Love Thy Enemy... But to what extent?

[True Scotsman]

I don't understand how "love your enemy" could mean that you must value evil, or value that which harms you.

You don't? To love is to value. Your enemies are those who seek to do you harm. Or what do the concepts love and enemy mean to you?

For me, love means to value and in fact love would be the highest form of valuing. An enemy is someone who does harm to me or my life such as a thief, a murderer or a politician who votes to violate my individual rights. What do these concepts mean to you?

 

[zippy2006]

You don't? To love is to value. Your enemies are those who seek to do you harm. Or what do the concepts love and enemy mean to you?

For me, love means to value and in fact love would be the highest form of valuing. An enemy is someone who does harm to me or my life such as a thief, a murderer or a politician who votes to violate my individual rights. What do these concepts mean to you?

Well, I gave some definitions of love in my last post. I don't disagree with your understanding of enemy. For simplicity's sake, we can say that an enemy is someone who desires to harm us.

"But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you... (Matthew 5:44)"​

Apparently there are at least two different ways that we could interpret this idea:

1. Love the person despite the person's harmful actions.
2. Love the person because of the person's harmful actions; or, love the harmful actions themselves.

Now I think all of Christianity is unanimous in interpretation #1. Your understanding is apparently #2? You understand Jesus to be saying that we should love the harm that is inflicted upon us, that we should love the evil of harm?

 

[Wood man]

I don't understand how "love your enemy" could mean that you must value evil, or value that which harms you.

The most scary and heart ripping type of scenario would be if "love your enemies" were to mean go up to them and let them kill you, and that only your death, not your flight from them, shall erase your physical presence from your enemies. As if a born-again's command were to have his physical body killed and destroyed by no later than the one year anniversary of baptism, and that anyone whose body lived past the one year anniversary of baptism would automatically forfeit his/her salvation. Which of course would obviously mean that it would be a sin and an abomination to God to live in a country where hurting/killing born-again Christians is illegal.

 

[zippy2006]

That would be a scary scenario indeed!

 

[True Scotsman]

Well, I gave some definitions of love in my last post. I don't disagree with your understanding of enemy. For simplicity's sake, we can say that an enemy is someone who desires to harm us.

"But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you... (Matthew 5:44)"​

Apparently there are at least two different ways that we could interpret this idea:

1. Love the person despite the person's harmful actions.
2. Love the person because of the person's harmful actions; or, love the harmful actions themselves.

Now I think all of Christianity is unanimous in interpretation #1. Your understanding is apparently #2? You understand Jesus to be saying that we should love the harm that is inflicted upon us, that we should love the evil of harm?

I think either one is heinous. To value a person in spite of his actions is a failure of justice. A person does not have to choose to do evil but so long as he does he should not be treated as a value in any sense. If a person does evil and then does his best to make amends for what he has done then maybe but not so long as he is choosing to harm me. I think it is immoral to forgive evil. It is a denial of the concept of justice, to judge each persons actions and to act accordingly. If you are commanded to love all comers including those who are evil then you are asked to love no one. Plus the very idea of loving on command is a contradiction in terms. Love is a response to values not alms.

 

[keembo]

Augustine was one of the first to say it was OK to be a soldier and a Christian.

Some early Christians and Anabaptists were misguided. Christians should in general not endorse war or violence but there are times that killing may be the only choice that serves justice. I would tend to follow the theology of Reinhold Niebuhr, Gustavo Gutierrez, and other modern Protestant/Catholic theologians on that matter- in a sinful world love is articulated in concrete acts of justice.

