on love thy neighbor. Already by the late second temple period, Lev. 19.18b was being read together with 25.35 perhaps based on the catchwords “love” (אהב), “residing foreigner” (גר), and “as” (כ) in 19.18, 33‒34 and 25.35. For the present purpose, it is enough to note that “neighbor” (רע) was glossed with “brother” (אח): “… for each one to love his brother (אחיהו) as himself and to strengthen the hand of the poor and needy and the residing foreigner (גר)” (4Q266/CD 6.20b‒21, emphasis added to mark verbal parallels with Lev. 19.18 and 25.35). 11 Wenham argues that the addition of synonyms throughout 19.17‒18 would emphasize the climactic final paragraph when the passage is recited orally (see Table C, adapted from Wenham 1979:266–67).
Synonyms for Fellow in Leviticus 19.11–18.
The observations on structure vis-à-vis this second point thus far all move in the same direction. The last legal injunction in Lev. 19.11–18 stands as a climactic culmination. 12 Love thy neighbor in many ways epitomizes the social responsibilities of Israel. A granular investigation of vv. 17–18 reinforces this point and offers a sense of the command.
Jacob Milgrom suggests that vv. 17–18 present two panels with a repeating structure (a-b-c, a-b-c). 13 This proposal needs to be considered and slightly adjusted (see Figure D).
Leviticus 19.17–18 in Two Panelsa.
The use of the antonyms “hate” and “love” naturally invite understanding the two sets of commands together (vv. 17a, 18b). If “reprove with vigor” is the inverse counterpart to “hate in your heart,” it naturally stands as a positive complement to “love” (vv. 17b, 18b). Reproving with vigor versus hating in the heart reinforces love in action not just in feeling (in your heart). 14 The structure of vv. 17–18 naturally enlists vv. 17a, 17b, and 18a as explaining the sense of 18b: love in one’s heart (contra v. 17a); love with vigorous verbal persuasion (with v. 17b); love by actions of kindness and a spirit of goodwill (contra v. 18a 2x).
The structure of vv. 17–18 can be summarized in terms of question and answer. If love thy neighbor is the answer, it serves as such for four questions in this context. If you shall not hate your brother in your heart, what must you do? Love thy neighbor. If you reprove your fellow citizens, what are you doing? Love thy neighbor. If you shall not take vengeance against any of your people, what must you do? Love thy neighbor. If you shall not bear a grudge against any of your people, what must be your attitude toward them? Love thy neighbor. Within the context of vv. 17–18 love is a mindset, a way of speech, a set of actions, and an attitude of goodwill.
Third, the final use of the motive clause “I am Yahweh” after the laws themselves in Lev.19, but before the conclusion, demonstrates the relationship of holiness standards and redemption (v. 36). Many wonder about the sense of the repeated refrains “I am Yahweh” and “I am Yahweh your God” running through Lev. 19 (see list above) and much of the holiness collection. Milgrom says it means “I Yahweh (have spoken)” (Milgrom 2000:1517–18). Sklar (2014:242) says it connotes several related ideas: Yahweh is the God who redeemed you (Exod. 20.2; Lev. 11.45) and set you apart to be mine (Exod. 19.4–6; Lev. 11.45; 20.24; 22.33–34) and to dwell with you (Exod. 29.46). Childs takes it as a whole statement rather than short for something else. The repetition of “I am Yahweh” causes laws of Lev. 19 to be grounded in the nature of God’s being as holiness (1979:185). These suggestions usefully interpret the expression more globally in the holiness collection. But the use of the phrase in 19.36 is modified by a relative clause.
The last specific injunction in Lev. 19 comes with a fuller motive clause than any of those preceding it in this chapter. “I am Yahweh your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt” (19.36b, emphasis added). This stock phrase makes an important point. Redemption precedes commandment. The Israelites did not obey the law to become holy so God would redeem them. God redeemed Israel and then declared his covenantal will to the people who now belong to him (cf. Shepherd 2021:255–56).
The importance of the observation that “I am Yahweh” in love thy neighbor is short for “I am Yahweh your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt” may seem transparent. Yet there is more to it. The vertical context within love thy neighbor tethers it to love the residing foreigner in vv. 33–34 and to its deep vertical context that includes the prohibition against mistreating residing foreigners. The full import of the redemption stock phrase becomes magnified by the recurring stock phrase in the vertical context of love thy neighbor—“for you were residing foreigners in the land of Egypt” (19.34; Exod. 22.21[20]). Before this crucial observation is unpacked, an examination of the vertical context of love thy neighbor is needed.
How Does Vertical Context Work?
This section explains how vertical context functions and how study of vertical context overlaps with and differs from other kinds of critical research.
Vertical context offers a way to evaluate allusions, especially series of genetically related allusions. Nearly every aspect of the study of biblical allusions remains sharply contested. Thus, the present section begins with several brief definitions for the sake of discussing vertical context. 15 After providing definitions, this section will explain the function of vertical context in broad terms that will be applied to love thy neighbor in the next section.
An exegetical allusion within scripture requires three elements, namely, identifiable donor text, identifiable receptor text, and identifiable exegetical outcomes. Donor text refers to the cited scriptural tradition, and receptor text refers to the citing scriptural tradition. Determining direction of dependence, when possible, is based on a single criterion: an exegetical allusion with the right kind of evidence. When there is sufficient evidence to verify an allusion but not direction of dependence, then the related passages are considered parallel texts, not donor and receptor texts. While exegesis can be defined narrowly as explaining, studies of scriptural use of scripture more broadly evaluate exegetical outcomes such as explaining, connecting, extrapolating, extending, enhancing, and more.
Real versus imagined allusions require sufficient verbal, syntactical, and contextual evidence. While an echo lacks sufficient evidence to definitively determine whether it is coincidence or purposeful, allusions must be author-intended or they are not allusions.
The criterion of sufficient evidence for determining direction of dependence can be compared to alternative approaches. 16 For the present purposes, comparison to David Carr’s (2011) proposal for determining direction of dependence will suffice to illustrate the issues. Carr compares offsetting diachronic views of criteria for direction of dependence (107‒13), provides extensive analysis of several sectarian exemplars of exegesis of scripture (113‒23), and offers synoptic charts of sectarian parallels in Hebrew (131‒36). The models Carr uses include proto-Samaritan Pentateuch (4Q22), Reworked Pentateuch (4Q366, 4Q367), Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Temple Scroll (11Q19/11QTa). Carr finds remarkably consistent editorial characteristics, especially: (1) expansion of otherwise close verbal parallels, (2) combining elements otherwise found separately, (3) filling perceived gaps, (4) attention to theophany, and (5) adaptation to later circumstances (123). Carr compares these findings to Exodus 34.11‒26 and deduces that its similar editorial characteristics is evidence of the lateness of this legal collection (127‒30).
