The Love of Enemies: Pre-Christian Love

Fr. Joel Giannakopoulos (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-28, 31-40)

In completing the Jewish Law of love, the Lord says, Ye heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thy enemy (Matt. 5:43). The Love thy neighbour is mentioned in Leviticus 19:18 but the hate thy neighbour is a commandment of the Scribes. In the Jewish Law, the word neighbour signifies a Jew. However, the Scribes interpretation, hate thy enemy goes against the Law because the Law commands the love of enemies (Ex. 23:4). The Lord offers the general all-human love of enemies through words, works and prayers in contrast to this nationalistic and perverse interpretation of the Scribes. He places Gods all-humane love as an example: But I say to you, keep on loving your enemies, blessing those who curse you, doing well to those who hate you and keep on praying for those who despitefully use you and are persecuting you (Matt. 5:44). The Lord justifies this love. He says characteristically: For if ye love those who love you, what reward are ye having? What kind of thanks is there to you? Even the tax-collectors [who, thanks to foreign conquerors, oppressed Gods chosen people in taxation and were hated by Jews] do the same. The sinners are doing the same are they not? And if ye greet your brethren only, what extraordinary thing are ye doing? (Matt. 5:46). In other words, what more are you doing than the tax-collectors and unrepentant? Even the nations [i.e. the idolaters] are doing the same, arent they? And if ye should lend to those from whom ye hope to receive, what kind of thanks is there to you? For also the sinners lend to sinners, in order that they might receive the same (Luke 6:34). But keep on loving your enemies and doing good, and lending, hoping to receive nothing back (Luke 6:35). Namely, do not drive your enemies to despair by declining the loan to them, nor be driven to despair if the loan is lost. And your reward shall be great and ye shall be the sons of the Highest, of your Father Who is in the heavens; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust (Luke 6:35; Matt. 5:45). In saying His Father sends upon the just and unjust, the Lord means not only is His will the highest good, but He also brings the descriptive example of God Who sends rain upon and enlightens all people. The Lord epigrammatically says, And even as ye wish that men be doing to you, also ye be doing to them in like manner (Luke 6:31). Not just as he has behaved towards you, but as you would want other

people to behave towards you. Thus, you should also behave towards them in this manner. The Lord shows that he who does not love his enemy and condemns him transgresses the Law of love [and also enters Gods sphere through which He will be punished] when He says, Therefore, keep on becoming compassionate, even as your Father is also compassionate. And cease judging and in no wise shall ye be judged; cease condemning, and in no wise shall ye be condemned, keep on acquitting, and ye shall be acquitted (Luke 6:36-7). The Lord establishes affability, kindness and courtesy towards our neighbours by adding, Keep on giving, and it shall be given to you: a good measure which hath been pressed down and shaken together, and is overflowing shall they give unto your bosom; for with the same measure with which ye measure, it shall be measured in turn to you (Luke 6:38). Here, the word measure means the pot which measured the grain. This was filled, packed, moved and filled up again until it spilled. Likewise, our courtesy towards all should also be so full that we receive this recompense from God, for with the lenient measure we judge others, so too, we will be judged by God with this. The faithful Christians should be the light of mankind, especially in love. Moreover, they should not be spiritually blind, but rather imitate their Teacher, Christ. This is why the Lord says, A blind man is not able to guide a blind man, is he? Both shall fall into a pit shall they not? (Luke 6:39). Christ is the only guide. A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who hath been perfected shall be as his teacher (Luke 6:40); that is, Jesus Christ, Who loved His enemies. In the end, He places the perfect seal, Therefore, be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matt. 5:48). Gods example is not brought forward as a degree of perfection since this is impossible for us to attain. Rather, its proposed as the ideal which should inspire us as much as possible and raise the analogous natural and supernatural powers each one of us has higher. Generally, this command to love enemies, which is a sacrifice, propels us beyond the ideal of the pre-Christian world; that of righteousness. In order to justify themselves because they dont follow Christ, the deniers of Christ maintain the things Christ said were said also by others before Him and, consequently, Christ has nothing new. Thus, its a matter of the utmost importance to examine the love before Christ and the love after Christ to reveal the great difference between the Christian and pre-Christian world. Pre-Christian Love The world knew the concept of love, friendship, righteousness and hospitality from ancient times up to the age of Christ. However, the pre-Christian world did not know the love of enemies. They loved the people of their own blood. They tended to give righteousness and mutual toleration to the citizens of their own city. If the foreigner was not given hospitality then he should expect nothing other than hate and eradication. It was believed that Zeus protected travelers and foreigners. A foreigner who knocked on the door of an ancient Greek would find food, drink and sleep for himself. There was little love outside of the family; within the city, the idol was righteousness. Mortal hate existed outside of the city walls and boundaries. In various epochs and places of the pre-Christian world, some voices were raised seeking love outside of the family between the people of their nation. They sought a little righteousness for the foreigner and love of enemies, but these voices were weak in tone, few in numbers, and scattered in the remotest lands in far off times. Hence, we cannot say these voices gave birth to the development of Christs teaching

