It is easier to love a powerless enemy, than one who is stepping on your neck! It begs the question, "What good will it do?" Like so many of the prophecies of the mighty being cast down or of the poor lifted up, it can seem like nothing changes today, in the here and now. This means that we are compelled to ask if our faith is transactional only, or if there is more to this "godliness" than we can imagine or actually wish to embrace! It's not like we weren't warned: the rain falls on the just and the unjust.
Thank you for this reminder of the challenge of our trust in God!
As always, Andrew, I am very grateful for your commentary. I am especially grateful this week that you have so concisely and carefully rebutted the VPOTUS concerning his "ordo amoris". And the lectionary might even expand on your key insights here with the portion from Genesis of the Joseph cycle: sometimes our "enemies" or the ones who "abuse" us are in fact members of our own family--a reminder, perhaps, that who we consider to be "lovable" is entirely beside the point. Love (only love?) carries the power to transform...
"While this golden rule in one form or another appears in numerous places in Jewish and Greek wisdom (and beyond), its use here is distinctive. Jesus is not its author, and so its presentation as such is no major step beyond either Judaism or Greek philosophy, which already offer the same basic insight. Jesus’ near-contemporary Hillel, for instance, is also reported as saying “That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation” (b. Shabbat 31a). Jesus’ originality however lies not in proposing the golden rule, but in re-interpreting it as the love of enemies, and as characteristic of discipleship."
I'm not sure the Golden Rule does appear anywhere before Jesus; also the Golden Rule is proactive rather than passive.
From a sermon of mine:
Jesus says: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
This is called the Golden Rule and it marks a departure from the previous teachings of the rabbis and sages who had gone before.
They had said “Do not do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you.”
Confucius said it, the Stoics philosophers said it, Aesop in his fables said it, Epicetus said it. Everybody said it.
“Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you.”
So you don’t want others to lie to you or cheat you or steal from you?
OK, so don’t do those things to others.
Rabbi Hillel (200 before Jesus) was challenged by a heathen who said that he was prepared to convert to Judaism if Rabbi Hillel was able to teach the whole law standing on one leg. Hillel replied, “What is hateful to yourself, do to no other; that is the whole law and the rest is commentary. Go and learn.”
Now that’s snappy, but it’s still in this negative form.
It’s all very negative and you can keep this golden rule simply by staying in bed and doing nothing at all.
But Jesus says it differently; he says it positively.
It’s a seems like a small difference but it’s a profound one.
Jesus was the first to formulate this saying positively.
Nowhere in ancient literature is there a parallel to the positive form in which Jesus puts it.
Followers of Jesus are called to say not only: “I won’t do anyone any harm”, but also, “I will go out of my way to help them, I will seek their good, I will want for them what I want for myself, I will do unto them as I would have them them do unto me.”
It is not enough simply not to steal; we must give generously.
It is not enough not to harm our neighbours; we must also positive help them.
This requires us to be active – even proactive – in showing and sharing love.
That’s why this is called the Golden Rule.
The Silver Rule is “do not to do others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you” but the Golden Rule says “do to do others what you would want them to do to you”.
Jesus puts it in the positive.
It’s not enough to just avoid doing to others what you don’t want them to do you; no, we have to be active in loving others.
I confess I'm not quite convinced. The Leviticus text that seems to underly this (Lev 19:18) is already positive; the version in the Letter of Aristeas (207) seems to be as well. The Greek versions are admittedly negative, but the context here is suited to that interpretation as well; the key examples Jesus gives are about responding to wrongdoing inflicted on one, which is reaction not action - "don't respond the expected way." So I don't find the clarity of this positive formulation as revelatory as you do; again, it seems to me the inclusion of enemies that makes this different. Peace!
Excellent essay Andrew. I really appreciate your pastoral response to the Vance viral comment.
On the originality of Jesus, I would say that it isn't the "law of love" which is original to him, as you rightly note, but rather the command, "Love one another as I have first loved you." Anyone can love one another as we wish to be loved. But to love one another as Christ has first loved us -- which presupposes the love displayed in the death and resurrection of Jesus -- that is a wholly different kind of act, and is only only those united with Christ through baptism can make. Obviously not in the lectionary readings you're commenting, but I think that is the backbone for the command to love even our enemies. We can do so not on the basis of the merits or demerits, because we're not thinking of them at all; we love them on the merits of Christ and for his sake.
