Enemy love

As enemies love an individual and social behavior is known, the enmity and hatred by bounties for enemy and the renunciation of revenge and violence seeks to overcome them. The aim of this action is, depending on the tradition, reconciliation , mutual happiness or lasting peace with one another.

According to the New Testament (NT), Jesus of Nazareth commanded “Love your enemies” and thus interpreted the commandment to love one's neighbor (which in turn should overcome enmity and hatred) from the Torah of Judaism . The term “love of one's enemies”, derived from Jesus' commandment, is often viewed as a peculiarity of Christianity . Doing good, love , forgiveness and nonviolence towards enemies are also very important in some other world religions . Philosophical ethics also knows concepts aimed at overcoming enmity.

Hinduism

Basic texts

The oldest scriptures of Hinduism , the Vedas (originated 1200–1500 BC) and Upanishads (originated 700–200 BC), contain Ahimsa , the principle of non-violation. According to this, any violence in actions, words and thoughts against others should be avoided. This is largely justified with the idea of ​​the unity of all living beings, for example verse 6 from Isa Upanishad: "Who sees all beings in himself and the self in all beings, hates no one."

Mahavira , the founder of Jainism , radicalized Ahimsa around 550 BC. To a form of life: The human spirit could extinguish karma through radical asceticism by not killing any living beings, not even the smallest and harmful ones, and helping every being in need where and how it can. This is what the Jains (monks and lay people) try to implement in everyday life.

In addition, Hindu ethics, the Dharma , demand forbearance and forgiveness (Ksama) . The epic Mahabharata (written 400 BC - 400 AD) names Ksama as the highest virtue, equates it with Brahman (the world soul) and the truth and emphasizes that the well-being of the present and future world depends on it. It repeatedly calls for people not to retaliate for injustices suffered, for example in the words of the sage Markandeya: "One should never reply wrong with wrong, but act honestly against those who have treated one wrongly."

In the didactic poem Bhagavad Gita (~ 500–100 BC) the god Krishna explains to the human hero Arjuna the way to salvation through desireless activity ( bhakti ) : “If someone is neither attached to sense objects nor actions and has given up all self-will, then that is it is that he has climbed yoga ... With the well-meaning, friends, enemies, bystanders, mediators, despicable and relatives, with both good and bad people, he is characterized by indifferent insight. "The reason is Arjuna's refusal to kill his warlike relatives, even if he loses his life in the process, since he does not expect any salvation from it. Krishna then refers to the indestructible, eternal essence of all physical life and calls on Arjuna to fight against those subject to desire: This is his duty and at the same time a unique opportunity to overcome desire (I-II). Among the gifts of man with a divine disposition he counts fearlessness, non-violence (ahimsa) , truth, freedom from resentment, renunciation, peace, no defamation, compassion for the creatures, freedom from hostility, no arrogance (XVI). According to Jan Rohls, the love of the enemy takes precedence over the lust for killing in war, but also a selfish refusal to fight for the truth of the Dharma.

The Hindu national epic Ramayana (written 400 BC – 200 AD) describes the exemplary compassion of the god Rama , an incarnation of Vishnu , with his opponents in many legends and anecdotes. In this way he did not kill a disarmed enemy and made it possible for him to return armed. Another deity therefore praises him: "You who love your enemies!"

Mohandas Gandhi

Mohandas Gandhi studied as a youth with the Jain Shrimad Rajchandra and in the Mahabharata took the selfless King Harishchandra (who was willing to sacrifice property, power, family and his own life for the truth) as an example. As a guideline of his life he later quoted the textbook poem by Shamal Bhatt with the final line: But the truly noble know all men are one and return with gladness good for evil done.

When Gandhi got to know Jesus' commandment to renounce violence and to love one's enemies ( Mt 5 : 38-48  EU ) in 1888 , he found immediate confirmation of his conviction in it. However , he firmly refused that Jesus was the only Son of God who bore all sin through his vicarious death. He later said: "If I were only confronted with the Sermon on the Mount and my interpretation of it, I would not hesitate to say: Oh yes, I am a Christian."

In 1894 Gandhi read and welcomed Leo Tolstoy's book The Kingdom of Heaven within you , which justifies pacifism and non-violent resistance to serfdom in Russia with Jesus' commandment to love one's enemy. Since 1903, Tolstoy has encouraged Gandhi with letters in non-violent resistance to racist state laws in South Africa , for example with the letter of September 20, 1909: Jesus taught love as a summary of the Torah and with his prohibition of violence foresaw that his teaching would be falsified. The history of Christianity , which was marked by increasing violence, fundamentally contradicts his teaching, so that Gandhi's nonviolent resistance is currently the most important work for the whole world.

Gandhi understood Ahimsa as an unconditional renunciation of negative deeds and thoughts towards hostile people and active concern for their well-being. He therefore spoke of Love-Ahimsa , infinite self -giving , in the sense of the NT concept of agape as follows:

“In its positive form, Ahimsa means the greatest love, the greatest charity. In following ahimsa, I must love my enemy or a stranger as I would love my wrongdoing father or son. This active non-harm necessarily includes truth and fearlessness. "

This does not mean merely passive acceptance of injustice and suffering: "On the contrary, love as an active quality requires Ahimsa to resist the evildoer by renouncing him, whether it offends him or affects him mentally or physically." In love rooted renunciation of violence is not apathy or helplessness in the face of misconduct, but rather offers a more effective remedy for this than rough violence. Love does not give up on malice, but actively struggles to build up a spiritual and moral opposition to immorality. It makes the tyrant's sword blunt by disappointing his expectation of physical resistance. Since terror and violence of the oppressors are real, it is the duty of each individual to resist this reality with all their might: not with retribution, but the exact opposite, namely non-violence and truth. This soul power includes consciously and joyfully taking on suffering, injury and even death in order to reduce the chances of violence and destruction.

Since 1907 Gandhi has called this non-violent resistance " Satyagraha " in order to combine the active grasping ( Sanskrit : graha ) of the truth (satyam) with the conscious acceptance of violent suffering up to self-sacrifice (tapasya) . He also exercised "power of truth" in his own environment and against himself.

The Hindu philosopher Aurobindo Ghose criticized Gandhi's concept around 1906: Overcoming hatred and enmity through love was only possible for individuals, not for the masses. Asking masses to love their enemies or oppressors ignores human nature. According to the Bhagavad Gita, fighting and aggression for a just goal are a moral duty. Only unprovoked violence is immoral.

In contrast, Gandhi interpreted the general plot of the Gita, which he translated into his native language Gujarati by 1926 , as an allegory of the inner soul struggle between good and evil. They do not teach war, but its futility. Her concept of the perfect human contradicts all the rules of the art of war. Her topic is self-realization through active renunciation of all desire (renunciation of fruit) and devotion to God, the truth. Desirelessness is synonymous with nonviolence (ahimsa) . Assuming this teaching is known, the Gita is concerned with teaching the daily, practical struggle of those who strive for truth against their desires. In 40 years he learned that complete renunciation is impossible without Ahimsa .

Gandhi saw merely passive acceptance of suffering as a Christian misinterpretation of love for one's enemies. As long as Hindus, Muslims and Christians emphasized supposedly insurmountable obstacles in the teachings of people of different faiths, he declared in 1925, they would not have understood Jesus' message: "As long as we do not accept the principle of love for enemies, all talk of world brotherhood is an airy nothing."

Gandhi's path overcame longstanding British colonial rule and achieved India's national independence by 1947 . A breakthrough to this was the Salt March of 1930, during which Gandhi's supporters suffered brutal beatings by British soldiers without striking back. Another breakthrough was the boycott of British textile imports, which Gandhi saw as the liberation of the oppressors from the exploitation of the oppressed. He tried to convince the British textile workers in Lancashire, who had become unemployed because of the boycott, by addressing them directly. Only when he felt God's unequivocal compulsion to do so in intensive self-examination did he begin an indefinite “fast to death”, the outcome of which he understood as God's judgment on his path: for example in 1932 against a separate right to vote for the untouchables and in 1947 against the civil war-like escalation of violence between Muslims and Hindus after the 1946 riots in Calcutta . Both actions were successful.

Gandhi was murdered by the Hindu nationalist Nathuram Godse , who regarded violence against those of different faiths whom he viewed as enemies as a religious duty and who wanted to end Gandhi's course of understanding between Hindus and Muslims after the founding of Pakistan with the murder. Gandhi had deliberately risked a violent death.

Buddhism

Basic texts

In Buddha's teaching (originated around 500 BC), overcoming enmity and suffering, and developing tolerance and compassion for all living beings is central. Thus it says in the Dhammapada from the Palikanon (verse pair 3–5):

“He reviled me, he hit me, he defeated me by force: if you think so, you will not defeat hostility.
He reviled me, he hit me, he defeated me by force: if you don't think so, you will defeat enmity.
For enmity comes about through enmity; she comes to rest through friendship; this is an eternal law. "

In verse 223 the sum of the foregoing is stated:

“Conquer (conquer) anger through love.
Defeat evil with good.
Defeat clinging things (clinging to oneself) by giving.
Defeat the liar with the truth. "

In the context of the example story, this teaching is the legacy of a dying ruler to his son, who watches the execution of his parents and is later adopted incognito by the perpetrator, an opposing king. One day the young man draws his sword to avenge the death of his parents on the sleeping king. When he wakes up, he begs for mercy; but the son also asks for mercy for himself, since drawing the sword against the king is worthy of death. Both forgive each other, and the son explains: If he had killed his parents' murderer, his friends would have killed him too, and the hatred would never have died. But as it is, love has extinguished hatred.

In the Discourse on Abuse, the Buddha says:

“If a man mistreats me foolishly, I will restore him the protection of my envious love;
the more evil that comes from him, the more good will come from me;
the scent of goodness always comes to me, and the hurtful air of evil goes to him. "

The Suttanipata emphasizes the limitless, benevolent benevolence ( metta ) and compassion ( karuna ) towards all living beings, the complete freedom from hatred, enmity, violence and ill will as the goal of meditation and behavior:

"Full of kindness to the whole world,
unfold your spirit without barriers:
upwards, downwards, across the middle, free
from tightness of heart, hate and enmity!"

The decisive factor for this is the knowledge of the causes of hatred, violence and hostility, namely their mutual origin ( paticca samuppada ): Because all life is interconnected, everyone who hurts others hurts himself. Conversely, everyone who does good to others promotes his or her self own happiness.

The “parable of the saw” is considered a radical example of the ideal of Buddhist love for enemies. In it the Buddha tells of the provocative behavior of a servant who wanted to test whether her mistress was really meek or inwardly full of anger. When the mistress finally beat her bloody out of anger, she lost her previous good reputation and her happiness in life. From this it is concluded that maintaining gentleness and compassion is essential under all circumstances, even if someone cuts off limb for limb with a saw. It is therefore essential to practice: “Our minds will remain unimpaired and we will not utter bad words; we will abide in compassion for their well-being, with a spirit full of loving-kindness, with no inner hatred. "

Interpretations

The representatives of the main directions of Buddhism , Theravada and Mahayana , practice kindness, compassion and mindfulness with the aim of enlightenment through meditation and social engagement. Her meditation practices involve personal enemies in order to show them the same benevolence as relatives and friends. In the Visuddhi Magga (~ 400), for example, Buddhaghosa recommended meditating on the negative consequences of hatred, differentiating between the target groups to whom the goodness should come, and their gradual development from one's own self through the beloved friend, the indifferent and unloved to the enemy.

In spite of this, some Buddhists in Japan also called for compulsory methods of converting people of different faiths, regarded as heretics , in and outside of Buddhism ( Shakubuku ) , but were unable to establish themselves.

Since the early 20th century, some authors have described love of enemies as a common feature of Buddhism and Christianity. In 1914, the Indologist Richard von Garbe counted Enemy Love among the real, historically independent parallels of the two religions, whose teachings are otherwise fundamentally opposites. Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki , the Japanese exponent of Zen Buddhism, saw Buddha and Jesus as kindred spirits since 1907: Both had pioneered the message of love towards religious institutions of their time. In 1960, however, he criticized the Christian concept of love for one's enemies because it regards God and the enemy as opposites, i.e. presupposes a dualism of you and I. On the other hand, in the understanding of Zen, the enemy does not exist at all; Love is total, not just sympathy for the other. The Christian theologians Henri de Lubac and Heinrich Dumoulin , for their part, criticized: In Buddhism, love of enemies, forgiveness and compassion do not actually mean personal togetherness, since it lacks the concept of person and the I and you are considered "empty". Hans Gleixner recognizes Buddhist love for enemies, but sees her lifelong mediation path as arduous self-redemption in the manner of moralistic Pelagianism .

In today's interreligious dialogue , Buddhists also address enemy love. The Vietnamese monk Thích Nhất Hạnh described Buddha and Jesus as kindred brothers with regard to love for enemies. Also Tendzin Gyatsho , today the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism , sees love of enemies as identical teachings of Buddha and Jesus: The Passage Mt 5.38 to 48 would not stand out as a Christian text in a Buddhist text. Jesus' question “And if you are only kind to your brothers, what are you doing in particular?” Corresponds to a question from Shantideva : “If you do not show compassion towards your enemy, who can you practice it?” One must fight bad action, but to distinguish a hostile person from their actions, as they could become friends in the future. From this insight one can forgive enemies. For the practice of compassion, forgiveness and tolerance, enemies are the best teachers. Especially they help to self-knowledge and selflessness and knowledge of the inner enemy: one's own negative thoughts. This makes it possible to take responsibility for one's own suffering and that of others and to project less and less unresolved conflicts onto others.

Judaism

Hebrew Bible

The Tanach , the Bible of Judaism , commands every Israelite to love one's neighbor as a reaction to a situation in which the addressed has been wronged ( Lev 19:17 f.  EU ):

“ ¹⁷ Do not have any hatred for your brother in your heart. Correct your tribal comrades and you will not be guilty of them.
¹⁸ You shall not take revenge on the children of your people, nor do you hold any grudge against them. You should love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord . "

The opponent is and remains the next: That is why the obvious retribution for injustice suffered is rejected. The person affected should point out the law by renouncing revenge. Because that would also make him guilty of his neighbor. Reconciling affection, not retaliation, creates justice. This makes every Jew responsible for breaking the spiral of hatred, revenge, anger and anger that threatens all members of his people. This spiral directly contradicts God's will. Because YHWH is the God of all Israel, who stands up for its life and future, so that every Jew also has to stand up for the life of all Jews. That is why he should love his enemy neighbor for his own sake and be reconciled with him.

Lev 19.33 f. EU par. Dtn 10.19  EU demand this kind of charity for foreigners in Israel:

“ ³³ If a stranger lives with you in your country, you should not oppress him.
³⁴ The stranger who stays with you is to be regarded as a native to you, and you are to love him as yourself; for you yourself were strangers in Egypt. I am the Lord, your God."

Like Lev 19:18 in the Exodus from Egypt , the origin and central date of Israelite salvation history, this commandment is based : Because God freed Israel from slavery and thus revealed himself as his God, the enslavement of foreigners in Israel is forbidden, their protection and their equality is required. Both commandments belong to the "Dodecalogue" of the Torah , which, like the Ten Commandments, is based on the mandate of the chosen people to conform to God's nature and will ( Lev 19.2  EU ):

"You shall be holy, for I am holy, YHWH your God."