It is easy to agree that well-chosen empirical models can offer great help when other evidence is lacking (see Tigay 1985: passim; cf. complaints in Person and Rezetko 2016: passim). Carr’s late second temple sectarian empirical models, unfortunately, only represent a narrow range of exegetical phenomena in sharp contrast to the variety appearing within the Hebrew Bible. Carr’s criterion 4 needs to be excluded as relating to postbiblical sectarian ideology, as they are “repairing” felt inadequacies in scripture. Carr’s criterion 5 works well in cases in which the relative dating of texts is known through independent evidence, such as postbiblical sectarian writings versus the scriptural traditions they recycle. Though Carr’s first three criteria seem promising in the late sectarian texts he studies, they do not explain many cases of exegesis within scripture. In scripture, later texts often do not expand but abridge—contra criteria 1 and 3 (Neh. 13.1–2; cf. Deut. 23.3–6[4–7]; see Schnittjer 2021:683‒86). Carr’s criterion 2 can indicate direction of dependence in scriptural use of earlier scripture traditions in cases that feature additional evidence (e.g., syntactical, rare terms, Aramaisms). But merely identifying elements combined in one context and dispersed in another does not indicate direction of dependence (contra Carr 2011:123‒24). In scripture, sometimes receptor texts consolidate (cf. 1 Chr. 11.1–9//2 Sam. 5.1–10 with 1 Chr. 11.10–47//2 Sam. 23.8–39), and at other times, they distribute donor texts (e.g., the series of narrative vignettes cobbled together in 2 Samuel regarding David’s anointing, taking Jerusalem, defeating Philistines, and bringing the ark to Jerusalem run parallel to widely dispersed counterparts in Chronicles [cf. 2 Sam. 5.1–10//1 Chr. 11.1–9; 2 Sam. 5.11–25//1 Chr. 14.1–17; 2 Sam. 6.1–11//1 Chr. 13.5–14; 2 Sam. 6.12–18//1 Chr. 15.25–6.6; 2 Sam. 6.19//1 Chr. 16.43])—contra criterion 2 (Schnittjer 2021:709‒10). Figure E seeks to summarize the evidence against Carr’s criterion 2. While Carr’s (2011:113‒23) limited empirical models only consolidate isolated traditions such as a, b and c in Figure E, the scriptures feature receptor texts that consolidate like a-b-c as well as donor texts that get distributed like x, y, z. In short, the limited range of exegetical tendencies in Carr’s selected empirical models does not correspond with the wide range of exegesis in scripture.
Consolidation of Remote Texts and Broad Distribution of Combined Texts.
The evidence necessary to determine direction of dependence varies greatly. In the case of Exod. 34.11‒26, the evidence points in the opposite direction of Carr’s claims that it is the latest legal collection in Torah (2011:130). The citation formula in Deut. 12.20 (“as he has spoken to you”) when alluding to Exod. 34.24, including verbal parallels, confirms the dependence of the place legislation of Deut. 12 on the covenant renewal collection of Exod. 34 (Kilchör 2019:465). Suggesting the other direction of dependence in this case amounts to reading against the sense of the text.
Michael Lyons explains the way newer, more precise ways of handling the evidence of allusions stand apart from many older approaches that were more dependent on theological variations (2016:1073). Close examination of syntactical variations and opportunities to triangulate when a receptor text brings together multiple donor texts with rare expressions play a part in the evaluation of allusions in Leviticus 19 presented in the next section.
Christophe Nihan is representative of many who regard Lev. 19 as dependent on the legal collections in Exod. 20‒23 and Deut. 12‒26 (2007:46). While the general relationship of Lev. 19 to these other legal collections falls outside this study, the evidence of the allusions themselves presented in the next section reveals problems with Nihan’s view of the direction of dependence of Lev. 19.18, 33‒34 (see citations below).
Determining direction of dependence is only a first step. Allusions activate elements within both donor and receptor texts that offer mutual interpretive enrichment one to the other (Ben-Porat 1976:105–28, esp. 107, 127). The allusion both connects exegetical outcomes to the donor text and opens the receptor text to the context of the donor text. In the case of scriptural allusions, the emerging sense of canonical consciousness makes allusive interconnections permanent. Exegetical allusions bind together scriptural donor and receptor texts. Responsible interpretation of scripture means attending to exegetical allusions. The alternative is to take passages out of context.
Vertical context refers to interconnections by allusion. When a later receptor text exegetically alludes to an earlier donor text, the allusion causes the donor text to be part of the context of the receptor text. Vertical context is a native part of the receptor text.
Allusions connect past and present. The context of the author’s present is more than the historical, cultural, and religious realities of the author’s life-setting and more than the the literary and compositional context(s) of the scroll the author is writing (Schnittjer 2021:890). The authoritative scriptural tradition of the donor context is also part of the present context of the author and of the receptor text. Study of vertical context takes seriously the shaping power of the donor context and the advance of revelation in the receptor context. Vertical context encompasses the mutual reciprocal exegetical effects of donor and receptor contexts one upon the other. 17
Several exegetical functions can illustrate select tendencies of vertical context. Interpretive blends connect two texts by interpreting one donor context in the light of another. 18 The basis for exegetically connecting two or more donor contexts varies widely. In many cases, a catchword or catchphrase offers the ostensive basis for bringing together two otherwise separate contexts. Other interpretive blends take advantage of thematic and/or theological (dis)similarity. Interpretive blends are exceptionally common across the entire Christian Bible. When Moses tries to appeal to Yahweh’s mercy after the rebellion at Kadesh, he launches into a prayer that blends petitions akin to his prayer after Israel sinned with the golden calf now infused with part of the attribute formula when Yahweh revealed himself to Moses on the mountain—“Yahweh is slow to anger, abounding in love,” and so on (Num. 14.12–19; Schnittjer 2021:64–65).
Exegetical allusion within vertical context may extrapolate latent potential within a donor context. A legal prohibition, for example, may suggest a positive counterpart in the other direction from the prohibition. Exegetical extrapolation goes beyond legal exegesis. Emphasis on Yahweh as a God of compassion and grace in the attribute formula naturally serves as a basis for Nahum to speak of Yahweh as a jealous and avenging God (Nah. 1.2; Schnittjer 2021:421–24).
An exegetical allusion can extend an element of the donor text through one or more stages of vertical context. Jonah’s anger springs from his knowledge that Israel does not hold a monopoly on the grace and compassion of Yahweh—something Jonah knows from the attribute formula (Jonah 4.2; Schnittjer 2021:404–7).
Exegetical allusions can enhance an aspect of a donor context. Moses follows up on the image commandment (second commandment) that Yahweh is a jealous God who punishes iniquity to the third and fourth generations via a twofold emphasis on his commitment to repay Yahweh-haters to their faces (Deut. 7.9–10 lit.; Schnittjer 2021:107–8).
The representative exegetical functions just summarized—connection, extrapolation, extension, enhancement—all play out in the vertical context of love thy neighbor. These are a small sampling of the ways vertical contexts work. 19
If allusions activate aspects of the horizontal contexts of donor and receptor texts in relation to one another, then vertical context can commute the connotations of a donor text upward to a series of receptor texts and the connotations of a receptor text downward to the series of donor texts upon which it depends.
However, it is worth noting that vertical context never functions in a vacuum. Interpretation of donor and receptor texts needs to attend to horizontal and vertical context. The very places at which horizontal and vertical contexts intersect often feature an exegetical and theological nexus of the scriptural teaching. Such is the case with love thy neighbor, as will be demonstrated below.
Study of the vertical and horizontal contexts of allusions needs to be situated in relation to other approaches to the study of allusions. The concept of horizontal context refers to a synchronic approach, whereas vertical context refers to a diachronic approach. The authorship of a receptor text is both a “reader” of a scriptural tradition represented by a passage in the final form of scripture and an “author” of another context. This suggests that the study of allusions can be thought of in terms of diachronic and synchronic approaches. Both approaches need clarification.
The unwieldy umbrella categories of diachronic and synchronic require disambiguation because they group together incompatible research programs. These can be broadly sorted by attaching research programs to aims. 20 In the broadest terms, diachronic approaches work toward textual aims or toward excavative aims (Alter 2011:14). Excavative diachronic studies move from the biblical text toward authorship elements like theoretical sources, theoretical editorial layers, theoretical scribal dynamics, and their theoretical life settings and seek to establish dates of all of these. Diachronic studies with textual aims work with the same evidence but focus on what the authorship has put together. With respect to synchronic approaches, the extremely diverse scholarship can reflect both readerly oriented or textually oriented aims. Readerly goals could put two unrelated biblical contexts into conversation, focus on the reception history of a given context, read a biblical context in light of modern literature or film, and so on. Synchronic textual goals revolve around the received text.
The present study to a lesser extent utilizes a synchronic approach with textual aims to evaluate horizontal contexts and to a greater extent uses a diachronic approach with textual aims to evaluate vertical context. Therefore, in the present study vertical context is not being exploited to determine theoretical authorial goals. In practical terms, this means that in the case of love thy neighbor and its donor texts, the evidence necessary to determine direction of dependence is only used to affirm sequence of texts or relative dating. Determining the sequence of donor and receptor texts based on verifiable evidence provides a strong basis for exegetical and theological outcomes in diachronic approaches with textual aims.
