Many people—if not most people—believe that Jesus was wise.
Some people also believe that Jesus is God or a prophet, each according to his or her own personal revelation, a matter well-beyond the secular scope here. [1]
But, as a matter of secular wisdom, apart from religion or faith, as the case may be, Jesus shares teachings consistent with many other wise persons, from many cultures, throughout time. Wise teachings, expressed as could be understood, appreciated and accepted for the respective culture of context.
As part of his “yoke is easy and burden light” standard, Jesus stated the Greatest Commandment was simply, “to love.” A rule easy enough to express.
One interpretation might be that perfect love (not almost perfect) cannot exist in the same space with judgment, and, without judgment, there cannot be condemnation, and without judgment and condemnation (particularly of another person’s soul, a matter often believed to be reserved to God alone), people would live happily together.
Basically, the burden of the rule gets lighter, the more we slough off all of the qualifiers and get to its essence.
However, as a matter of social secular administration, the problem with this rule “to love” is not its intention, but its practicality. Love is a matter of heart, naturally freely to be given, such as Respect, and Admiration. It simply must come freely from inside out, never by force from outside in. A king can compel us to kneel, but a king cannot make us to love. [2] A king can compel our body, but a king cannot compel our heart or mind. What we think and feel is our ultimate exclusive human possession—the last bastion of self.
As a matter of social secular administration, the law of American society does not deal in love. The law deals with action (or inaction when there is a duty to act). If a man should sit in a room seething with a mean, vile and hateful heart, it is the personal business of that man, until he should act.
The great Thomas Jefferson made this point about the law when confirming the necessity of secular social acceptance of various beliefs in the United States in his Notes on Virginia, 1782 (“QUERY XVII The different religions received into [Virginia]?”); to wit:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious…it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
[3] Speech and thought are free, but action is different; regulation of non-injurious conduct, says our beloved Jefferson, is simply not a legitimate power of government.
Jefferson’s free-thinking society of mature adults living together in peace, while holding contrary beliefs with mutual respect, deals only in the injurious action, not the mind. Therefore, using derivatives of the Jeffersonian legal framework, the law deals in what we do, not what we love. [4]
If the most evil-intentioned man does a good act, the law will ignore it. But, if the best-intentioned man does a bad act, the law will judge and perhaps condemn it. Indeed, the law will scrutinize the act of someone parking a car in the middle of a freeway to save the ducks. [5]
Now, there are certainly more than one “other greatest” wise commands by Jesus, so perhaps I have hyperbolized the title. The Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a great secular commandment, too, shared with the earlier Confucius and Socrates, and many other wise teachers from East and West. However, this commandment is still abstract.
So, that is already two great commandments: the so-named Greatest Commandment, “To Love” and The Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.“
But, as an attorney, my personal favorite is the following; it is simple, direct, and, best of all, it is concrete:
Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes…’
[6] Examined in detail in a separate post [*4], Jesus simply said, “Do what you say.“
As an attorney, with more than 35 years of in-the-field practice, I am convinced that this is one of the easiest secular commandments to make the world a better place. It is such a simple and obvious fix to so many social problems.
When children are young, they might say, “Well, I didn’t promise…” as if that were a get-out-of-jail-free card. Or, they might say, “Really, I promise I will…” as if that extra statement added a binder to the future commitment. We should watch it closely.
If a child is taught that this is an acceptable standard, then it implies that “Yes” means “Maybe,” and, of course, that is a very bad seed for the character of a child, or any human being. Moreover, such as when Vince Lombardi said, “Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit,” once a child, or anyone, starts to think that “Yes” means “Maybe,” it becomes a habit, a very bad habit.
Consistent with the wise teaching of Jesus, it seems we are to consider whether children (and/or other human beings) should be corrected to understand that each affirmation bears a silent implied, “and I promise.”
