Love Your Enemies (A History of the Tradition and Interpretation of Its Uses): Jesus' Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian Paraenesis

by John Piper

Overview

"Love Your Enemies…"

This is one of the few statements Jesus made that is readily accepted by believers and skeptics alike. Its authenticity is not seriously questioned and yet it is a revolutionary command.

Giving attention to various critical theories, John Piper presents evidence that the early church earnestly advocated for non-retaliatory love, extending it to those who practiced evil in the world. Such love was key to the church's own ethical tradition or paraenesis.

Piper illuminates the Synoptics and passages in Romans, as well as 1 Thessalonians and 1 Peter, with non-canonical evidence, investigating the theological significance of Jesus's love command.

Originally published as #38 in the Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, this is John Piper's doctoral dissertation from the University of Munich. It is a serious work of Christian scholarship by a long-time respected author and pastor. This repackaged edition features a new, extensive introduction and will be of interest to scholars, students, and lay people who have training in New Testament studies.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781433534782
Publisher:	Crossway
Publication date:	06/30/2012
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	288
File size:	3 MB

About the Author

 John Piper is founder and lead teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. He served for thirty-three years as a pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and is the author of more than fifty books, including Desiring God; Don't Waste Your Life; and Providence. 

  John Piper is founder and lead teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. He served for thirty-three years as a pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and is the author of more than fifty books, including Desiring God; Don’t Waste Your Life; and Providence. 

Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

IN SEARCH OF THE PARAENETIC TRADITION OF ACOMMAND OF ENEMY LOVE

Our first task is to isolate the elements of the paraenetic tradition which possibly represent the reception and application of Jesus' command of enemy love. To do this we must, first, focus on those commands in the paraenetic portions of the New Testament which have a similarity to Jesus' command of enemy love; second, we must determine whether these commands were a part of the early Christian paraenetic tradition which existed prior to and alongside the New Testament epistles; and third, we must try to determine what form the command(s) had in that tradition. The existence of such a tradition is not one of my assumptions, but is to be demonstrated by the investigation.

I. The Pertinent Texts

Since we are concerned not with commands to love in general, but only with commands of enemy love, our attention may be confined primarily to three texts:

Rom 12:14,17-20

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. ... Pay back no one evil for evil. Take thought for what is good before all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to wrath for it is written: Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. But if your enemy hunger, feed him; If he thirst, give him drink; for, doing this, you will heap coals of fire on his head.

The structure of the paraenetic material in Rom 12 and 13 will be discussed in Chapter 4, p 103. Anticipating that discussion, we may simply note here that Rom 12:14,17-20 is part of a fairly long chain of admonitions which are grouped roughly with regard to the problems Paul is addressing. Rom 12:3-8 deals with the functioning of the body of Christ; Rom 12:9-21 begins with the phrase 'Let love be genuine,' and deals more generally with the Christian's relations to his brothers and to outsiders; and Rom 13:1-7 deals with the Christian's relation to the state. That gives the general context in which the command with which we are concerned is found.

I Thess 5:15

See that none of you pays back evil for evil, but always pursue good to each other and to all.

This text too comes in the midst of a series of short, crisp imperatives. It is preceded by admonitions concerning the relations between Christians and their church leaders, and it is followed by admonitions concerning the individual Christian in his relation to God: 'Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all things' (5:16ff).

I Pt 3:9

Do not pay back evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless; for to this you were called in order that you might inherit a blessing.

This text comes at the end of I Pt's 'Haustafel'. I Pt 2:13-17 deals with the Christian and the 'human institution' or governmental authority. I Pt 2:18-25 deals with Christian servants and their masters. I Pt 3:1-7 deals with wives and husbands. I Pt 3:8 is usually taken to refer to relationships among Christians, while 3:9 goes farther and refers to the Christian's relations to his non-Christian neighbors. The text is then followed by an Old Testament quote from Ps 34 which grounds the command of 3:9.

Other texts relating to love (such as I Cor 4:12) will come into view only insofar as they stand in textual or essential proximity to these.

II. Literary Dependence or Common Traditional Source?

A detailed comparison of these three texts reveals some very close parallels in Rom 12:14,17; I Thess 5:15; and I Pt 3:9. These parallels can be recognized most readily from the following diagram. Following the diagram is a detailed list of the similarities and differences among Rom 12:14,17; I Thess 5:15; and I Pt 3:9.

Rom 12:14

A. Similarities

1. Common to all three commands:

a. Each contains the identical phrase [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

b. The verb governing this phrase in each is a form of the verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

c. Each contains a form of the negative [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

2. Common to Rom and I Pt:

a. Each has the imperative participle [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

b. Each has the command to bless, though not in the same order or form.