Study of vertical contexts could be used as a basis for diachronic excavative studies. However, in spite of the potential benefits vertical context has been widely ignored. The present proposal evaluates one the most studied contexts within Leviticus based on empirically verifiable evidence, yet diachronic excavative studies have bypassed this evidence (see below).
Watts reviews several diachronic excavative studies of Leviticus and observes that theoretical reconstructions typically use unsupported hypotheses to address problems with the main theory. Watts reviews Nihan’s detailed study of Leviticus (2007) and shows that the merits of Nihan’s synchronic analysis are routinely undercut by his stringing together of unsupported hypotheses that produce “circular reasoning” (2013:43‒44; cf. 45n23). 21 Though the present study suggests that diachronic excavative studies could benefit from an evidence-based approach to vertical contexts, multiplying hypotheses would certainly take the edge off, as Watts has observed.
Michael Fishbane’s research on the scriptural use of scripture works forward toward rabbinic tendencies of interpretation. 22 The two central sections of his Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel collect cases of scriptural allusions that illustrate legal exegesis and aggadic exegesis (1985:91‒440). One of Fishbane’s reviewers claims the opening section on scribal interventions includes cases that do not fit in the important central sections to help those cases more closely resemble the rabbinic exegesis they anticipate (Kugel 1987b:275). In any case, by comparison with Fishbane’s forward-looking approach, working with allusions according to vertical context considers allusions forward and backward. By working up and down vertical contexts, exegetical outcomes can be strengthened for donor and receptor texts (see next section).
Much confusion continues to surround what is connoted by “intertextuality” and/or “inner-biblical interpretation” in biblical studies. After complaining about the way labels related to studies of allusions are used and offering his own idiosyncratic definitions, one scholar claims that it is “unethical” to speak of author-oriented studies of allusions as intertextual or to refer to reader-centered studies as inner-biblical (Meek 2014:290‒91). This seems wrong. It is not clear why it would be unethical for a scholar such as Fishbane, who usually refers to his study of allusions as focused on inner-biblical interpretation (e.g., Fishbane 1980:343, et passim), to suggest it also can be seen as a study of intertextual relations (Fishbane 2000:39). Meanwhile, some scholars admit that “intertextuality … can cover any type of relations between texts” (Edenberg 2010:173n16, emphasis original). And a large number of scholars use “intertextuality” in a nontechnical manner “as a synonym for ‘echo’ or ‘allusion’” (Theocharous 2012:1). The most helpful surveys of scholarship on allusions may still be the ones by Miller, (2010:283‒309), Schniedewind (2005:502‒9), and Kynes (2012:17‒60). 23
In spite of protracted debate surrounding what terms to use to describe the study of biblical allusions, more attention needs to be directed to how biblical allusions work. If studying “inner-biblical exegesis” is a diachronic approach with excavative aims and if studying “intertextual relations” is a synchronic approach with readerly aims, as Meek would have them (2014:290‒91), then the present study is neither of these.
As stated above, the study of vertical and horizontal contexts pursued here are diachronic and synchronic with textual aims in both cases. The study of the vertical context of love thy neighbor in the next section will interact with several competing approaches (esp. diachronic studies with excavative aims), which will illustrate the different ways the evidence is assessed. The next section will close with an observation on how the vertical context of love thy neighbor intersects with its horizontal context discussed above.
Vertical Context of Love Thy Neighbor
The evidence of intentional interpretive interventions between love thy neighbor and its donor text and its donor text’s donor contexts offers a basis for evaluating its exegetical outcomes (see Figure A above). This section will work down through the vertical context of love thy neighbor, identifying its series of donor texts and their contributions to their receptor contexts. Love thy neighbor represents the culmination of this series of exegetical allusions interconnected by vertical context. This section will conclude by briefly considering the intersection of the vertical and horizontal contexts of love thy neighbor. Before working down through the vertical context of love thy neighbor, a proposal for an alternate direction of dependence needs to be considered.
Many interpreters think that the command to love the residing foreigner in Lev. 19.34 alludes to love thy neighbor. This is often simply asserted with no evaluation of the evidence. 24 A rare exception is Milgrom (2000:1403, 1706–7). 25 He argues that the insertion of “love the residing foreigner as yourself” in the second person singular in a context dominated by the plural signals dependence on love thy neighbor. Notice the switch: “The residing foreigner residing with you (plur, לָכֶם) shall be treated like the citizen among you (plur, מִכֶּם). You shall love (sing, וְאָהַבְתָּ) them as yourself (sing, כָּמוֹךָ) for you were (plur, הֱיִיתֶם) residing foreigners (plur, גֵרִים) …” (Lev. 19.34, emphasis added). At first this seems like strong evidence, as cases of exegetical allusion frequently feature grammatical anomalies to accommodate the language of the donor context. 26 But a closer examination shows that the evidence actually points in another direction.
The term for citizen (אֶזְרָח) will be discussed further below, but for now focus needs to be restricted to its pairing with residing foreigner (גֵּר). In fifteen of seventeen of its biblical appearances, the term citizen is paired with residing foreigner. 27 In these pairs, both terms are used as collective singulars—the residing foreigner standing for any and every residing foreigner and the citizen standing for any and every citizen. 28 More to the point, in thirteen of fifteen cases, the citizen and residing foreigner appear in the singular within plural contexts. 29 Thus, when the residing foreigner and citizen are treated in the singular within the plural context of the command to love the residing foreigner, it is not a syntactical anomaly (contra, e.g., Milgrom 2000:1403, 1706–7; Noth 1962:189). It accords with the norm. It is worth pausing to consider one of the two exceptions, as it is part of the deep vertical context of love thy neighbor. (The other exception is not relevant here.)
Exodus 12.48 shifts to the singular on a different basis, standing as it does between decidedly plural emphases in v. 47 (“the entire congregation of Israel must celebrate [3mp] it”) and v. 49 (“there shall be one law for the citizen and the residing foreigner residing among you [2mp]”). This law does not merely refer to residing foreigners who are part of the mixed multitude that leaves Egypt with Israel (Exod. 12.38) or residing foreigners who find refuge within the gates of a city (Deut 16.14). The residing foreigner in 12.48 is one who is residing within the household of an individual family of Israel (cf. Exod. 12.44, 46). It is personal. The residing foreigner is residing with you personally in your house (12.48; cf. 3.22).
The importance of the syntactical shift from plural to singular in Exod. 12.48 likely bears on the command to love the residing foreigner because it is one of its donor texts (see Figure A). The beginning of the law of Passover participation—“When the residing foreigner residing with you (2ms אִתְּךָ) …” (Exod. 12.48, emphasis added)—is repeated verbatim in the introduction to the command to love the residing foreigner: “When the residing foreigner residing with you (2ms אִתְּךָ) …” (Lev. 19.33). 30 The use of the preposition “with” and an attached second person pronominal suffix (אִתְּךָ) in Exod. 12.48 and Lev. 19.33 both likely attract harmonistic “corrections” to second-person plural pronominal suffixes (אִתְּכֶם) in the ancient versions because the next verse uses a second-person plural pronominal suffix in both cases (cf. Schnittjer 2022b). 31 Innocent Himbaza (2020:112*) suggests the evidence of the variants points to syntactical harmonization and does not warrant emending the text.
One further element may be noted in the larger context of Passover before moving on. Yahweh’s preview of Passover includes women of Israel plundering Egyptian “neighbors” and female residing foreigners living within Israelite households as dependents (Exod. 3.22). 32 Yahweh later commands the men to ask their neighbors (רֵעֵהוּ) and the women to ask their neighbors (רְעוּתָהּ) for goods (11.2; cf. 12.35–36). The point is that at the first Passover, “neighbors” could refer to non-Israelite residing foreigners and/or Egyptians. This is suggestive in the light of the extrapolation from the command to love the residing foreigner to love your Israelite neighbor in Lev. 19 vv. 34 and 18 since they are dependent on the law of Passover participation in Exod. 12.48.
