Give to everyone who asks you, and don’t ask him who takes away your goods to give them back again.
“As you would like people to do to you, do exactly so to them. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive back as much.
But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv32, 35 What is there in this your work, that is…
What is there in this your work, that is to be accounted of? for if you look to have commodity by loving, seek those commodities, which are commodities indeed: love your enemies, and so you shall show to the world that you look for those commodities, which come from God.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv30, 31, 32, 34, 35 30 Give to every man that asketh of thee;…
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
Ver. 30. Give to every man, &c.] General Norrice never thought he had that which he gave not away. It is not lack, but love of money, that maketh men churls. Men believe not that of Martial,
Read full note →
" Extra fortunam est quicquid donatur egenis;
Quas dederis solas semper habebis opes."
Ask them not again] Or if thou take the benefit of the law to recover them, do it without hate or heat; as tilters break their spears on each other’s breasts, yet without wrath or intention of hurt.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv30, 31, 32, 35 Matthew hath much the same passage, only he saith,…
Matthew hath much the same passage, only he saith, Give to him that, &c., not to every man that asketh of thee; and for the latter clause, he hath, from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away, which seems more agreeing to the precept. Deu 15:8. These precepts of our Saviour must be interpreted, not according to the strict sense of the words, as if every man were by them obliged, without regard to his own abilities, or the circumstances of the persons begging or asking of him, to give to every one that hath the confidence to ask of him; but as obliging us to liberality and charity according to our abilities, and the true needs and circumstances of our poor brethren, and in that order which God’s word hath directed us; first providing for our own families, then doing good to the household of faith, then also to others, as we are able, and see any of them true objects of our charity. Nor must the second part of the verse be interpreted, as if it were a restraint of Christians from pursuing of thieves or oppressors, but as a precept prohibiting us private revenge, or too great contending for little things, &c. See Poole on "Mat 5:42".
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv30–32 These and the like precepts of our Saviour are…
These and the like precepts of our Saviour are not to be taken strictly, but restrainedly: we are thereby obliged to charity according to others’ necessities, and our own abilities, but not bound to give to every one that has the confidence to ask for what we have. Indeed every man that really wants is the proper object of our Christian charity: and we must with a compassionate heart and open hand, relieve him according to his necessity, but answerable to our ability.
Nor must the second part of the verse be understood as forbidding Christians to seek the recovery of their just rights, by pursuing thieves, and following the law upon oppressors; but requiring us to forbear all acts of private revenge, as directly contrary to the spirit and temper of Christianity.
Read full note →
As jealousy is the rage of a man, so revenge is the rage of the devil, it is the very soul and spirit of the apostate nature.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv30–35 And as ye would that men should do to…
And as ye would that men should do to you,.... In matters of justice and beneficence were they in your case, and you in theirs;
do ye also to them likewise: a golden rule this, agreeably to the light of nature, and divine revelation, and is the sum and substance of the law and prophets; See Gill on Mat 7:12.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv30–32 Give to every one - Friend or enemy, what…
Give to every one - Friend or enemy, what thou canst spare, and he really wants: and of him that taketh away thy goods - By borrowing, if he be insolvent, ask them not again. Matt. v, 42.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv30, 32, 34, 35 Verse 30. Ask them not again.] Or, Do not…
Verse 30. Ask them not again.] Or, Do not beg them off. This probably refers to the way in which the tax-gatherers and Roman soldiers used to spoil the people. "When such harpies as these come upon your goods, suffer the injury quietly, leaving yourselves in the hand of God, rather than attempt even to beg off what belongs to you, lest on their part they be provoked to seize or spoil more, and lest you be irritated to sue them at law, which is totally opposite to the spirit and letter of the Gospel; or to speak bad words, or indulge wrong tempers, which would wound the spirit of love and mercy." Of such as these, and of all merciless creditors, who even sell the tools and bed of a poor man, it may be very truly said: -
Tristius haud illis monstrum, nec saevior ulla
Read full note →
Pestis et ira deum Stygiis sese extulit undis: -
Diripiunt dapes, contactaque omnia faedant
Immundo: -
VIRG. AEn. iii. ver. 214
"Monsters more fierce offended heaven ne'er sent
From hell's abyss, for human punishment: -
They snatch the meat, defiling all they find."