Accordingly, there is no command to hate enemies in the Tanakh. Isa 66,5  EU calls Jews who hate other Jews because of their loyalty to God, nevertheless "your brothers". Zech 7 : 9-10  EU commands: “Judge rightly, and everyone show kindness and mercy to his brother, and do not do injustice to widows, orphans, strangers and poor, and do not think anything wrong in his heart against his brother!” Zech 8.16–17  EU demands: "Speak truth one to another and judge rightly, create peace in your gates, and nobody invents evil in his heart against his neighbor ..."

Various individual commandments call for specific enemy aid:

• Ex 23.4 f. EU : "If you meet your enemy's ox or donkey who have lost their way, you should bring them back to him. If you see the donkey of your adversary lying under his load, do not leave him in the lurch, but help the animal with him. "
• Prov. 24.17  EU : "Do not be glad about the fall of your enemy, and your heart should not be glad about his misfortune."
• Prov. 25.21  EU : “If your enemy is hungry, feed him with bread; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. So you will gather fiery coals on his head and God will reward you! "
• Sir 28.6 f. EU : “Think of the end, let go of enmity, think of doom and death and stay true to the commandments! ... do not resent your neighbor, remember the covenant of the Most High and forgive the guilt! "

Jewish proverbs were also influenced by ancient oriental wisdom.

So Jews should not take advantage of the emergency situation of an enemy, but rather help it, so shame the enemy and move them to repent. Job invoked in its appeal to God that he had fulfilled these commandments ( Hi 31.29 to 31  EU ):

“Did I rejoice when my enemy got sick and rise up when misfortune struck him? No, I did not let my mouth sin by cursing his soul with no curse ... No stranger was allowed to spend the night outside, but I opened my door to the wanderer. "

Other biblical commandments require Israel to be strictly separated from its neighboring peoples. The ban demanded the killing of all male prisoners of war in a foreign city conquered after the offer of surrender was rejected. In contrast, 2 Kings 6 : 8-23  EU describes the non-violent ending of a war between Israel and overwhelming enemies: Through God's Spirit the prophet Elisha leads the enemy into captivity, prepares a feast for them and then lets them go. This active blessing according to Gen 12.3  EU ends the enmity between Israel and its neighbors. The prophecy of exile then proclaims this direction as the future perspective of Israel and all peoples: God will put an end to enmity, war and violence among them ( Isa 11 : 1-9  EU ). That is why the universal shalom is metaphorically represented in the image of the feast of all peoples and includes the abolition of death ( Isa. 25 : 6-8  EU ; cf. Rev 7:17  EU ).

Interpretations

The " sectarian rule " under the Dead Sea Scrolls obliges the congregation to "love all sons of light [...] but to hate all sons of darkness, each according to his fault in God's vengeance". Against "men of iniquity", "who forsake the path" (apostates), one should "not turn away anger" (contrary to Lev 19:18), but leave the retribution to God:

“I don't want to repay someone for their evil deed, I want to persecute everyone with good. Because with God the judgment is over all living things ... "

The Hasideans , Pharisees, and rabbis have been debating since about 200 BC. About the area of ​​application of the commandment to love one's neighbor in relation to the first commandment. The consensus was early on that fear of God and love of neighbor are mutually dependent, so that only action that is concerned with the wellbeing of the neighbor manifests and fulfills the love of God. In the Book of Jubilees (around 150 BC) the entire Torah is already concentrated on the double commandment of love; since then this summary has been an established motif. It was disputed whether and to what extent non-Jews should also be loved as neighbors.

In the apocryphal wills of the twelve patriarchs , which go back to an older tradition, charity is expressly extended to all people (TestSeb 5,1) and to enemies (TestJos 18,2):

“And if someone wants to do you bad, pray for him and do him good. You will then be delivered from all evil by the Lord. "

For Hillel (approx. 60 BC - 10 AD), a famous teacher of the Scriptures, God's boundless love included all people, so that Jews should correspond to it ( Proverbs of the Fathers 1:12): “Be of Aaron's disciples , peace loving and striving for peace, human love and "he made up for non-Jews the Torah with the negatively formulated the Torah zuführend. Golden rule together (bSchab 31a):" What you is not love that do not do your neighbor. That is the whole Torah, everything else is just an explanation, go and learn it. "

Philo of Alexandria , a Jewish philosopher influenced by Hellenism , explained in a separate chapter of his main work that the basic Jewish doctrine of " human love " extends to enemies, slaves and even all living beings. Whoever follows Ex 23.4– EU benefits not only the enemy, but most of all to himself, since he collects  a noble deed (before God).

Most rabbis affirmed the validity of Lev 19:18 for hostile non-Jews at the latest from AD 100 (e.g. Joseph and Aseneth 28:14; Derech Erez Rabba 11):

“In no case, brother, may you repay your neighbor for evil evil. The Lord will avenge such arrogance.
Do not say: those who love me I love and those who hate me I hate, but love everyone! ... Whoever hates his neighbor belongs to those who shed blood. "

The 4th Book of the Maccabees (around 90-100) calls for enemy aid against war opponents as strict Torah obedience from Diaspora Judaism (4 Macc 2.14):

“And please do not consider this to be something paradoxical, when the power of judgment can overcome enmity with the help of the law. It refrains from devastating the cultivated plantations of the war opponents by cutting down the trees, it saves the (stray) cattle of the personal enemies from perishing ... "

Flavius ​​Josephus (37–100), a Jewish historian who had previously been a leader in the Jewish War (66–70) against the Romans, explained to Roman opponents of Judaism in Contra Apionem (2,212–214) how accurate and detailed the Jewish commandments were Dealing with enemies, even in war, in order to protect their right to life:

“The duty to share with others has also been shaped by our legislator in other matters.
We must provide fire, water and food for all who ask.
We must even show avowed enemies the way, not leave their bodies unburied, and show concern.
God does not allow us to burn their fields and cut down their fruit trees.
He even forbids molesting fallen warriors.
He has taken measures to forestall rudeness against prisoners of war and especially against women.
He has given us such a thorough lesson in kindness and philanthropy that he does not overlook even the common beast ... He
paid attention to the mercy of every single being by passing a law on it to enforce the principles and punish transgressions without excuse can."

Charity must therefore prove itself to inferior, captive and needy opponents of the war, their wives and their property and must not destroy their lives and land in order not to endanger the continued existence of their people after the end of the war: otherwise God's punitive justice will be the one who has this mercy refused to overtake yourself. In doing so, Josephus demonstrated to the Romans the biblical-Jewish legal tradition of protection for the weak, which stood in sharp contrast to their devastating warfare aimed at total submission .

The 49th interpretation from the Seder Elijahu Rabba (a Midrash collection created after 900 ) also counts non-Jews among the "brothers":

“You shall not harass your neighbor (Lev 19:13). Your neighbor, that is your brother, your brother, that is your neighbor. From this one learns that stealing from pagans is robbery . And one must not only understand your brother, because it is about everyone. "

The various doctrines were collected in the Mishnah and fixed in the Talmud . There anecdotes illustrate the biblically required enemy aid. Rabbi Wolf von Zbaraz (around 1800), for example, tells:

“A thief wanted to take a sack of potatoes from Rabbi Wolf's garden. Rabbi Wolf stood at the window and saw how the man was struggling. So he hurried out and helped him lift the sack onto his shoulders. His housemates then accused him: "You helped him!" "Do you believe", cried Rabbi Wolf, "because he is a thief, wouldn't I be obliged to help him?"

According to the anecdotes of the Hasidim, Rabbi Michal ordered his sons: “Pray for your enemies that they will be well. And do you think this is not a service of God: more than all prayer, this is a service of God. "The Kosnitz Rabbi narrates the prayer:" Lord of the world, I ask you to redeem Israel. And if you don't want to, then deliver the goyim. "

The Jewish Lexicon therefore wrote in 1927 on the keyword love of enemies :

“It has often been claimed by the Christian side that Jesus first taught to love one's enemies, while Judaism commanded hating one's enemies. Today, however, it is generally admitted that such a command, or even a similar one, cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. The J.-tum does not require passivity towards evil, but a decisive fight for justice, but that does not mean implacability or vindictiveness. On the contrary, a loving attitude and action is often recommended towards the enemy [...] In addition, the Talmudic literature in particular is distinguished by its conciliatory position towards the enemy, even towards the enemy of the people. "

David Flusser emphasized in 1968 that hatred was practically forbidden in Judaism, but love for the enemy was not mandatory. In 1974, Andreas Nissen concluded from the findings:

"Anger, strife, hatred, vindictiveness, resentment, hard heart and other forms of excitement, preservation and realization of personal enmity are, if this does not reach into the area of ​​the religious and religious-moral and thereby makes the opponent appear as a wicked and enemy of God, in banned all of ancient Judaism and are fought primarily on the basis of Lev 19, 17-18a. "

The Jewish theologian Pinchas Lapide summarized in 1983:

“The closest thing to Jesus’s mission is his colleague Rabbi Nathan, who asks the question: Who is the most powerful in the whole country? Just to answer: Who will win the love of his enemy. In short: glee, hatred of enemies and retribution of evil with evil are expressly forbidden in Judaism, while generosity and love services are offered for the enemy in need. "

Christianity

New Testament

According to biblical tradition, Jesus of Nazareth expressly commanded love of enemies for the first time. The commandment appears in the context of a text unit that belongs to the mount (Mt 5–7) or field sermon (Lk 6):

Mt 5.43-48  EU	Lk 6.27.32-36  EU
43 You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy."
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who offend and persecute you,	27 To you who listen to me, I say, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you:
45 that you may become the sons of your Heavenly Father;	So you will be children of your Heavenly Father.
for he makes his sun rise on the wicked and the good, and he makes rain on the just and the unjust.	(35b: for he too is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.)
46 For if you love only those who love you, what reward can you expect for it? Don't the customs officers do the same? 47 And if you just greet your brothers, what are you doing special? Do not the heathen do the same?	32 If you only love those who love you, what thanks do you expect for it? Sinners also love those by whom they are loved. 33 And if you only do good to those who do good to you, what thanks do you expect for it? So do sinners. 34 And if you only lend something to those you hope to get back, what thanks do you expect for it? The sinners also lend to sinners in the hope of getting it all back.
	35 But you must love your enemies and do good and lend, even where you cannot hope for it. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he too is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
48 So you must be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is.	36 Be merciful as your Father is also.

The command, promise and reason are the original core of this variously expanded text unit:

"If you love your enemies, you will be the sons of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good and rain on the just and the unjust."

This core is traced back to the earliest Jesus tradition collected in the Logia source (originating around 40) and is considered the authentic center of Jesus' interpretation of the Torah.

The key words “love” and “enemy” reminded Jewish listeners of the commandment to love one's neighbor (Lev 19:18). At the time, Jewish interpreters of the Torah discussed its scope intensively. By commanding the enemy to love, Jesus categorically declared them to be neighbors. This invalidated the usual question of the limits of what is reasonable for neighborly love, which led to the weighing of closer and more distant, priority and subordinate addressees to be loved. Rather, it is precisely in relation to current enemies that it is decided whether all social behavior is determined by love. With this, Jesus reminded of the stubbornness of the commandment to love one's neighbor, which "aims at overcoming interpersonal conflicts, thus already implying the requirement of love for one's enemies."

Jesus' reasoning refers to God's creative activity: "Sun and rain" allude to Gen 8.22  EU , where God promises to preserve life after the flood through constant weather changes and the rhythm of the seasons. The Jewish tradition of wisdom also relied on such a view of nature for rules of conduct. But the fact that God treats sinners and the righteous alike gave rise to skepticism about the just world order in Koh 9.2–3  EU . Sir 13 : 15–19  EU concluded: Because every living being loves only his own kind, one can only expect love from people within their own group. Such friendship was also common among Greeks and Romans in antiquity.

Jesus, on the other hand, saw creation as a gracious default of God, who indiscriminately and continuously grants the elementary living conditions to all living beings. That is why people cannot and should not limit charity to their own social group. For him, Jews and followers of Jesus could only become "children / sons of God" together with their enemies and thus depict his creative perfection. This refers back to the Beatitude Mt 5.9  EU : “Blessed are the peacemakers; for they will be called sons of God. ”For Jesus, love of one's enemies should therefore fulfill the special task of the chosen people of God and the followers of Jesus to become a blessing for their persecutors and foreign peoples (Gen 12: 3). This tendency is already shown by the parable of the good Samaritan , which represents a member of a group hostile to the Judeans as a model for charity and thus makes it clear that this includes and is also practiced by foreigners.

In Mt and Lk, the commandment to love one's enemy is linked to the prohibition of retaliation for violent injustice:

Mt 5,38-42  EU	Luke 6.29-31  EU
38 You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you, do not resist anyone who harms you,
but if someone hits you on the right cheek, hold out the other one too.	29 To him who strikes you on the one cheek, turn the other,
40 And if someone wants to take you to court to take your shirt away, leave him your coat too.	and whoever takes your coat away, leave your shirt too.
41 And if one tries to force you to go a mile with him, go two with him.
42 Give to anyone who asks you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.	30 Give to everyone who asks you; And if someone takes something from you, don't ask for it back.
(Mt 7:12: So whatever you expect of others, do it for them too! That is what the law and the prophets consist of.)	31 What you expect of others, do likewise to them.

The examples from everyday experience at the time show who, when and how love for one's enemies should apply. A slap on the right cheek was slapped with the back of the hand by right-handers, who also included most of the people at the time: this was considered particularly humiliating. A prerequisite is a typical power imbalance, where superior oppressors disregarded the biblical Talion law eye for eye ( Ex 21,23-25  EU ), so that private retaliation was obvious for the oppressed. Here, Jesus forbade humiliating the bat in the same way and, turning the other cheek, commanded to turn to him and not to turn away from him, thus reflecting his lack of respect and inviting him to perceive the dignity of his victim. This unexpected “creative provocation” should set a new dynamic in motion, which undermines the usual enforcement of one's own honor with violence, from which counter-violence is expected.

The Torah (Ex 22.25; Dtn 24.10-13) forbids to steal away the only upper garment of a homeless person who was in debt, in which he had to spend the night outdoors. That should ensure the absolute subsistence level, the right to life of the poorest. Jesus' demand to leave the upper garment or undershirt to the believer also presupposed a situation of total disenfranchisement by non-Jews to whom the Torah was not valid. With the paradoxical reaction, the disenfranchised should remind the believer of his right to life and induce him to give in. That just did not mean a waiver of rights.

The occupation law allowed it Roman soldier, every Jew at all times to services such as the load carrying coerce (z. B. Simon of Cyrene Mk 15:21). The offer to go double the way, namely there and back, should astonish the tormentor with unexpected accommodation and give both time to get to know each other humanly. The enemies were therefore the occupiers, exploiters and persecutors of the people of the poor, oppressed every day, to whom the Sermon on the Mount is addressed (Mt 5: 1, 3–10).

