Love of Enemy

Editorial Note
Links to other media and further information regarding this topic can be found in the German version of this article.

1. Introduction

The commandment to love one’s enemies is generally regarded as “the peak statement of the ethics of Jesus”¹Konradt, Matthias, The Commandment of Love for Enemies in Matt 5:43–48 and Its Early Jewish Context. Translated by Wayne Coppins, in: AGNTS 1 (2025) 7–46, 7. German: “Spitzensatz der Ethik Jesu.” and thus as the distinguishing feature of Jesus’s and therefore also Christian ethics. This commandment is transmitted centrally in the context of the Sermon on the Mount, specifically in Matt 5:43–48 and in a slightly different form in Luke 6:27–28.32–36. It probably even belongs to the authentic words of Jesus and goes back to the collection of sayings known as Q.²Cf. Konradt, Commandment, 7. However, the question arises as to what relevance such a radical demand can have in view of current experiences of violence and war. In other words, what guidance can an ethos of loving one’s enemies provide that goes beyond idealistic demands? The question will be explored below, first with regard to the biblical roots and reception history of loving one’s enemies, and then by situating it within the current ethical discourse.

2. Biblical Foundations

Although the Old Testament does not contain a direct command to love one’s enemies, the appeal is not without precedent. Exodus 23:4f. and Prov 25:21f. also call for friendly behavior toward one’s enemies.³See Konradt, Commandment, 9; Ebach, Jürgen, Praktische Schritte zur Entfeindung statt abstrakt gebotener Feindesliebe. Exeg-ethische Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zu Ex 23,5, in: Wustmans, Clemens et al. (Eds.), Kontext und Dialog. Sozialethik regional – global – interdisziplinär. FS Traugott Jähnichen for his 65th birthday, Stuttgart 2024, 69–73. In addition, the question arises as to the extent to which the commandment to love one’s neighbor applies. Early Jewish texts such as those written by Philo of Alexandria  or the apocryphal Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs extend the commandment to love one’s neighbor to include loving one’s enemies.⁴Cf. Ebach, Schritte. The idea of loving one’s enemies is therefore not unknown in the biblical context.

The New Testament statements about loving one’s enemies primarily criticize the maxim of supporting friends and harming enemies. The controversy here revolves primarily around the Greek term echtros, where it initially seems unclear whether it refers to personal enemies in one’s immediate private sphere or whether it also includes rival groups – in other words, whether the New Testament passages mentioned above have a political dimension. Given the reference to “persecutors” in this context, it is reasonable to conclude that this political dimension is indeed implied: Roman soldiers, for example, are included in the circle of neighbors to be loved.⁵Cf. Konradt, Gebot, 29. Ultimately, however, the reason for such actions is decisive, who is God himself “for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Matt 5:45, NSRV). Such merciful actions serve as a model for one’s own actions in view of the coming kingdom of God.⁶Cf. Konradt, Commandment, 30f., 32. For Matthew in particular, the connection to peace making is central: those who do not treat their enemies with mistrust but with kindness sow the seeds for overcoming enmity through reconciliation.⁷Cf. Konradt, Commandment, 34f. However, a glance at the wealth of New Testament texts already reveals the ambivalence of the topic: despite all the emphasis on renouncing violence, which even includes one’s enemies, the New Testament is not free of aggression. This is reflected in the idea of mission, especially toward Israel, in dealing with so-called false teachers, but also in dealing with the state and the world, as Revelation clearly shows.⁸See Luz, Ulrich, Feindesliebe und Gewaltverzicht. Zur Struktur und Problematik neutestamentlicher Friedensideen, in: Holzem, Andreas (Ed.), Krieg und Christentum. Religiöse Gewalttheorien in der Kriegserfahrung des Westens, Paderborn/München et al. 2009, 137–149.

3. Reception History

The reception history of the passage on loving one’s enemies is as ambivalent as the findings in the biblical writings. While the idea of loving one’s enemies is an important anchor point in the radical pacifist tradition,⁹Cf. Hofheinz, Marco, Radikaler Pazifismus, in: Werkner, Ines-Jaqueline/Ebeling, Klaus (Eds.), Handbuch Friedensethik, Wiesbaden 2017, 411–430. it has been largely ignored in the field of political theory or interpreted to mean that the commandment to love one’s enemies applies only to one’s private sphere of life and thus has no political relevance whatsoever.¹⁰Cf. Huber, Wolfgang, Feindschaft und Feindesliebe. Notizen zum Problem des “Feindes” in der Theologie, in: ZEE 26 (1982), 128–158, 146f. Similarly, in the tradition of Origen , love for one’s enemies as a means of overcoming hatred was downplayed or defamed as moralistic sentimentality.¹¹Cf. Körtner, Ulrich H. J., Art. Feind/Feindesliebe IV. Ethisch, in: RGG Online, 2018 (https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/RGG4/COM-07515.xml?rskey=lrGTUm&result=1), accessed on 06.04.2025. During the Reformation, an understanding of love of one’s enemies that, in the sense of a two-stage ethic, only addressed certain groups of people was called into question: for Luther , the general significance of the Sermon on the Mount for all Christians was much more important: “through the mirror of the law,”¹²Gänssler, Hans-Joachim, Evangelium und weltliches Schwert. Hintergrund, Entstehungsgeschichte und Anlass von Luthers Scheidung zweier Reiche oder Regimente, Wiesbaden 1983, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German: “durch den Spiegel des Gesetzes.” man recognizes that he is not able to fulfill the commandments. In his book Nachfolge (The Cost of Discipleship), Bonhoeffer  pointedly addresses the command to love one’s enemies. He points to the christological basis for this command: the love of God is revealed on the cross, where Jesus dies for a world that is hostile to him.¹³Cf. Huber, Feindschaft, 151f., 155.

