THE GOLDEN RULE: A NON-CHRISTIAN STANDARD

NICK NORELLI

People will often appeal to the Golden Rule as a moral standard for all humanity to follow. The
idea is that we should treat everyone the way wed like to be treated, or to state it negatively, we
shouldnt treat anyone in any way that we wouldnt want to be treated. The problem with this
idea is that we all have different desires and that can in turn affect how we treat others. To give a
brief (but extreme) example, I recently learned of the murder-suicide of a couple that I went to
high school with. Apparently, the husband murdered his wife with a hammer before killing
himself with a knife. Its not unreasonable to think that the husbands desire to take his own life
could have been at the root of his desire to take his wifes life. Again, this is an extreme example,
and I can only speculate concerning the motives of this tragedy, but its not out of the realm of
plausibility. The point is that everyone doesnt want good things for themselves and that could in
turn lead to them doing bad things to others.

Some people might object and say that Jesus taught the Golden Rule. The classic texts that
people suppose the Golden Rule is taught in are Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 where Jesus said:
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you (TNIV), while Matthew
has the additional phrase, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. The eminent Historical
Jesus scholar John Meier argues vehemently against the idea that Jesus taught the Golden Rule,
and in principle I agree with him, although we arrive at our conclusions in very different ways.
He relies heavily on the hypothetical sayings source that scholars refer to as Q (short for
Quelle, which is German for source)1, which I dont believe to have actually existed. Meier
likewise suggests that the words commonly interpreted as the Golden Rule were never uttered by
Jesus but were instead inserted by later Jewish Christians. I also disagree with this since I believe
Jesus actually said the words attributed to him but Id argue that they should be read in light of
everything that he said. Well come back to this in a moment.

Meier makes a great point in discussing the consistency of the Golden Rule with Jesus
legal/ethical/moral demands when he says:

One might even argue that the Golden Rule is not consistent with Jesus
legal/ethical/moral demands. In other words, it cannot even meet the criterion of
coherence. A number of sayings attributed to Jesus-notably in the Q block
mirrored in Luke 6:27-36-indicate that Jesus criticized the ethic of reciprocity
(hand washes hand) common in the Greco-Roman world. But the Golden Rule
is one expression, however refined and elegantly formulated, of precisely such an
1
Basically the idea is that Mark wrote his Gospel first and where Matthew and Luke agree with Mark they copied
from him, but where they agree with each other but not Mark they copied from a sayings source that is lost to us.
 ethic of reciprocity. The jarring juxtaposition of Jesus critique of reciprocity and
the Golden Rules extolling of reciprocity in Luke 6:31-36 (and probably in Q) is
dear to anyone who reads these verses aloud and in sequence. No sooner does
Jesus trumpet the Golden Rule in v 31 than he continues: And if you love those
who love you, what credit do you gain? For even the sinners love those who love
them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit do you gain?
Even the sinners do the same. And if you give loans to those from whom you
hope to receive repayment, what credit do you gain? Even sinners lend to sinners
in hope of getting back the same amount. Instead, love your enemies and do good
and lend, expecting nothing in return.2

Jesus teaching is not simply the tit for tat that is implied in the Golden Rule. Matthew 7:12/Luke
6:31 need to be read in light of all that he said, especially about the greatest commandments (see
Matt. 22:37-40 and Luke 10:27-28 where the commands appear on the lips of the lawyer whom
Jesus questions but Jesus responds with approval). Here Jesus tells us that the greatest
commandments are first to love the Lord your God with all our heart and with all our soul and
with all our mind and second to love our neighbors as ourselves. Matthew clearly connects this
with Jesus earlier statement about doing to others what wed have them do to us by saying that
all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. (Matt. 22:40) The point is that
our actions toward others must be done in love rather than in the simple desire to do to others
what we want done to ourselves and this love for others and self is rooted and grounded first and
foremost in love for God. R. E. O. White certainly had it right when he said that As in the Old
Testament, so for Jesus ethics derives from a right relationship with God, rendering obedience
filial.3 Without a right relationship with God, which comes only through love and obedience,
well never have a right relationship with our neighbors. The Golden Rule has no such grounding
as Meier insightfully observes:

The authority of the Golden Rule rests neither on God giving a command nor on
any religious figure announcing Gods command. Rather, the Golden Rule
presupposes human autonomy in moral matters. In following the Golden Rule, an
individual decides how he or she wishes to be treated and then makes that the
standard for treating others. It is therefore not by accident that there is no
reference to God, explicit or implicit, in the Golden Rule. The rule makes as much
sense to an atheist as to a Jew or a Christian, and is equally practicable. Hence,
unless the designation love commandment loses its plain meaning (which it

2
John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 4: Law and Love (AYBRL; New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2009), 556.
3
R. E. O. White, Ethics, in Baker Theological Dictionary of the Bible (ed., Walter A. Elwell; Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 1996), 215.
 unfortunately does in many commentaries), the Golden Rule does not belong in
this category.4

And this is precisely why the Golden Rule cannot serve as a Christian ethical/moral standard (or
even an absolute standard). Its not a love commandment; its devoid of God and dependent
upon human autonomy: the individual decides and then makes that the standard. But hear
White again:

Human ethics, based on philosophical, sociological or psychological premises, or

intuitive responses to isolated situations, attain only a consensus of good advice
acceptable to people already virtuous in intention. Such moral counsel lacks
permanence, authority, and motive power. Biblical ethics, deriving from
knowledge and experience of God but forged always in historical real-life
situations, problems and needs, reveals unchanging absolutes, inarguable
authority, effective motivation, and redemptive power. The Old Testament
emphasizes that Gods requirements enshrine the secrets of total human welfare;
the New Testament points to the man Jesus Christ and his intensely human story
as the embodiment of the ultimate ideal. Thus biblical ethics prove more truly
human in the end, enshrining the Creators intention for his highest creatures.5

Amen!

4
Meier, 551-52.
5
White, 216.