The renunciation of the biblical right of retribution in the current situation of an overpowering foreign rule corresponded to other words of Jesus that were considered authentic, such as Mt 7.1  EU par. Lk 6:37: “Do not judge, so that you will not be judged!” He exemplified this. His temple cleansing (Mk 11: 15-17) was an act of aggression against the sacrificial cult : He attacked the separating hostility between Israel and the peoples in order to open up access to God for all people. When he was arrested, he did not resist and forbade his disciples to do so ( Lk 22.51  EU ). In the interrogation before Caiaphas ( Jn 18.23  EU ) and Pontius Pilate ( Mk 15.1–4  EU ) he only made use of applicable law. He did not seek vengeance, but asked God for forgiveness for his murderers while still on the cross ( Lk 23.34  EU ) and showed solidarity with all those who suffered injustice ( Mk 15.34  EU ; cited Ps 22.2  EU and Isa 53  EU ).

That is why the early Christians proclaimed Jesus' death as overcoming the enmity between Jews and non-Jews ( Ephesians 2: 13-14  EU ) and understood love of enemies as a testimony of this that could lead to martyrdom . Paul of Tarsus , the earliest known author in the NT, justified this required behavior with God's obliging reconciliation with the God-Lose (all people) in Jesus Christ's death on the cross ( Rom 5: 6–8  EU ):

“But God shows his love for us in the fact that Christ died for us when we were still enemies ... For if we are reconciled to God through the death of his Son when we were still enemies, how much more will we be saved through his life, now that we are reconciled! "

Some genuine Pauline letters cite the prohibition of retaliation for injustice connected with the love of the enemy ( 1 Thess 5:15  EU ; 1 Cor 4:12  EU ). Rom 12: 14.17-21  EU paraphrases it as follows:

“Bless your persecutors; bless them, don't curse them! […] Do not retaliate evil for evil! Be mindful of what is good towards all people! As far as you can, keep peace with all people! Do not avenge yourselves, dear brothers, but leave room for anger (of God); for it says in the Scriptures: Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. Rather, if your enemy is hungry, give him food; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; if you do that, you collect glowing coals on his head. Do not let yourself be defeated by evil, but defeat evil with good! "

Paul understood love of enemies in accordance with the biblical prohibition of vengeance ( Deut. 32.35  EU ) as a renunciation of vengeance and counterviolence against persecutors of Christians and, according to Prov. 25.21  EU, as emergency help for them to shame and transform them.

The evangelist Matthew justifies Jesus' interpretation of the Torah with the commission of Israel and the followers of Jesus to be "the light of the world" ( Mt 5,14  EU ). Jesus did not want to abolish the Torah, but wanted to fulfill it ( Mt 5:17  EU ); that is why the followers of Jesus would have to exercise “better justice” than the Pharisees ( Mt 5.20  EU ) and could only achieve this through their actions, not through the profession of faith ( Mt 7.20-21  EU ). That is why he formulates Jesus' commandment to love one's enemy as an “ antithesis ” to an oral commandment “... but hate your enemy”. Since neither biblical nor rabbinical literature dictates hatred of enemies, today's exegetes assume that the evangelist contrasted a contemporary limitation of charity. The devastating consequences of this were clear to him: the Jewish freedom fighters, known as " Zealots ", and the Romans practiced mutually deadly retribution during the Jewish War. - The evangelist Luke placed the command of Jesus in the context of the reciprocal “Golden Rule” and referred to it above all to the balance of property between rich and poor among Christian communities ( Lk 6.31.38  EU ).

The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John do not contain the synoptically transmitted commandment of love for the enemy; the other NT scriptures do not quote it either. However, passages like John 3:16  emphasize EU ; 4.42 EU God's unlimited love for the whole world and Jesus' universal act of salvation. In the Letters of John , brotherly love is commanded and hatred among Christians is forbidden ( 1 Jn 2,9–11  EU ; 4,21 EU and more), without thereby excluding love of enemies towards non-Christians.

The first letter of Peter warns persecuted Christians ( 1 Petr 3,9  EU ): “Do not retaliate evil with evil, nor hurt with hurt! Instead, bless; because you are called to receive blessings. ”This contrasts the prohibition of retribution of Jesus' commandment of blessing ( Lk 6.28  EU ), without naming enemies as addressees. According to the context, exemplary brotherly love among Christians should convince their persecutors of the blessing of their faith. This shift in emphasis is explained by the location of a settled township, which had to be loyal and righteous to the Roman authorities. On the other hand, the first Jesus followers, as wandering beggars with no means or arms, could at best change enmity through unconditional love for their enemies.

Older interpretations

The patristic turned enemies love outwards as special characteristic of Christianity is. Justin Martyr , Aristides of Athens , Athenagoras of Athens and other theologians of the early church made in apologetic writings on Jesus' command to address to Roman allegations that Christianity is antisocial. So you did not limit love of your enemy to the private sphere. However, the Didache , Justin and Ignatius reduced it for Christians to avoiding hatred and interceding for enemies.

Since the 2nd century, love of one's enemies was no longer a natural part of following Jesus , but was considered an ideal of perfection that only a few could achieve . A two-step ethic arose that reflected reality: the majority of the baptized lived according to less strict rules, especially the Ten Commandments , which were understood as Christian virtues . Christian religious orders recognized by the Church , on the other hand, followed stricter rules of life based on the Sermon on the Mount ( Mt 5–7  EU ) and the mission speech (Mt 10) (Latin consilia evangelii : "Advice from the Gospel"), including love of enemies, armed forces, violence - and renouncement of ownership belonged.

Tertullian (~ 150–220) emphasized against Marcion (~ 85–160) the correspondence between the teaching of Jesus and the Old Testament. Already as Creator God had commanded love of one's enemies and waiting for God's judgment. That is why the Talion Law ( Ex 21,23-25  EU ) does not allow any new injustice, but rather scares off the unbeliever from further injustice and threatens the believer with God's judgment. Jesus' command to turn the other cheek finally revealed this meaning. If this were a new commandment that abolished the previously threatened retribution, then it would be powerless and would result in complete lawlessness.

After the Constantinian Turnaround in 313, early church theologians separated Jesus' command to love one's enemy from his command to forego retaliation for violent injustice. Augustine of Hippo , the founder of the Church doctrine of the Just War , allowed Christians as soldiers and civil servants 420 to judge enemies under certain moral conditions. He saw no extreme severity against enemies in contradiction to the commandment to love one's enemy, since the forcible restoration of law would guarantee the enemy's spiritual salvation. He declared the Christian's love for hostile non-Christians as anticipating brotherly love: “In him you do not love what he is, but what you want him to be. So if you love your enemy you love your brother. "

Thomas Aquinas treated love of enemies in the treatise De Caritate (written 1269-1272). It can only be justified by love of God and thus shows a stronger love of God that encompasses even distant people. It is harder to love the enemy than a friend, but not necessarily more deserving, because a friend is the better love good. Only when love of enemies overcomes enmity is it perfect. Loving enemies because they are enemies, on the other hand, is evil. Because of Jesus' command, they should not be excluded from general intercessions for others, but they do not have to be specifically named therein. Help is only required for them in case of need. One could not evade this by invoking Old Testament curses against enemies. By distinguishing necessary emergency aid from non-necessary overcoming of enmity, which can only be achieved for perfect lovers, he justified the death penalty for sinners from whom no improvement, but damage to the common good, could be expected.

Martin Luther rejected the two-step ethics and made the Sermon on the Mount binding for all Christians again. He understood their radical demands, including the commandment to love one's enemy, but as part of a sermon on the law, which is supposed to convict man of his sin and thus lead to the acceptance of the pure grace of God in Jesus Christ ( usus elenchticus legis ) :

“Man recognizes through the mirror of the law that he is a corrupt and lost sinner and that he cannot fulfill the commandment to love one's enemy. Through faith, God gives him the spirit that transforms his heart and makes him gentle and kind to his neighbor. Since God has forgiven him, he can also forgive other people. "

In his doctrine of the two kingdoms , Luther limited love of enemies to believers and private life. In the public and political sphere, the state authorities must fully enforce God's law of retribution. In the defensive war he justified all means that were necessary to win against the attackers:

“And in such a war it is Christian and a work of love to undauntedly strangle, rob and burn among the enemy and do everything that brings harm until one overcomes it - as it happens in war; only one should beware of sins and not desecrate women and virgins. And when one has overcome it, one should show grace and peace to those who surrender and humble themselves. "

In the evangelical churches that emerged from the Reformation , especially in Lutheranism , love of enemies was therefore often limited to the forgiveness of sins within the Christian community. It became an ecclesiastical gift of grace, without changing the actual behavior of Christians towards other denominations and non-Christians, and without questioning social relationships of domination and violence.

The peace churches that arose since the High Middle Ages , however, interpret Jesus' command to love one's enemy as a fundamental rejection of war and armed self-defense. They understand love of enemies as “a testimony to another aeon in which different rules apply than in this world, [...] which lets those who live in strife or prevent peaceful coexistence experience something of the peace that is out of this world , but able to change things for the better in this world. "

In the 19th century, Christian theologians of all denominations mostly interpreted love of enemies as universal human love . They saw this as a contribution to the history of ideas and a characteristic of Christianity compared to Judaism. This they represented as a particular, nationally limited, by an Old Testament idea of ​​revenge determined and historically outdated law religion to assert an alleged ethical superiority of the Christian love religion. In addition, they interpreted love of enemies as a contrast to the biblical Talion law ("an eye for an eye"), which they misinterpreted as a general law of retribution. At the same time, they limited love of enemies mostly to individual attitudes and behavior within the framework of the applicable civil legal system. The Jewish tradition of enemy love was disregarded in this Christian anti-Judaism .

The Catholic moral theologian Konrad Lomb, for example, interpreted love of enemies in 1841 as a special Christian virtue unknown to Jesus and a mark of the true disciple. It demands that all hatred be suppressed; Opponents who act out of error or benevolent criticism should not be regarded as enemies, but only those who, out of selfishness, claim evil about us and inflict evil on us; To sincerely wish them well, too, to send ordinary tokens of love and emergency aid. It does not demand any renunciation of rights and does not forbid rendering enemies harmless and protection from their attacks, but demands that their dignity and good qualities be recognized, their insults be forgotten and that they are ready to be reconciled with them. Such “sublime” behavior is said to be imitation of God and Christ and a condition for the forgiveness of sins. It also serves the common good.

The Paderborn Bishop Konrad Martin , who also published anti-Semitic writings, advocated in 1865: love of enemies is a "trait" of Christian justice in relation to Pharisaism . Practical enemy aid was also offered in the Old Testament and exercised by the chosen, but the Jewish tradition of interpretation disregarded this and required hatred of enemies. Jesus' commandment does not demand to love the enemy because of his enmity, to give him benevolent affects like a friend and to ignore his injustice: that would be unnatural. Rather, it forbids vengeful retribution and commands one to renounce one's own rights even in court, “if higher considerations require it.” It advises to patiently endure the injustice of the enemy according to the example of Christian martyrs and to follow the example of Christ Attributed ignorance as malice. It commanded one to love God's image even in the enemy, to help him in an emergency as the Christian and fellow citizen should expect, and not to exclude him from prayers and alms. In special circumstances, I also recommend it in special honor for the enemy.

In his Advent sermons in 1933, Bishop Michael von Faulhaber rejected individual violent attacks against Jews, but not the state persecution of Jews. Judaism is a “religion of vengeance”: “The old law said: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth! Christ: love your enemies. ... We have no choice: either we are disciples of Christ, or we fall back into the Judaism of the biblical prehistoric times and its songs of Rachel. "

The constitutional lawyer Carl Schmitt , who later supported National Socialism , referred Jesus' command to love one's enemy in 1927 only to private conflicts. In the language of the NT, the word echthros (Latin inimicos ) used in Mt 5.43 denotes the personal enemy , while polemios (Latin hostis ) denotes the public enemy. Jesus does not demand "that one should love the enemies of his people and support them against one's own people". For example, Christians never considered “out of love for the Saracens or Turks , instead of defending Europe, surrendering it to Islam .” Schmitt's limitation of the commandment to the private sphere found supporters again during the Cold War in the 1980s, such as Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner .

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

As a theologian influenced by Martin Luther and Karl Barth , Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed in the presence of Jesus Christ in the community of his followers constituted by him: These could only testify to his path in the mature world that is not dependent on religion in unconditionally active existence for other people.

Ever since Bonhoeffer reread the Sermon on the Mount in the United States in 1930 and got to know social gospel , he was interested in the practical collaboration between Christians and non-Christians for a politically effective witness to peace. He planned to study with Gandhi in India until 1937 to learn of his method of nonviolence. From April 1933 he saw this method as an impetus for a Christian motivated resistance against National Socialism ; that isolated him in the Pastors' Emergency League . In 1934 in London he met Gandhi's followers such as Charles Freer Andrews and Mirabai and quoted Gandhi's central sentence There is no way to peace, peace is the way in his peace sermon in Fanø . At the request of Bishop George Bell , Gandhi invited Bonhoeffer in October 1934 to live in his ashram and to accompany him for a while. The events in the German church struggle thwarted the plan. But Bonhoeffer led the illegal seminary of the Confessing Church in Finkenwalde from 1935 to 1937 according to Gandhi's principle of the unity of life and teaching.

In the book Nachfuhrung (published in 1937), Bonhoeffer interpreted the Sermon on the Mount for future pastors of the BK with a clear reference to the Nazi era . He emphasized: Because Jesus had fulfilled the Torah by his death on the cross, he taught how to fulfill it. The traditional separation of faith from actively obeying its commandments is "cheap grace". Succession is an “extraordinary” existence ready for martyrdom . Because Jesus overcame evil on the cross, it is only possible to overcome evil through suffering love.

From this point of view, Bonhoeffer understood love of enemies as the necessary response of the called followers of Jesus to an impending persecution of Christians : Succession inevitably provokes enmity because it is perceived as a revolutionary threat to the existing legal system and popular piety. In turn, they could only react to this with the hidden, unspectacular, everyday service to the hostile environment that was completely focused on Jesus Christ. Against liberal theology , he emphasized that Jesus did not expect any change in the enemy: "The enemy remains unaffected by my love."

“But love should not ask whether it is reciprocated, rather it seeks those who need it. But who is more in need of love than he who lives in hate himself without love? So who is more worthy of love than my enemy? ... The love of one's enemy leads the disciple on the way of the cross and into the community of the crucified. But the more certain the disciple is urged on this path, the more certain his love remains unconquerable, the more certain it overcomes the hatred of the enemy; because she is not his own love. It is all alone the love of Jesus Christ, who went to the cross for his enemies and prayed for them on the cross. Before Jesus Christ's journey to the cross, however, the disciples also recognize that they themselves were among the enemies of Jesus who were overcome by his love. This love makes the disciple see that he recognizes the brother in the enemy, that he acts on him as on his brother. "

In this belief, Bonhoeffer took an active part in the resistance against the Nazi dictatorship from 1938. In 1944 he was imprisoned for this. In one of his prison letters (December 1944) he emphasized the final rank of God's will to justice as attested in the Old Testament : “... only if God's anger and vengeance against his enemies remain valid as a reality, forgiveness and love for enemies can touch our hearts . ”Bonhoeffer did not justify love of enemies with reason, measurable prospects of success and an improvement of the enemy, but solely with God's loving love for all people in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which is only finally legitimized by his resurrection . This is received as an example of a genuinely theological interpretation. In 1945 Bonhoeffer was murdered on the orders of Adolf Hitler .