DRYDEN.
However, it is probable that what is here spoken relates to requiring a thing speedily that had been lent, while the reason for borrowing it still continues. In Ecclus. 20:15, it is a part of the character of a very bad man, that to-day he lendeth, and tomorrow will he ask it again. From Lu 6:27 to Lu 6:30 our blessed Lord gives us directions how to treat our enemies.
1. Wish them well.
2. Do them good.
3. Speak as well of them as possible.
4. Be an instrument of procuring them good from others; use your influence in their behalf.
5. Suffer patiently from them contempt and ill treatment.
6. Give up your goods rather than lose your meekness and charity towards them.
The retaliation of those who hearken not to their own passion, but to Christ, consists in doing more good than they receive evil. Ever since our blessed Saviour suffered the Jews to take away his life, it is by his patience that we must regulate our own. Quesnel.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On v32 Luk 6:32-36. If ye love them which love you,…
Luk 6:32-36. If ye love them which love you, what thank have ye — What great thanks are due to you on that account? For there are some sentiments of gratitude common even to the worst of men, which incline the most scandalous sinners to love those that love them, and to profess an affectionate regard for those by whom they have been treated with respect and kindness. Here, says Theophylact, “If you only love them that love you, you are only like the sinners and heathen; but if you love those who do evil to you, you are like to God; which therefore will you choose? to be like sinners or like God?” Here we see that our Lord has so little regard for one of the highest instances of natural virtue, namely, the returning love for love, that he does not account it even to deserve thanks. For even sinners, saith he, do the same — Men who do not regard God at all. Therefore he may do this who has not taken one step in Christianity. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive — And that, perhaps, with considerable advantage to yourselves; what thank have ye? — What favour do you show in that? or, what extraordinary thanks are due to you on that account? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive, τα ισα, equal favours, in return. But love ye your enemies — Ye who profess to be my disciples. See on Mat 5:43-45. Do good and lend, hoping for nothing again — Do good to those from whom you have no expectation of receiving any favour in return; and lend, in cases of great distress, even when you have little reason to expect what is lent to be repaid. Because the Greek expression, μηδεν απελπιζοντες, has, in no Greek author, the sense here, and in most translations, given to it, namely, hoping for nothing again; many commentators have declared in favour of the signification affixed to it by the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions; neminem desperare facientes, causing no man to despair: the copies from which these translations were made reading μηδεν’, with an apostrophe, for μηδενα. But, as Dr. Whitby observes, “this is putting a double force upon the words; 1st, reading, without the authority of any MS., μηδενα, no man, for μηδεν, nothing; and, 2d, interpreting απελπιζειν, to cause to despair; of which sense they give no instance.” The context seems evidently to justify our translation of the clause; for the preceding words are, If ye lend to them, παρ’ ων ελπιζετε απολαβειν, from whom ye hope to receive again, namely, what you lend, or a similar favour, what thank have ye, for sinners also lend to sinners to receive as much again. It then naturally follows, But do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again — That is, lend not you on so mean an account, but even when you do not hope to have that returned which you lend, or to receive at some future time a like favour from the person you lend to. And whereas we are told that the word απελπιζω bears no such sense, “I hope,” says the doctor, “the credit of Stephanus, who says the word is rightly rendered by the Vulgate, nihil inde sperantes, hoping for nothing thence; and of Casaubon, who says απελπιζειν is to hope for something from a person or matter; may be sufficient to support the credit of our translation; especially when we read, in the Life of Solon, that he made no law against parricides, δια το απελπισαι, because he did not expect that such a crime would be committed; and find this like composition of the word
