Do[n't Do] Unto Others

A couple years back I participated in a number of seminars focused on interpreting the New Testament in light of the literature of Second Temple Judaism. One presenter discussed positive and negative forms of “the golden rule”: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It was noted that most often in the literature the rule appears in a negative form: don’t do to others what you would not like them to do to you.

Some have proposed that the negative form is more limited since it merely discourages doing harm to others rather than doing service for them. As such, the negative version may lend itself to a more restrictive application (e.g., “hey, I didn’t hurt anyone”). Others have proposed that the two forms imply each other. I could see the positive formulation implying the negative, though the obverse is more difficult to manage (it seems to me).

It was suggested that one way to see the positive implied in the negative was in the form of the following construal: If my vehicle were disabled on the motorway, I wouldn’t want to be ignored; therefore, I shouldn’t ignore someone broken down on the motorway. However, I suspect this is little more than a quick translation of the positive with a double negative: notice how the contraction of should not coupled with ignore (= to take no notice of). Of course, such an ad hoc translation is quite understandable.

One person suggested that the negative form of the rule is expressive of a more legalistic religion of prohibitions. I doubt that necessarily is the case, as I’ll explain below. It was noted that in the Early Church Fathers one usually encounters the negative version, and that the Fathers typically attribute it to Jesus, though we only have the positive version recorded in the gospels. One person suggested that perhaps Jesus did speak the negative version, though we don’t have a record of it in the canonical gospels. Indeed, Jesus certainly said many things that are not recorded in the gospels (given that they are selective accounts); and probably what is recorded was said multiple times in different ways (which may explain some of the variations we encounter in the gospels).

As the conversation progressed, I pondered the significance between the positive and negative versions of the golden rule. As I did, I decided to add my thoughts to the conversation. I noted that as a father, I’ve instructed my children with the golden rule (in its positive form), hoping to encourage them toward virtuous generosity toward others. But I’ve also instructed them with the negative form of the rule. This has occurred when I’ve had to correct them for some wrongdoing: You should not do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you. I noted that I’m quite certain I’ve stated the negative version and attributed it to Jesus, just as we find in the Early Church Fathers. (That brought some chuckles from the group.)

Then there arose some convergence of opinion that the negative version is quite easily derived from the positive version if one is addressing a context of correction (viz., "You should not do that..."). And perhaps that would explain the negative version as found among the Early Church Fathers. (It is worth investigating.) In the end, my own practical experience in instructing my children provided what seems to me (and to some others) a rather meaningful way of approaching the historical, theological and moral questions attending the positive and negative versions of the golden rule.