In summary of this point, the evidence does not support proposals that the command to love the residing foreigner depends on love thy neighbor. An evaluation of the syntactical evidence, of itself, is far from decisive, as the norm is for the collective singulars “citizen” and “residing foreigner” to appear in plural contexts. When the exception to the rule in Exod. 12.48 is considered, it actually points the other direction because it serves as one of the donor contexts of the command to love the residing foreigner, as will be seen below.
The command to Love thy neighbor depends on the command to love the residing foreigner as thyself. The memorable phrase “as thyself” only appears twice in Leviticus: in chapter 19 vv. 18 and 34. The phrase comes from combining the attached preposition “as, like” k- (כְּ) and the second-person singular pronominal suffix “you, yourself” -ka (ךָ) to form the resultant phrase “like you” kamoka (כָּמוֹךָ). 33 The phrase in this form appears less than thirty times in the Hebrew Scriptures, including seven times in Torah (“כְּמוֹ” Even-Shoshan 1990:548–49, nos. 74–102). The comparative sense of the phrase with its second-person pronoun means it always appears in contexts of direct address. In all cases, listeners are asked to compare an action toward someone else to an action toward oneself or the like. For example, the version of the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy requires heads of households to grant Sabbath to slaves the same “as you” (Deut. 5.14).
More important evidence of allusion between the two “as yourself” commands in Leviticus comes from the shared rare syntax of the verb love and its objects. The verb appears more than 200 times in the Hebrew Bible. The verb normally uses the accusative marker (definite direct object marker) “et (אֵת)” to indicate the object of love. 34 Only three times is the direct object of finite forms of love marked by the attached preposition l- (לְ), namely, Lev. 19.18, 34, and 2 Chr. 19.2. 35 The pair of related laws in Lev. 19 with unusual syntax can be compared to the parallel law in Deuteronomy. Notice the evidence of allusion (emphases signify verbal parallels, and broken underlining signifies unconventional syntax).
Nihan claims that Lev. 19.34 depends on Deut. 10.19. He regards the “innovation” of adding “as yourself ” in Lev. 19.34 as confirming the direction of dependence (2007:476). But Nihan fails to examine the syntax of the command “You shall love the residing foreigner” in these two verses. The evidence from the syntax points in the opposite direction of Nihan’s view.
Receptor texts tend to disambiguate. The conventional versus rare syntax provides strong evidence that the parallel in Deut. 10 depends on Lev. 19 (contra: Nihan 2007:476; Bosman 2018:580, 586; Kidd 1999:790n59). 36 Though the broader relationship between the holiness collection and Deuteronomy falls outside the present study—whether one depends on the other or if the relationship is more complex—a few correlations to the evidence presented here will be included in the conclusion below.
There is good evidence to suggest that Lev. 19.33–34 is a receptor text of an interpretive blend of the law of Passover participation (Exod. 12.48) and the law protecting residing foreigners in the covenant collection (22.21[20]; cf. 23.9). To get at this requires close consideration of the use of the language of these passages to demonstrate dependence.
The term “citizen” in Lev. 19.34 appears fourteen times in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, as well as two or three times elsewhere. 37 The binary pair citizen and residing foreigner in this verse consistently appears in legal standards in Leviticus and Numbers. 38 Only four times does the simile “as the citizen” (כְּאֶזְרָח) serve as the object of “to be” (היה) with the subject residing foreigner (Exod. 12.48; Lev. 19.34; 24.22; Ezek. 47.22). Of these four Ezek. 47.22–23 is derivative of Lev. 19.34 (Schnittjer 2021:344–46).
The verb “mistreat” with residing foreigner as its object occurs three times in scripture, but only in Exod. 22.21[20] and Lev. 19.33 is it explained by the analogy of Israel as residing foreigners in Egypt. 39 The rationale clause “for you were residing foreigners in the land of Egypt” appears four times in scripture. 40 The four occurrences include Exod. 22.21[20] and Lev. 19.34 and two contexts derivative of these two passages (Exod. 23.9; Deut. 10.19). 41 In short, the rationale clause with the prohibition against mistreatment of residing foreigners only appears twice in scripture.
In sum, the combination of the evidence presented in the preceding paragraphs makes the case for dependence almost assured. Note the parallels (bold and underlining signify verbal parallels).
The command to love the residing foreigner as yourself came out of an interpretive blend of the law of Passover participation and the prohibition against mistreating residing foreigners. The exegetical mechanics at work in the interpretive blend include connection and extrapolation. The command to love the residing foreigner connects the two legal standards from Exodus based on the catchword residing foreigner (see underlined and bold term in 19.33 above and its antecedents in Exod. 12.48; 22.21[20]). The command to love the residing foreigner extrapolates from the donor texts how and why citizens need to treat the residing foreigners among them.
The residing foreigner has been much discussed. 42 The focus here must be restricted to issues that bear on the legal standards in the vertical context of love thy neighbor. The legal standards of exclusion and inclusion of Passover introduce a variety of others. It begins with a categorical statement: “No foreigner shall eat of it” (Exod. 12.43). The grammatical construction of “all” (כֹּל) plus “no” (לֹא) plus imperfect verb expresses an absolute negation. 43 After beginning with this categorical umbrella statement, the legal standard goes on to sort out two subcategories of others: excluded others and included others. These subcategories argue against the literal sense of “foreigner” (בֶּן־נֵכָר). The term foreigner here cannot denote ethnic or genealogical identity, but implies an exclusion from Israel on some other basis. 44 The dividing line between foreigners and Israel in the law of Passover participation is circumcision as a sign of commitment to the covenant. 45
Temporary residents or sojourners (תּוֹשָׁב) and hired workers or day laborers (שָׂכִיר) are excluded (Exod. 12.45). Residing foreigners (גֵּר) must be circumcised to participate. Of course, from a social vantage point, residing foreigners may at times live and function exactly like sojourners and day laborers (Block 1989:4:562; cf. Venn diagram 563). The term residing foreigner here signifies seeking asylum that goes beyond social, political, and economic refuge. Circumcised residing foreigners identify with the congregation of redemption. They celebrate Passover like any citizen of Israel.
An Achilles’ heel troubles interpreters who try to say who is in and who is out. The term residing foreigner is a social term. A residing foreigner may or may not be circumcised. The same is true, of course, of all foreigners. 46 Because the present study focuses on the law of Passover participation and its receptor texts, unless otherwise stated, the term residing foreigner refers to residing foreigners who had been circumcised and must adhere to covenantal standards like participation in the Passover.
The residing foreigner who joins the covenantal community is required to follow the standards against ritual contamination and defilement so they do not put the congregation in jeopardy of Yahweh’s wrath. The holiness collection repeatedly emphasizes the need for Israel and residing foreigners alike to uphold the standards of holiness. 47 Likewise, Deuteronomy sees the residing foreigner as eligible to receive the holy portions (הַקֹּדֶשׁ) as charity like any Levite or Hebrew widow or orphan (Deut. 26.13; cf. 14.29). Residing foreigners join with the assembly of Israel to enter into a formal covenant (29.11[10]), participate in the annual pilgrimage festivals (16.11, 14; 26.11), and listen to Torah reading (31.12). 48 In all of these areas dominated by the patriarchal structure of Israel, residing foreigners are classed with the rest of the assembly of Israel—women, children, and the protected classes. The concern of the present study is much more limited. What is the significance of the command to love the residing foreigner?
