Enemy loving: Did Jesus Really Mean It?

[John Helpher]

Hi all. I'd like to hear what others think about this topic as it's something I think is regularly misunderstood or overlooked, especially when it comes to something like self-defense. Here's the verses in question from Matthew 5:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

It looks like Jesus' main concern here is the hatred that accompanies how we feel about our enemies and finishes with some comments about how it is easy to love those who help us. The suggestion is that love which is based on some kind of mutual benefit isn't really love; that real love must be able to work even if the other person doesn't bring benefit to us, even if that person does the opposite.

I believe this teaching is evidence for an intelligent, loving creator precisely because it is so contrary to how we normally choose to act. We humans tend to view love in a selfish, self destructive way, whereas God's love asks us to look beyond emotional feelings or transactional rewards. I believe Jesus is trying to get us to see that love is good for it's own sake and this recognition is what will help us practice love for our enemies; we will see that love is always good, even when it does not benefit us personally.

 

[timothyu]

Exactly. The ways of the Kingdom are contrary to the ways of mankind. Jesus represented a counter-culture which when properly adhered to created no rebellion thus no physical threat. However the insinuation that man had it backwards may have ruffled some authoritarian feathers. The counter-culture all but disappeared when the church rejoined the world of man in partnership on man's terms.

 

[bèlla]

I experienced this in the past. The person wasn't an enemy. But he violated me spiritually and a crossed a line no one should. It resulted in a lot of pain and hardship. The situation was resolved. The Lord delivered me.

I was so overcome by God's intervention and love that it compelled me to help him. I never hated him nor was I angry. I should have been. But it never happened. One day I heard a line from The Hobbit that summed up my feelings.

It was pity that prevented me from seeking retribution or justice. I never asked for it. I felt his condition was so grievous that it led him down a path of no return. When I recounted my experiences, I knew his was worse. I wanted him to have what I'd found in God.

I was driven by love. I made a vow on his behalf and labored for his salvation. The Lord honored my sacrifice and rewarded me richly. I'm bettered by it. My spirit is stronger and toughened from warfare. Anger and bitterness have no place within me. It was the right choice and I'd do it again.

Yours in His Service,

~Bella

 

[Tolworth John]

Jesus is trying to get us to see that love is good for it's own sake and this recognition is what will help us practice love for our enemies; we will see that love is always good, even when it does not benefit us personally.

It is far simpler than that. He wants us to be like him and to love others unconditionally.

 

[John Helpher]

It is far simpler than that. He wants us to be like him and to love others unconditionally.

I don't think enemy loving is simple. I mean, the concept is simple; love people even if they hurt you. The practice of the concept is far more difficult. I tend to be wary of people who somewhat glibly describe such things as being simple as this usually indicates they haven't thought through the issues carefully.

Also, there is no such thing as unconditional love, as conditions are required to separate one thing from other things. "Unconditional love" sounds nice because it makes absolutely zero requirements from us. If a wife tells her husband that she loves him unconditionally, then she can never, ever criticize him for anything, even if he cheats on her, because her love is without such conditions as faithfulness or loyalty.

We should be able to love others even when they hurt us, but that should not stop us from recognizing when they do the wrong thing. Criticism, even strong criticism, is not synonymous with being unloving. The opposite is true. The author of Hebrews describes this concept when he writes, "The lord rebukes those he loves." He goes on to recognize that criticism never feels good in the moment, but for those sincere people who accept the criticism, they learn and grow from it.

People who say that God should love them without condition do so as a means of rejecting criticism, i.e. "if you really loved me, you would not criticize me". They believe that the hurt they feel from being criticized is evil so they developed a convenient doctrine suggesting that no one should be judged (i.e. criticized).

Real, genuine love cannot be what it is without conditions which separate it from what it is not.

 

[Tolworth John]

Unconditional love" sounds nice because it makes absolutely zero requirements from us.

No unconditional love means I love my wife without requiring any conditions for my love.
It does not blind me to her faults or prevent me from seeking to correct them.
In fact my love for her makes me far more critical of her because I want her to live at the highest possible standard.

Just as you don't understand about unconditional so you didn't understand what I said about simplicity.
I simplified your several paragraphs into one biblical quote, which as you rightly say is very complicated to do.