For a person of excellent character, as Jesus suggests, saying outwardly the extra words, “I promise” is completely immaterial. The person of deepened character simply does what he or she says. For this, we say the person has “integrity,” and we call the person, “honorable,” “reliable,” “dependable,” “diligent,” and “committed to task.” For a better real-world, it should be the standard by implication. [7] At least for me, I tell the children for whom I am responsible, “I don’t want to hear anything about promises. If you say it, do it. It’s that simple.“
In practicing law for more than 35 years, “Yes = Maybe” is everywhere. If you don’t see it now, be vigilant and you’ll see it, too.
But, instead of Yes = Maybe, let Yes = Yes; to wit:
“I will be there at 6:00 p.m. (I promise).” “I will follow-up (I promise.)” “I will deliver on May 1st (I promise).” “I will pay net 30 (I promise).” “I will call you for lunch (I promise).” “The check is in the mail (I promise).” If we add the “I promise” in our own minds every time we make a statement about an action, it may be substantively immaterial, of course, but it tends to magnify the impact so that we can assess our habits more carefully. It’s not as easy an exercise as one might think, particularly also doing it for the “little things.“
No one is perfect, but that is not the point. The point is that the internal statement to ourselves reinforces our commitment to the other person and creates weighty importance for the words we choose to say.
Like any training, it gets easier the more we do it. Like the posture of a ballerina, it is not natural, until it is. [8]
Training begins when we acquire an appreciation of the context. Training is partially completed when we start using the word “try,” rather than an absolute assurance, to place the other person on notice of a “maybe” condition. And, our training is complete when we perform the things that match the words that we say, and the word “try” is neither used nor required. (And, it is noted that, “I will try [I promise],” when perfectly promised and best tried, is often a condition of no meaning: the thing most often could and would be done).
To let our “yes” simply mean “yes.”
To choose our words carefully, and to develop the discipline and internal fortitude to match our words with our action. This is integrity, and a fundamental rule of mature cooperative social interaction. This is why I never promised to love my wife, not because I will not promise it, but because I cannot promise it. [*4 , *2] The love is voluntary and freely given, not by constraint. Some things are stronger than the chains that would presume to constrain them.
And, if we would do as suggested by Jesus and the other great sages, then Providence would grace our human relationships with more love, admiration and respect.
From Game of Thrones:
<< Becycle Back to Wont Hurt [#GRZ_207] – Forward to When America Great [#GRZ_32] >>
[1] I Am Not Brainwashed, And Neither Are You. Maybe. But I Might be Wrong. [#GRZ_165]
[2] Mind Control, Protests and the Goal – Stand for America® [#GRZ_64]
[3] Freedom of Religion, by Thomas Jefferson – Abridgment Series [#GRZ_61]
[4] I Never Promised to Love My Wife, or All About Oaths [#GRZ_39]
[6] ONE®: The Unified Gospel of Jesus, Divine Version [Second Edition] Published [#GRZ_59] [One: 511; Matthew 5:37-38]
[7] Critical Thinking and the Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue [#GRZ_148]
<< Becycle Back to Wont Hurt [#GRZ_207] – Forward to When America Great [#GRZ_32] >>
ChatGPT Review
“Jesus and the Other Greatest Commandment” is not a stand-alone philosophical musing, but a central node in Zegarelli’s broader integrity framework, along with “I Never Promised to Love My Wife” and “The Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue.” It merges theological ethic, legal precision, and psychological realism into a cohesive system of disciplined interpersonal responsibility.
Let’s unpack this essay in stages—first by structure and method, then by its philosophical scaffolding, and finally by its connection to Zegarelli’s broader ethos.
🧭 I. STRUCTURE & THESIS
⚖️ Opening Premise: Jesus as a Universal Teacher of Wisdom
- Zegarelli deliberately de-religionizes Jesus to extract universally applicable teachings, putting Jesus on the same wisdom continuum as Confucius, Socrates, Jefferson.
- His goal is not to theologize, but to legalize and socialize the teachings for use in secular civic life.
“Jesus shares teachings consistent with many other wise persons…expressed as could be understood, appreciated and accepted for the respective culture of context.”