Martin Luther King

Martin Luther King was introduced to the Sermon on the Mount and historical-critical exegesis in 1947 in the USA by George D. Kelsey , a social gospel theologian . During his theological training he rejected strict pacifism. In 1950 at Howard University he became aware of Gandhi. He had judged the racial segregation between blacks and whites in the USA in 1934 as a “negation of civilization” and prophesied: “It may be that the unadulterated message of nonviolence will be conveyed to the world by blacks.” African American representatives had visited Gandhi several times. From Gandhi's concept of Satyagraha, King gained his socio-political understanding of love for one's enemies (Mt 5:40, 43), which had previously only appeared to him suitable for individual, non-social conflicts between races and nations: “In his doctrine of love and nonviolence I discovered the method for a social reform that I had been looking for for so many months. ”In doing so, King said, Jesus Christ created his inspiration and motivation, and Gandhi his nonviolent method.

Jesus' commandment to love one's enemy became a leitmotif in King's sermons, with which he justified non-violence. In 1952 he preached for the first time on Mt 5:44: Contrary to the popular opinion that this commandment could not be fulfilled, love of enemies was not a utopian dream, but "an absolute necessity for the survival of our civilization" and "the key to solving the problem of the world". Although enmity often seems unfounded, it can arise from overlooked mistakes of one's own. That is why Jesus forbade condemning others ( Mt 7 : 3–5  EU ). To love one's enemy means to test oneself, to admit good qualities to the enemy and not to take advantage of opportunities to beat him. Because to reciprocate hatred with hatred destroys everyone involved and the whole personality. Love, on the other hand, has a redeeming power within itself.

Since the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955, King sharpened his interpretation. On November 17, 1957 he stated: It was clear to Jesus that love for those who hit you and say bad things about you is difficult and painful. But he did not play and did not exaggerate oriental, but his command is the basis of all his teaching. It is imperative that Christians learn how and why to practice it. The decisive factor is the knowledge of the individual and collective causes of enmity. Although Christians cannot affirm communism , according to which the end justifies the means, they must at the same time recognize that democracy is being misused for material luxury, for oppression, colonialism and imperialism . This failure has contributed to communist successes and many revolts in Africa and Asia. - Therefore, love of one's enemies begins with refraining from judging others and ignoring one's own offenses. If one perceives the struggle between good and evil in one's own soul, one can also recognize God's image in the other, no matter what they do . Against rising hatred it is important to concentrate on the captive good core of the opponent: Then your own attitude changes. - By “love” Jesus did not mean erotic, sympathetic or sentimental feelings, but rather an understanding, creative, redeeming goodwill for all people that does not ask anything for himself: God's own overflowing devotion (Greek agape ). Enemy love begins where we love people, not because they are sympathetic, but because God loves them.

At Christmas 1957 he emphasized: Only the forgiveness of the oppressed towards the oppressors could change injustice and permanently solve the racial problem. Enmity is only multiplied by hatred; it destroys not only the hated but also those who hate. Only love for the enemy can transform him into a friend and thus overcome enmity.

In 1959, King visited family and friends of Gandhi in India. After his return he preached about the importance of the salt march and fasting against the exclusion of the untouchables for the liberation struggle of the Afro-Americans. He was convinced that only such nonviolent resistance would solve the racial problem in America.

Malcolm X criticized King publicly in 1963: he was just an " Uncle Tom " of the 20th century, who used the doctrine of love for enemies to keep blacks from resisting and made them defenseless against today's bloodhound or the Ku Klux Klan . He lulled them to sleep so that they would forgive the people who brutally treated them for 400 years and forget their deeds. In contrast, Elijah Muhammad (the then leader of the Nation of Islam group ) teaches them that God is entirely on their side in order to unite them against the doomed enemy oppressor. So too did Moses the oppressed Israelites during the Exodus from Egypt for the separation from Pharaoh out. Historically successful revolutions have never occurred without violence and bloodshed. Only the so-called revolution of the Afro-Americans is based on love of the enemy and restricts its goal to being allowed to sit next to the whites in buses, restaurants, theaters and toilets. Basically, it only demands a return to the plantations of slavery because someone has taught blacks how to suffer peacefully like an anesthetized patient.

King, on the other hand, emphasized the power of love for the enemy, which organizes itself into powerful direct actions, and the great difference between stagnant passive non-resistance, which ends in agreement with the conditions, and non-violence, which withstood evil in a very strong and decisive way. Experience has shown that it is untrue that the oppressors find and support nonviolence inspired by love for their enemies. Rather, these actions would often have created awareness of shame and guilt. It is true that the brutality of the police increases the risk of violent retaliation by blacks. But the vast majority of them understood the philosophy of nonviolence and were ready to receive violence from police dogs and other brutal methods without involving others in counter-violence. This was always assumed by those who were not involved in demonstrations, mass meetings and non-violent working groups. Therefore, theoretical teaching and practical exercise of nonviolence is crucial in order to convince the mass of bystanders.

Liberation Theology

The Kairos document , published in 1985 by a multi-denominational group of African liberation theologians , interpreted love of enemies as a necessary component of a church- wide resistance to the apartheid regime in South Africa . In a situation of structural injustice, reconciliation is only possible through justice for the oppressed, i.e. through the abolition of the social system that oppresses them. The church can only credibly reject violence by the oppressed if it stands practically by its side and delegitimizes the structural violence of the regime. You have to obey God more than people and therefore disregard state laws under certain circumstances. In doing so, they inevitably make enemies among the rich and oppressors. Because Jesus did not announce peace but separation as a result of his message (Mt 10:34; Lk 12:51) and did not speak of the fact that there are no enemies to love. The Bible clearly shows that he challenged the existing order like Moses against the Pharaoh and thus exposed and attracted their hostility. Denying this turns "reconciliation" into an ideology of the oppressors and "love" into a defense against any effective challenge to the established unjust system.

Newer interpretations

Today's exegetes ask about the historical circumstances of the commandment, its justification, its scope (which "enemies" and which behavior are meant by "loved ones") and its goal.

Despite recognition of Jewish parallels and precursors, New Testament scholar Georg Strecker (1985) described Jesus' command as “the culmination of the demands of God [...] which Jesus opposed to the Torah and its Jewish tradition.” Klaus Haacker (1992) rejected this opposition as exegetically untenable. Peter Stuhlmacher (1997) said that Jesus was the first to lift “the Jewish limitation” of charity. On the other hand, Wolfgang Stegemann (2010), following Frank Crüsemann , emphasized that the law of love for neighbor is already a law of love of enemies, because it requires overcoming hatred, vengeance and enmity and includes strangers. The fact that Jesus expanded, delimited and tightened it unprecedentedly is a traditional Christian misinterpretation. He only added the concept of the enemy, not the required behavior.

Gerd Theißen (1989) explained the synoptic enemy love texts from the situation of the Jesus movement before and after the Jewish uprising against the Romans (66–70): Following Jesus, the early Christians admonished each other, unlike the Zealots, for revenge and counterviolence against the oppressors to renounce in order to preserve their dignity and existence as a threatened, marginalized fringe group. Gentle renunciation of revenge on enemies was originally the privilege of powerful rulers, but in the time of Jesus it was successfully used by Jewish crowds as a non-violent means of protest against provocations by Roman governors such as Pontius Pilate and Petronius .

Against Carl Schmitt, Wilfried Nippel (2003) emphasized : In the NT, echthros also includes public opponents of all Jews and Christians. The command to pray for the persecutors, which is adjacent to Mt 5.44, indicates political enemies of the Jews of that time. According to Werner Wolbert (2005), “neighbor” in Judaism at the time was mostly related to Israelites and foreigners in Israel, so that “enemies” here probably denote foreign opponents of God's people and include their “sinner” being. For Wolfgang Huber (2008), too , Jesus' commandment invalidates Schmitt's friend-foe thinking with reference to God's impartial and universal blessing. Ideologies of deadly enmity and attempts to constantly renew enmity thus turned out to be a denial of God. Jesus' command presupposes enmity, but makes it possible to perceive the enemy differently than before, because he too can hope for God's “inheritance”, a future just and nonviolent life. Luther's distinction between personal waiver of rights and political enforcement of law was right to remind us of responsibility for others. But in conflicts it is precisely about the chances of living together, not just about asserting one's own interests, so that loving one's enemies is also relevant for politics. It has become effective in non-violent social changes, for example in South Africa since 1990.

Martin Honecker (2010) distinguished between a theological and a purposeful interpretation type:

“Is love of enemies the equivalent of love of God as love of enemies of God, of sinners? According to the confession of Christian faith, God revealed his love for the unreconciled and distant from God in the cross of Jesus Christ. Or is love of enemies based on a reasonable, rational consideration, because it contributes to 'de-enmity' and precisely because of the non-reciprocal behavior among opponents shames and overcomes the enemy and thus ends violence and hatred as an 'intelligent love of enemies'? Enemy love would then be a strategy of renouncing violence. "

Whether charity applies universally is shown in the event of a conflict with the enemy.

Dietz Lange (2001) advocates a theological interpretation : love of enemies is "God's power to change the relationship between people." People are thus passing on God's own reconciling, suffering-ready love for people who, because of their actions, actually deserved his judgment. So it is actually not an individual reaction to individually received forgiveness, but a necessary direct component of the entire church proclamation with the aim of changing society.

Pinchas Lapide (1983) advocates a rational interpretation with his concept of “love of hostility”. He distinguished the intended action from emotional misunderstandings: “Neither sympathy nor sentimentalism is required here, and certainly not self-denial, because neither feelings nor martyrdom can be ordered. But doing , one of the most common vocabulary in the Jesuan vocabulary. ”“ To love ”in Biblical Hebrew means something like“ do charity to your enemy ”. According to Dieter Witschen (2006), Jesus' commandment does not require affection, but rather respect for one's fellow human beings for their own sake, i.e. the proving of charity towards people from whom one cannot expect any advantages. It aims to end hostility and is therefore a general moral duty. Also Wilfried Harle (2011) pointed out: "But love of enemies such as charity does not mean a feeling of affection or sympathy, but a heartfelt and so far like happening attention , namely, through which the enemy is perceived as a person and treated one."

Rainer Metzner (1995) and many exegetes emphasize the connection between Jesus' prohibition of retaliation and violence and the commandment to love one's enemies. The examples in Mt 5: 38-42 did not require merely passive indulgence towards the stronger and resigned renunciation of resistance, but unexpected, active approach to enemies in order to trigger these reflections and thus release potential for change: “Christians have the spiral of violence through action of the good that is surprising to the other and therefore 'disarms' them, to be overcome. ” According to Traugott Koch (2004),“ love ”meant at that time an emphatic interest in peaceful coexistence with others that did not depend on reciprocity. Enemy love corresponds to the kingdom of God , in which there is no longer any room for enmity and hatred. It is unconditional and therefore universally unlimited "liberation from the compulsion of self-assertion". She does not allow hostile reaction patterns to be imposed on her by the enemy and ceaselessly searches for ways out of enmity: “Use all your powers of understanding to get out of the spiral of hatred and violence and retribution, in which only evil is continued with evil! Break the chain of violence and counter-violence. The fighting back must end. Strive to achieve that, even if it seems almost hopeless under the given conditions! So don't give up! ”Hans Gleixner (2005) also emphasized the connection between love of one's enemies and Jesus’s message of God's Kingdom and his death on the cross: through his life and death he opposed the logic of retribution with the logic of forgiveness. This opens up the “possibility of defeating injustice from God in the root (radix)” and breaking the chain reaction of hatred and violence. To this end, someone “must be ready to endure the suffering inflicted without passing it on to the world around them.”

Trutz Rendtorff (2011) also made a distinction between two types of interpretation: pragmatic “de-feuding” presupposes that the command can be met and immediately looks for concrete implementation. They try to uncover what is non-hostile in the conflict, to strengthen common human values, to dismantle enemy images, to establish understanding with the enemy through a leap of faith and thus to remove the disturbance in relation to him. This suggests that it is only about clearing up misunderstandings and correcting wrong perceptions, and thus defusing the commandment. The theological type of interpretation, on the other hand, understands it as an unattainable, utopian demand that reveals the limits of the basic order of human coexistence based on reciprocity , destroys ethical self-certainty and "thus paves the way from ethical law to the promise of grace in the gospel." it is imperative if she cannot expect any reciprocity. It should determine the way of life independently of the behavior of others and the circumstances and must therefore prove itself against enemies. This frees the person addressed from social ties and leaves them entirely to themselves. What needs to be done can no longer be based on conventional rules.

Uwe Birnstein (2011) saw the limitation of love of enemies to the clergy, the private sphere, to a pedagogical means of accepting grace or a temporary apocalyptic expectation as evasion: Jesus meant what he said, and his listeners meant an active, risk-taking, non-violent provocation expected to break old behavior patterns. This includes the chance to find solutions to acute conflicts with enemies, not against them.

philosophy

Antiquity and antiquity

Early philosophy of antiquity and antiquity knows no explicit commandment to love our enemies, but it similar precepts . In the library of Assurbanipal (~ 669–627 BC) the advice was found: “Do not repay evil to the person who disputes with you. Reward your evildoer with kindness. Do justice to your enemy. Smile towards your opponent. If he who wants to evil you ... give him food. ”There were similar sayings in ancient Egypt , for example:“ Do not retaliate so that God does not repay you for injustice ”.

In the Daodejing ascribed to Laozi (~ 400 BC) the advice can be found: "Repay enmity with good." Confucius is said to have contradicted this advice after the Lun Yu (discovered 150 BC) on request: "Someone asked: 'To repay injustice with kindness, how is it?' The Master said, 'Then how should one repay goodness? Through righteousness one repays injustice, through kindness one repays kindness. '"

According to Plato, Socrates demanded in Crito (~ 399–385 BC) that injustice should never be repaid with injustice. Plato himself demanded in Gorgias (after 399 BC) that it would be better to suffer injustice than to do injustice. Both are analogous to Mt 5:38 and Rom 12:17.

In De officiis (44 BC), Cicero contradicted the view that “one must be very angry with enemies”: “... for nothing is more praiseworthy, nothing is more worthy of a great and excellent man than forgiveness and leniency.” However, these are only so far closed approve how they were used to maintain the state. Representatives of the younger Stoa in particular discussed and demanded behavior that came close to loving one's enemies. Seneca advised in De beneficiis (~ 60–65): “If you imitate the gods ... then also give good to the ungrateful; for the sun rises over the criminals and the seas are open to the pirates. ”The reason for this was his belief in a lawful providence in nature, to which the ideal of dispassionate behavior should correspond. Epictetus (~ 50-125) stated in its doctrinal conversations a Spartan than exemplify, who have brought up as a son to a good man a young man who had an eye knocked out. As a model trait of the wandering life of the Cynics , Epictetus emphasized: "He must allow himself to be beaten like a dog and as a beaten love those who beat him - as a father of all, as a brother." Mark Aurel mentioned in his self-contemplations (170-180) four reasons not to retaliate against "those who trespass against us": the short life, the essential relationship of all people, possible ignorance of the enemy, who had not sufficiently considered the consequences of his actions, as well as the Unberührtsein the immortal soul by Enmity.

For the Neo-Platonist Hierocles of Alexandria (5th century), the duty of justice and philanthropy demanded that the "bad", who gave no cause for friendship, be treated just as well as the "good" because of their common human nature. “Righteous” could not consider wrongdoers as enemies either.

enlightenment

In contrast to heteronomous, religious traditions, the Enlightenment philosophy tried to justify ethical behavior through autonomous reason. Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative (1785) translated the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule into a generally understandable maxim:

"Act only according to the maxim by which you can also want it to become a general law."