 

[John Helpher]

No unconditional love means I love my wife without requiring any conditions for my love.

But, this in itself is a condition.

It does not blind me to her faults

This is a condition which defines what kind of love you have.

or prevent me from seeking to correct them.

This is also a condition which describes the kind of love you have. If this condition is not met, then your love would no longer be the same as how you're describing it.

This is a similar issue to when people say we should not judge one another, when even making such a statement is, in itself, a judgment.

The first condition when it comes to loving enemies is that the person is an enemy. It is also a condition of love that if we are not willing to forgive others, then God will be less willing to forgive us. So much of what Jesus taught about love for God and our neighbors is based on conditions which, if not met, demonstrates the person's behavior is not really loving.

Without conditions, you can never say a behavior is or isn't loving. My problem with the the phrase unconditional love is that it implies there are times when it's okay to ignore the conditions which separates love from behaviors which are not loving. It sounds very emotional and sweet to say, "my love for you is unconditional", but it's not practical or realistic to suggest there should be no conditions to healthy relationships.

 

[Tolworth John]

My problem with the the phrase unconditional love i

The condition are ones I have to meet, there are no conditions being imposed on my wife.
That is what is meant by unconditional.

 

[John Helpher]

The condition are ones I have to meet...
That is what is meant by unconditional.

Okay, so there are conditions, which means it makes no sense to call it unconditional.

there are no conditions being imposed on my wife.

Of course there are. One condition is that she is your wife (and not some other man's wife). Another condition is that she must remain faithful to you. If she does not meet this condition, she cannot claim to love you.

How did we get into this kind of thinking that conditions are bad? One example is the idea that we only love someone if they perform some kind of favor for us, commonly referred to as strings-attached-love. In that case it is not that conditions in general are bad, but rather that this specific condition is inconsistent with what it means to love. We should not only love someone if they give us some kind of payment for it.

Ironically, this idea that someone must pay us for love is exactly what the entire world monetary system is built upon and yet most professing Christians adamantly defend such a system as being good and necessary. When you talk about God and your family, your love is without any kind of expectation of payment, but when it comes to helping strangers, suddenly it is good and right that they must pay you before you will help them.

This just goes to show that all this "unconditional love" stuff really is a convenient doctrine meant to manipulate emotions and relationships. Talk about unconditional love gives the impression that your love is better than it really is; a grandiose proclamation which really only applies to those you choose to apply it to, thus rending the love conditional. You say your love for your wife is unconditional, but your love for a stranger is not. The condition for this love is that the person must be your wife. It is irrational to call it unconditional when it really does come with conditions, and irrational thinking about love is not consistent with the kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Ophiolite]

Okay, so there are conditions, which means it makes no sense to call it unconditional.

To my eye you have a bizarre interpretation of the term unconditional love. It seems self evident to me that lack of conditions relates to the giving of love. That is, no conditions are imposed upon the recipient in order to receive the love. I'm bemused as to why you would think it has a broader application, requiring that the donor should also be condition free. The context and concept make that irrelevant.

However, what to me is self evident is not so to you and I don't see any way of explaining this other than to say the usage followed by @Tolworth John is the one in common use, in my experience. Perhaps I've seen only abnormal usage, or have quite misinterpreted how others have used. I await evidence this might be the case.

 

[Robban]

Hi all. I'd like to hear what others think about this topic as it's something I think is regularly misunderstood or overlooked, especially when it comes to something like self-defense. Here's the verses in question from Matthew 5:



It looks like Jesus' main concern here is the hatred that accompanies how we feel about our enemies and finishes with some comments about how it is easy to love those who help us. The suggestion is that love which is based on some kind of mutual benefit isn't really love; that real love must be able to work even if the other person doesn't bring benefit to us, even if that person does the opposite.

I believe this teaching is evidence for an intelligent, loving creator precisely because it is so contrary to how we normally choose to act. We humans tend to view love in a selfish, self destructive way, whereas God's love asks us to look beyond emotional feelings or transactional rewards. I believe Jesus is trying to get us to see that love is good for it's own sake and this recognition is what will help us practice love for our enemies; we will see that love is always good, even when it does not benefit us personally.

Commandment,
"And you shall love."

