Everyone ... it seems like literally everyone ... knows what we call "the Golden Rule." They can even quote it word for word from Christ's lips. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Complete with King James language.
It's not in there, of course. You can't find that phrase in the Bible. In the actual text Jesus said, "Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 7:12) It's okay; it's close enough. And, yet, we still seem to see something ... different.
In almost every application I've seen from people for that verse/concept, it is not in the sense given. It is in the opposite sense: "Don't do to others something you wouldn't want done to you." While this is a thoroughly reasonable and probably accurate inference from the original, I think by going with the inference and disregarding the explicit, we're missing something important.
Avoiding doing to others what you wouldn't want done to you is a good thing. It is, however, passive. It is not doing something. Jesus, on the other hand, presented it as active. "Don't do" is negative; Jesus said to "do" -- positive.
"What's the difference?" you might ask. Jesus was surely instructing us not to do things to people that we wouldn't want done to ourselves, but His more pressing concern was loving others. "This is the Law and the Prophets," He said. The Law hinges on "love your neighbor." This command, then, is a positive. Not "avoid," but "do." And it's not about "What would I want for Christmas? I'll give that to them." It's about the principles of how we treat others. Would you like to be respected? Respect others. Would you like to be treated with courtesy and kindness? Treat others with courtesy and kindness. Could you use some help in tough spots? Give people help in tough spots.
I'm not sure if I'm getting this across. Do you see the difference between "don't do" and "do"? In one you're avoiding being bad, so to speak. In the other you are putting yourself out, engaging others, expending effort for others. The "don't do" doesn't tell you what to do; Jesus did. Do to others what you would like done to you. Active. Selfless. Love. It is the standard "Golden Rule" -- "Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you" -- inverted.
6 comments:
Interesting take. I agree that it’s phrased in a way that suggest that doing is more important than not doing.
I think the next level is to look at motivation. If, as in your Christmas present example, you’re giving something to get something then I’d suggest that your motivation is problematic,
It’s almost as if the context is that we’re supposed to live and love others in the same manner as God loves us or something.
Add to this the similar command that’s intimately connected with the Great commandment, it seems that taking it out of the context of God’s love or is defeats the purpose.
Yes.
I can't recall the negative ever being used with the frequency of the positive. That is, the first example of the rule you gave is the most widely known, most frequently cited. As such, I don't see it as different from what Jesus actually says in Matt 7:12. What am I missing?
The way I've almost always heard it used is "How would you like it if someone did that (unpleasant thing) to you?" Negative. "Don't do something." Positive is do something. Go out of your way to do for others what you wish others would go out of their way to do for you. Like I said, the "Don't do things to others you wouldn't want done to you" is a valid extension of what Jesus said, but He addressed "do" not "don't do."
Ah! So it's not so much the Rule, but how some teach it?
Yes. No problem with the rule, but it says to DO, not to avoid. It is an outward-facing rule, so to speak, where "What do others need?" is the primary question and not "What don't I want people to do to me?"
Post a Comment