In summarizing the greatest commandments, Jesus quoted Leviticus 19:18 to affirm the commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself.” We all know this verse, but do we fully understand it? Given our own society’s frequent stress on the importance of “self-love,” we may read into Jesus’ words something that is not really there.
Sometimes it is said that Jesus’ words show the importance of self-love, and that loving ourselves is a prerequisite for loving other people. But what if we don’t love ourselves very much – or even hate ourselves – are we supposed to love other people to that same degree? This is an unavoidable conclusion if we insist on taking Jesus’ words to mean love of others is somehow based on the degree to which we love ourselves.
But if we go back to the section of Leviticus that Jesus was quoting and read the whole verse, we see something interesting: “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.” The point here is that we would not carry out revenge on ourselves or bear a grudge against ourselves, and we should love other people by treating them in the same way. Jesus simply quoted the second part of this principle – out of context – as a scriptural reference to the overall principle of loving others. We should remember that the Old Testament does not always contain verses that perfectly show every principle that is elaborated in the New Testament.
Once we realize that Jesus was simply quoting a verse that came closest to the overall principle of love for others, we can see that this verse does not really have anything to do with “self-love” or that “we can only love others as much as we love ourselves.” These sentiments are not present in what Jesus said and are actually not found anywhere else in the Bible.
Look at three examples of the many instances in which love of others is spoken about without ever referencing love of self:
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34).
“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8).
“This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another” (1 John 3:11).
Love of others is simply not related to or bound up with love of self in the Bible. The very few seeming exceptions are easy to explain. In his letter to the church at Ephesus, for example, the apostle Paul wrote that each husband “must love his wife as he loves himself” (Ephesians 5:33), but Paul is likely talking here about the husband loving his wife with the biblical understanding that they are one body, one self. The Amplified Bible catches the sense of this in translating the verse: “However, let each man of you [without exception] love his wife as [being in a sense] his very own self.”
There is no proof that any of the few biblical verses that talk about loving others as ourselves are talking about self-love in the modern sense. In fact, Paul tells Timothy: “There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy” (2 Timothy 3:1-2, emphasis added).
This does not mean that we must have a negative self-image or that we should hate ourselves. What it does mean is that for the Christian, self-love as a way of accepting and valuing ourselves is replaced with the understanding of God’s love for us (John 3:16) – and that our self-image is based on that full and truly meaningful outside love, not on some inner love for ourselves that we drum up. The Christian understands that in reality there is much that is not really lovable about all of us (Romans 3:10-12), but God’s love and reconstruction of our lives (Ephesians 4:24) supersedes the undeniable failings of our own inner nature. The Christian comes to realize that “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19) – not because we learned self-love.
God calls us to a sacrificial love of others more than self. We see this in the words of Jesus (John 15:13; etc.) and in the words of Paul – not that we build ourselves up, but that we look on others as more important than ourselves (Philippians 2:3).
We all experience feelings of insecurity at times, but the answer is not to look inward and attempt to love ourselves more. The Scriptures show that the answer is to look upward at the value God places on each one of us individually, and to look outward and concentrate on the value of others. When we understand that right self-love is a recognition and appreciation for the love God has for us and for others, then we can begin to effectively love others as ourselves.
The title of this blog post is not talking about the beginning of physical life at conception or birth or the beginning of our spiritual lives at conversion. It is talking about the first two minutes of our lives as we experience them each and every day: the first two minutes after we wake in the morning.
Because we are often still sleepy and perhaps “coming to,” we tend to not even notice these first minutes after waking. For many of us the day does not start to come into focus until we are up and dressed, or perhaps have had our morning coffee. But just because we do not notice or think about the first minutes of wakefulness each day does not mean they are not important. In fact, it can easily be argued that those two first minutes of our day are the most important, spiritually, of our whole day – of our whole lives.
