One of Yeshua's most famous sayings is known as The Golden Rule, which is very similar to the mandate to love one's neighbor. However, it is different enough in its exposition and the account in which it is recorded to warrant its own article.
The Golden Rule, as cited in Mathews' gospel:
"So in all things, do to others what you would want them to do to you-for this is the Torah and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
The alignment of Yeshua's teachings with Pharisaic principles, particularly regarding the commandment to love one's neighbor, is a significant point of discussion. While some may argue that the Golden Rule should be synonymous with the commandment to love one's neighbor, it is important to recognize the distinction and unique emphasis of each. The two are separated and addressed in different articles because even Matthew distinguished the golden rule of Matthew 7:12 (the golden rule) from the 2nd greatest commandments (Matthew 22:39). These differences in Matthew 7 makes Yeshua's Golden Rule both beautiful and eye-opening.
Visit the The Two Great Commandments article for more information on Matthew 22.
For instance, Yeshua says:
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40 ESV)
The wording here is very similar to the words of Hillel the Great. In context, Yeshua's teaching is in perfect harmony with Hillel's teaching, although it's not necessarily a direct quote.
There was another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile came before Hillel. He converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study.-(Shabbat 31a:6)
However, Yeshua's choice of wording in Matthew 7:12 (introduced first) actually resembles the words of Hillel much more closely than Matthew 22:37-40 does. This Golden Rule in Matthew 7 almost seems to be directly quoting Hillel word for word, except for one major difference: the impetus of the directive seems rather opposite between Hillel's Golden Rule and Yeshua’s Golden Rule.
Both Yeshua and Hillel finished their Golden Rules by equating these rules with the Torah by saying "This is the Torah", but there appears to be a direct reversal of impetus between the two.
The Golden Rule, as articulated by both Hillel the Elder and Yeshua, presents a compelling study of similarity and distinction. Hillel's version, "Do not do to them what you don't want done to you," takes a prohibitive stance, cautioning against actions that one would find objectionable if done to oneself. In contrast, Yeshua's directive, "Do for them what you want done for yourself," adopts a proactive approach, encouraging positive actions towards others that reflect one's own desires for treatment. The divergence in expression between Hillel and Yeshua has, at times, been overstated to suggest a fundamental doctrinal gap between Yeshua and the Pharisees. Critics argue that this difference highlights a distinct philosophical departure from Pharisaic thought, portraying an image of irreconcilable hostility. However, such interpretations miss the essence of the teaching shared by both figures, which emphasizes the well-being of one's neighbor.
While a distinction between Hillel's and Yeshua's teachings is indeed present and merits attention, it is crucial to contextualize this difference within the broader contrasts between Hillel's narrative in the Talmud and Yeshua's teachings in Matthew 7. Among these distinctions, one particularly significant difference often escapes notice, especially among those who emphasize these variances to delineate Yeshua from his Pharisaic background. This overlooked difference pertains to the audience to whom these teachings were directed.
Critics often dismiss the significance of the audience as a distinguishing detail, largely due to a tendency to underestimate the ethical standards of religious Israel while overestimating those of the pagan Gentile world. The result is an inaccurate presumption of equality in the moral compass of each culture.
This perspective often emerges from examining contemporary Western society's moral landscape. Within the context of any first-world Western nation, the ethical distinctions between the average Christian and the average atheist may appear minimal. Indeed, some atheists and neo-Pagans might argue that they witness higher moral standards among non-Christians compared to many Christians they encounter. However, such observations are largely anecdotal and overlook the fact that the ethics of modern nonbelievers have been significantly shaped by centuries of Judeo-Christian influence that has permeated Western culture. Consequently, the moral framework of today's unbeliever hasn't evolved in isolation but has been deeply impacted by the biblical values that have pervaded the societal fabric in which they were raised.
All this implies that in the contemporary Western context, the distinction between a believer and a non-believer is remarkably slight. This isn't solely because non-believers uphold particularly high standards of morality. Rather, it significantly reflects the diminishing moral standards among believers themselves. This blurred moral line between those who claim to follow G-d and those who reject the notion of G-d altogether can, and likely does, influence how modern believers interpret the interaction between cultures and religions described in the Bible. It's a common tendency for individuals to apply their understanding of the current era as a lens through which to view and interpret the past.
Obviously, interpreting scripture inappropriately, as described, is flawed for several reasons. The moral compass of a modern unbeliever, shaped significantly by the religious foundations of the modern West, should not be retroactively applied to the pagans of the ancient Middle East or any ancient society globally. Similarly, the observed moral deficiencies in many contemporary believers should not be assumed to reflect the moral standing of an average Jewish individual living in 1st-century Israel.
The disparity between Religious Israel and their pagan neighbors might not have been as stark as, for instance, the difference observed between modern Orthodox Jews and the Korowai of Papua New Guinea, who are believed to practice cannibalism even today. Such an analogy represents an extreme. The ethical divide between Jews of the Second Temple period and their idol-worshipping neighbors likely fell somewhere between this extreme and the more nuanced moral differences observed between Orthodox Jews today and broader Western society. Despite the coexistence, the relationship between Jews and their neighbors or oppressors was tense at best.
