|
that it is more likely that Luke (whose special interest in the Holy Spirit is
often noted) has given a more specific application to the originally more
general promise which Matthew records; “good things” follows more
naturally both from the “good gifts” of the first half of the verse and from
the preceding teaching of 6:25–34, where “all these things” (6:33) relates to
material rather than to spiritual endowment. That does not mean that this
saying relates only to material provision, even though the parables of vv. 9–
10 are concerned with food; the wording is broad enough to cover anything
“good” for disciples, but a specific focus on “giving the Holy Spirit” (an idea
which has no close parallel in Matthew, though see 3:11) seems less
appropriate to the context.¹
10. Fulfilling the Law and the Prophets (7:12)
¹²So whatever you would like other people to do for you, you too are to do for
them; for this is the law and the prophets.
This striking saying does not directly relate to vv. 7–11,¹ which were concerned
with our relationship with God rather than with other people—though they
included human parental care as an illustration for God’s concern for his people.
The second part of the saying rather echoes 5:17, which introduced a major
section of the discourse dealing with the disciples’ relationships with other
people under the rubric of “fulfilling the law and the prophets.” While most of
the more recent part of the discourse has focused on the disciples’ relationship
with God (the whole of ch. 6 and 7:7–11), the way we treat other people has
been an even more prominent theme of the discourse as a whole, not only in the
discussion of fulfilling the law and the prophets in 5:17–48, but also emerging in
the beatitudes of 5:3–10, the metaphors of salt and light in 5:13–16, the
requirement to forgive in 6:14–15 and the strictures on unfair criticism in 7:1–5.
All this material is now incorporated in a far-reaching and memorable summary
of the ethics of discipleship (the “greater righteousness” of 5:20), which thus
serves to conclude the main body of the discourse: what follows in vv. 13–27 is a
coda calling for decisive response rather than adding further instructions on the
requirements of discipleship.
In 22:34–40 we shall find Jesus specifically challenged to provide a summary of
the law by identifying its “great commandment,” and we shall note then the
popularity of such a quest among Jewish teachers. Jesus’ response then will be to
single out two OT texts to summarize the law,² but the summary he offers here is
of the spirit rather than the actual words of the law. It is a principle so all-
embracing that he can declare not so much that it is the greatest commandment
but that it actually “is” the law and the prophets. It does not, of course, cover
every aspect of OT law, such as the sacrificial rituals or indeed the love for God
himself which is the first of Jesus’ two commandments in 22:37–40; rather it
draws out the principle enshrined in Jesus’ second commandment (cf. also
19:19), “You are to love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18), which underlies
the ethical demands both of the law and of the prophets. Cf. Paul’s teaching that
love for the neighbor fulfills the law so that “Love is the fulfillment of the law”
(Rom 13:8–10), and “the whole law is fulfilled in this one saying, ‘You are to
love your neighbor as yourself’ ” (Gal 5:14); note also James’ singling out of the
love of neighbor as “the royal law” (Jas 2:8).
The famous summary of the law by R. Hillel (b. Šabb. 31a) provides an
instructive parallel. Challenged by a Gentile to “teach me the whole Torah while
I am standing on one leg” (a challenge curtly refused by Hillel’s rival Shammai),
Hillel reputedly replied: “Do not do to your neighbor what is hateful to you. This
is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.” The setting is roughly contemporary
with Jesus, and the question in effect the same as that put to Jesus in 22:36.
Hillel, like Jesus (and unlike Shammai), accepts the possibility of putting the law
in a nutshell, and his comment, “This is the whole Torah,” is strikingly similar to
Jesus’ saying here. Moreover, his summary is on the same lines as Jesus’
summary here (and indeed the call to “love your neighbor as yourself” in 22:39),
but with the interesting difference that Hillel’s formula is negative where Jesus’
is positive. Other less exact parallels are found in both Jewish and pagan
literature,³ but again the focus is predominantly negative, the call to avoid
hurting others rather than positively to aim to please them. Surpisingly even the
Didache, normally thought to be dependent on Matthew, also has only the
negative form, “Whatever you would like not to be done to you, you also must
not do to others” (Did. 1:2, following an abbreviation of Jesus’ other summary in
Matt 22:37, 39), while in Gos. Thom. 6 (= P.Oxy. 654) the simpler “Do not do
what you hate” appears without specific emphasis as one member in a list of
ethical maxims. Jesus’ positive version of the formula, even if not
unprecedented,⁴ represents a more demanding interpretation⁵ of love of one’s
neighbor than was normal among other teachers of the time.
The common description of this saying as the “Golden Rule” is traditionally
traced to the Roman Emperor Alexander Severus (AD 222–235) who though not
a Christian was reputedly so impressed by the comprehensiveness of this maxim
of Jesus as a guide to good living that he had it inscribed in gold on the wall of
his chamber. Its influence in Victorian Britain is illustrated by the name given by
Charles Kingsley in The Water Babies to the good fairy “Mrs Do-as-you-would-
be-done-by” (in contrast to Mrs Be-done-by-as-you-did). As a guide to how
unselfish love should work itself out in our relations with other people, this
simple principle would be hard to improve on.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