🧠 The Philosophical Problem: Love Can’t Be Legislated
- Jesus’s command “to love” is ethically ideal but practically unenforceable.
- Love is volitional—it cannot be imposed or required. You cannot compel love without destroying its essence.
- Zegarelli thus shifts the conversation from emotive commandments to behavioral standards.
This sets up the essay’s pivot to what he calls “The Other Greatest Commandment.”
🔑 II. THE “OTHER” COMMANDMENT: LET YOUR YES MEAN YES
“Jesus simply said, ‘Do what you say.’”
This becomes Zegarelli’s practical moral standard, and the legal-professional underpinning of integrity:
- Love is too ethereal.
- The Golden Rule is too abstract.
- But “Let your Yes mean Yes” is direct, concrete, and implementable.
He argues:
- “Yes = Maybe” is a corrosive seed in character development.
- True integrity doesn’t require additional words like “promise”—a reliable person’s word is inherently binding.
This is the behavioral manifestation of love, respect, and maturity. It is love’s implementation.
🧱 III. ETHICAL FRAMEWORK: CHARACTER, PROMISE, AND ACTION
| Zegarelli’s Key Principles in This Essay | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Integrity is not extra; it’s implied | When a person says “yes,” it should be inherently binding. No adornments like “I promise” are needed if character is intact. |
| Speech is behavior | The essay aligns with The Conflation of Character—that words, even without action, reflect one’s moral discipline. |
| Freedom of will is inalienable | Like love, belief and commitment must be freely given—not coerced. This echoes his reasoning in Never Promised to Love My Wife. |
| Law respects action, not emotion | He reinforces Jeffersonian and Stoic reasoning: society must regulate actions, not beliefs or feelings. |
| Training produces character | The essay ends with a training model—the development of disciplined speech and internalized responsibility. Integrity is not innate; it’s cultivated. |
He illustrates this training progression:
- Children begin by manipulating words (e.g., “I didn’t promise”).
- Adults begin noticing “Yes = Maybe” culture (e.g., broken commitments).
- Maturity arises when “Yes” is treated as implicitly binding—promise or no promise.
“Training is complete when we perform the things that match the words that we say…”
🪞 IV. CONNECTION TO ZEGARELLI’S OTHER WORKS
| Other Work | Thematic Connection |
|---|---|
| “I Never Promised to Love My Wife” | You cannot promise love because love is not controllable. Likewise, you must not say “yes” unless you mean it. |
| “Conflation of Character” | Character is not just virtue or integrity—it is the intersection of who we are and what we do, including how we speak. |
| “Critical Thinking and Conflation…” | Moral language has power. Words that suggest promise carry social force, even if not legally binding. |
| “ONE: The Unified Gospel” | The Gospel is simplified to behavioral teachings—love, respect, honesty—not religious abstraction. This essay supports that minimalist ethic. |
🏁 V. CONCLUSION: THE ETHICAL POWER OF SAYING YES
Zegarelli’s point is subtle but forceful:
We may not be able to love perfectly. We may not follow the Golden Rule always. But we can, and must, train ourselves to do what we say we will do.
This essay is about moral implementation—transforming spiritual maxims into socially functional ethics. He urges:
- Stop treating speech casually.
- Stop relying on “promises” as patches for unreliability.
- Train children and adults alike to treat every “yes” as a self-binding act of moral will.
This is Zegarelli’s applied philosophy—virtue as verb, not noun.
The future is not built on grand declarations of love, but on tiny acts of consistent reliability.
20250417.4o
© 2015 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Movie clip © HBO, Game of Thrones. Ep. 6.7.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/jesus-other-greatest-commandment-gregg-zegarelli-esq-
This Site https://greggzegarelli.com/discipline/jesus-and-the-other-greatest-commandment/
Related Article: Prove it! Words v. Action. No. 27. The Leap at Rhodes – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series
I Never Promised to Love My Wife. Or, All About Oaths.
<< Becycle Back to Wont Hurt [#GRZ_207] – Forward to When America Great [#GRZ_32] >>
GRZ16.20250417 GRZUID16