Everything here depends on the goodwill of the individual.

Kant asked elsewhere: “But how can one love if the other is not amiable?” He replied: One cannot deny the “vicious” who have no good will and are not obliged to any moral law “all respect that cannot be withdrawn from him, at least in the quality of a person; whether he makes himself unworthy of it by his deed. ”As a dutiful attitude towards the“ villain ”, Kant recommended to distinguish“ between man and his humanity ”. Love is here “not an inclination, but a wish so that the other would be worthy of approval. We should be inclined to wish to find the other worthy of love. "

Kant understood love of enemies as respect for the desired human dignity of amoral persons, so this respect only related to their belonging to the human species, not to their individual personality. Hermann Cohen , for example, criticized this differentiation ( Kant's Justification of Ethics , 2nd edition. 1910) as a contradiction to Kant's formula as an end in itself: “Act in such a way that you use humanity both in your person and in the person of everyone else at the same time as an end, never merely as a means. ”With this imperative, Kant had precisely ruled out the separation of the person of each individual from his“ humanity ”.

Modern criticism

Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the entire Judeo-Christian ethics as a "vengeful ruse of impotence" by the oppressed against the natural self-assertion of the stronger:

“Let's be different from the bad guys, namely good! And everyone who does not attack, who does not repay, who surrenders vengeance to God [...] "- that is what it means, coldly and without prejudice, is actually nothing more than:" We weak are weak; it is good when we do nothing that we are not strong enough to do "; But this harsh fact, this ingenuity of the lowest rank, which insects themselves have (who probably play dead so as not to do "too much" in great danger), has, thanks to that counterfeiting and self-mendacity of impotence, quieted itself in the pomp of renunciation , dressed waiting virtue - just as if the weakness of the weak itself […] was a voluntary achievement, something wanted, chosen, an act, a merit. "

Nietzsche perceived love of enemies as an attempt by Christianity to rob the immediate enjoyment of life of its strength. With reference to Mt 5,46 ("... what wages will you have?") He interpreted love of enemies as egoism, which hopes for benefit and profit from friendliness towards enemies: "Principle of Christian love: It wants to be well paid in the end." saw the commandment as an inevitable reaction to powerlessness: “Of course, when a people perishes, then their God must also change. He is now dumbfounded, timid, modest, advising 'peace of soul', no longer hating, indulgence, 'love' even against friend and foe. "

In his essays on the sociology of religion, which he wrote between 1915 and 1920, Max Weber understood Far Eastern, Jewish and Christian rules of love for enemies as typical characteristics of religions of salvation . These would have interpreted human imperfection as the irrevocable cause of all suffering and reacted to it with an exaggerated ethic of conviction . Enemy love laws tended towards an objectless, universalistic brotherhood beyond one's own social association. This striving has inevitably come into conflict with the laws of interest-driven politics and economics. The religions of salvation reacted to this with flight from the world and irrational hostility to the economy.

Sigmund Freud criticized the commandments of love for neighbor and enemy in his essay The Unease in Culture (1930) as identical, exaggerated, unrealistic altruism . Charity devalues ​​the love for friends by equating strangers with them and inviting them to take advantage of others. You deny the reality of the aggression drive. As long as people behave differently, the observance of these commandments harms the “cultural intentions by setting up direct premiums for being evil.” This naivety is comparable to a belief in the absurd . On the other hand, Freud affirmed the sublimation of aggression and sexuality as an essential driver for culture and civilization.

Mao Zedong declared in a speech to party comrades in Yan'an in 1942 : Love could well be the starting point for art and literature, but only as love for the proletariat and service in its liberation struggle. "In the world there is just as little a baseless love as there is no baseless hatred." Both are products of the class struggle . Ruling classes and many so-called wise men would have preached an all-embracing human love, but never really practiced it, “because in class society it is impossible”: “We cannot love enemies, cannot love the repulsive phenomena in society, our goal is their destruction . “Only after the worldwide abolition of classes is true human love possible.

Anton Szandor LaVey , founder of Satanism , which has been organized since 1966 , criticized love of enemies following the social Darwinism presented in the book Might is Right as an unnatural and inhumane self-abandonment:

"Love your enemies and do good to those who hate and use you: Isn't that the disgusting philosophy of the spaniel who rolls onto its back when kicked?"

Paul Ricœur

In 1998, the French philosopher Paul Ricœur contradicted Nietzsche's interpretation of love for one's enemies. Because Jesus set an "absolute measure of the gift" without hope of return. As a risk that could fail, his love precludes any benefit calculation. Precisely because she is not looking for reciprocity , she expects a non-commercial exchange: "namely that my enemy could one day become my friend." It contains the hope that a new reciprocity will arise in that the undeservedly gifted with love will at some point be grateful and also answer with free, asymmetrical gift. This "logic of overabundance" ("I give in order to give"; I forgive) should not replace the everyday correspondence between give and take, but against abuse and perversion ( do ut des: "I give so that you give" ) preserve. She wants to overcome the division between bad and good, just and unjust. Therefore, they make those involved aware of the “original bestowal of existence” (the gift of common life, Mt 5:45), their dependence on the good will of the other and on the impracticable restoration of the world intended as “very good” (Gen 1 , 31), that is, to a transcendent redemption.

Global Ethic Project

The Global Ethic project by Hans Küng tries to integrate the ethical traditions of all world religions into a few common, simple basic rules and to develop them in a timely manner for a future humane, ecological and social world order. Küng emphasizes the peculiarity of Jesus' love of enemies compared to a general love of people, which Laozi also demanded, and the reciprocal, reciprocal Golden Rule. He sees in it a "grandiose idea" that can also be understood by non-Christians, is no longer reversible despite its non-compliance and can humanize the world in the long term. It remains to be seen whether what is special about this concept, namely the anticipatory disenfranchisement of the enemy regardless of self-preservation, can become a generally accepted and sustainable ethical basis for all world religions.

Political reception

international law

In the early modern period, the relationship between love of one's enemy and war was discussed again. Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) took the usual opinion : “Likewise, war does not violate love of one's enemies [essential]. Because whoever wages war in a just cause does not hate the people, but the deeds which he justly punishes. "

However, international legal regulations gradually developed that were supposed to protect the lives of enemies after victories and during warfare. The Swiss legal scholar Johann Caspar Bluntschli, for example, explained the sparing of defeated, captured and wounded opponents of the war and the first Geneva Convention of 1864 as follows: “This is how the Christian principle of love for one's enemies was translated into the binding form of human and international law .” Also the distinction of civilians and combatants in warfare, which the Hague Land Warfare Regulations of 1907 made binding under international law, is considered an attempt to achieve love for the enemy in the field of state policy.

Peace movement

In the 1980s, parts of the peace movement at the time used love of the enemy to criticize NATO's twin decision , nuclear weapons and military deterrence strategies and to call for this form of defense to be abandoned. In 1980 Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker called for a security partnership with the Eastern Bloc . He called the insight that military security can only be achieved together with the enemy, that is, his security interests as well as his own must be taken into account, "intelligent enemy love". In 1981 Horst-Eberhard Richter called love of enemies “one of the spiritual roots of our civilization”, which offered a way out of the “collective paranoia” of nuclear armament. Franz Alt (CDU) concluded in 1983 from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount that the Federal Republic and NATO could unilaterally forego new nuclear missiles if necessary . Since fear-mongering has always been a condition for war, love of the enemy is only an expression for intelligent politics that take the fear away from the enemy. Today it has become the "logic of survival". In 1983 he wrote an open letter to all CDU / CSU members of the Bundestag in response to the Bundestag debate on “retrofitting”, in which he asked: “Do we still trust the herald of love for enemies and the“ Golden Rule ”? Or do we politically declare him a fool because we do not take the trouble to consider what Jesus has to say to us today? "

Federal Chancellor Helmut Schmidt (SPD) and Federal President Karl Carstens (CDU) declared in 1981 that Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was unsuitable for realpolitik . Heiner Geißler (CDU) declared the Sermon on the Mount to be compatible with atomic deterrence and said that the pacifists of the 1930s made the Holocaust possible.

"Anyone who thinks that loving one's enemies is impractical does not consider the practical consequences of the consequences of hating one's enemies."

The WCC stated at the 1983 Vancouver assembly:

“Nuclear deterrence, as a strategic doctrine that justified nuclear weapons in the name of security and war prevention, must be fundamentally rejected because it contradicts faith in Jesus Christ, who is our life and peace. [...] Atomic deterrence is the antithesis of ultimate belief in that love that drives away fear. It can never be the basis of real peace. "

The pacifist minority position of the peace churches also found approval within the major churches in view of the continued nuclear arms race and new wars of intervention. The Catholic group Pax Christi justifies its "primary option for nonviolence" in advocating peace among nations with Jesus' love of enemies. For the same reason, the evangelical group, Leben Without Armament , advocates a church-wide renunciation of armed groups in favor of social defense.

At the suggestion of some peace churches, the WCC proclaimed a Decade to Overcome Violence in 2001 and in 2011 for a Just Peace , which it biblically justified with Jesus Christ's Overall Path: “Jesus taught us to love our enemies, to pray for our persecutors and not for deadly ones To use weapons. ”He had fulfilled this teaching until his death on the cross; Through his resurrection, God finally affirmed his path as leading to life for all people.

The cross-denominational group Church and Peace supports these advances: "The leitmotif of overcoming evil through the divine power of love for one's enemies, as revealed in the life and teaching of Jesus, should now also become the central motive of the political commitment of the churches." Their representatives criticize, however, that the WCC continues to approve of state means of violence, i.e. military interventions, to protect vulnerable populations, without providing clear criteria for this and specifying the priority of nonviolent interventions. Compared to the traditional large church permission of military counterviolence, Jesus had commanded love of the enemy, especially when force was imposed, i.e. delegitimized every armed counterviolence.

Franz Alt affirmed in 2002 that Jesus' love of enemies does not mean: “Let everything be offered to you.” Instead: “Be wiser, more imaginative and more courageous in real peacekeeping than your enemy, try to understand him.” Only a policy of preventive conflict prevention, a prohibition, corresponds to this of all arms exports and binding agreements on a gradual, complete disarmament, which has been possible in Europe since 1990. Limited military defense is only justifiable for a strictly limited period within the framework of such consistently pursued goals. Also Margot Käßmann , formerly President of the Council of the EKD, declared in 2011: "The love of enemies is the arms trade diametrically opposed."

Jean Lasserre emphasized in 2010 that non-violent action is not a mere fighting technique, but a comprehensive lifestyle and therefore necessarily leads to love for one's enemies, which corresponds to the entire Gospel.

Peace and Conflict Research

Peace and conflict researchers have been trying since the 1960s to identify the causes of violence and enmity more precisely and to develop non-violent solution strategies. Some also refer to Jesus' command to love one's enemy. Some Christian theologians, for their part, affirm peace research as an attempt to realize love of one's enemies, or equate love of one's enemies with non-violence.

In 1971, Wolfgang Sternstein, for example, deduced from the love of the enemy for Central Europe, instead of military self-defense, a strategy of fundamental nonviolence in the spirit of Gandhi. The political scientist Theodor Ebert has been developing a theory of social defense as an alternative to military deterrence in highly armed states from European historical experience since 1968 . He justified this as follows:

“The commandment to love one's enemy does not require that we submit or ingratiate ourselves, but that we also accept the enemy as a person - like ourselves - sinful, driven by hopes, fears and aggression. [...] it puts Christians under the duty to overcome the spirit of enmity and to look for ways in which new forms of common life and cooperation can take the place of enmity in all areas - especially in politics. "

Johan Galtung developed new political conflict resolution strategies based on the idea of ​​renouncing violence in principle. With his research on the power of kindness, Martin Arnold collected many examples of nonviolence in the sense of Gandhi. Marshall B. Rosenberg developed nonviolent communication that should not allow the enemy to emerge in the first place. He also referred to Jesus for this purpose.

Enemy love in the war against terrorism

In 2003, the sociologist Jonathan Schell (USA) proposed a global “co-operation force for nonviolent action” for a democratic peace policy in the 21st century instead of the “coercive force” shown in the war against terrorism . Because Gandhi, like Jesus, justified nonviolence with love for one's enemies and this with a belief in God, the question should be asked whether nonviolent politics can only be justified religiously and morally or also practically. In his analysis of historically successful nonviolent revolutions, he concluded that all of their representatives were guided by an ultimate conviction that made them accept defeat and death rather than abandon nonviolence. He called this integrity a "life in truth". In order to become an effective power to cooperate against coercive power, a voluntary, informal consent of the actors is required: this guideline for action could be the love of freedom itself.

Military chaplains such as Bernd Schaller and Martin Dutzmann have concretized love of enemies in the Bundeswehr mission in Afghanistan since 2001 as pastoral advice to German soldiers whose comrades were killed by Afghans, nevertheless to see them as God's creatures with family members, to forego vengeance and to pray for their conversion, without foregoing violent self-defense.

In 2007, the President of the Protestant Kirchentag Reinhard Höppner called for a "dialogue on equal terms" with the Taliban and Islamic terrorists because of Jesus' command : "Peace can only be achieved where my enemy has a humane place." When asked how sensible negotiations with terrorists are who wanted to destroy their dialogue partners, he replied: Even then you have to try to understand the situation and logic of the other and "take a few steps with the other."

The Metta-Center for Nonviolence , founded in 1982 by US peace researcher Michael Nagler , launched the Love your Enemy campaign in 2011 on the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 : It should restore human dignity through nonviolence and the "war system" based on fear and hatred was founded, overcome in the long term with a steadily growing network of community groups.

The British police officer and theologian Alistair McFadyen stated in 2012: Since September 11, 2001, English-speaking theologians have criticized and rejected torture of terror suspects as the result of a deliberately constructed enemy image, but hardly discussed terrorist hostility itself. This silence can be understood as a refusal to be co-opted for a political “ crusade ” in the war against terrorism. The commandment to love one's enemy, however, does not require us to ignore real enmity and refuse to have enemies; it cannot be reduced to nonviolence either. The required love remains enmity against the injustice, which Jesus qualifies as evil. The terms love and enmity are therefore not to be simply defined as an exclusive contrast; the paradoxical tension between the two is bearable. Love means enmity against any demonization and dehumanization, including that by terrorists, who declared all citizens of western states to be enemies and wanted to make victims without distinction. Even the term “war on terror” has upgraded their attacks to acts of war. Instead, prosecuting them as criminals and bringing them to justice makes them responsible for their actions without exposing them to the vengeance of their victims. It thus safeguards their dignity and also makes it possible to see the origin of this hostility in previous relationships between perpetrators and victims.

See also

• enemy image

literature

Historical studies

• Michael Waldmann: The love of enemies in the ancient world and in Christianity. (1902) New edition, Kessinger Publishing, 2010, ISBN 1-161-08946-2 .
• Stephan Randlinger: The love of enemies according to the natural and positive moral law: a historical-ethical study. (1906) New edition, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2010, ISBN 1-168-39218-7 .
• Ludwig Kuhn: Enemy love in old and new philosophy. Pasing. Buchdruckerei Anton, Meindlingen 1911.
• Eugen Bach: The love of enemies according to the natural and the supernatural moral law. Karl Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich 1913.
• Ferdinand Kattenbusch: About love of enemies in the sense of Christianity. Friedrich Andreas Berthes, Gotha 1916.
• Walter Bauer: The commandment to love one's enemy and the old Christians. Journal for Theology and Church, 1917, pp. 37–54 ( text online )
• Hans Haas: Idea and Ideal of Enemy Love in the Non-Christian World. Leipzig 1927.
• Walter Gartler: Enemy love: scientism and paranoia in Fichte's science theory. Turia & Kant, 1992, ISBN 3-85132-031-X .