I am not sure the early Christians and Anabaptists were misguided. After all, there isn't a single recorded case of early Christian (first and second century) involved in killing anybody. Many of them actually knew Jesus and listened to him, so they probably had a better idea of how to be obedient to the teachings of Christ. Once the faith was captured as a "state religion", then killing was ordained, as it always has been by leaders of countries. Since Jesus stated that his "kingdom was not of this world," and that he was "going to prepare a place for you," then it would seem that worrying about one's lot and safety here is nothing more than worshiping your life here instead of worshiping the Savior and his commands. I wouldn't follow modern Protestant/Catholic theologians on this issue as they have strayed from the early church in search of "earthly safety." Jesus said to "Fear Not." Saint Stephen apparently enjoyed following Jesus' teachings and loved his enemies right up to be stoned asking for their forgiveness. Certainly, to love ones enemies and do good to those that hate you is not something found in human nature as a norm, but I believe we are called to be abnormal....no more fleshy thinking. Spirit man only.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not sure this will go anywhere, but here is a quick reply:

I think either one is heinous. To value a person in spite of his actions is a failure of justice.

It's not at all clear to me why this would be true.

A person does not have to choose to do evil but so long as he does he should not be treated as a value in any sense.

Are you thus of the mind that when someone commits a crime he loses all human rights?

I think it is immoral to forgive evil.

Then you think it's immoral to forgive.

It is a denial of the concept of justice, to judge each persons actions and to act accordingly.

Although you haven't said what you mean by justice, you don't seem to understand that the parent can spank a child and love him at the same time.

If you are commanded to love all comers including those who are evil then you are asked to love no one.

Why? That really makes no sense to me. A command to love everyone is a command to love everyone, not a command to love no one.

Your comment is like saying "If you are commanded to give everyone $1 including those who are evil then you are asked to give no one $1."

Plus the very idea of loving on command is a contradiction in terms. Love is a response to values not alms.

Alms? So long as love is an act of the will, as is commonly held, then a command to love is not a contradiction.

 

[brinny]

Of course, everyone's familiar with the phrase "Love thy enemy". However, what do you interpret that as? To what extent to you take that?

To me, it means to feel no malice towards an enemy. I don't think it calls for love in the traditional sense, but you aren't supposed to hate them. I generally kind of picture how the Jedi go about dealing with the Sith in the Prequel trilogy and the Clone Wars.

What do you guys interpret it as?

Actually you have a very good point. It doesn't mean that you actually even "like" them necessarily. It means, yes, that you have no "malice" towards them, and in it all, wisdom is a good mixture here so that there is "balance" in the understanding of it.

 

[Bollweevil]

I am a Christian, but Jesus did that because it was circumstantially necessary. It was the only way we could be saved. However, the Bible doesn't call us to pacifism. In fact, it permits us to join the military, to defend ourselves verbally and physically, etc, etc, but only if we do so without malice, seeking only to save lives and remove the threat that the hostile force represents. See the essay on this page for details: www.desiringgod.org/articles/did-jesus-teach-pacifism.

Could you please elaborate by posting and explaining scripture that God 'permits us to join the military' and also to 'defend ourselves physically'.

 

[Bollweevil]

Christianity was not pacifist. Some Christians were pacifists.

And Ethiopia was officially Christian before Rome was. About 4 kingdoms were before Rome. Pretty sure they had soldiers.

A father is out walking in rural Ethiopia with his 7 year-old daughter that depends on him. As it is they both live in abject poverty. The little girl's survival still depends on the father. Three muggers jump out and potentially aim to kill the father. I do not reason God finds it justice done by the father onto his little girl to simply allow the attacker to kill him. No, with a large bleached animal bone he breaks the jaw of one, smashes it on the knee and back neck of another, and uses it to upper cut and then crack the eye socket of another.

Semper Fi. Hallelujah, he did his job for the day.

1. It is God's responsibility to carry out justice, not man
2. The age of someone does not make them more or less valuable. How is love exhibited to enemies if we kill them? When we didn't deserve love, while we were sinners God did not kill us; yet He died for us. Evil is in this world, in your example it is not the father who may be responsible for his child's death.
3. How are we following Jesus by killing someone and thereby taking away the opportunity to talk to this enemy about Jesus and potentially helping them to live eternity devoid of God?
4. In this situation we are deciding the daughter is more valuable than the enemy. Does God look at His creation and place quantitative value on everyone, or are all of us equally precious in is sight? Consider the parable of the 1 lost sheep out of 100.

