Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
II. ἐχθρός (echthros) What does it mean?
The pursuit of truth necessitates a stripping away of the modern veneer to expose the raw, foundational stones upon which the house of understanding is built. To grasp the directive of Yehoshua regarding the adversary, one must depart from the shallow waters of contemporary sentiment and descend into the depths of the primary witnesses. This is a journey into the fourth-century uncial records, specifically the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, which stand as the most primitive and authoritative Greek manuscripts of the narrative. These codices serve as a linguistic time capsule, preserving the voice of the first scribes before the intrusion of medieval expansions or the smoothing effects of ecclesiastical tradition. By examining the word ἐχθρός (ek-thros) within these ancient parchments, the true nature of the enemy is revealed not as a generic villain, but as a specific, relational figure. It is the difference between a distant storm on the horizon and a fire burning within one’s own walls. The modern lens often generalizes the enemy into a caricature of evil, but the ancient witnesses demand a confrontation with the person who is intimately known and actively hostile.
The importance of utilizing the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus cannot be overstated, as they provide the essential anchor for etymological fidelity. In the accounts of Mattityahu (Mah-tee-tee-YAH-hoo)— Matthew and Loukas (Loo-kahs) — Luke, these manuscripts consistently employ the term ἐχθρούς (ek-throos), confirming that from the earliest recorded inception, the command was directed toward those in a state of personal enmity. This is not the language of abstract philosophy; it is the language of the courtroom and the broken home. When one relies on these uncial witnesses, the clutter of centuries is cleared, allowing the stark reality of the text to emerge. The enemy identified here is one who possesses a deep-seated and active hatred, a person who has consciously positioned themselves in opposition to another. This is a vital distinction because it removes the possibility of viewing the command as a passive tolerance of distant evil. It forces the Inhabited individual to look directly at the face of the one who has betrayed a bond or harbored a grudge.
To refine the definition of ἐχθρός (ek-thros), one must summon the ancient lexical witnesses who lived and breathed the nuances of the tongue. Hesychius, the fifth-century lexicographer, provides the initial layer of clarity by defining the term through the lens of hatred, or μῖσος (mee-sos). To Hesychius, an enemy is not born from thin air but is forged through the dissolution of connection. This is the individual who has migrated from the warmth of friendship into the cold isolation of alienation. It is like a garment that was once worn close to the skin but has been torn away and trampled in the dirt. The hatred mentioned by Hesychius is not a passing annoyance; it is a permanent posture of the soul. It is a settled resentment that defines the relationship. This witness reminds the audience that the enemy in question is often a person who was once “inside” the circle of trust, making their current hostility all the more piercing.
Further weight is added by the ninth-century patriarch and scholar Photius, whose Lexicon emphasizes the legal and social status of the adversary. In the world of Photius, an ἐχθρός (ek-thros) is someone involved in an active personal feud. He distinguishes this from the πολέμιος (po-le-mee-os), who is an enemy of the state or a soldier in an army. While the polemios (po-le-mee-os) may fight you because of his duty to a foreign king, the echthros (ek-thros) fights you because of a personal grievance. Photius highlights that this is a matter of social standing—a legal state of war between individuals. This analogy is crucial: the enemy is not a random stranger on a battlefield but a litigant in a private dispute. They are a person who seeks your social or physical ruin because of a perceived wrong or a deep-seated jealousy. This lexical witness confirms that the command of Yehoshua is focused on the most difficult arena of human life—the personal conflict where emotions run highest and history is longest.
The tenth-century Byzantine encyclopedia known as the Suda offers a chillingly precise distinction. It views the ἐχθρός (ek-thros) as a private, personal hater who is now essentially “outside,” or ἐκτός (ek-tos). The Suda suggests that the very word is linked to the state of being externalized. If the heart is a fortress, the echthros (ek-thros) is the one who has been cast out of the gates. This witness describes a person who seeks the harm of another with intentionality and persistence. They are not merely “bad people” in a general sense; they are specific actors in a drama of rejection. Using the Suda’s logic, the enemy is the person who occupies the space of exclusion. They are the ones who were once invited to the table but are now standing in the dark, throwing stones at the windows. This provides a geographical sense to the conflict—the enemy is defined by their distance from the heart and their proximity to the life.