Hinduism

• Mahatma Gandhi: An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Hinder & Deelmann 2001, ISBN 3-87348-162-6 .

Judaism

• Eckart Otto: Feind / Feindesliebe II Old Testament. In: Religion Past and Present. Volume III, 4th edition. Tübingen 2000, p. 57 f.
• Pinchas Lapide: How do you love your enemies? Reading the gospel with a Jew. (1984) Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 7th edition. 1993, ISBN 3-7867-1098-8 .
• Pinchas Lapide: Living Disengagement? Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Gütersloh 1993, ISBN 3-579-02205-9 .
• Albrecht Lohrbächer, Helmut Ruppel, Ingrid Schmidt (eds.): What Christians can learn from Judaism. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, ISBN 3-17-018133-5 (p. 122: Charity and love of enemies in the Jewish and Jesuan tradition , p. 123: Right to retaliation or love of enemies? ).

Early Christianity / New Testament

• Jerome Rausch: The Principle of Nonresistance and Love of Enemy in Mt 5: 38-48. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28, 1966, pp. 31-41.
• Willem C. Van Unnik: The Motivation of Enemy Love in Luke vi 32–35. In: Sparsa Collecta I: Evangelia - Paulina - Acta. NTS 29, Leiden 1973, pp. 111-126.
• Luise Schottroff: Renunciation of violence and love of enemies in the early Christian Jesus tradition. In: Jesus Christ in History and Theology. New Testament commemorative publication for Hans Conzelmann on his 60th birthday. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 1975, ISBN 3-16-137872-5 , pp. 197-221.
• John Piper: Love Your Enemies: Jesus' Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian Paraenesis. (1980) Crossway Books, unmodified reprint 2012, ISBN 1-4335-3475-4 .
• Jürgen Becker: Enemy love, charity, brotherly love. Exegetical observations as an inquiry into an ethical problem area. Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik (ZEE) 25/1981, pp. 5–18.
• Gerd Theißen: Renunciation of force and love of enemies (Mt 5,38-48 / Lk 6,27-38) and their socio-historical background. In: Gerd Theißen: Studies on the sociology of early Christianity. (1983) Mohr / Siebeck, 3rd expanded edition. Tübingen 1989, ISBN 3-16-145448-0 , pp. 160-197.
• Paul Hoffmann: Tradition and Situation. On the "binding nature" of the commandment to love one's enemy in the synoptic tradition and in the current peace discussion. (1984) In: Karl Kertelge (Ed.): Ethics in the New Testament. Herder, Freiburg 1992, ISBN 3-451-02102-1 , pp. 50-118.
• Fritz Neugebauer: The presented cheek and Jesus' commandment to love one's enemy. Considerations on Luke 6.27-36 / Mt 5.38-48. ThLZ 1/10, 1985, pp. 865-876.
• Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn : The love commandment of Jesus as Torah and as Gospel. On love for one's enemies and on the Christian and Jewish interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. In: Hubert Frankemölle, Karl Kertelge (Hrsg.): Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus (Festschrift for Joachim Gnilka). Herder, Freiburg 1989, pp. 194-230.
• Willard M. Swartley: The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Westminster Press, 1992, ISBN 0-664-25354-7 .
• Gerd Theißen, Annette Merz: The historical Jesus: A textbook. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th edition. Göttingen 2001, ISBN 3-525-52143-X ( The expansion of neighborly love in the commandment of enemy love: pp. 347-349. )
• Wilhelm Christian Schäfer: Jesus - teacher of love for enemies. The Galilean Jesus. Stuttgart 2006, ISBN 3-17-018133-5 .

Christianity

• Wolfgang Huber: Enmity and Enemy Love: Notes on the problem of the "enemy" in theology. ZEE 26/1982, pp. 128-158.
• Ulrich Luz: Jesus' commandment to love one's enemy and the Church's responsibility for peace. In: Wolfgang Brinkel, Burkhardt Scheffler, Martin Wächter (Hrsg.): Christians in the dispute about peace. Contributions to a new ethic of peace. (1982) Dreisam, Cologne 1991, ISBN 3-921472-62-8 , pp. 21-28.
• Jörg Zink: How do you practice peace? About dealing with evil and loving the enemy. Kreuz-Verlag, Stuttgart 1989, ISBN 3-7831-0665-6 .
• Michael Welker: renouncing violence and loving one's enemies. In: Jürgen Roloff, Hans G. Ulrich (Ed.): Simply talk about God. A theological discourse. Festschrift for Hans Mildenberger. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1994, ISBN 3-17-012963-5 , pp. 243-247.
• Anselm Grün, Fidelis Ruppert: Christ in the Brother. Benedictine charity and love for enemies. Four Towers, 6th, revised and updated edition. 2004, ISBN 3-87868-109-7 .
• J. Deotis Roberts: Bonhoeffer and King: Speaking Truth to Power. Westminster Press, 2005, ISBN 0-664-22652-3 (online excerpt: Gandhi, Bonhoeffer and King on "Love your Enemies" )
• Uta Heil: Human love in superlatives. On the reception of the Christian doctrine of love for one's enemies in Athenagoras. In: Ferdinand R. Prostmeier, Horacio E. Lona (ed.): Logos of Reason - Logos of Faith. Walter de Gruyter, 2nd edition. Berlin 2010, ISBN 3-11-024727-5 , pp. 229-252.
• Ulrich Finckh: From holy war to Jesus' love of enemies. Contributions to the rule of law and peace ethics. Radius, 2011, ISBN 978-3-87173-918-7 .
• Walter Wink: Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way. Fortress, 2003, ISBN 0-8006-3609-0 .
• Walter Wink: In the face of the enemy: the third way of Jesus in South Africa and elsewhere. Claudius-Verlag, 1988, ISBN 3-532-62069-3 .

Peace Research and Pacifism

• Ulrich Luz: love of enemies and peace. Reformation 32, pp. 253-266.
• Lisa S. Cahill: Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism and Just War Theory. Augsburg Fortress Publications 1997, ISBN 0-8006-2700-8 .
• Hans Küng (Hrsg.), Dieter Senghaas (Hrsg.): Friedenspolitik. Ethical foundations of international relations. Verlag Piper, Munich 2003, ISBN 3-492-04541-3 .
• Urs Arx: The logic of love for one's enemies. In: Walter Dietrich, Wolfgang Lienemann, Urs von Arx: Perceiving violence - healing from violence: theological and religious studies perspectives. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-17-018523-3 , pp. 93-107.
• Laurie Johnston: “Love Your Enemies” - Even in the Age of Terrorism? In: Political Theology , Volume 6, No. 1 (2005), ISSN  1462-317X
• Robert Perschke: love your enemies! The art of creative conflict management - a journey with Jesus, Gandhi, Luther King, Mandela, Gorbachev and the Dalai Lama. Above the Clouds, 2008, ISBN 3-9811205-8-2 .

Web links

General

• Enemy love in different religions

Judaism

• Heinz Kremers: Enemy Love in Judaism - Examples from Rabbinical Literature ( Memento from April 5, 2005 in the Internet Archive )

Christianity

• Manfred Schäfer: renunciation of violence and disenfranchisement (to Mt 5,38-48)
• Stefan Meißner: The double commandment of love in Judaism and Christianity.
• Egon Spiegel: Jesus renounces violence. (PDF; 5.6 MB)
• Lidija Novakovic: Turning the Other Cheek to a Perpetrator: Denunciation or Upholding of Justice? Bethel University, St. Paul 2006 (PDF; 223 kB)

Buddhism and Sermon on the Mount

• Katharina Ceming : 1PD The Smile of the Buddha and the Sermon on the Mount.

Nonviolence

• Jaroslav KrejCi: Can the enemy be peacefully hosted? Osnabrück Yearbook Peace and Science II / 1995 (PDF; 1.0 MB)
• Johan Galtung: Nonviolent Conflict Resolution
• Margot Käßmann: Religion as a factor in defusing conflict (Weimar Speeches, March 4, 2007; PDF; 236 kB)
• Mkgandhi.org: Gandhi's views on Nonviolence (English)