απεχειν, when it signifies απο τινος εχειν, to receive from any one; and in the word απεσθιειν, which is used for απο τινος εσθιειν, to eat of any thing.” It must be acknowledged, however, that the more common and classical meaning of the term is, despero, to despair; and accordingly Dr. Campbell, with many others, renders the clause, not at all, or nowise despairing: observing, among several other arguments in support of this translation, “That what commonly proves the greatest hinderance to our lending, particularly to needy persons, is the dread that we shall never be repaid. It is, I imagine, to prevent the influence of such an over-cautious mistrust, that our Lord here warns us not to shut our hearts against the request of a brother in difficulties. Lend cheerfully, as though he had said, without fearing the loss of what shall be thus bestowed. It often happens that, even contrary to appearances, the loan is thankfully returned by the borrower; but if it should not, remember (and let this silence all your doubts) that God charges himself with what you give from love to him, and love to your neighbour: he is the poor man’s surety.” It may not be improper to add, that several Latin MSS., agreeably to this interpretation, read nihil desperantes, “nothing despairing.” Our Lord enforces the exhortation by adding, and your reward shall be great, probably even in this world, in the temporal prosperity with which God, in the course of his providence, will bless you: for to him that hath, uses aright what he hath, shall be given, and he shall have more abundance, Mat 13:12. But if you are not recompensed in this world you certainly shall be in the world to come: for God is not unfaithful to forget our work and labour of love, which we show to his name. And ye shall be the children of the Highest — His genuine children, resembling him, bearing the image of his goodness; for he is kind unto the unthankful and the evil — Causing the undeserved benefits of the sun and rain to descend upon them, and conferring on them of his free unmerited bounty other innumerable benefits daily. Be ye therefore merciful — Compassionate, kind, beneficent, to the unworthy; as your Father also is merciful — Continually setting you an example of gratuitous goodness; as all his works, whether of creation, providence, or grace, amply declare. See notes on Mat 5:44-48.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv30, 35 Jesus Christ does not order us never to refuse…
Jesus Christ does not order us never to refuse a petition: but the meaning of his words is, that we are to give what is just and reasonable, what will be neither injurious to yourself nor your family; for what is unjustly asked, may be justly denied. (St. Augustine, lib. x. chap. 40. de serm. Dom. in Monte.) --- But in this, the sin we commit is often far from trivial; particularly, when to the refusal of a just request, we add also reprehensions and complaints. For why, say we, does he not labour? why has he reduced himself to penury, through his own indolence? --- But, tell me, do you live upon the fruits of your own industry? On the supposition that you do, is it not that you may have some plea to reprehend another for the morsel of bread he begs at your hands? You give him no charitable relief, give him then no contumelious words: if you have no compassion for him yourself, do not prevent others from shewing him commiseration. Abraham, in the number of guests he received, had the honour of receiving under his roof even angels. Let us not, therefore, be strict and unfavourable judges in regard of our suffering and distressed neighbours, lest perhaps we ourselves come to be more severely judged. (St. John Chrysostom collected from hom. xxi. in ep. ad. Rom. --- Hom. xi. in ep. ad. Heb. and hom. ii. de Lazaro.)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On v30 30. Give to every man that asketh of thee—Whether…
30. Give to every man that asketh of thee—Whether Jew, Samaritan, or Gentile. Let thy charity be bounded by no personal motives, and limited by nothing but the golden rule which immediately follows this precept.
Ask them not again—See note on Mat_5:38.
Read full note →
Some commentators understand the phrase taketh away, in the Greek, to mean the expense of our charitable bestowments. In the paragraph 32-34 our Lord beautifully expands on the duties of the Christian to be better than anybody else. A Christian, says Cecil, if he be a shoemaker, should be the best shoemaker in the town. The assurance is given, in Luk_6:35, that of all these efforts to do eminent goodness, our reward shall be great.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv30, 31, 32, 34, 35 30. Give to every man that asketh of thee]…
30. Give to every man that asketh of thee] Literally, “be giving implying a habit, not an instant act. Here again we have a broad, general principle of unselfishness and liberality safely left to the common sense of mankind, Deu_15:7-9. The spirit of our Lord’s precept is now best fulfilled by not giving to every man that asks, because in the altered circumstances of the age such indiscriminate almsgiving would only be a check to industry, and a premium on imposture, degradation, and vice. By ‘giving,’ our Lord meant ‘conferring a boon;’ but mere careless giving now, so far from conferring a boon, perpetuates a curse and inflicts an injury. The spirit of the precept is large-handed but thoughtful charity. Love must sometimes violate the letter as the only possible way of observing the spirit (Mat_15:26; Mat_20:23).
