Luke 6:31 — How This Verse Has Been Interpreted

The Verse

Text (KJV): "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

Immediate context: Jesus speaks to his disciples on a level place (Luke 6:17) after choosing the Twelve, delivering what scholars call the "Sermon on the Plain" (parallel to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount). This verse appears in a section on enemy love (6:27-36), immediately following commands to love enemies, bless cursers, and turn the other cheek. The Golden Rule functions as a positive counterpart to the negative prohibitions that precede it—yet its placement after radical enemy-love commands creates tension about whether it applies to all human relationships or specifically to adversarial ones.

Interpretive Fault Lines

1. Scope: Universal Ethic vs. Kingdom-Specific Command

Pole A (Universal): A general principle of reciprocity applicable to all humanity, reflected in similar maxims across cultures (Confucius, Hillel, Isocrates)
Pole B (Kingdom-Specific): A distinct Christian ethic for disciples within the eschatological community, qualitatively different from worldly reciprocity
Why the split exists: The verse's wording is neutral ("men") but its context is sectarian (addressed to disciples about enemies)
What hangs on it: Whether this validates natural law ethics or establishes a countercultural standard

2. Logical Direction: Desire-Based vs. Need-Based

Pole A (Desire): Do what you wish others would do (subjective, hypothetical, desire-driven)
Pole B (Need): Do what you would need if in their position (objective, empathetic, need-driven)
Why the split exists: Greek θέλω (thelō) can mean both "wish" and "want," leaving ambiguous whether the standard is preference or necessity
What hangs on it: Whether the rule licenses projection of personal preferences or requires perspective-taking

3. Relationship to Negative Formulation: Priority of Form

Pole A (Negative Primary): Hillel's "What is hateful to you, do not do to another" (Shabbat 31a) is ethically safer; Luke's positive form risks paternalism
Pole B (Positive Primary): The positive form demands active benevolence, not mere restraint; it is qualitatively superior
Why the split exists: The negative form appears in Jewish sources pre-dating Jesus; the positive form in Christian and later texts
What hangs on it: Whether Jesus innovated or reiterated, and whether the form difference is substantive or stylistic

4. Standard of Measurement: Present Self vs. Idealized Self

Pole A (Present): As you currently desire to be treated
Pole B (Idealized): As you would desire to be treated if you were virtuous/rational
Why the split exists: The text does not specify whether the "you" is the actual or the ideal reader
What hangs on it: Whether a selfish person's wishes set the ethical bar or whether the rule assumes a normative anthropology

5. Agent: Individual Moral Duty vs. Community Ethic

Pole A (Individual): A personal moral heuristic for individual decision-making
Pole B (Community): A norm for the Christian community's internal and external relations
Why the split exists: Addressed to disciples (plural) but stated as individual action ("do ye also")
What hangs on it: Whether this is a deontological rule or a social vision

6. Conflict Resolution: Symmetry vs. Asymmetry

Pole A (Symmetry): When two parties apply the rule, conflicts resolve through mutual perspective-taking
Pole B (Asymmetry): The rule is unilateral—it guides my action regardless of reciprocity
Why the split exists: The grammar is second-person singular, implying unilateral obligation, but the logic of reciprocity suggests symmetry
What hangs on it: Whether the rule is a social contract or a one-way demand

The Core Tension

The central question is whether this verse articulates a human universal or a Christian particular. If universal, it risks collapsing into trivial reciprocity ("scratch my back, I'll scratch yours") or cultural relativism ("treat others according to your cultural norms"). If particular, it risks sectarian irrelevance—a rule for insiders that does nothing for the wider world. The debate survives because the text itself is ambiguous: it uses universal language ("men") but appears in a context of radical discipleship. What would need to be true for one reading to win: either a clear Lukan statement elsewhere that this is for all humanity (which Luke never provides), or a grammatical feature in the Greek that limits "men" to "fellow disciples" (which does not exist). The impasse is structural.