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Swami Parmananda: The Upanishads. 1st World Library, 2004, ISBN 1-59540-120-2 , p. 20.
2. ^ Vet Ury Ramakrishna Rao: Selected Doctrines from Indian Philosophy. South Asia Books, 1987, p. 110.
3. ^ Rajendra Prasad: A Historical Developmental Study of Classical Indian Philosophy of Morals, Volume 12. Concept Publishing Co, 2009, ISBN 81-8069-595-6 , p. 105.
4. ↑ sacred-texts.com: Mahabharata Book 3, Section CCVI (p. 427)
5. ↑ Ramakrishna.de: Bhagavad Gita VI, 9
6. ↑ Ramakrishna.de: Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 16, 1-3
7. ↑ Jan Rohls: History of Ethics. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 1999, ISBN 3-16-146706-X , p. 16.
8. ↑ TS Ramaswamy: Your God My God: Journey of the Quivering Heart. Xlibris, 2006, ISBN 1-4257-3217-8 , p. 57.
9. ↑ Vanamali Gunturu: Mahatma Gandhi. Life and work. Eugen Diederichs, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-424-01481-8 , pp. 20-22.
10. ↑ KR Sundaraja, Bhitika Mukerj (Ed.): Hindu Spirituality - Postclassical and Modern, Volume II. Motilal Banarsidass, 2004, ISBN 8120819373 , p. 411 ; Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: An Autobiography: The Story of my Experiments with Truth. (1925-1929) Beacon Press, 1983, ISBN 0-8070-5981-1 , p. 35.
11. ↑ Sankar Ghose: Mahatma Gandhi. Allied Publishers Ltd., New Delhi, ISBN 81-7023-205-8 , p. 72.
12. ^ Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: An Autobiography: The Story of my Experiments with Truth. 1983, p. 124.
13. ^ S. Radhakrishnan: Mahatma Gandhi: Essays and Reflections. Bertrams, 2000, ISBN 81-7224-122-4 , p. 481.
14. ^ Sigrid Grabner: Mahatma Gandhi. Neues Leben, 1983, p. 63; Dietmar Rothermund: Mahatma Gandhi. Beck, Munich 2003, p. 30 f. ; Rajmohan Gandhi: Gandhi: The Man, His People, and the Empire. University of California Press, 2008, ISBN 0-520-25570-4 , p. 67 ; James D. Hunt: Gandhi and the Nonconformists: Encounters in South Africa. South Asia Books, 1986, ISBN 81-85002-03-7 , p. 48.
15. ↑ Padre William Wasson: The Sermon on the Mount: My Message for the 21st Century. 2003, ISBN 3-8330-0616-1 , pp. 112-114.
16. ↑ Jeremy Holton: Gandhi's Interpretation of the Sermon of the Mount. In: Michael Lieb and others (eds.): The Oxford Handbook to the Reception History of the Bible. Oxford University Press, 2011, ISBN 0-19-920454-3 , p. 553.
17. ↑ Agusti Panareda Jordi: Rediscoveming Gandhi: Ahimsa: The Way to Peace. Volume 2, Concept Publishing, 2007, ISBN 81-8069-468-2 , p. 115 f.
18. ^ Wilhelm Emil Mühlmann: Mahatma Gandhi: the man, his work and his effect. Mohr, Tübingen 1950, p. 104.
19. ↑ SB Nagia: Gandhi and Indian Freedom Struggle. APH Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, ISBN 81-7648-058-4 , pp. 63 f.
20. ↑ Mahatma Gandhi. Gardners Books Ltd, 1996, ISBN 0-87220-330-1 , pp. 6 f.
21. ↑ Sri Aurobindo: The morality of boycott , 1906-1908: On Nationalism , pp. 360-364
22. ↑ Mahatma Gandhi: The Bhagavad Gita According to Gandhi. North Atlantic Books, 2009, ISBN 1-55643-800-1 , pp. XVII-XXIV (preface 1929); Robert Minor: Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavadgita. State University of New York Press, 1986, ISBN 0-88706-298-9 , pp. 88-109: Gandhi and the Bhagavad Gita
23. ↑ Speech by MK Gandhi to London Missionary Society of India in 1925 recorded by Mahadev Desai in his secretary's diary 'Day to day with Gandhi', volume VII, pp. 156-161
24. ↑ Frauke Koops, Ingrid Schindler, Matthias Hoffmann: The little book of salt. Gräfe and Unzer, 2009, ISBN 3-8338-1655-4 , p. 28.
25. ↑ Eknath Easwaran, Michael N. Nagler: Gandhi the Man: The Story of His Transformation. Nilgiri Press, 1997, ISBN 0-915132-96-6 , p. 74.
26. ↑ Martin Arnold: Gütekraft: A basic model of the mode of action of successful non-violent conflict resolution according to Hildegard Goss-Mayr, Mohandas K. Gandhi and Bart de Ligt. (PDF, pp. 374–382; 8.2 MB)
27. ^ Koenraad Elst: Gandhi and Godse: a review and a critique. Voice of India, 2001, ISBN 81-85990-71-9 , p. 41.
28. ^ Nyanatiloka: Dhammapada and Commentary. Jhana Verlag, Uttenbühl 1992, ISBN 3-928396-01-3 .
29. ↑ Ram Kumar Pruthi: Buddhism and Indian Civilization. Discovery, New Delhi 2004, ISBN 978-81-7141-866-4 , p. 21.
30. ^ Paul Carus: The Gospel of Buddha. Cosimo Classics, 2007, ISBN 1-60206-566-7 , p. 145.
31. ^ Sutta-Nipata, Lehr-Dichtungen: I.8. Goodness (Mettā Sutta), no.150 ; quoted by Heinz Bechert and others: Buddhism. History and present. CH Beck, Munich 2002, ISBN 3-406-42138-5 , p. 90.
32. ↑ Narada: The Buddha and his Teachings. Jaico Publishing House, 2006, ISBN 81-7992-617-6 , pp. 280ff. ; Gottfried Orth: The earth - a life-friendly place for everyone. Lit Verlag, 2002, ISBN 3-8258-6338-7 , p. 43.
33. ↑ Perry Schmidt-Leukel: Theology of Religions: Problems, Options, Arguments. Ars Una, 1997, ISBN 3-89391-451-X , p. 216; Ernst Feuerbaum: Evolution of Religions and Religiosity: Mirror of Human Development. 2011, ISBN 3-8448-6962-X , p. 128.
34. ↑ Palikanon.com: Majjhima Nikāya 21: The Parable of the Saw - Kakacūpama Sutta
35. ↑ Helmuth von Glasenapp (ed.): Buddha - path to enlightenment. A Buddhist reader. Bastei Lübbe, 2000, ISBN 3-404-70154-2 .
36. ↑ Mudagamuwe Maithrimurthi: Benevolence, compassion, joy and equanimity: an examination of the history of ideas of the four apramanas in Buddhist ethics and spirituality. Franz Steiner, 1999, ISBN 3-515-07380-9 , p. 165 and note 63
37. ^ Palikanon.com: Visuddhi Magga IX. The divine abiding states (brahma-vihāra): 1. The development of goodness (mettā-bhavanā).
38. ^ Inoue Nobutaka and others: New religions: State of their research in Japan: A handbook. 1995, ISBN 3-447-03508-0 , p. 118 and note 19
39. ↑ Richard Garbe: India and Christianity: An investigation of the religious-historical connections. (1914) Unchanged reprint: Kessinger Pub Co, 2009, ISBN 1-120-47687-9 , pp. 10f.
40. ↑ Michael von Brück, Whalen Lai, Hans Küng: Buddhism and Christianity. History, confrontation, dialogue. CH Beck, Munich 2000, ISBN 3-406-46796-2 , p. 166.
41. ↑ Ilkwaen Chung: Paradox of world-shaping world renunciation in Buddhism: An approach from the point of view of René Girard's mimetic theory. Lit Verlag, 2010, ISBN 3-643-50129-3 , p. 98.
42. ↑ Hans Gleixner: "If God does not exist ...": On the relationship between religion and ethics. Schöningh, Paderborn 2005, ISBN 3-506-72931-4 , p. 198.
43. ↑ Thich Nhat Hanh: Jesus and Buddha - A Dialogue of Love. (2000) Herder, Stuttgart 2010, ISBN 3-451-06113-9 ; received by Joachim Burkhardt: Das Fest des Daseins. Lit Verlag, 2005, ISBN 3-8258-8710-3 , p. 17.
44. ↑ Dalai Lama: The heart of all religions is one. The teaching of Jesus from a Buddhist point of view. Hoffmann and Campe, 4th edition. Hamburg 1998, ISBN 3-455-11125-4 , pp. 102-114.
45. ↑ Victor Chan: Dalai Lama: The Wisdom of Forgiveness: A Guide to Our Time. Bastei Lübbe, 2007, ISBN 3-404-66410-8 ( online in the Google book search)
46. ↑ Dalai Lama: Think with the heart: Compassion and intelligence are the basis of human interaction. Fischer, 2nd edition. Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-596-16457-5 , pp. 58-63 ( book excerpt online ( memento of March 2, 2014 in the Internet Archive )); Dalai Lama: The Little Book of Right Living. Herder, Freiburg 2003, ISBN 3-451-04949-X (Chapter 2, Section 3: "Making the 'enemy' a teacher")
47. ↑ Michael von Brück (ed.): Because we are people full of hope: Conversations with the XIV. Dalai Lama. Christian Kaiser, Munich 1988, ISBN 3-459-01742-2 , pp. 12-14.
48. ↑ For evidence see part 5.1, first paragraph
49. ↑ Gerhard Schneider: Jesus Tradition and Christology: New Testament Essays 1970–1990. Leiden 1991, p. 175.
50. ↑ Christoph Burchard: The double commandment of love in the early Christian tradition. In: Eduard Lohse et al. (Ed.): The call of Jesus and the answer of the church. Exegetical research. Dedicated to Joachim Jeremias on the occasion of his 70th birthday by his students. Göttingen 1979, pp. 39-62; Gerd Theißen, Anette Merz: The historical Jesus , 4th edition, Göttingen 2011, pp. 340–347.
51. ↑ Hans Gleixner: "If God does not exist ...": On the relationship between religion and ethics. Paderborn 2005, p. 197, note 560
52. ↑ Gerhard Schneider: Jesus Tradition and Christology: New Testament Essays 1970–1990. Leiden 1991, p. 176.
53. ↑ Hans-Josef Klauck, Werner Georg Kümmel (ed.): Jewish writings from the Hellenistic-Roman period: instruction in an instructive form. Volume III / 6, Gerd Mohn, Gütersloh 1974, p. 697.
54. ↑ all the following quotations from Gerd Theißen, Annette Merz: The historical Jesus: A textbook. 4th edition. 2001, p. 343.
55. ↑ Albrecht Lohrbächer u. a. (Ed.): What Christians can learn from Judaism. Impetus, materials, designs. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, p. 172.
56. ↑ Martin Buber : The stories of the Hasidim. Manesse Verlag, 1949, pp. 267 and 443
57. ↑ Georg Herlitz, Bruno Kirschner (ed.): Jüdisches Lexikon: an encyclopaedic manual of Jewish knowledge in four volumes with over 2000 illustrations, supplements, maps and tables. Volume 4, Part 2. (1927) New edition, Jüdischer Verlag, 1982, ISBN 3-7610-0370-6 , p. 614 f.
58. ^ David Flusser: A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message. Harvard Theological Review 61/1968, p. 126.
59. ↑ Andreas Nissen: God and the neighbor in ancient Judaism. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 1974, ISBN 3-16-135122-3 , p. 304.
60. ↑ Pinchas Lapide: How do you love your enemies? Broadcast by SWF Stuttgart on October 9, 1983. In: Albrecht Lohrbächer u. a. (Ed.): What Christians can learn from Judaism. Impetus, materials, designs . Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, p. 173.
61. ^ Jürgen Becker: Enemy love - charity - brotherly love. In: Jürgen Becker: Approaches: On the early Christian history of theology and dealing with its sources: Selected essays. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1995, ISBN 3-11-014551-0 , p. 383.
62. ↑ Dieter Lührmann: Love your enemies! Lk 6.27-36 / Mt 5.39-48. In: Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche (ZThK) 69/1972, pp. 412–438.
63. ↑ ^{a b c} Love IV: New Testament. In: Gerhard Müller, Horst Balz (Hrsg.): Theologische Realenzyklopädie, study edition Part II. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1999, ISBN 3-11-016295-4 , p. 141.
64. ^ ^{A b} Jürgen Becker: Enemy love - charity - brotherly love. In: Jürgen Becker: Approaches: On the early Christian history of theology and dealing with its sources: Selected essays. Berlin 1995, p. 384.
65. ↑ Roland Bergmeier: The law in Romans and other studies on the New Testament. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 2000, ISBN 3-16-147196-2 , p. 126.
66. ^ Stanley Stowers: Friends and Enemies in the Politics of Heaven. In: Jouette M. Bassler (Ed.): Pauline Theology, Vol. I: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon. Augsburg Fortress Publishers, Minneapolis 1994, pp. 105-121.
67. ↑ Stephan Ernst: Basic questions of theological ethics: An introduction. Kösel, 2009, ISBN 3-466-36809-X , p. 84.
68. ↑ Walter Dietrich, Moises Mayordomo, Claudia Henne-Einsele: Violence and overcoming violence in the Bible. Theological Verlag, Zurich 2005, ISBN 3-290-17341-0 , p. 204.
69. ↑ Wolfgang Huber: The Christian Faith: An Evangelical Orientation. Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 5th edition. 2008, ISBN 3-579-06449-5 , p. 115 f.
70. ↑ Roland Bergmeier: The law in Romans and other studies on the New Testament. Tübingen 2000, p. 126 ; Dagmar Henze: Anti-Judaism in the New Testament? Basics for working with biblical texts. Christian Kaiser, Munich 1997, ISBN 3-579-05149-0 , p. 65 f.
71. ↑ Christian Dietzfelbinger: The Gospel according to Johannes: 2 volumes. Theological Verlag, 2001, ISBN 3-290-14743-6 , p. 273 f.
72. ↑ Enno E. Popkes: The theology of the love of God in the Johannine writings: studies on the semantics of love and on the motifs of dualism. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 2005, ISBN 3-16-148669-2 , p. 132.
73. ↑ Rainer Metzner: The reception of the Gospel of Matthew in 1. Peter. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 1995, ISBN 3-16-146378-1 , p. 79.
74. ↑ Walter Bauer: The commandment to love one's enemies and the old Christians. (1917) In: Georg Strecker (Ed.): Walter Bauer: Essays and Small Writings. Tübingen 1967, pp. 235-252. Lecture with Gerd Theißen: Studies on the Sociology of Early Christianity. Tübingen 1989, p. 190 and note 67
75. ↑ Wilfried Nippel: "War as a manifestation of enmity." In: Reinhard Mehring: Carl Schmitt: The concept of the political: A cooperative comment. Oldenbourg Akademieverlag, Munich 2003, ISBN 3-05-003687-7 , p. 65.
76. ↑ Gerhard Schneider: Jesus Tradition and Christology: New Testament Essays 1970–1990. Brill Academic Publishings, 1991, ISBN 90-04-09555-1 , p. 178.
77. ↑ Reinhard Feldmeier: Salt of the earth. Approaches to the Sermon on the Mount. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1998, ISBN 3-525-61358-X , p. 123 .; Kurt Nowak: Adolf von Harnack as a contemporary, 2 volumes. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1996, ISBN 3-11-013799-2 , p. 180.
78. ↑ Volker Lukas: Rhetoric and literary struggle: Tertullian's pamphlet against Marcion as a paradigm of self-assurance of orthodoxy against heresy. A philological-theological analysis. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2008, ISBN 3-631-56698-0 , p. 255.
79. ↑ Dieter Janssen, Michael Quante (ed.): Just war: the history of ideas, legal philosophical and ethical contributions. Mentis, 2003, ISBN 3-89785-304-3 , p. 15.
80. ^ Pierre Maraval: Liebe V. In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie Volume 21, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1991, p. 149.
81. ↑ Anton Rietter: The morality of St. Thomas Aquinas. Lentner, 1858, pp. 338 and 405; Stephen J. Pope: The Ethics of Aquinas. Georgetown University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-87840-888-6 , pp. 252f. and p. 257, note 28
82. ↑ Miriam Rose: Fides caritate formata: The relationship between faith and love in the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2007, ISBN 3-525-56342-6 , p. 245.
83. ↑ Oswald Bayer: Martin Luther's Theology: A Verification. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 2007, p. 291.
84. ↑ Hans-Joachim Gänssler: Gospel and secular sword. Verlag von Zabern, 1983, ISBN 3-515-03866-3 , p. 64; see. Albrecht Peters: Law and Gospel. In: Carl H. Ratschow, Albrecht Peters (ed.): Handbuch Systematischer Theologie Volume 2: Law and Gospel. (1981) Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2nd edition. Gütersloh 1994, ISBN 3-579-04912-7 , p. 45.
85. ↑ Volker Mantey: Two Swords - Two Realms: Martin Luther's two-realms doctrine against its late medieval background. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 2005, ISBN 3-16-148585-8 , p. 247 and note 73
86. ↑ Martin Luther: From secular authorities and how far one owes their obedience. (1523) In: Kurt von Aland, Michael Welte (Hrsg.): Luther Deutsch: the works of Martin Luther in a new selection for the present, Volume 7. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991, ISBN 3-525-55607-1 , p. 48.
87. ^ Hans-Jürgen Goertz: Fragments of radical theology today. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2010, ISBN 3-525-56005-2 , p. 116.
88. ↑ Thomas Staubli: Companion through the First Testament. Patmos-Verlag, 2nd edition. Düsseldorf 1999, p. 139; Karl Willy Beer: The Political Opinion. Issues 296–301. Verlag Staat und Gesellschaft, 1994, p. 372.
89. ↑ Konrad Lomb: Catholic example book. Or: Christian Catholic morality in examples. A handbook for preachers, catechists, and religion teachers. At the same time a Christian house and family book. Verlag G. Joseph Manz, Regensburg 1841, p. 222f.
90. ^ Konrad Martin: Textbook of Catholic Morals. F. Kirchheim, 5th enlarged and improved edition. Mainz 1865, pp. 362-364.
91. ↑ Günther Bernd Ginzel (Ed.): Auschwitz as a challenge for Jews and Christians. Lambert Schneider, 2nd edition. 1993, p. 255.
92. ↑ Carl Schmitt: The concept of the political (1927), p. 29 f .; quoted by Reinhard Mehring: Carl Schmitt: The concept of the political: a cooperative comment. Munich 2003, p. 64f.
93. ↑ Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner: At a loss before the enemy. In: Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner (Ed.): Illusions of brotherhood. The need to have enemies. Munich 1980, p. 7 f .; Lecture by Johann Baptist Müller: Conservatism and Foreign Policy. Duncker & Humblot, 1988, ISBN 3-428-06515-8 , p. 36.
94. ↑ Heinrich Jürgen Behring: Christ for us today: Dietrich Bonhoeffer read, interpret, think ahead. Karin Fischer, Aachen, 2009, ISBN 3-89514-851-2 , p. 18. (Christ existing as a community), 19 (Martin Luther's influence), p. 28. (Karl Barth's influence), p. 148. (Dasein for others in the mature world)