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv30–35 (30) Give to every man that asketh of thee.—See…
(30) Give to every man that asketh of thee.—See Note on Mat_5:42.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv30, 31, 32, 35 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and…
Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. Here, again, it is clear that faithfully to cling to the literal interpretation would be utterly to ignore the true spirit of the Lord"s words here, where he sets forth his sublime ideal of a charity which ignores its own rights and knows no limits to its self-sacrifice. Augustine quaintly suggests that in the words themselves will be found the limitation required. to every man," but not everything," suggesting that in many cases a medicine for the hurt of the soul would better carry out the words of the Lord than the gift of material help for the needs of the body ("Serm." 359.). But such ingenious exposition, after all, is needless. What the Lord inculcated here was that broad, unselfish generosity which acts as though it really believed those other beautiful words of Jesus, that "it is more blessed to give than to receive."
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv31, 32, 35 And as ye would that men should do to…
Luk_6:31
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Read full note →
What would we that men should do unto us?
1. That they should deal with us honestly.
2. That they should treat us generously.
3. That they should deal with us faithfully; warning us of any danger into which we are liable to fall.
4. That they should be patient with us. (H. S. Brown.)
The royal law
I. THE LAW ITSELF--
1. Teaches us to take the initiative; to begin to do for others what we conceive they ought to do for us.
2. Teaches us that the standard we set up for others must be the measure of our own conduct.
3. Teaches us that the end of our duty is the good of humanity.
II. THE WORKING OF THE LAW.
1. In the home-life.
2. In our social relationships.
3. In relation to business in all shapes and forms.
4. In relation to party politics.
5. In relation to church life. (J. B. Walton, B. A.)
Do as you would be done by
Men who neglect Christianity nevertheless do acknowledge this precept; men of experience, practical, intelligent, when talked to upon the subject of religion will not scruple to say: My religion is this--Do as you would be done by. And yet they fail to apply this to the claim of Jesus Christ upon them. All who have lived and died, all who are now living--all combined, have not the claim on my life that Jesus Christ has. I ask you how you dare to say that all your religion is Do as you would be done by, if you fail to apply it to Him who has done so much for you. Do it, and you must dedicate all you have and all you are to His glory. (Dr. Deems.)
Was the golden rule original?
The gold in the Golden Rule is not its newness but its goodness. (A. Macleod, D. D.)
The rule and the test of morality
The light and warmth of the sun no more clearly bespeak the hand that formed it, than the excellence of this rule of conduct declares it to be from God. Although no rule is perhaps so universally admired, yet none is more universally broken.
