Love your neighbor as you
love yourself
Answers to objections to and
questions about this essay.
1. What about all of the wealthy people in the Bible?
This objection is based on the fact that there are a number of people that scripture tells us were very wealthy (for example, Job, Abraham, David, Solomon and the women who financially supported Jesus). Scripture is clear that some of these people where wealthy in part because God had blessed them materially. Some of these people (for example, Solomon) are recorded to have lived very lavish lives. Presumably, some or all of these people used their wealth to purchase non-essentials for themselves when they could have helped others instead. Therefore, the objection is that if these people didn't have to love everyone else around them as much as they loved themselves then we must not either.
This objection is based on two mistaken premises. The first mistaken premise is the idea that if a person's actions are recorded in the Bible, those actions must be acceptable. The Bible has repeated and clear counterexamples to this idea. Abraham was a liar. David was a murderer and adulterer. Solomon's accumulation of multiple wives and vast wealth was in direct disobedience to God's commands (Deuteronomy 17:14-17). In fact, scripture tells us that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Clearly we can not make the example of other peoples' lives an infallible guide to how we should live.
The second mistaken premise that this objection is based on is the idea that if God is the source of a person's wealth then that person is therefore justified in using her or his wealth self-indulgently. However, scripture teaches that we need to use everything we have based on God's priorities of generosity and love and not based on our own selfish priorities. Aside from the verses that I included in my essay to support that point, a verse that makes this point well is the following: "You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God." (2 Corinthians 9:11, NIV) It is beneficial to read this verse in its context since Paul has many other things to say about generous giving in 2 Corinthians 8 & 9. 2 Corinthians 9:11 shows us why God gives us gifts. It also explains how the second of the greatest commandments is actually related to the first (that is, that loving others brings glory to God).
A slightly different version of the above objection is based on the observation that scripture does not condemn by name many of the wealthy people whose self-indulgent behavior it records. The reasoning then is that certainly God would specifically condemn any wrong behavior recorded in scripture so that we would not be lead astray by it. There are two problems with this version of the objection. First, the Bible has numerous counterexamples to this idea. One clear counterexample is what the Bible has to say about Pilate ordering the execution of Jesus. This event is simply recorded as a historical narrative. Nowhere in scripture is Pilate explicitly condemned for what he did. In fact, it is unnecessary for scripture to do so. The teaching of scripture clearly condemns Pilate's actions, without naming his situation specifically. This leads to the second problem with the reasoning of this objection: scripture does condemn self-indulgent neglect of those in need as many of the verses I have quoted and others besides demonstrate. Because of that, it is unnecessary for scripture to specifically condemn each occurrence of disobedience of this teaching. If the teaching of scripture and the example of a person's life are in conflict then it is the teaching that is right and the person who is wrong regardless of whether or not scripture explicitly says that.
2. Is it ever acceptable for me to use resources on myself when I don't need to?
I think it is helpful to ask this question from a different perspective. Is it ever acceptable to allow someone to starve when you are able to give them food? Is it ever acceptable to allow someone to be without access to the Bible when you are able to give that to them? Is it ever acceptable to allow someone to die from or suffer with a disease when you can provide them the prevention or the cure? Is it ever acceptable to allow someone to live without the chance to hear about Jesus when you are able to do something to take or send the good news to them? Is it ever acceptable to allow someone to be oppressed when you could speak in their defense?
In considering your answers to the above questions, consider Matthew 7:12: "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets. " (NET)
3. Does "love your neighbor as you love yourself" really mean "love your neighbor as much as you love yourself"?
I am assuming in my answer that the purpose of this question is to understand if this command can be obeyed while still loving oneself more than others. Certainly the phrase "as you love yourself" is not as precise as I would like. However, if I choose not to help someone in need simply to gratify my selfish desires, am I really loving that person "as I love myself" using any reasonable interpretation of that phrase? If I am loving myself by providing for my needs and yet unwilling to provide for the needs of my neighbor, I am not loving him as I love myself. Am I even loving that person in any real sense? James had this to say about such actions: "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm and eat well," but you do not give them what the body needs, what good is it?" (James 2:15-16, NET). In light of verses like this and many others that relate to the topics of selfishness (for example, Matthew 23:25, 1 John 3:16-17, James 5:5 and Ezekiel 16:49-50), selflessness (for example, Philippians 2:3-8, Mark 10:43-45 and 1 Corinthians 13:5) and self denial (for example, Luke 9:23, Luke 9:57-62, Luke 14:33 and Luke 21:1-4) it is hard for me to imagine that what Jesus really meant was, "Love your neighbor as much as you can without having to give up things that you want very much". Such an interpretation runs counter to some of the most significant themes of scripture and certainly does not seem to be a principle on which Jesus based his earthly life.
4. How far should we take this? or Certainly God doesn't want me to give up everything, so how much am I required to give up?
