Love your enemies

Since the quote in the OP is from the New Testament, then I think that the meaning of the word “love” in that context is what is relevant, as opposed to what the “conventional” understandings might or might not be today.

—Note: There are words whose conventional understanding today is not the same as the original Hebrew or Greek words of the Biblical texts, nor even their meaning when the Bible was first translated into English. Over time, that can have an impact on religious theology and doctrine. (I am thinking of words like “sin”, belief”, “evil”, off the top of my head.)

The Greek word used is agape. Whodey is right about different Greek words translated as “love”—the main ones are agape, philia and eros. Understanding the (sometimes subtle) distinctions can be key—for example, in the question and response between Jesus and Peter in John 21:15-17.

One thing to point out is that, in the Greek, agape and eros were much closer in meaning than some might believe—in fact, writers of the Greek Orthodox Church (who have never lost the Greek usage) have sometimes used the two terms interchangeably, as at least near-synonymous.

Although feeling may be involved, it seems pretty clear from the texts—especially, with regard to the quote in the OP, Luke 6:27—that the “love” being talked about (agape) is a behavior, not a feeling. How many times have you heard someone declare their “love” while acting in ways that seem very unloving—e.g., spouse abuse?

With that in mind—and the fact that, at the very least, agape includes eros—I understand the term to mean acting in ways that demonstrate a passionate caring and concern for the other’s well-being.

The parable of the Good Samaritan adds an element of “unconditionality”—both a priori and ex post: the Samaritan never asks or requires anything of the man he rescues—not faith or works or even thanks and acknowledgement. There is no indication in the story that the Samaritan knows how the man got injured, or why, whether he is a good or evil person, etc., etc. There is no inkling in the story that the Samaritan is concerned for justice. If this parable stands as a model of godly behavior—that is, if the Samaritan is a model for God/Christ—then it stands in the Biblical stream of salvation (soterias) as healing/curing (soterias), rather than the juridical model of pardon-or-punishment (based on either works or faith or both).

—This just points up the importance of global context, and the relative weight one gives to different texts. Does God’s justness/righteousness serve to limit God as agape? Or does God-as-agape require that notions of justice/righteousness be re-thought accordingly? Is God’s agape conditional—conditioned by our faith/actions in the face of divine requirements for justice? Or is God’s agape as unconditional as that of the Samaritan—especially since agape is posited as God’s essential nature, whereas justness/righteousness are given as attributes?

With all that said, to revisit the question: Is acting unconditionally toward your enemy with passionate caring and concern for your enemy’s well-being foolish?

Absolutely!—under at least two conditions: (1) that such behavior endangers you or your “loved ones” (philia seems the appropriate word here: family, friends, etc.) or innocent bystanders; and (2) that there is no contingent heavenly reward for doing so (i.e., God’s saving agape is unconditional)—or at least not behaviorally conditional (“works” ). In such cases, one wonders (a) why Jesus would proffer such a command, and (b) why Christians would bother to obey?

If, however, God’s saving agape—God’s saving charis— and eternal life is conditional on loving behavior toward one’s enemies, then it may not be foolish (at least if one places one’s own salvation above the physical well-being of other people).

As with most general—and therefore abstract—questions of ethical behavior, actual application always demands consideration of “the facts on the ground”. As Catholic theologian Urs von Balthazar put it: “When it comes to shaping one’s personal behavior, all the rules of morality, as precise as they may be, remain abstract in the face of the infinite complexity of the concrete.”

—Hans Urs von Balthasar, Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa (from the Foreword).

So many people seek religious, spiritual, salvational, moral, etc. certainty. And then proclaim that presumptive certainty in the face of—the Other. I suppose there is comfort in that. But Christians at least ought to realize that the Ultimate Other is God, whose “thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says YHVH” (Isaiah 55:8). Some might say: “Well, yes—except for the Biblical revelation.” But I submit that this is a false exception (at least unless one idolizes the Biblical texts in some way)—at the very least, it presumes certainty of meaning, contextualization, etc.—and in the original languages—that can only come from some extra-textual source (whether linguistic studies, hermeneutical principles, or denominational doctrine, etc.). It also would seem to deny that some of that revelation is intended only for certain times/places/situations—an opinion which the Biblical corpus itself clearly unravels (e.g., dietary rules).

This has been a long essay. I will just end by saying that I will assume that God is the Ultimate Other—even in my non-dualist, panentheistic understanding—and that certainty is neither demanded nor made available. I will do my very best to no longer behave in “hateful” or cruel ways to others, even if I think they deserve it. And that means at least that I owe whodey an apology (he knows for what: suffice it to say that I slandered him in the heat of debate)—and this whole post is by way of some amends. I disagree with whodey most of the time—he is about as “other” to me as it gets on here.