I. TO EXPLAIN THE RULE. In explaining the rule, let us examine the different parts of it. All things whatsoever. This clause declares its universal extent. We may do some things, perhaps many things, to others which we would wish them to do to us, and yet in many other things be wholly and habitually selfish. A man, for example, may give food to the hungry, but Habitually overreach and defraud. No matter who he is, whether friend or enemy, if he is a fellow-creature, one of your own species, a man, you must be governed by this rule in all that you do toward him. Do ye even so. In this clause we are directed not only to do the things themselves which we would that others should do to us, but also to the utmost exactness in doing so. What, then, are we to understand by the clause, Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you? It has commonly been supposed, by commentators, that a literal interpretation of this text is inconsistent with other plain scriptural duties, and that therefore the rule is to be explained by certain qualifications or restrictions not expressed in it; for our desires of good from others may be selfish and extravagant, and to make such desires the measure of what we are to do to others, would in many cases be doing what is not required, as well as what is forbidden. For example, a rich man may feel and say, If I were in that poor mans place and he in mine, I should wish him to give me his estate; and now, if I am to do as I would be done by, I am to show him the same kindness, and give him my estate. This difficulty evidently arises from inadequate views of the text. The rule contains its own explanation and limitation. If I am to do to others as I would that they should do to me, then I am to love them as I love myself; not them more than myself, nor myself more than them. If, therefore, I were to give my estate, if I were rich, to a poor man, I should do that which in this respect would imply that I loved him more than myself, which would be a palpable violation of the rule. Besides, how can I, putting myself in the poor mans place, wish another to give me his estate--wish that he should impoverish himself to enrich me, without violatingthe rule. In this very wish I am desiring my own happiness more than my neighbours, and thus I counteract the very spirit and letter of the rule itself. In deciding what we would that others should do to us--i.e., in forming our desires of good from others--we are to remember that we are to cherish the same desires to impart good to them. Thus one desire is to check and regulate and define the other. Thus the rule aims directly at the utter extinction of all selfish inordinate desires of good, and requires simply that what we would on disinterested principles desire from others, were we in their circumstances and they in ours, we are to do to them. Let us examine this a little further. We are to do to others what we would on truly benevolent principles desire from them. The existence of the happiness of one man, other things being equal, is of equal value with that of another. The simple fact that the happiness of one of the two is mine, gives it no additional value. It has precisely the same value as when it is the happiness of another. All the value which I can reasonably attach to my happiness, because it is mine, he can us reasonably attach to his, because it is his. All that I am to myself he is to himself, and all that I am as it respects him he is as it respects me. The reason why I should regard his happiness as much as my own, circumstances being tile same, is as plain and conclusive as that things of equal value ought to be equally loved or desired. If my right lays him under obligation to me, his right lays me under the same obligation to him. There is a great diversity in the character and stations of men. It is very desirable there should be, and as it is not in our power so it is not our duty, on principles of true benevolence, to wish to alter them. There is, therefore, a consequent variety of duties owed to men. But we can easily determine, by the rule before us, what these duties are. Thus a ruler is to treat his subjects as he would wish to be treated were he a subject. But he is not bound to yield that submission to his subjects which, as a ruler, he justly demands of them. This he could not do without sacrificing the public good to private interest--i.e., he could not do it on disinterested principles. For, if he were a subject, he could not on such principles wish for the submission and obedience of a ruler to himself. A judge is not required to acquit, though he might on selfish principles wish, were he the criminal, to be acquitted, because he could not on benevolent principles wish the laws of justice to be abandoned, and the guilty to go unpunished. Thus, too, a parent or head of a family is not required to neglect to promote the welfare of his own household, to promote the welfare of his neighbours, because on truly disinterested principles he could not wish his neighbour to do so by him. So, also, an individual is not required to sacrifice his own happiness to promote an equal degree of happiness in another individual, because it is as right that the former should enjoy it, if but one can enjoy it, as that the latter should; and therefore the former could not, on truly disinterested principles, desire that the latter should do so by him. On the same principle we are not required to put our property into common stock for the equal benefit of all. This would tend, as a general rule, to promote so many evils, that if we were poor we could not, on benevolent principles, desire it. The amount of this rule of our Lord is, that in determining what our duty is to others, and in performing it, our selfishness is to have no voice and no influence. It is as if our Lord had said: Regard your neighbour in his wants, his rights, his happiness, as another self. Ask, then, how, as a reasonable, disinterested man, you would be treated by him: and treat him exactly in that manner.
II. To ENFORCE THE DUTY.
1. God has commanded it.
2. The duty is obviously reasonable and right.
3. This rule has a most direct and effectual tendency to promote the happiness of men.
4. Obedience to this rule is the most ennobling character of man. The spirit inculcated is the very opposite of selfishness; and selfishness is the very substance of moral degradation. But behold the man who loves his neighbour as himself! Behold him raised, as it were to heaven, by the principles just described; behold his heart fixed on the good of his fellowmen, his friends, his enemies, his neighbour, and the stranger, as on his own happiness! What is there lovely, what of good report, what of moral beauty, that does not shine in such a character? Is it not real greatness to be like him?