Let me explain. It is often said that the beginning of a journey is not as important as its ending, but it is often the beginning of the journey – the planning, preparation, and mindset – that determines if we will ever reach the end of our journey and how successful it will be. The same may be said of a military operation or any important undertaking. Each day of life is no different. Stumbling into each day we are given is akin to starting on a long journey or going on an important mission with no preparation at all. Without proper preparation we will likely miss many of the opportunities – and be oblivious to many of the dangers – we may meet as we set out on each journey or into each day.
Lack of preparation also lessens our chances for success, as C.S. Lewis so aptly stressed in Mere Christianity, by opening us up to a world of distraction:
“… the real problem of the Christian life comes where people do not usually look for it. It comes the very moment you wake up each morning. All your wishes and hopes for the day rush at you like wild animals. And the first job each morning consists simply in shoving them all back; in listening to that other voice, taking that other point of view, letting that other, larger, stronger life come flowing in. And so on, all day.”
In these words, Lewis hit on one of the most important aspects of our spiritual growth – or lack of it: we must intentionally prepare our minds both to avoid distraction and to align ourselves with the way of God.
Speaking words of praise and thanks in the first minutes of each day is as much listening as it is speaking – we attune ourselves to hear what God wants us to hear as the day begins. The prophet Isaiah describes this very principle: “He wakens me morning by morning, wakens my ear to listen like one being instructed” (Isaiah 50:4) – and the result of this “hearing” is clear: “The Sovereign Lord has opened my ears; I have not been rebellious, I have not turned away” (Isaiah 50:5).
So how do we accomplish this? To properly prepare for each day and to maximize its opportunities, we must put our minds in spiritual gear from the moment we wake. Some may feel this would be almost impossible for them – that they are not “morning people” or that they don’t wake up properly until they get in the shower, get to their coffee, or whatever. But the truth is no matter how slow we may be to get started each day, we can still focus our minds in the first minute or two after waking just as we can focus our eyes in that same time.
This means that if we make our first conscious thoughts each day to be ones of thanksgiving for the gift of life, of praise for the One who has given it, and of dedication to the way of serving, giving, and helping – these thoughts not only set the tone for the whole day, they serve to reset the mind’s spiritual compass and increase the likelihood that as we go into the day it will not be to spiritually stumble and wander.
But it is imperative that this “orienting” of our minds and of our spiritual selves is done immediately when we wake. We can do this before we open our eyes if we wish, or we can simply focus our minds as our eyes come into focus. But if we start the practice and stick with it, we will find it not only becomes easier, but it also becomes ingrained and soon becomes second nature: we wake up and focus spiritually without having to think about it.
This may sound like a very small way to approach spiritual growth, but it is not. One or two minutes of spiritual preparation for the day invariably means that our days go better from that perspective. Our normal morning prayers will be more focused and effective, our first – and ongoing – interactions with others in the day will better reflect the attitude God wants us to display, and we will be better primed to use the day to learn and grow, to serve and help, to the full.
Spiritual growth does not happen by itself; preparing for growth is a big part of making growth possible on a daily basis. Walking with God means focusing and making necessary course corrections throughout the day, but our success in this and in growing in grace can be tremendously enhanced each morning in the first two minutes of daily life.
Apart from telling us WHAT to Pray, the “Lord’s Prayer” shows us in at least three ways HOW to pray!
The “Lord’s Prayer” is a profound outline or guide for prayer. It is profound in that although it is so short it provides a framework for every necessary topic of prayer, and also in that it teaches us important things about the way we should pray about the things for which we ask.
The prayer is found in two places in the Gospels – in Matthew 6: 9-13 in its fuller form, and in Luke 11: 2-4 in an abbreviated form. This fact alone seems to prove that the prayer is a guide on essential topics to pray about, rather than a prayer with specific words to be learned and repeated by rote as some believe.
Looking at the longer form of the prayer in Matthew, there are seven specific petitions or requests directed to God; but in this article, rather than looking at those petitions individually, as is often done, let’s look at some of the overall aspects of the guide which can be helpful in teaching us how to pray.
