Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
I. Are We to Love Our Enemies?
The question of whether one is truly commanded to love an enemy is a proposition that strikes the human ear with the force of an impossible absurdity. To the modern mind, shaped by the Contrived Institutional Narratives (CIN – Pronounced SIN – also known as Religion/Christianity) of Western religious systems, this directive is often presented as a moral platitude or a sentimental aspiration that ignores the raw reality of human friction. These institutions, through translations such as the New American Standard Bible, have sanitized the volatile nature of the original instruction, turning a revolutionary social mechanic into a vague emotional burden. When the world hears the phrase “love your enemies,” it envisions a forced internal state of affection, a demand to manufacture a feeling of warmth toward those who seek to dismantle one’s peace. This perspective suggests that the measure of a faithful life is the ability to lie to one’s own soul, pretending that the sting of betrayal or the threat of hostility is actually a foundation for fondness. It is a narrative that creates a conflict between the authentic human experience and a perceived divine requirement, leaving many to wonder how anyone could possibly survive such a mandate without losing their integrity.
To understand the depth of this instruction, one must peel back the layers of linguistic polish and religious gloss to see the stark architecture of the original Greek records found in the Codex Sinaiticus. The foundational term at the heart of this struggle is the word for enemy, appearing as ἐχθρός (echthros). According to the witness of the ancient lexicographer Hesychius and the encyclopedic records of the Suda, this term does not merely describe a general bad person or a distant threat from a foreign nation. Instead, it defines a person of personal enmity, someone with whom there is a history of grievance. It describes an individual who was perhaps once near but has been pushed out to the exterior, becoming a source of active hatred and personal hostility. The etymology provided by Dionysius Thrax reveals a root that signifies an externalized state, a person who has become an outsider through the breaking of a bond. This is the neighbor who has wronged the household, the former friend who now spreads malice, or the adversary who actively seeks to cause harm. This is not an abstract concept; it is the concrete reality of relational fracture.
When the contemporary reader encounters the instruction of Yehoshua to deal with such a person, the institutional lens translates the command as a requirement for emotional love. However, the Greek witness tells a far more mechanical and profound story. The word used for this action is ἀγαπᾶτε (agapate), a volitional verb that describes the intentional act of welcoming another with warmth and assigning them a seat of value within the human community. It is a social posture, not a psychological feeling. It is the choice to extend the hospitality of the soul to those who have forfeited their right to it. This is as if a host were to find a person who had vandalized their home standing at the gate in the cold and, rather than barring the door, chose to provide them with the same seat of honor at the table as any other guest. The host does not have to like the intruder, nor do they have to forget the damage done; rather, they choose to act out of their own abundance and dignity instead of reacting to the intruder’s malice.
The institutional narrative often ignores the sheer weight of this distinction, leading many into a trap of performative piety. By demanding that the believer feel a certain way, the institution compels a person to fake a spiritual reality that they do not possess. This creates a culture of masks where the inhabited individual is expected to suppress their natural discernment in favor of a synthetic kindness. Yet, the Codex Sinaiticus reveals a path that is both more difficult and more honest. It presents a world where the grievance is real, the hatred is palpable, and the command is not to ignore the threat but to change the jurisdiction of the response. The instructions provided by Yehoshua are designed to break the cycle of human reciprocity. In a world where the law of the harvest is usually understood as returning blow for blow, the introduction of agape (ah-gah-pay) is like a farmer who, upon finding weeds sown in his field by an enemy, chooses to water the entire field anyway, knowing that his own identity is tied to the quality of his husbandry, not the quality of the enemy’s character.
The profound nature of this instruction is further clarified by looking at the specific Greek text of the early codices. In the record of Mattityahu (Mah-tee-tee-YAH-hoo) — Matthew, the directive is clear and stripped of the later flowery additions found in medieval manuscripts. Yehoshua says to the crowd: I say to you: Agape your enemies. Pray for those persecuting you. (Matthew 5:44, Sinaiticus, Covenantally Faithful, Minimal Copular, SVO Format).
Original: ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
Transliteration: egō de legō hymin agapate tous echthrous hymōn
Literal Interlinear Etymological Transliteration: I but say to you [all] welcome-with-warmth the personal-haters of you.
