Some argue that the command to 'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you' prohibits nations from punishing terrorists or defending themselves.

However, that command is for interpersonal relationships, not relations among nations. Besides, agape love seeks the greater good for the whole. Those who use terror harm the greater number of persons; true love will restrain such people to protect the innocent. And of course, Christians can obviously pray for their enemies even while defending others against them.

What of the passage which tells us to 'Love your enemies' (Matthew 5:44)? How is this reconciled with places where Jesus calls the Pharisees names, or Peter 'Satan'? How is it reconciled with where Paul wishes emasculation on his Galatian opponents (Galatians 5:12) and shames the Galatians with his rhetoric?

A key difference in understanding the meaning of agape is to recognize that our modern culture is centered on the individual, whereas ancient Biblical society was heavily group-centered. While Christians understand agape as a profound, self-sacrificial love, in its ancient context it also heavily emphasized the value of group attachment and protecting the spiritual well-being of the community. Agape is not merely an exchange on a sentimental personal level; it involves a commitment that prioritizes the health of the spiritual family.

Like disruptive individuals, the Pharisees were a threat to the well-being of others; so likewise Peter when he made his error. They spread deception and falsehood and kept others from entering the Kingdom of God with their deceptions; or else led people down the wrong path and away from spiritual maturity. In such a scenario, not only is it right and proper, for the sake of protecting the flock, to confront boldly; it may be the only responsible pastoral action to keep spiritual error from spreading. Robust confrontation of harmful teachings is not a failure of love, but a protective boundary established for the sake of the Kingdom of God and the ultimate salvation of all.

> Matt. 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

Some argue that Jesus missed the mark in living up to this admonition, pointing to his harsh words against the Pharisees:

> Matt. 23:17, 27 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?..."Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.

> Matt. 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.

> John 10:8 All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.

A key here is understanding the function of polemic in first-century Judaism. It is certainly possible under these constraints to love one's enemies and pray for them, and also attack them polemically, though such complexity of emotion is quite often foreign to us.

Moreover, the term "love" here does not correspond with our modern psychological category; it is "not a matter of sentiment and emotion but concrete action and practical concern" (Hill's commentary on Matthew, 130). It is in fact the term agape. It does not exclude verbally attacking and discrediting one's opponents when they are in the wrong.

Beyond that, Jesus speaks to these men not as his personal enemies, but as enemies of the truth. There is no indication that he speaks to them as personal enemies, for all of his comments reflect their deception of others. The ancient definition of agape did not exclude polemical practices against ideological opponents who did broad, general harm to others, and so modern categories are simply being misapplied to the ancient situation.

One would hardly suppose that Matthew 5:44 would restrict one from protecting the innocent from a tyrant. This becomes a case of exercising agape to defend the vulnerable. Jesus' situation with the Pharisees and others attacked was very much in this category, since their actions imperiled the eternal fate of others.

An extra note on John 10:8 - it has the semblance of being literally true. Horsley (Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs) notes that those who expressed messianic or kingly ambitions were indeed often thieves and bandits. But even if this were not so, then obviously anyone who was not the true Christ but proclaimed to be would indeed fit the description.