5. We can neither be fit for, nor admitted into heaven without this character. It is impossible not to see in every page of the Scriptures the necessity of a fitness for heaven which consists in the subjugation of selfish to benevolent principles, and which are all summed up in one expressive term, Holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
Remarks:
1. We see that many things which are deemed consistent with this rule of Christs are direct violations of it. Why does the duelist consent that his antagonist should take his life if he can do it? That he may have an opportunity to take that of a fellow-creature. Is this being willing to give up his life to another from motives of disinterested love? Must one or the other die; and rather than that his neighbour should die, does he consent to die himself? Why, too, is the gambler, or the man who takes undue advantage of his neighbour in trade, willing that others should do to him as he does to them? For the same reason substantially, as it respects the morality of the act that governs the duelist. They are willing that others should treat them thus, that they may obtain, or at least have the opportunity of obtaining, their neighbours property without an equivalent. For, if they are really willing their neighbours should have their property without an equivalent, why not give it to them directly? My hearers, such is the deception which men practise on themselves, in these and a thousand other cases. They are not willing to do as they pretend; the proof is, that they do not do it. They are at most willing to run the hazard of being injured themselves, for the privilege of injuring their neighbour.
2. We remark that there is very little genuine morality in the world.
3. How it would commend the religion of the gospel to all, if there were more of the spirit of the text manifested by its professors.
4. I cannot close without remarking, how much we all need a Saviour! I say all; for, let it be noticed, that to condemn what is wrong in the professors of religion, does not justify what is wrong in those who are not. (N. W. Taylor, D. D.)
On the great Christian law of reciprocity between man and man
Let a man, in fact, give himself up to a strict and literal observation of the precept in this verse, and it will impress a twofold direction upon him. It will not only guide him to certain performances of good in behalf of others, but it will guide him to the regulation of his own desires of good from them. For his desires of good from others are here set up as the measure of his performances of good to others. The more selfish and unbounded his desires are, the larger are those performances with the obligation of which he is burdened. Whatsoever he would that others should do unto him, he is bound to do unto them; and therefore, the more he gives way to ungenerous and extravagant wishes of service from those who are around him, the heavier and more insupportable is the load of duty which he brings upon himself. The commandment is quite imperative, and there is no escaping from it; and if he, by the excess of his selfishness, should render it impracticable, then the whole punishment due to the guilt of casting aside the authority of this commandment, follows in that train of punishment which is annexed to selfishness. There is one way of being relieved from such a burden. There is one way of reducing this verse to a moderate and practicable requirement; and that is, just to give up selfishness- just to stifle all ungenerous desires- just to moderate every wish of service or liberality from others, down to the standard of what is right and equitable; and then there may be other verses in the Bible, by which we are called to be kind even to the evil and to the unthankful. But most assuredly this verse lays upon us none other thing than that we should do such services for others as are right and equitable. The operation is somewhat like that of a governor or fly in mechanism. This is a very happy contrivance, by which all that is defective or excessive in the motion, is confined within the limits of equability; and every tendency, in particular, to any mischievous acceleration is restrained. The impulse given by this verse to the conduct of man among his fellows, would seem, to a superficial observer, to carry him to all the excesses of a most ruinous and quixotic benevolence. But let him only look to the skilful adaptation of the fly. Just suppose the control of moderation and equity to be laid upon his own wishes, and there is not a single impulse given to his conduct beyond the rate of moderation and equity. You are not required here to do all things whatsoever in behalf of others, but to do all things whatsoever for them, that you would should be done unto yourself. This is the check by which the whole of the bidden movement is governed, and kept from running out into any hurtful excess. And such is the beautiful operation of that piece of moral mechanism that we are now employed in contemplating, that while it keeps down all the aspirations of selfishness, it does, in fact, restrain every extravagancy, and impresses on its obedient subjects no other movement than that of an even and inflexible justice. This rule of our Saviours, then, prescribes moderation to our desires of good from others, as well as generosity to our doings in behalf of others; and makes the first the measure of obligation to the second. There is nothing in the humble condition of life they occupy which precludes them from all that is great or graceful in human