3. Common to Rom and I Thess: In each the verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] has a dative object.

4. Common to I Thess and I Pt:

a. In each the verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is negated by [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

b. In each the negative command is followed by an adversative particle ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and a positive command (which are different in content and length).

B. Differences

1. Unique to I Pt:

a. I Pt is unique in adding to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] the phrase [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

b. It attaches an Old Testament quotation (3:10-12) in order to ground the command.

c. It reverses the order of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

2. Unique to Rom:

a. Rom is unique in separating the elements of the command by other admonitions (cf Rom 12:14,17,19).

b. It precedes [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] with its positive counterpart ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 12:14).

c. It uses the negative [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

3. Unique to I Thess:

a. I Thess is unique in using a subjunctive form of the verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

b. Its [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] clause is dependent on the introductory [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

c. It attaches to the negative command the positive command to pursue good toward all.

(Other minor differences may be inferred from the list of similarities.)

The similarities in these three texts demand an explanation. The three possible explanations from which we can choose are: (1) these commands are the writers' own formulations and are only coincidentally similar; (2) there was a literary dependence of one writer upon the other; (3) the writers drew from a common paraenetic tradition.

The first of these three possibilities may be dismissed right away. The coming together in the same command of the identical phrase [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] with the same verb ????????? is not to be explained by coincidence. Thus the question remains whether there was literary dependence of one writer on another or dependence on a common tradition. Since I Pt is later than Rom and I Thess, the question may be formulated: Was I Pt dependent on either Rom or I Thess? In view of the identical imperative participle [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in Rom 12:17a and I Pt 3:9a, Rom and not I Thess is the more likely candidate if we are to choose a literary source for I Pt. Thus our question is finally: Was I Pt 3:9 dependent on Rom 12:17 or were they both dependent on a common paraenetic tradition? In spite of Beare's assertion to the contrary, 3 the scale has been tipped in favor of a common paraenetic tradition rather than literary dependence. In the first place, while the core of the command in Rom 12:17a and I Pt 3:9a is strikingly similar, the differences listed above eliminate the possibility of simple transcription. In the second place, if we compare the immediate contexts in both epistles, the imprecise similarities amidst wide divergences make direct dependence improbable:

[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

In the third place, Dodd has made the point well that the paraenetic sections like I Thess 5:14-18; Heb 13:1-3; I Pt 3:8-9 (and we may surely add to his list Rom 12:9-21) are alike in style but differ from the style of their authors. 'They are all marked by a concise staccato style. They use the fewest words possible. They have a kind of sing-song rhythm that helps the memory.' He concludes, 'It seems probable on general grounds that we are here indirectly in touch with the common tradition.' In the fourth place, since the texts in question (Rom 12:17a; I Pt 3:9a) contain a participle used as an imperative, David Daube's argument is pertinent, namely, that behind this use of the participle in the New Testament lie early Christian Semitic ethical codes, probably in Hebrew.' On the basis of these four arguments it is more probable that the similarity of Rom 12:17 a and I Pt 3:9a is to be traced back to a common paraenetic tradition than that it stems from literary dependence. This conclusion has met widespread scholarly acceptance.

III. Determining the Form of the Command in the Paraenetic Tradition

What was the form(s) of this command as it appeared in the tradition behind I Thess 5:15;8 Rom 12:17; and I Pt 3:9? In trying to answer this question my procedure will be first to treat I Thess 5:15 in an attempt to account for its divergences from both Rom 12:17 and I Pt 3:9; then to investigate Rom 12:17 and I Pt 3:9 in order to ferret out more precisely the wording of the traditional command.

A. I Thess 5:15

I Thess 5:12-22 appears least likely to offer the original traditional context of the command, and 5.15 appears least likely to be its traditional form. I do not mean that in I Thess 5:12-22 Paul did not draw upon the paraenetic tradition, but rather that, while drawing upon it, his own hand is evident, especially at 5:15. The following paragraphs are an attempt to support this contention.

Above I argued that the presence of the imperative participle in Rom 12:17 and I Pt 3:9 is a clue to their traditional origin. It is noteworthy, therefore, that none of the admonitions in I Thess 5 employs an imperative participle (such as we find, for example, in Rom 12:9- 13,16,17,19 and I Pt 3:1,9). This is not to be explained by supposing that the admonitions in I Thess 5 have a different content from those admonitions which elsewhere use the imperative participle. The opposite is the case: as the following table shows, the traditional commands in Rom 12 which use the imperative participle have their essential counterparts in the commands of I Thess 5 which do not use the imperative participle.