Key Terms & Translation Fractures

θέλω (thelō) — "would"

Semantic range: wish, desire, want, will, intend, purpose
Translation options:

"Would that" (KJV, ASV): neutral, preserves ambiguity between wish and will
"Want" (NIV, ESV): emphasizes subjective preference
"Wish" (NRSV): softens to hypothetical desire

Interpretive consequence:

Desire-focus ("want"): Kantian critics (e.g., Hare's "The Golden Rule") argue this licenses imposing personal tastes
Hypothetical-focus ("would wish"): Allows for idealized counterfactuals ("if I were in their situation")

Traditions: Roman Catholic natural law theology (Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II.44.7) prefers "will" to align with rational appetite; Protestant pietists (Philip Jakob Spener) prefer "wish" to emphasize affective empathy.

ποιέω (poieō) — "do"

Semantic range: make, perform, act, produce, execute
Translation stability: Universally rendered "do," but debates exist over scope—does it mean "specific actions" or "general treatment"?

Interpretive consequence:

Narrow (actions): Apply only to discrete acts (give food, refrain from harm)
Broad (treatment): Apply to entire relational posture (respect, dignity, honor)

Traditions: Evangelical ethics (John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life) takes the narrow view to avoid subjective projection; Catholic social teaching (Gaudium et Spes §27) takes the broad view to ground human dignity.

ἄνθρωποι (anthrōpoi) — "men"

Semantic range: humans, people, mankind
Translation evolution:

1611 KJV: "men"
2011 NIV: "others"
2001 ESV: "others"

Interpretive consequence:

Generic humanity: Rule applies universally
Contextualized reference: "Men" = those addressed in context (enemies, persecutors)—restrictive reading

What remains ambiguous: Whether "men" is truly universal or functionally limited by the discourse context to adversaries.

Competing Readings

Reading 1: Natural Law Universal (Thomist-Enlightenment Synthesis)

Claim: This verse expresses a principle of natural law accessible to reason, identical in substance to non-Christian parallels.

Key proponents:

Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica II-II.44.7): Treats Golden Rule as dictate of natural reason
Hugo Grotius (De jure belli ac pacis, 1625): Cites it as foundation of international law
Immanuel Kant (implicitly critiqued in Groundwork, 1785): The rule as proto-Categorical Imperative

Emphasizes: The word "men" (universal), parallels in Greco-Roman ethics (Isocrates, Seneca), reason's capacity

Downplays: The surrounding enemy-love commands, the address to disciples, the eschatological context

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Universal
Direction: Need-based (via rational reconstruction)
Form: Positive and negative equivalent
Standard: Idealized (what a rational agent would desire)
Agent: Individual
Conflict: Symmetry

Cannot adequately explain: Why Jesus states a natural law principle in the middle of commands (love enemies, lend expecting nothing) that are explicitly supererogatory and countercultural

Conflicts with: Reading 3 (Radical Particularity) at the point of audience—Anabaptists argue that treating this as natural law evacuates its radical content.

Reading 2: Empathy-Based Situational Ethic (Liberal Protestant)

Claim: The rule is a heuristic for moral imagination—project yourself into the other's situation and act accordingly.

Key proponents:

Albrecht Ritschl (The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, 1874): Ethical principle grounded in love, not law
Walter Rauschenbusch (A Theology for the Social Gospel, 1917): Applied to labor and economic justice
Reinhold Niebuhr (An Interpretation of Christian Ethics, 1935): Impossible ideal that relativizes all systems

Emphasizes: The subjunctive mood ("as ye would"), empathy, imaginative role-reversal

Downplays: The verse's function as a summary principle (Matt 7:12: "this is the Law and the Prophets")

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Universal in principle, Christian in execution
Direction: Need-based (via empathy)
Form: Positive superior (requires active love)
Standard: Idealized ("if you were them")
Agent: Individual moral agent
Conflict: Symmetry (assumes mutual rationality)

Cannot adequately explain: Cases where empathetic projection fails (psychopaths, masochists, persons with radically different values)

Conflicts with: Reading 4 (Divine Command Particularity) at the point of standard—divine command theorists argue the rule has no content apart from God's character, not human empathy.

Reading 3: Radical Discipleship (Anabaptist-Hauerwasian)

Claim: This is a non-reciprocal demand for Christians within the community of enemy-love, not a universal principle.