A residing foreigner refers to a non-Israelite, long-term resident in Israel or among the Israelites—they have residing foreigners with them in Egypt (Exod. 3.22). 49 They occupy an intermediate place in a sliding scale from citizen (אֶזְרָח) to residing foreigner (גֵּר) to foreigner (נָכְרִי). People became residing foreigners seeking asylum elsewhere because of economic depression or famine (Gen. 26.3; Ruth 1.1), military losses, or other troubles (“גֵּר” TDOT 2:443). 50
The binary pair citizen/residing foreigner needs special consideration because it appears in Lev. 19.34. 51 Glossing אֶזְרָח as native-born (NIV; cf. KJV, ESV) does not work since the Israelite born outside the land is an אֶזְרָח even while a residing foreigner (גֵּר) or stranger (זָר) born in the land is not (“אֶזְרָח” DCHR 1:227). The term citizen better connotes the rights of the אֶזְרָח and lack of rights of the גֵּר. The difference includes but goes beyond the landlessness of the residing foreigner (גֵּר). While the protected classes of residing foreigners, orphans, and Levites lack land (Deut 14.27, 29; 26.12), widows may have land. The common denominator of widows and orphans is lacking a man. The common denominator of orphans and Levites is lack of inheritance. In a Venn diagram the circle of the residing foreigner overlaps with both the man-less and land-less protected classes of widows, orphans, and Levites. The patriarchal setting of ancient Israel means the adult male residing foreigner needs a provider, a landed-male-citizen, like any orphan or widow does. 52 The crucial otherness of the residing foreigner versus the citizen includes lack of standing—rights and inheritance. The residing foreigner seeking asylum needs to find refuge at the goodwill of citizens. 53 The absence of citizenship inclusive of lack of all things the average man of Israel possessed as rights and privileges accounts for the perpetual vulnerability of the residing foreigner.
The patriarchal shape of the legal standards means laws typically address adult males of Israel as you singular and you plural (Schnittjer 2022b). Legal standards say you shall not oppress them—widows, orphans, residing foreigners. But as part of Israel, widows and orphans enjoy other rights denied to the non-citizen. 54 The othering of the residing foreigner is more than financial. It is more than vulnerability to being harassed.
The parallel law protecting residing foreigners in the covenant collection explains the burden of the residing foreigner (emphases mark verbal parallels).
The added phrase in 23.9 makes an emphatic point by starting with “you yourselves know.” This knowledge or experiential fund needs to be considered.
The rich expression in the B line of Exod. 23.9 can be rendered into English as “you yourselves know the longing of the residing foreigner (וְאָתֶּם יְדַעְתֶּם אֶת־נֶפֶשׁ הַגֵּר).” 57 The term נֶפֶשׁ literally refers to the throat, causing a quasi-metonymy of the throat’s dual function as an organ of breathing and an organ of appetite or desire. Lack of citizenship lingers as a bad memory. Israel knows what it means to bear the burden of being an outsider. Consider several renderings of Exod. 23.9 (emphases added).
Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. (KJV) Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt. (NIV) You must not oppress a foreigner, since you know the life of a foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. (NET)
The use of נֶפֶשׁ as longing in Exod. 23.9 likely captures its sense, but notice the use of the verbal form of נפשׁ with residing foreigner (גֵּר) as subject three verses down. Exod. 23.12 speaks of ceasing from labor “that the slave born in your household and the residing foreigner may catch their breath” (23.12, emphasis added). The verb “breathe” (נפשׁ exclusively Nifal) appears only three times, each with the sense of breathe. 58 The KJV’s glossing of the verb as “refresh” is followed by nearly all modern committee translations. While the abstract idea of refresh oneself fits, the more concrete expression in Hebrew—to catch one’s breath—better captures the reason for the residing foreigner’s much-needed rest. A partial parallel shows that to know the longing in 23.9 is an idiom of empathy for the one doing the work: “The righteous person knows (יוֹדֵעַ) the longing (נֶפֶשׁ) of their animals” (Prov. 12.10a; see Propp 2006:280). The longing (נֶפֶשׁ) of the working domestic animal, slave, and residing foreigner overlaps with the need to pause and catch one’s breath (נפשׁ). This longing, therefore, is something of a burden.
Joseph Kelly’s observation about the motive clause in Exod. 23.9 needs to be qualified. He translates the expression in question as “Indeed, you know the psychological experience of the גר” (וְאָתֶּם יְדַעְתֶּם אֶת־נֶפֶשׁ הַגֵּר) (Kelly 2013:162, emphasis added). 59 He explains that he landed on the gloss “psychological experience” because the English word psyche comes from ψυχή, which the LXX uses for נֶפֶשׁ (Kelly 2013:163n31). 60 This does not quite work. The sense of psychological experience projects a modern clinical outlook onto the prohibition. In spite of the anachronism, there is merit in Kelly’s larger argument that the motive clause functions something like a negative golden rule: “do not do to the גר among you as the Egyptians did to you when you were גרים in Egypt” (Kelly 2013;163, emphasis original; cf. 163–66).
The collective experiential fund is often cited to prohibit Israel from harassing those without rights who seek asylum among God’s people. The protections for the vulnerable classes are punctuated by the rationale “for you were residing foreigners in the land of Egypt” (e.g., Exod. 22.21[20]; 23.9) and “for you were slaves in Egypt” (e.g., Deut 23.7[8]; 24.18, 22). 61 The motive clauses explain why Yahweh prohibits Israel from abusing residing foreigners by creating a kind of negative reciprocal logic. Israel shall not harass the residing foreigner because Israel knows the longing of the residing foreigner. The importance of the negative reciprocal logic lies in its contribution to the exegetical move toward the positive “as yourself” counterpart in Leviticus.
The interpretive extrapolations of two streams of logic—one from each donor text—converge in the interpretive blend in Lev. 19.33–34. First, the law protecting residing foreigners grows out of the negative reciprocal logic of Israel’s experience as vulnerable, abused outsiders. Israel knows what it is to be a residing foreigner (Exod. 22.21[20]; Lev. 19.34). Second, the law of Passover participation hinges on the simile of residing foreigners participating “like” any citizen (Exod. 12.48; Lev. 19.34). As in many other cases, the exegetical outcomes in the receptor text are greater than the donor texts considered individually.
Leviticus 19.33 treads the familiar path of protecting the residing foreigner from mistreatment by citizens. But the prohibition against mistreatment carried over from the covenant collection is not complete without extrapolation. The standards for residing foreigners at Passover create the need for a positive admonition to fill out the responsibilities of Israel for the outsiders. If residing foreigners enter the covenant, they must participate in Passover “like” any citizen. If residing foreigners worship like any insider, then the absence of mistreatment is insufficient.
Because the residing foreigner is like the citizen at Passover, then citizens are responsible to treat them as their own. The right verb for how citizens treat their own people is love. In Torah love can speak of Jacob’s immediate and sustained affections for Rachel (Gen. 29.18). Love also refers to the covenantal devotion Israel must give to their God (Deut. 6.5). Within the covenantal framework, the binary pair love/hate translates into Yahweh’s relationship with those who obey or reject his will. Yahweh-lovers obey (7.9), and Yahweh-haters rebel (7.10–11). The term love connotes both affection for one’s own people and covenantal devotion. Love is a commitment that motivates actions. This is fine as far as it goes, but the next interpretive move in Leviticus 19 further develops the significance of love.
The next step from loving the residing foreigner to loving the neighbor is clear and yet crucial. The mechanics of this exegetical allusion include both extending love and enhancing love. The extension of love to neighbors provides them with the kind of treatment due to residing foreigners.
The scriptures include many cases of moving from the lesser to the greater. The lesser to the greater needs to be made explicit because of human nature. This principle may be expressed as: If X how much more Y. If Israel must help the domestic animal of one’s enemy (Exod. 23.4–5), how much more the domestic animal of one’s fellow (Deut. 22.1–4)? If the seducer must pay and do the bidding of the father and daughter (Exod. 22.16–17[15–16]), how much more the rapist (Deut. 22.28–29)? If citizens of Israel must love the residing foreigner as they love themselves, how much more the neighbor (Lev. 19.33–34, 18b)?
The vertical context snaps together with the horizontal context in Leviticus 19.18b with the term love. The structure and selection of the verb in love thy neighbor causes it to be read in light of each of the preceding four verbs and their clauses in 19.17–18a (see Figure D and associated discussion above).