The foundational etymological root is established even earlier by the second-century BC grammarian Dionysius Thrax. His witness links the term back to its most basic concept: the externalized one. This grammarian’s perspective shows that the word carries the inherent weight of being “pushed out” of a relationship. It is the social equivalent of a limb being severed from a body. Through the lens of Dionysius Thrax, we see that the echthros (ek-thros) is a person whose status is defined by a rupture. This root meaning prevents the word from being interpreted as a mere category of morality. It is a category of connection—or more accurately, the violent termination of connection. When these witnesses are combined, they paint a portrait of an enemy that is intimately hostile, someone whose hatred is fueled by the very closeness they once shared. It’s relational.
The direct result of this deep lexical dive is a sharpening of the mandate given by Yehoshua. When the command is issued to deal with the ἐχθρός (ek-thros), it is not a call to ignore the reality of a threat. In the record of Loukas (Loo-kahs) — Luke, the instruction is delivered with clinical precision. But I say to you [all] the ones hearing: Agape the personal-haters of you [all]. Do well to the ones hating you [all]. (Luke 6:27, Vaticanus, Covenantally Faithful, Minimal Copular, SVO Format).
Original: ἀλλὰ ὑμῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
Transliteration: alla hymin legō tois akouousin agapate tous echthrous hymōn
Literal Interlinear Etymological Transliteration: But to you [all] I say the [ones] hearing welcome-with-warmth the personal-haters of you [all].
The specificity of the word choice in the Codex Vaticanus reveals that the Master is addressing the most painful of human experiences. He is not speaking of a vague global love; He is speaking of the warm welcome afforded to the one who personally despises you. This is the person who seeks your harm, who rejoices in your failure, and who has potentially betrayed a covenantal bond. This is not a stranger; it is the person who knows where your weaknesses are and targets them with precision. The instruction to seek the well-being of such a person is an invitation to operate in a dimension of existence that transcends the natural impulse for self-preservation. It is a call to maintain the posture of the Inhabited even when the external environment is defined by personal enmity.
This understanding renders the modern “institutional” translation not only insufficient but dangerously misleading. By failing to identify the echthros (ek-thros) as a personal, relational hater, the institution allows the believer to hide behind a mask of general kindness while harboring secret feuds. It allows a person to claim they love their “enemies” in a general, political sense while continuing to freeze out the neighbor or the family member they have a grievance with. But the ancient witnesses strip away this hiding place. They define the enemy so clearly that there is no room for evasion. The command is a direct confrontation with the person you would most like to avoid, the one whose very name causes a tightening in the chest.
The analogy of the “Outside One” provides a profound lens through which to view this struggle. Imagine a man who has spent years building a garden, only to have a former friend break in and salt the earth. The natural response is to view that person as a monster, an irreconcilable hater who must be met with equal destruction. But the command of Yehoshua is to look at that man—now an ἐκτός (ek-tos), one who is outside the garden and outside the peace—and to choose to provide him with the very warmth and value that he has attempted to destroy. This is not a denial of the salted earth; it is a refusal to let the salt enter the gardener’s own soul. By recognizing the echthros (ek-thros) as a person of value within the Father’s community, the gardener preserves his own connection to the Spirit. He refuses to become a hater in response to being hated.
The conclusion of this examination of the term ἐχθρός (ek-thros) brings the audience to a point of intense clarity. The enemy is not a concept; it is a person with a face and a history. They are the irreconcilable hater who has placed themselves outside of your favor. They are the ones with whom you have a legitimate, painful grievance. To understand the word in this way is to realize the true magnitude of the spiritual life. It is not a call to a soft, sentimental peace, but to a hard, decisive warmth. It is a call to recognize that the one who hates you is still within the jurisdiction of the Father’s concern. By using the primary witnesses of the Sinaiticus and the ancient grammarians, we have defined the adversary in his most raw and honest form. We are now prepared to look at the response required of the Inhabited—a response that does not involve faking an emotion, but instead involves a radical, volitional welcome that transfers the conflict into the hands of the only one capable of settling it. We have identified the target of the command; we must now master the nature of the action.