This fact suggests that, even though Paul was in I Thess 5 depending on the tradition, he was nevertheless more thoroughly reworking the traditional material in I Thess 5 than he was in Rom 12. As Charles Talbert observes, 'It is far easier to see these non-participial imperatives [in I Thess] as Paul's selection and rendering into proper Greek of certain individual rules from a unit of Semitic tradition than to see Rom 12:9ff as a Pauline collection and rendering in a Semitic style of individual injunctions, many of which he uses elsewhere in a non-participial form. It is easier to see Paul moving away from the participle used as an imperative than in [sic] moving to it.'

A second clue for seeing the hand of Paul in shaping the context of I Thess 5:15 is found when we consider whether the admonitions of 5:14 may have been especially formulated for the specific Thessalonian situation. Dibelius asserts to the contrary: 'There is not the slightest trace of evidence that precisely these admonitions would have been especially appropriate for this church.' It seems to me, however, that Dibelius has here carried a correct insight too far: in general vv 14-18 reflect traditional admonitions which are binding on every church but this does not exclude the possibility that Paul could have adapted the tradition to meet the specific Thessalonian need.

Verses 14f read: 'We exhort you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all. Watch lest someone pay back evil for evil, but always pursue good for each other and for all.' The word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] ('the idle') and its cognates ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], II Thess 3:7; [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], II Thess 3:6,11) are unique to the Thessalonian epistles in the New Testament. From one standpoint the rarity of the word could suggest that it is not typically Pauline and was thus taken over by him from the tradition. That would support Dibelius' contention. But from another standpoint, the rarity of the word in the paraenetic tradition with which we are acquainted could suggest that it was not taken over from the tradition but was occasioned by a specific problem in Thessalonica. These two ways of arguing from the rarity of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] reveal the ambiguity which usually accompanies literary judgments of this nature. How shall we proceed?

The uniqueness of a word is not by itself enough to determine whether the word is merely a quote from the tradition or not. But when there is other evidence that precisely this word is called for by a specific situation, then the uniqueness of the word together with this evidence is a good indication that the word represents not a mere rehearsal of tradition but a concern of the author to meet a particular need. The 'other evidence' that the command 'admonish the idle' was specifically called for in Thessalonica comes from 4:1112 where Paul exhorts the Christians 'to aspire to live quietly, to mind your own affairs and to work with your hands as we charged you in order that you might walk respectfully before outsiders and not have need.' With the words 'as we charged you' Paul lays emphasis on the admonition 'to work,' that is, not to be 'idle.' That this admonition was especially needed at Thessalonica may also be the reason Paul in 2:9 stresses his own manual labor: 'For you remember our labor and toil, brethren; we worked night and day that we might not burden any of you while we preached to you the gospel of God.' The singularity of the command 'admonish the idle' together with this other evidence is sufficient support, I think, for the contention that Paul is not merely being carried along by the tradition here but is at this point writing specifically for the Thessalonian situation.

Somewhat less persuasive but perhaps worthy of note is the uniqueness of the command 'encourage the fainthearted' (5:14). While [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament, the verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] occurs in one other place in the New Testament, namely in 2:12 of this epistle: 'You know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged and charged that you might walk worthily of the God who called you into his Kingdom and glory.' In a sense 2:12 is an admonition to the Thessalonians to 'encourage' each other since Paul is here describing his own behavior as exemplary. Therefore [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is used twice in I Thess in a similar sense but nowhere else in the New Testament paraenesis. This could suggest again that Paul's composition is being controlled not merely by the tradition but also by his concern for the Thessalonian situation.

A third clue that I Thess 5:14-22 may not offer the original traditional context of the command in 5:15 is found when we consider vv 16ff. The vv 16-22 are distinguished from the preceding in content and in form. They deal not with relationships between men but with the personal religion of the believer: 'Rejoice always, pray constantly' etc. Dibelius' judgment (see above, p 9) applies well to these verses: they are taken from the tradition and seem to have no special application to the Thessalonian situation.

(Continues…)

---

Excerpted from "Love Your Enemies"
by .
Copyright © 1979 Desiring God Foundation.
Excerpted by permission of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Preface to the 2012 Republication,
Note on the Title and Previous Editions,
Preface to the 1979 Edition,
Abbreviations,
Introduction,
1 In Search of the Paraenetic Tradition of a Command of Enemy Love,
2 The Origin of the Command of Enemy Love in the New Testament Paraenetic Tradition,
3 Jesus' Command of Enemy Love in the Larger Context of His Message,
4 The Use and Meaning of Jesus' Command of Enemy Love in the 100 Early Christian Paraenesis,
5 The Gospel Tradition of Jesus' Command of Enemy Love and its 134 Use in Matthew and Luke,
Conclusion,
Notes,
Bibliography,