Hobbes omits enemy-love from Leviathan despite endorsing the golden rule

Evidence

In Leviathan, moreover, Hobbes never refers to the commandment to love one’s enemies. This is strange because Hobbes does offer a striking “summary” of the laws of nature, describing them as laws that, “dictating Peace,” are meant to take men out of the “condition of war” in which they now, having become enemies, find themselves. Here is Hobbes’s summary. “To leave all men unexcusable,” he writes, the laws of nature “have been contracted into one easie sum, intelligible, even to the meanest capacity; and that is, Do not do to another, which thou wouldest not have done to thy se/fe” (ch. 15, 109). The Judea-Christian origins of this precept are, of course, hardly exclusive, yet echoing Matthew as they do (“In everything do to others as you would have them do to you,” Matthew 7:12) one cannot but wonder about the disappearance of Christian love-and enemy love-from Leviathan. — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 362

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction and to this book’s ongoing thesis about the enemy; also relevant to the claim that Hobbes secularizes theology without love.
• QUESTION: Why exactly does Hobbes drop enemy-love and Christian love from Leviathan? The author explicitly says he can’t fully account for it here — worth chasing.