Do not hate in your heart rather love in your heart—mental activity (brother) Reprove with vigor because of love—verbal activity (fellow citizen) Do not take vengeance rather do acts of love—actions (your people) Do not bear a grudge rather bear goodwill—relational attitude (your people)
The horizontal context that bears on the command to love thy neighbor loads a multiplex of connotations upon it. The verb in love thy neighbor applies to thought, word, deed, and attitude. That is what it means to love thy neighbor in its immediate context. And the object of love is key.
The cluster of parallel terms in 19.17–18a all explain the identity of your neighbor. The term neighbor corresponds to brother, fellow citizen, and your people. In an us-and-them scheme, the neighbor refers to all of those who compose the in-group over and against the other. At exactly this point, the exegetical advancement runs back down the vertical context from whence it came.
The presentation of love thy neighbor in horizontal context enhances what it means to love even while simultaneously retrojecting these enhancements onto the command to love the residing foreigner. That is how interpretive allusions work. They activate both the donor and receptor contexts, opening each of them to mutual enrichment from the other (see previous section).
If you shall love your neighbor as yourself and you shall love the residing foreigner as yourself, then the responsibility to love “us” and the subset of “them” represented by the residing foreigner is identical. That is the point of treating “the residing foreigner who resides among you like your own citizens” (19.34).
Who is the other represented by the residing foreigner? In the opposition between citizen and residing foreigner, the residing foreigner signifies the vulnerable, the homeless, the outsider. Every citizen of Israel is part of a people who know the longing of this kind of other. They lived it. They are expected to translate their own experiential fund as outsiders into a commitment to treat the other the same way they treat their own citizens. This fits well since residing foreigners can be neighbors within the vertical context of love the residing foreigner as thyself (see above on Exod. 3.22 and 12.48).
In sum, the residing foreigner who takes the sign of circumcision must participate in Passover like any citizen. Mistreatment of residing foreigners is forbidden because Israel knows exactly what it is like to be an outsider without rights and with no one to help. The laws of Passover participation and protections of the residing foreigner each suggest a positive counterpart. Because the residing foreigner participates in Passover like any citizen, and because Israel shall not mistreat the residing foreigner because of Israel’s own experience as residing foreigners in Egypt, then Israel shall treat residing foreigners as they treat citizens. They are told directly: You shall love residing foreigners as yourself. And, if you love them as yourself, how much more shall you love your neighbor in the same way. The kind of love due to neighbor and residing foreigner alike includes thought, speech, actions, and attitude.
Conclusion
This conclusion will offer a summary of the evidence of dependence presented above briefly correlated with other elements that corroborate this evidence. This will be followed by three representative hermeneutical implications of vertical context and then three implications of love thy neighbor.
The evidence evaluated above demonstrates that Deut 10.19 and Lev. 19.18 depend on 19.33‒34. Meanwhile, the evidence shows that 19.33‒34 depends on Exod. 12.48 and 22.21[20] (see Figure A above). The syntactical evidence is especially strong because of grammatical disambiguation in the case of Deut. 10.19 and the rareness of the shared language and syntax in the cases of Lev. 19.18 and 19.33‒34.
These findings point to some problems with the generalizations made by Nihan (2007:466) and others that Lev. 19 depends on Deut. 12‒26. The evidence that Deut. 10.19 depends on Leviticus 19.33–34 is supported by parallel dependences. The allowance for profane slaughter when Israel enters the land and lives far from the sanctuary (Deut. 12.21) is an exegetical development of the precedent set by the profane slaughter of game animals in the holiness collection (Lev. 17.13). The citation formula strongly confirms the direction of dependence—“as I have commanded you” (כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוּיתִךָ) (Deut. 12.21; so Mattison 2018:66‒67; contra Nihan 2004:93). Likewise, Deuteronomy’s skin disease legal standard shows itself to be the receptor context by overtly marking its broad allusion to the priestly regulations regarding the skin disease of Lev. 13–14 with “You shall carefully do as I have commanded them” (24.8). 62 The present study is restricted to a diachronic approach with textual aims so only relative sequence of texts is in view rather than theoretical dating (see above). The evidence discussed in this study calls for reexamination of proposals that have not taken into account the evidence for direction of dependence (see studies noted above).
The evidence presented above points to at least three hermeneutical implications. First, vertical context has not been taken seriously. Inadequate attention has been paid to the function of exegetical allusions within Israel’s scriptures.
Yes, study of the New Testament use of scripture has come into its own, and its importance is widely acknowledged. Yes, many scholars of the Hebrew Bible have investigated scriptural exegesis within Israel’s scriptures. In spite of both of these areas of sustained scholarly attention, vertical context remains widely ignored within the exegetical process.
Vertical context is not an add-on. It exists within hundreds of exegetical receptor contexts throughout Israel’s scriptures. Exegetical allusions permanently connect these receptor texts to their donor contexts. Failure to investigate vertical context naturally leads to stunted interpretation.
Second, vertical contexts within Israel’s scriptures everywhere intersect with the horizontal contexts of donor texts and receptors texts. Vertical contexts behave differently from one to the next as much as the hermeneutical tendencies of authors of scripture vary. This means that the way vertical contexts intersect with horizontal contexts needs to be evaluated case by case. While much progress has been made on horizontal contexts, these need to be reevaluated in cases that include vertical contexts.
Third, vertical context among scriptural traditions simultaneously signals continuity and advancement. Exegetical allusions to donor contexts permanently connect donor and receptor texts. This creates a need to read the texts together. At the same time, receptor texts cannot have a monopoly on a particular exegetical advancement. One scriptural interpretation often invites another of the very same donor text. Or the receptor text may serve as a donor text for a later scriptural interpretation. In short, scriptural exegesis of scripture advances revelation even while it invites additional interpretive interventions.
Several implications flow from this investigation of the vertical context of love thy neighbor. Here are three that come from the intersection of its vertical and horizontal contexts.
First, the vertical context that culminates in love thy neighbor is a two-way street. The kind of love required for neighbors—in thought, word, action, and attitude—naturally retrojects this enhancement to the law to love the residing foreigner.
Second, Lev. 19 begins accompanying a command: be holy. The chapter ends with a call to obey all of the statutes and decrees. In between, love thy neighbor epitomizes an actualization of both of these. Love thy neighbor is the culmination of a series of exegetical advances within Torah and epitomizes the ethical demands of holiness.
Third, the rationale clause accompanying the command to love the residing foreigner highlights Israel’s status as a redeemed people. “Love the residing foreigner as yourself for you were residing foreigners in the land of Egypt” (Lev. 19.34, emphasis added). When Israel knew the longing of the residing foreigner in Egypt (Exod. 23.9), God heard (2.24), and he knew (2.25; cf. 22.23[22]). Thus, the repetitions of the motive statements in Lev. 19—“I am Yahweh” and “I am Yahweh your God”—may be parsed by the identity clause “I am Yahweh your God who brought you out from Egypt” (Lev. 19.36, emphasis added). The act of Yahweh redeeming Israel showed the Israelites how to treat residing foreigners. He redeemed them to himself as a treasured possession (Exod. 19.5). In this way, Yahweh established Israel as a holy nation (19.6).
Leviticus 19 begins “You shall be holy for I, Yahweh your God, am holy.” When Israel knew the longing of the residing foreigner, Yahweh rescued Israel. In so doing, Yahweh modeled how a holy people must love outsiders and neighbors.
Footnotes
1
In this study, love thy neighbor is shorthand for: וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יהוה “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am Yahweh” (Lev. 19.18b). Unless stated otherwise, all translations of Biblia Hebraica are mine.
2
See, e.g., Matt. 19.19; Mark 12.33, 34; Luke 10.27, 36; Rom. 13.9; Gal. 5.14; James 2.8; b. Shabbot 31a.
3
See, e.g., Levine and Brettler 2020:424; Kugel 1987a:43‒61; Kugel 1998:756–59, 768–70; Ruzer 2002:371‒89; Powery 2008:134‒44; Neudecker 1992:496‒517; Neudecker 2009:265‒97; Livneh 2011:173‒99; Goldstone 2017:307‒21; Kelly 2017:265‒81. Also see 
:1A:440‒44) for an overview of biblical quotations and allusions in ancient Judaic literature.