Key proponents:

Menno Simons (Foundation of Christian Doctrine, 1539): Rule applies within "the body of Christ"
John Howard Yoder (The Politics of Jesus, 1972): Ethic of the new age, not natural law
Stanley Hauerwas (The Peaceable Kingdom, 1983): Unintelligible outside the narrative of Jesus

Emphasizes: Context (6:27-36: love enemies), address to disciples, asymmetry ("do... to them" regardless of return)

Downplays: Parallels in non-Christian sources, any claim to universality

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Kingdom-specific
Direction: Need-based (via Christological empathy)
Form: Positive (active, not merely restraint)
Standard: Christological (as Christ treated you)
Agent: Community ethic
Conflict: Asymmetry

Cannot adequately explain: Why the wording is universal ("men") if the audience is sectarian

Conflicts with: Reading 1 (Natural Law Universal) at the point of scope—Thomists argue that Christological exclusivity undermines any claim to address human nature as such.

Reading 4: Divine Command Particularity (Reformed-Barthian)

Claim: The rule is a formal principle whose content is filled by God's command, not human desire or reason.

Key proponents:

Karl Barth (Church Dogmatics III/4, §54): Love of neighbor commanded by God, not derived from self-love
Emil Brunner (The Divine Imperative, 1932): All ethics is response to divine address
Oliver O'Donovan (Resurrection and Moral Order, 1986): The rule presupposes resurrection order, not natural order

Emphasizes: The command structure ("do ye also"), the divine origin of the standard

Downplays: Any autonomous rational access to the rule's content

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Universal in scope, particular in content (all are commanded, but only through Christ is the content known)
Direction: Divine-will-based (neither desire nor need, but what God wills for the other)
Form: Positive (God commands action, not mere restraint)
Standard: Divine (what God desires for them, not what I desire)
Agent: Individual coram Deo
Conflict: Asymmetry

Cannot adequately explain: The linguistic and conceptual parallels to pre-Christian and non-Christian sources (if the content is Christ-specific, why does Confucius say something similar?)

Conflicts with: Reading 2 (Empathy Heuristic) at the point of epistemology—liberal Protestants argue that a contentless command is no command at all.

Reading 5: Negative Formulation Priority (Jewish-Ethical Minimalism)

Claim: The negative form ("do not do to others what you hate") is ethically superior; the positive form risks paternalistic projection.

Key proponents:

Hillel (Shabbat 31a, c. 1st cent. BCE): "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow"
Moses Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avel 14:1): Negative form as basis of mourning practices
R.M. Hare ("The Golden Rule," 1975): Positive form can justify imposing one's preferences on others

Emphasizes: Restraint over imposition, the danger of projecting desires, the Jewish precedent

Downplays: The Lukan context where active enemy-love is demanded, not mere restraint

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Universal
Direction: Desire-based, but minimalist
Form: Negative superior
Standard: Present self
Agent: Individual
Conflict: Symmetry

Cannot adequately explain: Why Jesus (if he did) chose the positive form, and why the Christian tradition overwhelmingly preferred it

Conflicts with: Reading 3 (Radical Discipleship) at the point of restraint—Anabaptists argue that the negative form is a floor, the positive form a ceiling.

Harmonization Strategies

Strategy 1: Two-Level Ethic (Catholic Natural Law)

How it works: The Golden Rule is a natural law precept (accessible to reason); the Sermon on the Plain adds supernatural counsels (e.g., enemy love) that exceed it.

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Scope (universal vs. kingdom-specific)

Which readings rely on it: Reading 1 (Natural Law Universal)

What it cannot resolve: Why the text places the "natural law" rule in the middle of the "supernatural counsel" section without any formal distinction

Strategy 2: Ideal Observer Theory (Philosophical Reconstruction)

How it works: "As ye would" means "as you would desire if you were fully informed, rational, and impartial."

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Standard (present vs. idealized self)

Which readings rely on it: Reading 2 (Empathy Heuristic), Reading 4 (Divine Command, via divine perspective)

What it cannot resolve: Whether the text itself implies this sophisticated reconstruction or whether it is an alien imposition

Strategy 3: Escalating Reciprocity (Redaction-Critical)

How it works: Matthew 7:12 appends "this is the Law and the Prophets," making it a summary; Luke 6:31 lacks this phrase, leaving it as one command among others.