charity. There is a way in which they may equal, and even outpeer, the wealthiest of the land, in that very virtue of which wealth alone has been conceived to have the exclusive inheritance. There is a pervading character in humanity which the varieties of rank do not obliterate; and as, in virtue of the common corruption the poor man may be as effectually the rapacious despoiler of his brethren, as the man of opulence above him--so, there is a common excellence attainable by both; and through which the poor man may, to the full, be as splendid in generosity as the rich, and yield a far more important contribution to the peace and comfort of society. To make this plain--it is in virtue of a generous doing on the part of a rich man, when a sum of money is offered for the relief of want; and it is in virtue of a generous desire on the part of a poor man, when this money is refused; when, with the feeling that his necessities do not just warrant him to be yet a burden upon others, he declines to touch the offered liberality; when, with a delicate recoil from the unlooked-for proposal, he still resolves to put it for the present away, and to find, if possible, for himself a little longer; when, standing on the very margin of dependence, he would yet like to struggle with the difficulties of his situation, and to maintain this severe but honourable conflict, till hard necessity should force him to surrender. Let the money which he has thus so nobly shifted from himself take some new direction to another; and who, we ask, is the giver of it? The first and most obvious reply is, that it is he who owned it; but, it is still more emphatically true, that it is he who has declined it. It came originally out of the rich mans abundance; but it was the noble-hearted generosity of the poor man that handed it onwards to its final destination. Thus it is, that when Christianity becomes universal, the doings of the one party, and the desires of the other, will meet and overpass. The poor will wish for no more than the rich will be delighted to bestow; and the rule of our text, which every real Christian at present finds so practicable, will, when carried over the face of society, bind all the members of it into one consenting brotherhood. The duty of doing good to others will then coalesce with that counterpart duty which regulates our desires of good from them; and the work of benevolence will, at length, be prosecuted without that alloy of rapacity on the one hand, and distrust on the other, which serve so much to fester and disturb the whole of this ministration. To complete this adjustment, it is in every way as necessary to lay all the incumbent moralities on those who ask, as on those who confer; and never till the whole text, which comprehends the wishes of man as well as his actions, wield its entire authority over the species, will the disgusts and the prejudices, which form such a barrier between the ranks of human life, be effectually done away. It is not by the abolition of rank, but by assigning to each rank its duties, that peace and friendship and order will at length be firmly established in our world. We should not have dwelt so long upon this lesson, were it not for the essential Christian principle that is involved in it. The morality of the gospel is not more strenuous on the side of the duty of giving of this worlds goods when it is needed, than it is against the desire of receiving when it is not needed. ( T. Chalmers, D. D.)
The golden rule taught by an Indian
Some time before the war between the English and the Indians in Pennsylvania broke out, an English gentleman, who lived on the borders of the province, was standing one evening at his door, when an Indian came and desired a little food. He answered, he had none for him. He then asked for a little beer, and received the same answer. Not yet discouraged, he begged for a little water; but the gentleman only answered, Get you gone for an Indian dog. The Indian fixed his eye for a little time on the Englishman, and then went away. Some time after, this gentleman, who was fond of shooting, pursued his game till he was lost in the woods. After wandering a while, he saw an Indian hut, and went to it to inquire his way to some plantation. The Indian said, It is a great way off, and the sun is near going down; you cannot reach it to-night, and if you stay in the woods the wolves will eat you up; but if you have a mind to lodge with me, you may. The gentleman gladly accepted the invitation, and went in. The Indian boiled a little venison for him, gave him some rum and water, and then spread some deer skins for him to lie upon; having done this, himself and another Indian went and lay at the other side of the hut. He called the gentleman in the morning, telling him that the sun was up, and that he had a great way to go to the plantation, but that he would show him the way. Taking their guns, the two Indians went forward, and he followed. When they had gone several miles, the Indian told him he was within two miles of the plantation he wanted; then, stepping before him, he said, Do you know me? In great confusion, the gentleman replied, I have seen you. Yes, said the Indian, you have seen me at your own doer; and I will give you a piece of advice: when a poor Indian, who is hungry, and dry, and faint, again asks you for a little meat or drink, do not bid him get him gone for an Indian dog. So he turned and went away. Which of these two was to be commended, or which acted most agreeably to the Saviours golden rule in the text?
