What does it mean to Love your neighbor as your self?

by jst2laws 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jst2laws

  As one can tell by my screen name I am focused on love as a key ingredient of existence. I was a JW elder when I first came here and worn out from WT rules and had become acutely focused on the 'two laws'. Matthew 22:39 is one of a few places that the 'two laws' are recorded where we are told to love God with our whole heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself. I have recently wondered if their is a different insinuation in the original language that I have overlooked. To "love your neighbor as yourself" seems to say care for them as you would yourself, to unselfishly look out for others as you look out for yourself. I used to emphasize as an elder while helping folks with low self esteem that they must LOVE THEM SELF first to be able to love their neighbor properly. This goes along with the psychological principle that if we hate something about ourself we project that ugly quality onto others and hate them for being like us. However, in reading Wayne Dyers book The Power of Intention I had a different perception of "love your neighbor AS YOURSELF". What if the original thought was not so much 'love them like you love yourself' but 'love them as if you and they are one and the same', connected as part of a whole? Is it possible? This would go along with the philosophical interpretation of findings of quantum physics, that we are all connected, part of a single whole. A little on the original words

  The original word "hos" translated "as" is also translated on other occasions to be "about, after, as , as, even as (like), for, like (as, unto), since, so (that) so. Not so helpful. However, "thyself" is the word " NT:4572 seautou (seh-ow-too'); genitive case from NT:4571 and NT:846; also dative case of the same, seautoi (seh-ow-to'); and accusative case seauton (seh-ow-ton'); likewise contracted sautou (sow-too'); sautoi (sow-to'); and sauton (sow-ton'); respectively; of (with, to) thyself:

  KJV - thee, thine ownself, (thou) thy (-self).

  The last part quoted above says "thee, thine ownself". Is there any chance that the words used originally conveyed the thought that we should love our neighbor because we and our neighbor are inseparable, part of the same, manifestations of the whole? Should we love our neighbor because they ARE "thee, thine ownself" rather than BECAUSE we love ourselves.

  If Narcissos and Leolaia will help with this, it would be nice. We will probably find the implication is that he was talking about loving others the same way we love ourselves. But is seems that since many of us have difficulty loving ourselves, It would be easier to obey the LOVE principle if we realized we were all part of a whole, that loving others was loving ourselves and visa versa.

  What do you think. Jst2laws
• 

  JamesThomas

  My feelings are that you are right on. When there is inner investigation to the point of undeniably realizing that the mental fabricated walls of individual-separate-self are illusory, then there is no other to hate. Love, then, is a natural way of being. All, is Divine; and you are That.

  This does not mean that physical and emotional attractions and repulsions stop coming into play; for the infinite nature of Divine manifestation includes these too. It's just that the Oneness of all is clearly seen and honoured.

  I am not stating a belief or philosophy here. This actual and real Oneness can be realized through sufficient self examination. We just need to deeply question all that we believe ourselves to be and open to what all mental fabricated self definitions exist within.

  The scripture mentioned may have been referring to this, for the truth of reality is not a secret. However, what matters is not what is in a book, or what others say, but rather what we discover as our very own Being, here and now.

  j
• 

  jgnat

  Oh. I was going to say send them home-made cookies.
• 

  Leolaia

  Bear in mind that this text in Matthew 22:39 is interpreting Leviticus 19:18 as a general overarching principle of the Mosaic Law (a rabbinical view shared by many others in first-century Judaism), and so we have two separate questions: (1) What did the commandment mean to the author of Matthew, Paul, Rabbi Akiva, etc. in the first century, and (2) What did the commandment mean in the original literary context of Leviticus. Fortunately, we can observe that the commandment is an epitome of various "neighbor" commands in 19:11-18, which show how the commandment to love one's neighbor translates to actual practice:

  • "You must not steal or deal deceitfully or fraudulently with your neighbor" (v. 11)
  • "You must not exploit or rob your neighbor." (v. 12)
  • "You must not keep back the laborer's wage until next morning" (v. 12)
  • "You must not curse the dumb, nor put an obstacle in the blind man's way" (v. 13-14)
  • "You must neither be partial to the little man nor overawed by the great" (v. 15)
  • "You must pass judgment on your neighbor according to justice" (v. 15)
  • "You must not slander your own people, and you must not jeopardize your neighbor's life" (v. 16)
  • "You must not bear hatred for your brother in your heart" (v. 17)
  • "You must openly tell your neighbor of his offense; this way you will not take a sin upon yourself" (v. 17)
  • "You must not exact vengeance, nor must you bear a grudge against the children of your people" (v. 18)