4. Theological and Ethical Consequences

But what significance can an idea like loving one’s enemies have for the present day? To whom does it apply, and what guiding force does it offer individuals and in public? Or, to put the matter more pointedly: “In a schoolyard fight, does it really make sense to voluntarily turn the ‘other cheek’ and refrain from actively defending oneself?”¹⁴Käbisch, David, Zehn Gebote und Bergpredigt, in: Simojoki, Hendrik (Ed.), Ethische Kernthemen. Lebensweltlich – theologisch-ethisch – didaktisch, Göttingen ³2022, 478–489, 478, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German: “Ist es bei einem Streit auf dem Schulhof wirklich sinnvoll, freiwillig auch die ‘andere Wange’ hinzuhalten und auf eine aktive Verteidigung zu verzichten?”

The answer to these questions can initially be found in the biblical texts and tradition. On the one hand, it should be noted that narrowing the focus to personal enemies, i.e., an apolitical privatization of love for one’s enemies, does not do justice to the biblical text. On the other hand, however, such an ethically demanding attitude cannot simply be imposed politically or even legally. If one were to argue in this way, then the sense of boundless love for one’s neighbor would entail treating one’s enemy in exactly the same way as one’s friend. However, the very term “love of ones enemy” indicates that there is an enemy and that love of one’s enemy and love of one’s neighbor are not one and the same. What is required, rather, is a renunciation of violence against one’s enemy – not only in one’s immediate personal sphere but also in social and political contexts.¹⁵Cf. Huber, Wolfgang/Reuter, Hans-Richard, Friedensethik, Stuttgart/Berlin 1990, 220f.

Love for one’s enemies could serve above all to break the cycle of violence, as it is not based on the principle of reciprocity. From this basic stance, the Methodist theologian Walter Wink  says with regard to the context of apartheid in South Africa, “Love of enemies is seeing one’s oppressors through the prism of the Reign of God – not only as they are but also as they can become: totally transformed by the power of God.”¹⁶Wink, Walter, Violence and Nonviolence in South Africa. Jesus’ Third Way, Philadelphia 1987, 55. For Wink, loving one’s enemies is therefore the epitome of Christian faith. He explains:

Love of enemies is the recognition that the enemy, too, is a child of God. The enemy too believes he or she is in the right […]. When we demonize our enemies, calling them names and identifying them with absolute evil, we deny them they have that of God within them which still makes transformation possible. […] We conclude that our enemy has drifted beyond the redemptive hand of God.¹⁷Wink, Violence, 49.

Wink argues that love of one’s enemies is based on the idea of the fundamental equality of all people before God, without ignoring the fact that there may be enemies. The chance to overcome violence lies in not responding to violence with violence.

In light of structural violence, however, it is questionable who can afford to love their enemies – and who is stylized as the enemy. In her book Selbstverteidigung (Self-Defense), for example, Elsa Dorlin  points out that not all people have the right to defend themselves: people who occupy subordinate positions in society, such as Black people or women, are not granted the same right to self-defense as people who are endowed with social power.¹⁸Cf. Dorlin, Elsa, Self-Defense. A Philosophy of Violence, translated by Kieran Aarons, London 2022.

Against this backdrop, an ethic of loving one’s enemies seems to exacerbate the divide between power and powerlessness. In other words, when the powerful love their enemies, they renounce revenge (i.e., returning violence with violence) and accept their own disadvantages in return. But when those who are already powerless practice loving their enemies and renouncing violence, it could cost them their lives. On the other hand, in their book Die Macht der Gewaltlosigkeit (The Force of Nonviolence) Judith Butler  shows that it can be a political calculation to defame unpopular individuals or groups as enemies.¹⁹Cf. Butler, Judith, The Force of Nonviolence. An Ethico-Political Bind, London 2020. Here, an ethic of loving one’s enemies could help to see through the veil of such a construct. A universal ethical guide in the sense of an ethos of loving one’s neighbor is therefore hardly ethically satisfactory. Rather, the individual situation and the associated power structure play an important role.

Let us return to the illustration of the schoolyard fight mentioned earlier in this article. The schoolyard can certainly be a place where the ethical maxims of the commandment to love one’s enemies are lived out. The aim then is to break the cycle of violence and find other ways of resolving conflicts. The real goal, however, is to examine whether it would be better to refrain from returning violence with violence in politics as well and whether non-violent solutions can be found in this realm as well. However, where a unilateral renunciation of violence is imposed, which ultimately serves to reinforce existing imbalances, the reference to love one’s enemies is misguided.

5. Conclusion

Despite the apparent prominence of the topic, it is hard to overlook the fact that the idea of loving one’s enemies leads a shadowy existence in theology. While numerous theological publications in the 1980s discussed the idea of loving one’s enemies, even in the face of nuclear weapons,²⁰Cf. Huber, Feindschaft; Huber/Reuter, Friedensethik; Wink, Weg. the topic seems to have found little place in ethical debates in the 21st century. Issues such as renouncing violence and reconciliation have lost none of their relevance, either in in the schoolyard or in current war zones. In addition to the question of scope, structural issues would also need to be discussed today, such as who is stylized as the “enemy” and what connection there is between the enemy and the (supposed) other. The following applies here: where all people are granted fundamental equality, loving one’s enemies is an ethically demanding but worthwhile building block for resolving conflicts.