concerning love. In the next few pages, we will examine these few weak, scattered and distant voices of the pre-Christian world concerning the love of enemies: China Mozi (ca. 470 BC ca. 391 BC) was a Chinese sage who lived 400 years before Christ. He proclaimed the universal love of men, stating: Suppose we try to locate the cause of disorder, we shall find it lies in the want of mutual love. What is called disorder is just the lack of filial piety on the part of the minister and the son towards the emperor and the father; As he loves himself and not his father the son benefits himself to the disadvantage of his father. As he loves himself and not his elder brother, the younger brother benefits himself to the disadvantage of his elder brother. As he loves himself and not his emperor, the minister benefits himself to the disadvantage of his emperor. And these are what is called disorder. When the father shows no affection to the son, when the elder brother shows no affection to the younger brother, and when the emperor shows no affection to the minister, on the other hand, it is also called disorder. When the father loves only himself and not the son, he benefits himself to the disadvantage of the son. When the elder brother loves only himself and not his younger brother, he benefits himself to the disadvantage of the younger brother. When the emperor loves only himself and not his minister, he benefits himself to the disadvantage of his minister, and the reason for all these is want of mutual love. (http://ctext.org/mozi/book-4)

Mozis love is far from being called love of enemies. Mozis love is more respect of the younger towards the elder and leniency of the elder towards the younger. Or rather, its a medicinal remedy for maintaining citizens and states; its a social panacea. The famous Lao-tse (6th c. BC) also lived in China. He proposed, Requite injury with kindness. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/salt/salt11.htm) However, softness, prudence and politeness is one thing, love of enemies another. Confucius (551479 BC) also proclaimed his teachings in China during this time period. According to his disciple, Tseng Tzu, Confucius ordered to, love our neighbour as ourselves. However, it is expressly noted to love our neighbours and not the foreigner or the enemy. Consequently, Confucius taught amicable love and politeness which is necessary for the well-being of nations. But he didnt intend to criticize hate nor establish love of enemies. In the Confucian Analects, we find the following words, It is only the truly virtuous man, who can love, or who can hate, others.

India Buddha, Confucius contemporary, placed the love of all peopleeven the most wretched and despised as a duty. We must also surround the least amongst animals and generally all living existences with this same love. But in Buddhism, the aim of loving other people is completely uprooting our self-love, because this love of ourselves is the first support of our existence. That is, Buddha wanted to abolish pain and in order to abolish pain, he doesnt see any other means but to suffocate the individual soul of each one of us in the general World Soul, which is Nirvana. Consequently, Buddha doesnt love his brother out of love towards his brother but rather out of love towards himselfin order to avoid pain, to make a step towards pains disappearance. His universal love is icy, cold and frigid; it is a form of stoic apathy towards pain and joy. Thus, he is indifferent to the world around him and avoids peoples problems so that peace and impassibility can be maintained.

Egypt Every corpse brought a copy of The Book of the Dead to the tomb; the souls defence against Osiris tribunal. The dead corpse is actually lauding itself: ...Ive have made [no man] to weep. I have not committed murder, nor have I ever bidden any man to slay on my behalf. I have not wronged people...I gave my bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothing to the naked, sacrificed unto the gods, memorial dinners for the dead... Here, we find works of righteousness and compassion (I wonder if they even did these things) as perfect works. But we do not find love or love of enemies anywhere. How did the Egyptians treat their enemies? The inscription by the great Emperor Pepi I Meryre (reigned 2332 2283 BC) sheds some light on this: This army returned in safety, (after) it had hacked up the land of the Sand-dwellers; this army returned in safety, (after) it had destroyed the land of the Sand-dwellers; this army returned in safety, (after) it had overturned its strongholds; this army returned in safety, (after) it had cut down its figs and vines; this army returned in safety, (after) it had thrown fire in all its [troops]; this army returned in safety, (after) it had slain troops therein, in many ten thousands; this army returned in safety, (after) [it had carried away] therefrom a great multitude as living captives. His majesty praised me on account of it above everything. (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/weni.htm) This is much different than loving enemies.