 

[Bollweevil]

I think either one is heinous. To value a person in spite of his actions is a failure of justice. A person does not have to choose to do evil but so long as he does he should not be treated as a value in any sense. If a person does evil and then does his best to make amends for what he has done then maybe but not so long as he is choosing to harm me. I think it is immoral to forgive evil. It is a denial of the concept of justice, to judge each persons actions and to act accordingly. If you are commanded to love all comers including those who are evil then you are asked to love no one. Plus the very idea of loving on command is a contradiction in terms. Love is a response to values not alms.

"I think it is immoral to forgive evil."
Being consistent with this principle, God was immoral because He forgave all evil.

 

[lisah]

Of course, everyone's familiar with the phrase "Love thy enemy". However, what do you interpret that as? To what extent to you take that?

Not to propagate hatred.

 

[Bknight006]

Not to propagate hatred.

Not sure I know what you're saying...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The word used is Agapao (agape). It has several meanings one can choose from to understand what Jesus meant.


25 // agapaw // agapao // ag-ap-ah'-o //

perhaps from agan (much) [or cf 05689 // bge // ]; TDNT - 1:21,5; v

AV - love 135, beloved 7; 142

1) of persons
1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly
2) of things
2a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing

However I have found that the meaning is made even more clear (incidently) in the definition of Phileo,

5368. phileo fil-eh'-o from 5384; to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while 25 (Agapao) is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related.................................................................. the former (phileo) being chiefly of the heart and the latter (agapao) of the head);.................................................... (Edited by me for clarity.)

 

[lisah]

Not to propagate hatred.

Not sure I know what you're saying...

Propagate: to make (something, such as an idea or belief) known to many people
- or -
: to produce (a new plant)

Everlasting life, as in what is handed down from generation to generation is the basis of much of my line of thinking.

 

[Bknight006]

Propagate: to make (something, such as an idea or belief) known to many people
- or -
: to produce (a new plant)

Everlasting life, as in what is handed down from generation to generation is the basis of much of my line of thinking.

So, are you twisting my words to try and make it seem like I am encouraging hate?

 

[quatona]

Of course, everyone's familiar with the phrase "Love thy enemy". However, what do you interpret that as? To what extent to you take that?

To me, it means to feel no malice towards an enemy. I don't think it calls for love in the traditional sense, but you aren't supposed to hate them. I generally kind of picture how the Jedi go about dealing with the Sith in the Prequel trilogy and the Clone Wars.

What do you guys interpret it as?

Are you asking me to interpret what it might have been meant to say, or are you asking me whether or how I interpret it so that it becomes useful advice?
Since I am not a Christian, I will answer the latter question, ok?
A "command to love" (to have a feeling, a positive inclination towards someone) appears to be absurd. Yet, I think we can influence our feelings by working at our mental concepts. Personally, I find it very helpful not to define anyone as my enemy, in the first place. Well, "love your enemy" is not an accurate description - but I guess if it soemthing doesn´t make sense I can make the best of it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Love your enemy can mean to impose love upon your enemy. How to do this is implicit in the (above) definition of agape,

Assent of will: We yield to God's will regarding our enemy (not to our enemy's will).

Judgment: We discern regarding our enemy ( should we approach or keep our distance).

Duty: That which we are obligated to do as Christians (whether we want to or not).

Propriety: We're polite to our enemies (even if they smack us on the cheek, take our coats, and make us carry their armor).


And no Virginia, God doesn't require us to like our enemies.

 

[quatona]

Love your enemy can mean to impose love upon your enemy. How to do this is implicit in the (above) definition of agape,

Assent of will: We yield to God's will regarding our enemy (not to our enemy's will).

Judgment: We discern regarding our enemy ( should we approach or keep our distance).

Duty: That which we are obligated to do as Christians (whether we want to or not).

Propriety: We're polite to our enemies (even if they smack us on the cheek, take our coats, and make us carry their armor).


And no Virginia, God doesn't require us to like our enemies.

Ok, now I have a better idea what you when you say "God loves you.".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ok, now I have a better idea what you when you say "God loves you.".

Happy to help.