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Scope (whether it is architectonic or subordinate)

Which readings rely on it: Reading 3 (Radical Discipleship)—Luke's omission signals non-universality

What it cannot resolve: Whether the absence of "Law and Prophets" is intentional (Lukan theology) or incidental (use of different source)

Strategy 4: Christological Filling (Barthian)

How it works: The rule is formal; its content is determined by Christ's treatment of us (John 13:34-35, Eph 5:1-2).

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Standard (whose desire?), Agent (individual vs. community)

Which readings rely on it: Reading 4 (Divine Command Particularity)

What it cannot resolve: Why the verse does not explicitly invoke Christ if that is the intended standard

Non-Harmonizing Option: Canon-Voice Conflict

Claim: Brevard Childs (Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, 1992) and James Sanders (Torah and Canon, 1972) argue the canon preserves multiple ethical voices—Wisdom literature's pragmatic reciprocity, Prophets' justice demands, Jesus' enemy-love. The tension between Luke 6:31 (positive) and Tobit 4:15 (negative, Apocrypha) or Hillel's negative form is canonical, not to be resolved by harmonization.

Tradition-Specific Profiles

Roman Catholic (Natural Law Tradition)

Distinctive emphasis: The Golden Rule as a first principle of natural law, binding on all persons by virtue of reason

Named anchor: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II.44.7; Catechism of the Catholic Church §1789

How it differs from: Anabaptist traditions, which deny any autonomous ethical access apart from discipleship to Jesus

Unresolved tension: How to reconcile the universality of the rule with the particularity of grace (can a non-Christian fully obey it?)

Reformed (Divine Command Tradition)

Distinctive emphasis: The rule as a divine command whose content is determined by God's revealed will, not human nature

Named anchor: Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics III/4, §54.3; John Calvin, Institutes II.8.46 (applies it to the sixth commandment)

How it differs from: Catholic natural law (which grounds it in reason) and liberal Protestantism (which grounds it in empathy)

Unresolved tension: Whether the rule has any content independent of special revelation (if not, how can Jesus assume its intelligibility without explanation?)

Anabaptist (Radical Discipleship)

Distinctive emphasis: The rule as part of a package of non-reciprocal enemy-love commands, binding on Christians, subversive to worldly reciprocity

Named anchor: Menno Simons, Foundation of Christian Doctrine (1539); John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (1972), ch. 6

How it differs from: Both natural law and divine command traditions, which allow some universal application; Anabaptists insist this ethic is intelligible only within the community formed by Jesus

Unresolved tension: How to engage in political ethics (e.g., just war, criminal justice) if this rule applies only to Christians

Jewish (Negative Formulation Tradition)

Distinctive emphasis: The negative form ("do not do") as ethically safer and more modest than the Christian positive form

Named anchor: Hillel, Talmud Shabbat 31a; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Hilchot De'ot 6:3

How it differs from: Christian tradition, which overwhelmingly prefers the positive form and treats it as innovative

Unresolved tension: Whether the negative-positive distinction is substantive or stylistic (Hillel also commands active love elsewhere)

Eastern Orthodox (Theosis Framework)

Distinctive emphasis: The rule as participation in divine love—treating others as God treats them (theosis)

Named anchor: Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Love II.26; Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (Father Zosima's ethic)

How it differs from: Western traditions (both Catholic and Protestant) that frame it juridically (law or command); Orthodoxy frames it as participation in God's energies

Unresolved tension: Whether the rule can apply to non-Christians (if theosis is required, the rule is inaccessible outside the Church)

Reading vs. Usage

Textual Reading

Careful interpreters note:

The verse is part of a larger unit (6:27-36) on enemy love
It is addressed to disciples, not humanity at large
It follows radical commands (lend expecting nothing, 6:35) that are not universally practiced
It functions as a summary or pivot point within the enemy-love section

Popular Usage

Contemporary deployment:

Business ethics: "Treat customers as you want to be treated"—erases the enemy context entirely
Conflict de-escalation: "Just put yourself in their shoes"—imports modern psychotherapy language
Interfaith dialogue: "All religions teach the Golden Rule"—flattens differences between negative/positive forms and contextual specificity
Children's moral education: "Do unto others..." as a universal playground rule—removes eschatological and discipleship context

The Gap

What gets lost: The radicality of the context (enemy love, non-reciprocity, discipleship cost)
What gets added: Universal applicability, psychological naturalism (empathy), symmetry (assumes mutual application)
Why the distortion persists: The verse is short, memorable, and sounds universal; the surrounding context is long and countercultural. Detaching it makes it useful for general ethics; keeping it in context makes it subversive.