Persia Zarathustra left a law to the inhabitants of Iran. This law orders believers in Ahura Mazda to be good to those of the same religion (i.e. Zoroastrianism), give clothing to the naked, and not to deny the hungry worker bread. This is another case concerning those material rewardswhich serve us and belong to us for our neighbours. However, there is no mention of loving your enemies.

Greece In the last book of Homers Iliad [XXIV], Priam kisses the hand of his worst enemy, Achillesthe man who killed his children and who shortly before murdered his most beloved child. Priam, the ancient King of Troy and father of 50 children, is now kneeling at the feet of the Achillesthe Greeks greatest hero, the most misfortunate of men, the avenger of Patroklos and murderer of Hektors. The elders white head bows before the conquerors unyielding youth. Priamos laments his sons murderthe mightiest, most beautiful and most beloved of his 50 sonsand kisses the hand of the one who killed him. And Priam said to Achilles, You have a father who is old, weak and unprotected. In the name of your fathers love, at least give me my sons corpse. The wild slayer Achilles gently removed the supplicant elder and started to weep. Now the two enemiesconqueror and conquered, the childless father and the son who will no longer see his father; the white-haired elder and the young man with youthful hairboth cry. Achilles and Priam are brothers for the first time within pain. The people present observed in shock and silence. Today, 30 centuries later, we are unmoved by their sobbing. There is neither pardon nor love in Priams kiss. Priam is humbled at Achilles feet to obtain a difficult and unusual favour. Achilles didnt cry for Hektors or Priam, though he cried for his dead friend

Patroklos. Achilles also cried for his father, Peleus, who was exiled on Phthia because he knew hed never see him again and his days were numbered. Consequently, both cried for themselves. Priams kiss wasnt love but rather a tough necessity. Achilles gave Priam his sons corpse back after he dragged it through the dirt and because Zeus ordered him and not because he was no longer angry. Thus, there was no position or condition for lovewhich destroys and replaces hatein the most noblest and heroic world of antiquity. There was no love mightier than hate. There was no love more fiery, indomitable and faithful than hate. Only oblivion of evil existed. Love of enemies did not exist.

Consequently, only Christ talked about the love of enemies in His Sermon on the Mount. This love is Christs grandeur and greatest innovationHis ever-eternal and new splendor. It is even new for us because we didnt adapt and enforce it, yet it is eternal like the Truth. Is it possible to find the love of enemies in ancient Greece, which is reputed to be the origin of every form of education? Those who deny Christianity claim that everything existed in ancient Greece. We shall see about that. In Sophocles Ajax, the famous Odysseus is touched in the presence of his enemys state of wretchedness. Athena, namely Greek prudence, is personified in the holy owl and reminds Odysseus that the more satisfactory laughter is to laugh about his enemys misfortunes. Odysseus isnt persuaded and replied, I know none nobler; and I pity him in his misery, albeit he is my foe, since he is yoked fast to an evil doom. My own lot I regard no less than his. For I see well, nought else are we but mere phantoms, all we that live, mere fleeting shadows...Its not right to do evil to a dying man, even though he has done evil to you. Here, the sneaky Odysseus was not too cunning for the cause of his natural tenderness is manifest. He shared his enemys pain because he thought about himself. Odysseus forgave his enemy because he saw him in a pitiful state, ready to die.