• The Prayer and the Commandments
First, when we compare the overall structure of the prayer, we see that it is actually similar to the structure of the Ten Commandments: the first group of points relating more directly to our relationship with God, the second group of points to our relationship with others. There are even some basic but noticeable touch-points: “I am the Lord Your God …” – “Father in Heaven”; “You shall not take my name in vain” – “Hallowed be your name”; etc. This is not surprising, of course, because in both the Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer we are looking at the same things – our relationship with God and with others.
The dual stresses of the commandments and the model prayer are even clearer if we compare the words of Christ when he was asked which were the most important of all the commandments. Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40). When we understand this we see the Lord’s Prayer is not about asking for the things that we think will make us happy or that we want, but things that show our love for God and others. If the Ten Commandments show us how to love God and others, the Lord’s Prayer teaches us how to ask for help to do that properly.
Remembering this dual stress of the commandments and the prayer is truly important in helping us focus our approach to the Lord’s Prayer. Rather than seeing the prayer as an unrelated list of requests, we begin to see it as a prayerful “walk through” of key areas of our relationship with God and with others. That fact in itself gives us an important clue as to how Jesus’ prayer outline can be expanded, as we use it, to include all kinds of things relating to our spiritual relationship with God and the rest of His family. And we need to remember that dual aspect of the prayer’s focus. Humanly it may be easy to expand “Give us today our daily bread” by mentioning our many physical needs, but how much do we expand on requests such as “hallowed be your name”? Realizing the dual stress of the prayer helps us to better equally balance the things for which we pray.
• First Person Plural
Another basic thing to remember as we look at the model we are given is that there isn’t a single “I” or “my” in this prayer – only “you” and “us”, “your” and “our”. Considering how obvious this fact is, there seems to be a clear lesson – once again to focus our prayers on our relationship with God and with others.
Seen this way, the Lord’s Prayer is very different from the individual list of personal wants and needs we are all tempted to offer at most times given the problems of everyday life that we all face. There is certainly no problem in praying for ourselves, and the prayer outline does not deny us the ability to ask for the needs we have – it just puts our requests in the context of “our” needs, helping us to keep our minds on the fact that the problems of others are just as real – and sometimes much more serious – than those we face.
The Book of Psalms gives some great examples of this fact. Remember there are more prayers there than in any other book of the scriptures, and if you look at many of David’s heartfelt personal requests for help, they end with requests for others – for his people, for all of Israel (see Psalms 25:18, 22; 28:2, 9 for just two examples).
• Prayer Triage
When we kneel before God don’t dozens of things come into our minds – the many needs and concerns of our own lives and of those of family, friends and others we know. These many individual-level needs are in addition to things God shows us are even bigger needs – of worldwide scale. Sometimes it’s hard to know where to start and where to end. That fact underscores one of the great purposes of the model we have been given – putting things in the right context and priority. Think of the Lord’s Prayer as prayer triage. Jesus’ guide to communication with our Father sorts through all those clamoring thoughts and needs and puts our concerns and requests in the right order. Matthew 6:7-8 shows us that “… your Father knows what you need before you ask him”; but even though God already knows what our most urgent needs are, the prayer outline puts things in perspective.
Putting it all Together
As we saw at the outset of this article, the Lord’s Prayer is a guide to prayer. None of the recorded prayers of Jesus or the disciples after the time the outline was given follow the wording of the prayer (showing again that it is not a prescribed set of specific words to be prayed), although each recorded prayer in the New Testament stresses some aspect found within the guide. Perhaps we could say that while spontaneous – and especially urgent – prayers will often take their own form, the “Lord’s Prayer” provides a guide for those occasions when we wish to seek God in regular and complete prayer. Although God is doubtless more concerned with the content rather than the form of our prayers, the guide Jesus gave us covers all the main aspects of our relationship with God and with others; it constantly directs our focus outward to include the needs of others; and it helps us to bring order and priority to the requests we make. These three areas of guidance help us to keep in mind what regular prayer is all about.