Reception History

Patristic Era (2nd-5th centuries): Against Gnostic Dualism

Conflict it addressed: Gnostic rejection of the material world and ethical action

How it was deployed: Irenaeus (Against Heresies IV.13.1) and Tertullian (Against Marcion IV.16) cited the Golden Rule to argue that Christian ethics applies to bodily, material relationships, not just spiritual ones—against Marcionite and Gnostic withdrawal

Named anchor: Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.13.1 (c. 180 CE)

Legacy: Established the rule as a summary of the "law of nature" (lex naturae) that Christians share with all humans, a foundation for later natural law theology

Medieval Era (12th-15th centuries): Scholastic Synthesis

Conflict it addressed: Relationship between faith and reason, revelation and natural law

How it was deployed: Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica II-II.44.7) integrated the Golden Rule into his natural law framework, arguing it is accessible to reason but perfected by charity

Named anchor: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II.44.7 (1265-1274)

Legacy: The Golden Rule became a bridge concept—natural to all, yet deepened by grace. This allowed Catholic moral theology to address both Christians and non-Christians with a common starting point.

Reformation Era (16th-17th centuries): Law vs. Gospel

Conflict it addressed: Whether ethics is law (demand) or gospel (gift); justification by faith vs. works

How it was deployed:

Lutherans: Martin Luther (Large Catechism, 1529, on the Fifth Commandment) subordinated the Golden Rule to the gospel—it shows what love does but cannot justify
Reformed: John Calvin (Institutes II.8.46) applied it to the second table of the Decalogue as a summary of neighbor-love
Anabaptists: Menno Simons (Foundation, 1539) framed it as a mark of the regenerate community, not humanity in general

Named anchor: Martin Luther, Large Catechism (1529), section on Fifth Commandment; John Calvin, Institutes II.8.46 (1559)

Legacy: Fractured the medieval consensus—Reformed and Anabaptists retained strong ethical emphasis; Lutherans relativized all ethics as law (usus politicus and usus elenchticus, but not usus tertius in early Lutheranism).

Modern Era (18th-20th centuries): Secularization and Universalization

Conflict it addressed: Whether ethics requires religious grounding or can stand on reason alone

How it was deployed:

Enlightenment: Immanuel Kant (Groundwork, 1785) criticized the Golden Rule as insufficiently formal (allows subjective desires to set the standard) but Kantians later rehabilitated it as a version of the Categorical Imperative
Liberal Christianity: Albrecht Ritschl and Walter Rauschenbusch deployed it as a principle of social justice, severed from eschatology
Philosophy: R.M. Hare ("The Golden Rule," 1975) argued the positive form is dangerous (licenses paternalism), rehabilitating the negative form

Named anchor: Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), 4:430; R.M. Hare, "The Golden Rule," Philosophy 1975

Legacy: The rule became a test case for whether religious ethics can be naturalized—Kantians and utilitarians tried to reconstruct it philosophically; postliberals (Hauerwas, Yoder) insisted it is unintelligible outside Christian narrative.

Open Interpretive Questions

Scope ambiguity: Does "men" (anthrōpoi) mean all humans universally, or is it functionally limited by the discourse context to adversaries/enemies addressed in 6:27-28?
Standard subjectivity: Is the standard "what I desire" (present self) or "what I would desire if virtuous/rational" (idealized self)—and does the text itself provide any constraint on subjective preference?
Form priority: Is the positive formulation ("do") ethically superior to the negative ("do not do"), or does the negative form avoid paternalistic projection? Does Jesus' choice (if original) signal a substantive advance or merely stylistic variation?
Empathy failure cases: How does the rule apply when empathetic projection fails—e.g., to those with radically different values (honor cultures vs. dignity cultures), or to those incapable of perspective-taking (psychopaths, severe autism)?
Reciprocity structure: Is the rule logically symmetrical ("if everyone applied it, conflicts resolve") or unilateral ("I am obligated regardless of what you do")—and does the grammar ("do ye also") support one over the other?
Conflict resolution: When two parties applying the rule disagree (I want X, you want not-X), does the rule provide any mechanism for resolution, or does it collapse into relativism?
Canonical harmony: How to reconcile this verse with Jesus' other commands that seem to violate it—e.g., "Do not give dogs what is holy" (Matt 7:6), which discriminates against certain persons?
Christological content: If the rule's content is determined Christologically (as Barth and O'Donovan argue), why does Jesus state it without reference to himself, and why do non-Christian parallels exist?
Natural law status: If this is a natural law precept (Aquinas), why does its application in Christian tradition (e.g., monastic poverty, martyrdom) far exceed what natural reason would dictate?
Translation impact: Does rendering θέλω as "want" (subjective preference) vs. "would will" (rational volition) shift the rule from psychological to rational ethics—and which is exegetically defensible?