This question assumes that we must find an appropriate balance between complete selfishness and complete selflessness. This question may also assume that there is no clear line separating "too selfish" from "too selfless" and therefore each person must determine where to place himself or herself on that spectrum. It is true that if this issue is just one of degrees (for example, should I use 70% of my resources to help others or 80%?) then scripture does not draw any clear lines. Scripture contains no exact percentages that we can use. Nor does it have a list of things that we can allocate resources towards and a list of things that we can not allocate resources towards. However, I believe that scripture does provide three clear measuring lines that can be used to answer this question.
First, the command "love your neighbor as you love yourself" provides a clear and objective line between too much and too little (see question 3 above). Philippians 2:3-4 makes this command even more strongly when it says that we should consider one another as more important than ourselves and, in verse 4, ties that directly into our actions. Second, the command "however you want people to treat you, so treat them" (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31) gives us another clear line. If I chose to help others less than I can, is that how I would want to be treated if the situation was reversed? I encourage everyone to think hard about that question and to be honest in answering it. The third and most demanding measuring line is the command to love as Jesus loved. This is a theme that runs throughout the New Testament. Sometimes it is mentioned explicitly and sometimes the reference to it is more implicit. 1 John 3:16 provides a clear and strong example of this: "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers." (NIV) I find it hard to believe that anyone can be laying down his life for his brothers and yet be unwilling to make sacrifices of time and money to meet the needs of his brothers[1], especially when I read 1 John 3:17 in the context of 1 John 3:16. The model given by Jesus is one of a servant who seeks to help others, not of someone demanding what he is due. This is all the more remarkable when you consider that God is the only one who actually has anything due him. On the somewhat different but related topic of forgiveness, Matthew 18:21-35 gives a frightening view of what will happen if we assume that we can hold ourselves to a different standard of love than God shows to us. I see no reason to think that this principle would apply to forgiveness but not to others ways in which we show love and mercy to others.
Although I think that the above three sets of commands give a clear, objective and radical answer for how far we are to take our love for others, I think that the question "How far must I take this?" is in one sense the wrong question to ask. After all, our desire should not be simply to do the minimum that God requires of us. If we are to really take seriously the other greatest commandment (to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength) then certainly we will desire above all else to do whatever we can to please and glorify God, regardless of whether or not it is required of us. How many of us would be happy with a child who would only show us love if we demanded him or her to do so? [2] The story of the poor widow's gift (Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4) shows that Jesus is pleased more by small gifts that leave nothing for us than he is by large gifts given out of our excess. If God is most pleased and glorified when we keep some of our resources to "enjoy his material blessings", it seems reasonable that he would have had criticism or ambivalence rather than praise for the poor widow. Some may object that I am misusing the story of the poor widow because her gift was to God rather than to others and therefore fulfills the first rather than the second of the greatest commands. However, that objection is likely an oversimplification of the purpose of the temple gifts. More importantly, in the story of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46), Jesus tells us in no uncertain terms that when we help those in need we are helping him and when we don't help those in need we are not helping him. Therefore, much of the apparent distinction between the two greatest commands is removed, at least it terms of their practical applications. As well, the story of the sheep and the goats suggests that, when we use up time and possessions simply for our own pleasure when we could use them to meet the needs of others, we are saying to Jesus that helping him is not as important as our own comfort and pleasure. This brings us to some uncomfortable questions. What good reason do we have to intentionally love others less than we can? Is God really glorified more by me loving others less than I am able? That would seem odd when the primary defining characteristic of Christians is love (John 13:35) and when God has some harsh words for those who choose not to help others when they are able to (Ezekiel 16:49-50, 1 John 3:17).
Even if we knew that loving others as much as we are able would not bring God any more glory or pleasure, certainly we should desire to love others as much as we can simply out of gratitude for the immeasurable love and mercy God has shown us.
If, after carefully considering what I have written and what scripture says, you are still uncertain as to how to live, please consider the worst case scenarios. As far as I can see, the worst case scenario if you choose not to love others as much as you can would be that God would be dissatisfied and judge you accordingly. On the other hand, if you showed more love and concern for others than God required or desired, it seems that the worst case scenario is that you would miss the enjoyment that might have come from the time and possessions that you gave up in order to help others. I have a hard time imagining God being displeased with anyone for being too loving! Scripture rebukes people time and time again for lack of love. To my knowledge no person is ever rebuked in scripture for being too loving. I believe that this is because it is not possible to be too loving.
[1] I recognize that both the "one another" of Philippians 2:3 and the "our brothers" of 1 John 3:16 may be referring to fellow believers although the context of these phrases does not make that clear. However, if this was the case, it would not substantially alter my argument for two reasons. First, enough of the commands that I refer to are general enough to apply to all people. Second, so many of our fellow Christians have significant needs that are not being met that any objection to my thesis based on this point seems to simply be a smokescreen to hide a desire not to have to sacrifice.
[2] It is worth noting that this analogy understates the case since we are not commanded to love our earthly parents with all our heart, soul, mind and strength.