It is easier to love a powerless enemy, than one who is stepping on your neck! It begs the question, "What good will it do?" Like so many of the prophecies of the mighty being cast down or of the poor lifted up, it can seem like nothing changes today, in the here and now. This means that we are compelled to ask if our faith is transactional only, or if there is more to this "godliness" than we can imagine or actually wish to embrace! It's not like we weren't warned: the rain falls on the just and the unjust.
Thank you for this reminder of the challenge of our trust in God!
As always, Andrew, I am very grateful for your commentary. I am especially grateful this week that you have so concisely and carefully rebutted the VPOTUS concerning his "ordo amoris". And the lectionary might even expand on your key insights here with the portion from Genesis of the Joseph cycle: sometimes our "enemies" or the ones who "abuse" us are in fact members of our own family--a reminder, perhaps, that who we consider to be "lovable" is entirely beside the point. Love (only love?) carries the power to transform...
May I beg to differ on one point?
You say:
"While this golden rule in one form or another appears in numerous places in Jewish and Greek wisdom (and beyond), its use here is distinctive. Jesus is not its author, and so its presentation as such is no major step beyond either Judaism or Greek philosophy, which already offer the same basic insight. Jesus’ near-contemporary Hillel, for instance, is also reported as saying “That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation” (b. Shabbat 31a). Jesus’ originality however lies not in proposing the golden rule, but in re-interpreting it as the love of enemies, and as characteristic of discipleship."
I'm not sure the Golden Rule does appear anywhere before Jesus; also the Golden Rule is proactive rather than passive.
From a sermon of mine:
Jesus says: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
This is called the Golden Rule and it marks a departure from the previous teachings of the rabbis and sages who had gone before.
They had said “Do not do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you.”
Confucius said it, the Stoics philosophers said it, Aesop in his fables said it, Epicetus said it. Everybody said it.
“Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you.”
So you don’t want others to lie to you or cheat you or steal from you?
OK, so don’t do those things to others.
Rabbi Hillel (200 before Jesus) was challenged by a heathen who said that he was prepared to convert to Judaism if Rabbi Hillel was able to teach the whole law standing on one leg. Hillel replied, “What is hateful to yourself, do to no other; that is the whole law and the rest is commentary. Go and learn.”
Now that’s snappy, but it’s still in this negative form.
It’s all very negative and you can keep this golden rule simply by staying in bed and doing nothing at all.
But Jesus says it differently; he says it positively.
It’s a seems like a small difference but it’s a profound one.
Jesus was the first to formulate this saying positively.
Nowhere in ancient literature is there a parallel to the positive form in which Jesus puts it.
Followers of Jesus are called to say not only: “I won’t do anyone any harm”, but also, “I will go out of my way to help them, I will seek their good, I will want for them what I want for myself, I will do unto them as I would have them them do unto me.”
It is not enough simply not to steal; we must give generously.
It is not enough not to harm our neighbours; we must also positive help them.
This requires us to be active – even proactive – in showing and sharing love.
That’s why this is called the Golden Rule.
The Silver Rule is “do not to do others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you” but the Golden Rule says “do to do others what you would want them to do to you”.
Jesus puts it in the positive.
It’s not enough to just avoid doing to others what you don’t want them to do you; no, we have to be active in loving others.
Thank you for weighing in!
I confess I'm not quite convinced. The Leviticus text that seems to underly this (Lev 19:18) is already positive; the version in the Letter of Aristeas (207) seems to be as well. The Greek versions are admittedly negative, but the context here is suited to that interpretation as well; the key examples Jesus gives are about responding to wrongdoing inflicted on one, which is reaction not action - "don't respond the expected way." So I don't find the clarity of this positive formulation as revelatory as you do; again, it seems to me the inclusion of enemies that makes this different. Peace!
Thanks. Good points. We see the inclusion of enemies in Exodus 23:4. Pax
Excellent essay Andrew. I really appreciate your pastoral response to the Vance viral comment.
On the originality of Jesus, I would say that it isn't the "law of love" which is original to him, as you rightly note, but rather the command, "Love one another as I have first loved you." Anyone can love one another as we wish to be loved. But to love one another as Christ has first loved us -- which presupposes the love displayed in the death and resurrection of Jesus -- that is a wholly different kind of act, and is only only those united with Christ through baptism can make. Obviously not in the lectionary readings you're commenting, but I think that is the backbone for the command to love even our enemies. We can do so not on the basis of the merits or demerits, because we're not thinking of them at all; we love them on the merits of Christ and for his sake.