However, the context of the audience is crucial for understanding the distinct emphasis of Hillel's Golden Rule, which is prohibitive, and Yeshua’s Golden Rule, which is proactive. Hillel addressed a gentile unfamiliar with the Israelite G-d or His Torah. For someone possibly accustomed to a lower standard of morality, where treating others unfavorably was acceptable if it benefited one personally, the initial lesson was to reconsider one's actions from the recipient's perspective. If such treatment would be undesirable if experienced personally, then the guidance was to refrain from such behavior, irrespective of personal desires.
Conversely, Yeshua addressed Jews well-versed in Torah, engaged in its study every Sabbath, and who integrated its teachings into their daily lives. For them, Torah wasn’t just an influence but the foundation of their lifestyle. They were already aware of the principle not to harm their neighbor. However, Yeshua introduced the more advanced concept of actively seeking ways to benefit one's neighbor, embodying a deeper application of Torah teachings, though fundamentally rooted in the same principle.
Example of Audience Context
Consider a scenario where a toddler discovers a candy bar on a grocery store shelf, unwraps it and starts eating. Lacking an understanding of property, money, or the concept of theft, the child simply acts on the desire for the candy. This illustrates the need for teaching that theft is wrong. In contrast, an older child, capable of understanding more complex concepts, can learn that items not belonging to them can be acquired through trade or purchase.
The distinction between the two Golden Rules can be likened to the difference between the instructions "Don’t steal things from the store" and "Things from the store must be purchased." Essentially, one is the negative form of the other, akin to heads and tails on a coin; despite their differences, they are aspects of the same principle. The underlying concept of refraining from wrongdoing and actively doing good, though distinct, converges into a singular theme of ethical behavior, a topic explored extensively in rabbinic literature.
Rabbi Aryeh Leib of Shpoli and Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi engaged in a notable discussion regarding the interpretation of Psalms:
"Depart from evil and do good. Seek shalom and pursue it" (Psalm 34:15)
and
"Turn from evil and do good, so you may live forever." (Psalm 37:27)
Rabbi Aryeh Leib posited that these verses suggest a sequential approach to ethical living: one must first address personal flaws and negative behaviors before fully dedicating oneself to positive actions. This is often supported with the following analogy:
”Does it make sense to bring ornate furniture into a home without cleaning it first? What’s the point of beautiful furnishings if they sit in filth?”
This seems to fit within the framework of the difference in audience we have discussed. Hillel’s Golden Rule is phrased in such a way that it calls one to turn/depart from evil. Whereas Yeshuas is a mandate to do good.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi presents an alternative viewpoint, cautioning against the perils of engaging too deeply in the struggle against negativity, eloquently summarized in his statement:
“One who wrestles with a dirty opponent becomes dirty himself.” (Lekutei Amarim (Tanya) Ch. 28)
This insight underscores the danger of becoming ensnared in negativity through an excessive focus on combating evil.
He posits that by channeling our energies towards positive actions, we inherently shift our attention away from evil, preventing it from dominating our thoughts. While he recognizes a distinction between "turning away from evil" and "doing good," he emphasizes the importance of both aspects in spiritual practice:
"[This applies] both in the realm of 'turning away from evil’—refraining from transgression—and in that of 'doing good'—performing all the positive mitzvot in which he is obligated—and especially the mitzvah of Torah study, which is specifically termed 'good,' as our Sages say, 'There is no ‘good’ other than Torah,” (Lekutei Amarim (Tanya) Ch. 14)
This perspective suggests that while one may avoid doing evil by abstaining from actions forbidden by the Torah, or following Hillel's Golden Rule of not treating others in undesirable ways, true goodness requires actively engaging in positive commandments. In alignment with Yeshua's Golden Rule, this entails the command of treating others as we would wish to be treated, embodying the proactive spirit of the Torah's teachings.
The difference in audience and their variance of exposure to Torah teaching is paramount in discerning why the two are phrased in such an opposite light. The final statement in both cases brings unity to them and joins them as one “Golden Rule”:
“...That is the entire Torah” (Hillel)
“...This is the Torah and the Prophets” (Yeshua)
Both Hillel and Yeshua underscore the Torah's central message concerning how we should treat our neighbors: to act with goodness and refrain from causing harm. They each draw upon Leviticus 19:18, albeit from distinct perspectives and addressing different audiences, yet they invoke the same scripture to underpin their teachings.
The parallelism between Yeshua and Hillel the Great is highlighted not merely by their shared philosophical outlook but also by the identical phrasing they employ. Their unanimous decision to base the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated on Torah teachings underscores a profound alignment between these two esteemed figures. Additionally, recognizing the variance in their emphasis in relation to their respective audiences enhances, rather than diminishes, the spirit of Torah (or 'spirit of the law') as championed by both teachers, offering a comprehensive understanding of its ethos.
This synthesis between their teachings presents another compelling case for Yeshua's affiliation with Pharisaic thought. The integration of the Golden Rule with the Two Great Commandments virtually serves as an explicit endorsement of a Pharisaic perspective. It’s as if Yeshua was aligning himself with Hillel saying, "I am from the house of Hillel"; his contemporary audience would likely have perceived his teachings in exactly that light.
Comments