Jumpstarter 10 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 10

Ambrosiaster concludes that “full and perfect justice is to love one’s enemy as well,” and Bercot notes Christ “directed that enemies as well as neighbors should be loved”; who counts as an “enemy” in your real life (political opponents, difficult relatives, workplace rivals, online targets), and what specific harms does “love works no harm” forbid in how you speak about them, vote, spend, or seek advantage?

Another way to ask: Ambrosiaster says perfect justice includes loving your enemy, and Jesus says to love enemies too. Who are your “enemies” in real life, and what specific kinds of harm does “love does no harm” rule out in how you talk, vote, spend money, or try to get ahead?

Direct Answer The transcript doesn’t name specific modern “enemies,” but it clearly teaches that Christian love must include enemies, and that love forbids doing harm. So whatever “enemy” looks like in real life, the boundary is that our actions and words cannot move toward the kinds of harms Scripture lists.

Support from Transcript:

Ambrosiaster is quoted: “Justice is to love one’s neighbor, but full and perfect justice is to love one’s enemy as well.”
Bercot adds that Christ “directed that enemies as well as neighbors should be loved.”
Paul’s basic rule is explicit: “Love works no harm to its neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law.”
The transcript defines “harm” with concrete examples from the commandments: adultery, murder, stealing, false witness, and coveting.
Origen illustrates the same: love prevents harming a neighbor’s life, marriage, reputation (false witness), and property/desires.

Discussion Follow-ups If “enemy-love” is “perfect justice,” what would change in the way you talk about opponents so you avoid “false witness” and harm? Where do you rationalize harm because someone is on “the other side”?

Jumpstarter 10 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 10 of 10