Socrates, who was wiser than Sophocles, talked about the problem of loving enemies. However, do not be surprised to observe that we distinguish between two Socrates with opposite opinions. According to Xenophon (c. 430 354 BC), Socrates expressly accepted the common opinion to aid one's friends and harm one's enemies. In Memorabilia, he says to Chaerecrates, The man who gets ahead of his enemies through harming them and doing good to friends, appears to be praiseworthy. But Platos Socrates rejected the deeply entrenched Greek precept. Socrates says to Crito, Then we ought neither to requite wrong with wrong nor to do evil to anyone, no matter what he may have done to us. (Plato, Crito 49c, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DCrito%3 Asection%3D49c . Socrates also verifies this in Platos Republic, adding, Evils do not become better with revenge Consequently, the thought of righteousness and not the feeling of love ruled in Socrates mind. In no circumstance whatsoever should the righteous man do evil. Not out of love for enemies but out of respect for himself. Platos disciple, Aristotele (384 BC 322 BC), would be repeated in the ancient popular idea, Whoever doesnt retaliate wrong-doings is cowardly and enslaved (The Nicomachean Ethics). Rome Those who deny Christ found an equivalent to Christ in Seneca. Seneca led the consciences of the Roman Empires rulers towards his reformation cynicism. He was an aristocrat philosopher with his abstract notions lacking any emotion for the torments of the humbled. He was rich on account of which he despised riches, but in reality he was an envious protector of them! Seneca proclaimed equality between freemen and slaves, yet he owned a number of slaves. He had anxiety, real defects, dubious virtues and committed suicide! Seneca stated, The wise man should not avenge himself but rather forget the offense. If you are imitating the gods, confer benefits also on the ungrateful, for the sun rises on the wicked and the seas are open to pirates. We should help our enemy with a friendly hand (4th Book on Benefits). The ethical Seneca wrote the majority of his work after Christ and killed himself in 65 AD. Consequently, many of his words are Christian and not his own. Palestine Some say that love of enemies can be found in the Old Testament which commands: And if thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt turn them back and restore them to him. And if thou see thine enemy's ass fallen under its burden, thou shalt not pass by it, but shalt help to raise it with him (Ex. 23:4-5). But this passage is about reciprocitymutual supportand not loving enemies. In those times, donkeys were very valuable animals. Friends and enemies had their own donkeys. One day your enemys donkey flees, the following day it could be yours that leaves. You give a helping hand today so that you receive the same thing from your enemy tomorrow. The Psalms are full of threats and curses against enemies. We encounter maxims similar to Christs maxims in Proverbs because they were written later: Say not, I will avenge myself on my enemy; but wait on the Lord, that he may help thee (Prov. 20:22). But here, once again, the enemy awaits his enemys punishment through the mightier hand of God. Theres also the passage: If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink (Prov. 25:21). This is an improvement because the love from the

enemys donkey reaches this enemy. But this maxim, hidden in a corner of the Scriptures, is certainly impossible to lead to the miracles of loving enemies found in the Lords Sermon of the Mount. Others maintain that the great Rabbi Hillel (c.110 BCE, died 10 CE), grandfather of the famous Gamiliel and a Pharisee and lived before Christ, had taught the same things Christ did, before Christ taught them. Hillel said, That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 31a.). Yet, Hillel is still far from Christ. Hillel says, Dont do, and not Do good to whoever wrongs you. The Do not do, is denialits not a condition; its a lukewarm prohibition to not harm yet not an absolute command to love. Besides, Hillels descendants are Talmudists who rammed the law into the sea of casuistry and solicitors. On the other hand, Christs descendants, the Martyrs, prayed for those who murdered them. Philo (20 BC 50 CE), the Alexandrian Jew and Platonic metaphysician was 20 years older than Christ and left a small work concerning the love of man. Yet, with all his cleverness and mystical messianic calculations, Philo is like Hillel: a theoretical man of the book, systems, abstract notions, and classifications. His dialectic strategy provokes thousands of words in array but its impossible to find that Logos which wipes out the past in one moment; the Logos which unites hearts. Philo spoke about love more than Christ but was unable to speak about or understand the love of enemiesthings which Christ spoke about to His simple, illiterate disciples in His Sermon on the Mount. If we wanted to characterize the pre-Christian world concerning the love of enemies, then from the starting point of injustice it had ideal righteousness. Yet Christ, starting from righteousness had the ideal sacrifice. General Observations The Stoic (the proud Philosopher out of his wisdom) and the Pharisee (the righteous satisfied by his righteousness) could scorn the smaller offenses; the enemies stings. They were able to condescend in throwing a piece of bread to a starving enemy, thereby humiliating him harderthey did this to appear magnanimous and gain peoples admiration; in stoic apathy and Pharisitical hypocrisy, with philosophic egotism and the self-complacent feeling of righteousness. But this bread is kneaded and baked with the leaven of vanity and this friendly hand is unable to bandage a wound nor wipe a tear.