Most readers of the scriptures are familiar with the “Great Commission” given by Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection. Many can recite it by heart: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you … “ (Matthew 28:19-20).
While those verses are consistently quoted as the Commission, in reality they represent the final form of a number of commissions or “job directives” Jesus gave to his disciples during his ministry which often get lost in the rush to examine, ponder and discuss the “Great” commission. This is not to say that we should not focus on the final Great Commission, but that it can also be profitable to look back at some of the earlier commissions given during Christ’s ministry to see what we can learn there. For example, look carefully at the ones recorded in the Book of Luke:
Luke 9:2: “… and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.”
Luke 10:9 “Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’”
Matthew also records one of these earlier commissions:
Matthew 10:7-8 “As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons…”
The difference is obvious. The earlier commissions specifically included healing the sick – with an emphasis placed on that task almost equal to the emphasis placed on preaching the Gospel.
That emphasis is undeniably missing in the final Great Commission which appears to focus entirely on the work of evangelism without any direct mention of the sick. But does this mean the needs of the sick are no longer to be a vital concern for the Christian? In answer to that, perhaps we should remember that the Great Commission itself ends with the words “… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20, emphasis added), so from that perspective alone, the principles of the earlier commissions Jesus gave may still apply to us today as part of the “everything” Jesus had commanded.
Helping the sick was certainly part of the example Jesus set for us. He not only used physical sickness as a metaphor in his teaching (Mark 2:17) and as a sign of the divine nature of His work, but also He frequently healed and helped the sick purely as a matter of compassion, as we see throughout the Gospels. Godly concern for the sick also clearly precedes the Christian scriptures. Psalm 107:20 says, “He sent out his word and healed them,” showing David’s awareness of God’s compassion in this area – compassion which was expressed many times throughout the Old Testament, as well as in the work of the disciples who continued the New Testament ministry of Christ.
Now, this doesn’t mean that the situation has not changed at all regarding God’s commission to His Church. It seems clear that while God still can – and does – heal, He has not continued to do so in quite the same manner as He did when Jesus sent out disciples who routinely administered healings as an everyday part of their work (Matthew 10:1). But although we may not be empowered to heal today in the way the early disciples were, think about this in terms of the Great Commission: as individual Christians we may not be directly going into all the world, teaching and baptizing, either – yet we can support those who do these works, financially, in prayer and in other ways.
Even without the same command and power of healing given the early disciples, we can still – to the extent we are able, and with the same compassion – do the work of helping the sick mentioned in all the earlier forms of Jesus’ commission to his disciples. Although the evangelism of the Great Commission should indeed be a central focus point for us, we can still give our physical and prayerful support to those helping the sick, and many of us can also find opportunities to directly work to serve those who are victims of sickness and disability.
We can do this in various ways. While we may not have the power to heal, the Spirit of God does give the power of encouragement, support, and help. And we do have the opportunity to help – physically and spiritually – those who are ill just as much as we have the opportunity to be a witness to those who are well. One thing to keep in mind, however, is the great difference between acute and chronic illness. We can help those suffering the intense affliction of acute illness in a number of ways, difficult though that may be, but those suffering from chronic illnesses and disabilities often have different needs. In terms of practical help, we should remember that some who are dealing with long-term illnesses don’t just need short-term encouragement – they need practical encouragement to continue to lead meaningful lives, and help to find opportunities in which they themselves can help others.
Sometimes it is the sick and disabled who can best help those in the same position as themselves. Their experience and understanding of the problems can be far greater than ours. We can see this in the impact of the great variety of support groups for those suffering serious diseases and other medical conditions. But we can still help. Does someone you know need help to get to a support group? Help to find space to run one? This is just one example of the many possible ways we can help those suffering with long-term health and disability problems. It just takes a little thought to see how we can serve in each particular circumstance.