_______________________________________________________________

There are a number of ways out of the seeming contradiction between the healing/curing model of salvation (what Irenaeus called a “soterias of soterias” ) and the juridical pardon/punishment model. Limiting soterias by conventional understandings of justice, although it seems to be the most common course, seems to me to violate not only the essence/attribute distinction and the root meanings of soterias (“salvation” ), but also the notion that God’s agape is unconditional. Another way is to re-define justice—and all justice/righteousness-leaning passages (including heaping burning coals on their heads—Romans 12:20)—in sometimes radical ways. A third course is to recoignize that aionias—and all the other aion words—does not mean some linear timeline “foreverness”, and that the curative process of soterias (rather like chemo-therapy) need not be instantaneous nor limited to this lifetime. Alternatively, one can just admit that there are contradictory views expressed by various authors in the Biblical corpus, and decide as you will what does or does not make the most sense.

—Note: That last line will likely produce accusations of “picking and choosing”, but there is no one who does not “pick and choose”—unless they throw out context altogether, to avoid the question of which texts contextualize which other ones. (A Christian, for example, will generally give contextual weight to the New Testament over the Old, wherever there is conflict.)

Addendum to the above post—

The foolish versus wise dichotomy in the New Testament is generally cast in terms of “practical wisdom”. In this way, I think it is intended to challenge to listener/reader’s conventional thinking—rather like Zen koans.

Also, I want to add that I have discovered that there may be another self-serving reason for not engaging with “the enemy” aggressively (except in physically life-threatening situations): it is not good for my physical health or general well-being anymore. Therefore, I will withdraw from all such engagements without apology, if necessary. And I will try not to say or do anything that would injure another’s well-being, and will wish them well as long as their behavior is not threatening harm to another.

Be well.

Originally posted by vistesd
Since the quote in the OP is from the New Testament, then I think that the meaning of the word “love” in that context is what is relevant, as opposed to what the “conventional” understandings might or might not be today.

—Note: There are words whose conventional understanding today is not the same as the original Hebrew or Greek words of the Biblical tex ...[text shortened]... generally give contextual weight to the New Testament over the Old, wherever there is conflict.)

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
No, I pointed out one hell of a racist thing: the USA's justice system is still deeply prejudiced against other races than "bedsheet". And no, it's not one specific man writing one speciifc law which made it so, it's endemic. Just look at the statistics if you don't believe me: black people are massively over-represented in prison, and therefore massively disenfranchised.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Nice post.

Hey, while we're exploring meanings of words in the original language, is it possible that the word [b]fear in 'the fear of the LORD' in the book of Proverbs (and others, I think?!) means something more like a deep respect or reverence than terror?

Your 'ultimate other' concept made me think of this question. I've of ...[text shortened]... idgen of respect for God, they wouldn't make billboards with invented "God" quotes, for example.[/b]

Originally posted by vistesd
Hi, BDP. Thanks. While there are several words for fright, terror, etc.—and while the Hebrew word yirah might sometimes be translated in those terms, it really means something like reverential or tremulous awe—or deep reverence, as you put it—, at least when used with regard to YHVH (in, e.g., Proverbs 1:7).

Originally posted by vistesd
Since the quote in the OP is from the New Testament, then I think that the meaning of the word “love” in that context is what is relevant, as opposed to what the “conventional” understandings might or might not be today.

—Note: There are words whose conventional understanding today is not the same as the original Hebrew or Greek words of the Biblical tex ...[text shortened]... generally give contextual weight to the New Testament over the Old, wherever there is conflict.)

Originally posted by DeepThought
In a military context, not that I've ever been there but it's a good example because of the extremity, does that mean "love as behaviour" would translate to obeying rules of war, decent treatment of prisoners, and the kind of behaviour they would normally describe as honourable?

I also liked your good Samaritan point and God as healing. It's an aspec ...[text shortened]... plored enough on these forums.

Hope you are well. It's always a pleasure to read your posts.

Jesus enemy was Satan.

Should he love Satan ?

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
No, I pointed out one hell of a racist thing: the USA's justice system is still deeply prejudiced against other races than "bedsheet". And no, it's not one specific man writing one speciifc law which made it so, it's endemic. Just look at the statistics if you don't believe me: black people are massively over-represented in prison, and therefore massively disenfranchised.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It should be obvious to you from those statistics that Black people must commit more crimes that send them to prison. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have not seen the numbers, but I doubt that is true on sheer numbers.
Percentages possibly, but is due to color or other reasons!
I'd be willing to bet broken families are a greater reason than color, and
that more than likely would be seen with every possible color a person
could be. My personal opinion, I have not looked at any study to prove that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You want to make the claim about USA's justice system is prejudice than
show the evidence that it isn't due to crimes they are in jail! Personally I
believe the break down of the family unit has more to do with crimes than
color.

Originally posted by DeepThought
In a military context, not that I've ever been there but it's a good example because of the extremity, does that mean "love as behaviour" would translate to obeying rules of war, decent treatment of prisoners, and the kind of behaviour they would normally describe as honourable?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I haven't either, but Shallow Blue referred to the statistics and I have no reason to doubt them. If you do, then provide the true statistics for us all. 😏