6
7
Some parts of this argument have been presented in brief elsewhere (Schnittjer 2021:42–44; :30). The idea of vertical context has not been developed fully nor evaluated extensively in relation to love thy neighbor. Nor has the intersection of the vertical and horizontal contexts of love thy neighbor been investigated in the previous studies noted in this footnote.
8
“I am Yahweh” (אֲנִי יהוה) appears 52x in Lev. with 50 of these in Lev. 18–26, 84x in Ezek, and 59x in all other scriptures combined.
9
10
See, e.g., Rendtorff 2005:507. :19, 21) regards love thy neighbor as the climax of vv. 1–18a.
12
For detailed studies of Lev 19.11–18 as this context bears on love thy neighbor, see Allbee 2006:151–65; :5–24.
13
See Milgrom 2000:1402–3, 1646. For similar a-b, a-b logic in Lev. 19.17–18, see :162.
14
15
17
Childs rightly gets at “the dialectic,” as he calls it, but wrongly prioritizes faith above revelation. Childs says: “It is constitutive of Israel’s history that the literature formed the identity of the religious community which in turn shaped the literature” (:41). The authority to advance revelation is not grounded in communal identity but in the appointed delegates of divine revelation. The exegetically activated advancements of revelation in the scriptural use of scriptural traditions demonstrate the continued authority of the donor text mediated by its receptor texts.
18
The concept of interpretive blend is based on the helpful expression “legal blend” by :220, cf. 134–36). Interpretive blends work identically to legal blends, but in other genres. Thus, legal blends are actually a subset of the commonplace phenomenon of interpretive blends appearing across all genres of the Christian Bible.
19
Exegetical allusions explain (e.g., Isa 52.1; Schnittjer 2021:238–41), elaborate backstory (e.g., Josh. 24.2, 14; Schnittjer 2021:161–62), expand (e.g., Zech 9.9; Schnittjer 2021:452–53), deduce (e.g., 1 Chr. 28.3, 4; Schnittjer 2021:753–55), repurpose (2 Chr. 1.14–27; Schnittjer 2021:759–60), establish typological patterns (e.g., 1 Kgs 8.10–11; 2 Chr. 5.11–14; Schnittjer 2021:194–95, 764–65), and much more. For more detailed explanation of Zech. 9.9 and 1 Chr. 28.4, see :27–30, 32–34.
20
A detailed explanation of disambiguating diachronic and synchronic approaches can be found elsewhere (:xxxiv‒xxxvi). The present study speaks of attaching “aims” or “goals” to diachronic and synchronic approaches (Schnittjer 2021:xxxv). Watts makes a similar point but uses the term “purpose” (2013:47).
22
23
For annotated bibliographies of studies of interpretive allusions in scripture, see Lester (2013:444‒53; 2009:89‒93) and :95‒181).
24
See, e.g., Akiyama 2018:43, 65; Bosman 2018:581; van Houten 1991:142; Wenham 1979:273; Nihan 2007:475. Nihan (2007:475) builds his case on the view of גֵר in Lev. 19.33‒34 presented by . See below for a critique of Kidd’s untenable proposal.
25
Joosten also explains how Lev. 19.34 could have been derived from 19.18b but based on logical inference rather than syntactical incongruity (1996:59‒61). He says, “The gēr remains a gēr, but rather than taking advantage of his weak position, the Israelites should treat him as a native. Indeed: ‘You should love him as yourself’ (in the same way you love your fellow-Israelites, 19:18)” (1996:61). Otto deduces that Lev. 19.34 derives from 19.18 based on thematic development in the law collections of the Torah. On this basis, he offers observations on the shift from love thy neighbor in the final position of vv. 11–18 to love the residing foreigner in the penultimate position of verses 26–36 showing, according to Otto, that vv. 17–18 are the center of the chapter (:71‒73). Otto says: “The inversion of the final position of the love commandment in 19.18 to a penultimate position in 19.34 underlines the function of 19.17f as the center of the chapter” (Durch die Inversion der Schlußstellung des Liebesgebotes in 19,18 zu einer Paenultimaposition in 19,34 wird die Funktion von l9,l7f als Zentrum des Kapitels unterstrichene) (1994:71; cf. diagram p. 73).
27
See “אֶזְרָח” coll., DCHR 1:228; “אֶזְרָח” HALOT 1:28. The two exceptions do not affect the case at hand. In Lev. 23.42, every citizen must live in a temporary booth during the booths pilgrimage festival. That is, citizens commemorate the homelessness of their own time as residing foreigners coming out of Egypt. The use of אֶזְרָח in Ps. 37.35 is difficult, but is collocated with “luxuriant, green” (רַעֲנָן) and probably denotes a tree grown in the native soil (so NIV, NJPS, etc.).
28
See IBHS §7.2.1d; גֵּר is one of the examples of a collective singular (Deut. 29.11[10]).
29
30
Both Exod. 12.48 and Lev. 19.33 begin: וְכִי־יָגוּר אִתִּךָ גֵּר …. The SP harmonizes the pronominal suffix with the context in both cases as “with you” (אתכם, 2mp) (see Exod. 12.48; Lev. 19.33 BHK/BHS note a). The apparatus of the SP at Exod. 12.48 and Lev. 19.33 does not list any variants of the plural pronominal suffixes (von Gall 1914, 1915). Tov explains the variant reading of Exod. 12.48 (אתכםה) in 4QDeutj/4Q37 as a scribal correction. It is a common mistake to finish the word with the final mem and then remember to add the heh for the long pronominal suffixes characteristic of Qumran scribal practices (2004:232‒33; cf. :1:60).
31
In addition to SP and 4QDeutj/4Q37 (see previous footnote), so too LXX, Syriac, Vulgate, and Targum (BHQ Lev 19.33 apparatus). Ginsburg suggests the note in the Masorah on the sixteen cases of אִתְּךָ in the Torah may have been included, in part, to safeguard them in light of the variants in the ancient versions of Exod. 12.48 and Lev. 19.33. (:166 [4, א §1449]). Himbaza alerted me to Ginsburg’s discussion (2020:111*–12*).
32
33
The freestanding form of the preposition “as, like” כְּמוֹ that appears in poetry is retained when attached to pronominal suffixes כָּמוֹךָ “like you” (GKC §103k). This is unlike the freestanding prepositions לְמוֹ and בְּמוֹ when attached to pronominal suffixes as לְךָ “to you” and בְּךָ “with you.”
34
The verb only gets used as a command five times in Torah, and the other two feature the conventional syntax: “and you shall love Yahweh your God [וְאָהבְתָּ אֵת יהוה אֱלֹהֶיךָ]” (Deut. 6.5; 11.1). See Even-Shoshan 1990:19 (nos. 42, 43). Also noted by :81).
35
Contra “אָהַב” Even-Shoshan (1990:19 [first collocation only lists Lev 19.18, 34]; cf. nos. 40, 41, 163). On לְ marking a direct object, see GKC §117n; Joüon §125k; IBHS §11.2.10g. The use of אהב as a participle with לְ in 1 Kgs 5.1[15] does not relate syntactically and functions in an indirect sense (contra :295).
36
After missing the syntactical disambiguation in Deut. 10.19, Kidd goes on to offer a strained explanation of how 10.19 was derived from 23.7[8] (1999:94–96), while also missing the irony of the latter text (see discussion in a footnote below). Bosman (2018:577) follows a minority view that takes לְרֵעֲךָ כּמוֹךָ as “your neighbour as a man like yourself” (cf. Lev 19.18b NEB). For an argument against construing the adverbial phrase as though it were adjectival, see Milgrom (2000:1655; cf. the standard grammars in the previous footnote). Joosten observes that “the phrase hyh l- x k- y means: ‘x treated him as y,’ not ‘for x he became equal to y’” (1996:61). Notice one of the examples given by :61n166): “and it [the lamb] was like a daughter to him” וַתְּהִי־לוֹ כְּבַת (2 Sam 12.3; cf. Judg 17.11)—not the lamb was a person like unto his daughter (adjectival) but he regarded the lamb like a daughter (adverbial).