Although it may not be directly mentioned in the Great Commission, it should be remembered that helping the sick and disabled is nevertheless part of the scriptural background of that Commission. If we read Matthew 28: 19-20 to the end, perhaps we can see that serving the needs of the sick is also an important aspect of “everything” Jesus commanded. And that makes sense. Not only was helping the sick a constant part of Jesus’ own life, but also His words that “ … I was sick and you looked after me…” (Matthew 25:36) still apply as much today as they did when he spoke them as a profound lesson during his earthly ministry.
Was the Old Testament law of “an eye for an eye” a brutal law of revenge, or something very different? – And how can the answer help us understand Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount?
The principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”(Leviticus 24:20, etc.) is one of the most well-known laws in the Bible, but it is seldom fully understood. Known legally as the lex talionis or the “law of retaliation,” and referenced by Jesus himself in his teaching, most people see this law as an ultimately fair, though almost barbarically cruel, principle of revenge and exact restitution. But is this really what this law of “retributive justice“ is all about?
It is often said that the underlying concept of the lex talionis, equal restitution, is the basis of most modern law – that the punishment must fit the crime. But this is something of a misunderstanding. Biblical Israel was not the only culture of the ancient Near East to have such laws, and their purpose is well known. In the ancient Babylonian Law of Hammurabi (c. 1780 BC), for example, we find exactly the same legal principle that individuals should receive as punishment the same injuries and damages they had inflicted upon others:
“If a man has destroyed the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If he has broken another man’s bone, they shall break his bone” (Code of Hammurabi, 196-97).
Babylonian law was complicated by the fact that crimes against those of different social classes required different punishments (something Biblical law forbade, Leviticus 19:15), but the legal principle of the talion itself was obviously identical in both cultures.
In the Mosaic law, the principle of an eye for an eye is commanded in three separate and slightly different situations:
Collateral Injury: If a pregnant woman is hurt by others’ struggling –and her child miscarries – the law of an eye for an eye is to be applied (Exodus 21:24).
Crime of Passion Injury: If men fight and one is injured in the struggle, the law of an eye for an eye is to be applied (Leviticus 24:20).
Premeditated Injury: If a witness testifies falsely against someone, the law of an eye for an eye is to be applied and the punishment is the penalty the accused would have received (Deuteronomy 19:21).
Notice that the first example given shows that the law is really intended to indicate an equivalent punishment rather than an exact restitution. A man who caused a woman to miscarry obviously could not be made to miscarry himself as punishment, and the Law of Hammurabi makes it clear that an equivalent is intended: “If a man struck another man’s daughter and caused her to have a miscarriage he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus” (Hammurabi 209). The Jewish Rabbis commenting on the biblical examples always understood that an approximate equivalence was intended, citing, for example, that a blind man who blinded another cannot be punished with exact restitution. So normally, in ancient Babylonia or in Israel, the law was applied in equivalence – financial or other remuneration equivalent to the loss caused by the injury. It is certainly possible that the law was literally upheld in some cases, but this does not seem to have usually been the case.
This much is commonly realized. What is less widely understood is the underlying reason for the existence of the talionis laws and their real application. These laws were actually intended not to exact revenge, but to restrict revenge. They are not encouraging retribution, they are restraining it.
In most ancient Near Eastern cultures, crimes of injury were usually regarded as private matters of family concern and retribution. For serious offenses the retribution might be handled at the tribal level, and this type of vengeful justice frequently led to blood feuds between families and whole tribes which only grew as time went on (there are many biblical examples of this, beginning with Genesis 4:24). It is clear that the various expressions of the lex talionis originated to limit these destructive spirals, and once that is understood it is clear that the purpose of these laws was not to prescribe revenge, but to limit it. Each “eye for an eye” law allowed what we would call government control of what was otherwise usually a private matter, but the consequences of which could affect much greater parts of society through ongoing and uncontrolled blood feuds. The intent of the laws was to “cap” retribution at no more than the level of the original problem.