As to the emotion of love itself,
a commandment is obviously impossible and
irrelevant,
if one has it, he has it and if not,

no command is going to produce it.

Not the love but the meditation that will arouse it
will lead to experiencing it.

Consider, "Hear O Israel" how "The Lord is our God, the Lprd is one."

Thus not to be understood as a command,
"You shall love"
but as an assurance,
"You will love."

A way to see it.

 

[John Helpher]

That is, no conditions are imposed upon the recipient in order to receive the love.

Love itself requires conditions to separate it from what it is not. A person who behaves hatefully cannot be said to also be loving. That is why we have words to differentiate between these concepts; love and hate describe different concepts. What makes them different? Conditions. If you are hateful, then you are not loving.

Love can only be what it is because of the conditions which separate it from what it is not, just as a light can only be described as on because of the conditions which separate it from being off. Imagine for a moment that someone describes a light in a room as unconditionally on. That would make no sense. The conditions for the light being on are that the wiring was installed properly, there is a bulb in the socket, that there is electricity flowing to the socket and that the switch is flipped to the correct position. If those conditions are not met, the light will not be on.

Consider what Jesus said about the truth; "IF you follow my teachings, then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free". John 8:31-32

There are many such if/then conditions regarding our relationship to God in the context of how such conditions illustrate love in practical terms.

If a man cheats on his wife, such action cannot be described as love. His behavior demonstrates that he does not love her even IF the man proclaims to love her unconditionally. If he proclaims to love her unconditionally, then he can never place any kind of expectation on her, because such expectation would amount to a condition. There would be no point to saying your love is unconditional yet you still have expectations.

This begs the question; why do people keep putting their faith in the idea that love should have no expectation? What is wrong with expecting people to be faithful and sincere as a demonstration of their love? If your love is without condition, then you would never expect faithfulness or sincerity; such things would never even be a thought.

This demonstrates that the appeal of unconditional love is emotional; an escape from accountability. In other words, I will love you even if you are not sincere, or faithful and more than that, I will not hold you accountable for those failings; I will ignore your problems because I love you and I expect you to have the same kind of love for me.

But real love does not ignore problems. The opposite is true. Real love will cause us to confront not only our own problems, but the problems we see in others. That's how all learning and growth is; you can't learn if there is no acknowledgement that there is something which needs to be learned.

The idea that there should be no conditions to what it means to love or be loved sounds nice. It's so very easy. No self-reflection. No recognition of wrong. No sacrifice. No need for repentance. Why would such things be necessary when these things are, by their very nature, conditions for what love is? The love is unconditional, right? Why should you need to repent? Why should you need to do anything regarding character or integrity?

Least of all, why should you bother loving your enemies when there is no condition requiring such commitment?

 

[timothyu]

Matthew 5: 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Matthew 5: 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

[Ophiolite]

Love itself requires conditions to separate it from what it is not. A person who behaves hatefully cannot be said to also be loving. That is why we have words to differentiate between these concepts; love and hate describe different concepts. What makes them different? Conditions. If you are hateful, then you are not loving.

Love can only be what it is because of the conditions which separate it from what it is not, just as a light can only be described as on because of the conditions which separate it from being off. Imagine for a moment that someone describes a light in a room as unconditionally on. That would make no sense. The conditions for the light being on are that the wiring was installed properly, there is a bulb in the socket, that there is electricity flowing to the socket and that the switch is flipped to the correct position. If those conditions are not met, the light will not be on.

Consider what Jesus said about the truth; "IF you follow my teachings, then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free". John 8:31-32

There are many such if/then conditions regarding our relationship to God in the context of how such conditions illustrate love in practical terms.

If a man cheats on his wife, such action cannot be described as love. His behavior demonstrates that he does not love her even IF the man proclaims to love her unconditionally. If he proclaims to love her unconditionally, then he can never place any kind of expectation on her, because such expectation would amount to a condition. There would be no point to saying your love is unconditional yet you still have expectations.

This begs the question; why do people keep putting their faith in the idea that love should have no expectation? What is wrong with expecting people to be faithful and sincere as a demonstration of their love? If your love is without condition, then you would never expect faithfulness or sincerity; such things would never even be a thought.

