Loading...In the current thread I have been posting about the Jewish emphases of Matthew’s Gospel, all in an attempt to move to an answer to the question of whether, in my opinion Matthew was himself Jewish. When I get done with these posts, I’ll explain what my opinion is and why I have it; I can tell by some of the responses so far to these posts that some people are in for a surprise….
In previous posts we saw that Jesus, in Matthew, insists that his followers keep the Jewish law – even better than the scribes and the Pharisees. But for Matthew, What is the real purpose of the law?
We get a hint of Matthew’s answer already in the Sermon on the Mount, in Jesus’ famous expression of the Golden Rule. We know of other ancient teachers who formulated similar guidelines of behavior usually in its negative form — that you should not do to another what you do not want them to do to you – as far afield as Confucius and as close afield as Rabbi Hillel, the most famous Jewish teacher of Jesus’ time. For our present discussion, though, the emphasis of Jesus’ own formulation is important: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (7:12) The final phrase cannot be emphasized enough: the entire law with all of its commandments can be summarized in this simple principle, that you treat others as you want them to treat you.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, WILL YOU EVER HAVE THIS CHANCE AGAIN????
Fascinating! I can’t wait for the next post. Hope we can get similar in depth posts on the other gospels!
The Golden rule is present in almost all cultures. However, it’s interesting to see how Jesus puts it in a positive form (do to others) thus clearly indicating a call to action, and doesn’t give room to any negative/passive behavior (don’t do). In general, it’s easier to find the Golden rule in its negative/passive form and in the more generic, comprehensive form like “love your neighbor” (which the “radical” Jesus, no surprise, takes also to the extreme “love your enemies”).
This could even be one of the rare cases where Paul quotes Jesus to summarize the whole meaning of the Law, Gal 5:14 – – For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” – –
This can’t be from Rabbi Hillel, who used the negative form (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)
I’m reading Albert Schweitzer’s book “The Quest of the Historical Jesus”. On the back cover it reads: “While Schweitzer’s own proposals no longer command endorsement, his lasting contribution – comprising the bulk of the book – is the critique of his predecessors.”
What could this 1911 english translation edition mean by “no longer command endorsement” mean? Was this an attempt by the bibliographers of this edition (translated by W. Montgomery, preface by F.C. Burkitt, 1911) echoing what scholars of his day thought about this new critique? The original german version was published in 1906. If this were the case I don’t think you would have had much of a career. 🙂
Great! It’s a real classic, and deservedly so. I would have to look at the backcover to see: the key is when it (not the book, but the backcover blurb) was written. I have trouble belieiving it was the original 1911 backcover — or is it? If it’s more modern then it makes good sense. No one today holds Schweitzer’s *particular* views about Jesus (and the Gospels), though his basic idea that Jesus was an apocalypticist was just as much a breakthrough at his critique of all his predecessors.
Personally, I have a problem – that you and others don’t seem to have – with the use of the English word “love” in this context. With the idea that we should be expected to “love” all humanity. For me, that dilutes and cheapens the meaning of the word “love.” I reserve that word for what most of us feel for individuals who are very close to us, and what caregivers often, understandably, come to feel for young children. What I try to feel toward all humanity – and hope others would feel toward me – is *empathy* and *respect*.
Is it possible that either the word Jesus presumably used in Aramaic, or the one the Gospel authors used in Greek, might have had a meaning closer to “empathy/respect”?
Ah, it’s an excellent point. Yes, “love” means different things in different contexts, as I try to show my students. When Jesus talks about “loving” others, I don’t think he is referring to an emotional response to them, but rather he means that you should act in their best interests just as you act in your own. In other words, it has to do with how you treat people, not with how you feel about them.
Back in my college days, class of ’61, we heard a lot in the Methodist Church of agape love, that is Christian love as opposed to erotic love or simple affection.
Perhaps this is what Wilusa is hinting of.
The word doesn’t seem to be around any more.
Agreed. “Love” and “hate” are emotionally strong words to us, but “love” seems to mean “accept,” “choose,” or “to show favor to.” “Hate” often means simply “reject” or “withhold favor from.”