When we realize that the purpose of these laws was one of restraint rather than revenge, we can better visualize the application of the laws in their original setting and better understand their reference in the New Testament.
Jesus and the Lex Talionis
The importance of proper understanding of the lex talionis becomes apparent when we consider Jesus’ mention of the law: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well” (Matthew 5:38).
Although these words of Christ are frequently cited as being an example of Christian pacifism (the view of Leo Tolstoy and many other writers and theologians), understanding the proper context of the law shows that Jesus’ words may well have intended something different. First, notice that the direct context of what Jesus said here was clearly a legal, not a confrontational context. Not only does Jesus cite the earlier law, but he counters its maximum application with two examples, at least one of which is taken directly from legal proceedings – a situation where someone might want to sue another.
If we presume that the lex talionis was a law allowing full and complete revenge, it is easy to think that is what Jesus is primarily talking about here. But revenge does not really fit the meaning of the law, as we have seen, and it does not really fit the example Christ gives of someone who might want to sue us for something we have done – there is no issue of revenge involved on our part. When we realize that the “eye for an eye” law was intended to restrict the degree of retaliation employed, we see that Jesus was going a step further and restricting retaliation even more.
Remember that Jesus’ statement on this matter occurs as one of several linked and similar statements made within the Sermon on the Mount (specifically Matthew 5). After reminding his hearers that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), Jesus then gives several examples of this “filling full” the underlying meaning of the law. In each case he shows an earlier instruction in the law, then shows how the principle can be even better fulfilled by exercising even more restraint.
Where the law said “you shall not murder,” Jesus shows we should not even curse others in anger or we would be in danger of legal judgment (vs. 21) – adding another legal context reminder by saying “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court” (vs. 25). He then shows that while the law says we should not commit adultery, we should be yet more restrained, not lusting in our hearts (vss. 27-28), even referring here to “gouging out an eye” (vs. 29). Next he shows that while the law allowed divorce for many reasons, he urges us to more restraint by allowing divorce only for adultery (vs. 31). After showing the same principle of restraint regarding oaths – of saying only a simple “yes” or “no” (vss. 33-37) – Jesus then addresses the lex talionis directly (vss. 38-42). He does this, as we saw, by saying that even though the law allowed for restitution up to “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” he instructs his listeners to be much more restrained.
The first example he gives is that of not resisting or retaliating for evil that has been done to us: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” (vs. 39). A detail here may be important. Jesus specifically mentions being slapped on the right cheek, meaning that this would normally have to be a backhand slap from a right-handed person. The Rabbinic writings show that this kind of slap was a great insult in the world of ancient Palestine, and Jesus uses it not as an example of being attacked (which is rarely done by means of backhanded slaps), but more likely as an example of an insult (as we see in vs. 11 of the same chapter) liable to be later countered in court, just as his next example of someone suing for a person’s garment might also be legally countered – and in both cases he urges us to restraint.
The context throughout this section of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in which the lex talionis is mentioned is, then, clearly a legal one, with courts, suing, judges, prison, certificate of divorce and other legal terms being mentioned over a dozen times in these few verses. There is actually no direct context or reference to warfare, immediate conflict, or principles of pacifism. Most of the issues Jesus discusses in these verses are in the post-event context of restraint in later legal retribution.
Toward the end of this section of the Sermon, Jesus also urges us to even go beyond restraint to more positive responses such as “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles” (vs. 41) and “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (vs. 44). While these cases can be said to involve restraint, they clearly go even further, actively seeking the best for the person who has harmed or insulted us. This seems to be the ultimate goal to which Christ points us, just as the sermon itself ends with the words “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (vs. 48).
The Biblical lex talionis of “an eye for an eye” was, then, a law of restraint, limiting the amount of reciprocal damage done after (usually) accidental injury, not a law encouraging revenge. Jesus used this law in the Sermon on the Mount as an example of how even when the law allows us to do certain things, the principle of restraint can and should be utilized wherever possible – and even further exceeded by active love for the offending party.
Recent Comments