Reading Matrix

Reading	Scope	Direction	Form	Standard	Agent	Conflict
Natural Law Universal	Universal	Need-based	Equivalent	Idealized	Individual	Symmetry
Empathy Heuristic	Universal (principle)	Need-based	Positive superior	Idealized	Individual	Symmetry
Radical Discipleship	Kingdom-specific	Need-based	Positive	Christological	Community	Asymmetry
Divine Command	Universal (scope), Particular (content)	Divine-will	Positive	Divine	Individual coram Deo	Asymmetry
Negative Formulation Priority	Universal	Desire-based	Negative superior	Present	Individual	Symmetry

Agreement vs. Disagreement

Broad Agreement Exists On:

The verse is grammatically second-person plural ("ye"), addressed to disciples
It appears in a section focused on enemy love and radical generosity (6:27-36)
Similar maxims exist in pre-Christian Jewish (Hillel) and Greco-Roman (Isocrates, Seneca) sources
The verse does not explicitly invoke Christology, creation order, or eschatology
The Greek θέλω ("would") can mean both "wish" and "will," creating interpretive ambiguity

Disagreement Persists On:

Scope: Whether "men" (anthrōpoi) indicates universal applicability or is contextually restricted to adversaries (Fault Line 1)
Standard: Whether the rule uses present subjective desires or an idealized rational standard as the measure (Fault Line 4)
Form priority: Whether the positive formulation is ethically superior to (or riskier than) the negative form (Fault Line 3)
Reciprocity: Whether the rule is unilateral (I do it regardless of return) or symmetrical (assumes mutual application) (Fault Line 6)
Epistemology: Whether the rule's content is accessible via reason (natural law), empathy (liberal), or only via Christology (Barthian) (mapped across Readings 1, 2, 4)

Related Verses

Same unit / immediate context:

Luke 6:27-30 — Enemy-love commands that precede the Golden Rule, establishing its radical context
Luke 6:32-36 — Argument that follows: even sinners love those who love them; you must exceed that standard
Luke 6:17-26 — The Beatitudes and Woes that open the Sermon on the Plain, setting eschatological tone

Tension-creating parallels:

Matthew 7:12 — Parallel to Luke 6:31 but adds "for this is the Law and the Prophets," making it a summary principle (Luke omits this phrase)
Matthew 5:43-48 — Matthew's parallel to Luke's enemy-love section, with "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" as the standard (Luke: "Be merciful," 6:36)
Matthew 7:6 — "Do not give dogs what is holy"—a command that seems to violate the Golden Rule by discriminating against certain persons
Leviticus 19:18 — "Love your neighbor as yourself"—often linked to the Golden Rule, but Leviticus specifies "neighbor" (Israelites), while Luke says "men" (universal?)

Harmonization targets:

Romans 12:17-21 — Paul's version of enemy-love ethic ("Bless those who persecute you"), used to argue that the Golden Rule applies asymmetrically (do good regardless of return)
John 13:34-35 — "Love one another as I have loved you"—Johannine version, explicitly Christological (Barthians use this to fill the Golden Rule's content)
Galatians 6:10 — "Do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the household of faith"—raises the question of whether the Golden Rule applies universally or with preferential priority to insiders
1 Peter 2:19-23 — Suffering unjustly as following Christ's example—used to argue the Golden Rule is non-reciprocal (you do it even when they don't)

Generation Notes

Fault Lines identified: 6
Competing Readings: 5
Sections with tension closure: 12/12