This text, when viewed through the lexical witnesses of Photius and the Suda, demonstrates that the command is an appeal to the will. To agape (ah-gah-pay) the echthros (ek-thros) is to refuse to let the hatred of the adversary dictate the social behavior of the one who is inhabited. It is a declaration of independence from the actions of others. If a person only provides warmth to those who provide it in return, they are merely mirrors, reflecting whatever light or darkness is thrown at them. But the one who follows the path of Yehoshua is intended to be a source, much like the sun that the Father causes to rise on both the evil and the good without distinction of feeling. The sun does not “feel” affection for the dry ground it scorches or the lush garden it nourishes; it simply remains true to its nature as a light-bearer.
The concept of “loving your enemy” as presented by the institutional narrative is a burden because it attempts to regulate the heart, which is deceptive and prone to shifting tides of emotion. However, the scriptural reality is a regulation of the hand and the mouth. It is the refusal to take a stand in the same manner as the one who embodies evil. To take a stand, expressed in the Greek as ἀντιστῆναι (antistēnai), is to adopt the military posture of the opponent. When an individual meets hatred with hatred, they have allowed the enemy to win before a single word is spoken, because they have become a reflection of the very thing they claim to oppose. They have entered into a horizontal struggle where the strongest arm or the loudest voice prevails. But the deep dive into the Sinaiticus reveals that the goal is to remain vertically aligned, keeping one’s social and spiritual posture intact regardless of the external pressure.
The Western academic lens often obscures the jurisdictional shift that occurs in this moment. When a person refrains from taking a personal stand of retaliation and instead maintains the warmth of agape (ah-gah-pay), they are not being passive. They are participating in a profound legal transfer. By not seizing the conflict as their own property, they leave the battle in the hands of the ultimate Master of the household. This is the essence of the ancient proclamation found in the records of the Kings, where the conflict is identified as belonging to a higher authority. It is a recognition that human vengeance is a form of trespassing on divine property. When a person tries to settle their own scores, they are essentially telling the Father that His justice is insufficient or too slow. They are stepping out of the role of a child and attempting to take the seat of the Judge.
The instruction to agape (ah-gah-pay) the echthros (ek-thros) is therefore a strategy for spiritual preservation. It is designed to keep the Inhabited Person from being consumed by the rot of the enmity surrounding them. The lexical witnesses show us that hatred is a labor, a burden that weighs down the soul and binds it to the object of its loathing. By choosing to welcome the enemy with warmth, the person is cutting the cord that ties them to the adversary’s malice. They are choosing to live in a state of freedom where their actions are governed by their connection to the Father rather than their reaction to the enemy. This is why the instruction feels so crazy to the world; it is a rejection of the basic survival instinct of the ego in favor of a higher, communal logic.
As we begin this deep dive, we must abandon the idea that we are being asked to feel something we do not feel. We must reject the institutional lie that we must be “nice” to those who are “nasty.” Instead, we must look at the mechanics of the Greek text and see a call to a higher form of sovereignty. We are being asked to be people who are so filled with the value of the Father that we can afford to be generous with our warmth, even toward those who have set themselves against us. We are being asked to recognize that every person, even the one who hates us, is an individual of potential value in the community of the Father. To agape (ah-gah-pay) them is to acknowledge that value, not because of who they are, but because of who we are and whose we are.
This section serves as the threshold for understanding the true nature of the command. We have seen that the enemy is a personal adversary, that the love required is a social welcome of the will, and that the motivation is the preservation of our own spiritual jurisdiction. We move forward from here, not with a forced smile or a suppressed heart, but with the clarity of those who know that the battle is not ours to win through the methods of the world. We stand in the warmth of the Father, refusing to be moved from our place of peace by the storms of human hostility. We are beginning to see that the command is not a weight to be carried, but a key to a door that leads out of the prison of resentment and into the open field of divine action.
The conclusion of this introductory section leaves us at the feet of a radical reality: the path of the Inhabited is one of extreme honesty. We acknowledge the hatred of the echthros (ek-thros), we acknowledge our own lack of natural affection for them, and we choose, by a deliberate act of the mind, to extend the hospitality of agape (ah-gah-pay). In doing so, we fulfill the requirement without a single moment of pretense. We remain true to the source material, true to the Father, and true to ourselves. This is the foundation upon which the rest of the deep dive will be built, as we move from the definition of the enemy to the actual mechanics of the Father’s intervention in the life of the one who refuses to take a worldly stand.