This demonstrates that the appeal of unconditional love is emotional; an escape from accountability. In other words, I will love you even if you are not sincere, or faithful and more than that, I will not hold you accountable for those failings; I will ignore your problems because I love you and I expect you to have the same kind of love for me.

But real love does not ignore problems. The opposite is true. Real love will cause us to confront not only our own problems, but the problems we see in others. That's how all learning and growth is; you can't learn if there is no acknowledgement that there is something which needs to be learned.

The idea that there should be no conditions to what it means to love or be loved sounds nice. It's so very easy. No self-reflection. No recognition of wrong. No sacrifice. No need for repentance. Why would such things be necessary when these things are, by their very nature, conditions for what love is? The love is unconditional, right? Why should you need to repent? Why should you need to do anything regarding character or integrity?

Least of all, why should you bother loving your enemies when there is no condition requiring such commitment?

Your detailed exposition (for which I thank you) clarifies the nature of the problem. You are speaking of how things should be in regard to love. I - and I suspect @Tolworth John - are talking about the definition of unconditional love, not whether it is right, wrong, both or neither.

As as disreputable agnostic, atheistic to the Christian God, the very sound reason for "Loving our enemies when there is no condition requiring such commitment" is that it increases the chances that we may cooperate with them to our mutual benefit, rather than descending into internecine warfare, beneficial to neither. Something that is well worth considering in the current climate.

 

[John Helpher]

You are speaking of how things should be in regard to love.

Yes, but specifically I am saying that it is nonsensical to refer to any kind of love as unconditional.

If, what you mean to say is that your love is strong, that it is willing to forgive, overlook and sacrifice much, there are other ways to express this which are not inherently irrational. In this case, you would not even need to make such a declaration; you would just do it.

Did you see my comments to tolworth regarding the example he used concerning his wife? As soon as he tried to describe unconditional love, he started listing conditions to do so. He even acknowledged this:

The condition are ones I have to meet, there are no conditions being imposed on my wife.
That is what is meant by unconditional.

The condition are ones I have to meet...
That is what is meant by unconditional.

He's saying two contrary things; his love is unconditional yet there are conditions he must meet in order for his love to be unconditional. It does not make sense because unconditional love is actually a convenient doctrine. Criticism and accountability rarely feel nice; we generally do not like being corrected, whether it is by friends, family, or the creator and yet if we do not correct one another we are not genuinely loving them.

Unconditional love is a way of skirting around correction while maintaining the illusion of love. In essence, it amounts to us believing that we are better than we really are; we can believe that our love has no conditions, and yet, it really does.

One of the most insidious ways this illusion is used is to suggest that God will not hold us accountable for our behavior, because he loves us unconditionally. If there are no conditions, then there is no accountability. We can ignore his teachings as much as we like and God will save us anyway because his love is unconditional. Consider Jesus' words from John 14:23, "If you love me you will obey me:"

If. This is a conditional clause. If the condition is not met (i.e. obedience) then you do not love him. Unconditional love makes this teaching useless. Yes, sure, we should try to be good etc, but obedience isn't really necessary. Obedience is optional because God's love is without such conditions.

That is the subtle lie behind unconditional love.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, but specifically I am saying that it is nonsensical to refer to any kind of love as unconditional.

It may be so. I have not asserted it is, or that it is not. I don't have a commitment either way. Your argument is well structured, but I can well imagine finding a counter argument equally persuasive.

My original point was that conditional love, as described by Tolworth John, matched my understanding of the phrase. I thought that observation might ease the discussion between you. (Unfortunately it seems to have complicated matters.) Other than that I don't have a horse in this race: the concept of love is too chaotic and diverse for my pay grade.

 

[John Helpher]

(Unfortunately it seems to have complicated matters.)

Not so. I've appreciated the back-and-forth.

but I can well imagine finding a counter argument equally persuasive.

You may be able to imagine it, but it does not actually exist. The phrase unconditional love is a misnomer at best. It is not simply a matter of opinion, but rather understanding the logical principle behind the concept. Unconditional conditions is nonsense just as a sphere with corners or a light switch both on and off would be nonsense.