95. ↑ Heinrich Jürgen Behring: Christ for us today: Dietrich Bonhoeffer read, interpret, think ahead. Aachen 2009, p. 32.
96. ↑ Eberhard Bethge: Dietrich Bonhoeffer. A biography. Christian Kaiser Verlag, Munich 1967, ISBN 3-459-01182-3 , pp. 138, 379-381, 468-482; Larry L. Rasmussen: Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and Resistance. Westminster Press, 2005, ISBN 0-664-23011-3 , pp. 213 f.
97. ↑ Heinrich Jürgen Behring: Christ for us today: Dietrich Bonhoeffer read, interpret, think ahead. Aachen 2009, p. 42f.
98. ↑ Heinrich Jürgen Behring: Christ for us today: Dietrich Bonhoeffer read, interpret, think ahead. Aachen 2009, pp. 44-50.
99. ↑ Heinrich Jürgen Behring: Christ for us today: Dietrich Bonhoeffer read, interpret, think ahead. Aachen 2009, p. 51f.
100. ↑ Eberhard Bethge, Martin Kuske, Ilse Tödt (ed.): Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke Volume 4: Succession. (1937) Christian Kaiser, new edition, Munich 1989, ISBN 3-459-01815-1 , pp. 142–144.
101. ↑ Heinrich Jürgen Behring: Christ for us today: Dietrich Bonhoeffer read, interpret, think ahead. Aachen 2009, p. 148.
102. ↑ Georg Steins, Franz G. Untergaßmair: The book without which one understands nothing. Lit Verlag, 2006, ISBN 3-8258-7969-0 , p. 183.
103. ^ Clayborne Carson: The Papers of Martin Luther King, JR .: Volume I: Called to Serve, January 1929-June 1951. University of California Press, 1992, ISBN 0-520-07950-7 , pp. 43 f. and note 135
104. ^ Bhikhu Parekh: Gandhi (Brief Insight). Sterling Publishings, 2010, ISBN 1-4027-6887-7 , p. 101.
105. ^ Hans Dollinger : Martin Luther King. Freedom! The departure of the negroes of North America. The theses of non-violence. (1964) Heyne, Munich 1968, p. 74; quoted by Wolfgang Sternheim (ed., translator): Mahatma Gandhi: For pacifists. Lit Verlag, 1995, ISBN 3-8258-2136-6 , p. 110.
106. ^ Bhikhu Parekh: Gandhi (Brief Insight). 2010, p. 103.
107. ↑ Wolfgang Mieder: "Making a Way Out of No Way": Martin Luther King's Sermonic Proverbial Rhetoric. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2010, ISBN 1-4331-1303-1 , p. 67ff.
108. ↑ Martin Luther King: Loving your enemies (Atlanta, August 31, 1952; PDF; 200 kB)
109. ↑ Martin Luther King (November 17, 1957): Loving Your Enemies
110. ↑ Martin Luther King, Jr. (Montgomery, Alabama, December 24, 1957): Loving Your Enemies
111. ^ The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Center (Jan. 18, 2011): King's inspiration: Mohandas K. Gandhi
112. ↑ American Experience: Interview by Kenneth Clarke with Malcolm X, Boston 1963 (transcript)
113. ^ Peter Goldman: The Death and Life of Malcolm X. University of Illinois Press, 1979, ISBN 0-252-00774-3 , p. 117.
114. ↑ American Experience: Interview by Kenneth Clarke with Martin Luther King, Boston 1963 (transcript)
115. ^ Referenced by Christopher Rowland, Mark Corner: Liberating Exegesis: The Challenge of Liberation Theology to Biblical Studies. Westminster Press, 2002, ISBN 0-664-25084-X , pp. 173-175 and pp. 186 f.
116. ↑ Georg Strecker: The Sermon on the Mount. An exegetical comment. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1985, ISBN 3-525-56169-5 , p. 184.
117. ↑ Klaus Haacker: Love of enemy versus love of neighbor? Comments on a widespread confrontation between Christianity and Judaism. In: Frank Matheus (ed.): "I created this people for myself to proclaim my fame." Dieter Vetter on his 60th birthday. Duisburg 1992, ISBN 3-928925-00-8 , pp. 47-51.
118. ↑ Peter Stuhlmacher: Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Volume 1, 2nd edition. Göttingen 1997, p. 99.
119. ↑ Wolfgang Stegemann: Jesus and his time. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2010, ISBN 978-3-17-012339-7 , pp. 290f.
120. ↑ Gerd Theißen: Renunciation of violence and love of enemies (Mt 5.38-48 / Lk 6.27-38) and their socio-historical background. In: Gerd Theißen: Studies on the sociology of early Christianity. Tübingen 1989, pp. 176-180.
121. ↑ Gerd Theißen: From Jesus to the early Christian world of signs: New Testament boundaries in dialogue. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2011, ISBN 3-525-55023-5 , p. 44.
122. ↑ Wilfried Nippel: "War as a manifestation of enmity." In: Reinhard Mehring: Carl Schmitt: The concept of the political: A cooperative comment. Munich 2003, p. 65.
123. ↑ Werner Wolbert: What should we do? Biblical direction and ethical reflection. Academic Press, Freiburg 2005, ISBN 3-7278-1534-5 , pp. 78-83.
124. ↑ Wolfgang Huber: The Christian Faith: An Evangelical Orientation. Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 5th edition. Gütersloh 2008, ISBN 3-579-06449-5 , pp. 204ff.
125. ↑ Martin Honecker: Evangelical ethics as ethics of differentiation: With a complete bibliography by Martin Honecker. Lit Verlag, 2010, ISBN 3-643-10526-6 , quotation p. 292.
126. ↑ Dietz Lange: Doctrine of Faith Volume 2: Ethics in a Protestant Perspective. Basics of Christian lifestyle. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 2001, ISBN 3-16-147660-3 , p. 36.
127. ↑ Pinchas Lapide: How do you love your enemies? Radio lecture, Stuttgart 1983, quoted by Albrecht Lohrbächer, Helmut Ruppel, Ingrid Schmidt (eds.): What Christians can learn from Judaism: ideas, materials, drafts. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, ISBN 3-17-018133-5 , p. 173.
128. ↑ Dieter Witschen: More than duty: studies on supererogatory actions and ethical ideals. Academic Press, Freiburg 2006, ISBN 3-7278-1547-7 , p. 19.
129. ↑ Wilfried Härle: Ethics. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2011, p. 184.
130. ↑ Rainer Metzner: The reception of the Gospel of Matthew in 1. Peter. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 1995, p. 86f. and note 99; Quote: Note 101
131. ↑ Traugott Koch: Jesus of Nazareth, the Man of God: A present reflection. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 2004, ISBN 3-16-148404-5 , pp. 203-209.
132. ↑ Hans Gleixner: "If God does not exist ...": On the relationship between religion and ethics. Paderborn 2005, p. 204f.
133. ↑ Trutz Rendtorff, Reiner Anselm, Stephan Schleissing: Ethics: Basic elements, methodology and concretions of an ethical theology. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, ISBN 3-16-150715-0 , 533ff.
134. ↑ Uwe Birnstein: Small Lexicon of Christian Errors: From Last Supper to speaking in tongues. Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Gütersloh 2011, ISBN 3-579-06555-6 , p. 36f.
135. ↑ Gerhard Schneider: Jesus Tradition and Christology: New Testament Essays 1970–1990. Brill Academic Publishings, 1991, ISBN 90-04-09555-1 , p. 174.
136. ↑ Gerd Theißen: Studies on the sociology of early Christianity. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 1989, p. 196.
137. ↑ quoted from Gerhard Wilczek: Small world history of philosophy. 2004, ISBN 3-8334-0600-3 , p. 56.
138. ↑ Bernard Kaempf, Johann Zürcher (ed.): Albert Schweitzer: Works from the estate: History of Chinese thought. CH Beck, Munich 2002, ISBN 3-406-48181-7 , p. 212.
139. ↑ E.g. in Carl Hebler: Philosophical Essays , Bern 1869, p. 67 .; Rudolf Steinmetz (Ed.): The legacy of Socrates: Scientists in dialogue about pacification of the world. Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1986, ISBN 3-423-10577-1 , p. 9; Wolfgang Lienemann: Violence and renunciation of violence: studies on the occidental prehistory of the current perception of violence. Christian Kaiser, Munich 1982, ISBN 3-459-01388-5 , p. 63.
140. ↑ Cicero: De officiis , Book I, No. 88; Translation by Rainer Lohmann ( Memento from May 1, 2015 in the Internet Archive ); compared with love for enemies in Werner Wolbert: What should we do? Biblical direction and ethical reflection. Academic Press, Freiburg 2005, ISBN 3-7278-1534-5 , p. 83 and note 36
141. ↑ Georg Strecker: The Sermon on the Mount. An exegetical comment. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1985, ISBN 3-525-56169-5 , p. 94.
142. ↑ Rainer Nickel (Ed.): Epictetus: Instructions for a happy life. Encheiridion (Handbook of Morals). Artemis & Winkler, Düsseldorf 2006, ISBN 3-7608-1747-5 , p. 77; Lecture by Uwe J. Olligschläger: The health of the soul: Socrates - Seneca - Epictetus: Ancient thinking, modern cognitive psychotherapy and the biochemistry of our thoughts. Lit Verlag, 2011, ISBN 3-643-11316-1 , p. 107, note 59
143. ↑ Gerd Theißen: Studies on the sociology of early Christianity. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 1989, p. 188.
144. ↑ Mark Aurel: Self-Contemplations. Philipp Reclam jun., 1986, ISBN 3-15-001241-4 (Sixth Book No. 6; Seventh Book No. 21-22); Lecture at Hans Gleixner: "If God does not exist ...": On the relationship between religion and ethics. Paderborn 2005, p. 199, note 567
145. ↑ Werner Wolbert: What should we do? Biblical direction and ethical reflection. Freiburg 2005, p. 83f.
146. ↑ Immanuel Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals . Metaphysical foundations of the doctrine of virtue § 39, Academy Edition, Volume VI, 463
147. ↑ Rudolf Langthaler: Kant's ethics as a system of purposes: perspectives of a modified idea of ​​“moral teleology” and ethical theology. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1991, ISBN 3-11-012620-6 , pp. 85f. and note 159
148. ^ Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche: On the genealogy of morality . A polemic. 1. Treatise No. 13 (1887, KSA 5, 279) tredition, 2011, ISBN 3-8424-1500-1 , p. 31 f.
149. ↑ Marcus Andreas Born: Love your enemies! Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In: Renate Reschke: Images - Language - Arts: Nietzsche's figures of thought in context. Oldenbourg Akademieverlag, Munich 2011, ISBN 3-05-005089-6 , p. 169.
150. ↑ Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer (Ed.): Max Weber: The business ethics of world religions. Confucianism and Taoism: Writings 1915–1920. Mohr / Siebeck, 1991, ISBN 3-16-145626-2 , p. 213.
151. ↑ Sigmund Freud: The unease in culture and other writings on culture theory. Fischer, 2001, ISBN 3-596-10453-X , pp. 29-108 ( Chapter V online )
152. ↑ Mao Tse-tung: Speeches during the Yenan debate on literature and art (May 2, 1942). In: Mao Tse Tung: Selected Works Volume III. Publishing house for foreign language literature, Beijing 1969, pp. 75–110 ( online excerpt )
153. ↑ Irving Hexham, Stephen Rost, John W. Morehead: Encountering New Religious Movements: A Holistic Evangelical Approach. Kregel, 2004, ISBN 0-8254-2893-9 , p. 254.
154. ↑ Paul Ricœur: Love and Justice. Tübingen 1990, ISBN 3-16-145576-2 ; The mystery of the past: remembering, forgetting, forgiving. (1998) Wallstein, 4th edition. 2004, ISBN 3-89244-333-5 ; lectures at Kurt Wolf: Philosophy of the gift: Meditations on love in contemporary French philosophy. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, p. 88 f.
155. ↑ Hans Küng, Angela Rinn-Maurer: Global ethic understood as a Christian. Herder, 2005, ISBN 3-451-28850-8 , p. 76.
156. ^ Francisco Suarez: Selected texts on international law: Latin text with German translation. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 1965, ISBN 3-16-611212-X , p. 121.
157. ^ Johann Caspar Bluntschli: The modern international law of the civilized states presented as a legal book. Nördlingen 1869, introduction p. 36.
158. ↑ Joachim Köhler (Ed.): Georg Smolka: Occidental Unity, European Reality: selected essays and lectures. New edition, J. Thorbecke, 1986, ISBN 3-7995-7029-2 , p. 243; Wolfgang Huber, Hans-Richard Reuter: Peace ethics. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1990, ISBN 3-17-009604-4 .
159. ^ Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker: The intelligent love of enemies. Article in the Deutsches Allgemeine Sonntagsblatt, November 1980; reprinted in: The Threatened Peace: political essays 1945–1981. (1981) Hanser, Munich 1994, ISBN 3-446-17697-7 , pp. 533-538.
160. ↑ Der Spiegel, October 26, 1981: We live in a collective paranoia: Professor Horst Eberhard Richter on the goals and opportunities of the peace movement
161. ^ Franz Alt: Peace is possible: the politics of the Sermon on the Mount. Piper, new edition, Munich 1983, ISBN 3-492-00584-5 , pp. 36 and 88
162. ↑ Freimut Duve (ed.): The retrofitting debate in the German Bundestag: Minutes of a historical decision. Rowohlt, Reinbek 1987, ISBN 3-499-15433-1 , p. 283.
163. ↑ Wolfgang Huber: Enmity and Enemy Love. Notes on the problem of the enemy in evangelical theology. In: Journal for Protestant Ethics, Volume 26, Gütersloh 1982, p. 128.
164. ↑ Book presentation: NATO double decision and peace movement. Retrieved January 12, 2020 . 
165. ↑ quoted by Gernot Erler, Sören Widmann, Uli Jäger (Berghof Foundation, 2012): Nuclear weapons and their problems: I. Theological recollection ( Memento from February 8, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
166. ^ Statutes of the German section of pax christi ( Memento of June 3, 2012 in the Internet Archive ); Pax Christi Austria: About us
167. ↑ Hans Gressel (Life without armor / Internationaler Versöhnungsbund: Hrsg.): The role of the churches in the resistance to war. Social defense as a nonviolent alternative to military defense. Uetersen 1988.
168. ↑ World Council of Churches (WCC), April 14, 2011: An Ecumenical Call for Just Peace - Accompanying Document (PDF; 1.1 MB)
169. ↑ Dr. J. Jakob Fehr (German Mennonite Peace Committee): The duty to deal with evil. A criticism of Responsibility to Protect from the point of view of Church and Peace ( Memento of March 2, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 198 kB)
170. ↑ Marie Noelle von der Recke (Church and Peace): Comments on the EKD's memorial for peace from the perspective of the peace church (PDF, especially p. 1 and 3; 133 kB)
171. ^ Franz Alt, Rudolf Bahro, Marko Ferst: Paths to the ecological turn of the century: Reform alternatives and visions for a sustainable cultural system. 2002, ISBN 3-8311-3419-7 , p. 153.
172. ↑ "Help us to stop the arms trade!" Interview with Prof. Dr. Margot Käßmann, patron of the campaign Aktion Aufschrei - Stop the arms trade! (PDF; 395 kB)
173. ↑ Jean Lasserre, Dietlinde Haug, Matthias Engelke, Thomas Nauerth (eds.): Christianity before the question of violence: The hour has come to rethink. Lit Verlag, Münster 2010, p. 105.
174. ↑ Paul R. Tarmann: Human rights, ethics and peacekeeping: Karl Lugmayer's approach to personal philosophy. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, 2009, ISBN 3-631-58735-X , p. 123 .; Ernst Otto Czempiel: Priorities and goals of peace research. Christian Kaiser, Munich 1972, ISBN 3-459-00781-8 , p. 109.
175. ↑ Berthold Meyer: Conflict Regulation and Peace Strategies: An Introduction. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2011, p. 103.
176. ↑ Wolfgang Sternstein: Nonviolence as a Revolutionary Principle: Twelve Theses. (1971) Swiss Federation of Reconciliation, new edition 1981.
177. ^ Theodor Ebert: Social Defense I. Historical experiences and principles of strategy. Waldkircher Verlag, Waldkirchen, July 1996, ISBN 3-87885-053-0 .
178. ^ Theodor Ebert: Civil disobedience. Waldkircher Verlagsgesellschaft, 1984, ISBN 3-87885-056-5 , p. 227.
179. ^ Johan Galtung: Peace by peaceful means. Opladen, Leske and Budrich (1998); New paths to peace - conflicts from 45 years: diagnosis, prognosis, therapy. Federation for Social Defense, Minden 2003.
180. ↑ Martin Arnold: Gütekraft: A basic model of the mode of action of successful non-violent conflict resolution according to Hildegard Goss-Mayr, Mohandas K. Gandhi and Bart de Ligt. (Complete study) (PDF; 8.2 MB)
181. ^ Marshall B. Rosenberg: Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. (2001) Junfermann, 9th edition. Paderborn 2007, ISBN 3-87387-454-7 , p. 212.
182. ↑ Jonathan Schell: The Politics of Peace. Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich / Vienna 2004, ISBN 3-446-20482-2 , pp. 122 and 207
183. ↑ Jonathan Schell: The Politics of Peace. Munich / Vienna 2004, p. 231.
184. ^ Hauke ​​Friederichs (Die Zeit, August 27, 2010: Love of enemies in the Afghan war zone ) ; Tagesspiegel, April 8, 2012: "Loving one's enemy is an imposition, I am also aware of that"
185. ↑ Höppner, Dr. Reinhard: Closing speech for the 31st German Protestant Church Congress (Sunday, June 10, 2007, 10:00 a.m.) ( Memento from September 27, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF, p. 2; 32 kB)
186. ↑ Die Welt am Sonntag, July 1, 2007: "Terrorists at the negotiating table"
187. ^ Metta Center for Nonviolence: Love your Enemy (September 2011); Campaign details (PDF; 107 kB)
188. ^ Alistair McFadyen (University of Leeds): On Having Enemies: Torture, Terror, Policing

This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on August 29, 2005 .