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On v31 J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [XLII. I. The…
J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [XLII. I. The Golden Rule].
XLII. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. (A Mountain Plateau not far from Capernaum.) Subdivision I. THE GOLDEN RULE. aMATT. VII. 12; cLUKE VI. 31.
Read full note →
a12 All things therefore whatsoever ye would c31 and as ye would that men should do to aunto you, even so do ye also unto cto them likewise. afor this is the law and the prophets. [Jesus connects the Golden Rule with what precedes with the word "therefore." We are to practice the Golden Rule because God's divine judgment teaches forbearance, and his goodness teaches kindness. This precept is fitly called the Golden Rule, for it embraces in its few words the underlying and governing principle of all morality. It contains all the precepts of the law with regard to man, and all the amplifications of those precepts given by the prophets. It teaches us to put ourselves in our neighbor's place, and direct our conduct accordingly. It assumes, of course, that when we put ourselves in our neighbor's place, we are wise enough not to make any foolish wishes, and good enough not to make any evil ones. The great sages Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and Hillel each [265] groped after this truth, but they stated it thus: "Do not do to others what you would not have done to you;" thus making it a rule of not doing rather than of doing. But the striking difference between these teachers and Christ lies not in the statements so much as in the exemplification. Jesus lived the Golden Rule in his conduct toward men, and maintained perfect righteousness before God in addition thereto.]
[FFG 265-266]
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v32 (See Scofield "Rom 3:23")
sinners
(See Scofield "Rom 3:23")
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v32 The application of the Golden Rule:
The application of the Golden Rule:
v. 32. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? For sinners also love those that love them.
Read full note →
v. 33. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? For sinners also do even the same.
v. 34. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
v. 35. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the. Highest; for He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
There is no special favor or reward of mercy from God to be expected if we love only those that love us; in that case there is a condition of give and take which rewards the people involved. And such evidence of love is nothing extraordinary, for even the sinners, the outcasts, that profess no Christian morality do as much among themselves. The same holds true of doing good when others have done good to us. There is not even the feeling of exhilaration and joy over a good deed that animates us in such a case. And as for helping out someone that is in trouble, the mere lending of money may be a species of selfishness, for it will be for the purpose not only of having the capital returned, but of gaining the interest besides. The law of love requires in such a case rather that we help freely, without expecting anything in return. If the brother gets on his feet again, he will return the money received or pass the kindness on. Where the specific Christian character of works is concerned, the kindness must be that of pure altruism. It is for that reason that love of enemies is urged, and the doing of good where no returns are to be expected. For then the reward of mercy from the Lord will be correspondingly large, and we shall come nearer to the mind which is in our good and gracious Father in heaven. We, as children of the Highest, should exhibit the traits and characteristics of the good God. For He also, in His providence, is good and kind, even to the ungrateful and evil. And our Father will extend His favors to us in full measure, here in time and hereafter in eternity.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv31, 35 As you want people to do to you, you…
As you want people to do to you, you should do the same to them
In some languages it may be more natural to reverse the order. AT: "You should do to people the same as what you want them to do to you" or "Treat people they way you want them to treat you"
Read full note →
what credit is that to you?
"what reward will you receive?" or "what praise will you receive for doing that?" This can be written as a statement. AT: "you will not receive any reward for that." or "God will not reward you for that." (See: Rhetorical Question)
to get back the same amount
The law of Moses commanded the Jews not to receive interest on money they loaned to each other. (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
translationWords
love
sin
good
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv30, 31, 34 6:30 when things are taken away from you, don’t…
6:30 when things are taken away from you, don’t try to get them back: Jesus’ point is that the cycle of hatred and violence that characterizes human nature can only be broken by responding with good, not evil (Rom 12:17). We win the world through self-sacrificial love. Jesus was not promoting injustice, as though believers should let criminals take advantage of the weak. God established governments to punish evildoers (Rom 13:1-5).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.