Hate Your Enemies

Covenant theologians will point to this passage from the Sermon on the Mount:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (Matt 5:43-44)

as a proof text that Jesus was correcting bad teaching and not, as I would contend,  introducing a new and better revelation of moral law.  Before addressing that, let's make one thing clear: Regardless of wether Jesus was correcting or revealing, there is absolute agreement that in the New Testament era we are to love our enimies.

The question at hand is whether in the Old Testament the Israelites were ever commanded to hate their enemies. If they were, then Jesus is changing, not correcting. Hold that thought.

The covenant theologian will say: Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find: "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." Therefore Jesus was not correcting sound biblical teaching, but all-out rabbinical inventions and distortions. This is their strongest argument, and the plank upon which it rests is true, the text of v43 is not to be found in the Old Testament. We never find them, the hate/love commands, joined at the hip. 

But if we find them separated, then anyone would have to admit that it is pedagogically sensible to join them to place them in contrast to the correct (or new) lesson of v44.  

So, do we find a command to love our neighbor in the Old Testament? Of course we do.

Now, were the Israelites were ever commanded to hate their enemies? It is my contention that indeed they were. And the onus, I would argue, is not on me to show that the Old Testament taught the Jews that they should always hate all their enemies, all the time. To make my case I am satisfied (whether anyone else is or not) that I only have to show that there is a solid example in the Old Testament where hating one's enemies is commanded. If the Jews were ever taught to hate some enemies, then Jesus is introducing new teaching that strictly forbids what was previously allowed.

So, where were the Jews taught to hate their enemies? The obvious place to turn is to the imprecatory Psalms where David clearly espoused hatred of the enemies of God, for example:

Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?  I hate them with complete hatred;  I count them my enemies. (Ps. 139:21-22)

One could also give the circumstantial evidence of Joshua's campaign against the Canaanites. Now you could argue, as some do, that Joshua's genocide was not personal. However if the Jews were actually commanded to love the Canaanites, as the "corrective" view of covenant theology demands, then the horrific Canaanite incident becomes even more obscene as we imagine Joshua's army being commanded to slaughter men, women and children that they were also commanded to love. The mind reels.

That said, I won't rely on either the imprecatory Psalms or the conquest of the Holy Land. Instead I'll present this passage for your consideration:

6 You shall not seek their [the Ammonites and the Moabites] peace or their prosperity all your days forever. 7 “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land.  (Deut 23:6-7)

Let us look at these two verses, using a sensible rule of interpreting commands due to Thomas Watson ¹ (his rule 2),

2.1) When any duty is commanded, the opposite is forbidden
2.2) Where any sin is forbidden, the contrary is commanded

Take verse 7. Here a sin is forbidden, the sin of abhorring (hating) the Edomites and the Egyptians. ² From Watson's rule, the opposite is to be commanded, namely that the Edomites and Egyptians are to be loved.

Now verse 6. We argue that to seek the peace and prosperity of the Ammonites and Moabites is tantamout  to loving these two people groups. This is what the Jews were forbidden to do. So again, by Watson's rule, the opposite is commanded. The Ammonites and Moabites were to be hated.

Well, I'm convinced. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm convinced.

---

¹ Watson, Thomas. The Ten Commandments. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965.

²  The mere fact that the text singles out select groups by name that are not be hated but rather to be loved is further circumstantial evidence that other groups are to be hated, or at least "not loved." Otherwise the specification makes little sense.