While the idea of unconditional love suggests a good feeling about the way we love, it is inherently irrational. It's just a matter of rationally conceding this point, which means letting go of the presumed good feeling and instead learning to appreciate the value of conditions.

As I asked earlier, how did we get to the place where conditions have become somehow bad? Granted, a person who only offers love in exchange for some personal benefit is not behaving in a way which is consistent with love. That is the point; we are able to recognize behaviors which are inconsistent with what it means to love, only because we recognize that payment is contrary to the condition which states that love, by its nature, cannot be bought.

That condition (i.e. payment) is inconsistent with love and it's good to recognize that, but why should that then translate to all conditions being bad? When you say that something is unconditional, you're saying there are no conditions at all. That's what unconditional means. To then also say there are some conditions turns the issue into nonsense.

This can be avoided by simply letting go of the idea of unconditional love and rather embracing the conditions which really do define what love actually is.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Hi all. I'd like to hear what others think about this topic as it's something I think is regularly misunderstood or overlooked, especially when it comes to something like self-defense. Here's the verses in question from Matthew 5:



It looks like Jesus' main concern here is the hatred that accompanies how we feel about our enemies and finishes with some comments about how it is easy to love those who help us. The suggestion is that love which is based on some kind of mutual benefit isn't really love; that real love must be able to work even if the other person doesn't bring benefit to us, even if that person does the opposite.

I believe this teaching is evidence for an intelligent, loving creator precisely because it is so contrary to how we normally choose to act. We humans tend to view love in a selfish, self destructive way, whereas God's love asks us to look beyond emotional feelings or transactional rewards. I believe Jesus is trying to get us to see that love is good for it's own sake and this recognition is what will help us practice love for our enemies; we will see that love is always good, even when it does not benefit us personally.

Not necessarily an emotion. As Christians who are our enemies?

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies"

People outside God's covenant

"bless them that curse you"

Non-believers

"do good to them that hate you"

You will be hated for my Names sake - says Christ.

"And pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

Again, who persecuted the followers of Christ but for those outside the New Covenant?

Who spitefuly used them but those who saw the charity as something of no account?

Our love, is to treat them as if they will someday be in covenant with us. To win them over with the love of Christ, and to care for their needs as we care for one another.

Why? Because God sends both sun and rain on the just and unjust alike - and so should we emulate that.

They may not always like what we have to say, but if salvation is what we want for ourselves, so we should also want it for them.

Just as Jews were in an occupation by Roman forces, so are we surrounded by enemies...

 

[Ophiolite]

Not so. I've appreciated the back-and-forth.

Well that's good. I was concerned I had derailed the discussion by attention to a single point, not fully on topic.

You may be able to imagine it [a counter argument], but it does not actually exist

I find that unlikely. Counter arguments exist for most positions. Many of them may be deficient, but they are out there, or can be constructed on the fly.

This can be avoided by simply letting go of the idea of unconditional love and rather embracing the conditions which really do define what love actually is.

Perhaps I missed it, but has love, of any kind, been defined in this thread? And what kind of love are we speaking of? I like the Greek classification: philia, agape, and eros. (Did I miss one?) So what is your definition, or definitions in the context of enemies? Presumably a sub-set of philia, or . . . ?

 

[Par5]

Hi all. I'd like to hear what others think about this topic as it's something I think is regularly misunderstood or overlooked, especially when it comes to something like self-defense. Here's the verses in question from Matthew 5:



It looks like Jesus' main concern here is the hatred that accompanies how we feel about our enemies and finishes with some comments about how it is easy to love those who help us. The suggestion is that love which is based on some kind of mutual benefit isn't really love; that real love must be able to work even if the other person doesn't bring benefit to us, even if that person does the opposite.

I believe this teaching is evidence for an intelligent, loving creator precisely because it is so contrary to how we normally choose to act. We humans tend to view love in a selfish, self destructive way, whereas God's love asks us to look beyond emotional feelings or transactional rewards. I believe Jesus is trying to get us to see that love is good for it's own sake and this recognition is what will help us practice love for our enemies; we will see that love is always good, even when it does not benefit us personally.

Jesus is also recorded saying in Luke 19:27, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Not exactly love your enemy.
I find it a rather strange verse that immediately follows Jesus preaching a parable.
It just seems out of place when reading the whole chapter.