37
See “אֶזְרָח” HALOT 1:28, which emends the occurrence in Ps 37.35 with the likely Vorlage of the LXX (so too BHS apparatus n. b).
38
39
40
See “גֵּר” Even-Shoshan 1990:243 (nos. 82–85); cf. derivative phrases in Lev 25.23; 1 Chr. 29.15 (nos. 86, 88). In Leviticus the phrase בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם appears only once in 19.34 (:310).
41
A similar rationale clause elsewhere uses “slave” rather than “residing foreigner”— “remember for you were a slave in Egypt/in the land of Egypt” (זָכַרְתָּ כִּי עֶבֶד הָיִיתָ בְּמִצְרַיִם/בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם) (Deut. 5.15; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 22).
42
See, e.g., Firth 2019; Glanville 2018:599–623; Pitkänen 2017:139–53; Wuench 2014:1129–54; Hoffmeier 2009; Kidd 1999; .
43
The phrase reads: כָּל־בֶּן־נֵכָר לֹא־יֹאכַל בּוֹ. Gesenius uses Exod. 12.43 as an example of the categorical negating sense of this construction (GKC §152b).
44
Later scriptural authors follow Exodus 12.43 and use “foreigner” (בֶּן נֵכָר) as the catchall for excluded others, even while ethnic otherness does not exclude. For example, in the morning of the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month the assembly designated by “the seed of Israel” (יִשְׂרָאֵל זֶרַע) separated themselves “from all foreigners” (בְּנֵי נֵכָר מִכֹּל) (Neh. 9.2). That very afternoon the assembly inclusive of non-Israelites who separated themselves from the peoples of the lands (10.28[29]) swore an oath that they would not arrange marriages for their children with excluded others (10.30[31]). For a typology of excluded and included others in scripture, see :240 (Table I4), 341 (Table Ezk6).
45
46
Isaiah speaks of foreigners (בְּנֵי הַנֵּכָר) devoted to the covenant of Yahweh (Isa 56.1–8). These foreigners must be circumcised since Isaiah has made certain that the uncircumcised shall never again enter the assembly of Yahweh (52.1; cf. :238–41, 247–50). Views of the collaborative authorship of Isaiah underline rather than undermine this point.
47
Israel and residing foreigners are enjoined to adhere to common standards, including observing the day of atonement (Lev 16.29); sacrifice (17.8); prohibition against incest, Molech worship, and kindred iniquities (18.26; 20.2); and blasphemy as a capital offense (24.22). Also see Num. 9.14; 15.14–16, 29; 19.10–11; 35.11. The prohibition against eating blood (Lev. 17.10, 12, 13; cf. Deut. 12.16, 23–24) can be considered separately because it applies to all humans (Gen 9.4) and is extended to gentile Christians by James (Acts 15.20, 29; 21.25). See :123.
48
49
For a similar point see “גֵּר” nom. cl. paragraph 2 DCHR 2:434.
50
The cognate gr in Ugaritic may mean one who dwells, but the cognate terms in Moabite seem to mean boy (grn) and girl (grt) (TDOT 2:440; contra Spencer 1992:6:103). Mesha says he killed people of Israel “m[e]n and boys and women and g[ir]ls” (g[b]rn wgrn wgbrt w[gr]t) line 14 (Green 2010:104); line 16 (Aḥituv 2008:392, 393, 394). While the term “cub” (גּוּר) only appears of animals in scripture (Aḥituv 2008:409), a suggested reading of Sir 41.5 sees it metaphorically of “children of the wicked” (נ[ורי ר]שׁע) (“I גּוּר” HALOT 1:185; but see Beentjes 2006:115)—in LXX as “children of sinners” (τέκνα ἁμαρτωλῶν). For summaries of evidence relating to residing foreigners in scripture, see Driver 1906:126, 165; :137–38.
51
When residing foreigner (גֵּר) serves as the subject of reside (גור) it often is contrasted with citizen (אֶזְרָח), e.g., Exod. 12.48, 49; Lev. 18.26; 19.34; Num. 9.14; 15.29; Ezek. 47.22 (“גֵּר” DCHR 2:434).
52
Kidd confuses the biblical evidence when he distinguishes the residing foreigner from widows and orphans based on the ger-Egypt motive clause (:80–82). The reason the residing foreigner alone of the protected classes is associated with the motive clause (“for you were residing foreigners in the land of Egypt”) is that these passages (Exod. 22.21[20]; 23.9; Lev 19.34; Deut. 10.19) are derivative of each other (see above).
53
In many places residing foreigners are said to be under the protection of the established community. They are within your gates (Exod. 20.10//Deut. 5.14; Deut. 14.29; 16.14; 31.12), within your camps (29.10), in your land (24.14), and among you (28.43) (“גֵּר” DCHR 2:434).
54
Note the limitations on Hebrew debt slaves (Deut. 15.12) versus treating residing foreigners as chattel slaves (Lev 25.45–46).
55
56
The vav at the beginning of the B line connotes the reason: “because you know the longing of the residing foreigner” אֶת־נֶפֶשׁ הַגֵּר וְאָתֶּם יְדַעְתֶּם (Exod. 23.9b). See GKC §158a; IBHS §39.2.3b.7.
57
The expression “longing of the residing foreigner” (נֶפֶשׁ הַגֵּר) only appears in Exod. 23.9 (see last collocation in “גֵּר” :242 [cf. no. 27]). Seebass wrongly projects modern concerns at this point: “Does ne
58
The verb נפשׁ appears in Exod. 23.12; 31.17; and 2 Sam. 16.14 (HALOT 1:711).
59
Wevers offers a more sensible explanation of the Septuagintal reading by rendering “you know how the resident alien feels” (οἴδατε τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ προσηλύτου) as an expression of empathy in Exod. 23.9 LXX (1990:362). NETS handles this phrase more generously with “For you know the life of a guest. For you yourselves were guests in the land of Egypt” (Exod. 23.9b, emphasis added). The NETS translation seems to start with a positive connotation of προσήλυτος reflecting the second temple situation of the LXX. For a discussion of how the LXX handles גֵּר and the sense of προσηλύτος, see :179–83.
60
61
For positive scriptural traditions of Israel as residing foreigners in Egypt see Gen 47.4; Deut. 23.7[8]; 26.5. The seemingly positive use of Israel as a residing foreigner in Egypt creates some challenges by glossing over the brutal slavery frequently mentioned elsewhere in scripture (see Heaton 1946:80–82). The expectation presented to Abraham in Gen 15.13 helps place the positive experience of Israel’s asylum in Egypt before their experience as slaves (cf. :90–93). In addition, there seems to be some measure of irony, if that is the word for it, in the brotherhood of Edom and hospitality of Egypt in Deut. 23.7[8]. This passage uses symbols of brotherhood laced with murderous hatred (Edom) and generous refuge turned to slavery (Egypt) (contra Kidd 1999:94–96). At a minimum, this use of Edom and Egypt, shows the license of biblical authors to take advantage of the flexibility of symbolic function.
62
The observations on citation formulas follow Milgrom (1976:3; cf. :112n52, 116–17). See Schnittjer (2021:121‒22) for the evidence of Deut. 14 depending on Lev. 11. Deuteronomy also includes evidence of its dependence on Exodus in the form of citation formulas (e.g., Deut. 5.12, 16 citing Exod. 20.8, 12 [contra Achenbach 2016:874‒75; as explained in Schnittjer 2021:101‒2]; Deut. 12.20 citing Exod. 34.24; Deut. 26.18, 19 citing Exod. 19.5, 6; cf. Deut. 28.9; 31.3 citing Exod. 33.14; cf. 23.20–33) and Numbers (e.g., Deut. 10.9 citing Num. 3.6–9; 8.19; 16.9; 18.6).