  All of this is epitomized in the following sentence:

  • "You must love your neighbor as yourself" (v. 18)

  It is nice to use this scripture as a means for encouraging self-esteem, but it is more of a presumption in the text that people "love themselves" than otherwise. I also don't think there is any mystical idea of one-ness in the text, but rather the idea that one should not mistreat others as one should not mistreat oneself (ignoring the psychological possibility that some people may hate themselves). The central idea is rather that love should lie behind one's behavior in society, motivating respect for the blind and dumb, motivating justice for the accused and fair play, motivating equal dealing and eschewing unloving actions like theft, vengeance, jeopardizing people's lives, etc.

  The idea in later Judaism is that the epitomizing principle in Leviticus 19:18 applies not just to ch. 19 but to the entire Torah, and this affects midrashic exegesis of the Law by constraining oral law (at least ideologically) to this commandment. Paul and the author of Matthew, meanwhile, parted ways on interpretation of this principle; for Matthew, the Law is still to be observed in its entirety but in light of the "commandment of love" (cf. 5:17-19), while Paul construed the Law and its commandments as defunct, while the command to love is the essence of the Law that remains the center of Christian life (cf. Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:9-10).
• 

  Narkissos

  As far as exegesis is concerned, a good rule of thumb is that the weaker possible contextual meaning is also the safer one (one of many applications of Ockham's razor). This is assuming that the speaker intending a stronger meaning would make sure to rule out any lesser one.

  The preposition or conjunction involved in the original languages are very common and a heavy philosophical meaning (the neighbour is actually yourself), attractive as it may be, can only be read into them rather than from them: it is eisegesis rather than exegesis.

  Now the idea of providing an ontological or mystical ground for love is present in Pauline and Johannine literature, but it has the corollary of limiting the scope of love to a definite community. It does not apply, as in Matthew, to loving one's neighbour (explicitly redefined in the Sermon of the Mount from the traditional exclusive "neighbour vs. enemy" pattern to include "love of enemies" -- as neighbours). Instead, it is "love one another," which implies a somewhat closed group: "by this all will know that you are my disciples". In Pauline and post-Pauline literature this is especially done by the "body of Christ" metaphor, one of its best expressions being found in Ephesians 4:25 (not exactly about love though): "for we are members of one another". In the first epistle of John this is especially clear in 5:1f (here from NRSV):

  Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the parent loves the child. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.

  So where universal love is implied (in Matthew, not in John) it is clear to me that the object of love is still thought as another -- the "enemy" being the limit proof case.
• 

  Jez

  I was going to say something perverted....

  Jez
• 

  jst2laws

  Thanks Leo and Narkissos, As I anticipated:

  If Narcissos and Leolaia will help with this, it would be nice. We will probably find the implication is that he was talking about loving others the same way we love ourselves.

  I was afraid the technical answer would be as you both convey. I hated to find in my own research that the quote went back to Lev 18 which would demand a conventional meaning rather than a more mystical implication. I was hoping there might be some less obvious article, inflexion, or something rare in the text that would support a liberal interpretation. Nevertheless, I like James Thomas' thought which I too share, mostly based on my own knowledge of quantum physics and some relatively recent experiments. These seem to agree with James that the "walls of individual-separate-self are illusory, then there is no other to hate, Love". Thanks for your responses. Jgnat Cookies was a nice thought. Jez I even miss YouKnow dropping in with strange comments on serious threads. I wouldn't have been offended. Jst2laws
• 

  LittleToe

  Steve:
  Although it may be technically less plausible (but not an impossible rendering) I like your hypothesis, too.

  I would add that it might be similarly applied to the first law, by extension. I suspect James would agree
• 

  whyamihere

  I was going to say something perverted....

  Jez

  I was going to say the same thing! or was I? Brooke
• 

  Jez

  IF I did love my neighbor as myself,,,,,lets just say, they would be one VERY happy neighbor.

  Jez